Part: 123456789         Session: 1         Page na123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495050a51525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534536537538539540541542 of 542

whom he was accusing of being “a radical.” In Oregon they have what is known as the Criminal Syndicalists Act. It's a state law. God knows what criminal syndicalists are, but it was whatever the law said they were. You could be charged with criminal syndicalism without being a member of the Communist party. It was in some such proceeding as that in which he had given this testimony which was said to have been perjured.

All this was very vague. You could imagine all kinds of things. All we knew was that on one occasion he had given perjured testimony. That didn't mean that his testimony would always be perjured. I remember consulting with a couple of lawyers about that. They said, “No, a man can commit perjury once and never again. If you are weighing his evidence and it is contrary to some other evidence, then the fact that he once gave perjured testimony will make his evidence weight less against contrary evidence than it would otherwise do. But it cannot be taken as an ipso facto conclusion that he is always a perjurer.”

He also, according to Bonham, in order to get this information that he claimed to have, had been an agent provocateur. We used that term. I'm sure he didn't. But he had made speeches at meetings, played an active role in urging them to do certain things which were illegal.