Howard Di Silva(Howard Silverblatt) Da Silva, who had joined the Communist
infiltrated Group Theatre in 1931, was
named as an active communist in the Hollywood cell by Robert Taylor (and later
by Sterling Hayden) who said in 1947, “"I can name a few who seem to sort
of disrupt things once in a while. Whether or not they are Communists I don’t
know. One chap we have currently, I think is Howard Da Silva.”
Di
Silva was a communist, having joined the party in the early 1930s. He helped to
organize and run several communist front organizations including the
National Conference of the Arts, Sciences and Professions. Ronald Reagan
recalled Da Silva menacing John Garfield after Garfield had failed to toe the
Communist line at a meeting.
Da Silvia was called before the HUAC on 21st
March 1951
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD
DA SILVA, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT W.
KENNY AND BEN
MARGOLIS, AS COUNSEL
Mr. Wood. You solemnly swear the evidence you
give this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mr. Da Silva. I do.
Mr. Da Silva. I should like to
voice an objection, if I may.
Mr. Wood. Just have a seat, please.
Mr. Da Silva. May I voice an
objection?
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, the telegram to
which you referred
was presented to the committee in executive
session yesterday, and I
understood it took action on it at the time.
Mr. Wood. Are you represented by counsel here ?
Mr. Da Silva. I am.
Mr. "Wood. "Will counsel please
identify himself for the record?
Mr. Kenny. Robert Kenny, 250 North Hope Street,
Los Angeles.
Mr. Margolis. I am also appearing on behalf of
Mr. Da Silva. My
name is Ben Margolis, 112 West Ninth Street.
Mr. Wood. At any time you are asked a question
by either counsel
for this committee or any of its members, you
have the privilege of
conferring with your counsel to your entire
satisfaction before making
answer, and you are given that right at any
time.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your full name,
please ?
Mr. Da Silva. I would like to
voice my objection now, if I may.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your full name,
please?
Mr. Da Silva. May I not voice my
objection?
Mr. Tavenner. You have not yet been identified
in the record.
Mr. Da Silva. My name is Howard
Da Silva. I was born Howard
Silverblatt. I was born in Cleveland, Ohio, May
4, 1909.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you furnish the committee,
please, with a
brief resume of your educational background.
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, I
have a statement which I would
like very much to make. It has been announced
in the press that
this committee has as its purpose complete
objectivity, and I think
in the face of that it is quite important that
I present my own statement
here for clarity and for objectivity. Here is
the statement I would
like to present [handing statement to counsel].
Mr. Tavenner. Is this the same statement that
counsel sent in to
the committee a while ago ?
Mr. Kenny. No ; I don't think we sent a
statement in. It may be
a statement of which you have seen a copy.
Mr. Tavenner. Is it a statement that was given
to the press ?
Mr. Da Silva. It was given to
the press.
Mr. Wood. This is a statement that you released
to the press?
Mr. Da Silva. What is that?
Mr. Wood. This statement you now desire to read
is a statement
that you released to the press ?
Mr. Da Silva. Simultaneously with
my appearance; yes.
Mr. Wood. Let's see if I understand you
correctly. When did you
release this statement which you now propose to
read?
Mr. Da Silva. I was called here
at 10 o'clock this morning.
Mr. Wood. When did you release the statement to
the press ?
Mr. Da Silva. Shortly after I
arrived here.
Mr. Wood. Shortly after 10, and it is now after
3. In the light
of the fact it has been given this wide
publicity, I see no purpose in
burdening the record with a repetition of it.
Mr. Da Silva. My purpose is not
to burden the record. My purpose is to achieve the kind of objectivity which
was originally stated to the press by this committee.
Mr. Wood. Proceed with the questions.
Mr. Da Silva I don't follow you. Did you say my statement
was not to be read?
Mr. Wood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Da Silva. It is not to be
read.
Mr. Tavenner. My question was, Will you please
furnish the committee a brief statement of your educational background?
Mr. Da Silva. At this point, may
I object to being called to testify against myself in this hearing. I object
because the first and fifth amendments and all of the Bill of Eights protect me
from any inquisitorial procedure, and I may not be compelled to cooperate with
this committee in producing evidence
designed to incriminate me and to drive
me from my profession as an actor. The historical
Mr. Wood. Would an answer to that question
incriminate you?
You were asked to furnish a statement of your
educational back-
ground. Would a true answer to that question
incriminate you ? If
so, you have a right to protect yourself.
