u
rtt
m- I'd'
Given B-\
_J
■POSITORY
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS
MARCH 5, 6, 7, AND 8, 1957
PART 2
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the
Labor or Management Field
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS
MARCH 5, 6, 7, AND 8, 195^
PART 2
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the
Labor or Management Field
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1957
Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Document*
MAY 3 -1957
SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR
MANAGEMENT FIELD
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
PAT McNAMARA, Michigan BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk
n
CONTENTS
Area: Portland, Oreg.; Seattle and Spokane, Wash.
Page
Appendix 743
Testimony of —
Amundson, Lowell E 587
Bennett, Clifford O 56G, 568
Calabrese, Alphonse F _• - 462
Crosby, Clyde C 673
Daniels, Frank 590
Elkins, James B 435, 463, 530, 554, 557
Goodall, James L 568
Hardy, Helen E 467
Jenkins, James Q 719, 740
Jenkins, Virginia 571, 630
O'Connell, William 457
Maloney, Tom 727
McLaughlin, Joseph P 732
Plotkin, Leo 517
Schrunk, Terry Doyle 595, 633
Stone, Laura 578
Tiedeman, Merlin L 581
Vance, John W 576
Zusman, Nathan 473,481,629
EXHIBITS Introduced Appears
on page on page
35. Undated agreement between Tom Johnson, Joe McLaughlin,
and Jim Elkins to divide options purchased for exposition-
recreation center, Portland, Oreg 449 (*)
36. List of options secured on land within proposed site of
exposition-recreation center 452 (*)
37. Application for airline ticket No. 888-02283 between Portland
and San Francisco for J. McLaughlin signed by William
O'Connell 459 743
38A. Registration card and bill from Olympic Hotel for Joseph
McLaughlin pertaining to presence on May 16, 1955 463 744-745
38B. Registration card and bill from Olympic Hotel, San Fran-
cisco, for Clyde Crosby dated May 16, 1955 463 746-747
38C. Clift Hotel, San Francisco, bills for Frank Brewster and
John Sweeney, May 14 through 17, 1955 463 748-750
38D. United Airlines round-trip ticket for Clyde Crosby and
Joseph McLaughlin between Portland and San | Francisco. 463 751-752
39. Statement of income for 1955 from Mutual Investment of
J. P. McLaughlin and J. B. Elkins 539 753
40. Letter from J. B. Elkins to J. P. McLaughlin enclosing
cashier's check for $668 payable to J. P. McLaughlin per-
taining to exposition-recreation center deal 555 754-755
41. Picture of the 8212 Club, North Denver Street, Portland,
Oreg 575 (*)
42. Chart representing Denver Avenue and Kilpatrick Street,
Portland, and directions 586 (*)
43. Picture of Denver Avenue and Kilpatrick Street showing
location of the 8212 Club 586 (*)
44. Photograph showing pole and fountain and 8212 Club 586 (*)
Proceedings of —
March 5, 1957 435
March 6, 1957 481
March 7, 1957 557
March 8, 1957 629
*May be found in the files of the select committee.
in
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
in the Labor or Management Field,
Washington, D. C.
The select committee met at 2: 10 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room of the Senate
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select
committee) presiding.
Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNa-
mara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republi-
can, Wisconsin; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota;
Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona.
Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the select com-
mittee ; Jerome Acllerman, assistant counsel ; Alphonse F. Calabrese,
investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
(The hearing resumed at 2: 10 p. m., Senator John L. McClellan,
chairman, presiding.)
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan
and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. We will resume hearings from our adjournment
last Friday. The Chair would make the observation that some Sena-
tors are not able to be here on time at the appointed hour of 2 o'clock
to resume because of a record vote in the Senate. I anticipate other
members of the committee will be here soon and so we may proceed.
Mr. Counsel, will you call the first witness %
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jim Elkins.
The Chairman. Will you come forward, Mr. Elkins ?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Elkins, Friday afternoon we had some testi-
mony from Mr. Howard Morgan who is a public official in the State
of Oregon, and he gave us some information regarding the attempt of
the teamsters to take over the liquor commission.
In the course of your connections with the teamsters union at the
end of 1954 through 1955, did you have any conversations with any
officials of the teamsters union regarding the liquor commission 2
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
435
436 [MPROPEE ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. What was the firsl incidenl thai occurred regarding
the liquor commission or any members of the liquor commission ?
Air. Elkins. Thee missionhad fired two members of the commis-
sion for accepting gratuities, I believe they pul it.
Mr. Kennedy. Ami was one of them an acquaintance of yours by
the name <>f Mi-. Sheridan ?
Mi-. Elkins. lie got to be an acquaintance as soon as he gol Curd.
Mr. Kennedy. Then he came to see you t<> talk aboul this problem?
Mr. Elkins. Thai is correct,
Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring him down to see Mr. Clyde Crosby!
Mr. Elkins. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. A.1 that lime was Mr. Clyde Crosby international
representative of die teamsters?
Mr. Elkins. Thai is eon-eel .
Mr. Kennedy. In the Portland area?
Mr. Elkins. Thai is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Whal did Mr. Crosby say to you at dial lime, as to
what could be done for Mr. Sheridan?
Mr. Elkins. He told me thai through their political influence they
thoughl i hey could save it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he lake any steps a I that time!
Mr. Elkins. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy, would you relate thai to the committee!
Mr. Elkins. I told him I didn't think that they were big enough
because1 ii came oul of (lie capitol.
Mr. Kennedy. You said you did not feel Unit they had enough influ-
ence because (bis step, getting rid of Mr. Sheridan, had come out of
the capitol?
Mr. ELKINS. That is correct, lie said, "I'll find out if we have."
lie called Seattle, Mr. John Sweeney, and Mr. Sweeney said, "We
mighl just as well find oul now if we have boughl a pig in a poke or
i f he will perform for US."
Mr. Kennedy. "He" being this high State official!
Mr. Elkins. 3Tes ; the hignest, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The highest in the State? You are talking about
the former governor; is thai correct?
Mr. Mi, kins. That is correel and I don't like to say any thing about
him because he is dead.
Mr. Kennedy. Bui al thai lime, the teamsters bad backed him: is
thai right!
Mr. Elkins. In the election ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. According to whal Mr. Morgan related hereon Fri-
day, the teamsters had backed Governor Patterson while all of Ike
other labor organizations bad backed his opponent, and then had also
backed Mr. Langley while all other labor had backed Mr. Langley's
opponent .
M r. ELKINS. I am not familiar with what the rest of labor had done,
but I know thai the (eamslers had backed Mr. Patterson ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, whal did John Sweeney say to Mr. Crosby as
Mi-. Crosby related il toyou.
MY. Elkins. "We would just as well find oul if we have boughl a
pig in a poke or i f he will perform for us."
Mr. Kiwi i>\ . Whal slepsdid Mr. Crosby lake?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 437
Mr. Elkins. He told me to bring Tom Sheridan over al T p. m. thai
evening.
Mr. Kennedy. Did hemeet with Mr. Sheridan?
Mr. Elkins. Ilr did and I brought him over to Crosby's private
office.
Mr. Kennedy. They had a conference at that time?
Mr. Elkins. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. And were arrangements made ;il thai time about
meet ing with Hie ( J-overnor?
Mr. Elkins. Not for Sheridan to meel him but for Mr. Crosby to
meet him.
Mr.KENNEDY. Didhemeel him?
Mr. Elkins. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you relate that incident?
Mr. Elkins. Well, Mr. Crosby called me at my place of business and
told me that he bad an appointment for 5 o'clock that afternoon and
that is the following afternoon with the Governor. About, 7:30 he
called me al my home and related that be bad gotten the job done,
thai is the way he expressed it, that Mr. Sheridan would be reinstated
but he would have to go through a civi] service board hearing.
Mr. Kennedy. So be went through a civil service study which was
also arranged ; is I bat right?
Mr. Elkins. Well, they claimed they arranged it and I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Bu1 Mr. Sheridan stayed on in bis position?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. He just, lost a montb/s pay, that's all.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he the subject of an investigation at a later
date, a year later? Would that be in L955.
Mr . Elkins. 1 * ) 5 5 ; y es.
Mr. Kennedy. And again there was another investigation of the
liquor commission ?
Air. Elkins. Air. Thornton, the attorney general, had raised such a
hue and cry about the liquor commission that the Governor hired two
Portland attorneys to make that invest igation. One of t hem had for-
merly been an FBI agent. When they finished the investigation, Mr.
Thornton wanted the results of t his investigation.
The Governor wouldn't give it to him, so finally, after a squabble,
he turned the invest igal ion over to Mr. Langley.
Mr. Kennedy. The Governor turned the investigation over to Mr.
Langley?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mi-. Kennedy. Did Mr. Langley and the Governor have a meeting
on this ^
Mi'. Elkins. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you witness it \
Mr. Elkins. 1 did.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did t he meetingtake place \
Mi-. Elkins. About 20 feet down from the entrance of my office.
(At, this point in t he proceedings, Senator Mundt entered the hearing
room. )
Mr. ELKINS. Pardon me, t here is a TV Station on the corner from my
office and so it had nothing to do with me that I saw the meeting and
they appeared at that, spot .
Mr.KENNEDY. Thevsat in a car and talked?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
438 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Now, was it agreed, according to what was related
to you, that this was going to be a whitewash of the investigation?
Mr. Elkins. That is what Mr. Maloney told me that evening.
Mr. Kennedy. Tom Maloney told you ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, there was some evidence against Mr. Sheridan,
and there was a witness, was there not, that could testify against him?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That witness was up in the State of Washington,
outside the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. He was in Washington.
Mr. Kennedy. Were instructions given that that witness should
hide and not appear ?
Mr. Elkins. It was ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were some of those instructions related through
you?
Mr. Elkins. They were ; yes. The first man they gave the instruc-
tions to didn't do it and he didn't want to mix in it and then Mr.
Maloney went up from Portland to Seattle and talked to someone
and instructed them to have the man go hunting and told him that
then Mr. Langley would issue the subpena and he wouldn't be available.
Mr. Kennedy. They wanted the witness to go hunting and then
Mr. Langley would issue the subpena and they would not be able to
find him ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have conversations with Tom Maloney about
the fact that this was going to be a whitewash ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir ; many times.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you assist in that — making it a whitewash ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, yes ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there also conversations held up in the apart-
ment of Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Elkins. There were.
Mr. Kennedy. About this ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there conversations between Mr. Langley, the
district attorney, and Mr. Sheridan, who was under investigation?
Mr. Elkins. There were : yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, at that time, was the tape-recording machine
that you had taking down these conversations ?
Mr. Elkins. It was.
Mr. Kennedy. So you have a good number of those conversations
on tape ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Some of those conversations are between the dis-
trict attorney and Mr. Sheridan who was under investigation?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there also conversations dealing with the fact
that this was going to be whitewashed ?
Mr. Elkins. There were.
Mr. Kennedy. And what the district attorney would do if an indict-
ment was returned by the grand jury ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, Mr. Maloney said they were returned and I don't
believe they were, but he told Mr. Crosby and also told me that there
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 439
had been 1 returned, or 2 returned, and that Mr. Langley had stuck
them in his pocket.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he go on to say, "That shows how much guts
that boy has"?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the grand jury ultimately dismissed with noth-
ing coming out of it?
Mr. Elkins. They were.
Mr. Kennedy. Nothing came of it ?
Mr. Elkins. There was nothing came of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have finished with this section of
my interrogation.
The Chairman. Do you want the witness to suspend ?
Mr. Kennedy. I have another matter that I want to go into with
him, but I am finished as far as the liquor commission is concerned.
I wanted to know if you had any questions.
The Chairman. I didn't understand who this conversation was with
in the car there parked near your office.
Mr. Elkins. The Governor and Mr. Langley. Mr. Maloney told
me that the Governor, the understanding was that the Governor appre-
ciated that fact and that they had that meeting. He didn't know
that it was so close to my office that I had seen them sitting in the car
talking.
The Chairman. In other words, you are not testifying just from
hearsay. You actually saw them in the car together ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. I didn't hear what they said.
The Chairman. You didn't hear the conversation ?
Mr. Elkins. No.
The Chairman. But you know the meeting was held.
Mr. Elkins. But they sat there for 45 minutes, or something like
that, talking.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Senator Goldwater. Did you get tape recordings of that
conversation ?
Mr. Elkins. Of the Governor ? No, sir. That was in a car, Senator.
Senator Goldwater. Which were the tape recordings you referred
to?
Mr. Elkins. Of Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Langley in the apartment,
where they met and discussed this matter.
The Chairman. You may proceed to the next matter.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this
fits into the testimony that Mr. Morgan gave on Friday, regarding this
investigation by the grand jury which was conducted by Mr. Langley
and the fact that because of the relationship between the Governor
and Mr. Langley, it was to be a whitewash and Mr. Elkins, according
to his own testimony, played an active part in that.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. I now want to discuss a different subject with you.
That is regarding the education and recreational center that was being
built or was going to be built by the city of Portland. That was an
$8-million project, was it not ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. An exposition and recreation hall; that was an
$8-million project?
440 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. There was a five-man board appointed by the mayor
to select a site where that structure was going to be built ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Clyde Crosby, the international repre-
sentative of the teamsters in Portland, was appointed as 1 of the 5
members of that commission.
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever discuss that commission with you or
discuss the property that was going to be selected by that commission ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; he did.
Mr. Kennedy. That was in early January of 1955 ?
Mr. Elkins. To the best I can remember, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you in that conversation ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, he called my home and left word for me to call
him ; it was important. I called him in the evening, and he told me
that it was very important that he talk to me the next day.
I said, "Well, how about lunch?" and he said, "'Fine; but come ahead
of time, because I am going to discuss something with you." I went
over about 10 : 30.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you speak up, Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Elkins. I went over to Mr. Crosby's office about 10 : 30 in the
morning, and when I walked in his office I sat down, and he had a
big map on his desk, and he asked me if I knew what that was. I
said, "No; I am not familiar with maps, particularly of that type
of map."
He said, "Well, you know I am on that recreation — $8-million E. K.
center." I said, "Yes ; I do" ; and I said, "That doesn't mean anything
to me. What are you trying to tell me" ? "Well," he said, "I can put
it in one particular area if you tie up some of that property."
I said, "Well, you will have to explain it a little more thoroughly,
Mr. Crosbv," which he did. He said there was some institute, that
the city had spent $30,000, or, he said, "We have spent $30,000."
Mr. Kennedy. Is that Stanford University ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; Stanford University Research, yes ; and they had
studied the different locations in Portland, and he explained that to
me. They spent $30,000 on that research. That was one of the
choicest locations in Portland, and they eliminated several others.
I said, "It sounds interesting. Can we go to lunch and drive me
around there if you want me to buy this property?" We got in Mr.
Crosby's car and we drove around. We passed to Hazalow on the
south and Williams on the east and Broadway on the north. I believe
it was Larabee or the river, anyway, on the north.
(At this point in the proceedings Senator McCarthy entered the
hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. So you had a meeting with him, and he said that he
thought he could select a place that was going to be chosen, and you
said, "Well, let us drive around and see it."
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And see the grounds and the land, and so you took
this drive, and what did you ultimately decide that you would do?
Did he want you to purchase the property outright ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 441
Mr. Kennedy. Did you object to that?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; I said it would take too much money, and I didn't
have that kind of money. I said, "How about options?" Of course,
that was a little later on. He said, "That's fine." So we took the
options.
Mr. Kennedy. You agreed you would take the options on the place ?
Mr. Elkins. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, after you met with him, did you go ahead and
start to get options on that land ?
Mr. Elkins. We did ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Who is "we"?
Mr. Elkins. I did and Tom Johnson.
.Mr. Kennedy. Who was he?
Mr. Elkins. A colored man that owns the Keystone Kealty Co.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this a colored section of town ?
Mr. Elkins. That was ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you bring him in on it at all, and why
didn't you just get the options yourself ?
Mr. Elkins. Tom Johnson owned a lot of real estate in that area
previous to that, and Mr. Johnson had had a division of property
with a former partner, and we thought him getting these options it
would not create any comment.
(At this point in the proceedings Senator Mundt left the room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Tom Johnson was a friend of yours, is that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And he already owned some property in this section
of town I
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you felt that if you came in and started pur-
chasing this property as a white person and started getting all of these
options there would be some comment about it,
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; conversation about it.
Mr. Kennedy. And so you operated through Mr. Tom Johnson ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he go ahead and try to get some of these options ?
Mr. Elkins. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he get the options ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time did you ask Mr. Crosby
how long he would have to get the options for ?
Mr. Elkins. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did he say ?
Mr. Elkins. He said first, "It won't be made public, if you can
get options for 2 months and I think it will come out publicly in
2 months that it will be in this area."
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get them for that length of time?
Mr. Elkins. Well, most of them we got for 4 months or 6 months
or better.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep Mr. Crosby advised as to what you
were doing (
Mr. Elkins. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What conversations did he have with you during
this period of time ? Did he say it was going along well or what did
he say ?
442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. Well, first lie did. He said it was going along a little
slower than he had anticipated, and that he had opposition, other
people wanted the auditorium site, and some of them were still insist-
ing on the Delta Park area, although that was definitely out.
He felt that sooner or later he would swing it to this particular site.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there another group that was trying to get
options in the same area ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they approach Mr. Johnson, too?
Mr. Elkins. They did, and they approached him to do the same
thing that we were doing.
Mr. Kennedy. What group was that?
Mr. Elkins. Well, the Commonwealth, I believe.
Mr. Kennedy. Commonwealth?
Mr. Elkins. I believe so, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that ?
Mr. Elkins. That is the realty firm owned by the bank, I believe,
or a big corporation. It is one of the largest real estate groups in
Portland.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Crosby discuss with you about getting any
money at the time ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right, and I told him that I would split what-
ever I got 50-50 with him, and I told Mr. Crosby whatever I received
I would split 50-50 with him.
When this group propositioned Tom Johnson, Tom Johnson brought
the propostion back to me and I took it to Clyde Crosby and he said,
"Well, you're cutting it up pretty small if you let another group in."
I was suggesting that if they put up the money and returned our
money, we should let them have it and us just accept the 25 percent
of the net profit from it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he agree to that ?
Mr. Elkins. He finally did, but we never went any further with
the deal.
Mr. Kennedy. You never made the deal with Commonwealth ?
Mr. Elkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go ahead and get these options and what
was the next event that occurred ?
Mr. Elkins. Well we got between three and four hundred thousand
dollars worth of options.
Senator McCarthy. Could you speak a little louder, please?
Mr. Elkins. We picked up between three and four hundred thou-
sand dollars' worth of options in that area. Then, we went along un-
til May and there hadn't been any action taken on it. In May, I
believe, I met Mr. Crosby on 20th Street and Division Street. We
got in his car and drove across an intersection of 21st Street.
Mr. Kennedy. Had he called you and said he wanted to meet you
there?
Mr. Elkins. That is right, and we talked on the phone 2 or 3
times on this. That was in the meantime, so we got in a squabble over
the pinball issue and Mr. Crosby told me that he thinks that I am try-
ing to influence Stanley Earl or did influence him to go against
him.
I said, "What makes you think that I have influence over Stanley
Earl?" He said, "A man that turned down what I offered him,
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 443
plus the backing of the teamsters or labor," and I don't remember
just exactly what he said, "would either have to be owned by somebody
or crazy or obligated."
I said, "Did it ever occur to you that maybe the man is honest i
and he said, "He is in labor, isn't he? He was a big shot in labor,
wasn't he?"
Mr. Kennedy. What else did he say to you ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, he told me I had tried to double cross Tom and
Joe and he felt that the word was up.
Mr. Kennedy. That is Tom Maloney and Joe McLaughlin ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. He felt he couldn't trust me if they
couldn't. I said, "Well, how is it that they don't talk to me?"
Mr. Kennedy. How were you supposed to have doublecrossed
them ?
Mr. Elkins. By not setting up the things that they had asked me
to set up, the gambling and the horse books and first one thing and
then another. So we argued about that and he told me John Sweeney
is mad at me and I told him, "I would like a chance to talk to John
Sweeney and explain it to him." And he said, "That's your prob-
lem. I have got a job to do and there's nothing personal in it to me,
but I am going to have to take out after you."
I said, "How are you going to go about that?" And he said, "I
am going to get the chief of police removed."
Mr. Kennedy. He said, "I am going to get the chief of police
removed" ?
Mr. Elkins. That's right. I said, "What has that got to do with
it?" "Well," he said, "in the first place he won't let these police-
men make any extra money and they are underpaid." And I said,
"Are you going to go on the mayor and tell him that you want the
chief of police removed because he won't let his men take money?"
"Well," he said, "I won't put it that bluntly, but he will know what
I mean."
Mr. Kennedy. How was that going to affect you, Mr. Elkins?
Mr. Elkins. Well, he said that they were going to just keep switch-
ing policemen until I couldn't operate. He took the attitude I was
paying off some policemen.
The Chairman. Were you?
Mr. Elkins. I was not. I didn't operate the places. I financed
them.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that ?
Mr. Elkins. I financed them, I didn't operate them.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have, to operate these places yourself?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You just put up the money for them.
Mr. Elkins. That is right and frankly, we weren't doing much
operating.
Mr. Kennedy. In that position you didn't have to pay off any
policemen yourself?
Mr. Elkins. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, did he talk at all about this E. and R. situation ?
Mr. Elkins. We did. I believe I asked him, I said, "As long as we
have gone this way," I had men working for me building a party
room for him and I said, "I think you owe me a little money on that
444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
party room. Suppose you pay it as long as we are at the parting of
the ways." He said,, "I feel what I have clone for you in the past
should well take care of that." And I said, "What have you done for
me in the past?"
He said, "I have got the feeling you wouldn't take care of me on
that E. and R. center if it does go there." And I said, "You know it
is not going that way and as far as I am concerned we threw a craps
on that one."
He said, "It can still go there, but how can you expect me to trust
you to give me my end of it without you want to put up a forfeit?"
I said, "A forfeit for what?" and he said, "If you will trust me with
$5,000, if I don't put it there, I will give it back to you."
I said, "But I don't trust you either."
Mr. Kennedy. He wanted you to give him $5,000 ?
Mr. Elkins. That's right, supposedly to hold or guarantee his
payment of his end of the returns or what we would make on there.
Mr. Kennedy. He said he could not trust you, that if he got it there
you would not give him any money, is that right ?
Mr. Elkins." That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. So he wanted you to give him $5,000 then, so that
if the p]ace went there you would pay him.
Mr. Elkins. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. That would be a downpayment on what you owed
him?
Mr. Elkins. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him about giving him the
$5,000?
Mr. Elkins. I said, "I wouldn't give you the $5,000 because I don't
trust you."
(At this point in the proceedings, Senator McNamara entered the
hearing room. )
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the end of the conversation ?
Mr. Elkins. No. We argued for an hour about various things and
then he left. Crosby left and about a week or maybe less, I got a call
on long distance, I suppose, from Los Angeles, that is where he said
he was at, from Mr. Joe McLaughlin.
Mr. Kennedy. In this conversation in the car, had Crosby stated
to you that John Sweeney and Frank Brewster were mad at him,
Crosby, for going into this deal with you ?
Mr. Elkins. No; the deal was just between Clyde Crosby and I and
we weren't to discuss it with anybody and he didn't want them to know
about it at that time. That was something that he and I were going
to cut up without the rest of them knowing it,
Mr. Kennedy. Did he relate to you that they had found out about
it?
Mr. Elkins. No; Joe McLaughlin related to me on the phone that
Clyde told him about it on the trip south on the plane, after the falling
out with me.
He had gone before John Sweeney and Frank Brewster and ad-
mitted that he had made this side deal with me and they gave him the
devil for it. The outcome of it was as long as they were all in on the
plan now, that it would be resurrected and really secured, providing
that I would put it in writing and give them a third of it.
I said,
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 445
Well, I don't have anything in writing, but I think it could be arranged. So
far as I am concerned, you can take the whole thing.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this related to you by Joe McLaughlin on the
telephone ?
Mr. Elkins. It was; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, lie is the one that said that Frank Brewster and
Sweeney were mad at Crosby for having made this deal with you ?
Mr. Elkins. He almost fired him over it and if it hadn't been for
Joe McLaughlin's influence with them, he might have got fired.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Joe say that he would take over Crosby's part
of the deal ?
Mr. Elkins. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ?
Mr. Elkins. I said, "All right, I will talk to Tom Johnson about it;
call me back," which he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you confer about that?
Mr. Elkins. I did, and I said, "When do you want to come up?"
and he said, "Well, I have to make a trip to Denver and when I finish
that I will come to Portland."
We were to go ahead with it. He said, "If this works out, then I
think I can patch up our differences."
Mr. Kennedy. Joe said this to you ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, "And if you perform right on this, then you are
back in again."
Mr. Kennedy. Did vou meet with him when he got back to Port-
land?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; the first part of June I met with him.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you decide to do at that time ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, we went over on the east side and Tom Johnson's
place of business and Joe picked Tom up and drove around this area
and came back and picked up the options and a list of them and the
contracts and various contracts Tom had and went back to the Heath-
man Hotel and turned them over to Joe McLaughlin and he wanted
Clyde Crosby to look at them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a further meeting on it when you were
going to sign a contract with Joe McLaughlin?
Mr. Elkins. We did. That was on Saturday. On Sunday I met
him and I went to Rus Sloniger who was an attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the attorney's office ?
Mr. Elkins. I beg pardon ?
Mr. Kennedy. What was the attorney's name ?
Mr. Elkins. Rus Sloniger. We got a white real estate man named
Kelly. He was with us and it was on a Sunday and he didn't have
a girl so Sloniger typed out the agreement himself. We got in an
argument or discussion about whether we would accept any option^
that were taken on the borderline or outside of this particular area.
The final outcome of that was that Joe McLaughlin called someone,
saying he was going to call Clyde and it was a very small room. There
was a little partition in it. During the conversation I heard him
mention Clyde and I don't know whether he actually talked to Clyde
but he came back in the room with a map in his hand and lie said, "You
put a ring around here but you had better put in this option that we
have the right to accept or reject any option taken outside of this
particular area."
446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. So between you and McLaughlin there was a dispute
as to some of the options and what the contract should cover ; is that
right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And so McLaughlin said in the middle of the con-
versation, "I will go and call Clyde Crosby and find out what property
would be covered in this."
Mr. Elkins. That is the best of my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. Then he went and called and during the course of the
conversation you heard him state the name "Clyde"; is that right?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I would say on one time, anyway.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come back and relate to you that he had
talked to Clyde Crosby and this was what Crosby wanted?
Mr. Elkins. No ; I don't think that he said that. He didn't say,
"I talked to Clyde Crosby." He said, "I talked to my man."
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask a question there? The identity
of Crosby has been very well established. Do we have any evidence
that Brewster, for example, was to get anything out of this deal, or
was this just some of the lower echelon working on this fast deal?
Mr. Kennedy. You will have to answer that, Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Elkins. First, there wasn't anyone but Crosby and I to share
in it to start with. Then, later on, I don't know whether they talked
to Brewster or whether they had admitted to Brewster he had made
a side deal or not. All I have is Joe McLaughlin's word for it.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you have no information at
all that Brewster was to share in this deal ?
Mr. Elkins. I never talked to Mr. Brewster about it ; no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. And no indication that the laboring men
in the teamsters were to have any of this money put in their coffers ?
Mr. Elkins. No, I didn't; no, sir. I am pretty sure they weren't
such.
Senator McCarthy. You would be very surprised if they were
getting anything out of it ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have two affidavits that are in
point here which I would like to read into the record.
The Chairman. You may proceed. You may identify the affidavits
and read them into the record unless there is objection.
Mr. Kennedy. The first one is an affidavit by C. R. Sloniger, sworn
and subscribed to on the 15th day of February 1957, by a notary public,
Frank Deich.
I, C. R. Sloniger, am an attorney at law admitted to practice before the bar
of the State of Oregon. I make the following voluntary statement in the
presence of Jerome Adlerman, assistant counsel, and Alphonse Calabrese, pro-
fessional staff member of the United States Senate select committee which is
known to me to be investigating improper activities in labor or management
fields.
Sometime in early June 1955, I was called by Mr. John W. Kelley, a realtor,
on a Saturday evening, to prepare a legal agreement. An appointment was made
to meet the following morning, Sunday, at my offices in the Loyalty Building,
Portland, Oreg.
Mr. Kelley, Mr. Jim Elkins, and a person who was identified to me at that
time as Joseph P. McLaughlin came to my office. They told me the type of
agreement they wanted to be drawn between James Elkins, Joseph P. McLaughlin,
and Tom Johnson. I knew Johnson by reputation only.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 447
Mr. Tom Johnson was not present at the Sunday morning meeting. I was
told that the parties wanted an agreement to purchase and sell certain real
property which embraced an area across the river near the steel bridge encom-
passing an area of several square blocks.
Since this was Sunday I sat down to type the agreement myself and discus-
sions were had about the area which would be covered in this agreement. One
of the parties brought out a map which was marked with a red line showing the
area covering the site near the steel bridge. Part of the discussion concerned
itself with whether the agreement should cover an area outside of the redlined
portion of the map.
Other parts of the discussion concerned itself with options already secured,
appraisals on the options obtained and to be obtained, discussions about ex-
penses and similar items. These discussions were between Mr. Elkins, Mr.
McLaughlin, and Mr. Kelley.
Mr. Kelley, who was there as a realtor, did not participate to any extensive
extent in these discussions. The discussions and the preparation of the agree-
ment extended from 11 : 30 in the morning to 2 in the afternoon.
During the course of the discussions Mr. McLaughlin went to the small ad-
jacent outer office and made a telephone call to a person whom I believe was
addressed by the name of "Clyde." The purpose of this discussion was to obtain
authorization to enlarge the area to be covered by the agreement to take in a
portion outside of the area encircled by the red line on the map.
In the course of the discussions it was obvious to me from the location and
news that the site discussed where the options were to be obtained and were
already obtained was in someway connected with the exposition and recreation
site.
The contract was not signed in my presence because Johnson was not there
That was the only participation that I had in the matter of drawing up this
agreement.
This statement consisting of three pages, which has been read by me, is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
(Signed) C. R. Slonigek.
The Chairman. It may be printed in the record at this point.
May I ask about that written agreement. Do we have a copy of
it?
Mr. Kennedy. We do.
The Chairman. I think it could be placed in evidence.
Senator McCarthy. I am not objecting to this being placed in the
record, but I do feel that as a matter of practice we should not put
affidavits in the record unless the witness appears and swears that the
contents of the affidavit are accurate. I do not think that counsel
should be burdened or the committee should be burdened with going
over many of the details, but as I understand the law it is no criminal
offense in the State of Oregon to sign a false affidavit unless you are
required to sign one under the law.
Therefore, a man can sign an affidavit with impunity and put it in
the record, and it carries a certain amount of weight. I do strongly
feel that we should not accept affidavits unless the witness is here, and
as I say not necessarily go over all of the details but if he says, "Yes,
that is my affidavit ; I swear that is true," then it is sworn testimony.
I make that point because certainly out of these hearings there will
arise some perjury cases. I think that record should be very carefully
made.
I am not going to object to this, Mr. Chairman, but as a general
proposition I hope we follow the other procedure in the future.
The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation : I think one
bit of instruction should be given to the staff in taking these affidavits
hereafter. They should state or the affiant should state in his affidavit
he understands the affidavit is to be presented to this committee and
placed in its printed record.
89330— 57— pt. 2 2
448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Xow, the Chair will say this : If you were trying someone, of course,
on a crime, the affidavits would not be admissible, but we are going to
try to operate as economically as we can, and instead of having all of
the witnesses that know something about a thing come all of the way
across the country here to testify, which is expensive, where we have
positive testimony from a witness such as was given by this witness,
and then an affidavit just corroborates one circumstance of it, unless the
committee objects I am going to permit corroborating affidavits where
they are taken with the purpose of becoming a part of the record
and where the witness so knows and acknowledges they are going to be
put in the record.
If anyone has any doubt about it, as to the validity or the truth-
fulness of the statement, we can thereafter have them subpenaed if the
committee desires to do so.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say I do not intend to
object. I have no idea at all as to whether the affidavit is correct or
not, but I wonder if it would not be a good idea in view of the fact that
these hearings will last a long time, that we obtain from the Attorney
General an opinion as to whether or not a false affidavit, or rather I
should say the signer of a false affidavit can be prosecuted under any
phase of the law.
The Chairman. I would make the statement that that may be done,
and it would take time to do it, but anyone making an affidavit ac-
knowledging at the time that it was to become a part of this record
would be in contempt of the United States Senate if he stated a lie in
that affidavit. So we would have a way to reach him.
All the Chair is trying to do is to economize in our finances, and
also our time. We can have all of these witnesses here, and we have a
good many here, but that was the only thought the Chair had.
Of course, if it becomes a serious matter, the committee can overrule
the Chair.
But I do think very frankly we will run into these things as we go
along. The staff should be instructed, and the Chair now' gives that
instruction, and I want this gotten out to those in the field making
these investigations : Where an affidavit is taken, I want it stated in
that affidavit that the affiant understands and agrees that this affidavit
may be made a part of the record of this particular committee. I
think that will make them a little bit careful. I do think that one
making such an affidavit and placing it in this record, if the affidavit
is false, would subject the offender to a contempt proceeding.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to spend any
more time on this subject. I have discussed it with some of the United
States attorneys, some of those who may be called upon to prosecute
some of these cases, and they are very concerned that the record be
pluperfect, if I may use the word.
A suggestion that I wish the Chair would consider, and not make a
decision on it now, is to pass a rule authorizing a designated staff
member, either the chief counsel or some other designated staff mem-
ber, to swear the witness and under oath have him swear that the
affidavit was true, so that when the perjury cases come up — and we
know they are going to come from the preliminary review we have of
this — the hands of the United States attorney will not be tied. I am
not asking for any decision on that at this time, but I hope that the
Chair considers that as a possible alternative.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 449
The Chairman. The committee can consider ii in due time.
I make this observation : I think in the meantime we ought to ascer-
tain whether the committee can vest authority in a staff member to
administer an oath. I have some doubt about it. You had better
(heck on that further.
This agreement, I wish you would exhibit this to the witness.
please. It is a photostatic copy, I understand, of the agreement that
the witness has testified to, and that the affidavit refers to. I will ask
the witness to examine it and state whether that is the agreement
referred to in the affidavit just read, and the agreement about which
you previously testified.
Mr. Kennedy. While he is doing that, while reading that other
affidavit, 1 read in a date which had been crossed out which I didn't
notice, which should be taken out of the record. I have shown that to
the reporter.
The Chairman. All right. The reporter understands that, when
an affidavit is read, it is presented to you and you are to record it just
as the document is; and, if a word is misquoted or something, that
will be taken care of.
Mr. Kennedy. It is not material, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right.
(Document was handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. Let us have order, please.
Have you concluded the examination of the document?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What is that document ?
Mr. Elkins. It is an agreement between Tom Johnson, Joe Mc-
Laughlin, and myself, to divide equally the options purchased for
this E. E. center, the steel bridge area.
The Chairman. Did you sign it ?
Mr. Elkins. I did ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Does that bear your signature? That is a photo-
static copy, I believe.
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir; it is my signature.
The Chairman. Do you recognize the signatures of the other two
signers or did you see them sign it?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; I saw them sign it, and it looks like the signature
of their signing, and I am sure it is.
The Chairman. You saw the original of that document signed by
the other two wdiose names appear there ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. That document may be made exhibit
No. 35. I do not think it is necessary to print it in the record. We
will just make it an exhibit for reference.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 35" for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask one question, Mr. Chairman, so
that the record is straight?
As far as you know, the affidavit read by Mr. Kennedy is completely
correct ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir; they were both present at the time. As far
as I know, this is the way I read it. I can see nothing wrong with it.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you can see nothing false in
the affidavit that was read ?
450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. No, sir, I don't.
The Chairman. We have not brought out just what that contract
provides. It is in the record, Mr. Counsel. Can you make a brief
statement as to what it provided ?
Mr. Kennedy. It was a contract between these three individuals
to control certain options that had already been purchased, and it was
an agreement to purchase certain other options within a designated
area.
Is that correct, Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. What interest did each of the three signers have
in it?
Mr. Elkins. We were to each have a third. Mr. McLaughlin, I
believe, Mr. Tom Johnson, and myself, had put up $6,000 to purchase
options with. At that time, Mr. McLaughlin gave a check drawn to
Tom Johnson for $2,000, which made him a third of that amount,
which was to buy, to purchase, options in that area, sir.
The Chairman. As I understand, this contract was drawn after
the thing had fallen through when you and Crosby originally started
it ? This was after your original deal with Crosby had fallen through «
Mr. Elkins. That is right ; yes.
The Chairman. This was after McLaughlin came into the picture ''
Mr. Elkins. That is correct,
The Chairman. Is he the same McLaughlin who testified here a
few days ago ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And the one that came down from Seattle «
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
The Chairman. In this contract, 'did Mr. Crosby have any interest
or part in this new contract, or was he to get any part of the profits*
Mr. Elkins. Well, I believe he called me after this contract was
drawn, and asked me was I going to still take care of him out of
my third of this E. and R. center, or was he to get his from Mr
McLaughlin.
The Chairman. What did you tell him ?
Mr. Elkins. He wanted it in writing, I didn't, he is the one that
called in more partners, I didn't, to get it from them.
The Chairman. To get it from those he called ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right,
The Chairman. You spoke about a check being given by McLaugh-
lin. To whom was that given ?
Mr. Elkins. To Tom Johnson.
The Chairman. To Tom Johnson ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; he gave the check to me, and I delivered it to
Tom Johnson.
The Chairman. Was it made payable to Tom Johnson ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You saw the check? You actually delivered it?
Mr. Elkins. I did. I delivered it, sir.
The Chahjman. I just asked counsel if we have that check.
Mr. Kennedy. There is some question about what happened to the
check, as I understand it, about who has it.
Mr. Elkins. I gave it to Tom Johnson. He deposited it to his
account, I presume.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 451
Mr. Kennedy. I guess it is the check that you ultimately gave to
Joe McLaughlin when you people finally broke up, is that it?
Mr. Elkins. No. One piece of property we bought for $4,000 and
sold for $5,200, when we ultimately broke up. In the first part of
1956 I gave Joe McLaughlin a cashier's check for $600 and — it was
less than $675. I don't remember the exact figures on it, but it was
over $650. It is a cashier's check on the Metropolitan Branch of the
United States National that drew the cashier's check.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. At the time you entered into this contract, was
it anticipated that with the options, when exercised, the land would
be sold for this recreation center ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. How did you expect to make the sale?
Mr. Elkins. Through these real estate people. We put up $100
or $200 on a piece of property, and we felt as soon as it was made
public that the E. K. center was going there, then we could get finance
on the deal to go on and purchase the property.
The Chairman. How did you expect to get the center located at
that place ?
Mr. Elkins. Through Clyde Crosby. He had told me repeatedly
that he could put a ring around that area. Joe McLaughlin told
Tom Johnson and I that he could put a ring around it.
The Chairman. By putting a ring around it, what do you mean?
Mr. Elkins. I mean that he was guaranteeing that it would be put
in that area.
The Chairman. In other words, that he could guarantee, as a mem-
ber of the commission, to locate it — as a member of the city commis-
sion to locate that center— and that he could put it within that area,
the area where you had circled ?
Mr. Elkins. He explained to me that he had two members on this
E. E. center commission; that he had enough influence, he felt, that
he could put this in that area as long as the Stanford Kesearch people
had recommended that place as being one of the locations; that it
wouldn't be out of order for him to handcuff these people on selecting
that area.
The Chairman. In other words, the Stanford Kesearch School or
Institute had approved, after making a survey, more than one area?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. But they eliminated several outside
areas and settled on that area, or maybe 1 more or 2 more.
The Chairman. They eliminated some prospective areas, and they
also approved this one and 1 or 2 more ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. And it was Crosby's job that what he had in mind
was, and what he was assuring you, was, that he believed he had
enough votes on the commission to get it put in this particular area
where you were getting the option ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right, sir.
(At this point, Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. He is the one that instigated the whole idea of
going out and getting options to make some money off of them in
that area ?
452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. He is the one that first mentioned it to you?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
The Chairman. So far as you know, he is the first one that ever
mentioned it to McLaughlin ?
Mr. Elkins. I am sure that he was, because there wasn't anyone
else to mention it, other than lie and I and Tom Johnson, and I don't
think he knew Tom Johnson at that time, sir.
The Chairman. So it was his original idea, Crosby's?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct,
Mr. Kennedy. Here are the options, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Did you secure a number of options ?
Mr. Elkins. We did ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you have, or have you delivered to the staff.
a photostatic copy of the options you secured?
Mr. Elkins. I believe I did ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you give the staff a list of them ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Will you examine this document and see if that
is the list of options that you gave to the staff?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
(Document handed to witness.)
The Chairman. Is that the list you furnished to the staff of the
committee ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 36, for reference only
It need not be printed in the record.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 36" for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have the minutes of that Exposi-
tion and Eecreation Commission which was to select the site, and
there are 2 pertinent entries dated October 5, 1955, which bear on this
situation.
The Chairman. Do we have anyone here who can testify to the
minutes, how they were procured?
Mr. Kennedy. No, we do not.
The Chairman. We will not place it in the record at this time. You
may make a statement to the members of the committee of what the
parts are you referred to, but it will not be considered a part of the
official record.
Mr. Kennedy. It is listed "Exposition and Eecreation Commission
minutes of meeting October 5, 1955, 10 a, m., 623 Park Building!
Present: Commission Chairman Polhemus, Commissioners Linden
Eichardson, Crosby, and Carson." The statement here in the minutes
says
The Commissioner Crosby asks that Secretary Krieg read the resolution which
he proposed, Resolution 30—
* * * covering the placement of the center at Delta Park, with the possibility
of revamping the auditorium at a future date. Krieg read the resolution, after
which Crosby stated that he wished to qualify bis position to the effect that he
has always since the SKI report was made available, advocated development
ot the Broadway Steel Bridge as a site for the center. After realizing Crosbv
stated, that it is impossible to convince other members of the commission he
changed his thinking to that which is outlined.
This Broadway Steel Bridge site is the one that you people pur-
chased the options on; is that correct?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 453
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then it goes on to say, Mr. Chairman —
Crosby said that be bad beard many reasons for and against each of the two
sites being considered. He went on to say that we now have a population of
four or rive hundred thousand people, and did nol feel we could justify the
spending of money without Looking ahead 10 years or so, to facing a population
of twice That figure. He staled at thai lime, distance would be of little signi-
ficance. He continued that some of the statements Mr. Richardson had made in
his report be did not agree with. Stanford Research bad advocated a central not
a downtown site, said Crosby, and he had spent many months trying to convince
the commission that a central site (Broadway Steel Bridge area), was desirable.
He was, however, compromising his position, and feels his choice is best for the
people and will bring the people the best return.
The Chairman. Go ahead and develop what happened to this.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have another affidavit. Mr.
Kelley, who was present with Mr. Sloniger, Mr. Elkins, and Mr.
McLaughlin, has also filed an affidavit which, in substance, is the
same as Mr. Sloniger's statement.
The Chairman. May I ask if this affidavit refers to a time when
Mr. Elkins was present ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.
The Chairman. It is an incident that he can testify to or has
testified to ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.
The Chairman. Without objection, the affidavit may be read into
the record.
Mr. Kennedy. It was swTorn to before the clerk of the court of the
United States district court.
Room 510, United States Courthouse,
Portland, Oreg., February 15, 1951.
State of Oregon,
County of Multnomah, ss:
I, John William Kelley, make the following true and voluntary statement to
Jerome Adlerman, assistant counsel, and Alphonse Calabrese, professional staff
member of the United States Senate select committee investigating improper
activities in the labor or management field. No offer or promises or threats have
been made to me for making this voluntary statement.
I reside at 4305 Southeast Ramona Street. I am in the real-estate business
under the firm name of John L. Kelley & Sons, 5627 Southeast Woodstock Boule-
vard. In the past I have bad some real-estate dealings with both Jim Elkins
and his brother Fred.
(At this point the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
During the latter part of January or the first part of February 1955 Jim Elkins
came to my office and asked me to look at some bouses on which he had obtained
options. Elkins wanted to know whether he had paid too much for these options.
The houses were located in the Williams Avenue area, which is also in the
Broadway-Steel Bridge area. I drove with Jim Elkins to the sites and recall
advising him that he was paying too much for several of the houses. He then
asked me whether the location of the houses was such that the entire block would
be tied up. I told him that he had the proper locations to accomplish this.
The next thing that occurred was when Jim Elkins dropped by the office and
asked me to look at some option forms which had been executed. I told him to
contact an attorney since I wasn't one, and Jim stated that he just wanted me
to look over the forms to see that they had been executed properly. I looked at
them and told him that they appeared to be all right. I should state that all the
options were made out in the name of Tom Johnson, whom I knew only by
reputation.
Some time later, in approximately March of 1955, Jim Elkins asked me to go
with him to Tom Johnson's office at the Keystone Investment Co. I accom-
454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
panied Jim Elkius and after we got to Tom Johnson's office, Herman Plummer, a
colored realtor, brought a number of options in for me to look at. I found out
that Herman Plummer had been buying the property in the Williams Avenue
area, which is predominantly Negro, and that he was doing this for Tom John-
son and Jim Elkins. At this meeting Johnson and Elkins became engaged in
discussion of acquiring additional property and land in the Williams Avenue
area. After we left the office I became curious about what was going on and
received an inkling that this was something big when Jim told me that they
had a friend and had an "in."
During the first part of June of 1955, on Saturday afternoon, Jim Elkins and
a man who was introduced to me as Joe McLaughlin came in to my office.
McLaughlin stated he wanted to use my typewriter to do some work. In my
presence he and Jim talked about the options and also discussed the matter of
nssisming one-third interest of the options each to Joe McLaughlin and Jim
Elkins by Tom Johnson. They then decided to write up a contract as to the
assignments and they agreed that a blanket agreement should be made whereby
Tom Johnson would have a third interest, McLaughlin would have a third in-
terest, and Elkins would have a third interest.
(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
They then asked me to draw this up into a contract and I told them I could
not do* it as I was not an attorney. Jim Elkins endeavored to get an attorney
but was unsuccessful and then asked me if I could suggest an attorney. I told
them tbat I could and I made a telephone call to Attorney C. R. Sloniger with
offices in the Loyalty Building, Portland, Oreg. Upon talking to Mr. Sloniger
he said that he would not be available that afternoon but agreed to come down
to his office on the following morning, which was a Sunday. He stated that he
wanted me present at this meeting.
The next morning at 11 o'clock, Jim Elkins, Joe McLaughlin and myself came
to Sloniger's office where the whole matter of the contract was openly discussed
by Joe McLaughlin and Jim Elkins with many questions being asked of Mr.
Sloniger and myself. I recall that McLaughlin had a map of a section of the
city of Portland in his possession which was similar to an engineer's plat. This
map had a line drawn in red pencil around the Williams Avenue area and I
recall that it was from the river to First Avenue and from Broadway on the
north to Hassalo on the south.
A discussion arose between Jim Elkins and Joe McLaughlin as to how much
of the land should be described in the contract and also whether they should
mention land which they hoped to obtain in the future in this area. I should
state that by this time I knew definitely about what their interest was as they
openly discussed the fact that this was land where a proposed exposition-recre-
ation center was going to be built.
During their conversations Joe McLaughlin and Elkins mentioned the name
of Crosby on at least six occasions and at one point, when a question of the
extension of the area to be acquired came up, McLaughlin stated that he wanted
to use the phone to call Crosby to check out on this matter. McLaughlin then
went into a room partitioned off from the room in which we were, leaving the
door open. I heard him dial a number and then he asked for Mr. Crosby. He
then started a conversation and discussed the matter under question. When
he came back it is my recollection that McLaughlin then pointed to the map
and said that Crosby had put a ring around this area. It is my belief that
McLaughlin called because apparently Jim Elkins, who was paying for the
options and for that matter this whole venture, wanted to be sure that before
he paid for any further options on the extended area that he would receive
some assurance that this area would be profitable in the exposition-recreation
venture. It is my best recollection that the total gross options held by Elkins,
McLaughlin and Johnson was about a half a million dollars. I want to say
that I did not know what Crosby's interest in this venture was, nor did I know
at the time that his name was mentioned that he was a member of the exposi-
tion-recreation commission which was to decide on the proposed building site.
