Questions:
1. Why does Maltz assert that he is answering the questions being asked?
2. Why is Maltz refusing to testify to being a guild member?
Albert Maltz: Testimony Before HUAC (1947)
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maltz, the committee is unanimous in permitting you to read the statement.
MR. MALTZ. Thank you.
I am an American and I believe there is no more proud word in the vocabulary of man. I am a novelist and screen writer and I have produced a certain body of work in the past 15 years. As with any other writer, what I have written has come from the total fabric of my life—my birth in this land, our schools and games, our atmosphere of freedom, our tradition of inquiry, criticism, discussion, tolerance. Whatever I am, America has made me. And 1, in turn, possess no loyalty as great as the one I have to this land, to the economic and social welfare of its people, to the perpetuation and development of its democratic way of life.
Now at the age of 39, I am commanded to appear before the House Committee on Un‑American Activities. For a full week this committee has encouraged an assortment of well‑rehearsed witnesses to testify that I and others are subversive and un‑American. It has refused us the opportunity that any pickpocket receives in a magistrate’s court—the right to cross‑examine these witnesses, to refute their testimony, to reveal their motives, their history, and who, exactly, they are. Furthermore it grants these witnesses congressional immunity so that we may not sue them for libel for their slanders.
I maintain that this is an evil and vicious procedure; that it is legally unjust and morally indecent—and that it places in danger every other American, since if the right of any one citizen can be invaded, then the constitutional guaranties of every other American have been subverted and no one is any longer protected from official tyranny.
What is it about me that this committee wishes to destroy? My writings? Very well, let us refer to them.
My novel, The Cross and the Arrow, was issued in a special edition of 140,000 copies by a wartime Government agency, the armed services edition, for American servicemen abroad.
My short stories have been reprinted in over 30 anthologies, by as many American publishers—all subversive, no doubt.
My film, The Pride of the Marines, was premiered in 28 cities at Guadal‑canal Day banquets under the auspices of the United States Marine Corps.
Another film, Destination Tokyo, was premiered aboard a United States submarine and was adopted by the Navy as an official training film.
My short film, The House I Live In, was given a special award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for its contribution to racial tolerance.
My short story, The Happiest Man on Earth, won the 1938 O. Henry Memorial Award for the best American short story.
This, then, is the body of work for which this committee urges I be blacklisted in the film industry—and tomorrow, if it has its way in the publishing and magazine fields also.
By cold censorship, if not legislation, I must not be allowed to write. Will this censorship stop with me? Or with the others now singled out for attack? If it requires acceptance of the ideas of this committee to remain immune from the brand of un‑Americanism, then who is ultimately safe from this committee except members of the Ku Klux Klan?
Why else does this committee now seek to destroy me and others? Because of our ideas, unquestionably. In 1801, when he was President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“Opinion, and the just maintenance of it, shall never be a crime in my view; nor bring injury to the individual.”
But a few years ago, in the course of one of the hearings of this committee, Congressman J. Parnell Thomas said, and I quote from the official transcript:
“I just want to say this now, that it seems that the New Deal is working along hand in glove with the Communist Party. The New Deal is either for the Communist Party or it is playing into the hands of the Communist Party.”
Very well, then, here is the other reason why I and others have been commanded to appear before this committee—our ideas. In common with many Americans, I supported the New Deal. In common with many Americans I supported, against Mr. Thomas and Mr. Rankin, the anti‑lynching bill. I opposed them in my support of OPA controls and emergency veteran housing and a fair employment practices law. I signed petitions for these measures, joined organizations that advocated them, contributed money, sometimes spoke from public platforms, and I will continue to do so. I will take my philosophy from Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and I will not be dictated to or intimidated by men to whom the Ku Klux Klan, as a matter of committee record, is an acceptable American institution.
I state further that on many questions of public interest my opinions as a citizen have not always been in accord with the opinions of the majority. They are not now nor have my opinions ever been fixed and unchanging, nor are they now fixed and unchangeable; but, right or wrong, I claim and I insist upon my right to think freely and to speak freely; to join the Republican Party or the Communist Party, the Democratic or the Prohibition Party; to publish whatever I please; to fix my mind or change my mind, without dictation from anyone; to offer any criticism I think fitting of any public official or policy; to join whatever organizations I please, no matter what certain legislators may think of them. Above all, I challenge the right of this committee to inquire into my political or religious beliefs, in any manner or degree, and I assent that not the conduct of this committee but its very existence are a subversion of the Bill of Rights.
If I were a spokesman for General Franco, I would not be here today. I would rather be here. I would rather die than be a shabby American, groveling before men whose names are Thomas and Rankin, but who now carry out activities in America like those carried out in Germany by Goebbels and Himmler.
The American people are going to have to choose between the Bill of Rights and the Thomas committee. They cannot have both. One or the other must be abolished in the immediate future.
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stripling (pounding gavel).
Mr. Stripling.
MR. STRIPLING. Mr. Maltz, what is your occupation?
MR. MALTZ. I am a writer.
MR. STRIPLING. Are you employed in the motion picture industry?
MR. MALTZ. I work in various fields of writing and I have sometimes accepted employment in the motion-picture industry.
MR. STRIPLING. Have you written the scripts for a number of pictures?
MR. MALTZ. It is a matter of public record that I have written scripts for certain motion pictures.
MR. STRIPLING. Are you a member of the Screen Writers Guild?
THE CHAIRMAN. Louder, Mr. Stripling.
MR. STRIPLING. Are you a member of the Screen Writers Guild?
MR. MALTZ. Next you are going to ask me what religious group I belong to.
THE CHAIRMAN. No, no; we are not.
MR. MALTZ. And any such question as that—
THE CHAIRMAN. I know.
MR. MALTZ. Is an obvious attempt to invade my rights under the Constitution.
MR. STRIPLING. Do you object to answering whether or not you are a member of the Screen Writers Guild?
MR. MALTZ. I have not objected to answering that question. On the contrary, I point out that next you are going to ask me whether or not I am a member of a certain religious group and suggest that I be blacklisted from an industry because I am a member of a group you don’t like.
(The chairman pounds gavel.)
MR. STRIPLING. Mr. Maltz, do you decline to answer the question?
MR. MALTZ. I certainly do not decline to answer the question. I have answered the question.
MR. STRIPLING. I repeat, Are you a member of the Screen Writers Guild?
MR. MALTZ. And I repeat my answer, sir, that any such question is an obvious attempt to invade my list of organizations as an American citizen and I would be a shabby American if I didn’t answer as I have.
MR. STRIPLING. Mr. Maltz, are you a member of the Communist Party?
MR. MALTZ. Next you are going to ask what my religious beliefs are.
MR. MCDOWELL. That is not answering the question.
MR. MALTZ. And you are going to insist before various members of the industry that since you do not like my religious beliefs I should not work in such industry. Any such question is quite irrelevant.
MR. STRIPLING. I repeat the question. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
MR. MALTZ. I have answered the question, Mr. Quisling. I am sorry. I want you to know—
MR. MCDOWELL. I object to that statement.
THE CHAIRMAN. Excuse the witness. No more questions. Typical Communist line. . . .
Questions:
1. Why does Maltz assert that he is answering the questions being asked?
2. Why is Maltz refusing to testify to being a guild member?