Mr. Da Silva. You want me to make
this objection at a time when I think an answer to the question will
incriminate me?
Mr. Wood. If a true answer to any question
asked you by counsel
or any member of this committee would tend to
incriminate you and
you so swear, you have a right to claim it, as
I understand the law.
Mr. Margolis. It is our position that this
witness is in the same
position as a defendant, and I think he should
be allowed to complete
this objection.
Mr. Wood. He is not a defendant here. He is a
witness.
Mr. Margolis. It is our contention that he is
and will suffer the
consequences and pains in many respects.
Mr. Wood. He will suffer the consequences of
testifying falsely, if
he does so. If he refuses to answer without
valid ground, he is sub-
jecting himself, as you well know, to a
proceeding for contempt of
Congress. It is a matter you can advise him
about. You have that
privilege any time you want.
Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you answer the
question, please?
Mr. Da Silva. I attended the
public schools of New York City; Bronx High School ; and for a term, City
College of New York.
Mr. Tavenner. When did you spend a term in City
College of New
York?
Mr. Da Silva. I was born in 1009.
I was about 17. That would make it about 1926.
I also attended Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh for
a short semester, working through college by working in the Jones &
Laughlin steel mill.
Mr. Tavenner. What is your present address ?
Mr. Da Silva. My present address
is 936 North Stanley Avenue, Hollywood 46, Calif.
Mr. Tavenner. And what is your present
occupation ?
Mr. Da Silva. My present
occupation is acting.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever held the position
of vice president
of the Civil Rights Congress, that is, the New
York chapter of the
Civil Rights Congress?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, it is
very clearly the object of this committee to tie me in with organizations which
are in its disfavor, and therefore I object, and now I will tell you my
objection.
Mr. Wood. We are not interested in your
objection. We are interested in knowing whether you will answer the question.
Mr. Da Silva. I refuse to answer
the question on the following basis: The first and fifth amendments and all of
the Bill of Rights protect me from any
inquisitorial procedure, and I may not be compelled to cooperate with this committee
in producing evidence designed to
incriminate me and to drive me from my profession as an actor.
The historical origin of the fifth amendment is
founded in the resistance of the people to attempts to prosecute and persecute
individuals because of…..
Mr.
Wood. Will you please wait a moment ? Please ascribe to the committee the
intelligence to determine these questions for itself, and don't argue about it.
Mr. Da Silva. I don't care to
argue about it, but I wish to clarify my position.
Mr. Wood. You need not teach this committee a class
in law.
Mr. Da Silva. It is not my
position. It is my position to uphold the law and to make sure the committee
does.
Mr. Wood. If you say you decline to answer for
the reasons given,
it will be understood.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you refuse to answer the
question ?
Mr. Da Silva. I refuse to answer
the question on the basis of my
statement here, on the basis that my answer might, according to the standards of this committee, tend to
incriminate me.
Mr. Tavenner. When did you go to the State of California
for
employment, how long ago ?
Mr. Da Silva. I think for the
first time in 1939, when I appeared in Abe Lincoln in Illinois.
Mr. Tavenner. Prior to 1939 how were you
employed and where?
Mr. Da Silva. I was an actor on
Broadway.
Mr. Tavenner. Over what length of time were you
an actor on
Broadway?
Mr. Da Silva. I served my
apprenticeship in 1929 with the Civic Repertory Theater, so from 1929 to 1939 I
served as an actor on Broadway.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you connected at any time
with the Federal
Theater project in New York?
Mr. Da Silva. Yes, I was and I
was very proud to be. That was the advent of a magnificent period, and I think
some of the greatest Work that ever came out came out at that time ; truly a
people's theater.
Mr. Tavenner. How large an organization was it
?
Mr. Da Silva. In the Federal
Theater?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. Da Silva. I think it is a
matter of record, but there were many hundreds of actors in the Federal Theater
all over the country. The audience was many millions of Americans, who for 55
cents could see plays they had never seen before and would not have had an opportunity
to see otherwise.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it privately financed, or
Government financed?
Mr. Da Silva. It is a part of the
public record that it was Government financed.
Mr. Tavenner. At that time, while you were a
member of it, were
you a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, it
seems to me that the most vital concern of this committee is to really control
every concept of free thought throughout the country, to do it by attacking
Hollywood, and
Mr. Wood. This committee is not interested in
your opinion. Do you decline to answer the question, or will you answer it ?