I did not know Joe McLaughlin until I had been introduced to him by Jim
Elkins and have not seen him since nor been in contact with him. Likewise
I have not seen Tom Johnson since the time that I visited his office with Jim
Elkins.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 455
Mr. Sloniger, because his secretary was not at the office, typed up the contract
agreement, but none of the parties signed it in Mr. Sloniger's or my presence,
apparently in view of the fact that Tom Johnson wasn't there.
This statement consisting of five pages, which has been read by me, is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
John W. Kelley.
Signed in the presence of :
Alphonse Calabrese, February 15, 1957.
Jerome Adlerman, February 15, 1957.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on the 15th day of February 1957.
R. DeMott,
Clerk, United, States District Court.
By Thona Lund, Deputy.
The Chairman. That may be printed in the record.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins, after this meeting, you went and signed
this contract, did yon ?
Mr. Elkins. We did, yes.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask a question ?
After hearing that affidavit read, to your knowledge is there any-
thing false in it?
Mr. Elkins. No, I don't believe there is. As near as I could follow,
it was just about the way it happened. He remembered the name of
Crosby. There wTere a couple of times there where I didn't, but I
think outside of that it was about the same.
The Chairman. What you mean is he referred to Crosby by name,
whereas you had referred to him as Clyde?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir. That has been almost 2 years
ago, and I couldn't repeat the exact words.
The Chairman. WThether he said Crosby or Clyde, there was never
any doubt in your mind about who he was talking about ?
Mr. Elkins. No. That is correct
Mr. Kennedy. You were saying, Mr. Elkins, that you did not re-
member Mr. Crosby's name being mentioned to him at anv time; is
that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. Maybe I just didn't notice. If you
know7 who a man is talking about, sometimes you don't pay any atten-
tion when they do mention his name.
Senator McCarthy. But as far as the substance of the affidavit is
concerned, your memory is that it is an accurate affidavit ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You signed the contract within the next few days,
did you, Joe McLaughlin, you, and Tom Johnson ?
Mr
office.
Mr. Kennedy. What finally was -the result of this whole matter?
Mr. Elkins. Well, there was no result. The site hasn't been se-
lected yet.
Mr. Kennedy. And your options ran out ?
Air. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was your contract ever given up %
Did you ever dissolve the contract?
Air. Elkins. No. WTe had a final settlement on the contract, but
we didn't make any legal — we didn't draw up any legal termination
of it or anything.
Mr. Kennedy. There was a final settlement, however?
456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You turned over some money to Mr. McLaughlin?
Mr. Elkins. A check that I just repeated.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately $650 or $675?
Mr. Elkins. $650 or $660. I don't remember the exact figure.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the end of it?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
The Chairman. You testified what bank that check was on, and I
believe you said it was a cashier's check.
Mr. Elkins. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. The staff should make inquiry to see if you can
obtain a photostatic copy of that check.
Mr. Elkins. The attorney general of Oregon has one. I seen it
yesterday, sir.
The Chairman. The attorney general of Oregon has a photostatic
copy of it?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. I suppose it can be secured from the bank. Notify
our investigator out there to check on it.
Mr. Elkins. It is the Metropolitan Branch of the United States
Bank.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins, there are 2 or 3 matters that you men-
tioned in the course of this discussion, and in our interview with
Mr. Crosby regarding the same matter, where he disagrees with you.
I would like to go over those with you.
Mr. Elkins. All right,
Mr. Kennedy. First, on the question of the time where you fix this
meeting with Mr. Crosby, how did you fix that meeting with Mr.
Crosby, where you met with him in the car ?
Mr.' Elkins. Well, on about the 18th or 19th, I believe, to the best
of my recollection, they voted on the pinball situation. There had
been a championship fight which Mr. Crosby and myself mentioned,
that he and Joe McLaughlin just returned — in fact, they stated they
both watched this fight in San Francisco.
(At this point, Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing
room. )
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say they went to the fight together ?
Mr. Elkins. I believe that is what he told me ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Crosby was interviewed by
Mr. Adlerman and myself in Portland, he stated that they had not gone
to the fight together, and that they had gone down separately and just
happened to meet on their way to the fight,
Mr. Elkins. He asked me, he said, "You must be a pretty good
detective if you traced down the fact that Joe and I even took the same
plane to San Francisco."
Mr. Kennedy. They took the same plane to San Francisco?
Mr. Elkin. That is correct. But I wasn't positive of that.
Mr. Kennedy. Because of the importance of trying to determine
who was telling the truth between Elkins and Mr. Crosby, who said
that he did not know Mr. McLaughlin, did not know him well, that he
had only seen Mr. McLaughlin on 1 or 2 occasions, we felt that this
was something important to check out. We have a witness here to
testify on this particular point.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 457
The Chairman. Would you like to have that witness now?
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to, if I may.
The Chairman. Call your witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Connell.
(Members present at this point : The chairman, Senators McNamara,
Ervin, McCarthy, and Mundt.)
The Chairman. Will 3'ou be sworn ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. O'Connell. I do.
TESTIMONY OE WILLIAM O'CONNELL
The Chairman. State your name, place of residence, and business
■or occupation.
Mr. O'Connell. William O'Connell. I reside at 2354 Southeast
53d Street, Portland, Oreg.
The Chairman. What is your business ?
Mr. O'Connell. I am a representative of the Teamsters' Joint
Council of Portland. Oreg.
The Chairman. How long have you been a representative of the
teamsters?
Mr. O'Connell. I have worked for organized labor for approxi-
mately 20 or 21 years. I have been employed directly by the joint
council since early in 1940.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Connell, you have an air-travel card, have
you ?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have it on you ?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you get it out ?
The Chairman. I forgot to ask you if you waive counsel.
Mr. O'Connell. We have counsel here in the room, sir, but I waive
counsel.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is your air travel card for 1955 ?
Mr. O'Connell. It is the only one I have ever had in the last 6 or
'7 years. I had them before that, but this one was changed about 7
years ago.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the number of that ?
Mr. O'Connell. I am looking it up now, sir. UK 4437.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you ever use that travel card to purchase tickets
for other than yourself?
Mr. O'Connell. I have, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever use your travel card to purchase a ticket
.at the request of Mr. Clyde Crosby?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate that to the committee?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, I got a call at home on a Sunday night, as
I recall it.
Mr. Kennedy. That was May 15?
458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. O'Connell. Well
Mr. Kennedy. I think we have it correct.
The Chairman. Gentlemen.
Mr. O'Connell. Lay off them flashes, fellows. I will give you all
you want after awhile.
They bother me, Mr. Chairman, when I try to answer. I have no
objection to the others, but just the flashes.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, too, sometimes.
Mr. O'Connell. I was called at home on Sundav night and asked if
I would meet him at 8 o'clock in the morning at the airport. I did.
I was a few minutes late, about 10 minutes late, arriving there.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was the call from ?
Mr. O'Connell. From Crosby, from Clyde Crosby. I parked right
in front of the air ticket office and went on in to buy the ticket. That
is, to sign for the ticket. Mr. Crosby was already there. There was
a number of people in the line. He had, I think, in my opinion, already
had the ticket. I produced my credit card. I signed for the ticket.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you ? What had he related to
you on the phone that Sunday night, or what did he relate to you at
the airport on Monday, about purchasing the ticket?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, there was no other conversation about it, as
far as I can recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he wanted you to purchase that ticket?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes. That was the original request.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? Who did he say the ticket was
for?
Mr. O'Connell. At that time, there was nothing said about it, Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he tell you that he had a truckdriver that
he wanted to bring down ?
Mr. O'Connell. No. That particular part I haven't been able to
clear up in my own mind. Since that time, or since I was asked by the
investigators, I went directly to Mr. Crosby to find out who the ticket
was for. The ticket was bought for McLaughlin.
The Chairman. Joe McLaughlin ?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, I guess that would be the one, Joe Mc-
Laughlin.
The Chairman. It was bought for a McLaughlin ?
Mr. O'Connell. Mr. McLaughlin.
Mr. Kennedy. So you purchased a ticket at that time?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes. You see, on my credit card, Mr. Kennedy,
all I do is sign the credit slip for it. The United Airlines, evidently,
had the reservations already made, and the tickets were all there, be-
cause I was double-parked outside, and I hurriedly left the airport and
returned to my car.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that McLaughlin was an employee of
the teamsters ?
Mr. O'Connell. No. I tried to figure out what was said that
morning, and there wasn't too much said of anything. It is not un-
common for my credit card to be used for someone else^. In fact, it had
been changed 7 years prior to that so that I could take one other in-
dividual with me, or buy a ticket for one other individual.
Mr. Kennedy, Would you buy tickets for people who had nothing
to do with the teamsters ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 459
Mr. O'Connell. I had never before, no.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that this man was an employee of
the teamsters ?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, Mr. Kennedy, I can't honestly say that. I
■don't think we had too much discussion. I think at the particular time
the main reason was the fact that Mr. Crosby had requested it, and he
being a part of our joint council, I never questioned who the ticket
was for.
Mr. Kennedy. You said the conversation took place on Sunday
evening, and the records show that you purchased the ticket on May 16.
Mr. O'Connell. He called me at my home on Sunday night and
asked me to meet him at the airport at 8 o'clock Monday morning.
Mr. Kennedy. The records show that the ticket was purchased on
May 16, so he must have called you on May 15. That would be correct,
if he called you the day before.
Mr. O'Connell. He called me the night before, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And the championship fight, Mr. Chairman, was on
the night of May 16.
Mr. O'Connell. That could be.
The Chairman. May I present to the witness this photostatic copy
of a document and ask him whether he identifies the signature on it.
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. O'Connell. That is my signature, Mr. Cha.irman, yes.
The Chairman. What does that appear to be?
Mr. O'Connell. From Portland to San Francisco. I am not sure,
Mr. Chairman, whether it is a return ticket or not. Whoever could
read them better than I could — I imagine from the fares it would
show.
The Chairman. It shows to be a return ticket. That is the ticket
you have been testifying about, is it?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
That may be made exhibit No. 37.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 37" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 743.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby already had his own ticket, is that right ?
Mr. O'Connell. From the regular transaction that you would
normally be going through at that time at a ticket office, I was of the
opinion that he already had his ticket, because he was standing there
at the window transacting business when I got there.
Mr. Kennedy. So he and this other individual who has been iden-
tified to you in the last few days as Joseph McLaughlin went on this
flight down to San Francisco ?
Mr. O'Connell. Of course, I never saw him, Mr. Kennedy, but since
that time, in questioning Mr. Crosby, he had told me that Mr. Mc-
Laughlin did use the passage that day to San Francisco.
The Chairman. You would not know about what the Chair holds
in his hand, coupons from those tickets. You could not testify to
these coupons showing the ticket was made out to Mr. McLaughlin ?
Mr. O'Connell. I never saw those, Senator.
The Chairman. You say you could not testify to that.
Mr. O'Connell. No; I couldn't testify. The only thing I saw
that day was the thing my signature is on.
460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. When we interviewed Mr. Crosby, Mr. Chairman,
we had a tape recorder which was in the room, which was known by
Mr. Crosby, and we asked him these questions based on the information
that Mr. Elkins had given us, that they had taken this trip down, and
he denied it, and he also denied that they stayed in a hotel together
in San Francisco. We also checked that and we have another witness
on that matter.
The Chairman. Are there any questions of Mr. O'Connell?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'Connell, I assume you agree that the vast majority of the
teamsters are good and honest laboring men ?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, I thought we all were, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. You have learned that some of the hoodlum
elements have attempted to infiltrate in key spots now.
Mr. O'Connell. I have been reading things over the past years, of
course, and listening here the past week, yes. I haven't formed any
particular opinion because I haven't heard the-
Senator McCarthy. Do we agree on this, that you and the other
honest members of the teamsters union, and I think that constitutes a
vast majority, that they, perhaps, are just as happy as anyone else
to see this investigation digging out the hoodlum element ?
Mr. O'Connell. That is a rather difficult question, I think, Senator,
to answer. I don't want to take a position one way or the other. I
just want to tell the truth, what I knew about this thine;. If there is
something wrong, it should be corrected.
Senator McCarthy. There is no evidence, I understand, that you
have been guilty of any misconduct of any kind.
Let me ask you this question : Do you feel that the committee is
performing a valuable service in digging out any hoodlum elements
that may have infiltrated any union?
Mr. O'Connell. I think if there is anything wrong with organized
labor, it should be cleaned up, Senator; yes, I certainly do.
Senator McCarthy. And as an apparently honest laboring man,
you do not feel that there is anything antilabor about digging out the
hoodlum elements?
Mr. O'Connell. No. I don't think that should enter into it.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask you this: Would you welcome an
investigation such as this?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, I think, Senator, I am not sure, I understood
that both our health and welfare office in Portland, Oreg., which
covers the entire State of Oregon, and our joint council, had asked for
such an investigation. I am not one of them paid officials of the
executive board, so I don't know for sure. But I understood it hap-
pened just a day or so before we left Oregon.
Senator McCarthy. I just want to get one thing straight. As
I say, there is no evidence, as far as I know, of any wrongdoing
whatsoever on your part. You have been active in a labor union for
some time. I assume you are representative of millions of other
laboring people.
Mr. O'Connell. That is right, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Do you feel that you or the average honest
laboring man has any objection to digging out any of the hoodlumism
or graft in labor unions?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 461
Mr. O'Connell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can only speak for myself.
I don't have time to do my regular work and get involved in any of
them things. If there is anything wrong, there is nothing wrong
with cleaning it up, with cleaning house.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions ?
Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. Did you say you were employed by the joint
council ?
Air. O'Connell. The joint council; yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Have you been since 1940 always employed
by the joint council?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Have you been since 19-10 always employed by
the joint council?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Are you a member of a local union \
Mr. O'Connell. I am a member of a local union in Portland, local
162, General Drivers.
Senator McNamara. General Drivers?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Is this local union under trusteeship?
Mr. O'Connell. No, sir, it is not.
Senator McNamara. And they elect their own officers, and they are
not appointed?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir, they are all elected.
Senator McNamara. Thank you.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Mundt.
Senator Mundt. Mr. O'Connell, do you known Mr. Tom Maloriey,
whom you have heard discussed ?
Mr. O'C Y>nnell. Yes ; I know who he is, sir ; yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Do you know him as a teamster official or member?
Mr. O'Connell. I have never known him as a teamster official,
sir ; no.
Senator Mundt. Have you seen him around the teamster head-
quarters?
Mr. O'Connell. I have seen him in our building ; yes.
Senator Mundt. Frequently ?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, not since the elections, when that was, a
year ago.
Senator Mundt. Did you see him often at that time ?
Mr. O'Connell. My work, you see, takes me away from Portland
every week. I am generally out of Portland 2 or 3 days a week.
Senator Mundt. Do you know Frank Malloy ?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Mundt. Do you know him to be business agent of a local
union there ?
Mr. O'Connell. Yes, sir, I do.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
All right. Thank you, sir.
462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators Ervin,
McNamara, McCarthy, and Mundt.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese.
TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABEESE— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Calabrese, you were previously sworn ?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I was.
The Chairman. You have identified yourself on the record as to
your work with this committee, as one of the staff members?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I have.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, you made an investigation at the
hotels in San Francisco to determine if Mr. Clyde Crosby or Joe Mc-
Laughlin had come to San Francisco and stayed overnight at anv of
those hotels? te J
Mr. Calabrese. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. That was for the night of the fight, May 16 ; is that
right ?
Mr. Calabrese. It was the clay of the fight, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That is based on the contrary information that had
been given to us by Mr. Jim Elkins on one hand and Mr. Clvde Crosbv
on the other ? J
Mr. Calabrese. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what you found as far
as after you checked the hotels in San Francisco, as to whether Mr.
Clyde Crosby and Mr. Joe McLaughlin were in San Francisco the
night of May 16?
Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Adlerman and mvself made a contact and
served a subpena on the Olympic Hotel in San Francisco for their rec-
ords concerning Joseph McLaughlin and Clyde Crosby. Of the regis-
tration cards and bills that they made available is as following: I
have, one, a photostatic copy showing a date stamp on the reverse side
of May 16, 11 : 42 a. m., 1955, Olympic Hotel, San Francisco, Calif.
The registration side of it is signed J. P. McLaughlin, Portland
Towers, Portland, Oreg. He was assigned room No. 606, and the
number m the party was one, and the arrival elate is shown as Mav
16, 1955. J
Another registration card showing the identical signing in time,
that is to say, May 16, 11 : 42 a. m., 1955, Olympic Hotel, San Francisco,
Calif., is for Clyde Crosby, 1020 Northeast Third, Portland, Oreg.
He was assigned room No. 608, and his arrival date was shown as
May 16, 1955.
We also have photostatic copies of the bills which indicate that they
stayed that one day at the hotel.
I might add that the information we had indicated that a group of
the teamsters went to the fight that night. From the records of the
Clift Hotel in San Francisco, we also ascertained that Frank Brewster,
of Seattle, Wash., was at that hotel from May 14 through May 17;
further, that John J. Sweeney, of Seattle, Wash., was at that hotel
from May 14 through May 17, 1955 ; further, in connection with the
flights taken by Mr. Crosby and Mr. McLaughlin, the records of
United Air Lines, and I have here a photostatic copy of the flight
tickets used, indicate that Mr. Crosby received a round-trip ticket,
No. 02280, that he flew down to San Francisco on flight 676 on May
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 463
16, 8 a. ni., and that J. McLaughlin took the same flight, flight No. 676
on May 16.
The return portion of the round-trip ticket, according to the United
Airlines, was used on flight 673, on May 17, 1955, that is the day after
the tight, from San Francisco to Portland.
The Chairman. Those documents may be made exhibits No. 38-A,
38-B, 38-C, and 38-D.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 38-A, 38-B,
38-C, and 38-D" for reference and will be found in the appendix on
pp. 744-752.)
Senator Mundt. The records clearly show they both went down
together. Do they also show that they came back together?
Mr. Calabrese. "Well, Senator, from the photostatic copy of the
second portion of this round-trip ticket, it convincingly indicates
that they came back on the same flight.
Senator Mundt. Thank yon.
Senator McNamara. The witness made some reference to an invoice.
Does the invoice indicate that the charges at the hotel were paid
by the teamsters, officials of the teamsters union, or by whom?
* Mr. Calabrese. I believe the invoices indicate that a nominal sum
was paid, apparently by cash or check. Apparently by cash. They
couldn't tell.
Senator McNamara. You do not know who paid the bill?
Mr. Calabrese. No; we don't know.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
If not, thank you very much.
Call your next witness.
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators Ervin,
McNamara, McCarthy, and Mundt.)
TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins, you also mentioned in your testimony
the fact that you asked Mr. Crosby, at this meeting that you had
in the car with him, to pay for the work that you had done for him
in his recreational room or that your emplo}rees had done for him?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Had some of your employees done some work for
him?
Mr. Elkins. James Jenkins and Bernie Caine.
Mr. Kennedy. These are two employees of yours ?
Mr. Elkins. Two employees of mine at that time. They no longer
are.
Mr. Kennedy. What period of time is this that we are discussing?
Mi-. Elkins. Well, I believe they started in January. I believe I
was asked by Crosby for two slot machines for his party room in
January.
Mr. Kennedy. He wanted two slot machines from you?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Wore you getting along with Mr. Crosby during
this period of time?
Mr. Elkins. Yes.
Mr. Kexnedy. You were close to him '.
Mr. Elkins. Yes, that is right.
89330— 57— pt. 2 3
464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. There were statements made that you and he were
bitter enemies, and the fact that you were backing McCourt in the
district attorney's race in the end of 1954 was why the teamsters
backed Mr. Langley in 1954. Were you still seeing a lot of Mr.
Crosby ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. He would chide me because I didn't
call him, or because we didn't go to lunch more often. We had gone
to Model's to a floor show, along with Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Kennedy. So you were seeing a lot of him ?
Mr. Elkins. Quite a lot; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You also, you say, had some of your employees do
some work in his house ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. They delivered the slot machines, and
then he wanted a partition put in, and said he would pay for the
material if I would let my men do it in spare time. They were rather
slow workers, but they eventually got the work finished.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Kennedy, you raise a question there which
I think is left somewhat hanging in the air.
Mr. Elkins, do I understand that you and Crosby backed McCourt
and the rest of the teamsters backed Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Did you all back Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. Incidentally, is Langley under indictment
now?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. Your employees did this work for him ;
did they not?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you purchase the material for him ?
Mr. Elkins. My employees purchased it ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever pay you back for the work that your
employees did ?
Mr. Elkins. He did not.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did it amount to for the material that you
put into the house and the work that your employees did ?
Mr. Elkins. Between $200 and $300.
Mr. Kennedy. In this meeting that you had with him in the car, Did
you ask him about that ?
Mr. Elkins. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever paid for it ?
Mr. Elkins. No ; I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. This went on through 1955 ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, was there also discus-
sion with Maloney and McLaughlin regarding various after-hour
places and joints that you were supposed to be operating?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And was there a discussion about football sheets,
getting football sheets into various places around town ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 465
Mr. Kennedy. Did they have a plan on how that was going to work
out, Maloney and McCourt ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, we first discussed it prior to the 1st of May.
Then we had the falling out. Then after we drew up this contract,
along about the first part of July, we started operating again.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you sending these football sheets around to the
various places?
Mr. Elkins. We weren't sending those around. There was Morrie
Altschuler
Mr. Kennedy. Morrie Altschuler ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. And Bob Archer had a football serv-
ice, where they had an understanding with Maloney or McLaughlin,
I don't know which. Maloney and another fellow by the name of Leo
Plotkin had contacted some smokeshops and asked them to take out
the sheets.
Mr. Kennedy. The football sheets that they already had in ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, that they had put in, and they wanted Archer's
and Altschuler's.
Mr. Kennedy. They wanted their own sheets ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right,
Mr. Kennedy. What did they say to these smokehouses, that could
be done to the smokehouses, if the proprietors wouldn't take the sheets?
Mr. Elkins. Well, they were really cigar stores. I believe Mr.
Plotkin told them that that was Mr. Maloney, and that he was with the
teamsters. Of course, they didn't want to have trouble with the team-
sters, so they had better put in Archer's, which was on the Kialto.
Mr. Kennedy. Rialto was a place that they operated ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And if they did not want to have trouble with the
teamsters as far as deliveries, they better take this particular kind of
football sheets?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get some complaints or did you receive that
information from some of these smokehouses ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes. They felt that they were being pushed around.
They didn't like to be told how to run their business. So I mentioned
to Mr. Archer that he was going to have trouble with his people.
They was going to talk and then there wouldn't be any football sheets,
if he continued.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they finding fault with you, Maloney, and
McLaughlin, for not getting enough places open ?
Mr. Elkins. They were always squabbling on that.
Mr. Kennedy. They felt that there were not enough joints oper-
ating?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. I had to tell them we would get in
jail if we opened any more places.
Mr. Kennedy. When you say a joint, what do you mean by a
joint ? Is that an after hours place ?
Mr. Elkins. After hours, gambling and bootlegging.
Mr. Kennedy. They felt that there were not enough operating ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Were they also discussing at that time that they
should have— was it to reopen this question of prostitution at that
time?
Mr. Elkins. That was Maloney. He asked me to contact differ-
ent madams and offer them a proposition where they could have 25
percent and we would get the balance of it. But that is as far as it
went.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever contact any of these madams ?
Mr. Elkins. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear at that time that they had con-
tacted a madam themselves ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, I heard that.
Mr. Kennedy. Or that Maloney had ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that the contact had been made through Nate
Zusman ?
Mr. Elkins. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. He operated the Desert Room ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that madam's name Mrs. Helen Hardy?
Mr. Elkins. That is one of them, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. There were two of them, Helen Hardy and Helen
Smalley ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. One was called Big Helen and the other Small
Helen?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that they did get a place
operating ?
Mr. Elkins. I think they attempted to. Maybe they started and
maybe they didn't. I was never in the place.
Mr. Kennedy. You understood they did get a place operating on
Pettigrove Street?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. The two of them, Big Helen and Little
Helen, rented the place and set up shop, and then the police raided
it, I believe.
(At this point, Senator McCarthy withdrew from the hearino-
room.) rt
Mr. Kennedy. The police raided it and closed it?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit from Helen Hardv, presenting
the circumstances surrounding what I have described.
Would you step aside a moment?
The Chairman. Call your next witness.
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators Ervin,
McJNamara, and Mundt.)
The Chairman. The Chair forgot to announce that there will be
no pictures made of this witness while she is in the room.
The pictures that have been made will not be used.
Will you be sworn, please?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God?
Miss Hardy. Yes.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 467
TESTIMONY OF HELEN E. HARDY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
EGBERT M. SCOTT
The Chairman. The Chair will announce that this witness has re-
quested that no pictures be made.
Is there any objection on the part of any member of the committee?
The Chair hears none. The order will stand.
Will you state your name, your place of residence, and your present
occupation ?
(The witness conferred with her counsel.)
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should identify the
attorney.
Miss Hardy. My name is Helen E. Hardy, and I live in Miles ( )ity,
Mont,
The Chairman. Do you want to state your present occupation ?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
The Chairman. You do not want to state it. All right. Do you
have an attorney present ?
Miss Hardt. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, will you indentify yourself for the record?
Mr. Scott. My name is Eobert M. Scott. I am an attorney here
in Washington, D. C.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as I explained, there is an affidavit
which we can read into the record, or Miss Hardy can read it in.
The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the affidavit ?
Miss Hardy. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you read the affidavit? The
witness will follow on the reading of it.
Then, you will be interrogated about it.
Air. Kennedy (reading) :
I, Helen B. Hardy, being duly sworn upon oath, depose and say that the
following is the truth to the best of my knowledge and belief :
I live in Miles City, Mont., at the present time. I have lived there since
May 1956.
Prior to moving to Montana, I lived in Portland, Oreg., where I maintained an
apartment for my own personal use. I lived in Portland from approximately
1926 until I moved to Montana. During that period of time I lived in another
town in Oregon for approximately 4 years, although I still maintained my resi-
dence in Portland.
In approximately November 1953, following a drive by the attorney general of
the State of Oregon, I moved back to my apartment in Portland, Oreg.
The Chairman. Eead the whole affidavit and ask her if it is true.
In about 1946 I met Helen Smalley. We became good friends and also part-
ners in business. My first business venture with her was in 1949. In 1954,
although Helen Smalley and I continued to own certain real estate, we did not
engage in any business. This was because of the attitude of the attorney
general.
I have known Mr. Nate Zusman since 1951. Helen Smalley also has known
Mr. Zusman, and I am sure she has known him for a longer period of time than
I. Mr. Zusman owns and operates a night club called the Desert Room. .This
is located in Portland.
It is frequented by prostitutes and others engaged in or connected with pros-
titution. Because of the persons who frequent the Desert Room, information
concerning prostitution is generally heard there. Mr. Zusman was known to
have the most current information regarding prostitution.
468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Miss Helen Smalley and I, during the period 1954 to June 1955, frequently had
?^ner a,^enDeS^ ?r00m- ™s would Probably average 2 or 3 times a month.
We would talk with Mr. Zusman about anything that might be of interest con-
cerning prostitution.
The Chairman. The Chair announces that counsel, while reading
this affidavit, may ask the witness any questions to clear up anything
but I wanted the whole affidavit read for the record and for her in-
terrogation of these facts.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Some time in May or June of 1955, Mr. Zusman talked with Helen Smallev
and me about the possibility of opening a "call house."
(A call house is distinguished from a regular house of ill fame, which is some-
times known as a walk-in, by the fact that the clientele is a select one Bv that
1 mean, unless a person is referred or is known, he cannot gain access 'to the
house. It may be fairly termed an "exclusive clientele" operation. A house of
ill tame or walk-in will accept anyone who comes to the premises. Another
feature of the call house is that the girls rarely engage in their profession on
the premises, although they may do so upon occasion. )
Mr. Zusman was aware that Helen Smalley and I were partners and had in
the past, operated houses of ill fame but that we were no longer engaged in
business because of the actions of the attorney general of the State of Oregon
Mr. Zusman said that he had very reliable information that Mr. William M
Langley, the district attorney for the Portland area (Multnomah County) was
not going to permit houses of ill fame to operate, but that he would have no
objection to call houses and call girls operating.
There were, at this time, a number of call girls operating on an individual
basis. Mr. Zusman said that he had received information that a call house
operation would be all right with Mr. Langley. Mr. Zusman said that he under-
stood that Mr. Langley would not molest a call house operation. He asked Helen
Smalley and me if we would be interested in opening up a call house.
Helen Smalley and I talked about this matter for some time. We discussed
the possibility of doing this with our respective husbands. My husband was
against the opening of a call house. He thought that the attitude of the attor-
ney general would make such an operation financially unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, Helen Smalley and I decided, by being careful, and relying
upon the assurances of Mr. Zusman that call houses would not be molested to
open up such a house.
Sometime between our first talk with Mr. Zusman and July 5, 1955 Helen
Smalley and I met Mr. Thomas Maloney. We met him at the Desert' Room.
At that time, he was in the company of Mr. Leo Plotkin. I was not aware that
Mr. Maloney was the man from whom Mr. Zusman had received his information
concerning Mr. Langley's attitude on call houses.
Our meeting at this time was a casual one and the possibility of opening
a call house was not discussed with Mr. Maloney at this meeting. We had only
a general conversation as a result of Mr. Maloney sending a drink to our
table, which was located adjacent to his.
I do not know if Mr. Maloney knew that Helen Smalley and I had been part-
ners in business. I had known Leo Plotkin only slightly bv reason of having
seen him in and about the Desert Room. I am sure that Mr. Plotkin knew that
Helen Smalley and I had been in business together and knew the nature of
that business. The reason I would assume that Mr. Plotkin knew is that he
was a friend of Mr. Zusman and Mr. Zusman was well aware of this.
I feel confident that I did not know at this time that Mr. Malonev had any
connection with the teamsters union. I did not know at this first meeting
that Mr. Maloney was closely connected with Mr. Langley.
After Helen Smalley and I had discussed the possibilitv of opening a call
house we talked further with Mr. Zusman about this. Mr. Zusman was anxious
for us to get in on the ground floor and even offered to put up money to help us
finance such an operation if we needed it.
There was no amount of money mentioned by either Mr. Zusman or Helen
Smalley or me. It was during conversations with Mr. Zusman which were sub-
sequent to the time we had met Mr. Maloney, that Mr. Zusman told us that
Mr. Maloney was the man who had given him the information concerning Mr
Langley s attitude regarding call houses.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 469
Mr. Zusman explained that Mr. Maloney had been Mr. Langley's campaign
manager when Mr. Langley was seeking election as district attorney.
Mr. Zusman further said that Mr. Maloney knew Mr. Langley so well that he
referred to him as "The Kid." Mr. Zusman reassured us that if we opened a
call house we would not be molested by the district attorney and that we would
be in a good position to make some money.
Because we were convinced that Zusman's information was right and be-
cause Zusman himself had even offered to put up money if we needed it, Helen
Smalley and I decided to open a call house. Helen Smalley and I saw an ad
in the paper concerning the rental of a house at 2441 Northwest Pettigrove
Street. This house was one of many we considered, but it seemed to have the
best possibilities for a call-house operation. It was a very lovely and large
house.
We leased this house, paying $175 a month rental. We had to pay $350
at the time the lease was signed. I signed the lease, having assured the lady
from whom it was rented that I wanted to live in it personally.
Although the rent was to be effective July 1, 1955, she permitted us to go in
earlier in order to furnish the house. Helen Smalley and I purchased rugs,
drapes, chairs, and other articles of furniture and furnishings in order to com-
plete the furnishing of the house. We charged furniture and furnishings
somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500.
During the time that we were decorating, Mr. Zusman and Mr. Maloney
came to this house. Helen Smalley and I had told Mr. Zusman about this house
and what we were doing with it. We were quite pleased with the house and the
furnishings and Mr. Zusman came up to see it, bringing with him Mr. Maloney.
While there, Mr. Maloney told us that Mr. Langley was not going to have any
objection to this type of operation. He referred to Mr. Langley as "The Kid."
Probably the reason that Mr. Maloney mentioned Mr. Langley's attitude was
because police cars were being parked in front of walk-in houses at this period
in order to discourage potential customers. We were aware of this and prob-
ably mentioned that fact to Mr. Zusman and Mr. Maloney.
I am not certain that this is what motivated Mr. Maloney's remarks but it
may be. Mr. Zusman and Mr. Maloney stayed probably 15 to 20 minutes. Both
of them remarked about the appointments of the house.
We began operations in this house on July 5, 1955. We had two girls living
in the house. On the first night of our operation, Mr. Zusman referred two men
to us. One of these men paid $400 and the other $200. Out of this amount, we
gave Mr. Zusman $120.
This was our usual practice in giving $2 out of every $10 to the person who
referred a client for the first time. We followed this practice with bellhops
and hotel clerks and bartenders. During this period I may have paid Mr.
Zusman other amounts of money for referral of customers, but I am confident
that I have not paid him more than $215 to $230 as a result of his referring
business during the period July to December 1955.
We had been in operation on Pettigrove Street for about 2 or 3 weeks when we
noticed that police cars were parking in front of our house from 10 : 30 at night
until 3 in the morning. When I noticed the police cars in front of the house I
called Mr. Zusman and told him about it.
He said he would inquire about the matter. On the following night the
police cars were again there, and I called Mr. Zusman at the Desert Room and
was quite mad about it. I told him that I understood that this practice was not
going to happen at call houses.
He put Mr. Maloney on the phone and I told Mr. Maloney that I understood
that he had said that Mr. Langley would not disturb the call houses. He gave
some noncommittal remark and I said, "Well, it was on your say-so to Mr.
Zusman that we invested this money in the first place." He backtracked very
quickly and said, "Well, Nate had no business saying such a thing," and so forth
and so on, and I hung up. The following night there were no police cars in
front of our house or in front of any house of ill fame.
I should here point out that our house was located in a very nice residential
area. Although I had some suspicion that the neighbors might have an idea
that there was more to our house than merely a residence, I did not know any
complaints had been made until we had been in operation about 5 weeks. At
that time, Chief Jim Purcell and two detectives came to our house in plain
clothes and demanded entrance. He knocked on the door and announced that
he was Chief Purcell and wanted in.
470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I would not open the door at that time, telling him that I had retired and
had to get a robe on. I did this because I wanted to get the girls who were
living with us out of sight. After they were out of sight, I admitted the chief
of police and the two detectives.
He demanded to see Helen Smalley whom he had known for some time. She
had gone out to dinner at this time, however, so' he told me to find her and to
get here over there right now. She drove up in the car while they were on the
front porch and, not recognizing them, walked in while they were there.
Chief Purcell gave both of us a thorough roasting and, having found the
girls, lie gave them a rough time. His chief complaint seemed to be that we were
operating in a neighborhood which was a nice residential area and that there
had been lots of complaints about it.
He told us that if we didn't get out of there right now that he would arrest
us on vagrancy charges when we left the premises. There was no question about
arresting us that night as he did not have any "sale" on us. Helen Smalley and
I assured him that we would leave the next day and he said he meant that
night. We left that night and went to our own apartment.
We did not return to the Pettigrove Street house for about 3 days and our
purpose of returning was to pack our personal belongings and move them to
( tur apartment. While we were in the house doing this, Mr. Savage, a detective,
<ame to the door and said he was checking because the lights were on. He was
with another man. Helen Smalley insisted that he go through the house to see
that we were not operating and he did.
I did not see or talk to Mr. Maloney following the chief of police closing us
down except for one occasion which I shall mention later in this affidavit. I
did see Mr. Zusinan after we closed down. He was aware that we had been
dosed and asked us what we were going to do. I said we would find a new
location which we did.
Our new location was on 1121 Nortwest Gleason Street. This was the ware-
house district of Portland. It was the second story of a building which had
been converted into apartments. We moved our furniture from Pettigrove
Street to this place. I think we opened the Gleason Street place in about October.
While we were at Gleason Street, Mr. Maloney came to that place and in-
quired if we would rent an apartment to Mr. Plotkin. We told him that we
did not want any men around the place and that we would not rent an apart-
ment to Mr. Plotkin.
I have never paid any money to Mr. Maloney at any time. I have never
paid any money to Mr. Zusman at any time except as I have set forth herein.
I have been asked if I ever paid $2,500 to either Mr. Zusman or Mr. Maloney
in order to operate a call house or for any other purpose.
I hereby state I have never paid any money to Mr. Maloney for any purposes.
I have never paid any money to Mr. Zusman for any purpose other than the
limes I tcave him money when he referred customers to us. At no time was I
ever told that I would have to pay $2,500 or any other sum of money to Mr.
Maloney or to Mr. Zusman for the purpose of engaging in the operation of a
call house in Portland.
I have never paid anyone any money for the purpose of operating a call
house or any other kind of house of prostitution in Portland. To my knowledge,
neither has Helen Smalley.
Following the closing of our place by Chief Purcell, Mr. Bard Purcell, the
chief's brother, came into the Desert Room one night. Helen Smalley was quite
disturbed that Chief Purcell had been so angry with us for opening the house
on Pettigrove Street. She asked me to talk to Bard Purcell, whom I knew of
but whom I had never met before, to tell him that we meant no offense to Chief
Purcell and that we hoped that Chief Purcell was not mad. She wanted me to
tell him the reason we had opened up the call house.
I arranged with Mr. Zusman to have the use of a private room at the Desert
Room, and I asked Mr. Bard Purcell if he could talk with me about this. I
explained to Mr. Bard Purcell that we had been told by Mr. Zusman and Mr.
Maloney that Mr. Langley would have no objection to call houses.
I did not tell Mr. Bard Purcell that we had paid $2,500 to Mr. Zusman or to
Mr. Maloney in order to open up our place on Pettigrove Street. I did tell him
that, if it was any consolation to him or the chief that he had lost approximately
$2,500 in the venture because it had cost us rent, furniture, and general oper-
ating expenses for that 5-week period.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 471
I have never told anyone that we had to pay $2,500 or any other amount to
Mr. Maloney, Mr. Zusman, or to anyone else in order to open a call house or any
other kind of house of prostitution in Portland.
I am sure that Helen Smalley has never paid Mr. Maloney or Mr. Zusman any
money in order to operate a call house in Portland.
The reason that Helen Smalley and I opened our place on Pettigrove Street is
that we were certain that the district attorney would not molest us or any other
call house. This certainly was based upon Mr. Zusman's statements that he
had reliable information to this effect, that Mr. Maloney had told us that Mr.
Langley would not molest call houses, the fact that Mr. Maloney was close to
Mr. Langley, and the willingness of Mr. Zusman to invest his own money in the
place.
I am sure that Chief Purcell's complaints against our operation on Pettigrove
Street were due solely to the fact that it was a residential area because we were
never bothered in our operation of a call house on Gleason Street. I left in
December 1955 and we were not bothered up until then.
The reason I left in December 1955 was because the business was not suffi-
ciently good to warrant both Helen Smalley and me being in it. At no time have
Helen Smalley and I had any falling out either during the time we were in
business or since.
Helen Smalley closed the place voluntarily after the Oregonian's recordings
were published in the newspaper of April or May 1956.
(Signed) Helen E. Hardy.
The Chairman. Miss Hardy, you have heard the reading of the
affidavit. You followed the reading of it, did you, with a copy?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is there anything in that affidavit that is untrue?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
(At this point, Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. You have stated the facts in that affidavit just as
you knew them to be ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. These are the reasons that you and Helen Smalley
opened up this place on Pettigrove Street in the first place. First,
your assurances from Mr. Zusman ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that the district attorney would not bother call
houses ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was confirmed to you by Mr. Maloney himself,
that the district attorney would not bother call houses ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were then told that Mr. Maloney was the
campaign manager for the district attorney, and that gave you fur-
ther assurance, is that right ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And then Mr. Zusman offered to put the money in
the call house and open you up, is that right ?
Miss Hardy. He offered to finance it, if we needed it.
Mr. Kennedy. He offered to finance the house, if you needed it ; is
that right?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. On the $2,500, you never paid to Mr. Maloney and
Mr. Zussman $2,500 on the assurances that you could keep this house
open ?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You did not have to pay any money for those assur-
ances?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not have to give them any money of any
kind?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not have an argument or falling out with
Mr. Zusman and Mr. Maloney the morning after your place was
closed
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Based on the fact that they had given you assurances
that it would not be closed ?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They did not tell you at that time that this was being
closed by the chief of police, not the district attorney ?
Miss Hardy. Kepeat that, please.
Mr. Kennedy. They never said as an excuse that this place had
been closed by the chief of police rather than the district attorney?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So that the assurances that you received on opening
your place were from Mr. Zusman and Mr. Maloney, that Mr. Langley
would allow this to continue, and you never paid any money ?
Miss Hardy. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Did the district attorney ever bother you in any
way?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
The Chairman. So insofar as the assurance you had when you
opened up with respect to him, that assurance was justified. I mean,
you relied upon it and that assurance was kept?
Miss Hardy. The operation was so quiet, I don't know that Mr.
Langley knew that the place was there.
The Chairman. I did not understand you.
Miss Hardy. I say the operation was so quiet, I don't know that
Mr. Langley knew the place was there.
The Chairman. You do not know that he knew it was there?
Miss Hardy. No, sir.
The Chairman. You operated it quietly ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But the chief of police did find out of your opera-
tions?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And he closed it because he said he had complaints
from the neighbors?
Miss Hardy. From the neighbors, sir, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Obviously, you were not conducting that so quietly.
Would that be true, or would it just be the neighborhood where there
would be people living who observed it ?
Miss Hardy. It was the neighborhood, sir.
The Chairman. It was the neighborhood.
The new location, the one you opened up the next time, was that
in a residential neighborhood or in a downtown area ?
Miss Hardy. It was in a warehouse district, sir.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 473
Miss Hardy. In a warehouse district, sir.
The Chairman. In a warehouse district ?
Miss Hardy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Are there any further questions ?
If not, thank you very much. You may stand aside.
Call your next witness.
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators Ervin,
McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nate Zusman.
The Chairman. Mr. Zusman, will you be sworn ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Zusman. I do.
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN ZUSMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
JOHN BONNER
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Zusman. Nathan Zusman, 01905 Southwest Palatine Hill Road.
That is my residence.
The CHArRMAN. Portland ?
Mr. Zusman. Portland, Oreg. My business residence is 1217 South-
west Stark Street, Portland, Oreg.
The Chairman. What is your business ?
Mr. Zusman. I run a night club and restaurant.
The Chairman. You have counsel with you, have you?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record,
please ?
Mr. Bonner. John Bonner, attorney, Washington, D. C.
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sending for some papers at this moment.
The Chairman. We will be at ease for a moment.
Mr. Kennedy. I can start off.
Do you know Mr. Tom Maloney ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive some moneys from Helen Hardy
for the people that you sent to her call house ?
Mr. Zusman. I have never received anything from anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. So her testimony" that you sent people up to her
call house is false ; is that right ?
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, I would like to have— I am married 16
years, and I run a very clean place there. I demand a lie detector test
with her before she leaves Portland, before she leaves Washington,
D. C. I want to have a lie detector test. Either I am guilty or I am
not guilty.
Mr. Kennedy. I have some people I want to ask you about.
Mr. Zusman. Before I answer any questions, I would like to have a
lie detector test with her.
Mr. Kennedy. You can answer some questions here, can you not ?
474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Let us proceed with the inquiry. The committee
will determine about the lie detector test a little later.
I believe witnesses are usually required to tell their story first under
oath before any lie detector test is considered.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought that in view of Miss Hardy's testimony
about you, that you would want an opportunity to appear and refute
it.
Mr. Zusman. Yes, I do.
Mr. Kennedy. You are being given that opportunity.
Mr. Zusman. Yes. I have closed my business in order to be here.
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ?
Mr. Zusman. I have closed my business in order to be here.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not have any prostitutes operating out of
your place ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I do not. I have the vice squad in there every
night.
Mr. Kennedy. What time is the hour for your closing ?
Mr. Zusman. I open at 3 and close at 2 :30.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you ever operate after 2 :30 ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I do not. I have been accused of everything, and
I have vice men in there every day, and I wouldn't even think of that.
Mr. Kennedy. Why do all the vice men go to your place ?
Mr. Zusman. They have no place else to go, I guess, so they come
around to us.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there something about your place that they like?
Mr. Zusman. We have a nice show.
Mr. Kennedy. Do any other policemen other than the vice men
come?
Mr. Zusman. We have detectives coming in and out. We have the
men on the beat coming in and out. We have an open door.
Mr. Kennedy. But mostly the vice squad ?
Mr. Zusman. The vice squad comes in quite often. They call roll
there sometimes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do they come individually?
Mr. Zusman. They come in pairs usually.
Mr. Kennedy. They like your place ?
Mr. Zusman. We have a nice place. I have had that place for 6
years, and that is all I have heard, about having heavy men and other
people in there, and so far they haven't made an arrest in the place,
they haven't found anything wrong in the place, and that is why
they camp on the door, I guess, trying to find something wrong. I
am getting tired of that. My place is just as clean as your home or
any place in here.
Mr. Kennedy. Do people make remarks about your place ?
Mr. Zusman. I hear them all the time.
Mr. Kennedy. There are a lot of rumors about it ?
Mr. Zusman. Rumors don't mean anything to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there rumors about handling stolen jewelry
in there?
Mr. Zusman. Handling stolen jewelry in there?
Mr. Kennedy. Did they have rumors about that ?
Mr. Zusman. They are liable to tell you anything.
Mr. Kennedy. What kind of rumors ?
Mr. Zusman. Anything you mention the}7 can say it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 475
Mr. Kennedy. Do they have rumors that you handle stolen
Mr. Zusman. I don't handle stolen property.
Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you about the rumors, that is all.
Mr. Zusman. They will tell you anything.
Mr. Kennedy. What do they tell you about the place?
Mr. Zusman. They tell other people and they come and tell me.
Mr. Kennedy. What are some of the rumors ? Tell us some of the
rumors.
Mr. Zusman. Rumors are that I was open after hours.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been open after hours ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I never have been.
Mr. Kennedy. Let's take the last 6 months. Will you swear under
oath that you have never been open after 2: 30 in the last 6 months?
Mr. Zusman. I will swear under oath I have not sold a drink after
2 : 30.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the law ; that you cannot sell a drink or stay
open ?
Mr. Zusman. I can stay open all night, but I cannot sell a drink.
Mr. Kennedy. What are the other rumors? I am giving you a
chance, Mr. Zusman. Helen Hardy made these statements about you.
Mr. Zusman. At least you give a better chance than the two inves-
tigators you sent to my place. They are a disgrace to this Senate
committee.
Mr. Kennedy. We are proud of them ; very proud.
Mr. Zusman. I am glad you are proud of them. They come in the
same way
The Chairman. Just one moment. What was your remark ?
Mr. Zusman. I said they were a disgrace to the Senate committee.
The Chairman. Who?
Mr. Zusman. The two men that come out to investigate me.
The Chairman. Who are they?
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Adlerman.
The Chairman. These two gentlemen here?
Mr. Zusman. Those two gentlemen there.
The Chairman. You claim they are a disgrace to the United States
Senate?
Mr. Zusman. I think they are ; the way they ask me questions.
The Chairman. Maybe the counsel is, too, and maybe I am going
Mr. Zusman. I wouldn't say that, sir, because you wouldn't ask these
kinds of questions.
The Chairman. Yes ; I will.
Mr. Kennedy. What kinds of questions did they ask ? What ques-
tions did they ask?
Mr. Zusman. Do you want a sample ?
Mr. Kennedy. What about the rumors, first? Let us finish that
first.
Mr. Zusman. They start out with, I sell whisky after hours.
