I have read the transcript of Burl's testimony. It has been blown out of proportion, if you can imagine that. On the extreme end some said he named "hundreds" of people as Communists, and of course everyone knows he pointed the finger at Pete Seeger.

In fact he didn't really name anyone as a Communist. He mentions Pete went to some of the same meetings that he himself went to. That's it as far as Pete goes. That's it, period. When pestered by the witch hunters, he said Richard Dyer Bennett was who first solicited his participation in the Communist Political Association. But without being prompted, he then states that like himself, RD-B had subsequently rejected it.

Then, when pestered by these headhunters, he mentions 3 names of people who were present at some functions-his former publicity man, Allen Meltzer, Ray Ley and Herb Kay. Thats all he says, is that they, like he, were present.

In regards to Mr Meltzer's presence, here is a bit of the transcript.

Mr Connors (Senate Staff member): Is Mr Meltzer a Communist, to the best of your knowledge?
Mr Ives: Well he was there, and I assume he was affiliated.
Mr Connors: Do you have any evidence of his present political affiliations?
Mr Ives: As a matter of fact, I haven't seen him in 3 or 4 years, I have not seen him.

That is as close as he came to any of the things he has been accused of doing in this testimony.

The worst impression I can glean from it is that he may have been scared, maybe even cowardly-certainly he did not put on an admirable or defiant performance like Pete Seeger and Paul Robeson did, respectively. But he was also testifying 3 and 4 year's earlier. No doubt some later testifiers gained strength to be less cooperative from each other, and Burl didn't have the benefit of that. He didn't know what other people were going to say. His was the kind of testimony one might live to regret, because he would have seen in hindsight that he didn't have to cooperate. And it sounds like he did regret it. But there is no evidence in the transcripts that he was out to harm anyone's career or life. He apologizes for mentioning the names he does mention, and says they will have their chance to speak (before the subcommittee). He seems like he was just a bit scared and spineless and trying to be (what he perceived to be ) "a good American" by cooperating. Not admirable, but quite far from how it has been painted.

What is really shameful here is the behavior of the subcommittee in pursuing this line of questioning at all. It is truly disgusting to read in that respect, that any American should have been subjected to this Senate Inquisition about where they were five, six, seven years earlier, what functions they attended, who was there, who invited them, when nobody had committed any crime. It is sickening.

Sorry, its way too long to transcribe. Do what I did if you want to read it, request it from your library's interlibrary loan service.