Mr. Da Silva. It is necessary
that I answer it in my own way. It seems vital to say that the object of this
committee is a smoke screen. Nobody, either in Washington or Hollywood, thinks
there is a group in Hollywood dedicated to overthrow southern California by
force and violence.
Mr. Wood. You were asked a very simple
question, whether at the
time you were a member of the organization you
were asked about,
you were a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Da Silva. Because the very
clear intention of this committee is to tie me in with an organization in its
disfavor, I refuse to answer the question for the reasons previously stated.
Mr. Wood. Let it be understood this committee
is not trying to
tie you in anywhere. We are endeavoring to find
where you tied
yourself.
Mr. Da Silva. I have a function
as a citizen, but I think in this period of war hysteria it is the purpose of
this committee to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.
Mr. Wood. The committee is not interested in
your opinions. We
are anxious to get the facts.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you attempt to recruit
persons into the Com-
munist Party from the Federal Theater project
while you were a mem-
ber of the Federal Theater project ?
Mr. Da Silva. I decline to answer
that question for the same reasons previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. After going to Hollywood, did you
become affiliated
with the Joint Anti -Fascist Refugee Committee
there ?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, there
is a rumor that those who have been anti-German in the last war will be brought
before this committee. I must decline to answer the question for reasons
previously given.
Mr. Kearney. Mr. Chairman, cannot the witness
be made to answer
"Yes" or "No" or to decline
to answer on the grounds he might incrimi-
nate himself, without going into a speech.
Mr. Wood. It would certainly be appreciated by
the committee if
he would not air his views and would answer the
questions more
directly.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you been affiliated with the
Actors' Laboratory
in Hollywood ?
Mr. Da Silva. Once again, because
it is the purpose of this committee to link me with an organization it
considers unfavorable, I decline to answer this question on grounds previously
stated.
Mr. Wood. Any further comment by you as to the
object of this
committee will be ignored by the reporter.
Mr. Da Silva. I didn't hear you,
sir.
Mr. Wood. From now on I order stricken from the
record any comment by you as to the object of this committee.
Mr. Da Silva. They seem to me a propuse, sir.
Mr. Wood. I will permit it to remain so far,
but I will not permit
you to continue to repeat that.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you sign a statement which
appeared in the
Daily Worker of February 28, 1949, which
defended the 12 Communist
Party leaders who were convicted of conspiracy
to overthrow the
Government of the United States by force and
violence ?
Mr. Da Silva. I decline to
answer for reasons previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you register as a member of
the Communist
Party in 1944 and in 1945 ?
Mr. Da Silva. I decline to answer
this question for the reasons
previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you married when you went to
California, I
believe you said in 1938 or 1939? When did you
go to California;
what was the date ?
Mr. Da Silva. I don't recall the
specific date that I went to California; but is the matter of my marriage or my
personal relations pertinent to this inquiry ?
Mr. Tavenner. It certainly is.
Mr. Da Silva. In what respects,
may I ask?
Mr. Tavenner. Were you married while you were
in California,
and was your wife's name Evelyn?
Mr. Da Silva. I still don't
understand in what respect this question is pertinent to the inquiry of this
committee.
Mr. Wood. Do you think an answer to that would
incriminate you?
Mr. Da Silva. I should think I
would be entitled to find out if it-
was pertinent or not.
Mr. Wood. You have competent counsel, I assume.
In fact, I know
you have.
Mr. Kenny. Thank you.
Mr. Wood. Just advise your client.
Mr. Kenny. I have advised him that the
protection of Jones
against SEC
Mr. Wood. Please advise your client.
Mr. Kenny. He has asked the committee to state
wherein this ques-
tion is pertinent to the inquiry.
Mr. Wood. It is a matter of your advising your
client and letting
him make up his own mind as to what course he
wants to take.
Mr. Da Silva. Apparently any
answer which I make has to be specifically pertinent, is that correct? In other
words, I can't answer the question in my own way. I will answer that question.
I think I was divorced from my first wife when I went to California in 1939. I
believe that to be the fact. To the best of my knowledge I think that is true.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether she is now
living in Norfolk,
Va.
Mr. Da Silva. No. I don't know
anything about her. I haven't been in communication with her for a long time.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether she has since
remarried?
Mr. Da Silva. I have heard
somewhere that she was remarried; yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Would you know her husband's name
if I mentioned it?
Mr. Da Silva. I don't think I
could say what her husband's name is.