Mr. Kennedy. That rumor you say is not true.
Mr. Zusman. I told the vice squad any time that they think that
I am selling whisky after hours they can knock on my door, and if I
don't let them in, break the door down.
Mr. Kennedy. You told the vice squad?
Mr. Zusman. I told the vice squad. They had that on report.
476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did they come to you and say
Mr. Zusman. They showed me a report that somebody turned in
to them.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they sitting there drinking when they were
talking to you?
Mr. Zusman. No ; at that time they were in a private room.
Mr. Kennedy. They come to drink there ; don't they ?
Mr. Zusman. They don't come to drink.
Mr. Kennedy. Why do they come?
Mr. Zusman. To look around, and to see who is there.
Mr. Kennedy. They continuously come ? They like it ?
Mr. Zusman. I guess they like me and the place ; I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did they charge you with this ?
Mr. Zusman. They didn't charge me. Other people were saying it.
Mr. Kennedy. What else did they say ?
Mr. Zusman. Well, it started out there, and then they said my
show wasn't censored, that I didn't have a license for my show.
Mr. Kennedy. They said those things?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who said this?
Mr. Zusman. The vice squad. They had that report. Somebody
turned in a report that I was selling whisky after hours, my show was
not censored, that I didn't have a permit. I proved I had a permit.
Mr. Kennedy. Was your show censored?
Mr. Zusman. My show was censored by nine of the vice squad.
Mr. Kennedy. By what?
Mr. Zusman. Nine of the vice squad, which is the censor board.
Mr. Kennedy. Nine of them ?
Mr. Zusman. I guess there were nine of them. The whole front
row was taken.
Mr. Kennedy. The whole vice squad came in ?
Mr. Zusman. The whole vice squad ; the lieutenant and a couple of
the sergeants, I think.
Mr. Kennedy. And they all thought the show was fine?
Mr. Zusman. They gave me an O. K. on the show ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So this charge that you operated a bad show was
disproved ?
Mr. Zusman. They didn't say "a bad show."
Mr. Kennedy. A dirty show ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; not a dirty show, either.
Mr. Kennedy. What kind of show was it ?
Mr. Zusman. The same shows they operate in this town.
Mr. Kennedy. What kind ?
Mr. Zusman. A girl out there dancing.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they say about her? Why did all nine of
the vice squad have to come look at her ?
Mr. Zusman. She had enough clothes on ; she didn't touch her body,
and she was all right.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did all nine come ?
Mr. Zusman. You have to get your show censored before you get
a permit.
Mr. Kennedy. What else did they say ?
Mr. Zusman. They accused my drummer and piano player of being
dope fiends. You can laugh, Mr. Kennedy, but it isn't funny. I
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 477
worked there for 6 years, and I am working day and night trying to
keep the place going. Just a week before this, I saw Mr. Jack Merril,
narcotic division, Portland, Oreg., I asked him to take these two
fellows up to his office and give them an examination, and he did, and
gave them a clearance.
Mr. Kennedy. He gave a clearance?
Mr. Zusman. Absolutely.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that ?
Mr. Zusman. My drummer and piano player.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was making the charge?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know. They brought the list to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Who is "they" ?
Mr. Zusman. The two men from the vice squad.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they say ?
Mr. Zusman. I asked them, "Would you like to give them an ex-
amination also? Would you like to see them?" I took them off the
stand, they walked in the room, and I said to the drummer, "Don, and
Smiley, where were you last week?" They said, "We went to see
Jack Merril."
"What happened there?"
And they told them. I asked if they wanted to give an examination
here, and they said, "Fine," and they stripped down, and they were
O. K'd.
Mr. Kennedy. They were given a clean
Mr. Zusman. They were given a clean bill of health.
Mr. Kennedy. What other rumors did they come with ?
Mr. Zusman. There are so many of them.
Mr. Kennedy. All like this ?
Mr. Zusman. They are trying to get the place away from me and
trying to get me closed. I am not doing anything that I should be
closed for, and not doing anything that I should be closed for in that
town.
Mr. Kennedy. What other things did they say you were doing?
I think it is a good chance for you to get it all out.
Mr. Zusman. I want to get it out. Once and for all I want the
people in Portland, Oreg., to know my place is not infested with
prostitutes, hoods, safe men, or anything else.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Helen Hardy ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't remember Helen Hardy in 1951. I remember
her when she got married. She came in with Helen Smalley.
Mr. Kennedy. Helen Smalley came in, too ?
Mr. Zusman. With Helen Smalley on a party.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know them as being madams ?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know them as being madams?
Mr. Zusmax. Well, sir, I have never seen them take any money, and
I never seen them in bed with anybody, so I didn't know what they
were doing.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that at that time ?
Mr. Zusman. I would hate to say anything like that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But you understood ?
Mr. Zusman. I understood, but I never seen them take any money
from anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. They came in to your place '.
478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. They came in to my place to eat and drink, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. But what about Little Rusty, was she there?
Mr. Zusman. Little Rusty? She came to the party a few times,
but she hasn't been there for quite a while.
Mr. Kennedy. What about Big Rusty? Was she there?
Mr. Zusman. Big Rusty? I haven't seen her in a long time.
Mr. Kennedy. They used to come in occasionally ?
Mr. Zusman. Sure; they would want to come in and drink, and
have a good time, the same as you would want to come.
Mr. Kennedy. What about Kay Hansen? Did she come in?
Mr. Zusman. I know a Kay, but she didn't come in to the Desert
Room.
Mr. Kennedy. She doesn't come in ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. She used to come occasionally ?
Mr. Zusman. Just have a drink. Nobody is ever taken out of the
Desert Room. In fact, in 1955, 1 believe, they had a man in the Desert
Room, I think his name was Ulsner Meisner. He was there for 30 days
trying to get a girl. Why should I send a customer out to go with a
girl when he is spending money in my club ?
Mr. Kennedy. He tried to get a girl from you ?
Mr. Zusman. He tried to get a girl. They shoot every angle at me.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would he come there ?
Mr. Zusman. To get an arrest.
Mr. Kennedy. You turned him down ?
Mr. Zusman. I turned them all down.
Mr. Kennedy. Do a lot of them come in and ask for a girl ?
Mr. Zusman. A lot of them.
Mr. Kennedy. A lot of them ?
Mr. Zusman. A lot of them.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Charles Canady ?
Mr. Zusman. Charles Canady hasn't been in the Desert Room —
when I first opened the Desert Room I met him at a model supper
club; in fact, the Model Supper Club or any club in Portland has just
as many people as I do. I am not trying to knock them, but the way it
goes, I don't know. Mr. Canady was there, and I met him in 1941 or
1942, and I had not seen him since then, up until the night up at the
Model's. At that time, the Desert Room — or all clubs of Portland —
was a bottle club. You brought a bottle of whisky, you brought it in,
and it was checked in, and then you bought it back. Mr. Canady
wanted a locker there, so he could put a bottle of whisky there, so
when he came in he wouldn't have to carry a bottle with him.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ?
Mr. Zusman. I gave him a locker. But I haven't seen Mr. Canady
in at least 2 years, 21/2 years. Don Canady, I think that is the one
you are talking about, or Charles Canady.
Mr. Kennedy. Charles.
Mr. Zusman. I don't know whether it is Don or Charles.
Mr. Kennedy. You never spoke to him about opening up an oriental
house of prostitution, did you ?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. You never spoke to him about opening up an Oriental
house of prostitution, did you ? Did you ever speak to him about that ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 479
Mr. Zusman. I never spoke to him about anything; like that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear that rumor about you ?
Mr. Zusman. About me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Zusman. You are liable to hear anything about me, as I said
before. They are all jealous. They would like to run that club. I
have run it clean and I will continue to run it clean. That is why I
have to clear myself here.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Leo Plotkin ever work there?
Mr. Zusman. Yes; lie did.
Mr. Kennedy. When was he working in the Desert Room ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't remember the exact date, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing for you ?
Mr. Zusman. He was a bartender. He had a bartender's permit in
the State of Oregon, and in order to get a bartender's permit in the
State of Oregon, you have to be absolutely clean, with no arrests. He
was clean and so he went to work.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he doing anything else?
Mr. Zusman. Outside of bartending ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Zusman. Not that I know of, sir. He was absolutely a gentle-
man at all times.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any gambling in your Desert Room?
Mr. Zusman. We usually play gin rummy once in a while. I had
a game there once, but I have cut it all off. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the answer?
Mr. Zusman. We had a game there once in a while and then I cut
everything off.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that in the back room ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I have a little private room that sets off. But the
most they play there is gin rummy.
Mr. Kennedy. And sort of a little gambling in the back room, in the
private little room ?
Mr. Zusman. I think the last time I played in that back room, as I
told those two vice men that were there, was — it could have been
either May, April or May of 1956, and since then nothing, not a thing.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that all legal ?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Was that all legal ?
Mr. Zusman. What do you mean was it legal?
Mr. Kennedy. Was it permitted by law ?
Mr. Zusman. If they got away with it, it was all right, but if they
got caught, I would suffer.
Mr. Kennedy. It was permitted by law?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. But you operated it anyway?
Mr. Zusman. It was a game among ourselves.
Mr. Kennedy. So you were gambling?
Mr. Zusman. It was among ourselves. No outsiders were allowed
back there.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it in violation of the law ?
Mr. Zusman. We did it among ourselves.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it in violation of the law?
89330 — 57 — pt. 2 4
480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusmaist. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Clyde Crosby come in there?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How well did you know Clyde Crosby?
Mr. Zusman. I knew him as a customer. He used to come in with
his wife. In fact, they were there, I would say, about a month ago.
Mr. Kennedy. How about Maloney ?
Mr. Zusman. Maloney came in.
Mr. Kennedy. How often was Maloney there ?
Mr. Zusman. I haven't seen Maloney — I think I saw him for the
first time since — I don't know how long it has been. I closed up and
remodeled the club in April 1956. I don't think I saw Mr. Maloney
since maybe
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see him there very much ?
Mr. Zusman. In 1955 he used to come in and drink 7-Up and eat
a steak with a baked potato.
The Chairman. The Chair will announce that the committee has
to take a recess, in view of the hour, and since the questioning will
continue for a time we will recess until in the morning at 10 o'clock.
This witness will continue at that time.
(Members present at the taking of the recess : The Chairman, Sena-
tors Irvin, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
(Whereupon, at 4: 35 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 6, 1957.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
in the Labor or Management Field,
Washington, D. G.
The select committee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso-
lution 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the Caucus Room of the
Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of
the select committee) presiding.
Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena-
tor Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat Mc-
Namara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Re-
publican, Wisconsin; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South
Dakota; and Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the select com-
mittee ; Jerome Adlerman, assistant counsel ; Alphonse F. Calabrese,
investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
( Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan,
Ervin, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Mr. Zusman, will you resume the witness stand,
please, sir?
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN ZUSMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
JOHN BONNER— Resumed
The Chairman. Have a seat, please.
The Chair wishes to announce that Senator Ives has not been
attending these hearings on account of illness. Yesterday, Senator
Kennedy was unable to attend and is also unable to attend today
because he is engaged in holding hearings of Senate Labor and Public
Welfare Committee on the wage and hour bill.
It is regrettable, but it is just impossible for Senators to accom-
modate themselves to all of their responsibilities when these hearings
come up when times for other committee hearings clash.
I think the press and the public should know that their absence
from the committee is occasioned by factors and circumstances that
are beyond their control.
Senator Ervin. I would just like to state at this time what I think
the chairman has previously stated, that I have on occasion been
compelled to be absent from these hearings because I have had to
481
482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
preside over another committee whose meetings conflicted with the
meetings of this committee.
The Chairman. The Chair knows, Senator, that you have been en-
gaged in hearings in the Judiciary Committee and we make those
announcements from time to time.
All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zusman, we were going into yesterday a little
bit of your background and some of the rumors that have been spread
about you and the Desert Room. You were telling us about that and
the fact that all of these things were untrue. I would like to ask you
about some of the things.
Mr. Zusman. Would you kindly tell these photographers that they
can take pictures afterward, and not while we are talking.
The Chairman. Your request is about the pictures ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes.
The Chairman. No flash pictures ?
Mr. Zusman. No flash and no pictures until we are through.
The Chairman. While the witness is testifying, gentlemen, there
will be no lights on the witness
Mr. Zusman. Also, Mr. Kennedy, I would like to straighten out a
question yesterday. You asked me about a fellow
The Chairman. Let the Chair finish, please. There will be no pic-
tures taken while the witness is testifying, and the lights will be turned
off him.
You do not mind the light ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
The Chairman. No flash bulb pictures, then.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to correct the record ?
Mr. Zusman. You asked me about a fellow, Canady. Is that the
only name he has ?
I think that I was talking about the wrong Canady, and I don't
think that they are the same people. Now, what is his other name ? Do
you happen to know ?
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know ?
Mr. Zusman. I am asking you.
Mr. Kennedy. What made you think he had another name ?
Mr. Zusman. Because I have been trying to rack my brain of who
he is.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know anybody by that name?
Mr. Zusman. Canady, no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know anybody who has another name
and one of their names is Canady, is that right?
Mr. Zusman. You said a Canady.
Mr. Kennedy. What made you think that he might have another
name?
Mr. Zusman. Because I am trying to rack my brain on who he is.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not have any idea ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I don't. It could be Chuck Brown.
Mr. Kennedy. Very possibly, yes.
Mr. Zusman. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. What made you think it might be Chuck Brown?
Mr. Zusman. Because that is what I am asking you.
Mr. Kennedy. What made you think Canady and Chuck Brown
were one ;;nd the same thing?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 483
Mr. Zusman. Because he is called Canady.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to think that?
Mr. Zusman. Chuck is a nickname for Charles.
Mr. Kennedy. You are right. Do you know Chuck Brown?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Kennedy. And he frequents your place?
Mr. Zusman. He comes into my place.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever speak to Chuck Brown, or Chuck
Canady, about opening an oriental house of prostitution?
Mr. Zusman. Would you repeat that question, please?
Mr. Kennedy. It is the same question 1 asked you yesterday. Did
you ever speak to Chuck Canady, or Chuck Brown about opening
up an oriental house of prostitution ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know where you got that but you had better
make sure you know what you are talking about, but that isn't true.
Mr. Kennedy. Just deny it or affirm it. Did you or did you not?
Mr. Zusman. I deny it.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Miss Helen Hardy, who has admitted she runs
houses of prostitution, says this about the Desert Room which you run :
It is frequented by prostitutes and others engaged in or connected with
prostitution.
Is that true ?
Mr. Zusman. As I told you yesterday, I have been fighting that
for 6 years.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what Helen Hardy says.
Mr. Zusman. I don't care what she says.
Mr. Kennedy. She is a professional, and she knows about it.
Mr. Zusman. Do I ask a woman who she is or what she is?
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question.
Mr. Zusman. That isn't right, sir.
The Chairman. Just a moment, now.
The Chair wants to extend you every courtesy but let your answers
be responsive to the questions, and we will make better progress.
If you are asked a question about something, and you want to deny
it, you just say "No, it is not true" and if it is true, say it is, and then
you can give an explanation, if you so desire to. But if you quit this
bantering and just answer question now, we will move along a little
faster and a little more orderly.
Mr. Zusman. Senator McClellan, how would I know if a woman
is a prostitute?
The Chairman. There are some ways of finding out.
Mr. Zusman. I don't have to find out. I never saw any of those
girls take any money.
The Chairman. You are not asking the Chair questions now, and
you are giving testimony.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, as Helen Hardy says, is your place frequented
by prostitutes and others engaged in or connected with prostitution?
Mr. Zusman. I wouldn't know who she was referring to.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that is possible, then?
Mr. Zusman. It could be, yes.
484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Now, this is another statement:
Because of the persons who frequent the Desert Room, information concerning
prostitution is generally heard there.
Is that true ?
Mr. Zusman. That I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know the answer to that?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Mr. Zusman was known to have the most current information regarding prosti-
tution.
Now this is Helen Hardy, and this is not general rumor, and she
stated this under oath. You are supposed to have the most general
information in Portland on prostitution.
Is that true ?
Mr. Zusman. That is why I asked you yesterday to put us both under
a lie detector, because I want to find out if it is true.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you answer it ?
Mr. Zusman. I can't answer it because you want to know about
prostitution.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you an expert on that ?
Mr. Zusman. I am a what ?
Mr. Kennedy. Are you an expert on prostitution ?
Mr. Zusman. I wouldn't be married 16 years to the same woman, if
I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I am no expert on that.
Mr. Kennedy. And she says there, talking about her partner —
We would talk with Mr. Zusman about anything that might be of interest
concerning prostitution.
Did she and her partner talk to you about that?
Mr. Zusman. I am not interested in prostitution.
Mr. Kennedy. Did she talk to you and she and her partner talk to
you about things concerning prostitution ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Bonner. May I confer with the witness?
The Chairman. You may advise him of his legal rights.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Senator Ervin. If I may make a suggestion, you might suggest to
him that he is tempting, by his manner of testifying, he is tempting
somebody to quote the statement I believe from Shakespeare, "Me
thinks thou does protest too much."
Mr. Bonner. Senator
The Chairman. Do you understand the question ? Try to answer
it and proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the answer to the question ?
Mr. Zusman. Would you repeat the question ?
Mr. Kennedy. Helen Hardy says that she and her partner, Helen
Smalley, would talk with Mr. Zusman about anything that might be of
interest concerning prostitution. Is that true or not ?
Mr. Zusman. That is not true.
Mr. Kennedy. It is not true ?
Mr. Zusman. That is not true.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 485
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk about prostitution with Helen
Hardy or Helen Smalley ?
Mr. Zusman. About prostitution?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did.
Mr. Zusman. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. She goes on and says —
Sometime in May or June of 1955, Mr. Zusman talked with Helen Smalley
and me about the possibility of opening a "call house."
Did you talk to Helen Smalley and Helen Hardy about opening a
"call house" ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that?
Mr. Zusman. Positive.
Mr. Kennedy. She states that under oath.
Mr. Zusman. That is all right. I will state under oath, too.
Mr. Kennedy. And then she states that Mr. Zusman was aware that
Helen Smalley and I were partners and had in the past operated
houses of ill fame.
Is that true ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't understand that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you listen, please ?
Mr. Zusman. I am listening.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Mr. Zusman was aware that Helen Smalley and I —
meaning Helen Hardy —
were partners and had in the past operated houses of ill fame.
Had you known that ?
Mr. Zusman. I have heard it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I never have been in one of her places.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that ?
Mr. Zusman. I just heard it and it is just hearsay to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, she says that Mr. Zusman said that he had
very reliable information that Mr. William M. Langley the district
attorney for the Portland area, was not going to permit houses of ill
fame to operate, but that he would have no objection to call houses
and call girls operating.
Did you ever make that statement ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't even know William Langley. The first time
1 ever saw him hi my life was right here Thursday.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever make that statement ?
Mr. Zusman. I wouldn't know where I would be able to get it
from.
Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question.
Mr. Zusman. I never made that statement and I wouldn't know
where to get it from.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever make that statement?
Mr. Zusman. No, I did not make that statement.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk about the call houses ?
Mr. Zusman. No, not to her.
486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to her partner about call houses ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever tell her that you understood that the
district attorney wouldn't mind if they opened up call houses?
Mr. Zusman. I can't speak for the district attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. I did not ask you that, whether you can speak for
him and I did not ask you if you knew him. All I asked you was
whether you gave her assurances that she and her partner could open
up call houses ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
And Mr. Zusman said he had received information that a call-house operation
would be all right with Mr. Langley.
Did you ever tell her that ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know how to say that. Where would I get
the assurances ?
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Did you ever say that?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Zusman. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You deny it?
Mr. Zusman. I deny it.
Mr. Kennedy:
Mr. Zusman said that he understood that Mr. Langley would not molest a call-
house operation.
Did you ever say that ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't get that question.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Mr. Zusman said that he understood that Mr. Langley would not molest a
call-house operation.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. These are statements that Helen Hardy is making
and she says that this is conversation that she had with you.
Mr. Zusman. That is why
Mr. Kennedy. She said you are an expert in this field.
Mr. Zusman. I do not know anything about prostitution.
Mr. Kennedy. I am just telling you what Helen Hardy says.
Mr. Zusman. I don't care what she said, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, our investigators went out and tried to talk
to you in Portland, to get this whole story and you didn't want to
talk to them.
Mr. Zusman. Your investigators, I have no respect for them.
Mr. Kennedy. They asked you rude questions ?
Mr. Zusman. No; they tried to put words in my mouth for me.
Mr. Kennedy. We are going to let you put your own words in here.
Mr. Zusman. That is what I want to do.
Mr. Kennedy. And let you straighten out the record.
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you an expert on that ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know anything about prostitution.
Mr. Kennedy. Helen Hardy comes in and says under oath that you
are an expert on prostitution and that you told her she could open up
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 487
a call house because of assurances that you knew the district attorney
would not bother her.
Mr. Zusman. That is a lie.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Then he asked Helen Smalley and rue if we would be interested in opening up
a call house.
Did you ask her that?
Mr. Zusman. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
And Mr. Zusman was anxious for us to get in on the ground floor and even
offered to put up money to help us finance such an operation if we needed it.
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, as far as putting up money for any-
thing, I just don't happen to have any.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question.
Mr. Zusman. I never offered her no money.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you offer her partner money ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't offer any of them any money.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you offer to finance a call house ?
Mr. Zusman. I never did.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. We checked with Helen Smalley, Helen Hardy's
partner, Mr. Chairman, and her partner, Helen Smalley, says that Mr.
Zusman as she told our investigators, offered money to Helen Hardy
and Helen Smalley to open up a call house.
She affirms the affidavit and the statement made under oath here
before the committee by Helen Hardy.
The Chairman. Let me ask, do we have an affidavit from her ?
Mr. Kennedy. We are trying to get it now.
The Chairman. I will instruct the staff to pursue it and get what-
ever information may be available.
Mr. Kennedy. She goes on to say, Helen Hardy, that —
Mr. Zusman told us that Mr. Maloney was the man who had given him the
information concerning Mr. Langley's attitude concerning call houses.
Did Mr. Maloney give you any information regarding call houses?
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Maloney never gave me any information of any
kind.
Mr. Kennedy. Never came up with information of any kind?
Mr. Zusman. Not like that, no, not of any call houses or something.
Mr. Kennedy. He never discussed call houses with you ?
Mr. Zusman. I am not in that business ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the answer to the question ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. He never discussed call houses with you ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. He never discussed what the district attorney's
opinion of call houses was?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. He never discussed that at all ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. And based on that you didn't go then, to Helen
Smalle}' and Helen Hardy and tell them that they could open up ?
488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. They always came down to the club, to eat.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with them, based on the state-
ments that Mr. Maloney made to you, did you ever discuss with them
the fact that they could go ahead and open up a call house?
Mr. Zusman. Not me.
Mr. Kennedy. And told them to get in there quickly and get in on
the ground floor ?
Mr. Zusman. Not me.
Mr. Kennedy. And you would put up the money ?
Mr. Zusman. Where would I get the money ?
Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : After Helen Hardy and Helen Smalley
got this place on Pettigrove Street, did you ever go to their place?
Mr. Zusman. I was there twice.
Mr. Kennedy. You went up to the place ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes ; I delivered some sandwiches to them and I used
to make barbeque sandwiches and barbeque spareribs there and we
delivered sandwiches to them.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you do that ?
Mr. Zusman. I would do that for anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. Just anybody who wants sandwiches?
Mr. Zusman. If they want to call the club, I will deliver.
Mr. Kennedy. You will go up and deliver them ?
Mr. Zusman. Absolutely.
Mr. Kennedy. And you went twice?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, they said or Helen Hardy said, when you came
up there you admired the appointments. Did you admire the appoint-
ments when you were up there.
Mr. Zusman. Admired the what?
Mr. Kennedy. Admired the appointments.
The Chairman. The furnishings, you know what he means.
Mr. Zusman. I didn't know what "appointments" means.
The Chairman. You did not know ?
Mr. Zusman. No; I didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. But you went up there twice ?
Mr. Zusman. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. Just to deliver sandwiches ?
Mr. Zusman. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. I see. I guess you know what the place was being
used for, then.
Mr. Zusman. No ; I wouldn't say that because I never saw no men
there and I never saw no girls there.
Mr. Kennedy. You just thought they were living up there?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I just saw the Helens, either one of the Helens,
or the other Helen.
Mr. Kennedy. So you never knew even what business they were in ?
Mr. Zusman. Well, you asked me about business, and I never saw
any men there and I never saw a woman there.
Mr. Kennedy. Even when you went up there you did not know?
Mr. Zusman. What do you mean, I didn't know ?
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know what it was? You didn't know
whether it was a house of prostitution or not ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 489
Mr. Zusman. I didn't see anybody there give anybody any money
or any girls or any men and so how could I say it was a house of
prostitution ?
The Chairman. The question is, when you went up there, did you
know that it was a call house, and they were operating that kind of a
house? I do not care whether you saw a girl or not. Answer the
question.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
(At this point in the proceedings, Senator McNamara entered the
hearing room.)
Mr. Zusman. It was hearsay that it was a call house.
The Chairman. You either know it of your personal knowledge
or you knew it from hearsay and reputation.
Mr. Zusman. I heard it from hearsay.
The Chairman. You knew at the time, you were satisfied, you were
convinced of the kind of house it was, were you not, before you went
up there?
Mr. Zusman. By hearsay ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Mr. Zusman further said that Mr. Maloney knew Mr. Langley so well that he
referred to him as "The Kid".
Did Mr. Maloney ever refer to Mr. Langley as The Kid ?
Mr. Zusman. I never heard Mr. Maloney refer to Mr. Langley as
The Kid.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did?
Mr. Zusman. I never did.
Mr. Kennedy. And you never made that statement?
Mr. Zusman. I never made that statement and I never heard Mr.
Maloney refer to Mr. Langley as The Kid.
Mr. Kennedy. The Kid?
Mr. Zusman. "The kid," or "kids," or whatever you want to say it is.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
And Mr. Zusmau reassured us that if we opened a call house we would not
be molested by the district attorney and that we would be in a good position
to make some money.
Did you ever assure Helen Hardy and Helen Smalley of that?
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, I couldn't assure anything in Portland,
no.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the answer ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would Helen Hardy make all of these false
statements about you ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. And all of these rumors that are going around ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. And then she is talking about the time that you
and Mr. Maloney came to their house, and —
While there, Mr. Maloney told us that Mr. Langley was not going to have
any objection to this kind of operation. He referred to Mr. Langley as "The
Kid."
Did that happen ?
490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. I went up there and I went up there to deliver sand-
wiches and spare-ribs sandwiches and I asked Maloney if he wanted
to take a ride. And we went up there in my car and I took the stuff
in the kitchen and what they talked about, I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You think that they might have talked about this?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know. I didn't hear anything and so I don't
know.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't hear Mr. Maloney give Helen Hardy
assurances that the district attorney
Mr. Zusman. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But they were out of earshot from you?
Mr. Zusman. What they talked about was their business.
Mr. Kennedy. Now —
We began operations in this house on July 5, 1955, and we had two girls living
in the house. On the first night of our operations, Mr. Zusman referred two
men to us.
Is that true?
Mr. Zusman. I referred what, sir?
Mr. Kennedy. You referred two men to Helen Hardy and Helen
Smalley. Is that true?
Mr. Zusman. No, I did not, I wouldn't let my customers walk out
of my club to go up there.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what she said there.
Mr. Zusman. I don't care what she says.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
One of these men paid $400 and the other $200. Out of that amount, we gave
Mr. Zusman $120.
Mr. Zusman. I never received anything.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive $120 ?
Mr. Zusman. Not a nickel.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money ?
Mr. Zusman. No, none from anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would Helen Hardy come in here and make
that statement about you ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know, that is the reason I want her to take
a lie test.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, Helen Smalley says that you wanted to put
up money for these places.
Mr. Zusman. I wouldn't know where I would get the money.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what she says.
Mr. Zusman. I don't care what they said. I am accused of every-
thing else and you might as well accuse me of that, too.
The Chairman. Let the Chair ask you a question. Let us indulge
for the moment, if I may, that you are wholly innocent of all of these
things.
Mr. Zusman. I am innocent of that ; yes.
The Chairman. Just for the purpose of this question. Can you
give any reason, or can you imagine any cause why this woman would
want to connect you with it when there is no apparent reason to give
her any advantage from doing so ?
Mr. Zusman. I can't answer that, sir.
The Chairman. I am just looking at it objectively. I can see no
advantage she would gain by coming in here and telling this story
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 491
about her connections with you and her activities and the assurances
you gave her.
I see no advantage she gains by telling that, even if it is a lie. Now,
can you figure out any reason and give us any suggestion why she
would want to come in here and single you out to lie about you %
Mr. Zusman. I don't know that, sir. But may I ask you a question ?
The Chairman. No, sir ; you cannot.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
During this period, I may have paid Mr. Zusman other amounts of money.
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me, Mr. Kennedy, please.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, you asked about the $120. Now, Helen
Hardy could have held that out on her partner and said she gave it
to me. That is possible, but I never received 10 cents, or a penny, and
I make a living selling whisky and I am not interested in that stuff.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
During this period I may have paid Mr. Zusman other amounts of money for
referral of customers, but I am confident that I have not paid him more than
$215 to $230 as a result of his referring business during the period July 1955 to
December of 1955.
Now, did she pay you more than that ?
Mr. Zusman. She never paid me 5 cents and I never took 5 cents and
I never gave anybody 5 cents.
Mr. Kennedy. Did she call you when police started to come in front
of her place ?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me, sir ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did she call you and telephone you when police cars
began to come in front of her house ?
( The witness consulted with his counsel. )
Mr. Kennedy. Let me read this to you and try to refresh yOur
recollection :
We had been in operation on Pettigrove Street for 2 or 3 weeks when we
noticed police cars were parking in front of our house, from 10 : 30 at night
until 3 in the morning.
We noticed police cars in front of the house and I called Mr. Zusman and told
him about it.
Did she call you ?
Mr. Zusman. She called me, but at that time, sir, there were police
cars of the chief of police, he had police cars in front of every place
in the city of Portland.
Mr. Kennedy. What would she call you about ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know and I told her police cars are in front of
every place.
Mr. Kennedy. Every place %
Mr. Zusman. Every place in Port! and.
Mr. Kennedy. Every house and every home in Portland had a
police car?
Mr. Zusman. No, not every place or every home. Right across
the. street from the Desert Room there is a place there that is supposed
to be a house of prostitution and I don't know whether it is or not.
But they had police cars in front of there and they had police cars
in front of my place,
492 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. They did ?
Mr. Zusman. They had police cars all over.
Mr. Kennedy. In front of every call house and every house of
prostitution, and your place ?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. I am just trying to find out where the police cars
were.
Mr. Zusman. He had them all over town.
Mr. Kennedy. Every place ?
Mr. Zusman. Practically, I think, yes, and I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would they put them in front of Helen Hardy's
place ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did she call you then and say the police cars
were there ?
Mr. Zusman. I told her police cars were all over.
Mr. Kennedy. All over where ? You mean they had enough police
cars to put them in front of every place in Portland ?
Mr. Zusman. They find them.
Mr. Kennedy. Find what ?
Mr. Zusman. You don't know the city of Portland. They find them.
Mr. Kennedy. What is "them"?
Mr. Zusman. The policemen. They had nothing else to do so they
watch places like that.
Mr. Kennedy. Places like what ?
Mr. Zusman. Like you are mentioning.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you didn't even know what this place was.
Mr. Zusman. I just got through telling you, I can't say it was a place
like that because I never saw no men and no girls.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did she call you ?
Mr. Zusman. Because she knows right across the street there is
supposed to be a place like that and there were police cars in front
of there.
Mr. Kennedy. What would she call you about ?
Mr. Zusman. I told her police cars were all over.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew then it was a house of prostitution ?
Mr. Zusman. I told you earlier in my statement, if you remember,
that it was hearsay, her place was there.
Mr. Kennedy. But this is a little bit more than hearsay. She called
you and told you.
Mr. Zusman. I just got through saying that right across the street
from our club is a place that is supposed to be a house of prostitution
and I don't know whether it is or not. They had arrests there, but
I can't say.
The Chairman. Did you not testify earlier that you did not talk
to Miss Hardy about prostitution ?
Mr. Zusman. She didn't ask me about prostitution. She asked me
about police cars, sir.
The Chairman. Well, you knew what she was talking about, did
you not?
Mr. Zusman. The hearsay that she was up there, but I didn't know
anything about that.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 493
The Chairman. You knew when she called you that she was run-
ning that kind of a house and she was calling you protesting about
those cars being parked out there in front.
Mr. Zusman. Mr. McClellan
The Chairman. Wait a minute. Is that not a fact ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
The Chairman. That is not true ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; it is not true.
The Chairman. Why would she call you about it, then?
Mr. Zusman. Why?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Zusman. Because, like I said, there is a place right across the
street from us.
The Chairman. She did not care if that one was closed so long as
she could run?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know what she was thinking about.
The Chairman. If she got rid of her competition, that would make
it more profitable for her, would it not ?
Mr. Zusman. I wouldn't know that.
The Chairman. You would not ? You are a businessman, are you
not?
Mr. Zusman. I would like to see them come around my place, and
the more clubs the better I like it.
The Chairman. She was not calling you to ask about the other one,
whether cars were parked in front of the one by your place of busi-
ness, was she?
Mr. Zusman. She didn't? That is the reason she called me and
she was saying that.
The Chairman. She called you to tell you that they were parked
there in front of her place of business ?
Mr. Zusman. And also parked across the street, I told her.
The Chairman. All right ; proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Helen Hardy also states, sort of summarizing
it for us, she says :
The reason Helen Snialley and I opened our place on Pettigrove Street was
that we were certain that the district attorney would not molest us, or any other
call house. This certainty was based upon Mr. Zusraan's statements that he had
reliable information to this effect.
Now, is that true?
Mr. Zusman. How could I say ? No ; it is not true, and may I ex-
plain my answer ? May I explain that answer to you, Mr. Kennedy ?
I am trying to explain something to you. I don't even know the dis-
trict attorney, and so how could I go ahead and tell them that ? I
never saw that man before in my life until I saw him here last Thurs-
day.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it with Mr. Maloney?
Mr. Zusman. I haven't discussed anything like that with Mr.
Maloney.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't like to discuss those things?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know what he liked to discuss, but I wasn't
interested.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever approach you and start to discuss it?
Mr. Zusman. Nothing like that.
494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. He never did ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Then she goes on to say :
The reason we opened the place was the willingness of Mr. Zusman to invest
his own money in the place.
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, I wish you were poor and could see
the trouble I have trying to keep my place going and the amount of
money I got. Where would I get the money ?
Mr. Kennedy. You have a lot of trouble keeping it going ?
Mr. Zusman. I am ; just for that one reason.
Mr. Kennedy. Because of all of these rumors ?
Mr. Zusman. Not only that. We have got a police lieutenant in
the city of Portland by the name of Carl Crisp, who is a stooge for
Mr. Jiin Elkins, and that is the guy I get all of my trouble from, and
if you want the truth you are going to get it.
Mr. Kennedy. This is Helen Hardy, from Montana.
Mr. Zusman. I don't care where she is from.
Mr. Kennedy. And Helen Smalley is from Nevada, and they are
making these statements, and that has nothing to do with Mr. Elkins
in Portland. Helen Smalley is making this statement about you from
Nevada and Helen Hardy from Montana and they are saying that
you wanted to put money in call houses.
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, may I ask a question of this investi-
gating committee? If they want the truth, I want assurances from
this investigating committee that nothing will happen to me or my
wife, because one of your witnesses has already been threatened.
The Chairman. Now, let me see. You say if I want the truth you
will give the truth, if we can give you assurances you will not be
bothered. Is that what you just said ?
Mr. Zusman. That I will not be bothered. If you want the truth
I will give you the truth. I told you the truth so far.
The Chairman. You mean you have not given the truth ?
Mr. Zusman. I have given you the truth so far, but if you want
the real story of Portland, you can have it.
The Chairman. All right, let us have it.
Mr. Zusman. Do you want it ?
The Chairman. Yes; give us the story of Portland, right fast.
Mr. Zusman. Senator, this investigation that you are doing here
right now, the people of Portland will never believe it. The main
thing for this investigation is to keep the Oregonian from losing a
£2 million libel suit Mr. Langley has against them.
As I said before, I don't know Mr. Langley. We have in Portland
a police lieutenant, Carl Crisp, and he takes his orders from Mr.
Elkins. For one reason, one of my employees is in late and he goes
to have a cup of coffee, and this employee is picked up by the vice
squad under orders of Mr. Elkins.
The Chairman. Proceed. I want to find out who is running the
town.
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Elkins ran the town up until December 31, 1956.
The Chairman. All right ; proceed.
Mr. Zusman. He is your witness and I don't think much of him, and
I never had any dealings with the man.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 495
The Chairman. He might think less of you, but that is not im-
portant.
Mr. Zusman. I think less of him.
The Chairman. All right ; proceed.
Mr. Zusman. He had this man picked up, and he worked for me,
and I have the checks and statements to prove it that a man worked
for me from 3 and he would get off and he watches the club mitil 2 : 30.
At that time he went and had coffee and he was picked up by the vice
squad and taken up to the gymnasium and given a beating.
The Chairman. That is your story ?
Mr. Zusman. That is the story, and that is the truth.
The Chairman. All right ; proceed.
Mr. Zusman. I am not only fighting for myself, Mr. Kennedy. I
am not fighting for my club. I am also fighting for Portland, which
is the finest town in this country.
The Chairman. You are fighting for Portland ?
Mr. Zusman. You bet I am.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Zusman. I wish you would live there and you would see how
nice a town you are living in.
Mr. Kennedy. I just have a few other questions.
Mr. Zusman. It is that reason, when your two investigators came
to me and started asking questions, I couldn't answer the questions
they asked me.
Mr. Kennedy. What sort of questions did they ask ?
Mr. Zusman. I wish you would repeat those questions they asked
me. Would you mind doing that ?
Mr. Kennedy. What questions did they ask you that were rude
and insulting ?
Mr. Zusman. Rude and insulting? The first one was, was I in a
pinball-machine business, and I never owned a pinball machine.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that bad ?
Mr. Zusman. Just a second, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry.
Mr. Zusman. A pinball-machine business is a business by itself,
and there is nothing wrong with it, and I put my nickels in it.
The Chairman. What is insulting about asking if you have been
in the pinball business, and what is insulting about that ?
Air. Zusman. For one thing, Mr. Kennedy, because they knew I
was never in a pinball-machine business, and they had my name
mixed up with somebody else.
The Chairman. I do not know whether you were or not. I am on
this committee
Mr. Zusman. You would ask me in a different way than they asked
me.
The Chairman. I will ask you. Have you ever been in a pinball
business?
Mr. Zusman. Never.
The Chairman. I will ask you some other questions before you
finish and go ahead. I am not afraid to ask questions.
Mr. Kennedy. What else did they ask you that was insulting and
rude and made you feel that they were a disgrace to the Senate ?
Mr. Zusman. They also said to me
89330— 57— pt. 2 5
496 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Besides the fact that they asked you whether you
were in the pinball business. That is No. 1.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
The Chairman. He can advise him about his legal rights.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, the questions they were trying to ask
me were not questions. They were sort of an accusation like, "Didn't
you do this?" and "Didn't you do that?" They didn't say, "Did
you?" and that is when I got mad and I blew up.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what you have to find out from your at-
torney? Was your attorney there?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Was your attorney there ?
Mr. Zusman. I told my attorney the truth, sir. Mr. Calabrese and
Mr. Adlerman are right here and you ask them if they didn't say,
"Didn't you do this ?" and "Didn't you do that ?"
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you do what ?
Mr. Zusman. Didn't I give somebody an okay. And I would like
to know what an "okay" means.
The Chairman. The committee has been asking you, "Didn't you
do this?" and "Didn't you do that?" and we are going to ask you
some more.
Mr. Zusman. You said "did," and you didn't say "didn't."
The Chairman. I will ask you "didn't you?"
Mr. Zusman. I never said that or you would have got the same an-
swer they got.
Mr. Kennedy. What else did they do ?
Mr. Zusman. That is when I blew up and when they said, "Didn't
you do this?" and "Didn't you do that?" and I had the proof for it.
Mr. Kennedy. What?
Mr. Zusman. I have the proof for the questions they asked.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you ?
Mr. Zusman. You bet I have.
Mr. Kennedy. Where is the proof ?
Mr. Zusman. Would you mind my talking to you privately for
just a second ?
Mr. Kennedy. Just tell us.
The Chairman. You will be around here long enough.
Mr. Kennedy. Where is the proof ?
Mr. Zusman. The proof is in Portland.
Mr. Kennedy. What sort of proof ?
Mr. Zusman. A Journal reporter that was in the next room at the
time they were questioning me.
The Chairman. You had a reporter in the next room?
Mr. Zusman. You bet I did. I didn't trust those guys and they
didn't trust me. There was two and I was by myself and I didn't
trust them.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have an attorney?
Mr. Zusman. I had an attorney. My attorney happened to be
there, and I didn't call him.
Mr. Kennedy. He just happened to be there ?
Mr. Zusman. I did not call the man.
Mr. Kennedy. So you had him and you were not all by yourself ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 497
Mr. Zusman. No, I wasn't by myself. I don't trust those two
people.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was the reporter that you had ?
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Brad Williams.
Mr. Kennedy. He is the one that prepared that document, was he?
Mr. Zusman. What document?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brad Williams of the Oregon Journal.
Mr. Zusman. What document, sir ?
Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back. You had Mr. Brad Williams there?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, I had him there.
Mr. Kennedy. Where was he ?
Mr. Zusman. He was in the next room.
Mr. Kennedy. And you invited him up ?
Mr. Zusman. I asked him to come up.
Mr. Kennedy. To listen to the conversation ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir, to listen to the conversation.
Mr. Kennedy. To listen to the questions that the investigators for
this committee were asking you ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He was hiding in the next room?
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, your attorney was there, too?
Mr. Zusman. My attorney was there, but I didn't call him there,
sir. I can verify that, and I did not call him there. He was there
and when Mr. Calabrese—
Mr. Kennedy. Did you put him in the next room ?
Mr. Zusman. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know you put him in there?
Mr. Zusman. I put him right in the same room with Mr. Calabrese
and Mr. Adlerman.
Mr. Kennedy. What was he doing in the next room ?
Mr. Zusman. Who ?
Mr. Kennedy. Your attorney was not in the next room at all ?
Mr. Zusman. My attorney was in the bar.
Mr. Kennedy. He was in the bar ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that the next room ?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Is that in the next room where they were talking to
you?
Mr. Zusman. No, there is a hall and then there is •
Mr. Kennedy. Did he just happen to be there?
Mr. Zusman. My attorney just happened to be there, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What time did you talk to these two gentlemen?
Mr. Zusman. I guess it was around 10 : 30.
Mr. Kennedy. At night ?
Mr. Zusman. At night, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he just happened to be there ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right and I didn't call my attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. The only one you called was Mr. Brad Williams?
Mr. Zusman. I called Mr. Brad Williams.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you happen to call him ?
Mr. Zusman. Because I wanted a little witness. They had two of
them and I was there by myself.
498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did they say you couldn't have an attorney there?
Mr. Zusman. They didn't say anything to me, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you have an attorney? They did not
say you had to talk to them by yourself ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't call my attorney. He happened to be there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you that you could not have your at-
torney there?
Mr. Zusman. I told them I was going to call my attorney and I went
out and got him and brought him in.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you that you had to talk to them by
yourself ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you go get a newspaper reporter and have
him listen ?
Mr. Zusman. Because I wanted him to know what was going on.
Mr. Kennedy. Why?
Mr. Zusman. Why ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, why ?
Mr. Zusman. Because I didn't trust those two guys.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you bring your attorney in ?
Mr. Zusman. My attorney just happened to be there. I did not call
my attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you trust them ?
Mr. Zusman. Why ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; why didn't you trust them ? Had you ever seen
them before ?
Mr. Zusman. That is why I didn't trust them. That is, I still don't
trust them because everything they brought you is hearsay.
Mr. Kennedy. This is Helen Hardy; under oath, I just want to ask
you, Was your automobile stopped in Reno, Nev., recently?
Mr. Zusman. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Was your automobile, was it taken to Reno, Nev.,
and stopped by the police there recently ?
Mr. Zusman. Well, there is Reno, Nev., I will tell you about that.
Just like I get accused of everything else, I will tell you that.
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question.
Mr. Zusman. You want the truth, don't you ?
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer "yes" or "no." Was your car picked
up in Reno, Nev.?
Mr. Zusman. My car
Mr. Kennedy. Was it or not ?
Mr. Zusman. I have an automobile, a 4-door, 90, Holiday.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you just answer the question and describe
your car?
Mr. Zusman. The car was picked up in Reno, Nev.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it picked up with some stolen material in it?
Mr. Zusman. With what ?
Mr. Kennedy. Some stolen goods in it.
Mr. Zusman. That is something that I can't answer for one reason.
When I was there I didn't see the stolen goods and I went down to
get my car.
Mr. Kennedy. How did your car get into Reno, Nev., with two
thieves and stolen goods in the car ?
Mr. Zusman. With two what?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 499
Mr. Kennedy. Can you answer the question?
Mr. Zusman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. We will break it down in parts. Your car was
picked up in Reno, Nev. ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How did it get to Reno, Nev. ?
Mr. Zusman. Just a minute.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. Does your attorney know the answer to that ? Just
give the truth.
Mr. Zusman. I want to tell him what it is and then I will tell you
the truth, if you don't mind.
Mr. Kennedy. Why do you have to tell him first ? Just tell us.
Mr. Zusman. I am telling you, and you will hear it.
Mr. Kennedy. All right, tell us.
Mr. Zusman. I want to ask him first. That is what I am paying
my attornej' for.
The Chairman. You are paying him, and you can ask him.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, that car was in my name, but I wasn't
the real owner of that car and that can be checked with Internal Reve-
nue Department.
Mr. Kennedy. Why can you go and pick it up ?
Mr. Zusman. Because these fellows drove the car down there and
the car was in my name.
Mr. Kennedy. What fellows now ?
Mr. Zusman. I am going to explain to you why the car was in my
name. In 1955, Mr. Robert Fetonti had a new Cadillac coupe DeVille
and he was driving from Bakersneld to Portland. The car was
cracked up outside of Bakersfield.
Mr. Kennedy. And killed a man.
Mr. Zusman. He killed a Mexican, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In La Grande, Oreg.
Mr. Zusman. Now, wait just a minute and I will come to La Grande,
too, and just give me a minute. I will give you the whole story and
you want it and you are going to get it.
So, GMAC, General Motors Acceptance Corp., had the paper to the
Cadillac coupe DeVille, which was totally wrecked. Mr. Fetonti was
a very big man, a big hero during World War II and I felt sorry for
him. So I got my car and the car was in my name but I was not
making the payments on it.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it because he could not register the car in his
own name ?
Mr. Zusman. No, because GMAC had this
Mr. Kennedy. Now, wait a minute. Will you answer that question
under oath, that he could register a car in his own name ?
Mr. Zusman. That he could register a car under his own name?
Mr. Kennedy. Could he? Legally, did he have the legal right to
register a car in his own name after he killed this man in La Grande,
Oreg.?
Mr. Zusman. He didn't kill a man in La Grande, Oreg.
Mr. Kennedy. After he killed this man ?
500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. This man was going down, going south on the high-
way and Mr. Fetonti was right and the Mexican didn't have anything,
and while Mr. Fetonti was down there the insurance man canceled his
insurance.
He did not know this insurance was canceled out. So he laid in this
hospital and he lost his eye and he was all cracked up and when he
came back to Portland, I got him a car, which he put in my name and
he made the payments on it.
Mr. Kennedy. A Cadillac ?
Mr. Zusman. That was an Oldsmobile, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. An Oldsmobile ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir ; and I will come to the Cadillac.
Mr. Kennedy. On the Oldsmobile, wasn't he forbidden because of
this crackup, wasn't he forbidden to have a car ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; the only reason that was in my name was General
Motors could not take the car away from him or attach it for the money
he was supposed to owe them.
Mr. Kennedy. Actually, the car was his, but you put it in your
name ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In order to trick General Motors ?
Mr. Zusman. Not to trick General Motors ; there is a suit right now
on that.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said General Motors did not want him
to register the car in his own name.
Mr. Zusman. I didn't say that.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't he register it in his own name ?
Mr. Zusman. Because if he did, General Motors could come and
attach it,
Mr. Kennedy. So you registered it in your name, even though it
was his car ; is that right ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Fetonti went to Chicago and bought a Cadil-
lac ? I thought he didn't have any money.
Mr. Zusman. He has made money since then. I am coming to that
if you will give me a chance to explain it to you.
Mr. Kennedy. What is his business ?
Mr. Zusman. Mr. Fetonti's business, I think he pays money to the
Government as a professional gambler.
Mr. Kennedy. I think that is correct. He is a gambler.
Mr. Zusman. I think he is registered with the Government that way,
too ; I don't know. He went to Chicago and then how come the Inter-
nal Revenue knows that the Cadillac is not mine either is because
Mr. Kennedy. Is that registered in your name ?
Mr. Zusman. That is registered in my name, too.
Mr. Kennedy. You have both of these cars ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; the Oldsmobile was traded in on the Cadillac.
Mr. Kennedy. And still registered in your name ?
Mr. Zusman. Still registered in my name, which is going to get out
of my name when I get home. I will explain why it was going to go
out of my name when I get home, too.
Mr. Fetonti got into some trouble in La Grande.
Mr. Kennedy. What trouble did he get into ?
Mr. Zusman. He got stopped.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 501
Mr. Kennedy. For what ?
Mr. Zusman. For having dice in the car or something, and I don't
know, I wasn't there. They had a big picture and a big writeup in
the La Grande paper.
Mr. Kennedy. And he had 1,000 pairs of dice ?
Mr. Zusman. I never counted them but it must have been that.
Mr. Kennedy. And a lot of crooked gambling equipment ?
Mr. Zusman. They had pictures of it.
Mr. Kennedy. And with your car?
Mr. Zusman. Not my car, his car, only in my name.
Mr. Kennedy. This was not the Oldsmobile?
Mr. Zusman. This was the Cadillac.
Mr. Kennedy. This was not the Oldsmobile because he did not have
the money to buy the Oldsmobile ?
Mr. Zusman. When he got the Oldsmobile, he was around working,
and he made money. He was making the payments on the car. I
did not make the payments on the car.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you got the Cadillac for him ?
Mr. Zusman. I did not buy the Cadillac for him. He bought the
Cadillac himself.
Mr. Kennedy. It was registered in your name ?
Mr. Zusman. It was registered in my name.
Mr. Kennedy. Then he was picked up in LaGrande, after killing
a man
Mr. Zusman. He didn't kill a man in LaGrande.
Mr. Kennedy. He killed a man earlier ?
Mr. Zusman. The guy ran into him.
Mr. Kennedy. The Mexican ?
Mr. Zusman. The Mexican.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he killed ?
Mr. Zusman. Killed ? The}' should have killed him twice.
Mr. Kennedy. Then he was picked up with crooked
Mr. Zusman. Crooked dice. That is all he knows what to do.
Mr. Kennedy. You financed him ; is that right ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I didn't finance him.
Mr. Kennedy. Not at all ?
Mr. Zusman. Not at all. I didn't finance him. He has his own
money.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened in Keno ?
Mr. Zusman. I explained what happened in Reno.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this the same incident ?
Mr. Zusman. No. It was an Oldsmobile in Reno and a Cadillac in
Chicago. Can't you get your stories straight? My God, man.
Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate your help.
What happened in Reno with the Oldsmobile? Why was that
picked up?
Mr. Zusman. I wasn't there. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was driving that car ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know who was driving. It was parked at
that time.
Mr. Kennedy. It was filled with gambling equipment ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know what was in the car.
Mr. Kennedy. It was filled with TV sets ?
502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. TV sets ? I never saw the TV sets in the car.
Mr. Kennedy. There was a lot of stolen material in the car.
Mr. Zusman. There was supposed to be a TV set stolen. Who took
the TV set I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the driver of the car accused of that ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know who took it.
Mr. Kennedy. It is your car.
Mr. Zusman. It isn't my car. It is registered to me. He makes
the payments. If you will check the payments, you will find a pay-
ment was sent from Keno to Portland. How could I be in Portland
and Keno at the same time ?
Mr. Kennedy. Unless you have somebody working for you.
Mr. Zusman. I didn't have somebody working for me.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been arrested ?
Mr. Zusman. I was arrested in 1930 for receiving stolen property.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you had convictions ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes ; in 1952, before whisky came over the bar in the
city of Portland.
Mr. Kennedy. But you have not been convicted of gambling in your
place ?
Mr. Zusman. I haven't been arrested for gambling or anything like
that.
Mr. Kennedy. You admitted yesterday you were operating a gam-
bling room.
Mr. Zusman. I didn't say that. I said we were playing gin rummy.
Mr. Kennedy. You said it was against the law.
Mr. Zusman. It is O. K. until I get caught. If I get caught, I have
to pay for it. So I quit it.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Bob Van Bable ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes ; I know Bob Van Bable.
Mr. Kennedy. Where is he now ?
Mr. Zusman. Atlanta, Ga.
Mr. Kennedy. Is he working down there ?
Mr. Zusman. Working for the Government.
Mr. Kennedy. What is he doing ?
Mr. Zusman. What is he doing ?
Mr. Kennedy. What is he doing ?
Mr. Zusman. I guess he is on the road gang. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Is he in prison down there ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was he sent to prison for ?
Mr. Zusman. Vice, as far as I know.
Mr. Kennedy. For being a pimp, was he ?
Mr. Zusman. Well, you can call him a pimp, if he could be a pimp.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you put up the money for his bail ?
Mr. Zusman. Now, I will explain that to you.
Mr. Kennedy. I just think this is a splendid opportunity for
you
Mr. Zusman. I want to let it all out. It is a pleasure to get it off
my chest, believe me it is. I want to get it off my chest. When I first
fot the Desert Eoom, in 1951, these people started coming in. I
arred Mr. Bob Van Bable out of the Desert Room for his dirty talk
and for what he was doing. You can check that in Portland, too.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 503
Then he got to be a pretty nice guy ; I got acquainted with him. As
far as business was concerned, I wasn't interested in his business;
didn't have anything to do with his business. He used to come in
and spend his money ; fine.
When he got in this trouble and needed help— I knew the guy
wouldn't run away— I put up the Desert Room and a fourplex I had
in Portland for his bond. That is why, Mr. Kennedy, last Friday they
made a statement about me helping people I don't even know.
Mr. Kennedy, you don't know me, but I am known as the Mark
on Stark.
Mr. Kennedy. A who ?
Mr. Zusman. A mark. A sucker. Because I will help anybody
out. That is my trouble. That is why I am here now, for trying to be
decent, for trying to do what is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So you put up the bonds for Mr. Van Bable ?
Mr. Zusman. I did, sir ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you help out good people, too ?
Mr. Zusman. Do I help out good people ? A lot of them. I feed
lots of good people and they don't pay me, either. That is why I don't
see them anymore. They owe me money. That is why I don't see
them anymore. That is why I haven't got any money. That is why
I am in the shape I am in. If people would pay me what they owe me,
I would have a lot of money.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness to straighten
out some of his testimony.
You said that Portland is a clean town.
Mr. Zusman. Portland is a very clean town right today. They don't
come any better. It is the best town in the United States.
Senator McNamara. In the same breath you say that the police
chief
Mr. Zusman. I didn't say the police chief. I said the lieutenant.
Senator McNamara. The head of the vice squad ; excuse me.
Mr. Zusman. I said Lt. Carl Crisp.
Senator McNamara. That is who you were indicating?
Mr. Zusman. Lt. Carl Crisp, of the vice squad ; that is right. He
was head of the vice squad at that time. I don't know. I think he is
out in the southwest section. Our new mayor got rid of him pretty
good.
Senator McNamara. Was he the chief of the vice squad ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; he was the head of the vice squad, not the chief.
Senator McNamara. All right, the head of the vice squad. You
say he is taking orders from a Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Zusman. I think he is; yes. I am not afraid to say it.
Senator McNamara. You think he is ?
Mr. Zusman. That is what I say. If everything goes by hearsay,
you might as well hearsay that, too. The reason I said that, sir
Senator McNamara. Wait a minute. Let us take it easy to start
with.
Mr. Zusman. I am sorry.
504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. You are protesting that other people are giv-
ing a lot of hearsay evidence against you, and when you say you think
he is, do you consider this hearsay evidence?
Mr. Zusman. Well, I want to give you the proof of that, sir. I want
to give you the proof of that hearsay. That is this : When he had one
of my employees picked up by his men, and I am talking about Lt.
Carl Crisp having one of my employees picked up by his men, which
are the vice squad, taken up to the gymnasium, what they call the
gymnasium, where they work out, above the garage, and beat the man
up, that I know was under the orders of nobodv else but Mr. Jim
Elkins.
Senator McNamara. You are not thinking, but you know. You are
making a positive statement?
Mr. Zusman. Yes. Otherwise, Mr. Crisp would not do it.
Senator McNamara. When you make a charge like this against an
official of the police department, are you indirectly making a charge
against the mayor? Is he not responsible for the officers of the police
department ?
Mr. Zusman. Well, I can't say that, because Carl Crisp will act
on his own.
Senator McNamara. Do not your statements say it, whether you
substantiate it or not?
Mr. Zusman. Senator, I don't know your name, but I want to tell
you a story about Mr. Carl Crisp. You brought it up, and I want to
tell you. I started telling Mr. Kennedy about another arrest I had.
I would like to clear that up, too, while we are on the same subject.
Senator McNamara. Unless the chairman has objection, it is all
right.
Mr. Zusman. Is that all right, Senator McClellan ? Could I explain
that?
The Chairman. Will it interrupt your chain of thought?
Senator McNamara. It will not bother me at all.
Mr. Zusman. The Portland night clubs were known as bottle clubs.
This was in 1952. Well, if a friend of ours would come in, we would
take care of him. That was what every club in town did, take care of
them. So five clubs one Saturday night, I think it was on — the arrest
came in, I think, October or September. I don't remember the exact
date. Anyway, I lost my license on November 12, or November 13,
1952.
Mr. Kennedy, would you like to hear this, please ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I am listening.
Mr. Zusman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Zusman. There were five clubs that lost their license. Four
of those clubs received their license back in 90 days. The Desert
Room was the only club that never had a suspension or was closed
or a warning of any kind prior to this time. The reason I was closed
so long was people were putting pressure on trying to get that club
from me. Mr. Carl Crisp called me up one day and wanted to see
me. I met him in the club. He offered me $10,000 for my club.
I said, "No, I want $18,500 for my club." And I kept insisting that
is how much I wanted, so he said, "O. K., I won't get it this way,
but I will hurt you otherwise."
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 505
That is where all my accusations, all my trouble, and everything
else is coming from.
The Chairman. Which proves you have a lot of racketeering out
there?
Mr. Zusman. I don't have racketeering in my club.
The Chairman. Did you not regard that as racketeering, trying
to force you to give up your club? Did you not regard that as a
form of racketeering, all that pressure ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't know that. A lot of nice people tried to
get it from me. A lot of nice people tried to buy it from me, Mr.
Kennedy.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Zusman. That is why Mr. Carl Crisp has — used to walk
around my club and stick his ear against the wall and see if anybody
was in there. That is where Mr. Kennedy gets the after hours
business. I never sold a drink after hours to anybody.
Mr. Kennedy. Like Brad Williams?
Mr. Zusman. That is fine. Senator, that is where Carl Crisp
comes in.
Senator McNamara. Let us take it easy, again.
Mr. Zusman. All right.
Senator McNamara. Certainly you insinuate that the police de-
partment is corrupt because it is taking orders from a Mr. Elkins.
That is your intention.
Mr. Zusman. At that time, sir.
Senator McNamara. Then how do you claim Portland is a clean
city?
Mr. Zusman. We have a new mayor now. We have a new mayor,
sir.
Senator McNamara. I do not hear you.
Mr. Zusman. We have a new mayor.
Senator McNamara. Then Portland is now. a clean town, and it was
not a clean town previously ?
Mr. Zusman. To me it was clean. Nobody bothered me. The only
bother I got was from Carl Crisp.
Senator McNamara. Is the same man in charge of the vice squad ?
Mr. Zusman. That is Carl Crisp. No, lie was a roamer. No matter
what he did, he worked 24 hours a day to try to get something on me.
He never could find anything wrong.
Senator McNamara. Why was he picking on you ?
Mr. Zusman. Because I was the only man that had a club that
wasn't scared of him. I told him the truth, that I wasn't scared of
him.
Senator McNamara. Why should you be scared of him ?
Mr. Zusman. I wasn't scared of him. I told him.
Senator McNamara. It hardly makes sense.
Mr. Zusman. Other people, he would go in and boss around, and
kick around, and me he couldn't kick around.
Senator McNamara. Now will you answer my question ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
_ Senator McNamara. You say that under the previous administra-
tion there was some kicking around by the police department. Does
it continue now by the same people under the new administration ?
Mr. Zusman. No.
506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. You find a difference now; is that it?
Mr. Zusman. Yes. It is real nice. It is a pleasure. Believe me,
it is a pleasure. I don't see 2 to 6 vice-squad men every day. They
come in and check.
Sir, I have an open door. They come in and check my place. They
walk in. Maybe a couple of uniform policemen will come in, fellows
on the beat, will come in and check my place, and walk out, and maybe
a prowl car would come by. It is really nice now, believe me.
Senator McNamara. Then your testimony is that under the previous
administration, the police department was kicking you around, and
under this administration they are not; is that right?
Mr. Zusman. That is right . si r.
The Chairman. Senator Mundt ? .
Senator Mundt. Mr. Zusman, when you first applied for a liquor
license, did you apply for it in conjunction with a man by the name of
Kay?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir. I can tell you that story, too.
Senator Mundt. All right, go right ahead. Who is Mr. Kay? Tell
me that.
Mr. Zusman. I will tell you all about it. His name is Frank Kay.
Senator Mundt. Who was he ?
Mr. Zusman. He was a pimp.
Now I wjll tell you the whole story about that. In 1950, Novem-
ber— Mr. Kennedy, I wouldn't leave. This is a good story. You
mi glit get an education here.
Mr. Kennedy. I am just going to get a glass of water.
Mr. Zusman. I am not trying to be smart, but that is what I have
been through all my life, trying to be good to people.
The Chairman. You are being pretty good. Go ahead.
Mr. Zusman. I have been, believe me. I wish I had my money
back.
In November 1950, Mr. Frank Kay came to me and wanted to
borrow $1,500. So I lent Mr. Kay the $1,500. We used to go up to
Models Supper Club practically every Sunday and Tuesday. My
wife and I used to go up there. There is a new show on Tuesdays,
and we used to go up there on Simdays and Tuesdays. In fact, I
am still married to the same girl.
So, the last Tuesday in November, I don't remember exactly, but
I know it was on a Tuesday, the last Tuesday in November, Mr. Kay
was up (here, too. In fact, we had all gone out to dinner. I was
in the grocery business at that time, sir. So Air. Kay says to me,
"Look, Nate, why don't you put up $2,500 more, which will be
$4,000; I will put in $4,000, and we will open up the Desert Room
and you can be a partner."
I said, "Well, I am in the grocery business. I can't leave the
store." He said, "Well, all you have to do is come down, check the
books, take care of the money, and everything will be all right."
So I went and put my car in hock, and I got the $2,500. I gave
him $1,500, which I lent him, and then I got the $2,500. So then
Mr. Ka}r was a former partner in what at that time was the Club
Mecca. That is where all this comes about, about the prostitution.
I have tried to live it down for 6 years, the prostitution, the heavy
men, gunmen, whatever you want. I don't know no gunmen. I
don't know no heavy men.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 507
So everything was taken care of. He said, "The license will be
there, and we can open up right away." We paid the United States
Government $1,000. In fact, I didn't, Mr. Kay did; paid the United
States Government $1,000. We paid the United States Govern-
ment $1,000. I didn't, Mr. Kay did. And we had to give a Lonnie
Lostiii, who held u mortgage on the Desert Room, the Club Mecca
at that time, $5,000, which left a balance of $5,235 still owing Mr.
Lonnie Lost in. So they started cleaning up the Desert Room. It
was the Mecca at that time.
We were supposed to open. Christmas came around and we didn't
open. New Year's came around and we didn't open. Before I knew
it, I had $18,000 in the Mecca, and no license. On March 8, I be-
lieve, we were granted a license. On March 8 we were granted a
license.
Senator Mundt. You and Kay?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, Mr. Kay and I ; that is right.
That was in the afternoon. But on March 8, I believe that is the
right date — I don't know if that is the right date or not — but that
same day there was a new man hired on the Portland Liquor Commis-
sion, a Tom Sheridan. Mr. Sheridan checked on Mr. Kay. They
already knew my record, because, after all, I lived in Portland so long..
Mr. Kay came from Los Angeles. They checked on Mr. Kay and he
had a very large record, which I did not know anything about, gentle-
men. I did not know anything about that record. That was proven.
So I was told to go ahead, pay Mr. Kay off. *4,30.'), and I could get
a license. So I went and got a — I talked to Mr. Kay, and Mr. Kay
said, "I want my money by tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock." After
I had given him all of my money to use, and fix the place up, and pay
expenses, he gives me until 10 o'clock in the morning in order to pay
him off. I paid Mr. Kay the $4,300 at 10 o'clock the" next morning.
Then the city of Portland declares a moratorium on licenses for 90
days.
Senator Mundt. How did you arrange that $4,300 ?
Mr. Zusman. That was borrowed on my insurance, and my mother-
in-law's insurance. You can check with 'the First Avenue Bank, the
Union Avenue branch.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you : Do you know Helen Smalley ?
Mr. Zusman. I know Helen Smalley, and I will tell you how I
know Helen Smalley. I didn't know who she was at first. Her hus-
band, Paul Smalley, used to, years ago, go to the rights. I didn't
know who he was. He used to holler "Hello, Nathan" and I would
holler "Hello" back to him. I was selling programs at that time at
the fight. I don't think the club was open. I think it was just open
for food at the time.
Mr. Kay was still a partner, I believe, when Paul Smalley walked in.
He said, "Hello, Nate," and I said, "Hello" to him. Then I was in-
troduced to him, that he was Mr. Smalley.
Senator Mundt. Have you seen Helen Smalley quite frequently in
the last 3 or 4 years ?
Mr. Zusman. In the last 3 or 4 years ?
Senator Mundt. Yes.
Mr. Zusman. I would say maybe 15, 17, 16 times they would come in
the club. They came in when Helen Hardy got married, on Paul;
508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Smalley's birthday, and I think they knew Mike Duke, at the time we
had the birthday parties there.
Senator Mundt. I will go into that later. Do you know Tom
Maloney?
Mr. Zusman. Yes ; I know Tom Maloney.
Senator Mundt. How well do you know Tom Maloney 'I
Mr. Zusman. I don't know him too well. The only thing I know
of him is the first time he came into the club, the first time he came in
he ordered a 7-Up. I don't think he drank. He always smoked
cigars, but I don't know about his drinking. Then he started eating
steaks in there. I guess Mr. Maloney could have been there maybe
6, 7, or 8 times ; I don't know.
Senator Mundt. Did you know what business he was in ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I didn't, sir.
Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Langley, the district attorney ?
Mr. Zusman. Never knew Mr. Langley, never saw Mr. Langley,
until I saw him here Thursday, sir.
Senator Mundt. You never met him before ?
Mr. Zusman. Never knew who he was.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Zusman, I want to ask you 4 or 5 specific ques-
tions. In most of your testimony, you have been rather forthright,
and in all of your testimony you have been very emphatic. I want you
to be just as emphatic as you can and as forthright as possible in
answering these questions because if it develops that your testimony
now, about the things which I am going to inquire into, conflicts
directly with that of Miss Hardy, then I am going to ask the chairman
to submit your testimony and Miss Hardy's testimony to the Justice
Department to determine whether she has been perjuring herself or
whether you have, because I do not know. If your testimony conflicts,
as I have been led to believe it is going to, I am going to ask you a few
specific questions. Listen to them carefully and give me forthright
answers.
Mr. Zusman. May I consult my attorney when I answer them, sir?
Senator Mundt. You certainly may.
Mr. Zusman. Thank you.
Senator Mundt. Did you ever discuss with Helen Smalley, or with
Helen Hardy, any phases or aspects of prostitution ?
Mr. Zusman. No, sir.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Senator Mundt. Did you ever discuss with Helen Smalley or Helen
Hardy anything about a call house ?
Mr. Zusman. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Let me read you the sworn testimony, Mr. Zusman.
Mr. Zusman. I have heard it, sir.
Senator Mundt. Let me read it to you, because perjury is a pretty
serious offense.
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Senator Mundt. You are not looking for trouble.
Mr. Zusman. I am not looking for trouble. I want the truth.
Senator Mundt. I simply want to get a forthright answer, because
if it develops that there is a direct conflict, then I certainly am going
to ask the chairman to submit this testimony to the Department of
Justice to determine who is perjuring, just as we did the other day
with two other witnesses who had been in direct conflict.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 509
The direct testimony of Helen Hardy is "He" meaning you —
asked Helen Smalley and me if we would be interested in opening up a call house.
Mr. Zusman. I did not say that, sir.
Senator Mundt. You did not say that ?
Mr. Zusman. I did not say that, sir.
(At this point, Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.)
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you 1 or 2 other questions, some of
which have been asked before but I want to get this into the record
after we discussed perjury with you.
Mr. Zusman. May I speak to my attorney, please?
Senator Mundt. Yes, you may.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Senator, would you repeat the first question, please?
Senator Mundt. Do you mean the last question ?
Mr. Zusman. The first one you asked me.
Senator Mundt. Let me see now, which was the first one ? I think
the first one was whether or not you had ever discussed with either
Helen Smalley or Helen Hardy anything in connection with prosti-
tution.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Senator Mundt. You said no.
Mr. Zusman. I am still sticking to that, sir. I am still sticking to
that. But I want to clarify that.
Senator Mundt. It does not need further clarification. This is
going to be clarified by the Justice Department.
Mr. Zusman. That is all right, then. That is fine.
Senator Mundt. If you say yes and she says no, the Justice Depart-
ment has ways of clarifying it. If you want to change your
answer
Mr. Zusman. No, I don't want to change my answer, sir.
Senator Mundt. You said you heard Helen Hardy's testimony.
Mr. Zusman. Yes, I did.
Senator Mundt. She testified that she and Helen Smalley opened
a call house at 2441 Northwest Pettigrove Street. You heard that?
Mr. Zusman. I heard that, sir.
Senator Mundt. Very well. She testified that you and Mr. Maloney
visited that house. Is that true or false?
Mr. Zusman. I told you I was up there, I drove my car up and asked
Mr. Maloney if he wanted to take a ride when I was delivering sand-
wiches up there. It is true, sir.
Senator Mundt. You did visit the house ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Senator Mundt. She said while you were there, Mr. Maloney said
that Mr. Langley was not going to have any objections to the operation
of a call house at that place. Did you hear Mr. Maloney say that?
Mr. Zusman. I did not, sir. I didn't hear anything about that.
Senator Mundt. You were in the house, however, with Mr.
Maloney ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir. I went to the kitchen and dropped the sand-
wiches off. What they said in the other room, I don't know. As I
said before, I wasn't there when they were talking.
Senator Mundt. You just visited the kitchen?
510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. I walked in. I took the sandwiches to the kitchen
and that is it. I didn't see no girls.
Senator Mundt. How did Mr. Maloney happen to be accompanying
you?
Mr. Zusman. I asked him if he wanted to take a ride with me.
Senator Mundt. Where did you find him ?
Mr. Zusman. He was in the club. I told you he came in there maybe
6, 7, 8, 9 times. I don't know how many.
Senator Mundt. So you just selected Mr. Maloney out of all of your
customers and said, "Tom, do you want to take a ride to the call
house?"
Mr. Zusman. I didn't say "Tom." I said, "Mr. Maloney."
Senator Mundt. Did he know where you were going ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't know whether he did or not. I asked him if
he wanted to take a ride with me while I delivered sandwiches.
Senator Mundt. He had been there before, had he not ?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know, sir.
Senator Mundt. How long did you stay there ?
Mr. Zusman. Maybe 10 or 15 minutes. I don't know.
Senator Mundt. We are coming to a question now that the Justice
Department will have very little trouble with when it comes to deter-
mining whether Helen Hardy is guilty of perjury or whether Mr. Zus-
man is guilty of perjury, because this is pretty specific.
I want to read you a paragraph from her testimony. She said —
We began operations in this house on July 5, 1955. We had two girls living in
the house. On the first night of our operation, Mr. Zusman referred two men
to us. One of these men paid $400 and the other $200. Out of this amount, we
gave Mr. Zusman $120.
Mr. Zusman. That is a lie, definitely a lie.
Senator Mundt. That is a lie?
Mr. Zusman. That is a lie, sir.
Senator Mundt. Your testimony is that Helen Hardy is perjuring
herself ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right. That, is a lie. I never took a nickel
from her. I never sent her no customers. If T sent her customers,
let her produce the customers.
Senator Mundt. Very good. She said :
During this period, I may have paid Mr. Zusman other amounts of money for
referral of customers.
Mr. Zusman. I never sent anybody any place out of my club.
Senator Mundt. Did you get any money from Helen Hardy?
Mr. Zusman. Never a dime from either one of them.
Senator Mundt. She said later she noticed a police car in front of
the house and called you on the telephone and told you about it .
Mr. Zusman. Yes, she did, because right across the street from us
was another place, and if I remember right she asked me if police Gal's
were in front of there, too.
Senator Mundt. Why would she call you to tell you police pars
were watching her operation ?
Mr. Zusman. Because, as I said before, that right across from us
was another place, and that is why she wanted to know if police cars
were just in front of her place or all over. 1 don't know what she was
thinking, I can't speak for her. But that is what I surmise it was.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES FN THE LABOR FIELD 511
Senator Mfxdt. She testified a little later that she arranged with
Mr. Zusman for the use of a private room in the Desert Inn, where she
and Mr. Bard Purcell could have their discussion; is that correct '.
Mr. Zusman. Just a minute, sir.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Sir, I don't remember that. I don't know whether
she ever spoke to Bard Purcell or knew Bard Purcell or not. Bard
Purcell used to come in with his wife quite a few times to have dinner,
but. I don't know whether she ever used that room and talked to him or
not. I just don't recall it. It could be and it could not be, but I just
don't recall.
Senator Mundt. Very well. I am simply trying to establish, Mr.
Zusman, as you can observe, whether you have been telling the truth
or whether she has been telling the truth, because, obviously, both of
you have not been telling the truth.
Mr. Zusman. I know I have been telling the truth, because I have
nothing to hide from this committee.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, we have 3 or 4 direct conflicts of
testimony here between these 2 witnesses, and L do not think it nec-
essary to pursue it any further. But I certainly recommend that
you submit this whole transcript of testimony to the Justice Depart-
ment so that they can find out which witness is guilty of perjury.
The Chairman. Is there any further questioning?
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Zusman, I want to clear up a point that is
rather hazy in my mind. Regarding Mr. Fetonti, if I recall cor-
rectly, you said that he had an accident in Bakersfield ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. He was pretty badly smashed up ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. He lost an eye ?
Mr. Zusman. He lost an eye and his whole jaw was slashed and his
teeth and everything.
Senator Goldwater. He has a good war record ?
Mr. Zusman. A very good war record. He has two less medals
than Audie Murphy has.
Senator Goldwater. You felt sorry for him ?
Mr. Zusman. That is right.
Senator Goldwater. You brought him to Portland ?
Mr. Zusman. No. When he was in the hospital, I sent Mr. Plot-
kin, at my own expense, down there to see if there was anything I could
do for him.
Senator Goldwater. Did you pay. for Mr. Fetonti's way back?
Mr. Zusman. No. He came up on his own, if I remember right, he
came up on his own, and he checked into the New Heathman Hotel,
and I paid his room rent at the Heathman Hotel at the time he was
staying there.
Senator Goldwater. You paid the room rent ?
Mr. Zusman. He was down and out and he was hurt.
Senator Goldwater. He was down and out?
Mr. Zusman. That is right. And I have done that for everybody
in Portland, sir.
Senator Goldwater. You bought him a car in your name ?
89.330— 57— pt. 2 6
512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. Sir, I didn't buy him a car. He received, I think it
was, $500 or $700 from the insurance company from California, and
that money went as a downpayment on a car to Mortie Motor Co.
Senator Goldwater. You put that Oldsmobile in your name?
Mr. Zusman. The first car was a Ford, sir. I bought him a Ford
station wagon which was in my name. He decided he didn't want the
Ford station wagon. So I got stuck for $705 on the Ford station
wagon.
Senator Goldwater. He did not have the $705 ?
Mr. Zusman. No. I will tell you how that came about. He wanted
to get another car, he wanted an Oldsmobile. He got this money from
the insurance company.
Senator Goldwater. The $500 ?
Mr. Zusman. It was either 5 or 7. I don't remember the exact
amount. It was either 5 or 7.
Senator Goldwater. When he swapped the Ford in for the Olds
Mr. Zusman. He didn't swap the Ford in for the Olds.
Senator Goldwater. He did not?
Mr. Zusman. No.
Senator Goldwater. How did you lose $700 ?
Mr. Zusman. I am coming to that. He took the Ford and parked
it in front of the place we bought it, which was Demerald Motor Co.
I signed the note for it, so Mr. Demerald sued me for the money. I
had my bank account attached. In fact, they took it out of my wife's
account and my joint account.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Fetonti did not have any money at this
time I
Mr. Zusman. Sir, this just happened — well, it happened on Decem-
ber 1. The reason I tell you December 1
Senator Goldwater. What year ?
Mr. Zusman. 1956. The reason that happened was that my wife
had given Multnomah County a check for $518 in taxes on our home.
Senator Goldwater. When was the accident in Bakersfield?
Mr. Zusman. July 1955.
Senator Goldwater. July 1955 ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir. The hospital in Bakersfield
Senator Goldwater. Let us get back to this point, because I am a
little confused on this.
He got rid of the Ford ?
Mr. Zusman. He parked the Ford in front of Demerald Ford Co.
and he got the Oldsmobile. Mr. Mortie came down, and I signed the
papers for him for the Oldsmobile.
Senator Goldwater. You were out $700 on that transaction ?
Mr. Zusman. That came later, sir. That came December 1 of 1956,
when they sued me for the money. They got the judgment, they went
to the bank and tied up my checking account.
Senator Goldwater. So you were out, then, $700 ?
Mr. Zusman. $705.
Senator Goldwater. $705 on Mr. Fetonti's accident ?
Mr. Zusman. Yes, sir. Not only $705, but tickets where I sent Mr.
Plotkin down there, the money I had given him.
Senator Goldwater. How much do you think you were out on the
Fetonti deal? $2,000?
Mr. Zusman. No ; not that much.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 513
Senator Goldwatek. $1,500 ?
Mr. Zusmax. No.
Senator Goldwater. $1,200?
Mr. Zusmax. $705 and I think the tickets came to $225.
Senator Goldwater. $1,000 ?
Mr. Zusmax. Right around $1,000 ; yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Now let us go on a little bit further. Mr.
Fetonti went to Chicago ?
Mr. Zusmax. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Did he drive the Olds to Chicago ?
Mr. Zusmax. He drove the Olds to Chicago.
Senator Goldwater. He got the Olds the 1st of December 1956 ?
Mr. Zusmax. No. No. That is when that judgment came up to
me, sir. I think he got the Olds — let's see. It could have been Janu-
ary— I will tell you the exact time he got it. I think it was January
or February of 1955.
No; just a minute, sir. I want to get it straight. I want to get
these years straight. 1956 is the Olds, that is right.
Senator Goldwater. He drove that car to Chicago and there he
picked up a new Cadillac?
Mr. Zusman. I don't know whether it was new or not. I think it
was a demonstrator.
Senator Goldwater. But he got a Cadillac ?
Mr. Zusmax. Yes, sir. He got a Cadillac. Let me tell you what
happened in Chicago. He got in a wreck in Chicago, by the way, and
I can't drive in the State of Illinois, either.
Senator Goldwater. He got in a wreck with the Olds ?
Mr. Zusmax. Yes, siiyhe got in a wreck.
Senator Goldwater.
Mr. Zusmax. It wasn't that bad a wreck. He banged a guy, and
the guy sued him or something. I don't know.
Senator Goldwater. He picked up a second-hand Cadillac. Did
you finance that ?
Mr. Zusmax. I didn't finance it, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Did you not have to finance it at that time ?
Mr. Zusmax. I had to sign for it, yes ; but I didn't put any money
into it.
Senator Goldwater. Did he put money into it ?
Mr. Zusmax. I guess he did, sir.
Senator Goldwater. That car was stopped in Reno ?
Mr. Zusmax. No ; that was stopped in LaGrande.
Senator Goldwater. What car was stopped in Reno ?
Mr. Zusmax. The Oldsmobile, in May of 1956.
Senator Goldwater. In May of 1956 ?
Mr. Zusmax. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. What I am getting at is this: You said in
your testimony relative to the merchandise that was found in the car
in Reno, that Mr. Fetonti was able to buy that for himself.
Mr. Zusmax. I didn't get that question, sir.
Senator Goldwater. It was inferred that there was merchandise in
the car that was stopped in Reno.
Mr. Zusmax. I don't know what there was in the car when it was
stopped in Reno, sir.
514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Goldwater. You said in your testimony, I believe, that Mr.
Fetonti had financed himself.
Mr. Zusman. He was making a trip. He was making money. He
was making money, I guess.
Senator Goldwater. You also said in your testimony that Mr.
Fetonti was able to finance himself when he started out in Portland!
Mr. Zusman. That is right. He did.
Senator Goldwater. Why did he need your help ?
Mr. Zusman. What do you mean why did he need my help ?
Senator Goldwater. Why did you have to be out $1,000 for a man
that was able to go out in the gambling business on his own ?
Mr. Zusman. Because I didn't get that judgment against me until
December 1, 1956, and he hasn't paid it back to me yet.
Senator Goldwater. But he had enough money to start in the
gambling business when he got out of the hospital, so he had enough
money to finance cars, finance his own expenses, yet you paid his way.
Mr. Zusman. I told you he got the check from the insurance com-
pany, from California. It was sent to him.
Senator Goldwater. You deny, then, financing him in the gamblino-
business?
Mr. Zusman. Definitely. Absolutely.
Senator Goldwater. He had no money, according to your testimony.
Air. Zusman. I didn't say he had no money.
Senator Goldwater. But you said you had to pay the hospital
expenses ?
Mr. Zusman. I didn't say I paid hospital expenses.
Senator Goldwater. You paid hotel expenses?
Mr. Zusman. I think the check was $42 which I paid to the New
Heathman Hotel and he paid that back.
Senator Goldwater. You sent a man down to see how badly he was
injured?
Mr. Zusman. I sent Leo Plotkin back.
Senator Goldwater. And you paid Mr. Fetonti's way to Portland »
Mr. Zusman. I didn't say that.
Senator Goldwater. You did not say that ?
Mr. Zusman. No; I didn't say that. I said I paid Plotkin's way
down to Bakersfield and back. Those tickets haven't been paid for
yet. F
Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you one more question. You are
under oath. Do you deny that you financed Mr. Fetonti in the gam-
bling business ?
Mr. Zusman. May I have a clarification of that question »
Senator Goldwater. I will put it the other way. Did you finance
^V iontl m the Sambling business after his accident in Bakersfield?
Mr. Zusman. What do you mean ?
Senator Goldwater. Did you finance him ? Did you stake him ?
Mr. Zusman. No ; I never staked him.
Senator Goldwater. You did not stake him «
Mr. Zusman. No; I didn't have to stake him. How much money
do you think the man needed ?
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
The Chair had intended to ask some questions, but I think after
having deferred to my colleagues on the committee, they have cov-
ered all of the ground. The Chair will, without objection from any
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 515
other member of the committee, refer the transcript of this witness
and the witness Helen Hardy, and any other testimony that may
be developed that will show light on the conflict in their testimony,
to the Justice Department.
In the meantime, the Chair is very glad to announce that we accept
vour offer to take a lie-detector test. We have arranged for it this
afternoon, with the Secret Service. A member of the staff will give
you further information about it. You can take it this afternoon.
Mr. Zusman. Thank you, sir. m
Is she going to take it, too? Is she going to take it, Senator Mc-
Clellan ? Is she going to also take it %
The Chairman. Just one moment.
Senator Mundt. I discussed with counsel the fact that this seemed
to be a logical place to call Mr. Tom Maloney, because we have him
as a third witness to some of these transactions. Mr. Kennedy tells
me that Mr. Maloney is ill today and cannot testify.
The Chairman. We will check any of the other testimony that
may be developed that will throw some light on this.
Senator Mundt. I just wanted to have in the record the reason we
are not calling him at this time.
Mr. Kennedy. Senator Mundt, he has a bad sore throat. I talked
to the doctor last night. He is in bed today. I might add that he
was asked generally about prostitutes the first day he appeared and
he took the fifth amendment on all of those questions.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Senator McClellan
The Chairman. Just a moment.
You asked me if Miss Hardy would take a lie detector test, At
this time, I do not know. But since you want one, and feel like the
taking of one will be beneficial to you
Mr. Zusman. I want to take one with her, sir.
The Chairman. I cannot order you to take it. I thought you
wanted one. I have been trying to accommodate you.
Mr. Zusman. Senator, I want to take it, providing she does, too.
I told you that yesterday. I said I wanted her to have it and me to
have it, and I will pay for it.
The Chairman. Whether she will pay for it or not, and I doubt it
this committee can order anyone to take a lie-detector test, I did not
want you to sav that you offered to take one and we would not provide
it for you. We have provided it, and you have your choice. You
may take it this afternoon, if you will.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Zusman. Senator, as I said yesterday, when I came up here,
I wanted her to take it with me. That is exactly— I think if you will
read back, you will find that out. My first statement
Mr. Kennedy. Here is your testimony :
Mr Zusman. Mr. Kennedy, I would like to have — I am married 16 years, and
I run a very clean place there. I demand a lie detector test with her before
she leaves Portland, before she leaves Washington, D. C. I want to have a lie
detector test. Either I am guilty or I am not guilty.
That is what you stated : "I want a lie detector test."
Mr. Zusman.' With her, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not want a lie detector
516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Zusman. I want her to take it and I should take it at the same
time.
Mr. Kennedy. We made special arrangements
Mr. Zusman. I want her to have it and me to have it.
The Chairman. It is unimportant whether you said with her or
without her.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. I cannot order you to take a lie detector test.
This committee cannot order you to take it. I cannot order her to do
it. She has not volunteered. I do not know whether she will take
one or not. But I do not want you to say that you offered to take a
lie-detector test, and that you were not accommodated. You can take
the test, and if the test proves that you are not lying, and she does not
want to take the test, and we will arrange for her to have it
Mr. Zusman. I will take the test, sir.
The Chairman. All right. That settles it.
Arrange it for this afternoon.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman did announce
that he would make the same facilities available to her, and ask her
whether or not she wants to take it.
The Chairman. That is right.
Senator Ervin. I was just going to say that as far as I am concerned,
I do not put any faith in lie detector tests, because it is apparently a
psychological thing. If a person is brazen, they would fare pretty
well with a lie detector. If they are timid, no matter how truthful
they may be, they would rate pretty poor.
I had occasion, when holding court, to make a study of this question,
and a lie detector test tells about as many lies as any instruments that
have ever been devised. That is my opinion from my study of it.
The Chairman. The Chair is not defending or supporting the test,
the authenticity of it or the veracity of it, or whatever the term may
be used for it. But this witness says he wanted one, and the Chair
certainly wants to accommodate him on anything that is within our
power. I think it would be very well for him to take the test if he
desires to do so.
We then can evaluate the results of it, according to our own best
judgment, and the Justice Department. Whatever the record is,
whatever the report on the test is, that will also be made available to
the Justice Department to enable it to further pursue the determina-
tion of whether prejury has been committed by either of you.
It is my judgment that one of you has definitely committed perjury.
Mr. Zusman. Senator McClellan, if the test shows that I told the
truth, will that be announced publicly ?
The Chairman. The test will be announced publicly; yes, sir.
There is no secret. Whatever the test shows will be made a part of
this record.
Mr. Zusman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zusman, Mr. Calabrese, whom you met before,
in Portland, has made the arrangements with the Secret Service
Mr. Zusman. Well, I still doir t trust him. I am not going to take
it from those guys. That is a cinch. I don't want them even there
when I take my test. They have no business being there.
Mr. Kennedy. All I said was that he had made the arrangements
with Secret Service for you to take the test.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 517
Mr. Zusman. I don't want them to be around me. I don't trust
them.
Mr. Kennedy. All I am suggesting is that you contact him, because
your appointment is for 1 o'clock. Would you contact Mr. Calabrese
and make sure?
Mr. Ztjsman. My attorney might, but I won't.
The Chairman. All right. Are there any further questions?
If there are no further questions, you may be excused from the
stand.
Call the next witness.
(Present at this point: The chairman and Senators Ervin, McNa-
mara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Leo Plotkin.
The Chairman. Mr. Plotkin, will you be sworn ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
select Senate committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Plotkin. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LEO PLOTKIN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Plotkin. Leo Plotkin, 1022 Southwest Stark.
The Chairman. Just a little louder, Mr. Plotkin.
Mr. Plotkin. Portland, Oreg. Seaman.
The Chairman. What is your business?
Mr. Plotkin. I am a seaman.
The Chairman. A seaman?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. McClellan, I would like to make a statement at this time in
reference to testimony that I had given
The Chairman. Just one moment.
You say you want to what ?
Mr. Plotkin. I wish to make a statement at this time in reference
to my appearing before your committee in executive session.
The Chairman. You appeared before the Senate Investigating Sub-
committee.
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir; in executive session.
The Chairman. That was previous to this ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir; I think it was around January 18.
The Chairman. You may make your statement.
Mr. Plotkin. At that time, after I finished my testimony, I believe
you told me that if I had ever had any threatening word said to me
to report it to this committee, which I want to do at this time.
The Chairman. Any threat of violence or anything on that order.
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You may report it now.
Mr. Plotkin. After I had given my testimony, I was on my way to
the hotel. I was encountered by Mr. William Turner. I believe his
name is Turner.
The Chairman. Who was also a witness?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right; proceed.
51S IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Plotkin. A reporter on the Oregonian.
The Chairman. One of the witnesses who has testified here, one of
the reporters from the Oregonian?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Plotkin. He threatened me with exposure and ridicule because
of my testimony before your committee, telling me that I had lied, and
that he was going to present to this committee recordings that never
before had been presented to you in reference to my lying before you.
The Chairman. All right. We will give him the opportunity to do
so.
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir; I wish you would.
The Chairman. Is there anything else ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes. At this time I would like to state that at no
time had I ever received any money from Mr. Tom Maloney
The Chairman. Just a moment. We will ask you questions.
Mr. Plotkin. This is something that appeared in
The Chairman. All right, go ahead. I imagine all of these ques-
tions are going to be asked, but if you want to make a voluntary state-
ment, proceed.
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, I do. I have never at any time received any
moneys from Tom Maloney in reference to any information that I
supposedly had given him and turned over to the district attorney.
And as far as the district attorney is concerned, I have never known
Mm, never spoken to him, and have never seen him, until I arrived in
this conference room on Tuesday, last Tuesday. That is the statement
I wish to make.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You have known Mr. Tom Maloney for quite some
period of time ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes ; many years.
Mr. Kennedy. About 20 years?
Mr. Plotkin. I would say so.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew him around the racetrack at Seattle?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And at that time you knew him to have been very
close to Mr. Frank Brewster ; is that right ?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, no ; not at that time, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn that he was close to Frank
Brewster ?
Mr. Plotkin. Do you want me to start from the beginning ?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, yes.
Mr. Plotkin. The oniy reference that Tom Maloney has ever made
in reference to Mr. Frank Brewster is as the man up at the racetrack.
That is the only time he has ever mentioned Frank Brewster.
The Chairman. May the Chair interrupt?
You, of course, are familiar with the rules of the committee, and
you know you are entitled to counsel if you desire ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You waive counsel ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
(At this point Senator Mundt left the hearing room.)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 519
Mr. Kennedy. Let's get down to where you came down to Portland,
(Dreg. You were there in 1954 and 1955 ?
Mr, Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You saw Tom Maloney down there ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Tom Maloney at that time state to you that he
was very close to a certain teamster official ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
IMr. Kennedy. Did he say that he knew any of the teamster
officials?
Mr. Plotkin. He mentioned — like I said before — he mentioned
Frank Brewster, and he also mentioned John Sweeney as the man
up in Seattle.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that he was close to those people ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He never did ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir ; not to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he able to get you a job, Mr. Plotkin?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, he was.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working in the Desert Room for a while,
were you ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes. I went to work in the Desert Room on Novem-
ber 11, 1955 ; yes, sir. The 11th or 12th.
Mr. Kennedy. And you saw Tom Maloney there, did you not \
Mr. Plotkin. I saw Tom Maloney long before that.
Mr. Kennedy. But you talked to him there about the need for a
job?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
No, not at that time ; no, sir. Mr. Tom Maloney phoned me. and I
was quite surprised to hear from him. He asked me to meet him at
his hotel. I believe he was staying at the Multnomah Hotel. He
asked me If I would not come down and talk to him, which I did.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did he say to you at that time ?
Mr. Plotkin. He asked me what I was doing. I told him I was
not doing anything at the moment. I asked him how he got hold of
me. He told me that he had asked Mr. Elkins about me, and asked
what I was doing.
Mr. Elkins evidently told him, "Nothing," that I wasn't doing any-
thing at the time, and where to contact me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak at that time about opening an after-
hours place?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Air. Kennedy. Did he say there was one operating where he could
get you a job?
Mr. Plotkin. He thought perhaps there would be a chance of put-
ting me to work
Mr. Kennedy. Did you offer to go to work in that place ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That was Swede Ferguson's place ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your position there ?
Mr. Plotkin. Floorman.
520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. What does a floorman do ?
Mr. Plotkin. I walked around, saw that everything was all right,
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the reason that that place
could operate was because of the connection that they had with the
district attorney ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never understood that ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was never any discussion about the district
attorney ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes ; there has been discussions about the district at-
torney, but nothing in reference to that,
Mr. Kennedy. Did Maloney say that he was connected with the
district attorney ?
Mr. Plotkin. Maloney told me that he was active in Mr. Langley's
election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he indicate or was it indicated to you that the
reason that this afterhours place could operate was because of the
connection with the district attorney ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was never anything like that ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have permission to read Mr. Plot-
kin's testimony from page 95 ?
The Chairman. You may read it to refresh his memory and to in-
terrogate him about it, if it is in conflict with what he is saying today.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say also about Mr. Plotkin that Mr.
Bellino and I interviewed Mr. Plotkin in Seattle, Wash. After he
arrived down here in Washington the first time, Mr. Calabrese inter-
viewed him, and he told Mr. Calabrese different things than he told
Mr. Bellino and myself.
When he appeared here in executive session, he told different things
than he had told either on the trip to Seattle or to Mr. Calabrese, and
now he is changing his testimony a fourth time.
The Chairman. All right. Let's show the fourth change. Then
we can produce the other testimony.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Did he also say that this afterhours joint could operate because of his con-
nection with the district attorney?
Mr. Plotkin. I never asked him that question.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever volunteer that? Did you ever understand that to
he the truth?
Mr. Plotkin. I understood it to be in that manner, but he never told me that.
Mr. Plotkin. I made that statement in front of this committee?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. No. You made that statement when you testified
before the Senate Investigating Subcommittee under oath. We are
not talking about what you may have told Mr. Kennedy or some other
member of the staff.