Mr. Tavenner. Was she engaged in any Communist
Party activi-
ties at any time prior to your divorce or
since, to your knowledge ?
Mr. Da Silva. I have many
relations, and the activity which they have engaged in I have in no way made my
concern, but I can tell you once again it obviously is your purpose to tie me
in with any activity of hers and through us both with associations which are in
your disfavor. I must decline to answer this question for the same reasons
previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. You declined to answer the
question as to whether
or not you were a member of the Communist Party
when you were in
New York between 1936 and approximately 1938.
Have you been
a member of the Comirumist Party since then,
and are you a member
of the Communist Party now ?
Mr. Da Silva. I decline to answer
this question on the grounds previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. You appear here in response to a
subpoena which
was served on you on February 24 by James A.
Andrews, investigator
for this committee ?
Mr. Da Silva. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wood. Mr. Potter.
Mr. Potter. Mr. Da Silva, you in your statement
said you felt that
you were a loyal American ; is that true ?
Mr. Da Silva. You mean in my
statement?
Mr. Potter. Yes. I believe in your statement
you made some ref-
erence to loyal Americans and you included
yourself as being a loyal
American ; is that true ?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, my
specific statement, which has not been returned to me and which is here, says
specifically that my love for this country is deep enough for me to be able to
distinguish between its people and its policies of the moment. I will always
identify myself with the interests of the American people, but I will
support or oppose my Government's policies to
the extent that I understand them to serve or harm the people of the country.
Mr. Potter. Then you feel that our Government's
policies today you
cannot support?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, I
think the overwhelming majority of
people in this country are
Mr. Potter. That is a simple answer.
Mr. Da Silva. This is a simple
answer which I must answer in my
own simple way. I feel
Mr. Wood. Make it brief.
Mr. Da Silva. Are you about to
time me ? I feel it is very essential I make this statement.
Mr. Wood. Please. Let us get along with the
hearing. You were
asked simple questions, whether or not you
could support and feel like
you can support the policies of the Government
of the United States.
That is a question you can answer very simply,
without giving us a
lecture here on the subject.
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman
Mr. Wood. Do you or don't you ?
Mr. Da Silva. My opinions are my
own. My opinions belong to
me. My opinions, present, past, and future,
belong to me.
Mr. Potter. Then you refuse to answer ?
Mr. Da Silva. Your question again is what?
Mr. Potter. Do you feel that you can support
the policies of our
Government at this time, or do you support the
policies of our Gov-
ernment at this time?
Mr. Da Silva. Which specific
policies, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Potter. For example, if the Soviet Union
should attack the
United States will you support and would you
bear arms for the
United States ?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Chairman, the
prime issue of the day is peace, not ways of waging war. Your obvious intent
once again is to tie me with organizations that you consider subversive. Any
word "peace" today is considered subversive by this committee and by
those who prefer war to peace. I decline to answer this question on the grounds
previously stated.
Mr. Potter. If the witness could confine his
acting to Hollywood
1 am sure the committee would progress much
faster.
Mr. Da Silva. Is it the
committee's object here to uphold the law? It is the committee which is seeking
publicity.
Mr. Potter. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. No questions.
Mr. Kearney. Are you in favor of the
Communist-inspired peace
marches on Washington?
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Kearney, my
opinions on peace have been many, and I have made them over a period of many
years.
Mr. Kearney. No further questions.
Mr. Da Silva. But today, when the
purpose is to link the word "peace" and the word "subversive"
all over America, I refuse to answer this question on the basis previously
stated.
Mr. Wood. Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. Do you think this is a legally
organized committee of
Congress ?
Mr. Da Silva. A legally organized
committee of Congress ?
Mr. Velde. Yes.
Mr. Da Silva. I think its actions
have been decidedly illegal. I think its actions have been for the specific
purpose of pulling wool over Americans' eyes.
Mr. Velde. Do you think the Congress has a
right to inquire into
subversive activities in the United States of
America?
Mr. Da Silva. I think that
Congress has many rights. The least of its rights are the freedom to wage war
today.
Mr. Velde. I would appreciate a specific
answer.
Mr. Da Silva. Would you voice
your question again ?
Mr. Velde. Do you believe that the Congress has
a right to inquire
into subversive and disloyal activities in the
United States?
Mr. Da Silva. Well, this is obviously what this
committee is doing
at present.
Mr. Velde. Do you believe that we have that
right?