This is the testimony that you gave before the other committee
about the 16th or 17th of January, of this year. Do you want to
change that testimony?
Mr. Plotkin. May I hear that again, Senator ?
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 521
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
Did he also say that this afterhours joint could operate because of his connec-
tion with the district attorney?
Mr Plotkin. I never asked him that question. .
Mr'. Kennedy. Did he ever volunteer that? Did you understand that to be
Mr.UpiOTKix. I understood it to be in that manner, but he never told me
that.
Mr. Plotkin. That is true. _
Mr Kennedy. Did you understand that it was because ot the con-
nection that Mr. Maloney had with the district attorney that they
allowed these joints to operate?
Mr Plotkin. Mr. Maloney never stated to me
Mr. Kennedy. I didn't ask you that. Did you ever understand
that to be the truth, that he could operate these places?
Mr Plotkin. Not under the district attorney ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Then this other testimony that you gave was not
correct ; is that right ? .
Mr Plotkin. Well, there is a little difference in what testimony
I gave there and the question you are asking me. There was no direct
mention, no, at no time.
Mr Kennedy. I didn't ask that. Did you understand that this
afterhours joint could operate because of Maloney's connection with
the district attorney?
Mr. Plotkin. I don't believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. You answered "Yes" there.
I understood it to be in that manner, but he never told me that.
Mr. Plotkin. Well, he didn't. That perhaps might have been my
opinion at the time, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, was that your opinion ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes. '
The Chairman. Mr. Plotkin, you do not have counsel present I
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir ; I do not. .
The Chairman. Where a witness has counsel, the Chair relies very
heavily upon their own choice for their advice and counsel, ihey
hire counsel for that purpose.
When witnesses appear before the committee without counsel, 1
think it is the duty of the Chair to admonish them with respect to
their testimony, that perjury charges can be preferred, if the witness
testifies falsely.
This committee has adopted the policy that wherever there is con-
flict in testimony, where it is perfectly apparent on the face of it
that somebody is not telling the truth, then the transcript is going to
be referred to the Justice Department for appropriate action.
I do not want to do anything here that will in any way deprive
you of vour rights or trick you in any way. I want whatever answers
you give to be your own answers, understanding the question. The
counsel is referring to the transcript of your previous testimony
before a Senate committee.
As he refers to that transcript, I suggest that you recall that your
answers were under oath previously, and think of what you want to
say today. If you didn't tell exactly what it was before the other
committee and want to tell the truth today, do so. Bear in mind
that you have been asked these questions that he is referring to
522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
before another committee, having jurisdiction, in mv opinion, and
therefore, your answers should substantially, at least, conform to your
other testimony if you were telling the truth at that time.
Mr. Plotkin. At that time, it was my opinion. I have never
heard, or no direct statement has ever been given me. that we were
operating under the jurisdiction
The Chaikman. All the Chair wants is for you to understand
whatever answers you gave before, and to give you the opportunity
to either say those are correct and true or state whatever you now
say is true.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Plotkin, while you were in Portland, were you
also interested in finding a house to' open up for a house of prosti-
tution ? Did you go look over some places ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never discussed it at all ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never looked over a place to find out whether
it would be a proper and possible place for a house of prostitution?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Tony Rego ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss that matter with him ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, I have.
Mr. Kennedy. What discussions did you have with him ?
Mr. Plotkin. Tony Rego came to me" one day and told me that he
was going to open up a so-called call house, and he asked me if there
was anything that I could do in reference to it.
I told him that I didn't know. He asked me if I wouldn't talk
to anyone in reference to it. I said, "Why don't you go out and find
out for yourself? That is out of my line." He" said. "Well, I just
thought I would come to you and ask you if you could do anything."
So I said, "Well, perhaps I will talk to someone in reference to it,"
which I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you talk to?
Mr. Plotkin. I talked to Tom Maloney.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would you pick out Tom Maloney to talk to
about it ?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, Tom Maloney, I thought, was my friend, and
was a man about town, and had a little influence.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did he have influence with ?
Mr. Plotkin. Two people, I believe.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that?
Mr. Plotkin. One was Jim Elkins, and the other was the district
attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you understand that he had influence with
the district attorney?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, through his efforts in electing the district
attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. So he had influence; you understood that he had
influence with him?
Mr. Plotkin. I thought perhaps so.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go and talk to him about Tony Rego ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 523
Mr. Plotkin. Yes; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say?
Mr. Plotkin. He came back and told me that it was impossible.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say he would do first?
Mr. Plotkin. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say he would do first?
Mr. PLOTKiN. What he would do first?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. What did he say when you asked him about it ?
Mr. Plotkin. That he would go see Jim Elkins about it.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't say he was going to talk to Lieutenant
Crisp?
Mr. Plotkin. No, not on that situation, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When he came back, what did he say to you ?
Mr. Plotkin. He came back and told me that they almost got
thrown out of the office.
Mr. Kennedy. Jim Elkins didn't want anything to do with it?
Mr. Plotkin. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there another discussion that you had with Ma-
loney about houses of prostitution?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes; one other.
Mr. Kennedy. "What was that?
Mr. Plotkin. In reference to Marie Maynard.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do about that?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, she told me she was having trouble with the
law-enforcement agency, and telling me that they were putting cars
out in front of her place, and if something could be done about it.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ?
Mr. Plotkin. I went to Tom Maloney.
Mr. Kennedy. "Why did you go to Tom Maloney then?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, Tom Maloney told me that— well, for prac-
tically the same reason that I went to him in the first place.
Mr. Kennedy. That he had influence?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he finally report back to you? What did
he say he would do?
Mr. Plotkin. He would go to Lt. Carl Crisp, who was head of the
vice squad at the time, and find out just exactly what was wrong.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he report back then ?
Mr. Plotkin. He reported back to me that Lieutenant Crisp said
that she would probably have to close down for a time, but could re-
open shortly.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you report that back?
Mr. Plotkin. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Kennedy. Did you report that back?
Mr. Plotkin. Did I report that back? To whom, sir?
Mr. Kennedy. To Marie Maynard.
Mr. Plotkin. No. I have never spoken to Marie Maynard in ref-
erence to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go look at a house yourself and find
out if it had the proper furnishings?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You never took a trip in someboch7 else's car to look
at a place?
Mr. Plotkin. To look at a place ?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, anything like that. Did you ?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, at one time, Mr. Maloney picked me up at
either my hotel or the Desert Room and took me for a ride across the
river and pointed out a house of prostitution to me ; yes.
Is that what you mean?
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason for taking you on that trip I
Mr. Plotkin. He was telling me that he was quite upset about all
these houses of prostitution mushrooming around the town.
Mr. Kennedy. He was against that ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes. So he told me.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you go to him, then, when Rego
Mr. Plotkin. This all happened afterward.
Mr. Kennedy. What ? You went to him about Rego afterward ?
Mr. Plotkin. No. I went to Rego before this all happened.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you go to Maloney if he was against houses
of prostitution ?
Mr. Plotkin. At that time, I knew nothing about it, other than
that he had influence in the city.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he report to you that the district attorney
wouldn't mind if there were 3 or 4 or 5 call houses opened in the city,
that he didn't want a lot of them mushrooming around the city, but
he didn't mind 3 or 4 or 5 ?
Mr. Plotkin. Let me put it this way, Mr. Kennedy. I reported
later that the district attorney was not a man who believed in a real
closed town, from what I was led to believe.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't Tom Maloney report that to you, that the
district attorney was not interested in closing a town down, that he
didn't mind if there were 3 or 4 houses open ?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, something to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that what you reported to us before?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, I believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it also reported to you by Tom Maloney that
they were anxious to get rid of the chief of police ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And that the chief of police has been uncooperative
as far as these places being open and af terhours places ?
Mr. Plotkin. I didn't go into that discussion with him, Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he report — let's go through that again, Mr.
Plotkin — didn't he report to you that they found the chief of police
to be uncooperative ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, he told me.
Mr. Kennedy. That he was uncooperative about allowing these
places to stay open; isn't that correct?
Isn't that how he was uncooperative? Isn't that what you stated
to the committee in executive session ?
Mr. Plotkin. That he was uncooperative ?
Mr. Kennedy. That they found the chief of police uncooperative ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, they did.
Mr. Kennedy. How did they find him uncooperative ?
Mr. Plotkin. That I don't know.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 525
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't yon tell the committee in executive session
that they found him to be uncooperative and that he wouldn't allow
these joints to stay open '.
Mr. Plotkin. I don't know. Would you read that testimony back?
Mr. Kennedy. No. What is the truth on it? Tell me what the
truth is.
Mr. Plotkin. Well, they might have — Tom might has mentioned
something like that to me ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What ? That they wanted to get rid of the chief
of police ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he say also that the teamsters were anxious
to get rid of the chief of police ?
Mr. Plotkin. No. He never mentioned that.
Mr. Kennedy. You deny that ?
Mr. Plotkin. That is right,
Mr. Kennedy. There is no question about that, he never mentioned
that the teamsters were anxious to get rid of the chief of police ?
Mr. Plotkin. No. We had words about that, Mr. Kennedy, in refer-
ence to my telling you in Seattle, while I was at the hospital, that the
teamsters were trying to get rid of the chief of police and the mayor.
Mr. Plotkin. Let me ask you this: Did Tom Maloney say that
he wanted to open the city up, that he wanted an open town ?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, he made some remarks in reference to that:
Mr. Kennedy. That he wanted an open town ; is that right ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Then didn't he tell you that the chief of police was
uncooperative ?
Mr. Plotkin. Not in so many words ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he tell you that the chief of police was un-
cooperative? I don't care exactly what words he used, but didn't
he tell you that the chief of police was uncooperative ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That he was uncooperative about allowing these
places to stay open ?
Mr. Plotkin. The houses of prostitution ?
Mr. Kennedy. Any of the joints, generally. The joints.
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he tell you then that he wanted to get rid
of the chief of police?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were going to use the power of the team-
sters to get rid of the chief of police %
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he mention the teamsters at all in connection
with getting rid of the chief of police?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are absolutely sure of that ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. From page 101 of the executive session:
Did he tell you that the teamsters were anxious to get rid of Purcell, the chief
of police V
526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Plotkin. That testimony I gave you in Seattle, I believe, Mr.
Kennedy, or you told him.
Mr. Kennedy. What is your answer to that question : Did he tell
you that through the connection with the teamsters, that the teamsters
were anxious to get rid of Purcell, the chief of police ?
Mr. Plotkin. I believe I told you — —
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Is that true or not ?
Mr. Plotkin. No ; it is not.
Mr. Kennedy. Your answer to that question in executive session is :
Mr. Plotkin. He might have mentioned that at one time ; yes.
Question. That the teamsters were anxious to get rid of the chief of police?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. Plotkin. I believe I said it was he and the district attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not misreading it to you, Mr. Plotkin. I am
reading it from the executive session testimony.
Mr. Plotkin. As a matter of fact, I spoke to you just this morning
in reference to that, Mr. Kennedy.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. This is the transcript of your testimonj' before the
Senate Investigating Subcommittee, just as the official reporter here is
making a transcript of what you are saying now. So bear that in
mind. That is what the Chair tried to warn you about a few moments
ago.
Mr. Plotkin. Senator McClellan, I had quite a discussion with Mr.
Kennedy in reference to that.
The Chairman. I do not care. Let's not talk about discussions with
Mr. Kennedy. This is talking about what you swore to in the com-
mittee.
Mr. Plotkin. I thought I had testified at that time that the refer-
ence made in closing the town with Tom Maloney and the district
attorney. I did not think that I said that.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't care what you thought. That is what you
said.
Mr. Plotkin. Well, if I said it, that is true.
Mr. Kennedy. Is it true or not ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Now you are changing your testimony. It is true?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, I believe it is.
Mr. Kennedy. Then I asked you :
Did he say he was uncooperative?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
This is talking about the chief of police.
How was he uncooperative?
Mr. Plotkin. With reference to a few places in the city of Portland.
Question. Then he said he was uncooperative because of the operation of
these joints in the city of Portland?
Answer. That is true.
Question. And they wanted to get rid of him because of that?
Answer. Yes.
Did they also say after the mayor, after they wanted the mayor to
get rid of the chief of police, they wanted to get rid of the mayor?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 527
Mr. Plotkin. Yes. /;: ■■ .:' .
Mr. Kennedy. And they wanted to get rid of the chief of police,
who was uncooperative about getting these places opened up?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And the teamsters were going to use their power
to get rid of the chief of police and the mayor; is that right?
Mr. Plotkin. I believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. And they also said that the teamsters and he, Ma-
loney, were going to try to get rid of the chief of police and the mayor ?
Mr.' Plotkin. Yes ; that is what I told you.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Plotkin, you also ran some football sheets and
baseball and basketball sheets?
Mr. Plotkin. I never ran them.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working in Bob Archer's place?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to some of the cigar places ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, 1 believe on 1 or 2 occasions; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You brought them around. Now, you got into some
difficulty at the end with the police department and yourself, did you
not, and were arrested?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Clyde Crosby secure your attorney for you ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes; he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you also given some money at that time ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir ; not by Clyde Crosby.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were you given the money by?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, it was just before Christmas. I had seen Tom
Maloney, and just before this conversation came up in reference to
my arrest he said, "Well, here, take this. I want you to buy yourself
a Christmas present," and he gave me $50.
Mr. Kennedy. This was at the same time that you had been ar-
rested and needed an attorney ; is that right ?
Mr. Plotkin. I already had an attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. Did thev tell you to get rid of that attorney?
Mr. Plotkin. After talking it over with Mr. Maloney, I thought
it was pretty wise that I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Maloney do with you then? What
steps did he take ?
Mr. Plotkin. I believe— I am not quite sure— I believe Mr. Ma-
loney called Mr. Crosby.
Mr. Kennedy. And what happened ?
Mr. Plotkin. And I drove Mr. Maloney to the Teamsters Building.
I waited in the car, and Mr. Maloney came out and gave me a card.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the card ?
Mr. Plotkin. The card was— I really don't remember too much
about what was on the card. It says "Listen to this boy's story," or
"Take care of this boy," or something to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Whose card was it ?
Mr. Plotkin. I believe it was Mr. Crosby's.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clyde Crosby?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
-57— pt. 2-
528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Plotkin. I had to get rid of the original attorney, and I did,
so I went down to his office, and he wasn't in at the time. I told his
secretary that I would be back. I asked what time Mr. — whoever the
attorney was — would be in, and that I would be back at 8 o'clock
in the morning when he came in, that I had something very im-
portant to tell him; and she said, "Fine." So at 8 o'clock the fol-
lowing morning, I asked my attorney if he wouldn't withdraw from
the case ; which he did.
Mr. Kennedy. And then you took the attorney suggested by Mr.
Crosby ; is that right ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. One other matter that I have. Did you ever pay
that attorney ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he not the teamsters attorney ?
Mr. Plotkin. I believe so. There is a reason why I never paid
my attorney, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Plotkin. My attorney, during the course of my troubles, died,
and there was a set fee for his appearing for me. He told me that
there would be a fee.
The Chairman. Did you know Clyde Crosby ?
Mr. Plotkin. Not before — I met him sometime later, after my
arrest.
The Chairman. Did you know him at the time he sent that card
to you ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir ; I didn't.
The Chairman. You had never met him ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
The Chairman. What interest did he have in you ?
Mr. Plotkin. I have no idea.
The Chairman. Were you not told?
Mr. Plotkin. Well, perhaps
The Chairman. Why would he take an interest in you, if he had
never seen you ?
Mr. Plotkin. I told Mr. Maloney that I was beaten up pretty good
after I was arrested, and that is when he became quite interested in
getting me another attorney, because of the fact that I told him that
my attorney called the police station and they couldn't find any records
on my arrest, and that one of the men at the police station
The Chairman. All right. I understand Mr. Maloney was ad-
vising you and counseling you. What I am trying to determine is
why Clyde Crosby took an interest in you.
Mr. Plotkin. I don't know, sir.
The Chairman. He did not know you ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
The Chairman. You did not know him ?
Mr. Plotkin. No, sir.
The Chairman. What were the working arrangements you found
out between Crosby and Maloney?
Mr. Plotkin. I had no idea what the working arrangements were.
The Chairman. Anyway, when Maloney took over for you, and
began to help you out, he went to Clyde Crosby, in the Teamsters
Building ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 529
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that the teamsters headquarters ?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes.
The Chairman. What was Clyde Crosby, at the time, with the
teamsters I
Mr. Plotkin. I believe he was the international representative, or
organizer.
The Chairman. International representative of the teamsters?
Mr. Plotkin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You had never met him, yet he directed you to an
attorney with a notation on the card "Take care of this boy"?
Mr. Plotkin. Through Mr. Maloney ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Through Mr. Maloney. All right.
Are there any other questions? If not, the witness will stand aside.
We will take a recess until 2 o'clock. The committee will stand in
recess until 2 o'clock.
(Members present at the taking of the recess: The Chairman, Sena-
tors Ervin and Goldwater.)
(Whereupon, at 12 : 17 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p. m. the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The hearing resumed at 2 p. m., Senator John L. McClellan,
chairman, presiding.)
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan
and G'old water.)
The Chairman. The Chair will announce that this will probably
be a rather brief session this afternoon. The staff has considerable
work to do in the office to get better organized for the session tomor-
row and the next day.
We also wish to announce that tomorrow the hearings will be in
room 3.57. Another committee will have this room for holding hear-
ings; I believe it is the Foreign Relations Committee.
They had arranged for it some time ago and they feel that that
hearing is one of importance, that the public would like to attend.
For that reason they have priority on the room, this Caucus Room,
for tomorrow.
I am compelled to announce, and regretfully so, that room 357
is much smaller than this. It will not accommodate the public that
may wish to be present. The press will be admitted, and as many of
the public as we can accommodate. But I cannot assure anyone that
they will be accommodated when they get there. We will have to do
the best we can.
It is unfortunate that we do not have yet adequate space and accom-
modations for hearings of this kind, and for all of the committees
when the hearings are important. Therefore, I am hoping that the
new building will soon be completed. I hope they will expedite the
construction of it.
All right, Mr. Kennedy, call your first witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jim Elkins.
The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Elkins.
530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN. THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. As he is coming, Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit
from Mr. J. Bard Purcell, city of Portland police lieutenant, which
bears a little bit on some information bearing on the subjects we were
discussing this morning.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy ; the affidavit has been
sworn to ?
Mr. Kennedy. It has, before Mr. Harry D. Shelton, State of Oregon.
The Chairman. The affidavit may be read into the record and may
be printed in the record in full at this point.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe there are some copies of it, Mr. Chairman,
if anybody is interested.
I, J. Bardell Purcell, a city of Portland police lieutenant, now assigned to the
southwest division precinct, 3445 Southwest Moss Street, Portland, Oreg., freely
and voluntarily make the following statement to T. George Williams who has
identified himself to me as a member of the professional staff of the United States
Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management
Field.
No threats, force or duress have been used to induce me to make this state-
ment, nor have I received any promise of immunity from any consequences which
may result from submission of this statement to the aforementioned Senate
select committee.
In the course of my duties as a detective, one day in the summer of 1955, I
dropped in to the Desert Room, 1217 Southwest Stark Street, Portland, Oreg.,
which was a spot frequented by criminals and prostitutes. Nate Zusman, owner
of the Desert Room, came up to me and told me somebody wanted to talk to me.
I agreed to speak to the person, and a woman, who was seated at the bar with
another woman and some other people whom I did not know, got up and came
over to me and identified herself as Helen Hardy. We moved out of earshot of
any others and nobody else was present during our conversation.
She recalled to me that her bawdy house had recently been raided and closed
up by a squad led by Chief Jim Purcell, Jr., in person. She claimed that she
had several thousand dollars invested in the operation and she certainly hated
to lose it. She asked me if I knew Tom Maloney of the teamsters union and
then said that he was helping her.
She had an impression that the police would not bother her in her operation
of the bawdy house and was at a loss to understand why her place had been
raided. She apparently was telling me her troubles with the hope that I would
help her.
I told her that I didn't work vice cases and gave her no satisfaction. To the
best of my knowledge I have never talked to her since that time.
I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge and
belief, it is true and correct.
(Signed) J. Bardell Pukceix.
Witness :
T. George Williams.
March 1, 1957.
Elda E. Wilson.
March 1, 1957.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for Mulnomah
County, State of Oregon, this 1st day of March 1957.
(Signed) Haery D. Shelton.
My commission expires September 11, 1960.
The Chairman. All right, proceed with the witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, coming to July and August of 1955, Mr. El-
kins, you were operating some of these joints, were you not, or you
were financing them?
Mr. Elkins. Yes; two of them were operating?
Mr. Kennedy. Two of them were operating?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 531
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Tom Maloney and Joe McLaughlin after
you to open up other places?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any particular places that they spoke
to you about opening up ?
Mr. Elkins. They wanted me to open poker in the Realto, Realto
Billiard Parlor.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you open that up ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I think the poker got started, but it didn't last
very long.
Mr. Kennedy. But it did get started ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, and eventually we got it started a little bit.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Elkins. Then, in the Elite Billiard Parlor on Southwest Wash-
ington, we were going to put in a high dice and a 21 game.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever get started ?
Mr. Elkins. They didn't get started. I believe we put a crap game
in there one night and got closed the next day.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any discussions about opening up after-
hour places ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir ; there was.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of that ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, we didn't get very far; we just kept opening
those two places until one of them was closed and then we opened up
another to take its place.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they feel that you operated most of the places
there?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, they felt that I had something to do with every-
thing there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they feel that you were holding back some money
on them ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you paying them money periodically ?
Mr. Elkins. I was ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this whole period of time, extending
from the time that you started your operations, to the time that you
went to see Mr. Frank Brewster, how much money approximately do
you think that you gave to Mr. Joe McLaughlin and Tom Maloney ?
(At this point in the proceedings, Senator Mundt entered the hear-
ing room.)
Mr. Elkins. It would run pretty close to $20,000.
Mr. Kennedy. $20,000?
Mr. Elkins. I would say, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That is over a period of what time?
Mr. Elkins. Well, about 8 months, I would say.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you paying them so much each month, or what
was the arrangement ?
Mr. Elkins. It started off giving them so much each month, and
then I quit. They were wanting a list of locations that this was sup-
posed to be coining from and it wasn't coming from locations at that
time.
Mr. Kennedy. Why wasn't your money coining from locations ?
532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. We didn't have the locations running at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. They thought that you had all of these locations, and
in fact you did not?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you giving them the money anyway?
Mr. Elkins. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason were you giving them the money ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I presumed they would give it to Mr. Langley.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Langley ever speak to you about the money ?
Mr. Elkins. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever speak to you that he was receiving the
money ?
Mr. Elkins. He said he was getting a piddling amount.
The Chairman. What kind?
Mr. Elkins. A piddling amount and everything that they got they
cut it. They got "first count," I believe he said.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they finding fault with you, McLaughlin and
Maloney, about the fact you weren't operating more places?
Mr. Elkins. Constantly; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they say anything about the reports from their
superiors?
Mr. Elkins. Just about every time they talked to me they told me
that John and Frank and Clyde were very unhappy, and they were
going to have to take steps.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever indicate what the steps were going to
be?
Mr. Elkins. They said they were going to change the chief of police
for one thing.
Mr. Kennedy. So that more places would operate ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to them and say, "You can't operate these
places because the chief of police wouldn't allow it?"
Mr. Elkins. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy What position did they take on that?
Mr. Elkins. They said, "We'll move him."
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if there was ever discussions about
moving the chief of police, specific discussions?
Mr. Elkins. They eventually, Mr. Crosby eventually went to the
mayor and asked him to move Jim Purcell.
Mr. Kennedy. To move the chief of police?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, were they also dissatisfied with the mayor?
Mr. Elkins. Yes; they were because he didn't do what they told
him to do. They told him they wanted an open town and that they
wanted a new chief of police and I guess that he didn't see it their way.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you also trying to operate or get some places
started in the colored section of town ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, Mr. Maloney had gone to various people to try
to open up a place. First he tried to open up David Nance who
operates a restaurant and gambling place, and Bob Segar, who oper-
ates another one.
Mr. Kennedy. What are their names again ?
Mr. Elkins. Bob Segar and David Nance. He was complaining
constantly to me. He said David Nance had given Langley money
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 533
and he helped him in his campaign and Langley was going to have
to let them open.
So that goes on for a couple of months; then, he said there had
to be a head to anything and he also wanted Tom Johnson to go with
him.
Mr. Elkins. He was another colored man ?
Mr. Elkins. Another colored man, running the Keystone Cafe.
Senator Mundt. Before we get too far away from the $20,000, I
would like to ask whether Mr. Maloney and Mr. McLaughlin led you
to believe that they were cutting that $20,000 with Brewster and with
Sweeney and with Clyde.
Did they imply that or were they keeping it?
Mr. Elkins. They kept implying it wasn't enough to satisfy them,
and so I took it for granted that there must be some agreement
between them.
Senator Mundt. It was your understanding that the money that
you gave them they split up in some way or another with Crosby,
Sweeney, Brewster, and Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. No; I don't think that they split it. At least, Crosby
told me that they double-crossed him.
Senator Mundt. Crosby told you he didn't get the money ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Was he complaining about that?
Mr. Elkins. No ; I don't know whether it was a complaint or what
it was. I asked him to take them out of there, out of Portland.
Senator Mundt. To take Maloney and McLaughlin out?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. What did he say ?
Mr. Elkins. He said that Frank Brewster and John Sweeney sent
them down there and they would have to be the ones to take them out.
Senator Mundt. You asked Crosby if he was getting any money ?
Mr. Elkins. No, he volunteered that they were double-crossing him.
Senator Mundt. He volunteered they were double-crossing him and
he was implying that he expected to get some money but didn't get it?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Senator Mundt. He was complaining about not getting money ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. That is the impression I had, that
they were expecting the money, but I don't know that they got it.
Senator Mundt. Now, you also said a little further back in your
testimony that Mr. Crosby had gone to the mayor asking him to
change the chief of police ?
Mr. Elkins. That is what I was told.
Senator Mundt. Was the police chief changed ?
Mr. Elkins. He was not.
Senator Mundt. He was not changed ?
Mr. Elkins. He was not.
Mr. Kennedy. We will have some more information on that.
Senator Mundt. What was that mayor's name?
Mr. Elkins. Fred Peterson.
(At this point in the proceedings, Senator McCarthy entered the
hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did they also talk about opening some places in the
Chinese section of town, getting some Chinamen operating?
534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. Well, yes. I think the Chinamen were operating a
place for their own race, f antan or something, and they felt that there
should be revenue from those places to them.
Mr. Kennedy. Coming into them ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there also some discussion about the fact that
you might get a ring of abortionists operating ?
Mr. Elkins. That was Mr. Maloney's idea.
Mr. Kennedy. How were you going to operate that ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, he wanted so much a month.
Mr. Kennedy. What figure did he feel you could get from them ?
Mr. Elkins. He figured if there was as many as four operating,
they should get $8,00(Ho $10,000 a month.
Mr. Kennedy. And that you could split that money ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, they would cut me in on it.
Mr. Kennedy. What was finally done about that? Was there any
further discussion about it ?
Mr. Elkins. No, it just dried up and I never met any abortionists
or talked to them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he want you to go out and try to set up a ring ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir ; he mentioned 2 or 3 abortionists that he said
were abortionists, and he felt that they wanted to get back in operation.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he want you to go and discuss the matter with
them?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And what position did you take on it ?
Mr. Elkins. I didn't take any position. I didn't go and meet
them.
Mr. Kennedy. You never discussed the matter with them ?
Mr. Elkins. No, with abortionists, I did not; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Senator Mundt was asking you about this
$20,000, and the fact that Clyde Crosby said that he was not getting
any money. Was that a problem to you at that period of time, getting
this money and not reporting all of it ?
Mr. Elkins. It worried me, because I could tell from my conver-
sations they were complaining to John Sweeney and Crosby about it.
Mr. Kennedy. What conversations are you talking about?
Mr. Elkins. Conversations in the room where we had this
microphone.
Mr. Kennedy. This is getting into the period of time when you had
your tapes.
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you could also listen to the conversations?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. From the conversations that you listened to that
were occurring in the room, you could tell that the money you were
turning over to them, they were not making a correct accounting to
Frank Brewster and John Sweeney and Clyde.
Mr. Elkins. That is right. I heard them say several times they
didn't want Langley to know the right figure, either.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you feel this was going to be a problem to
you?
Mr. Elkins. Yes: I did.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 535
Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel this was the source of Brewster's and
Sweeney's irritation toward you?
Mr. Elkins. I felt it had a great deal to do with it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then, about these tapes? What
steps did you take, initially, with the tapes ? What was it that finally
resulted in your taking any steps on the tapes ? What did you finally
do and what was the conversation that you heard that resulted in your
taking them ?
Mr. Elkins. They were preparing to frame me.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that conversation between?
Mr. Elkins. Tom Maloney and Joe McLaughlin and Bill Langley.
Mr. Kennedy. The district attorney?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that conversation about?
Mr. Elkins. Well, they were figuring. Bill Langley said it looked
like they would have to get rid of the "character" or move the oper-
ation out in the county.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that your name at that time?
Mr. Elkins. That is the name they gave me.
Mr. Kennedy. The "character" ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they call Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. The kid. Sometimes they would call him Abe Lincoln.
The Chairman. Call him what ?
Mr. Elkins. Old Honest Abe.
Mr. Kennedy. What conversation were they having in this room
about that?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I was stalling them, or they felt that I was
stalling them, and I was cheating them and there were cardrooms go-
ing and this going and that going and that they weren't deriving any
money from it.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did William Langley say that might be
done about it ?
Mr. Elkins. He said.
We should get rid of the character and either that, or go out and start operat-
ing in the county, separately, away from him.
There was quite a lengthy conversation there.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it also indicated that they were going to put
some rap on you ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, I don't believe that they came to what the rap
would be, and Langley said he would be very happy to do it, and I
believe Joe McLaughlin was noncommittal, and Tom Maloney said he
wasn't in favor of that.
Mr. Kennedy. He said he was not in favor of that ?
Mr. Elkins. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that you had brought him down from
Seattle?
Mr. Elkins. That's right.
Senator Mundt. I am a little intrigued by the fact that these men
referred to Langley as Honest Abe. I think that that was a term of
derision.
Mr. Elkins. I don't know. I imagine they were kidding him. He
was the opposite from that.
536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. They called him Honest Abe under the same theory
that you call a black dog Snowball, is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. From these tapes and from the conversations that
you heard, you understood that they were possibly considering fram-
ing you, is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That's correct and they would pick a different chief of
police just about every day. They would decide on one, and then, of
course, they don't know I am listening to it and they would accuse
each other and bring up something about it the next day.
Mr. Kennedy. In the course of the conversation, they would be dis-
cussing who they would make chief of police ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And they would be discussing the qualifications of
the various individuals, is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So that you heard them discussing each person, is
that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do then ?
Mr. Elkins. Then, I would go there the next day and talk around
until they would bring that man's name up and I would say, "Well,
I don't know if I ever mentioned that, but he is a good friend of mine."
Mr. Kennedy. Then what would be the conversation the next day
in the room ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, they would accuse each other of letting the cat
out of the bag, or me knowing something.
Mr. Kennedy. For selecting the wrong person?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, and they would get off that man for chief, and
select another one.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they also indicate during these conversations
how they were going to get the chief of police charged ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. They were debating what to tell the
mayor and what excuse the mayor could give that the public would
accept because they felt that this chief as far as the public was con-
cerned had done a very good job. And the mayor couldn't just say,
"I am going to change the chief of police for any reason."
They were trying to find some reason that would stand up.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period of time, was there an ap-
proach made to Swede Ferguson about opening a place ?
Mr. Elkins. I don't know who approached who, but along about
the first of July Swede Ferguson was in a golf game and he was play-
ing golf and I don't know whether it was with Mr. Langley or the
same place. They had a conversation and Langley told him
Mr. Kennedy. Could you just wait a minute, please?
I am sorry.
Mr. Elkins. Mr. Langley told him it was all right that he should
open.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Langley say that he had met Ferguson at the
country club or did Ferguson first report it to you ?
Mr. Elkins. No; Langley reported to me. Mr. Langley told me
that he had met Swede Ferguson there and told Swede to contact
Tom Maloney, but on second thought, he didn't think that Swede
should contact Tom Maloney and so that was his purpose in telling
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 537
me to not let Swede contact Maloney, but me to make the arrange-
ments.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't he want him to contact Tom Maloney ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, because Tom Maloney would feel hurt if some
business was transacted on the side, and he would feel that he would
object to the amount he was getting.
Mr. Kennedy. So he would feel left out of it?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And under the arrangements, only he was supposed
to be setting these places up, is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, and so I think that he talked to Swede
Ferguson an hour or two before that, and I called Swede Ferguson
and I said : i
Did you talk to a man this afternoon? He told you to contact Tom Maloney
and you are now not to call Mr. Maloney.
He said :
It is not secret who called you. I just got through talking to him 5 minutes
ago.
Mr. Kennedy. According to what Ferguson had told you, and what
Langley told you, Langley had told him that he could go ahead and
operate ?
Mr. Elkins. But to clear it with Mr. Maloney first.
Mr. Kennedy. But that he did give him permission to open up
this place ?
Mr. Elkins. That is what he told me. Langley told me that, and
Swede told me that ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit here from Mr.
Ferguson, and I would like to put it in the record.
The Chairman. All right, it may be. The affidavit will be printed
in the record and counsel may read it.
Senator McCarthy. Before you read the affidavit, may I say that
I have been, as counsel knows, somewhat critical of using the under-
world elements to give evidence against the teamsters' union and I
understand now from talking to counsel and his staff that they have
verified everything that this witness has said by affidavit or other-
wise, No. 1.
No. 2, that there are two things he drew the line at : No. 1, he would
not engage in the "take" on prostitution or this other abortion racket.
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. You are not relying on his testimony alone,
and you are relying upon verification by numerous affidavits and con-
ferences that have been had.
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, and by other witnesses.
I, Harvey Ferguson, make this statement of my own free will without promise
of any favor or promise of immunity, in the presence of Jerome S. Adlerman and
Alphonse Calabrese, assistant counsel to the United States Senate committtee
which is known to me to be investigating improper activities in labor or man-
agement fields.
I reside at 3110 Southwest 11th Street, Portland, Oreg. I am 68 years of
age and have resided in Portland since about 1920. I am retired at the present
time. Up until the very recent past, I ran after-hour clubs in the city of Port-
land for a period of about 2 years, from July 1955 to December 1956.
I first met Mr. Leo Plotkin about 1948 at the Clover Club, a Portland theater-
restaurant in which I had a part interest. Plotkin came to this club on a number
of occasions as a guest.
538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
In May or June 1955 Plotkin introduced me to Thomas Maloney at the Desert
Room. When we were introduced he told me he was connected with the team-
sters' union. I had already heard about Maloney as an active campaigner for
District Attorney William Langley.
Around July 1955 I met William Langley at the Portland Golf Club during a
tournament, at which time I asked Langley if he would go out of his road to
cause me trouble if I opened up. Bill said I had always run a good place at
the Clover Club and gave me a telephone number to call and speak to Tom
Maloney.
When I returned home that evening and before I could call Tom Maloney,
Jim Elkins had called and left a message for me to call him. I called Jim Elkins
and Jim told me not to call Maloney as everything was already taken care of
and that he had already called Maloney. Jim told me that Leo Plotkiii would
have to be put to work as Maloney's checker or representative.
Jim Elkins had loaned me $5,000 to finance these operations, the Key Bridge
Club located at 408 Southwest 14th Street, and the Dance School at 829 South-
west Third Street, both in Portland. These places were after-hour clubs that
were open from 2 : 30 a. m. to 6 : 30 a. m., where the guests could play cards and
shoot dice.
Elkins was to get 50 percent of the gross receipts and I took 50 percent of
the gross receipts, and I took half of my receipts, which amounted to 25 percent
of the gross, and applied it to the payment of the money I borrowed from Jim.
As soon as I paid the whole loan I was the sole owner and operator.
I opened the Key Bridge Club the same night that I had spoken to Bill Langley
at the golf tournament. Two or three nights later Leo Plotkin came to the Key
Bridge Club and began to work as a floor manager at $15 a day.
Plotkin's job was to keep his eye on the games, to see that there was no trouble,
and to count the nightly receipts with me. We operated the Key Bridge Club
until it got hot and then we would close and then begin operation at the Dance
School. We would operate there for a couple of weeks and then go back to
run the Key Bridge Club for a couple of weeks.
Plotkin worked until October or November 1955 when we closed down because
Maloney had left Portland the previous day after the breakup with Elkins. We
decided to close because we felt we had no protection after Maloney left.
During the time that Plotkin worked for me, on 2 or 3 occasions Plotkin and
I had arguments over the way the places should run. Plotkin threatened to close
me up if things were not done his way. He would go out for 10 or 15 minutes
and a half hour later Tom Maloney would show up and tell me to lay off Plotkin
if I wanted to stay in business.
I recall one argument that started when Plotkin wanted to fire a waitress
named Millie for being late coming to work. I told him I did not want to fire
her, an argument started, and he threatened to close me up. He left the premises
and Maloney came in a short time later and also told me he would close me up
unless I did what Plotkin wanted. After an argument the thing blew over, and
I didn't fire her.
Jim Elkins and I decided to start operations again just before Christmas of
1955 and I tried to rehire Plotkin but he refused. Some time after the 1st of
January 1956 Plotkin finally was rehired by me until April 1956 when our opera-
tions ended for a while. The reason Jim and I decided to hire Plotkin was that
we felt that by hiring Plotkin we had protection from the district attorney and
the teamsters union gang.
I made no payments to Tom Maloney. However, I do know that 25 percent
of the gross of these operations was given by Jim Elkins to Tom Maloney. I
never met Joseph Patrick McLaughlin, to my knowledge, and never made any
payments to him. Tom Maloney and McLaughlin never put any money into the
operations or had any investment in the business.
The 25 percent of the gross receipts that went to Maloney was paid for pro-
tection.
This statement consisting of four pages, which has been read by me, is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
(Signed) Harvey Ferguson.
Signed in the presence of : Jerome S. Adlerman.
Alphonse F. Calabrese.
February 12. 1957.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on the 12th day of February 1957.
R. DeMott, Clerk,
United States District Court.
Thora Lund, Deputy.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 539
Senator McCarthy. Before that is introduced, could I ask the wit-
ness a question, Mr. Chairman? To the best of your knowledge, is
that affidavit accurate and true?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; it is.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, this money that you were turning- over to Joe
McLaughlin and Tom Maloney, did you ever get any receipt for it ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, that was pretty hard to do. Several times we
asked for a receipt, and we asked Tom and we asked Joe, but we
weren't successful. Finally I was able to get a receipt for the 25 per-
cent of six-thousand-one-hundred-and-some dollars.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that? That was $6,100 of approximately
$20,000 that you turned over?
Mr. Elkins. That's correct. That was a percentage of the opera-
tions of the after-hour clubs from July up until
Mr. Kennedy. July of 1955 to December of 1955 ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; that's right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was about $6,100 ?
Mr. Elkins. That's right, and some cents. I think that I have the
exact figure.
Mr. Kennedy. May I ask you if you will identify this?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. The witness will examine the document presented
to him and state whether he identifies it and if so, what it is.
Mr. Elkins. It is a document where I told Joe McLaughlin that I
have paid income tax and paid the income-tax people on $6,121.46,
and that I had declared to them that he received a like amount. As
long as he was going to have to pay income tax on it, there was no
reason for him not to sign this statement, and he signed it.
The Chairman. That is a photostatic copy of it; is it not?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; I have the original in my pocket.
The Chairman. You have the original in your pocket?
Mr. Elkins. I think so.
The Chairman. You may keep the original, just so that it is a
photostatic copy of it. You do have the original that you can exhibit
to the committee here?
Mr. Elkins. Here it is.
The Chairman. Let me see it a moment, please, and let each member
be satisfied about it.
(A document was handed to the chairman.)
The Chairman. Let us have the other document, also.
(The photostat was handed to the chairman.)
The Chairman. The photostatic copy may be made Exhibit No.
39 and printed in the record at this point.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 39" for
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 753.)
The Chairman. The Counsel may read the document into the
record.
Mr. Kennedy. It is, "Service Machine Co." That is the heading.
Is that your company ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. 1424-26 Southwest Second Avenue, Portland, Oreg.,
March 22, 1956 :
Statement of income for calendar year 1955 from mutual investment of
J. P. McLaughlin, 906 First Avenue, Seattle, Wash., and J. B. Elkins, 1426 South-
west Second Avenue, Portland, Oreg.
In consideration of $6,121.46 which I received from J. B. Elkins in full settle-
ment from our mutual investment during calendar year 1955. Mutual invest-
ment ended as of December 31, 1955. (Signed) J. P. McLaughlin, and (signed)
J. B. Elkins.
The Chairman. The Chair understands that is money that you
received from this joint venture, that is out of one establishment.
Mr. Elkins. Oh, no. Those places, one place would operate a
month or 2 months. The longest any one operated was 4 months.
The Chairman. You reported on your income tax that you had
made that much money out of the business for your 25 percent ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. And he was getting 25 percent, and therefore, you
gave him this statement to substantiate his income-tax return ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
The Chairman. And he signed it with you agreeing that that was
correct ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. That is a document between the two of you, cer-
tifying that that is the amount of money that you each received from
that operation ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
The Chairman. The original may be returned to the witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period, also, there were efforts by
Tom Maloney to keep some of these call girls operating ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I got no absolute proof of it. He called me on
various occasions and would bring the subject up, but we never got
to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever tell you he was going to the police de-
partment and complain about the way they were treating these
places ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; he did, and he wanted me to talk to the chief of
police and I said I had tried that and I was thrown out.
Mr. Kennedy. We have two affidavits on this matter, also, Mr.
Chairman. Should we read them in the record ?
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. This is from Carl R. Crisp, who was mentioned this
morning, as head of the vice squad.
I, Carl R. Crisp, a city of Portland police lieutenant, now assigned to the
southwest division precinct, 3445 Southwest Moss Street, Portland, Oreg., freely
and voluntarily make the following statement to T. George Williams who has
identified himself to me as a member of the professional staff of the United
States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Man-
agement Field.
No threats, force, or duress have been used to induce me to make this state-
ment, nor have I received any promise of immunity from any consequences
which may result from submission of this statement to the aforementioned
Senate select committee.
I first met Tom Maloney in the early part of August 1955, at the east division
precinct, 626 Southeast Alder Street, Portland. At that time, Maloney took
the occasion to let me know he was a "big man" in the teamsters union.
My next meeting with Tom Maloney occurred on October 14, 1955. I remember
the date because on that day, in company with Sgt. Ralph O'Hara and Oflicer
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 541
Clinton Parker of the city of Portland police, I arrested Blanche Kaye for
running a house of prostitution. On that same day after the arrest had heen
made, Maloney came in to see me at the vice division headquarters, then located
in a building also used as a municipal garage at Southwest 17th and Jefferson
Streets, Portland.
Maloney protested that the criminal statute was too severe, that the girl
Blanche Kaye could be sent to the penitentiary, and that eventually all bawdy
house madams in Portland would be driven out of business if tbe police con-
tinued strict enforcement of the law, all of which, Maloney implied, would be
bad for me. I rejected his protests and gave him no satisfaction, and he then
left the building.
I have never seen Maloney in the Teamsters Union Building at 1020 North-
east Tbird Avenue, Portland, and while I know that Clyde C. Crosby, who is a
teamster official, I have never spoken to Crosby specifically about Maloney nor
attempted to verify Maloney's statement that he (Maloney) was an official of the
teamsters union.
I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge and
belief, it is true and correct.
Witness :
(Signed) Carl Crisp.
T. Geo. Williams,
February 25, 1957.
Harry D. Skelton,
February 25, 1957.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for Multnomah
County, State of Oregon, this 25th day of February 1957.
(Signed) Gladys S. Smith.
My commission expires December 12, 1960.
The Chairman. The affidavit may be printed in the record.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the
time of the committee or interrupt the sequence of the examination
of our able counsel, but I do feel that in view of the fact that there
will be a number of affidavits by policemen and by others, and eye-
witnesses to certain events, that the Chair should attempt to get one
of the members of the committee to go to Portland and have these
affidavits sworn to under oath before the committee or otherwise
check and see if we could not delegate the power of swearing the wit-
ness to a member of the staff.
I think that is terribly important because we are getting into some-
thing here that is hip deep in graft and corruption.
We know there will be perjury indictments arising out of it. Again,
I may say that I discussed this matter with some of the United States
attorneys and they feel that we should leave no loopholes for any
man who may be indicted to escape.
I renew the suggestion that the chair have one member of the
committee or if he can, delegate it to the staff, have a staff member
go to Portland and have all of the affidavits sworn to under oath.
The Chairman. The Chair will ascertain as early as possible
whether this committee has authority to delegate to a member of its
staff the power to administer an oath.
The Chair expressed doubt about it yesterday. I still entertain
some doubts about it. But we will undertake to ascertain about that.
In the meantime, the Chair yesterday announced that all staff mem-
bers would be instructed to have the witness state in an affidavit that
he was making the statement for the purpose and with the knowledge
that it would be placed in the public records of this committee, so that
thereafter there would be no doubt about the purpose of it, and it
shall contribute directly to the course of this investigation.
542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chair would much prefer not to take affidavits from anyone
and place them in the record, but it becomes perfectly obvious here
that where we have the direct testimony from someone else, an affi-
davit may serve as a corroborating statement as to testimony that
the committee already has from witnesses who are here present.
If we are to send out and get all of these witnesses and bring them
in here, which we have a right to do in any instance or any witness,
where any member of the committee has any doubt or desire to have
that witness appear in person who may have submitted an affidavit,
the Chair will immediately issue a subpena for that person and we
will undertake to have him present.
But the point I was making is, if we were to bring all of them in
here to testify to substantially the same thing, instead of using affi-
davits after we once have the record established by a witness here
present under oath, it is going to be quite expensive.
I am not unwilling to go to the expense where it is necessary and
if the committee thinks that these witnesses should all be brought here.
Senator McCarthy. Without spending much further time on this,
I may say that I think that the Chair and the chief counsel and the
staff have been doing an excellent job. I am concerned with the
record which will have to be used by the United States attorneys in
the future.
I am not suggesting that we call in all of the witnesses who sign
an affidavit. For example, in Portland, I understand you have a siz-
able number of affidavits. If the Chair decides that a member of the
staff cannot administer the oath, and I also share the same doubt with
the Chair, then I do believe that one of the Senators who would con-
stitute a quorum should go out and have the various witnesses all
brought together and all they would have to do is, not to go over the
affidavit in detail, but be asked to read it and swear that that was
the truth and then you would have a record which the United States
attorney can use without hesitation in a prosecution.
I am not pressing for a decision on that at this time, Mr. Chairman,
but as this goes on it impresses me more that must be done if we are
to give the United States attorneys offices the aid which they will
have to have in any prosecutions in the future.
The Chairman. The Chair will give consideration to the Sena-
tor's request. I think it is a matter for us to discuss in the com-
mittee. Under the rules adopted by this committee, one member can
be designated to take sworn testimony with the written approval of
the chairman and vice chairman. I believe those are our rules.
But if we get the affidavit first, I think then the proper thing would
be to have a member of the committee verify the affidavit, and let
him again swear to it before a member of the committee.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, not being a lawyer, I hesitate
to inject myself into this legal discussion, but in an effort to con-
tinue to pick up a free legal education in the course of these hearings,
I would like to inquire of the Chair whether or not, if the problem
is to firm up these affidavits by making them sworn testimony, would
it be possible to have either the district attorney or the Federal judge
in Portland, in chambers, ask these witnesses to come in and swear to
the affidavit? Could they not administer an oath and take the
testimony then ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 543
The Chairman. I do not think so. This is a snap judgment, but
there would not be anything pending before the court. The court
would not have jurisdiction unless there is something pending betore
the court. . . ,
Senator McCarthy. I might say, m adding to the free legal edu-
cation of my able colleague, that I agree wholeheartedly with the
Chair, that such an oath would be meaningless; that an oath is effec-
tive only where you are required under law to give it, and that would
be before this committee in these cases.