Mr. Da Silva. I think that the
overwhelming majority of the American people want peace and don't want to drop
an atom bomb. I think that is the most pressing issue of the day. I think that
any attempt to investigate so-called subversive organizations is an attempt to pull
wool over the American people's eyes, the old Army game, to
say, "Look what is happening there, and
meanwhile we pick your pockets and drop atom bombs." That is the real
function.
Mr. Velde. I think you are not answering the
question.
Mr. Da Silva. I am answering the
question as specifically as I can. It. has been said before. This is part of
the same thing. I heard Mr. Walter say it sounds like the Daily Worker. I
recognize that every statement made which is on peace or on any issue that you find
in your disfavor is called an issue that sounds like the Daily Worker or an
issue that is subversive or an issue that is
questionable. To me the question of peace today is not a subversive issue.
Mr. Wood. Mr. Frazier.
Mr. Frazier. No questions.
Mr. Doyle. I think in view of this witness'
statement that this
committee is not interested in peace that I
want to challenge that state-
ment. I challenge it publicly and say to this
witness that this commit-
tee is interested in peace, and I as a member
of this committee am
interested in peace. But I am not interested in
protecting Communists
or subversives in connection with their alleged
peace program. I want
this witness to know that I as an American very
much resent his state-
ment to this committee that this committee is
not interested in peace,
because we are, Mr. Da Silva.
Mr. Da Silva. Mr. Doyle, you are
from California. What program of peace are you in favor of? What kind of peace
do you want, Mr.Doyle?
Mr. Kearney. Will the gentleman from California
yield to me ?
Mr. Doyle. I do.
Mr. Kearney. I will say the gentleman from
California is not in
favor of the Communists' plans for peace.
Mr. Da Silva. Would you tell me
what plans for peace you are in favor of in this country ?
Mr. Kearney. Yes, I could, but not here,
because you have made
many a speech here and you are not going to
make any more as far as I
am concerned.
Mr. Da Silva. I see.
Mr. Wood. Any further questions, Mr. Doyle ?
Mr. Doyle. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter, any further questions ?
Mr. Walter. No.
Mr. Wood. Any further questions by counsel ?
Mr. Tavenner. One further question, if you
please. The Daily
Worker dated July 8, 1937, at page 5, announced
that Howard Da Silva
would be a member of the cast of a play to be
presented at the seventy-
fifth birthday celebration of Mother Bloor. Did
you take part in that
celebration ?
Mr. Da Silva. Your purpose is
very clearly indicated, to link me with organizations or people that you find
in disfavor. I decline to answer this question for the reasons previously
stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know Will Geer?
Mr. Da Silva. Will Geer? He is a
fine actor. I have known him for years.
Mr. Tavenner. Did he direct the play on the
occasion that I mentioned ?
Mr. Da Silva. Which one again?
Mr. Tavenner. The seventy-fifth birthday of
Mother Bloor.
Mr. Da Silva. Once again your
purpose is to link Will Geer and me through an association that you find in
disfavor with you. I will not support that. I decline to answer this question
on the grounds previously stated.
Mr. Wood. The answer of the witness is that he
declines to answer
for the reasons stated.
Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.
Mr. Wood. Very well.
After his refusal to testify
Di
Silva didn’t work in film or TV from 1953 through 1958. While it is wrong that
he was, apparently, denied work, it wasn’t as if his career was going anywhere
at the time.
From
1935 through 1949 Di Silva appeared on film 31 times. He was uncredited in four
of those films and one was a short. He
had mostly bit parts in the remaining films.
In
1950, two years before he appeared before the HUAC, he turned to television. In total he had 8
film roles and two TV role throughout the fifties. And again, Da Silva brought
it on himself knowing full well what the consequences would be. When Da Silva
was called to testify before the HUAC March 21, 1951 and refused to cooperate
with questions regarding his political activities, citing the Fifth Amendment
repeatedly and generally came across as arrogant and hostile. He came to DC
looking for a fight and he got one.
To
say that he was driven to the stage by blacklisting isn’t correct either. From
1930 through 1948, he appeared on Broadway in 21 different plays. From 1962
through 1982, he appeared on Broadway in 11 other productions. By comparison,
he appeared on Broadway in only four (long running) plays from 1950 through
1958.
While
Di Silva was playing make believe communist in Hollywood, real, heavily armed communist, over ran the city of Seoul South
Korea with the aid of Communist Chinese Army which had also over run the
Tibetan capital of Lhasa. In New York, Communist spies Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg were arrested for handing Russia the formula to make an atomic
bomb.