The Chairman. All right, let us proceed.
We will try to resolve this. I am very interested m it, and J know
each member of the committee is interested in it, in making a record
where perjury is committed, so that the perjurer can be prosecuted
and that the record can stand up. If this procedure is inadequate,
as we are undertaking to proceed here, to expedite it, and to econo-
mize as far as we can, if we find there is any doubt about this pro-
cedure, we will certainly revise it, even if we will have to bring the
witnesses here.
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I have an affidavit from Bard Purcell, a second
affidavit, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It may be read.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
I J Bardell Purcell, a city of Portland police lieutenant, now assigned to the
southwpst division precinct, 3445 SE. Moss Street, Portland, Oreg., freely and
voluntarily make the following statement to T. George Williams who has iden-
tified himself to me as a member of the professional staff of the Un'ted States
Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management
Field. No threats, force or duress have been used to induce me to make this
statement, nor have I received any promise of immunity from any consequences
which may result from submission of this statement to the aforementioned
Senate Select Committee.
I first met Tom Maloney in May 1955. At that time I was assigned to duty as
a detective and I also acted as an inspector for the Portland Boxing Commission.
One day in May 1955, in a restaurant on Southwest Fourth Avenue. Portland, I
ran across some people I knew from the boxing field. As I was chatting with
those people, I was introduced to another person seated in the same booth who
was identified to me as, "Tom Maloney of the teamsters union."
I finished my chat with my acquaintances and was about to leave the restau-
rant when MaP-ney got up from the booth, called to me, and asked me to sit
down to talk to him in another booth, which I did. He began talking about what
a fine job the Portland police were doing and about how well Mayor Peterson and
his administration were running the city. But Maloney felt that vice was being
unduly suppressed and that there should be a loosening up. Then he began
talking about politics and the cost of electing candidates to local, State, and
National offices. He then made the remark that it would take a "barrel of
money" to elect all these people and there might not be much left for "Pete." The
name obviously referred to Mayor Fred L. Peterson.
Maloney then suggested I speak to my brother, Jim Purcell, Jr., the chief of
police, about allowing some illegal activities to operate within the city. I told
Maloney that I was assigned to the detective division, that we didn't handle vice
cases, and that in my opinion there wouldn't be any relaxation in the suppres-
sion of vice.
(At this point, Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
I thought no more of this incident until sometime in July 1955. My father
died on July 29, 1955, and a couple weeks before that I received a telephone call
one night from Jim Elkins who told me that somebody wanted to talk to me.
89330 — 57— pt. 2 8
544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
After being informed that it was important, I agreed to meet the person on the
street corner at Northeast 82d and Glisan Streets, Portland. I arrived in my ear
first at the corner and in a few moments another car drove up. Maloney got out
of it and it developed that he was the person who wanted to talk to me. We sat
and talked in my car for 15 to 20 minutes. Maloney stated that time was
passing by and nothing was being done about opening up the town for vice
operations and that consequently some people were getting unhappy with the
situation. Maloney said there ought to be 4 or 5 places running in the colored
section of the city and also some on the west side. He again asked me to speak
to Chief Jim Pureed, Jr., about getting things opened up. I gave him no satis-
faction and again told him that if he wanted information to get to the chief, he
should go and talk to the chief at his office.
This time I told my brother of the incident and he said that he knew of
Maloney and his intentions. My brother added that if Maloney has anything to
say to me, tell him to come down to my office.
I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge and belief
it is true and correct.
(Signed) J. Bardell Pukcell.
Witness :
( Signed ) T. G eorge Williams,
(Signed) Eld a E. Wilson,
March 1, 1957.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for Multnomah
County, State of Oregon, this 1st day of March 1957.
(Signed) Harry D. Shelton.
My commission expires September 11, 1960.
Do you know anything that is false in that affidavit?
Mr. Elkins. I don't think I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Nothing?
Mr. Elkins. Nothing.
Mr. Kennedy. It is true as far as you know ?
Mr. Elkins. As far as I know.
Senator Mundt. Did you make that phone call setting up the
appointment ?
Mr. Elkins. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What did Maloney tell you that he wanted to talk
about ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, he told me he wanted me to go see the chief of
police and tell him that he would either allow certain places to open,
that the town was too tight, and if he wanted to stay in as chief, he
was tired fooling with him, and that his people in Seattle had ordered
him to either get something going or they would remove the chief.
Mr. Kennedy. The people in Seattle would remove the chief?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Unless he allowed some of these things to get going?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he always referring to Brewster and John
Sweeney in Seattle, Tom Maloney?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you present when he made telephone calls to
them ?
Mr. Elkins. I have been, many times ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he reporting to them continuously as to what
the operations were ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, on many occasions, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Many occasions that you were in the room, he did
call them on the telephone?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 545
Mr. Kennedy. And lie talked about them continuously?
Mr. Elkins. And I have been there when they called him.
Mr. Kennedy. You were there when they called him?
Mr. Elkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Would that be Frank Brewster {
Mr. Elkins. Frank Brewster and John Sweeney.
Mr. Kennedy. Both of them, is that right?
Mr. Elkins. Yes. . .
Senator Mundt. Mr. Elkins, what would be the nature of those con-
versations insofar as you could hear the Maloney part of it?
Mr. Elkins. Well, he wasn't talking too frankly. Apparently they
would ask him how he was getting along, and he would tell them that
it wasn't a paying proposition, or he would complain about something.
Sometimes he would tell them some story about discussing horse books
and betting on horses, and wind up telling them he would see them
when they got back to Seattle. ■ ■
Senator Mundt. Would he talk about the law-enforcement situation
in Portland? . . . . ' . - ,
Mr Elkins. On many occasions he was complaining, that one of
them was <r0ing to have to sooner or later talk to the "powers that be,
I believe is the way he would put it, because we were getting opposition.
Senator Mundt. At least the conversation would indicate that both
Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Brewster were very much interested m his desire
to open up the town? #
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. That is right. .
Senator Mundt. And in the powers that be, I suppose he referred
to the city administration and the chief of police ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Being a telephone conservation, it would be some-
what crvptic, I presume, and ambiguous ?
Mr. Elkins. And guarded ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You mentioned about horse books. Was there ever
? horse book opened up in Portland ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes. There was more than one opened up, but never
on a large scale, and I don't think they opened it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever have anything to do with a horse book
there ^
Mr Elkins. No. They were just mostly talk. I don't think that
they actually had a part of a horse book that opened, only they laid
the bets off at Seattle. ..,,,-, ., o
Mr. Kennedy. Did they bring Morrie Altschuler down there i
Mr. Elkins. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was Morrie Altschuler ?
Mr. Elkins. A professional horse book man.
Mr. Kennedy. What were they bringing him down for ?
Mr. Elkins. To open up a horse book.
Mr. Kennedy. What finally resulted ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, for some reason it just didn't get open.
Mr Kennedy. You never were directly involved in that yourself?
Mr. Elkins. No. I was talked to about it, and I was to receive 25
percent of it, or whatever it might be, if I would get it open. I was
to front for it.
Mr. Kennedy. It never got operating ?
546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. No. They wanted them to open horse books in various
local people's establishments, and they wanted 50 percent of that, and
I just never went and talked to them about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they operate some kind of a horseracing estab-
lishment there, that they were going to have some connection with
Seattle ? Did they ever operate that ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, Altschuler did, but I don't think they had any-
thing to do with it, only the bets were laid off through their establish-
ment in Seattle.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the bets that were made in
that place were laid off at Battersby and Smith ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And Battersby and Smith was Joe McLaughlin's
place in Seattle?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. When you made these tapes and found that there
was a possibility that they might doublecross you, what did you de-
cide that you were going to do with the tapes first ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I thought I would take them down to Salem
and give them — do you mean first ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. What did you initially think you were going
to do with the tapes ? Were you going to make them public ?
Mr. Elkins. I thought I was. I thought I would put them in a
sack, with a rock in it, and throw it through the window of the Ore-
gonian establishment.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the tapes after you got them ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to see any of the officials with them ?
Mr. Elkins. I went to Mr. Langley and told him that I had some
tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Mr. Elkins. He said that he was a young man and I was old enough
to die anyway, and that I shouldn't harm his position, that he thought
he could eventually be governor, and that he would appreciate it if
I could get Tom Maloney out of the town. He didn't think I would
have too much trouble with McLaughlin, but Maloney wouldn't let
him mind his own business. I asked him to run his own office and
not take orders from anyone.
_ Mr. Kennedy. Your aim, then, was to get Maloney and McLaugh-
lin out of town ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And to go back to sort of a peaceful existence in
Portland?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell Langley at that time that you would
turn the tapes over to him for $10,000 ?
Mr. Elkins. I certainly did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And you never mentioned the fact that you wanted
some money for the tapes ?
Mr. Elkins. I never wanted any money for the tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. You never asked Langley for $10,000 for the tapes ?
Mr. Elkins. Not anyone else ; no, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 547
(At this point, the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mrs. Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. Only since I have been here. I have never been intro-
duced to Mrs. Langley.
Mr. Kennedy. You never saw her before ?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never went to Mrs. Langley and asked her for
$10,000?
Mr. Elkins. I certainly did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet Mrs. Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How many times did you go to the home of Langley ?
Mr. Elkins. I went there twice.
Mr. Kennedy. Before the tapes ?
Mr. Elkins. I went there before the tapes to ask him to quit spread-
ing stories about me and prostitution. He told me that he didn't
think I was mixed in prostitution, to quit worrying about it, and to
tell him to quit worrying about the $8,500 he owed me and I would
give him $5,000.
Mr. Kennedy. You gave him $5,000?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr, Kennedy. That was out of an earlier business deal?
Mr. Elkins. That is right, the China Lantern.
Mr. Kennedy. And you owned it together?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. We sold it to a Chinese couple.
Mr. Kennedy. That was a gambling establishment?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. We were to retain half of the gambling
that might be operated within 10 years there.
Mr. Kennedy. This was back in 1949 that the two of you owned the
China Lantern, is that correct?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was a gambling establishment that both
of you operated?
Mr. Elkins. Well, we didn't do much gambling after we got it.
The man he was in partners with previous, they had a game going.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you do some gambling there?
Mr. Elkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it an after-hours place?
Mr. Elkins. Yes. It operated all night.
Mr. Kennedy. Did it operate after 2 : 30 a. m. ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, mostly food and gambling. We didn't sell
whisky there. We give the whisky ^way.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went to Langley on this one occasion when
you had this break, this argument, with Crosby in the car, and then
Langley started spreading stories that you were interested in prosti-
tution, is that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You went to him at that time to tell him to stop
spreading the stories, and also you made an arrangement with him
on the $8,500 you said that he owed you, is that right?
548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you agreed to pay him $5,000 ?
Mr. Elkins. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay him the $5,000 ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes. I gave it to Joe McLaughlin the following
Monday.
Mr. Kennedy. For him to give it to him?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, the tapes were in the room, is that
right?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had the conversation about when you
turned the $5,000 over to Joe McLaughlin, that was on tapes, is that
right?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was also taped, his conversation after you
left the room?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You went to see Langley a second time, you went
to see him at his home a second time, which was on these tapes ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that you were going to make the
tapes public at that time ?
Mr. Elkins. I did. I told him I would throw them through the
front window of the Oregonian if he didn't quit taking orders and
and run his place like he should.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you also go to see Mr. Clyde Crosby ?
Mr. Elkins. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back. You never saw Mrs. Langley at
that time ?
Mr. Elkins. That time or any other time. I don't believe that
she — she might have seen me, but I didn't see her. I seen two little
kids that he brought into the living room.
Mr. Kennedy. But you never discussed the fact that you wanted
money for the tape ?
Mr. Elkins. At no time, and I never took any tapes to Bill Lang-
ley's home, nor any recorder.
Mr. Kennedy. The next thing you did was you went to Clyde
Crosby?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you played some of the tapes for him ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him for any money?
Mr. Elkins. I certainly did not. He wanted to bring the tapes to
Washington, D. C, to let John Sweeney and Frank Brewster listen
to them, he said.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the point of these tapes that you were going
to establish that you were turning over about $20,000, and that you
knew from the tapes and from listening to the conversation that they
were not making that accounting to John Sweeney or Frank Brewster
and Clyde Crosby ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 549
(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Elkins. That is right; that they were lying to them about
everything.
Mr. Kennedy. Including yourself ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And if, in fact, they were being doublecrossed ; they
were being doublecrossed by them ?
Mr. Elkins. By them instead of me ; that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And Crosby seemed to accept that initially; did he?
Mr. Elkins. He was saying that he didn't know them, that he
didn't pick them to be brought down there, and they were really closer
friends of Frank Brewster than they were to John Sweeney; that
Brewster had selected them and turned them over to John Sweeney
to operate in Portland. He was more or less of a green pea in the
vice situation, that he had only been in the position he was in for a
year or something, and that he felt that John Sweeney and Frank
Brewster would put those men in their place and take them out of
there. There was no discussion about money or anything else.
Mr. Kennedy. And did he ask to take the tapes from you at that
time?
Mr. Elkins. He wanted them.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was to take them back to Washington ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. He asked me to deliver them to him
at the airport on Wednesday, I believe, when he said he was going
to take a flight for Washington, D. C, and that he would mail the
tape back to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to turn them over ?
Mr. Elkins. I told him I would think about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn at a later time that he had told Wil-
liam Langley that he thought he could get hold of the tapes ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the conversation that was told you ?
Mr. Elkins. Bill Langley told someone that he understood that I
no longer had the tapes. But they didn't know that there were about
70 or 50 of them.
Mr. Kennedy. How many hours, approximately, do you have of
tapes in that room ?
Mr. Elkins. I would say 70.
Mr. Kennedy. Probably over 70 hours of tapes ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then after that you attempted to go see Frank
Brewster ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have difficulty getting hold of Frank Brew-
ster then ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Through what contact were you finally able to get to
see Frank Brewster ?
Mr. Elkins. Through Hy Goldbaum.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you hear about Hy Goldbaum ?
Mr. Elkins. From Stan Terry.
550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. What did Stan Terry tell you at that time %
Mr. Elkins. Well, he told me that Hy had arranged for an appoint-
ment for him, and that he imagined that I would have to pay for it,
but that he thought that it could be arranged.
Mr. Kennedy. He said that Hy had arranged an appointment for
him ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And that you would probably have to pay for it,
but he thought Hy could arrange the appointment ?
Mr. Elkins. To straighten it out. He just hoped it wasn't as
rough on me as it was on him.
Mr. Kennedy. He had already, initially, when he got into the union
some 5 or 6 months earlier, had told you of his meeting with Frank
Brewster and the fact that he had to pay $10,000 ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ultimately meet with Hy Goldbaum ?
Mr. Elkins. I did ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did Hy Goldbaum come ?
Mr. Elkins. To Portland, Oreg.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you call Hy Goldbaum ?
Mr. Elkins. I did. *
Mr. Kennedy. And you asked him to come ?
Mr. Elkins. I first talked to Les Beckman, and Les Beckman called
him, and I don't remember whether Hy called me or I called Hy, but it
was my wish to straighten the thing out, if I could. Hy came to Port-
land, and we went to Seattle together.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the rest that has been stated before ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to cover one more matter before I finish.
This was on the question of the chief of police. You understood from
the conversations that you listened to in the room, as well as their
own conversations with you, that they wanted to get rid of the chief
of police ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And that they ultimately were going to send Clyde
Crosby to the mayor ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. It was just a question of what excuse would be used
when they discussed this matter with the mayor ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. They felt no politician could turn down
their support, so they were trying to figure a way or something that
the mayor could hang his hat on to remove the chief. It didn't occur
to them that he might be honest or not go along with them.
(At this point, Senator McCarthy withdrew from the hearing
room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Was Langley also in on a good number of those con-
versations ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he giving suggestions as to how to get rid of
the two ?
Mr. Elkins. That is riant.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 551
Mr. Kennedy. They were all recorded ?
Mr. Elkins. He would tell about writing a letter about the gypsies.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that; the gypsies that were in the city
of Portland?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. They were living in business places
around, with their doors open, and I think it was where they shouldn't
live.
Mr. Kennedy. So there was talk about writing, about getting in
touch with the mayor, and complaining that the chief of police was
not getting rid of the gypsies ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So they discussed that possibility ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. And they decided, he and McLaughlin
decided, that that wasn't a good idea, to put it in writing. He thought
he should talk to them in person or on the phone.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ultimately find out or learn whether he had
gone to the chief or the mayor of the city ?
Mr. Elkins. No; I would have no way of finding out whether
he talked to him about the gypsies or not.
Mr. Kennedy. At least, you know he discussed the matter ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit from the ex-
mayor of Portland, Mr. Fred L. Peterson.
The Chairman. It may be read, if it is connected with the matter
which the witness is testifying to.
Mr. Kennedy. This will be the last matter this afternoon, as far as
I am concerned.
The Chairman. Do you need Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes; we need Mr. Elkins for one very small bit of
testimony tomorrow.
The Chairman. Do you need him any more this afternoon ?
Mr. Kennedy. No ; I do not.
The Chairman. You may stand aside for the moment.
Mr. Kennedy (reading) :
1. Fred L. Peterson, make the following statement of my own free will, with-
out promise of any favor or promise of immunity, in the presence of Alphonse
Calabrese who has identified himself to me as staff investigator of the United
States Senate Committee Investigating Improper Activities in the Labor and
Management Fields.
I reside at 3157 Northeast Irving Street, Portland, Oreg. I served as mayor
of the city of Portland from January 1, 1953, to and including December 31,
1956. I would like to state that during the 1952 primaries and general election
the central labor council, AFL, did not endorse either the incumbent mayor nor
me for mayor. I served as a commissioner of the city of Portland from Janu-
ary 1, 1941, to and including December 31, 1952. Prior to that time I owned and
operated a retail drugstore from October 1, 1919, until I entered public office
in 1941.
During the period that I served as mayor, I made the acquaintance of Clyde C.
Crosby, international representative of the teamsters union in the State of
Oregon through an introduction by John Sweeney, Crosby's predecessor. During
the latter part of December of 1954, Mr. Clyde Crosby called me and asked me
if I could go to lunch with him because he had someone he wanted nie to meet.
I met him at the Teamsters Building at Northeast Third and Holladay and
went in his car to the Prime Rib Restaurant. At this time he introduced me to
Tom Maloney and stated that this was the man that he wanted me to meet.
552 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
While at lunch at the Prime Rib Restaurant, Crosby explained to me that Mr.
Maloney was sent to Portland because he was the one who had handled their,
the teamsters, part of the Langley campaign and that John Sweeney wanted
him to help me in my election which was forthcoming in May of 1956. I said
I had a campaign manager who handled my campaign when I was elected mayor
and I had used him for free advice and if I ran for reelection, he was the one
who would be my campaign manager. Crosby then said, "We don't want to take
over your campaign manager's job but Mr. Maloney understands public relations
and policies and he will give you suggestions so that you can build up and be
elected at the primary."
After this first meeting Tom Maloney would either come to my office or call
me and gratuitously offer me advice on how to handle civic problems as they
arose. I have always been a friend of labor and felt that Mr. Maloney's offer
of assistance was a manifestation of this friendship with labor. I received a
letter dated Friday, June 17, 1955, a copy of which is attached to this statement,
addressed to me as "Dear Mayor" and signed "Tom Maloney" in which he
advised that he would like to see me elected in the primaries and that if we
put our minds to it, we could make it.
The Chairman. The letter may now be read.
Mr. Kennedy. It is dated Friday, June 17, 1955.
Dear Mayor : I don't know if you got one of these yet but you should file one
away. I would like to see you elected in the Primaries and I know if we put our
minds to it we can make it. We got a good newspaperman in our Building
working for us and I think I Am sure that Crosby and Sweeney will be all for it.
That is mailing out material to every one of these little papers like the Italian
Paper, the Jewish paper, and I know I can get the Greek Vote for you as I got
it for Langley after they indorsed McCort. The Catholic Vote Mark Holmes is
the Boy for that one. And them nondrinkers, whatever the hell you call them,
is got a 5,000 Vote and I will have Bill go after them for you as they Voted for
Bill. Am going to come right to the point with you, I admire you because you
got GUTS. Anytime you want me or need me you can reach me through Clyde
or Atwater 4551.
(Signed) Tom Maloney.
The Chairman. Now go back and finish reading the affidavit.
Mr. Kennedy. It is as follows :
He also stated that he had a good newspaperman in their building and he was
sure that Crosby and Sweeney would be all for it. The Maloney letter concluded,
"Am going to come right to the point with you, I admire you because you got
GUTS. Anytime you want me or need me you can reach me through Clyde or
Atwater 4551." Upon receipt of this letter I called Maloney at Atwater 4551
and thanked him for this letter and then asked him who the newspaperman was
that he mentioned in this letter. Maloney told me that the man he had in mind
was Ron Moxness who was editor for the official newspaper of the teamsters
union in the State of Oregon.
After this, during the last few days of July or the first of August 1955, Maloney
came to my office and questioned me about allowing David Nance and Bob
Seegar to operate in a Negro district located in the north side of Portland.
Maloney said that he would need these two operators as they controlled the
Negro Democratic votes in their area. Although Maloney was not specific in
the way of what operations were to be allowed, I know what Maloney meant,
namely, gambling and bootlegging joints, and I told him "No." Maloney then
asked me if I would have any objections if he talked to Chief James Purcell and
I stated that I had no objection and that I would want the chief of police to talk
to anyone who desired to talk to him. Maloney then asked me to call the chief
of police to arrange a meeting. I told him in no uncertain terms that I would
not call the chief of police to make arrangements for an appointment. On
another occasion Tom Maloney came to my office and told me that William
Langley, the district attorney, and James Purcell, the chief of police, were not
getting along and asked me to bring the two together at a meeting. He stated
that after this meeting was arranged, I should stay there for a few minutes and
then excuse myself and then Maloney would come into the meeting and talk to
them. I again told Maloney that I would not be a party to that kind of a meeting.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 553
Sometime in December of 1955 Clyde Crosby came to my office and stated that
he had an official message to deliver to me. He said, "I hate to bring this message
to you but it is an official message and I have to give it to you. Brewster,
Sweeney, and I talked this over and I have been instructed to tell you that if
Purcell continues to be chief of police, we will have to find another candidate for
mayor to support."
During this discussion I asked Clyde Crosby for the reason that this action
should be taken, and he stated that a man had been beat up, and he also said
that a man had been innocently arrested for vagrancy. I told him if he would
give me the details I would look into the matter and take appropriate action.
He stated that I could easily find out, and that the teamsters' attorney, Jim
Landye, was handling the case for the individual who had been arrested on the
vagrancy charge. I told Crosby that I would not do anything about the removal
of the chief of police whom I had appointed unless there was a reason for his
removal, and Crosby told me to think it over or they would find another candi-
date to support for mayor. I told Crosby that he would get his answer when
he found out whether or not I removed the chief of police. I checked with the
chief of police about the matters which Crosby mentioned and was satisfied that
there was no wrongdoing. Consequently, I did not accede to Crosby's wishes.
I would like to state that I appointed Clyde Crosby on the exposition recrea-
tion commission, which was a body of five individuals representing a cross-
section of the city of Portland. Mr. Crosby was picked as a representative for
labor due to the fact that I had made inquiries amongst labor people who indi-
cated that he was one of the most popular and apparently one of the biggest
men in the labor movement in the Portland area. This appointment was made
in June of 1954.
I have read the above statement, which consists of four typewritten pages,
have initialed each correction therein on each page, and state that to the best
of my knowledge everything therein is true and correct.
( Signed ) Fred L. Peterson.
Signed in the presence of :
(Signed) A. F. Calabrese,
March 2, 1957.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2d day of March 1957.
( Signed ) Catherine Hampson,
Notary Public.
My commission expires December 14, 1957.
The Chairman. If there is nothing further
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that the team-
sters in that election backed Mr. Peterson's opponent, Mr. Terry
Schrunk.
The Chairman. Before the committee recesses
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, also I have this check that you were
asking for yesterday, dealing with the E. & E., for $668, and the letter
that goes along with it.
The Chairman. A photostatic copy ?
Mr. Kennedy. A photostatic copy of the check.
The Chairman. The check has been sworn to already ?
Mr. Kennedy. No. It was mentioned yesterday. This is the check
that went to Joseph McLaughlin after that E. & R. business broke up.
The Chairman. It may be placed in the record.
Mr. Kennedy. I think Mr. Elkins can identify it.
The Chairman. Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Kennedy. Is Mr. Elkins still here ?
The Chairman. While the witness is coming forward, the Chair will
make this announcement. On Monday of this week, I believe, one of
the members of the committee in some remarks on the floor of the
Senate, stated he had been absent from the Senate Chamber, I believe,
on last Saturday or last Friday, I am not sure, one day, because he was
554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
making an investigation of a member of the staff of this committee,
that he had had some reports about. When the committee met on
Tuesday morning in an executive session, that matter was discussed,
with the result that the Chair appointed a subcommittee of two mem-
bers to make a further check on this member of the staff. I do not re-
call that I have seen anything in the press about it, Maybe there was
something in the press. I am sure it has been in the press somewhere,
and, therefore, the Chair wishes to clear the matter up.
The members appointed were Senator McNamara and Senator
Mundt. They have pursued their duties in this respect, and have to-
day advised the Chair that the information about this member of the
staff was not such as to cause them any disturbance; that they have
satisfied themselves that the member of the staff is all right, and that
he should be continued as a member of the staff.
I have discussed the matter with Senator McCarthy who has re-
ceived from the two subcommittee members the same information that
the Chair has, and Senator McCarthy says he is satisfied now that it is
all right.
As a further precaution, however, the information we had from one
source was not quite complete; I have requested the FBI to make a
further check and to report to us whatever else it may find.
I may say as far as the Chair is concerned, I have made a pretty
thorough inquiry about each member of the staff that we have em-
ployed! These inquiries have to be made somewhat hurriedly, of
course, because we do not take very long, and we have to set up the
staff in order to organize the committee and get functioning. "Rut this
committee will, at all times, scrutinize the staff very closely, look into
their past record, insofar as we have the opportunity to do so, and
sufficiently so at all times to satisfy ourselves that those whom we are
employing are people of character, of integrity, of ability, and that
they will also work.
Senator Mundt?
Senator Mttndt. I simply wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that what the
Chair has said is exactly ,of course, 100 percent correct. But I thought
we should have in the record the name of the staff member. It is Mr.
Robert W. Greene.
The Chairman. I am sorry I failed to mention his name.. Thank
you.
Is there anything further ?
With respect to the meeting of the committee tomorrow, we will have
to occupy room 357 for the morning session. We are hopeful, how-
ever, that we can have this room for the afternoon session for at least
an hour and a half. We will have to determine that later.
Is there anything further ?
(Members present at this point: The chairman and Senator
Mundt.)
TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Elkins, there is presented to you a document.
Will you examine it and identify it, please ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. That is a copy of what I got here. Yes, sir :
that is right.
The Chairman. Will you identify it ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 555
Speak a little louder.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell him what it is. What is it ?
Mr. Elkins. That is a cashier's check that I gave to Joe McLaugh-
lin, of Seattle, on the E. & R. refund on a piece of property which was
sold, that he had options on.
The Chairman. You testified about the check yesterday, but you did
not have a photostatic copy of it ?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir ; I did not.
The Chairman. That is a photostatic copy of the check you testified
about yesterday ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 40 for the record.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 40" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 754—755.)
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock
in the morning.
(Members present at the taking of the recess: The chairman and
Senator Mundt.)
(Whereupon, at 3 : 40 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
10 a. m. Thursday, March 7, 1957.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
in the Labor or Management Field,
Washington, D. C.
The select committee met at 10 a .m., pursuant to Senate Resolution
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in room 357 of the Senate Office Build-
ing, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee)
presiding.
Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.,
Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michi-
gan ; Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin ; Senator
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Barry Gold-
water, Republican, Arizona.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the select com-
mittee ; Jerome Adlerman, assistant counsel ; Alphonse F. Calabrese,
investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan,
Ives, McNamara, McCarthy, and Goldwater. )
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I will call Mr. Elkins.
The Chairman. Mr. Elkins, will you come around, please.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Resumed
Senator McCarthy. I had a few questions I would like to ask.
Mr. Elkins, I, as you know, have been a bit disturbed that we are
using, and so far this is not criticism of counsel, almost exclusively
underworld figures to indict the teamsters union. I was convinced
by your statement both in executive session and in public session that
you had nothing to do with the houses.
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Since then, I have received a sizable number
of calls from Portland to the effect that you had a very active part
in their operations for some years, and I just wonder now while you
are under oath, whether you would want to confirm or deny that you
did have anything to do with the operation of the houses of prosti-
tution.
Mr. Elkins. I did not, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You had nothing to do whatsoever ?
557
558 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. None whatsoever.
Senator McNamara. May I interrupt to raise a point that I think
is important here? This committee has not had this witness in execu-
tive session.
Senator McCarthy. I think that you are wrong. This witness has
been in executive session.
Senator McNamara. This committee has not had this witness in
executive session. I repeat that.
Senator McCarthy. If I may differ with you, we have had him in
executive session. It was the Investigating Subcommittee, and all of
the members of this committee were invited by the chairman to attend,
so that he was in executive session.
Senator McNamara. Not of this committee. That was in executive
session of another committee. This witness has given all of his testi-
mony in public, and I want the record to show that.
Senator McCarthy. I think that you are wrong, Pat.
Senator McNamara. I am not wrong.
Senator McCarthy. I think you are wrong. This witness has been
in executive session and he has testified under oath in executive ses-
sion and if I am wrong I think the Chair will correct me. The Chair,
I believe, invited all of the members of this committee to attend that
session so that he was in executive session.
I do not want to waste time quibbling, but, Pat, may I have your
attention. I do not want to waste time quibbling about which com-
mittee administered the oath. I merely mention the fact that he was
in executive session.
Senator McNamara. I don't want to quibble either, but I insist
you are wrong.
The Chairman. All right ; the Chair will make this statement for
the record. This witness testified in executive session before the Sen-
ate Permanent Investigating Subcommittee. He has not testified in
executive session before this committee.
At the time that he testified before the Investigating Subcommittee,
as I recall, and I think the record will show that, the Chair invited
members of the Labor and Welfare Committee of the Senate to be
present.
Whether each member got the invitation or not, the Chair is. not
advised. I think there were one or two of them present when thin
witness testified, as I recall. There were one or two members. I be-
lieve Senator Gold water was present.
Senator Goldwater. Not this particular one, I don't think.
The Chairman. I do not remember who was present. Anyhow,
he is now testifying in public and he is testifying before this com-
mittee, and we will proceed to take further evidence from him.
Proceed.
Senator McCarthy. I think that you have answered the question.
You say that you have never had anything to do whatsoever with it ?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. With the houses of prostitution ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. I testified in executive session, and
I told the truth and I am still telling the truth. I said I was under
indictment for something to do with prostitution, but that I had not
had anything to do with it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 559
Senator McCarthy. I think this has been gone into and I do not
want to cover old ground. Under how many indictments are you
now ; Federal and State ? . '-
Mr. Elkins. I think about 24 ; it is more or less. It is 20 or better.
Senator McCarthy. Around 24 ; more or less ?
Mr. Elkins. More or less.
Senator McCarthy. Could you give us roughly how many o± those
are Federal and how many are State ?
Mr. Elkins. There are nine Federal.
Senator McCarthy. And the others are State ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. Could you tell us who got the Federal indict-
ments, and what United States attorney ?
Mr. Elkins. Mr. Luckey, Ed Luckey.
Senator McCarthy. How do you spell that ?
Mr Elkins. Well, L-u-c-k-e-y ; I believe that is right.
Senator McCarthy. And who was the State man who got the
i ndictments ?
Mr. Elkins. Mr. Thornton.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Thornton ?
Mr Elkins. The attorney general ; that is correct, I-h-o-r-n-t-o-n.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Langley did not get any of those indict-
ments?
Mr. Elkins. In the State ; yes, he did.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Langley did ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. He got some of them ?
Mr. Elkins. You mean on me ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Elkins. He got one ; yes.
Senator McCarthy. He got one?
Mr. Elkins. I think, sir, that the record should show that it was,
lie got it on an illegal search and seizure.
Senator McCarthy. So that the record is straight, you had no ar-
rangement with taxicab drivers at any time that they were to bring
riistomers to any particular houses of ill fame ?
Mr. Elkins. Definitely not, sir.
Senator McC .« hthy. No arrangement, whatsoever ?
Mr. Elkins. Certainly not, .
Senator McCarthy. And as far as you know there was no taxicab
driver beaten up because he failed to bring customers to the right
house?
Mr. Elkins. No ; that is ridiculous.
Senator McCarthy. That is definitely wrong?
Mr Elkins. That is definitely wrong, sir. The State police have
been looking into those kind of things for 8 or 9 months and if they
could find anything like that, I would have been indicted tor 8 or 9
times more, probably. m
Senator McCarthy. Now, there was a chief of police. A\ as it
Piircell?
Mr. Elkins. Jim Purcell.
Senator McCarthy. How closely did you and he work together, it
at all?
89330— 57— pt. 2 9
560 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. We didn't work together. You mean was I paying
him off, is that what you are asking, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Either paying him off, or was there any agree-
ment between you ?
Mr. Elkins. There was not.
Senator McCarthy. And you never made a payoff ?
Mr. Elkins. No, sir; I did not.
Senator McCarthy. And why was Purcell removed ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, the change of administration.
Senator McCarthy. I see. So when the mayor changed, the chief
was changed, also ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. All right, thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Senator McCarthy, that in that connec-
tion, we asked Ann Thompson who was a madam from Seattle and
runs a number of houses, whether Mr. Elkins was known to receive
any money from houses of prostitution and she said that she had never
heard of him being associated with that.
Helen Hardy, when she was here in executive session, was asked
the same question and replied in the same manner. We have made
a check and, as far as we can find, we cannot find that he ever re-
ceived any money from houses of prostitution or from madams or
from prostitutes.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask counsel one question not having
to do with this witness? Has the lie detector test been made yet on,
what was his name ?
Mr. Kennedy. Zusman. Yes ; it has.
Senator McCarthy. It has?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. And Helen — whatever her name was.
Mr. Kennedy. Hardy.
Senator McCarthy. Did she refuse to have one?
Mr. Kennedy. She had left before this question came up.
Senator McCarthy. Has she been contacted to see if she would sub-
mit to a lie detector test?
Mr. Kennedy. No, she has not.
Senator McCarthy. I might say, and I know counsel cannot do
everything at one time, and he has a tremendous load of work as the
chairman has, but I believe if one party to a dispute submits to a lie
detector, the other party should also be asked to submit. It cer-
tainly bears upon their veracity and I would request that this lady,
Helen, be asked if she will also submit to a lie detector.
(At this point in the proceedings, Senator Mundt entered the hear-
ing room.)
The Chairman. The Chair will answer by saying that he made that
decision yesterday and so ordered that she be given the same oppor-
tunity that this witness was given.
The Senator is eminently correct, that the pressure of this work is
such that the staff cannot do everything at once. We were occupied
all of yesterday. She will be contacted by telephone or telegraph and
given the same opportunity and be urged to accept.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Senator McCarthy. I have no further question of the witness.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 561
Senator Mundt. While we are on the subject of the lie detector test,
it has been taken. What happens next? Do we find out what the
results were?
The Chairman. The Chair announced yesterday that when the
results were made available to him they would be made part of this
public record.
Therefore, whatever it is, and I have not received it and we have not
received it, when it is received, as soon as the Chair can look at it and
provide opportunity to other members of the committee to see it, it
will be the Chair's purpose unless he is overruled by the committee to
make it a part of the public record.
(The information referred to appears on p. 629.)
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask one further question? As a cir-
cuit judge, I had a great deal of confidence in certain lie detectors, for
example, the Keeler Institute in Chicago. My question is, and I think
Bob could answer this : Do we have a really good, reputable outfit to
conduct tests here in Washington now?
The Chairman. I do not know. They are being paid by the tax-
payers money, and I hope they are as good as other agencies, or com-
parably so, at least, and I do not know. It is the Secret Service. I
hope they are good.
Senator Ives. Before you go any further, I think it should be
brought out for the record that thus far, at this very moment, there
have been no witnesses heard in executive session by this committee,
itself.
The Chairman. I think we have the record straight. Now, let us
proceed.
Senator McCarthy. To further clarify the record, could I make it
clear that the Investigating Subcommittee, and 4 or 5 members of this
committee are part of the Investigating Subcommittee, that is 4 of the
8 members, did hear a sizable number of witnesses in executive session
on this subject we are delving into now, and that evidence has all been
made available to this committee so that we have that executive session
testimony.
The Chairman. That is correct. May the Chair make this state-
ment?
I would like to proceed, but under the rules of the Investigating
Subcommittee, the Chair cannot of his own order, call public hear-
ings. Therefore, it is necessary often, and it is proper to do so, to
have some testimony in executive session so that other members of
the committee may determine in their own minds, whether the infor-
mation that they have and the evidence that can be produced warrants
public hearings.
That rule does not apply to this committee, because it is set up for
a specific purpose. That purpose envisions public hearings. There-
fore, the Chair called these public hearings and that is what we are
now in the process of doing.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins, you discussed yesterday, the fact that
you were making payments to Mr. Maloney and McLaughlin, is that
correct ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that you put a tape recorder in their room to
find out what they were discussing during this period of time?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out that they were dissatisfied with the
amount of money that you were turning over to them?
Mr. Elkins. I did, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period of time, one of the joints
that you were operating was the Kenton place, in the Kenton district?
Mr. Elkins. 8212 Denver Avenue, North Denver Avenue, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was run by a Mr. Bennett: is that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was called the 8212 Club ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was in the Kenton district of Portland ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Does the Chair understand that was your club and
you owned it and you were operating it or having him operate it for
Mr. Elkins. No. I had an interest in it ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. You had an interest in it, but Bennett was operat-
ing it ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This is one of the clubs that you were making pay-
ments to Maloney and McLaughlin for ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you made certain arrangements so that that
club could remain open ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. To the best of my ability. It didn't do a very good
job of it.
Mr. Kennedy. And the necessary arrangements had been made?
Mr. Elkins. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you, in hearing the conversation that was being
carried on in your room, learn that Mr. Maloney and Mr. McLaughlin
were dissatisfied with the amount of money that you were bringing
in from that particular place?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir. I believe they sent Mr. Plotkin
out to check to see what he could find out.
Mr. Kennedy. You said there was a feeling you were holding some
of the money back.
Mr. Elkins. That is right, and I believe Mr. Plotkin told them that
he didn't think they were doing so well. Mr. Plotkin told Mr. Maloney
that, according to his observation when he went out to the Kenton
Club, he didn't think it was doing too well financially.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you had only turned over about $312 or $314
from that place ?
Mr. Elkins. I think that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn that Mr. Maloney contacted Mr.
Kiehl, Mr. Ray Kiehl?
Mr. Elkins. That is what I heard Mr. Maloney say.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Ray Kiehl was the campaign manager of
the sheriff ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Schrunk ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Terry Schrunk later ran for mayor against Mr.
Peterson ?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 563
Mi-. Kennedy. And he won in the last election; is that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And he is presently mayor of Portland?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn that Mr. Maloney was suggesting to
Mr. Kiehl that Mr. Schrunk raided his place or closed it up?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
The Chairman. Mr. Elkins, we do not have the microphone system
here this morning and you will have to speak a little louder. What
you are speaking into there is radio and television and so, will you
speak a little louder so that we can hear you ?
Mr. Elkins. All right.
Mr. Kennedy'. This 8212 Club, was it ultimately raided?
Mr. Elkins. I don't know if you would call it raided. On the first
part of September
Mr. Kennedy-. The first part of September of what year?
Mr. Elkins. 1955, that is correct. The sheriff's office showed up
tnere. The 2 deputy sheriffs went in the Kenton Club and 1 stood by
The door and 1 went to the game and watched the game a little bit, and
finally, Mr. Bennett went down and talked to one of them and they
told him the sheriff is downstairs and wants to talk to him.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that? You are going to have to speak up?
Mr. Elkins. One of the deputies told Mr. Bennett that the sheriff
was doAvnstairs and suggested that he wanted to see Mr. Bennett, that
Mr. Schrunk would like to talk to Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened ? Were you there ?
Mr. Elkins. I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this what has been related to you?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy-. This is completely hearsay on your part?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, go ahead with what you were told.
Mr. Elkins. That is all, that Mr. Bennett went down and talked to
Mr. Schrunk, and Mr. Shrunk told him that he was going to arrest
everybody that came out of the place,
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shrunk told Mr. Bennett that he was going to
arrest everyone that came out of the place ?
Mr. Elkins. I believe that is drunks and juveniles. As soon as they
got one car filled up, they would back another car up.
Mr. Kennedy. And take everybody away ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy-. Go ahead.
Mr. Elkins. But he had some kind of an agreement with Mr.
Schrunk, and that didn't happen.
Mr. Kennedy-. Bennett made an agreement with Mr. Schrunk, and
that did not happen ?
Mr. Elkins. I oelieve that is correct,
Mr. Kennedy-. Now, they took away 3 or 4 drunks.
Mr. Elkins. I think they forced their way. They took them away
and fined them $10 a piece.
Mr. Kennedy-. But nothing else happened, is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. That's all.
Mr. Kennedy. You closed the place voluntarily ?
564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Elkins. Yes. I didn't, Bennett closed it voluntarily.
Mr. Kennedy. And moved to a different place?
Mr. Elkins. That's correct.
Mr. Kennedy. But the place was not abated or any action taken
against the place, and nobody was arrested beyond the 3 or 4 people ;
is that right?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, that was 3 or 4 drunks ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you learn, or what were you told by Mr.
Bennett as to what agreement had been made ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, I was told by Mr. Bennett that he didn't want
to testify before the grand jury because he had given Mr. Schrunk
some money.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever tell you how much money he had given
Mr. Schrunk?
Mr. Elkins. Yes. He was short in the bankroll and he said he had
given him $500.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, explain what the bankroll is, and you put in
$1,500 to finance this operation?
Mr. Elkins. That is right. I give it to the bookkeeper and she
gives it to the different people.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the bookkeeper's name?
Mr. Elkins. Laura Stone.
Mr. Kennedy. You gave the $1,500 to Laura Stone ?
Mr. Elkins. I believe that is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And then she in turn, turns that over ?
Mr. Elkins. When a place closes, they check the bankroll back in
to her; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. When the place closes up, $1,500 is to be returned to
you ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes ; and put in the safe until such time as they need
it again ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, what did you hear from your bookkeeper,
Laura Stone?
Mr. Elkins. That there was $500 short in the bank roll.
Mr. Kennedy. You were $500 short?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Bennett oould only return $1,000 instead of $1,500?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the possibility that he just took the $500
and put it in his pocket?
Mr. Elkins. I don't believe he would do that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever give any explanation to you?
Mr. Elkins. Yes: he gave me an explanation.
Mr. Kennedy. First, did he tell Laura Sto?ie where the $500 went?
Mr. Elkins. He tried to tell her, but she told him he would have to
take that up with me.
Mr. Kennedy. And then did he ever tell you ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes: he told me.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ?
Mr. Elkins. He told me he gave it to Mr. Schrunk, that it was
better to give him that than to pay $1,500 or $2,000 for having the
place pinched.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 565
Mr. Kennedy. It was better to pay the $500 then, than to pay $1,500
or $2,000 at a later time?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins, did Mr. Bennett ever tell you how he
paid the money?
Mr. Elkins. I didn't ask him how he paid the money.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say when he told you that?
Mr. Elkins. I said he would have to make it good.
Mr. Kennedy. That he would have to make it good ?
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir ; it wasn't necessary.
Mr. Kennedy. It had not been necessary to pay the $500?
Mr. Elkins. I didn't think he would have pinched it anyway.
Mr. Kennedy. That he would not have done it anyway?
Mr. Elkins. That is what I told him.
Senator Mundt. What made you think that it would not be pinched
anyway ?
Mr. Elkins. Well, several things made me think it. I didn't know
at the time that Mr. Maloney had asked him.
Senator McCarthy. I can't hear you.
Mr. Elkins. I didn't know at the time that Mr. Maloney had asked
him to stir it up, and I had been pretty liberal as far as looking after
things.
Senator Mundt. Can you interpret what that means?
Mr. Elkins. Whenever they would have a campaign, or anything,
I would give a case of whisky or a donation, money, to it.
Senator Mundt. You mean you had supported Schrunk's can-
didacy ?
Mr. Elkins. It wasn't for that purpose, sir. It was for a conven-
tion or what have you. They would come around and get something.
Senator Mundt. You rather felt that Schrunk was obligated to you
to the point where he would not pinch a joint in which you were
interested ; is that right ?
Mr. Elkins. I was told he wouldn't bother that particular place
if I wanted to reopen.
Senator Mundt. Were you told by Schrunk?
Mr. Elkins. By his deputy.
Senator Mundt. Can you name the deputy ?
Mr. Elkins. God ; I've got everybody in trouble now.
The Chairman. I think that you should.
Mr. Elkins. Mr. Wally Wallen.
Senator Mundt. He told you that, and so as a consequence you
felt that Bennett had spent $500 for protection which you had already
provided for yourself through some other tactics?
Mr. Elkins. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. That is all.
The Chairman. Is there anything further? Are there any other
questions?
You may stand aside for the present.
We will call Mr. Bennett.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask one question of Mr. Elkins before
you leave. This may have been gone into during the few minutes
566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
1 was absent yesterday; but did you have any conversation personally
with Mr. Schrunk?
Mr. Elkins. No ; I did not.
Senator McCarthy. With his campaign manager?
Mr. Elkins. No; it wasn't the campaign manager. It was the
deputy sheriff.
Senator McCarthy. It was his deputy ?
Mr. Elkins. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
(Present at this point in the proceedings were Senators McClellan,
Ives, McNamara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Bennett. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CLIFFORD 0. BENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, JOHN T. BONNER
The Chairman. Be seated and state your name, your place of resi-
dence, and your business or occupation.
Mr. Bennett. Clifford O. Bennett, Post Office Box 411, Great Falls,
Mont,
The Chairman. Let us have the best order possible. It is difficult
for the committee to hear.
I did not understand what your present business was.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
Senator Mundt. On what basis do you decline to answer ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
Senator Mundt. Just because you want to be in contempt of Con-
gress? You say that you are not going to answer. Is that your
position ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. The Chair's attention was diverted for a moment.
I did not understand his answer.
Senator Mundt. He said he declined to answer, and I was asking
him on what basis, and he said simply because he declined to answer.
I am asking him if he has any other reason.
The Chairman. You have your counsel present, have you?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Will you answer that ?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You will answer that?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Will you permit your counsel to state his name
and residence, please, to the committee?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.
The. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Counsel, will you identify your-
self^
Mr. Bonner. My name is John Bonner, a lawyer here in Wash-
ington.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 567
Senator Mtjndt. I am back to my question. You say you decline
to answer and you just say you will not answer.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
Senator MtJNDT. This witness obviously is m contempt ot the com-
mittee, if that is his position.
The Chairman. Let us move him a little further in contempt then,
if that is going to be his position. You mean that you will not tell
the committee— you are refusing to tell the committee your present
occupation?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer it.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Bonner. I wish to confer with the client.
The Chairman. I am sure you understand the rules.
Mr. Bonner. I understand it; yes, sir.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
The Chairman. All right, sir, you have conferred with counsel.
Will you proceed I The Chair ordered and directed you to answer
the question as to your present business or occupation.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that, sir.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it. Do you understand
you are being- ordered by a committee of the United States Senate?
Mr. Bennett. And I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. Set up and authorized to proceed in this investiga-
tion, and you are refusing to answer it?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You were in the room, were you not, when Mr.
Elkins testified, the witness just preceding you? You were in the
committee room here present when he testified a moment ago; were
you not ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques-
lion.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
Senator McCarthy. Do I understand he declines to answer whether
he was in the committee room when the testimony was taken?
The Chairman. That is what he is doing.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. Just one moment. I want to make this record.
Somebody in the committee room — was anyone here who can tell me
they observed this man present in the room while Mr. Elkins was
testifying ? I do not know whether he was in here or not, but if he
was and anyone knows it, I want them to step forward and I want
to swear them and prove that he was here.
Senator McCarthy. The police officer can so testify. If necessary,
1 will so testify.
The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Policeman. I am going to make
a record. Be sworn, sir.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Officer Goodall. I do.
568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF JAMES L. GOODALL
The Chairman. Please have a seat. State your name and your
place of residence and your present business or occupation.
Officer Goodall. James L. Goodall, 1904 North Adams, Arlington,
United States Capitol Police.
The Chairman. You are on the United States Capitol Police force?
Officer Goodall. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What are your present duties today ? Or what is
your assignment of duties ? What do you have for this day ?
Officer Goodall. I am assigned to room 357 on this committee.
The Chairman. To room 357 here, the committee room in which this
committee is now sitting ; is that correct ?
Officer Goodall. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were standing at the door, and you have been
standing at the door permitting people to enter the room?
Officer Goodall. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I ask you to look to your left and see if you rec-
ognize the man sitting next to you, and if so, state whether you have
seen him before now, and where and when.
Officer Goodall. Yes, sir. He entered this room and sat down on a
back seat.
The Chairman. He entered this room : and were you here when Mr.
Elkins testified a few moments ago ? Were you standing at the door
and observing ?
Officer Goodall. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Was this man in the room at the time Mr. Elkins
was testifying ?
Officer Goodall. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Are there any further questions ?
You may stand aside ; and thank you.
You may resume your seat, Mr. Counsel.
TESTIMONY OF CLIFFORD 0. BENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, JOHN T. BONNER— Resumed
The Chairman. Do you reside in Portland, Oreg. ?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Bonner. Will you pardon us a moment, Senator ?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
The Chairman. I think counsel can advise him to take the fifth
amendment on everything, if he wants to do that, and we can expedite
it. I am not going to tell him how to advise him, but if that is what
he intends to do, let us proceed and let us get the record made.
Mr. Bonner. May he confer with me, sir ?
The Chairman. Yes ; he can confer with you.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Are you going to refuse to answer all of the ques-
tions of the committee ?
Mr. Bennett. Repeat that last question.
The Chairman. Do you now reside in Portland ?
Mr. Bennett. I answered that question to start with.
IMPROPER "ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 569
The Chairman. I am asking you, Do you now reside in Portland,
Oreg. ?
Mr. Bennett. May I confer with my counsel ?
The Chairman. Now, the Chair is going to be a little generous, but
I am not going to indulge this forever. You have been conferring
with him, and that is the same question you conferred with him about
a moment ago.
The question is, Do you now reside in Portland, Oreg. ?
Mr. Bennett. I live in Great Falls, Mont.
The Chairman. You do not reside in Portland now?
Mr. Bennett. I live in Great Falls.
The Chairman. Did you formerly reside in Portland, Oreg. ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it.
Mr. Bennett. I decline.
The Chairman. Did you operate a club there in Portland, Oreg.,
known as the 8212 Club ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. Do you know Jim Elkins who has just testified?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it.
Senator McCarthy. Will you speak up ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the
question.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. Did you hear Jim Elkins testify here in your
presence just a few moments ago?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the
question.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it,
The Chairman. You heard him testify that you operated this club,
the 8212 Club, and that he had an interest in that club. Is that true or
false?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the
question.
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer it.
The Chairman. You heard him testify that you told him that you
gave the sheriff $500, Sheriff Schrunk, on an occasion when he came
clown and arrested some drunks, that you gave it to him to keep liim
from ra i ding the club. Is that true or false ?
Mr. Bennett. I decline to answer that.
The Chairman. Are you the Bennett that he is talking about ? Do
you know that?
Mr. Bonner. May we confer, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. I would like to make a motion at this time.
That is that we waste no more time with this witness, and that we
immediately take a vote, we have a quorum here, to cite this man for
contempt, and he is clearly in contempt.
570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I do not think that lie should be allowed to come here and do what
he is doing this morning, and flaunt the authority of the United States
Senate. I think it is more or less of a disgrace to let him waste any
more of our time.
If the Chair has no objection, I would move that this committee
have him cited for contempt with no further ado.
Senator Mundt. I second the motion, Mr. Chairman.
(Whereupon, at this point in the proceedings, the committee went
into executive session. Following the executive session, the proceed-
ings were resumed as follows:)
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just to have the record straight,
may I ask counsel, has it been established by other witnesses that this
man was connected with improper activities in the labor movement
which were investigated?
Mr. Kennedy. This is one of the places, according
Senator McCarthy. May I suggest so that the witness cannot claim
he does not know the purpose for .which he is being called, that he
listen to the counsel's statement?
Mr. Kennedy. This is one of the places that Jim Elkins was oper-
ating, the receipts of which were being split between Tom Maloney
and Joe McLaughlin. Tom Maloney and Joe McLaughlin have
already been established as having their bills paid by the union during
this period of time, and Tom Maloney described himself as a union
organizer.
So the money from this so-called joint, was going to these people
who were in the union and associated with the union. Then, we have
had other evidence, of course, tying him up in other activities in the
city of Portland.
Then, Mr. Schrunk is of importance to the investigation because
of the testimony yesterday that the mayor of Portland said that Clyde
Crosby came to him and said that he had to get rid of the chief of
police or otherwise the teamsters were going to back his opponent in
the coining election.
Mr. Peterson did not get rid of the chief of police and the teamsters
backed Mr. Schrunk, at that time sheriff, who ran for mayor and Mr.
Schrunk was elected mayor of Portland.
Senator McCarthy. Could we have the record show, Mr. Chairman,
that the witness and his counsel have been present during all of this
explanation, and I would like to ask counsel whether he understands
and his client understands the reason for the calling of this witness
and why the questions were being propounded.
Mr. Bonner. As to why the witness was called by Mr. Kennedy, I
cannot answer that question. I do not know what is in his mind.
Senator McCarthy. Will you discuss with your client and find out
whether he knows why he was called ? Mr. Kennedy has explained
it very clearly.
Mr. Bonner. I will ask him if he knows why Mr. Kennedy called
him.
Senator McCarthy. He is here in the room right now ?
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the question.
The Chairman. The witness will stand aside for the present.
Call the next witness, Mr. Kennedv.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 571
(Members present at this point: The chairman, Senators Ives, Mc-
Namara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Jenkins.
Mr. Chairman, this is a picture of the 8212 Club.
The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please. Stand up.
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mrs. Jenkins. I do.
TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA JENKINS
The Chairman. Will you state your name, your place of residence,
and your present business or occupation or employment for the com-
mittee, please.
Mrs. Jenkins. Virginia Jenkins, Contact, Nev., and I am a bar-
tender.
The Chairman. You are a what ?
Mrs. Jenkins. A bartender.
The Chairman. You are a bartender.
All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Contact, Nev. ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You know the matter of these hearings, you have
been present and heard witnesses testify ; have you not ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have also previously been interrogated by
members of the staff of the committee ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir ; this is my first appearance.
Mr. Kennedy. I talked to you
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes ; I talked to Mr. Kennedy.
The Chairman. You have talked to Mr. Kennedy, the chief counsel
of the committee, regarding what 3rou may know and what you may be
able to testify to ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. With that information, have you elected to testify
without an attorney ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You waive the right of counsel ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I might say before I start questioning Mrs. Jenkins,
Mr. Chairman, that we are going to follow this through chronologi-
cally as to what happened regarding the $500 and the people that were
around that evening, following it through this witness and about 6
or 7 other witnesses as to how the alleged payment was made.
Now, you were the hat-check girl at Bennett's place; you worked
there, did you not, the 8212 Club?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were the hat-check girl?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Was that the Mr. Bennett who preceded you on
the witness stand?
572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Positive ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mrs Jenkins, you were there the evening that Sheriff
fcchrunk came by with several of his deputies ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy Could you relate to the committee what happened
that evening ? Y ou were open after hours ; is that right »
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It was about 3 : 30 in the morning?
Mrs. Jenkins. I would say so.
Mr. Kennedy. Three-thirty or four in the morning. Would vou
tell the committee what happened »
raided ifENKINS' WeU' tW° °f Mc' Schrunk's deputies came up and
Mr. Kennedy. And raided it. What did that mean ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, they came in and one stood by the door, and
the other one went around to various parts of the club, to the gambling
tables, and to the bar, looking for Mr. Bennett, because he wasn't at
me door when they first came in.
Senator McCarthy. In view of the fact that there are many pic-
tures being taken, there have always been questions created when the
witness is called before a committee investigating improper activities
I understand there is no evidence whatsoever of any improper activi-
ties on the part of this young lady.
Mr. Kennedy. None that we know of.
£!ie 9^IA?RMA.?' Do y°u have any objection to the pictures?
I he Chair will trust that the photographers have gotten all the
pictures they need for the present. Will you desist andlet us proceed
with the testimony ? I would like to expedite this as much as possible
Mr Kennedy. Mrs. Jenkins, one of the deputies went upstairs and
the other stayed down ; is that right?
Mrs Jenkins. No. There were two deputies downstairs and one
stayed by the door and the other one circled the room looking for Mr
.Bennett, observing the games and the bar.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the gambling going on at the table?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Games were going on ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And there were drinks being served ?
Mis. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you speak a little louder?
Mrs. Jenkins. I will try.
Mr. Kennedy. There was gambling going on, drinks being served,
and it was after 2 : 30 m the morning, is that right ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So one of the deputies circled, looking for Mr
Bennett. &
Could you tell us what else you observed that evening, what else
happened ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, after he found Mr. Bennett, they talked for
awhile up there.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 573
Mr. Kennedy. The deputy and Mr. Bennett?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir. And then Mr. Bennett went downstairs
with them.
Mr. Kennedy. Came downstairs with them?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir, he went outside witli them, and then he
came back, and in the meantime we were told to get all the people out
of the place, which we did as quickly as possible. Then Mr. Bennett
came back upstairs. We wondered what it was all about, because we
weren't exactly expecting it.
Mr. Kennedy. Why were you not expecting it ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, generally, when you know that there is going
to be a raid, you generally have an idea that it is going to happen.
You have some warning or something.
Well, in the first place, it was the first time I had known that Mr.
Schrunk had ever raided the place like that. Generally the city police
would.
Mr. Kennedy. This was inside the city limits, is that right?
Mrs. Jenkins. Eight.
Mr. Kennedy. He had come inside the city limits. Ordinarily, if
there was a raid taking place, it would be done by the police?
Mrs. Jenkins. That is right,
Mr. Kennedy. Although he has the authority to raid inside the city.
He can raid any place in the county ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Sure.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mrs. Jenkins. Then Mr. Bennett came back upstairs and said that
he had talked to Mr. Schrunk, and wanted to know how come this raid
was happening. Mr. Schrunk
Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear this conversation ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, I did not, This is what Mr. Bennett told me.
Mr. Kennedy. When did he tell you ?
Mrs. Jenkins. When he came back up the stairs after he had gone
down with Mr. Schrunk's deputies.
Mr. Kennedy. He went down and talked to Mr. Schrunk and then
he related the conversation he had with Mr. Schrunk to you?
Mrs. Jenkins- That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what he said to you.
Mrs. Jenkins. He asked Mr. Schrunk why this raid was happen-
ing, and Mr. Schrunk, as well as I can remember, said that he had
taken care of everybody else, but he had forgotten to take care of him.
Mr. Kennedy. That Bennett had taken care of everybody else but
he had forgotten to take care of him, Schrunk ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So what did Bennett say to you then ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, that was about the extent.
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me?
Mrs. Jenkins. That was about the extent of the conversation, ex-
cept that he asked me if he had any of the manila envelopes in there.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had any manila envelopes ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give him a manila envelop at that time ?
Mrs. Jenkins. I can't remember if I got it for him or if I told him
where it was, sir. Then he said that they weren't going to take any-
574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
body, but the way I understood it they took the last four people that
left the place.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that what he wanted to prevent, from getting the
people arrested that were coming out of there? Is that what Mr.
Bennett was anxious to prevent?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, certainly, sir. We always tried to prevent that
if we could.
Senator McCarthy. A little louder, if you could, please.
Mi . Kennedy. You are always trying to prevent that if you could ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any further conversation with Mr.
Bennett about this, what he wanted the envelope for?
Mrs. Jenkins. No. Just that one conversation was all we had about
it, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the end of it ? You never knew what he
did with the envelope.
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know whether he ever gave the envelope
to Mr. Schrunk or whether anything was put in the envelope?
Mrs. Jenkins. I understood that is what he did, but I didn't see it.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not see it yourself ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you understand at that time that is what he
wanted the envelope for, to put money in to give to Sheriff Schrunk?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Mundt. What type of gambling was going on on the prem-
ises at that time ? Was it pinball machines, or crap tables, or what ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No. I don't really recall if there were 1 or 2 games
going on that night. But if there were two, it would have been a
crap table and a 21 table.
Senator Mundt. A crap game and
Mrs. Jenkins. And a 21 table.
Senator Mundt. Blackjack, do you mean?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You know that one or the other was going on ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. This was not just a pinball mechanism, but they
were playing cards for money ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Had you been raided before ?
Mr. Jenkins. Pardon me ?
Senator Goldwater. Had the club been raided before ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Did you get a warning that it was going to be
raided?
Mrs. Jenkins. I didn't, but I imagine Mr. Bennett did.
Senator Goldwater. What did you do when you got that warning?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, we generally tried to close up that night, that
night we thought it was going to happen.
Senator Goldwater. Did you move the gambling equipment out or
hide it ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 575
Mrs. Jenkins. I don't know, sir, if they did or not.
Senator Goldwater. Yon generally just closed up (
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes.
Senator Goldwater. That warning came from the city police I
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. How much warning would they give you?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, I don't know about that, sir. Mr. Bennett
would just tell me not to come to work that night.
Senator Goldwater. You had ample warning ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, I don't know if it was ample, but generally he
had some idea that it was going to happen.
Senator Goldwater. Thank you.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Just one moment.
The Chair asks the clerk to present to you a picture, and I wish you
would examine it and see if you can identify it and tell us what that
is a picture of, if you recognize it.
(Document handed to witness.)
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. There is something familiar about it?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What is it?
Mrs. Jenkins. It is the 8212 Club.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon?
Mrs. Jenkins. The 8212 Club.
The Chairman. Where was it located ?
Mrs. Jenkins. 8212 North Denver.
The Chairman. North Denver Street, Portland, Oreg. ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
That will be made exhibit No. 41.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 41" for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the seW^committee.)
Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. James Elkins ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did you understand that he had a working interest
in the 8212 Club?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You got that information through Mr. Bennett or
from Mr. Elkins?
Mrs. Jenkins. Through Mr. Bennett.
Senator Mundt. Through Mr. Bennett, you learned that Mr. Elkins
was a partner of some type or other ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Of some type ; yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure vou made this clear already, but just
so that the record is absolutely clear, the Mr. Bennett you speak of is
the Mr. Bennett whom we have just voted to cite for contempt?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside for the present.
Call the next witness.
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators Ives,
McNamara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
s'.i:;:'>o— 57— pt. 2 10
576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Vance.
The Chairman. Will you be sworn, Mr. Vance ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Vance. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. VANCE
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
present business or occupation for the committee, please.
Mr. Vance. My name is John W. Vance, and I live in Portland
Oreg., and I am unemployed.
The Chairman. You are what \
Mr. Vance. I am unemployed.
The Chairman. You are presently unemployed.
Mr. Vance, have you been present in the committee room here this
morning?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; I have.
The Chairman. You have heard the testimony of the previous
witnesses ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Have you also talked to members of the staff of the
committee regarding information you may have?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; I have.
The Chairman. With that information and understanding, have
you elected to waive counsel? You do not desire counsel present?
Mr. Vance. I don't ; no, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Vance, you and I had a talk in the office a couple
of days ago; is that right?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And we went over your past career ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have been convicted of burglary and robbery
in the State of California ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And during the 1930's, also the same offenses in
Nevada; is that right?
Mr. Vance. In Arizona.
Mr. Kennedy. In Arizona and then in California in the 1940's?
Mr. Vance. In the 1940's.
Mr. Kennedy. And you now live in Portland, Oreg. ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you know Mr. James Elkins ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You worked for Mr. James Elkins ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The responsibility that you had, the job that you
did for Mr. Elkins, was to go around and check to determine whether
the money was being handled properly in his joints; is that right?
Mr. Vance. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. In his after-hours places?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 577
. Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you in this Bennetts place, the 8212 place,
the night that it was raided?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; I was. . ■ ■
Mr. Kennedy. The night that Terry Schrunk came in i
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see Mr. Schrunk there (
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; I did. •
Mr. Kennedy. Did you also talk to Mr. Bennett about the tact that
the sheriff had raided "the place?
Mr .Vance. Yes, sir; I did. m
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what conversations
you had with Mr. Bennett at the time? ,,.„.-, , ,
Mr V^nce Well, after he had talked to the sheriff and came back,
he tried to make a phone call to Mr. Elkins, and he was unable to
reach him. So he asked me if I didn't think it was better to pay out
$500 tonight rather than $1,500 the next day, and I told him that 1
thought it was a pretty smart thing to do.
Mr. Kennedy. He asked you whether it was not better to pay out
$500 tonight than $1,500 the next day or later?
Mr. Vance. Yes. ■
Mr. Kennedy. You told him that you thought it was a pretty smart
thing to do ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened after that? m .
Mr. Vance. He counted out what I presumed was $500 and put it in
a brown envelope.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where he got the envelope from {
Mr. Vance. No ; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know anything about that, but you saw
him put $500 in an envelope?
Mr. Vance. I did. What I presume to be $500. I don t know
exactly. , „
Mr Kennedy. Well, it was some money that he put m an envelope i
Mr! Kennedy. Did he indicate at all to you where that money was
going? , . -.j.
Mr. Vance. Well, just that he said he was going to pay it out.
Mr. Kennedy. That he was going to pay it out ?
Mr. Vance. Yes. .
Mr. Kennedy. You have known Mr. Elkins a long period of time {
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir; I have. .
Mr Kennedy. The charge would be that Mr. Elkms does not get
along with Mr. Schrunk, or possibly doesn't get along with Mr.
Schrunk, that you are making this statement for the benefit of Mr.
Elkins. Is that true ?
Mr. Vance. Well, that is probably what will happen. I don t know
what else they could say. .
Mr. Kennedy. But the testimony that you have given is the truth i
Mr. Vance. It is the truth ; yes, sir.
Mr Kennedy. I also want to bring up one other matter that bears
on your telling the truth, and that is that at the present time you have
cancer ; is that correct ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; I do.
578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Has the doctor told you how long a period of time
he expects you to live ?
Mr. Vance. Well, he just gives me a matter of months, that is alL
Mr. Kennedy. A few months ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You stated to me down in the office that you would
hardly be up here lying about something like this when you would
have to face your Maker within several months ; is that right ?
Mr. Vance. That is correct; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You would not testify falsely before this committee-
on a matter of such importance as this and have to die within a few
months ; is that correct ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir ; that is correct.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Vance, is the Mr. Bennett that you talked
about the man who was on the stand here this morning ?
Mr. Vance. That is the Mr. Bennett ; yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. The man that was cited for contempt ?'
Mr. Vance. Yes.
Senator Mundt. Are you positive about that identification ?'
Mr. Vance. Yes. I am positive. I have known him for some time.
Senator Mundt. You have known him for some time ?
Mr. Vance. Yes.
Senator Mundt. You are positive that is the man ?
Mr. Vance. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions, gentlemen? If
not, thank you very much.
Call your next witness.
(Members present at this point: The chairman, Senators Ives, Mc-
Namara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Gold water.)
Mr. Kennedy. Laura Stone.
The Chairman. Miss Stone, will you be sworn, please ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God ?
Miss Stone. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA STONE
The Chairman. Will you state your name, your place of residence,,
and your present business or employment, please?
Miss Stone. Laura Stone, 9201 North Fairhaven Avenue, Portland,.
Oreg. I am a bookkeeper.
The Chairman. You are a bookkeeper ?
Miss Stone. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Miss Stone, have you talked to members of the
committee staff, and do you know generally the line of information
the committee wishes to elicit from you?
Miss Stone. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have been present in the committee room this
morning and heard the previous witnesses testify?
Miss Stone. Yes.
The Chairman. With that knowledge of the committee's investiga-
tion, what it is inquiring into, have you elected to waive counsel ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 579
((At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.)
The Chairman. You do not need counsel?
Miss Stone. No.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you talk a little louder? Can you lean forward
:a little bit?
Miss Stone. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
During 1955, you were the bookkeeper for Mr. Jim Elkins; is that
correct ?
Miss Stone. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Elkins finance the 8212 Club?
Miss Stone. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. He bankrolled it?
Miss Stone. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How much money had he put into that club ?
Miss Stone. $1,530.
Mr. Kennedy. $1,500. Now, were you aware that in September
of 1955, were you informed in September of 1955, that that place
had been closed, or that that place had been raided by Mr. Terry
Schrunk, the sheriff?
Miss Stone. Yes ; I was informed that it was closed.
Mr. Kennedy, Did Mr. Bennett tell you ?
Miss Stone. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come to see you ?
Miss Stone. That is right ; to return the bankroll I had given him.
Mr. Kennedy, Let us go through that again. What is the proce-
dure that is followed as far as the Bankroll is concerned ?
Miss Stone. Well, if I give someone a bankroll, when a place is
dosed they are supposed to return it to me.
Mr. Kennedy. They are supposed to return the full amount of
money to you ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Bennett was to return the $1,500 to you;
is that right ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Bennett have the $1,500 ?
Miss Stone. No.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did he return?
Miss Stone. He returned $1,000 to me.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Miss Stone. I asked him where the other $500 was, and he said he
used it to take care of someone. So I had never heard that expression
before, and I asked him what he meant. He said, "Well, I gave it
to Terry Schrunk.'' So I said, "Well, you will have to take that up
with my employer. I don't know anything about that."
Mr. Kennedy. Who is Terry Schrunk?
Miss Stone. Terry Schrunk was the sheriff of Portland, Oreg., at
That time.
The Chairman. What is he now?
Miss Stone. He is the mayor.
580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any further conversation that you had
about it?
Miss Stone. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You told him to take it up with Jim Elkins ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn he had taken it up with Jim Elkins?
Miss Stone. To my knowledge, I don't know that he has ever paid
the $500 back. I believe my ledger shows a penciling at the top that
the $500 is still short. But I don't have my books with me.
Mr. Kennedy. As you remember, the $500 is still missing ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know what conversations Mr. Bennett
and Mr. Elkins had about it?
Miss Stone. No; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know if Mr. Bennett informed Mr.
Elkins what happened to the $500 ?
Miss Stone. No; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. This is the only relationship you had with this trans-
action ; is that right ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
Senator Mundt. Yes.
Is this Mr. Bennett whom you talked about the same man that was
in the room who was cited for contempt today ?
Miss Stone. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You are sure of that?
Miss Stone. Yes.
Senator Mundt. You are presently employed by Mr. Elkins; are
you?
Miss Stone. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You have been employed by him for how long?
Miss Stone. Since 1945.
Senator Mundt. Do you remember a check, did you have anything
to do with the check transaction, whereby Mr. Elkins paid six hundred
and some dollars in a cashier's check to Mr. McLaughlin — was it?
Mr. Kennedy. There were 2 checks, 1 for $600 and 1 for about
$6,000.
Senator Mundt. One for $600 and one for about $6,000?
Miss Stone. Yes ; I know something about it.
Senator Mundt. Will you tell us something about that?
Miss Stone. Just what do you mean ?
Senator Mundt. What do you know about it? You said you knew
something about it. What do you know about it ?
Miss Stone. About the check?
Senator Mundt. About the checks and the reasons for them.
Miss Stone. Well, the $6,000 was from mutual investments in the
year of 1945.
Mr. Kennedy. 1955.
. Miss Stone. 1955. Excuse me.
The Chairman. What do you mean by mutual investments ?
Miss Stone. Money received from investments in these clubs.
The Chairman. Mutual investments, does that mean they both had
investments in them? Is that what you mean? Do you mean that
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 581
Mr. McLaughlin had an interest in the club, too, and was getting
money from it ?
Miss Stone. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Do you know anything about the $668 check to Mr.
McLaughlin in connection with the land transaction, the options?
Miss Stone. Well, that was for a refund in full on real-estate
options.
Senator Mundt. Do you make out Mr. Elkins' income-tax state-
ment, or help him with it ?
Miss Stone. No. I don't make out his income-tax statement.
Senator Mundt. You do not know whether he took a deduction
of that $6,000 that he paid Mr. McLaughlin, on his income tax ? You
would not know that ?
Miss Stone. Well, his income tax would show that. Mr. Geller
is our accountant that makes out his income tax.
Senator Mundt. That is all.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
If not, you may stand aside. Thank you very much. Call your
next witness.
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators McNa-
mara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Gold water.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tiedeman.
The Chairman. Mr. Tiedeman, come forward, please.
Will you be sworn, please ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Tiedeman. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MERLIN L. TIEDEMAN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Tiedeman. My name is Merlin Tiedeman. I live in Port-
land, Oreg.
The Chairman. Please speak a little louder. We do not have a
mike system working this morning.
Mr. Tiedeman. I live in Portland, Oreg. I am a patrolman on the
Portland Police Department.
The Chairman. You are still a patrolman ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
The Chairman. How long have you been a patrolman ?
Mr. Tiedeman. I was appointed the 20th of September 1951.
The Chairman. 1951?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
The Chairman. You have been a patrolman, then, for more than 6
years ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Approximately 5 years.
The Chairman. Have you talked to members of the staff of the com-
mittee regarding the information you may have to give ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; I have.
The Chairman. Have you also been present here in the committee
room this morning and heard the other witnesses who testified today?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. With that information, have you elected to waive
counsel ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Proceed, Mr. Keimedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tiedeman, as a patrolman, who do you work
for?
Mr. Tiedeman. Do you mean the chief ?
Mr. Kennedy. No ; who is your ultimate boss ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Sergeant Thompson.
Mr. Kennedy. But who is it that employs you? Who is your su-
perior, your superior's superior, your highest officer ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Mayor Schrunk.
Mr. Kennedy. Mayor Schrunk ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So you work for him ; is that correct ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. James Elkias ?
Mr. Tiedeman. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know him ?
Mr. Tiedeman. No, sir .
Senator McCarthy. I did not hear who the immediate superior
was. Sergeant who ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Thompson.
Mr. Kennedy. But he works for Mayor Schrunk.
You have been subpenaed here before this committee; is that right?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You never volunteered any information of any kind
to this committee ?
Mr. Tiedeman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. We got in touch with you and subpenaed you to
come ; is that right ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And we are now asking you these questions which
you are obligated to answer truthfully. You understand that ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tiedeman, in September of 1955, were you on
duty that evening ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you on duty that early morning ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. May I ask you, Mr. Tiedeman, if you can speak
up a little louder ? We have no loudspeaker system in this room, and
it is difficult to hear you.
Mr. Kennedy. This was on or about September 11 of 1955 ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were on duty that early morning ; were you not ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. And did you receive a radio call around 3 : 30 in
the morning?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, approximately 3 : 30 a. m.
Mr. Kennedy. You will have to speak up, Mr. Tiedeman.
Mr. Tiedeman. About 3 : 30 a. m., approximately.
Mr. Kennedy. What did the radio call ask vou to do ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 583
Mr. Tiedeman. The radio told us to go to Denver and Kilpatrick
Street, to meet the sheriff, regarding a found bicycle.
Mr. Kennedy. Regarding a bicycle that had been found ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you proceed to that address ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; we did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pick up the bicycle I
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; we put the bicycle in the back seat of the police
car.
Mr. Kennedy. And then did you move along then ?
Mr. Tiedeman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you remain there ?.
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Well, we were standing on the corner there
talking
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a chart here which might
make it easier to understand this.
Your car came up, Mr. Tiedeman ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. This is Bennett's Club [indicating] '.
Mr. Tiedeman. That is it ; yes. We approached the scene. We
were traveling
Mr. Kennedy. What car were you, car 1 ?
Mr. Tiedeman. We were parked on the corner, the car right by the
curb.
Mr. Kennedy. You were car No. 1 ; is that right ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were you with at that time ?
Mr. Tiedeman. My partner was Officer Amundson.
Mr. Kennedy. Officer Amundson ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get out of the car after putting the bi-
cycle in?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you stay around at that time ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; we did.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you stay ?
Mr. Tiedeman. We were talking to Sheriff Schrunk there for a
few minutes, and also one of the deputies.
Mr. Kennedy. You were in car No. 1 ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what occurred ? You stood there
to watch the raid that was taking place?
Mr. Tiedeman. When we arrived, it didn't appear that — it appeared
that if there had been a raid, it was over, and the sheriff helped us
put the bicycle in the car, and we talked to him for a few minutes.
I don't know exactly what was said.
Mr. Kennedy. And you stayed around after that ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. These are the three of you standing here [indicat-
ing], is that about where you were?
Mr. Tiedeman. Approximate!}7 ; yes.
584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you see anybody come out of Bennett's
Club?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you observe anything happening?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes. Bennett came out and talked to Sheriff
Schrunk.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what occurred ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Bennett went back in the building.
Mr. Kennedy. He went back in the building?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what occurred ?
Mr. Tiedeman. He came out and talked to the sheriff again.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ?
Mr. Tiedeman. And then Bennett cut across the street.
Mr. Kennedy. Over across the street [indicating] ?
Mr. Tiedeman. To that corner, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. There is a fountain on the corner here [indicating] ?
Mr. Tiedeman. There is a telephone pole and a water fountain.
The water fountain is to the right.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened at that time ?
Mr. Tiedeman. When Bennettt cut across the street, he went over
behind the telephone pole and put something down behind the pole.
Sir. Kennedy. He put something down behind the pole ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you observe what it was?
Mr. Tiedeman. No ; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what did he do ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Then he left. I didn't see what direction he went.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anything else occur that evening?
Mr. Tiedeman. Then the sheriff walked across the street.
Mr. Kennedy. How much longer after was that ?
Mr. Tiedeman. A few minutes, maybe.
Mr. Kennedy. The sheriff, Sheriff Schrunk, walked across the
street ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The same street ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, he had something in his hand
which he took over and put behind the telephone pole?
Mr. Tiedeman. I didn't see anything in Mr. Bennett's hand ; no.
Senator McCarthy. Did you see him stoop over and put something
down behind the pole?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes. It appeared to me that he put something
behind the pole, but I didn't see the object.
Senator McCarthy. Something that he apparently was carrying
in his pocket or his hand?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. Pardon me. Bob.
Mr. Kennedy. Then Sheriff Schrunk came after 3 or 4 minutes
and walked in the same direction ; is that right ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes ; he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he stop here at the corner ?
Mr. Tiedeman. He stopped at the same spot, behind the telephone
pole.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 585
Mr. Kennedy. What did he do ?
Mr. Tiedeman. He reached down and picked up a package.
Mr. Kennedy. Picked up this object Mr. Bennett had left; is that
right ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what did he do ?
Mr. Tiedeman. He put it in his pocket and started back toward
the corner, and I never seen where he went from there.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know where he went?
Mr. Tiedeman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. What comments did you pass then? Did all 3 ot
you see that, the 3 of you that were standing there?
Mr. Tiedeman. There were two police cars there. Me and my
partner were standing on the corner, Officer Amundson, and also
Officer Dick Sutter.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pass any comments at that time?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes. Officer Sutter made a remark.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Mr. Tiedeman. He said something to the effect of "That crooked
so-and-so."
Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what he said.
Mr. Tiedeman. The exact words?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Tiedeman. He said "That crooked son-of-a-bitch."
Senator McCarthy. I do not want to make you repeat it, but I did
not hear. .
Mr. Tiedeman. Officer Sutter said, "That crooked son-of-a-bitch."
Mr. Kennedy. Did the three of you talk about it at that time?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, we stood there talking about it.
Mr. Kennedy. All three of you were aware that he had gone by and
picked up this object that Bennett had dropped off ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. There was no question in any of your minds at that
time?
Mr. Tiedeman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. And there is no question in your mind this morning?
Mr. Tiedeman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. There is not ?
Mr. Tiedeman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. And you do not know Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Tiedeman. I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to Mr. Elkins?
Mr. Tiedeman. I don't know Mr. Elkins at all.
Senator Mundt. About how many feet was it from where you were
standing to where this pole was?
Mr. Tiedeman. I believe Denver Avenue is approximately a 50-
foot — it is about 50 feet wide ; 45 or 50 feet wide.
Senator Mundt. So you were approximately 50 feet away?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
Senator Mundt. Are there street lights in that general area ?
Mr. Tiedeman. They have new lighting there now. There was an
old type street light at the intersection.
Senator Mundt. At this intersection ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. So the visibility was fairly good ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, it was.
The Chairman. Mr. Tiedeman, do you recognize this chart as rep-
resenting the streets and the directions and so forth?
Do you identify it ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, it is.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 42.
(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 42" for refer-
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photograph. Will you
examine it and state whether you identify it ? State if you can identify
it and state what location that is a picture of.
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Tiedeman. That is Denver and Kilpatrick Street, the same
intersection.
The Chairman. The same intersection that is shown on the chart
that you have just identified ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes, it is.
The Chairman. Can you point out on that picture the location of the
club that was presumably raided that night? Can you place a mark
there ? Write the word "club."
All right, that is "club."
Now, can you point out the telephone pole and the drinking fountain
that 37ou have testified to ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes. It is right here [indicating].
The Chairman. Mark "drinking fountain" and "pole."
Mr. Tiedeman. All right,
The Chairman. Now, can you indicate on that picture about where
you and your associates on the police force were standing?
Mr. Tiedeman. We were standing on the corner right here [indi-
cating.]
The Chairman. Would you place a large X where you were stand-
ing?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. This photo-
graph may be made exhibit No. 43.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 43" for ref-
erence, and may be found in the files of the select committee. )
The Chairman. The Chair hands you another photograph and asks
you if you can identify it?
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Tiedeman. That is the pole and the fountain.
The Chairman. That shows the pole and the fountain that you have
been testifying to?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes.
The Chairman. Does it also show the club where the raid is sup-
posed to have taken place ?
Mr. Tiedeman. Yes. It is right here [indicating] .
The Chairman. Mark that. I think the pole and the fountain speak
for themselves. This may be made exhibit No. 44.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 44" for ref-
erence, and may be found in the files of the select committee) .
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I have finished with this witness, Mr. Chairman.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 587
The Chairman. All right, Thank you very much. You may stand
iiside.
Call the next witness.
(Members present at this point : The chairman, Senators McNamara.
McCarthy, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Amundson.
The Chairman. Mr. Amundson, will you be sworn, please?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee
ibut the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Amundson. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF LOWELL E. AMUNDSON
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
present business or occupation.
Mr. Amundson. Lowell E. Amundson, Portland, Oreg.
The Chairman. A little louder, please.
Mr. Amundson. Lowell E. Amundson, Portland, Oreg.
The Chairman. What is your present employment?
Mr. Amundson. Police patrolman, city of Portland.
The Chairman. You are on the police patrol, city of Portland?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How long have you been so emploj^ed ?
Mr. Amundson. Ten years, last December.
The Chairman. You have talked with members of the staff, and you
follow the general information that the committee is interested in re-
ceiving from you i
Mr. Amundson. I do, sir.
The Chairman. You also have been present in the committee room
•during the testimony of other witnesses here this morning ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. With that information, you are willing to and have
waived counsel have you ?
Mr. Amundson. Ido.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you the same questions I asked Mr.
' Piedeman.
Who is your superior ?
Mr. Amundson. The mayor of the city. Mayor Schrnnk.
Mr. Kennedy. You were subpenaed here ; is that correct ?
Mr. Amundson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You never volunteered to come ?
Mr. Amundson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never volunteered any information to this com-
mittee?
Mr. Amundson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were requested under the power of subpena to
appear before the committee ; is that right ?
Mr. Amundson. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you are answering these questions because you
are obligated to do so ?
Mr. Amundson. That is correct.
588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. James Elkins ?
Mr. Amundson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know him ?
Mr. Amundson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to him?
Mr. Amundson. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never had any connection with him in any way ;
is that right ?
Mr. Amundson. No, sir.
(At this point, Senator McCarthy withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell your name?
Mr. Amundson. A-m-u-n-d-s-o-n.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Amundson, on the evening or the early morning,
around September 11, 1955 you were on duty, were you not ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were patrolling?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a telephone call or a call on your
radio?
Mr. Amundson. A radio.
Mr. Kennedy. On your police radio?
Mr. Amundson. On the radio.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what it was.
Mr. Amundson. To meet the sheriff at Denver and Kilpatrick Street
in regard to a bicycle that had been found there.
Mr. Kennedy. ' This is a chart showing Denver and Kilpatrick ; is
that right?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You picked up the bicycle?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Let the record show that the witness is now view-
ing the chart that has been made an exhibit.
Mr. Kennedy. You came to this corner [indicating] ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you picked up the bicycle?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what occurred ? Did you stay there ?
Mr. Amundson. We remained a few minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you there the same time that this place, this
club, was being raided?
Mr. Amundson. On our approach there were several people in front
of the place on the sidewalk. We did not know it was a raid until we
stopped there. It appeared to be over at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you stop and talk on the corner?
Mr. Amundson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee whether you observed
anything while you were standing there on the corner? Who were
you standing with, first ?
Mr. Amundson. Officer Dick Sutter and Officer Merlin Tiedeman.
Mr. Kennedy. That was Tiedeman, the gentleman who just testi-
fied, is that right?
Mr. Amundson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 589
Mr. Amundson. We were standing; there talking, and I was looking
across the street, and one of the officers in the crowd pointed out and
said:
There goes Mr. Bennett, the operator of the club.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come down and across the street like this
[indicating] ?
Mr. Amtjndson. He was walking across the street,
The Chairman. Was that the same Mr. Bennett that testified here
this morning?
Mr. Amundson. I couldn't identify him. I never seen the man
before that night, and I wouldn't want to swear it is the same man.
The Chairman. You cannot swear it is the same man ?
Mr. Amundson. I wouldn't want to swear to that.
Mr. Kennedy. It was somebody that was identified to you as Mr.
Bennett ; is that right ?
Mr. Amundson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He crossed the street over here [indicating] ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What occurred when he got across the street ?
Mr. Amundson. As I remember, he went to the drinking fountain,
leaned over and took a drink, and as he left the drinking fountain,
he bent over and made the motion of placing something beside the
pole there.
Mr. Kennedy. He put an object here next to the pole [indicating] ?
Mr. Amundson. Next to the pole.
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
Mr. Amundson. Then he left,
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where he went then ?
Mr. Amundson. It is my recollection that he walked across Kil-
patrick Street, the nearest I can remember.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he got into a car there ?
Mr. Amundson. No. As he left, I didn't pay any more attention
to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Amundson. Then it was a few minutes, approximately 5 min-
utes or so afterward, that I observed the sheriff make the same trip.
The Chairman. Who?
Mr. Amundson. The sheriff. Sheriff Schrunk.
Mr. Kennedy. Sheriff Schrunk ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. He made the same trip across the street ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he stop here also [indicating] ?
Mr. Amundson. He stopped beside the pole.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he lean over ?
Mr. Amundson. He leaned over as if to pick up something.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he pick up something ?
Mr. Amundson. It appeared to me that he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what happened then ?
Mr. Amundson. He walked across the street to his car, which was
parked on the southwest corner.
Mr. Kennedy. This was his car [indicating] ?
Mr. Amundson. That was his car.
590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. He got into his car then ?
Mr. Amundson. He opened the door, but I don't know whether he
got in or not.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any comment made among the three of
you at that time ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes. We discussed the situation that took place.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ?
Mr. Amundson. We were wondering what happened, and what was
there.
Mr. Kennedy. What was in the object that he picked up ?
Mr. Amundson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any comment made by any of you, indicat-
ing that you thought that there had been some money paid or some-
thing had happened, in that order ?
Mr. Amundson. Well, we discussed it between ourselves, and one
of the officers, named Sutter, said, "Well, that dirty crook."
Mr. Kennedy. So you realized at that time what had occurred, is
that right?
Mr. Amundson. It appeared to us what had occurred.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
If not, thank you very much. Stand aside for the present.
Call the next witness.
(Members present at this point: The Chairman, Senators McNa-
mara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Daniels.
The Chairman. Mr. Daniels, come forward, please.
Will you be sworn ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Daniels. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FRANK DANIELS
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
present occupation.
Mr. Daniels. Frank Daniels, Santa Monica, Calif., unemployed
at the present.
The Chairman. You are on the police force
Mr. Daniels. No, unemployed at the present.
The Chairman. Have you talked to members of the staff of this
committee and know generally the information that the committee
is interested in receiving from you?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have been present in the committee room dur-
ing the proceedings this morning and heard other witnesses testify?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
The Chairman. With that information, have you elected to waive
counsel ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. You are from Santa Monica, Calif., is that right ?
Mr. Daniels. That is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 591
Mr. Kennedy. You are here under orders of a subpena ?
Mr. Daniels. That is right. . „inKK„
Mr. Kennedy. You were in Portland, Oreg., m September of 1955 i
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, around September 11, 1955, you were
there, is that right?
Mr. Daniels. That is right. ..'■'';■■,
Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing during that period o± time 5
How were you employed ?
Mr. Daniels. 1 was a bartender in a tavern.
Mr. Kennedy. You were a bartender in a tavern ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes. I just lost my job right about then.
Mr. Kennedy. You just lost your job that night?
Mr. Daniels. Xo. It was a few days before that.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were looking for a job?
Mr. Daniels. That is correct. .
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any particular place m mind that you
were going to get a job? > ^ - ,
Mr^ Daniels. Well, I thought about going out to the 8212 Club.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you go to the 8212 Club ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What time did you arrive there, approximately (
Mr. Daniels. I believe it was between 2 : 30 and 3 : 30, around there.
Mr. Kennedy. What was going on \
Mr. Daniels. Well, it appeared that a raid was in progress.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you come up this street here [indicating] ? Is
that correct ?
Mr. Daniels. Denver Avenue ; yes.
The Chairman. What is the name of the street ?
Mr. Kennedy. Denver Street, is that right ?
Mr. Daniels. Denver Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you observe that the place appeared to be being
raided at the time %
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir. There was quite a bit of commotion going
on.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ? Did you park ?
Mr. Daniels. I parked right behind— the No. 2 car at the top.
Mr. Kennedy. You parked here [indicating], and that was your
car?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You sat in the car and watched what was going on i
Mr. Daniels. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Mr. Bennett at the time ?
Mr. Daniels. Very slightly.
Mr. Kennedy. Continue.
Mr. Daniels. I was curious. I figured I would sit there and watch
what was going to happen.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you observe anything going on then ?
Mr. Daniels. There were several men in front of the S212 Club.
There was a black and white city police car parked around the corner
there.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that this car here [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, and there was a county car double parked in front
of the club.
89330— 57— pt. 2 11
592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. In here [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. O.K.
Mr. Daniels. And there were a couple of men in some green uni-
forms and some
Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up a little bit ?
Mr. Daniels. There were some men in front of the club and also
in some regular suits.
The Chairman. By uniform, do you mean police uniforms ?
Mr. Daniels. Green uniforms. That is county, I believe.
The Chairman. What?
Mr. Daniels. Green uniforms.
The Chairman. Was that the police uniform ?
Mr. Daniels. It was the county.
The Chairman. I was asking what uniform it is.
Mr. Daniels. It is the county sheriff 's office.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you observe anything going on ?
Mr. Daniels. Well, after
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see Mr. Bennett ?
Mr. Daniels. I did after I sat there for a few minutes. He came
walking toward the corner and crossed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he cross this street?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. What else occurred ?
Mr. Daniels. He placed what appeared to me to be a manila en-
velope behind the telephone pole.
Mr. Kennedy. Right here [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. A manila envelope ?
Mr. Daniels. It appeared to be that from where I was.
Mr. Kennedy. What else ?
Mr. Daniels. Then he went on down the street.
Mr. Kennedy. He walked down here [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Then what occurred ?
Mr. Daniels. Then 2 or 3 minutes, Mr. Schrunk
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Schrunk ?
Mr. Daniels. Not personally ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you recognize him ?
Mr. Daniels. I seen his picture a couple of times.
Mr. Kennedy. You recognized him at that time?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He crossed the street ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he do ?
Mr. Daniels. Picked up the envelope.
Mr. Kennedy. Then where did he go ?
Mr. Daniels. Catercorner across to the car on the other side.
Mr. Kennedy. To this car [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. I don't know if he got into it, but it looked like he
was going to.
Mr. Kennedy. What did vou do at that time ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 593
Mr. Daniels. About that time I figured it was time to go.
Mr. Kennedy. About that time, you figured ft was time to go ?
Could you speak up a little louder ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir. So I pulled out of my parking spot and
drove up to the next corner and made a left turn.
Air. Kennedy. Would that be here or down here [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. I make a left turn down there, yes, and went the other
way.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened them ?
Mr. Daniels. I encountered Mr. Bennett coming back.
Mr. Kennedy. He was coming up like this [indicating] ?
Mr. Daniels. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you stop then ?
Mr. Daniels. I stopped and yelled at him and asked him what was
happening.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Mr. Daniels. He said he almost took a pinch, but it Mas all right
now, or words to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any other words exchanged ?
Mr. Daniels. I just said I came out to see about a job, and he said :
"Come on in and have a drink. Everything is O. K." I said I didn't
care to go in right then.
Mr. Kennedy. He said, "Come on in. Everything is O. K."?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The first thing he said to you was "I almost took a
pinch ; but it is O. K. now" ?
Mr. Daniels. That is right.
The Chairman. Would it appear to you that Mr. Bennett, after de-
positing the envelope, walked around the block?
Mr. Daniels. I didn't think so ; no, sir. He just walked down in the
direction of the Kenton Club.
The Chairman. I know, but when you drove off, you met him com-
ing around the corner, toward his place of business ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But it indicated that he had walked around the
block?
Mr. Daniels. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a Mr. Jim Elkins ?
Mr. Daniels. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have never met him ?
Mr. Daniels. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to him ?
Mr. Daniels. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never had any business dealings ?
Mr. Daniels. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Daniels, having observed what you have just
described to us, you must have related that to somebody else between
then and the time you have appeared in this committee room ; is that
right?
Mr. Daniels. That is right.
Senator Mundt. To whom did you first relate what you had seen
there that night ?
594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Daniels. Well, I have been trying to remember that myself.
Evidently it got back to the newspaper reporters in Portland, but I
evidently repeated it to some of my friends in a couple of different
bars that I had tended.
Senator Mundt. You probably repeated it more than once?
Mr. Daniels. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Were you ultimately interviewed by the newspaper
reporters ?
Mr. Daniels. Pardon me ?
Senator Mundt. Would you say you have been interviewed by the
newspaper reporters ? You said it got to the newspapers.
Mr. Daniels. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. A newspaperman came to see you ?
Mr. Daniels. Yes.
Senator Mundt. Who was it ?
Mr. Daniels. Mr. Turner and Mr. Lambert.
Senator Mundt. They said to you, "Mr. Daniels, we understand
you heard such and such a story," so you related it to them ?
Mr. Daniels. I was asked to tell it ; yes.
Senator Mundt. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
The committee has labored here this morning under some difficulty,
as everyone has observed. It is impossible to accommodate all of the
witnesses and all of those who are interested in this proceeding. We
will be able to have the Caucus Room again this afternoon, from
2 o'clock until 3 : 30. I think we can better expedite this by holding
our hearing this afternoon here, even though we may have to discon-
tinue after 3 : 30.
We will adjourn until 2 o'clock this afternoon, and resume in the
Caucus Room. The Chair urges everyone to be prompt so that we
can try to get in as much of this evidence this afternoon as possible
here during that length of time.
(Members present at the taking of the recess : The chairman, Sena-
tors Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
(Whereupon, at 11 : 55 a. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p. m. the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION 2 P. M.
(Members present at the taking of the recess: The chairman, Sena-
tors Ervin, McNamara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
We will resume the inquiry this afternoon with reference to the
same subject matter the committee was taking testimony on this
morning.
Mr. Kennedy, will you proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mayor Schrunk.
The Chairman. Will you come around, Mayor ?
Will you be sworn, please ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, \ind noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Schrunk. I do.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 595
TESTIMONY OF TERRY SCHRUNK
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation or official position that you now hold.
Mr. Schrunk. My name is Terry Doyle Schrunk, 43 years of age,
residence 5407 North Houghton Street, Portland, Oreg. Since Janu-
ary 1, 1957, 1 have beeu mayor of the city of Portland.
The Chairman. Prior to that, what official position did you hold ?
Mr. Schrunk. Prior to January 1, or from October 24, 1949, un-
til December 31, 1956, I was sheriff of Multnomah County.
The Chairman. You know, of course, the subject matter of this
inquiry '.
Mr. SoJEERUNK. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you have been present at previous hearings
and heard witnesses testify ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Were you present at the hearings this morning?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You heard the testimony given today ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. With that knowledge and information, have you
elected to waive counsel?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Schrunk. I would like the privilege of a brief statement at
this time, sir.
The Chairman. Have you a prepared statement?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. All right. The Chair will, without objection
from the committee, indulge you for a brief statement.
Mr. Schrunk. First, I would like to say that it is going to take
quite awhile to trace some of this history, and I trust that the com-
mittee will give me that opportunity. It is the history of the city
of Portland relative to vice. I have some material I would like to
talk about as we go along, and I trust that the committee, and I am
certain that you, want all of the facts brought out to look at this mat-
ter on an impartial basis.
Frankly, I am astounded and amazed that a committee of the United
States Senate is being used, without any knowledge on the part of
you gentlemen certainly, for political purposes such as this.
The Chairman. Let me ask you, do you want to lecture the com-
mittee now, or do you want to give us facts and information?
Mr. Schrunk. I am perfectly willing to start in with facts.
The Chairman. I do not mind you talking about the committee
and expressing your opinion of it.
Mr. Schrunk. I meant no disrespect to the committee, sir.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Schrunk. That is the reason I felt it was important that you
give me an adequate opportunity to bring forth the history of what
has transpired in our city.
The great majority of the people of Portland
The Chairman. Mayor, the committee will be very glad to hear any-
thing you have to say, so long as it is relevant and pertinent to the
596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
purposes for which this committee was constituted, and so long as
it is related to anything in your area.
Mr. Schrunk. Thank you, sir.
A great majority of the people of the city of Portland, both mem-
bers of organized labor and our citizens have no use for racketeering
either in organized labor or out of it. I am not here to defend
anyone, either in the rackets or labor or those others. The facts of
the case must be brought forth.
I would like to request of the chairman at this time that counsel
return to me three affidavits that I could use in my testimony, that I
loaned to him.
The Chairman. Will you name the affidavits, and identify them?
Mr. Schrunk. Two affidavits of Mr. James Bennett, who was on
the stand this morning, and refused to testify.
The Chairman. Mr. Bennett will be recalled and you can tell any-
thing you know, but I am not going to permit him to testify before
this committee by affidavit ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir?
The Chairman. Not after he refused to testify. He was given an
opportunity to permit the committee to examine him. I am not going
to let his affidavits be used to state facts that he will not swear to.
Mr. Schrunk. May I use them as refreshers in my testimony ?
The Chairman. You may say that you have affidavits from him,
if you have.
Mr. Schrunk. But may I have the affidavits before me while I tes-
tify, sir?
The Chairman. The Chair would like to ask if the mayor furnished
these affidavits to the committee.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; he did.
The Chairman. They may be returned to Mr. Schrunk, and he may
state what he has in the way of documents. As far as the Chair is
concerned, a witness who was given an opportunity to testify directly
under oath like all other witnesses will not be given the opportunity
to get his evidence in this record by the back-door method.
Senator Mundt. I want to say that I thoroughly and completely
support the Chair in that position. I do not believe the affidavits
should be read by Mr. Schrunk or by anybody else. If he wants them
to refresh his memory and then to make statements on his own recog-
nizance, that is one thing. But he should not be permitted to read
the testimony of the witness who stands before us and refuses to
testify under oath.
Mr. Schrunk. I understand the Senator's point.
Senator Mundt. May I ask whether you agree that it is a valid
point? If you were sitting on this side of the table, would you not
take the same position ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, I feel that Mr. Bennett has been intimidated
before this committee.
Senator Mundt. Intimidated ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. He was simply asked where he lived, and refused
to announce where he lived.
Mr. Schrunk. Not by the committee, sir.
Senator Mundt. Not by the committee ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 597
Mr. Schrunk. No sir. Mr. Bennett talked to me in the hall yes-
terday, and at that time he stated that he had been threatened by Mr,
Wally Turner, and told that they had this thing all set up, and that
they were going to get him. At that time he said that he was going to
tell the truth and request a lie detector test. What has transpired in
the meantime, I do not know, sir.
Senator Mundt. Who is Wally Turner? Is he a staff member*
Mr. Schrunk. I understand he is one of your consultants.
Senator Ervin. He is a newspaperman.
Mr. Schrunk. That is apparently retained by the staff as an
adviser.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ?
Mr. Schrunk. I said he is an adviser or consultant.
Mr. Kennedy. You say he is retained by this committee?
Mr. Schrunk. According to what I read in the Oregoman before
1 left home.
Mr. Kennedy. That he was retained by the committee {
Mr. Schrunk. He was a consultant with the committee.
Senator Ervin. If I may interrupt counsel, I would just like to join
Senator Mundt in stating that I am in complete approval of the
course which the chairman has stated he proposes to take. From my
experience as a trial lawyer and judge, I do think that there is
but one way to get the truthfulness of evidence and that is by the
cross-examination of the man that gives the evidence. I place very
little value upon affidavits because when you reduce a statement of a
person to writing, it is impossible to tell whether the statement is one
made by a man with the fidelity to truth of George Washington, or a
man who lacks such fidelity such as Ananias.
The Chairman. You may proceed with your statement.
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. The vice situation in the city of Portland
developed during World War II, like it did in many cities through-
out the United States. At that time, there were several operators
that were operating in the area. There at that time they operated
on the premises that they couldn't be eliminated, so it would be open to
all organizations on an equal basis.
I am not sure that, I only suppose, what Mayor Kiley's position was.
He was defeated by Mrs. Dorothy McCullough Lee, one of the finest
mayors the city of Portland ever had. She is now here in Washington
as general chairman of your Subversive Activities Commission.
I would respectfully suggest to the committee if they want to know
about Mr. Elkms' activities and vice activities in the city of Portland,
that they discuss the matter with Mrs. Lee.
The Chairman. She will be interrogated.
Proceed.
Mr. Schrunk. The vice situation in Portland has been intensified
upon the defeat of Dorothy McCullough Lee by a candidate for office
that was supported by Mr. Elkins, and at the same time I understand
that he was involved "in the support of a mayor in Seattle, Wash. In
a pool of their activities in that race, they won in both instances.
Mr. Elkins has controlled law enforcement in the city of Portland,
the police department, and I am unhappy to say, some members of
the sheriff's department, through various activities and various means.
One of them, I am afraid, in my personal opinion, has been blackmail.
598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
I think one thing the committee should be interested in, and many
of our people out in Portland are asking, is that if there was organized
vice in our city which seemed lucrative to a group of racketeers from
Seattle, how did it happen to exist? Who was in control while it
existed ?
The teamsters organization had been brought up a great deal. There
are things I would like to say about that. I would like to point out
that the former mayor appointed Mr. Clyde Crosby to the E. R.
commission to spend $8 million of our taxpayers' money. I
am not condemning Mr. Crosby, and I don't know if he is
guilty of anything or not. I can say at this time that he has never
approached me for any illegal activities.
I would respectfully suggest to the committee in order to get the
complete story that you consider bringing under subpena the reporters
from the Oregon Journal, our second daily paper, Mr. Rollo Frick,
and Mr. Doug Baker, and Mr. Brad Williams.
The Chairman. Are they friends of yours ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; but they have done considerable work in
this vice investigation. The Journal has taken an objective position
on the problem. Let the chips fall where they may, as they rightly
should.
The Chairman. Do you know that they have some information that
would be helpful to this committee?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir; I do.
The Chairman. All right, You advise them to so inform the com-
mitte, and the nature of that information, and the committee will be
glad to consider it.
Mr. Schrunk. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Elkins maintained his control
Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt just without going into de-
tail roughly, to ask what type of information do you think they might
be able to give.
As I say, I am not asking you for details. That will be up to them
to give.
Mr. Schrunk. Relative to the operation of Mr. Elkins. some of his
property manipulations, and things of that nature, I think it is im-
portant for the committee to have Mr. Elkins in his proper perspective,
and to know exactly who he is and why he is doing some of the things
he has, and why this fantastic story was told to you this morning.
Senator McCarthy. Might I say to the chairman as far as Mr.
Elkins is concerned, I think we all know he is under some 24 indict-
ments, and we know that he has been the king of the underworld.
There is no question about that.
However, the information that he has given has been corroborated,
I believe, in almost every respect, so I doubt that anything would be
gained by proving to us that Elkins is an underworld character. We
know that already. We all know that. I would hesitate to bring
three extra witnesses to prove what we already know about Elkins.
Am I right, Bob?
Mr. Kennedy. I think on one of the first days of the hearing, there
was a document circulated in the hearing, and on it was labeled that
it had been prepared by the Oregon Journal. It was later found out
that it was prepared by Mr. Brad Williams, who was one of the men
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 599
that Major Schrimk mentioned. The Oregon Journal then sent a
telegram to the committee saying that they were going to take dis-
ciplinary action against the individual that prepared it, because it
had so many false statements. They refuted it and said that they
wanted to assure the committee they had nothing to do with it,
Senator McCarthy. May I ask this, Mr. Counsel: While there is
no question about the fact that Elkins was the king of the under-
world— engaged in, apparently, many vice rackets — as far as the
staff has been able to determine, while there are some things he will
not tell the staff, what he has told them so far has been verified by
affidavits and witnesses?
Is that roughly correct ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. We have had approximately 20 wit-
nesses before the committee, and we have had affidavits.
I will say this, also, about Mr. Elkins, that he has not refused to
answer any questions so far.
The Chairman. Well, the Chair made the suggestion awhile ago, or
a ruling if you want to interpret it as that, that since this witness
feels that those he named of the Oregon Journal would be helpful he
had them send to the committee a statement of what they know and
what they would testify to. Then the committee can weigh it and if it
has any real value they can be required to give that evidence under
subpena.
I do not want to just send out subpenas for everybody unless I think
that they can actually make a contribution.
Again, the Chair would like to say this committee is not investigat-
ing Mr. Elkins as a person. The committee is investigating what we
regard as may be improper or illegal activities of labor and manage-
ment. Insofar as they may have a tie-up, either or both of them,
with underworld characters or they are wielding an influence in any
kind of racket upon any city government or upon any State govern-
ment, it is of interest to this committee.
I doubt if there could be any rackets without underworld characters.
So Mr. Elkins has been placed on the stand here repeatedly, and he
probably will be called again, and I do not know. As others will ob-
serve, we brought in witnesses to corroborate his statements. They
are under oath and testify under oath. If they lie, they commit per-
jury. The committee can only proceed with this very difficult task
and very arduous one in an orderly and judicious way insofar as it is
possible to do so.
Senator McCarthy. If I may take 10 seconds of the Chair's time ?
I am certainly not coming to the defense of Mr. Elkins. The point
1 merely wish to make is that we all know what a rather fantastic
record he has. He admits it. It is not a question of whether he is the
king of the underworld or not. We know he is. We know he has been
head of the crime syndicate. The question is whether or not what he
has told us has been the truth.
I do not object to bringing three more witnesses here to tell us
what we already know about Mr. Elkins, but I think the cost is rather
great, and I think that perhaps the Chair and counsel have in mind
spending their time either corroborating or vice versa on Elkins'
testimonv.
600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. This witness is given the opportunity to refute
testimony that has been brought before the committee that directly
reflects upon him.
Is there anything else that you can give to the committee that will
be helpful to it? If so, in the discharge of our responsibilities, we
would appreciate it.
Let us proceed.
Senator Mundt. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, for Mr.
Schrunk's benefit, that I know that every other member of the com-
mittee has exactly the same position that I have toward you. None
of us know you. We bear you no ill-will. We are not here to white-
wash you or to condemn you. We just want to get the facts. Cer-
tainty if you have any newspapermen or anybody else who requests
the right to appear before this committee to refute evidence which
we have heard, we will be glad to have our staff members contact
them and to have them appear and testify under oath, but not as 10
opinions. We do not want opinions, and we do not want character
witnesses, but if they have something to say in connection with the
evidence and they can refute it or if they can verify it and prove
some motive Mr. Elkins might have for telling us something which
you might allege is untrue, we want to get down to the hard facts.
I will go further than that and say to you that if you have any
question that you would like to have asked Mr. Elkins, or any of
these witnesses who have testified to circumstances which are detri-
mental to you, if you will submit them in writing, if they are not
slanderous in nature, we certainly will be glad to ask the witnesses
those questions. We are simply trying to find out the facts.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask the witness a question?
You have suggested three witnesses. I think that is an excellent
idea, to have witnesses suggest other witnesses, if they can be helpful.
Do you know that in any respect they will refute the testimony of
Elkins, or that they will show, as Senator Mundt suggested, or they
will reflect upon his motives for testifying ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. I think what they will do, sir, is to place
this whole problem in its proper perspective. The only reason this
is before your committee, sir, is so that they can say or print things
there that they would be subject to libel laws without the privilege
of this hearing.
Senator McCarthy. Now, let me just stop you right there. There
is nothing libelous if it is the truth.
Mr. Schrunk. But it is not the truth, sir, and I shall try to go1
into that in detail. This is a political problem.
Senator McCarthy. I do not want to interrupt counsel's examina-
tion, but you named three witnesses. I know nothing about them
whatsoever. I have never seen you before, and I know nothing what-
soever about you either.
My only question is this: Do you feel that those three witnesses
will be able to refute or contradict the testimony of Elkins or other
witnesses who have appeared?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, and I think that they will be able to explain
to the committee why perjury was committed this morning.
In 1 949 when I was appointed as sheriff, Mr. Jim Purcell served as
chief of police of the city of Portland, and he was a candidate, with
the support of Mr. Elkins. He was not appointed.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 601
In 1950 I ran for election to the office of sheriff. They did not take
any chance and they put a candidate on both parties with Mr. Glen
Ackerman on the Republican Party and Mr. Bard Purcell on the
Democratic Party. I was fortunate in defeating both of them.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask you this : I understand, and if I am
wrong I am sure counsel will correct me, that the staff has interviewed
Brad Williams whom you suggested as a witness, and Brad Williams
has been unable to give any information of any value to the staff.
What, for example, do you think that we will gain by calling Brad
Williams here ? What can he give us that he has not been able to give
the staff?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, this whole controversy has been submitted to
two grand juries in our own jurisdiction. It is not a matter that
deals, in my opinion, with labor-management problems or racketeering.
It is before your committee through the activities of a reporter from
the Oregonian, maybe two of them, for political purposes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if they approached this committee
first, or we approached them ?
Mr. Schrunk. I do not know for sure.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to give you that information. You
just made that accusation and we approached them. I got in touch
with them.
The Chairman. Let us proceed. We can determine the politics of
it as we go along, if we can get the facts. Let us get some facts.
Mr. Schrunk. Would you like me to tell you about the 8212 Club
now?
The Chairman. Do you wish to make your statement about it or
to be interrogated about it first? Let us just start with the testimony
you heard this morning about the 8212 Club and your connection with
it and what you did that night and so forth. Go ahead.
Mr. Schrunk. Do you want me to tell the story or does counsel
The Chairman. Do you want me to ask questions about it ? Were
you there that night?
Mr. Schrunk. I would like to tell you how we came there because
there was some allegation that apparently Mr. Maloney or somebody
put the pressure on me to raid the place.
The Chairman. Proceed. Let me ask you first, before we get into
that, let us get a little background since we are talking about motives.
Let us get a little background here. Do you know this fellow
Maloney ?
Mr. Schrunk. I met him ; yes sir.
The Chairman. Where was he from ?
Mr. Schrunk. Seattle to the best of my knowledge.
The Chairman. What business was he in ; what did he do ?
Mr. Schrunk. I met him when he was in Portland during a
campaign.
The Chairman. What was he doing during the campaign ?
Mr. Schrunk. He was working on Mr. Langley's campaign.
The Chairman. He was working there in Mr. Langley's campaign?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Somebody came down from Seattle, Wash., to work
in Mr. Langley's campaign?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Working as a labor leader and holding himself out
as an official in the teamsters organization?
Mr. Schrunk. He didn't ever directly tell me he was, and he cer-
tainly represented he had connections with the teamsters.
The Chairman. And he came down from Seattle to help elect the
district attorney ; is that correct ? In Portland ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And also to help elect the sheriff; did he?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; he didn't come down for that purpose at all.
The Chairman. Did he engage in that purpose after he got there?
Mr. Schrunk. It is conceivable that he did, sir.
The Chairman. He helped to elect you ; is that not a fact ?
Mr. Schrunk. I doubt if he was able to vote in our county.
The Chairman. I did not say he was able to vote.
Mr. Schrunk. He didn't serve on my campaign committee or any-
thing of that nature.
The Chairman. He was managing the district attorney's campaign ;
is that correct ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And at the same time working for you as one whom
the teamsters union had endorsed, by the teamsters officials; is that
not true ?
Mr. Schrunk. I was endorsed by all of organized labor; yes, sir.
There were a great many of us. It is conceivable that he mignt have
said a word in our behalf, although I doubt if a word from him in my
behalf would have done much good.
The Chairman. Now, proceed with your statement as to why you
happened to come to the club.
Mr. Schrunk. On the second of September 1955, I received a let-
ter in compliance with my request from a detective on my staff, as
sheriff of Multnomah County. The detective's name is James E.
Madison. The day before he had told me in conversation that he
was questioning a person on a bad check charge.
One of the checks had been floated in an after hours establishment
in the Kenton area. I asked him to get the details. This letter is
fairly lengthy, two pages, and it goes into details.
Based on this information, I directed Detective Minielly to check
out and see who owned the establishment and to take necessary action
to get it. out of operation. It wasn't the first time that we had had
trouble in that area.
Back in 1954, I believe, I called the Oregon Liquor Control Com-
mission and the city police and asked them to close up the establish-
ment, that I had had complaints from businessmen in the area on it.
Apparently, there was a raid on the 12th of December 1954, and
complaints were issued on August 26, 1954. This was a complaint
against Mr. Clifford D. Bennett, 8212 North Denver, for illegal sale,
that is, unlawful sale ; excuse me. The fine was paid of $100 on that
conviction.
Mr. Minielly checked out the ownership of the establishment and
found it was sublet to a Mr. and Mrs. Seth and Ethel Patrick, to
operate the Kennell Auction Furniture Co., residence 5329 North
Princeton Street.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 603
Mrs. Patrick states that they rented the upstairs to a Jimmy Ben-
nett, no address, who paid $100 cash money per month, and his lease
stated for living quarters, and the lease was up about 1 month ago.
It further states that Bennett said everything was O. K. and
"nothing to worry about. The police will not bother us.'] It goes on
to state ne is quite frequently seen talking with the police.
Following that discussion, Mr. Minielly informed the lady that the
sheriff had ordered if the city did not close the place up, he was going
to and we were going to try to move for abatement unless we could
get legal papers for search warrant and arrest warrant.
Following that, Mr. Bennett contacted Mr. George Minielly by tele-
phone and wanted to meet with him and talk this problem over. Mr.
Minielly reported to me and he said there was nothing to talk about
and that the place either went out of business or they would be out
there tearing it apart.
The place did close for a day or two. I believe it was on a Saturday
night and I am not sure.
On September 11, 1955, I happened to be checking around the
county and that happened to be in the north end of town in the general
direction in which I resided and I drove by and was surprised to see
people pouring in and out of it.
I didn't have search warrants, or arrest warrants. I felt that we
could move against it by having a check for drunks and people like
that. So I called my uniformed sergeant and asked him to move
cars into the area.
He did so. They formed up and walked a beat in front of the
place. I informed one young officer there with the sergeant, that if he
had an opportunity to make a legal entry to the establishment, to
do so.
The Chairman. Was the establishment open ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You can make a legal entry to any place that is
open ; can you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; you can't under Oregon law, sir.
The Chairman. You mean a public place ?
Mr. Schrunk. This wasn't a public place. It is not public, sir.
This is a private after-hours club.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Schrunk. In order to force the bar doors, we would have to
have a search warrant, or an arrest warrant.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you get into the place ?
Mr. Schrunk. Did we?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Schrunk. Yes. This officer that I directed to make legal entry
if possible. The reason I wanted him to make legal entry was if we
could see any violations of law such as a slot machine, under Oregon
law it is illegal to possess, and you don't have to do that. We could
immediately make an arrest, providing our entry was legal.
This officer, one officer, Deputy Groves, waited until a crowd came
up the stairway and followed in behind them. People were properly
identified and went inside the establishment and Groves got inside
behind them.
604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
He started looking around to see if he could see any slot machines.
He reported back to me later that he got in and was looking around
and working his way around when Mr. Bennett came over and de-
manded to know if he had a warrant.
Mr. Kennedy. You have made a legal entry and he saw this
gambling going on ?
Mr. Schrunk. There was a card table, a 21 table, but there was chips
on it, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he saw them serving drinks?
Mr. Schrunk. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He saw all of this, and the gambling establishment
and drinks and he had got legal entry ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, but he still did not have grounds to make an
arrest.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ?
Mr. Schrunk. In order to make an arrest for an illegal sale you
must make a "buy." You have to buy. It is not illegal to give liquor
away, but you have to make a "buy."
Mr. Kennedy. Or see it happening?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have to play the game ?
Mr. Schrunk. You have to either play it or you have to see money
on the table changing hands.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not see any of that ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He got in there and nobody knew he was in, and this
gambling was going on and he did not see anything ?
Mr. Schrunk. He saw the chips on the table, sir, according to his
report, when he backed out. We would be thrown out of the court
if we tried to bring something like that in.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not see any money at all ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I do not quite understand, if I may interrupt
the chief counsel, your testimony that you could not enter an after-
hours joint without violating the law.
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon me ?
Senator McCarthy. I do not understand what I thought was your
testimony that the law-enforcement agencies could not enter an after-
hours joint and that, of course, was operating in violation of the
law.
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, there was a barred door and it is like a man's
home and without a search warrant you cannot break it down and go
in.
Mr. Kennedy. But they were in. Theer is nobody breaking any-
thing down and he was in.
Mr. Schrunk. Even after he is in, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't keep talking about it being a man's home and
breaking it down. Nobody is breaking it down. They were in.
Senator Goldwater. Was this a private club ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, it operates the same as a private club.
Senator Goldwater. A person has to have a membership to get into
it?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 605
Mr. Schrunk. I had one of the membership cards that we were able
to find. And this is what they use. [Witness illustrating.]
Senator Goldwater. What was the price of that card ?
Air. Schrunk. I don't know, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Do you know the qualifications for member-
ship ?
Mr. Schrunk. I imagine that you wanted to gamble and drink li-
quor after 2 : 30 in the city. It wasn't an exclusive membership.
Senator Goldwater. It is a private club
Mr. Schrunk. Senator, I haven't finished yet. It was not licensed
by the State.
Senator Goldwater. They are open after 2 : 30 and it is against the
law ?
Mr. Schrunk. I might point out that under city ordinance in the
city of Portland, it is illegal to have groups behind barred doors.
City police could move in at nighttime on that basis. But the sheriff
only has the power of the State statute.
Senator Goldwater. Was it against the law for a private club to be
open after 2 : 30 in the morning %
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Was it against the law for a private club to
give liquor away %
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Goldwater. But it would be against the law for a private
club to sell liquor after 2 : 30 ?
Mr. Schrunk. After 2 : 30, yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Finishing my line of inquiry, the two uni-
formed policemen
Mr. Schrunk. One, sir.
Senator McCarthy. They were allowed admittance to this after-
hours club, so there was no question of breaking in. They knew they
were violating the law. Can you tell us why the place was not
raided, and why the operator was not arrested ?
Liquor was being dispensed and money was being passed out.
Whether it was a direct or indirect payment for the liquor does not
make much difference. I am sure we agree on that.
I just am curious to get your explanation of why you say, "Well,
they couldn't break in," or, "They couldn't arrest them. They would
have to break through barred doors and it would be like going into
a man's home."
That is, of course, obviously not true. They were in this club that
was operating illegally. Now, could you shed some light on your
answer to Mr. Kennedy's question ?
Mr. Schrunk. First, there was only one officer, sir. Deputy Groves
was the officer that went in. There was some testimony this morning
that somebody said two officers, but to the best of my knowledge, there
was only one.
There was one particular officer. He went in behind a group.
There have been a great many cases of false arrests where arrests
have been made and even though we know it is quite apparent what
has been going on, operating under State statutes you must have the
evidence.
606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McCarthy. When a police officer sees liquor being dis-
pensed and sees gambling going on, and he sees money passing hands,
is there any further evidence you would need ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. What further would you need ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, in order to get our gambling conviction, with
the exception of possession of slot machines, we have to get a man
into the game or to watch. We have difficulty even in those cases
getting the actual money on the table.
But you just can't because there are chips there. It is not illegal
to play cards. It is illegal to gamble. You have to have something
of value. The chips have not been ruled as anything of value in a
court case.
Senator Goldwater. I would like to ask one more question. Was
this Officer Groves in uniform?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. And he sneaked in ?
Mr. Schrunk. It was dark and he went in. They opened
this barred door and it is my understanding and I didn't ob-
serve him do it, and he went upstairs and I was down with the sergeant
and some of the other officers.
He followed a group of 5 or 6 people that had the password and
when the barred door was thrown open to admit them, he went in and
he sneaked in behind them. He was in there an extremely short time
and he didn't have an opportunity to get over to the bar. It is a fairly
large establishment and I believe the committee has pictures of it.
I had occasion to visit it afterward, and we requested Mr. Bennett
to allow us to look it over and asked him if he objected after it had
been emptied and seeing the place. The reason we did that was we
intended to do everything we could to get a paper to take it out of
there and we were going to have a raid and it is best to know what
you are raiding.
It would seem that the committee would certainly be interested in
the testimony of the officers that made the investigation. That is, the
officers that worked on the raid and the detectives that worked on it
ahead of time.
The Chairman. We are interested. You are one of them ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am one, and there has been this morning a parade
of quite an array of individuals.
Senator Goldwater. Did you plan to raid this place before you
went there?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. I assumed it had been closed and stayed
closed.
Senator Goldwater. "What detectives are you referring to that
worked on the raid ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not worked on the raid, but investigated the estab-
lishment, and the one I mentioned here on the bad check and found
out that the place was going again, and Detective Minielly who went
out and interviewed the lessor, the person who had the property.
Senator Goldwater. Did you know this club was open that night
when you drove by ?
Mr. Schrunk. I realized it when I saw the people streaming in.
Senator Goldwater. When did these detectives work on it to find
out that it was open ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 607
Mr. Schrunk. They investigated— let's see— Detective Minielly's
report is under date of September 9.
Senator Goldwater. And the night you went there was Septem-
ber 11 %
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, and I believe on the 10th they were closed,
according to the detective's report.
Senator Goldwater. They hadn't reported to you that it was
opened on September 9 ?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon me ?
Senator Goldwater. Had they reported to you it was open on
the 9th 2
Mr Schrunk. No, sir, the report is under date of September 9 that
the investigator was out and talked to the people that had the
P1 Senator Goldwater. You had not seen that report when you drove
by?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon me? i
Senator Goldwater. You had not seen that report when you drove
yMr Schrunk. This report, I imagine that I probably had, yes.
Senator Goldwater. Then, you had strong reason to suspect that
it was open? „. n ;, T
Mr Schrunk. No, I didn't because I was under the impression I
believe Mr. Minielly had reported it was closed on the 10th and he
had been out to investigate. He had been there and he said it was
closed down. . ., „ ,,
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask a question there? Mayor, you
were in the establishment the night of the raid, is that right
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, later on. I had an opportunity to enter
the establishment. -
Senator McCarthy. And were you there before the raid or alter
t he raid ? . .
Mr. Schrunk. It was after the raid, sir.
Senator McCarthy. After the raid?
Mr Schrunk. Yes, sir; after all of the people had gone out, and
Mr Bennett came down and locked the place up and the sergeant
and I were talking there and the sergeant suggested that he might be
willing to invite us in. ,,,.,' i . * i u
So we suggested and we said we would like to see what the club
looked like. , L ". ; , ' . ,
Senator McCarthy. And the sheriff and you went into this place,
Mr. Schrunk. The deputy sheriff and the sergeant and I believe
one uniformed patrol man .
Senator McCarthy. You were the sheriff \
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You and your deputy, I mean.
Mr Schrunk. Yes. There was a sergeant and possibly another
officer and I am not positive and Mr. Bennett. The club by that time
had been vacated.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, there was no one there anymore
at that time ?
89330— 57— pt. 2-
60S IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. That is right. We had also made some arrests
outside for drunks and disorderly conduct and things of that nature.
You see, what people like Mr. Elkins fear the most is abatement.
They are willing to pay their $100 fine and they were talking about
$1,500 this morning.
I invite the committee to check court records of my county to see
what fines these people pay. They are willing to pay a nominal
license fee, but they get real worried when you abate their place.
That is, to lock it up.
Senator McCarthy. Did you take action to abate the proceedings?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; because it did not open up after that. We
closed them that night and they stayed closed.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, that night you arrested some
drunks coming out of the place, is that right ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. My deputies did.
Senator McCarthy. You did not arrest the operator?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. We had no grounds to actually arrest him
on, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I think that I will let counsel continue. I do
not want to interrupt counsel's sequence of questioning.
The Chairman. May I get one thing clear ? You say that you got
there after the raid. You mean you got inside after the raid ?
Mr. Schrtjnk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were already there giving directions to begin
with?
Mr. Schrtjnk:. Yes, sir ; I was outside the establishment and I called
from there by two-way radio for the sergeant. You see, this is near
the city boundary and it is only a few blocks within the city limits
of Portland.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer again for this committee why you
did not take action to have it abated ?
Mr. Schrunk. Because the place didn't open after that.
Mr. Kennedy. The next morning, why did you not take action to
have it abated ? You did not know it was not going to open up again.
Mr. Schrunk. We were watching it.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not take action to abate it ? You say
these people did not want to have it abated. Why did you not take
action to have it abated ?
Mr. Schrunk. We certainly would, if they had tried to run it again.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not do it that time ? You caught all
of these bad things going on, which you hate so much and you want
to destroy in your city, and you had your chance there, and Mr. Ben-
nett was running this place and running a gambling place and selling
liquor afterhours, and why did you not get it abated next morning,
the first thing ?
Mr. Schrunk. We would have asked for abatement.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not? You say, "We would have."
But why did you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. They were out of operation.
Mr. Kennedy. They were out of operation that morning ? Did you
have a search warrant and go in and seize all of their equipment ?
Mr. Schrunk. You couldn't seize the equipment, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What made you think they were out of operation?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 609
Mr Schrunk. Because the patrol cars were there to check the place.
Mr Kennedy. You always had that ? I thought you said that these
people dislike having their place abated. Why did you not abate it
the next morning? You had this evidence, and why did you not get
it abated the following day? Why did you never have it abated,
Mayor Schrunk ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, it is not running, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it not running the night betore i
Mr" Kennedy. No place is running the following morning after
there has been a raid. Of course it is not running.
Mr Schrunk. It was not a raid. . ,
Mr. Kennedy. Oh, come on, Mayor Schrunk, you were m there and
you had a policeman in there and you saw gambling and you saw the
place. You saw them having drinks and you had all of that evidence,
and why did you not have it abated ?
Was it because you got the $500 ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; I never got that. .; _, ■ ■
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that the reason you did not have it abated ?
Mr. Kennedy! Wasn't that the reason you did not take any action,
and don't you know that was the reason ?
Mr Schrunk. No: I know it was not the reason
Mr Kennedy. Why didn't you take any action the following morn-
ing
Mr. Schrunk. I certainly would if they had opened up. _ ^ k.
Air. Kennedy. Because you had the agreement with Bennett and
vou got $500 ; isn't that the reason? J- ?_
" Mr Schrunk. There was no agreement with Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot deny that you failed to take action; is
r Mr °Schrunk. I did take action, and I closed the place up and it
StMrd Kennedy. You did not abate it, did you? You did not have
Mr. Schrunk. I had them out of operation. That was the objec-
1VSenator McCarthy. I do not understand your answers to coun-
sel's questions at all. You first told me that you arrived after the
raid. In answer to Senator McClellan, you said you were there and
ordered the raid.
Now, which is correct?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir n
Senator McCarthy. Or is my hearing bad ? _
Mr. Schrunk. I think probably there is a misunderstanding. I
came by the establishment, and you had a diagram this morning, and
I drove right in front of the place, and I saw that there was some
activity. At that time, I notified by two-way radio the sergeant to
come to this establishment.
Senator McCarthy. And you were in the establishment present
during the so-called raid, is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Where were you?
610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. I was outside.
Senator McCarthy. You were outside?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. But your deputies had been ordered by you
to go in and conduct the raid ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. We didn't have search warrants, and we
didn't have an arrest warrant.
Senator McCarthy. They got in, did they not ?
Mr. Schrunk. One of the officers followed a group in, and I sug-
gested that they ask him to see if he could make a legal entry.
Senator McCarthy. And he made the legal entry?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. What was he supposed to do after he made
the legal entry ?
Mr. Schrunk. If he saw any slot machines, or anything that he
could make an arrest on, he should do so.
Mr. Kennedy. There are other things that are illegal. It is not
just slot machines ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not under our statutes that you can seize on sight,
Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question, whether it constitutes
gambling. You are not talking about seizing these things. You are
talking about what constitutes gambling. Now, wasn't there equip-
ment in the room that constituted gambling per se ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was not ?
Mr. Schrunk. There was material, but now
Mr. Kennedy. Under the Oregon statute, does not some of that
material constitute gambling, per se ?
Mr. Schrunk. Slot machines do.
Mr. Kennedy. No; anything else?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; it is not illegal to have cards, chips, and
tables.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the cloth that they play games on?
There was one of the items, Twenty-One.
Mr. Schrunk. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. We will find out.
Mr. Schrunk. You can check the establishment, but I am quite
sure
Senator McCarthy. You called the police officers, did you?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Did you call the two police officers to come
down and pick up this bicycie that was testified about this morning?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Can you tell us now why you arrested a
couple of drunks coming out of the place? You had an officer in the
place. Why did you not arrest the operator, and why immediately
the following morning did you not take proceedings to have it pad-
locked or abated or whatever term you used ? I am extremely curious
about that.
Mr. Schrunk. Abatement proceedings, sir, is to place an establish-
ment out of operation. We use it on houses of prostitution and things
after there have been arrests made. On after hours illegal liquor
places, there must be arrests made ; drinking, and things of that nature..
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 611
Senator McCarthy. You said there must be arrests made. You
did arrest some drunks coming out of the place, and that is some
slight indication they may have been drinking.
Mr. Schrunk. They were convicted of that.
Senator McCarthy. So arrests were made?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. So my question is, Why did you not, as the
sheriff, take proceedings immediately? I am repeating Mr. Ken-
nedy's question, to have abatement proceedings commenced. Why
did you decide to wait?
Mr. Schrunk. Those arrests, sir, move on abatement, normally to
build up over a period of time, that you show there has been a dis-
orderly place run. On one occasion we made these arrests. Whether
or not that was sufficient grounds to move for abatement, I am not
prepared to say, sir, and I am not an attorney. But had they tried
to operate, we would have moved in 2 or 3 different directions. We
would have tried to get an undercover agent in the establishment to
make a legal "buy," or to make a purchase of liquor, or someone in
the gambling game. Based on that, we would have attempted to
secure search warrants and arrest warrants.
Senator McCarthy. Now, Mayor, the drunks, according to their
records, I understand, told the officers that they had been drinking in
this establishment. They were picked up and given some minor
sentence, but the owner of the establishment was not touched at all.
Was there anything lacking to commence abatement proceedings or
to arrest the owner of the establishment ?
I asked this because you are accused, you see, of having received
$500 to avoid abatement proceedings. In fairness to you, I think
that you should be entitled to tell us just why you did not start those
proceedings when you had every element there necessary.
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, I guess the only reason I can say is that I
had a big job, and lots of things to do.
The Chairman. You had what ?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon me ?
The Chairman. I did not understand you.
Mr. Schrunk. I said I had a big job to do, and I was working hard
at it, and trying to take care of the problems of the county. This was
within the city, and we felt that if we closed it up
The Chairman. You found an immediate job to do there; did you
not?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; and I came by and I saw something wrong,
and we moved.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mayor, in your experience as sheriff, how
did you usually close up a place like that ?
Mr. Schrunk. We generally tried to get an agent inside, an under-
cover agent.
Senator Goldwater. What, physically, did you do as sheriff, or your
undersheriffs do, to close a place like that ?
Mr. Schrunk. Normally, for instance, on some of the houses of
prostitution, Mr. McCourt was district attorney, and after we had
several arrests over a period of time we moved against the property on
abatements.
612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Goldwater. Was it customary for you personally, or your
deputy sheriffs or undersheriffs, to padlock or in some physical way
close up the premises ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Is it not true, in this case, that the owner him-
self went back and closed it up himself ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. So you did not close it up ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. I had no legal right to his property. I
knew he was wrong, but in law enforcement there are many things
you know sometimes, but it doesn't make a case.
Senator Goldwater. Have you not been inferring that you did
close it up, and you did not feel there was any need for abatement
proceedings because you had closed it up ?
Mr. Schrunk. The term I used maybe was "closed up," and I didn't
say possibly put them out of business. Because of our interest there,
he went out of business.
Senator Goldwater. How could you say he went out of business
when the owner went back and closed the place up ? He could have
opened it the next day or the day after or anytime he wanted, and you
had in no legal way — or no use of the force behind your office — closed
that ; had you ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; except by having the uniformed officers out
there running these customers away.
Senator Goldwater. Were they out there the next day trying to run
them away ?
Mr. Schrunk. They would have been there if he had tried to
open, and if we hadn't had legal grounds to move on by that time.
Senator Goldwater. You did not actually close that as we under-
stand the sheriff closing up an illegal place of business; did you?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, I don't know what you understand as the sheriff.
We have closed up quite a lot of places one way or another.
Senator Goldwater. One way or another? Was this one of the
ways, where you let the owner go back after you found him operating
illegally, and let the owner go back and close up himself ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, I had no right to take custody of his building,
and apparently it was his property, although I knew in my heart that
he was operating illegally. I still didn't have any legal ground to
move on. I don't know if the Senator is aware of the great many
cases that have occurred of false arrest and illegal search, but it is a
constant problem to law-enforcement officers throughout the land.
Senator Goldwater. What I am trying to establish here is that
you did not actually close that place up. Did you have an agreement
with the owner that he would not open ?
Mr. Schrunk. He told me that night that he wanted to know first
when he came out to see me. First he talked to the sergeant, and he
said he wanted to know what they were doing there, and the sergeant
said :
We are going- to maintain walking beats here as long as yon are open.
And he said :
Well, who should I see? They can't do that. They are ruining my business.
Senator Goldwater. Would you answer that question? Did you
have an agreement with the owner that he would not open up ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 613
Mr. Schrunk. Well, he said that he definitely, if we are talcing that
attitude, he would be out of business and he would not run it again.
Senator Goldwater. Did he tell you that he would not open up the
next day ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't recall exactly what he did say, sir. But
that was, yes, I would guess that the inference was that he knew we
knew about the establishment, and it was too hot for him.
The Chairman. So the result was he just moved to another loca-
tion and opened up again ; is that not true ?
Mr. Schrunk. Apparently that is true, and we found out about it,
and we put men in that place and closed him there, too.
The Chairman. He opened up at 1805 Southwest Fifth?
Mr. Schrunk. That is right. 1 put 5 people inside that place, and
they went in undercover in plain clothes, 2 women and 3 officers.
The Chairman. Did you abate that placed
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. No, sir ?
Mr. Schrunk. I got arrest warrants on that one.
The Chairman. You got an arrest warrant, but you did not abate
it, the same man operating?
Mr. Schrunk. We were not able to serve the warrant because he
went out of business.
The Chairman. He went out of business ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you, Mr. Mayor, that evening,
if we have the chart, for what reason did you go through the place
again ?
Mr. Schrunk. To look it over so we would be familiar with it
and we could get legal paper to raid it if they opened up again.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask to go through it ?
Mr. Schrunk. We suggested to Mr. Bennett that we would like to
see his establishment.
Mr. Kennedy. And he took you through ?
Mr. Schrunk. He said he had no objections.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see any kind of a layout there ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; there was a bar and some tables.
Mr. Kennedy. "What kind of tables ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, small tables that I assumed the people
who were drinking or dancing
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any gambling equipment there?
Mr. Schrunk. There were 1 or 2 higher tables that possibly or
probably were "twenty-one" or blackjack.
Mr. Kennedy. How were they covered? Were they just plain
tables or were there cloths on them ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't remember, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were up there getting information to find out
about the place, and what was there on the tables?
Mr. Schrunk. I was more interested in the windows, exits, and
doors, and things of that kind.
Mr. Kennedy. You were not interested in the equipment there \
Mr. Schrunk. Well, yes.
614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Do you not know what kind of equipment they had
up there, and what gambling equipment?
Mr. Schrunk. They had tables.
Mr. Kennedy. Gambling tables, were they not, and gambling-
equipment?
Mr. Schrunk. The type that can be certainly used.
Mr. Kennedy. Is gambling, or that kind of gambling legal in
Oregon ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is it not a fact that that kind of gambling equip-
ment, the possession of that kind of gambling equipment, just as a
possession of slot machines, is illegal?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that?
Mr. Schrunk. In my opinion, it is not illegal to possess.
Mr. Kennedy. Just slot machines ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes ; they may be seized upon sight.
Mr. Kennedy. And you say that your deputy sheriff got up there
and all he saw was people getting drinks, and he never saw them pay-
ing for the drinks ; is that right ?
Mr. Schrunk. You have a picture of the establishment. It is
rather large, and the bar is quite a little ways from the door, and all he
could apparently see would be
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean to tell me you got someone up there and
he never saw that ?
Senator McCarthy. He has not answered your question. You have
not answered counsel's question. I would suggest that the reporter
read it again, if you do not mind.
The Chairman. Read the previous question, Mr. Reporter.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, all I can testify to is what the officer reported
when he came back downstairs to me. The best witness for that fact
would be the officers concerned themselves. Certainly I would sug-
gest that those officers be brought back since this has become an issue.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Mayor, can you tell us what the officer told
you ? You were in this joint and you were curious to know what was
going on. What did the officer tell you ? Did he tell you drinks were
being served ?
Mr. Schrunk. The officer came down and said that he couldn't see
any slot machines.
Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you that drinks were being served ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; he said they were drinking in the place.
Senator McCarthy. He said there was drinking?
Mr. Schrunk. And quite a lot of people in there.
Senator McCarthy. And, of course, you knew that this was not a
charitable institution and drinks were not being given away. You
knew that ; did you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. So you knew that there was some money being
paid somehow for the liquor, after hours, illegally ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. In my own mind, I was completely satis-
fied, but that doesn't form the basis for an arrest, sir.
Senator McCarthy. When the drunks were arrested and they said
that they had gotten drinks in the place, and when you went into the
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 615
place and talked to Bennett, what did you tell him ? What did yon ask
him about ? Did you ask him whether there was gambling, or ask him
whether he was giving away the drinks, or whether somebody was
buying them ?
I would like to know about that conversation. You are accused of
something very serious here.
Mr. Schrunk. I know.
Senator McCarthy. Just what conversation did you have with him ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, I don't know what conversation I had with
Mr. Bennett. The problem was, as far as I was concerned in my own
mind, I know he was operating illegally, and I wanted him out of
business, one way or another. If I could have arrested him on the
spot, if I felt in my own mind I had any ground to do it, I would have
done it.
Senator McCarthy. And you felt you had no ground ?
Air. Schruxk. I felt I had no grounds at the time.
Senator McCarthy. You said a minute ago that you were princi-
pally interested ii; the windows and other exits and not in the gambling
equipment. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; I don't think so. You read something into
that answer.
Senator McCarthy. I am sorry if I did.
Mr. Schrunk. I said, or the counsel asked me, if I looked at the top
of the table, what it was made of. I said on my trip in there I was
looking at the windows and exits and things like that, primarily to
see ways to ^et in in case we had to have a raid.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Mayor, did you look over the place to see
whether or not there was equipment which would normally be used
for gambling?
Air. Schrunk. Yes, sir. One of the officers went through some of
the back rooms, and there were some bark rooms, thinking even then
we might find a slot machine stored.
Senator McCarthy. Just in fairness to yourself, is this not correct :
That as you went through the place you knew it was a gambling
joint, and you knew they were violating the law and selling liquor
after hours, and you arrested the drunks who told the officers that they
had bought drinks in the place, and you had every reason to have the
place padlocked or abated, call it whatever you may? Is that not
roughly the picture?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, I am afraid that you don't understand the
law as it pertains to our State. I am not sure what it is in yours.
Senator McCarthy. Well, I have never practiced law in your State
but I understood the laws were almost the same as in our State, as far
as gambling is concerned. I am not asking you about the law. I am
asking you a simple question and I would ask the reporter to read that
question to you.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Air. Schrunk. It is a pretty long question, and I can't give you a
"Yes'' or "No"' answer. If you care to break it down, I will be most
happy to try to answer it to the best of my ability.
Senator McCarthy. We will break it down, then. We will break
it down.
No. 1 : You knew that there was gambling equipment in the insti-
tution ; is that right ?
616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. After I visited the establishment ; yes, sir, I felt that
the equipment there had been used for gambling purposes.
Senator McCarthy. There was no doubt in your mind on that ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. No. 2, after the drunks were arrested and they
admitted that they had bought drinks in the place after hours, was
there any doubt in your mind that they had been dispensing liquor?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, I felt in my own mind that they had been.
Senator McCarthy. And the officer who reported to you told you
that they had been dispensing liquor, so there is no doubt in your
mind on that ; is there ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, there was no doubt they were dispensing
liquor.
Senator McCarthy. Then you had every ground to have the place
padlocked; did you not?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; I don't have the authority to.
Senator McCarthy. Then let us get back to your conversation with
Bennett. Did you tell him that you would not have it padlocked if
lie moved to some other location ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. What, if anything, did you tell Bennett?
Mr. Schrunk. Only that we wanted him out of business, and we
were going to keep the men on the place until we got him one way or
another, either through abatement, arrest proceedings, operators that
we would be able to get in the establishment, or whatever the
possibility.
Senator McCarthy. You knew he opened up another place?
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't know it until the information came back
later on that there was another establishment operating.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you learned that after he
closed this spot, he promptly opened another spot; is that right?
Air. Schrunk. I don't know that ; no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You do not know it now ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know when he opened the club up in the old
house at 8018-something Fourth or Fifth Street.
Senator McCarthy. You know it was done rather quickly after he
closed the old spot ; do you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I don't recall when it came to our attention.
We put the officers into the place as soon as the complaints started
coming in.
Senator McCarthy. You found, pardon me, a character operating
an illegal joint? You told him that if he would quit business you
would not padlock the place or have him arrested, I assume ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Am I wrong in that ?
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't have the authority to padlock it, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Take proceedings to have it padlocked, then?
Mr. Schrunk. No. I threatened him. If the place tried to run, we
were going to put him out of business one way or another, within the
law.
Senator McCarthy. Then did you check to see whether he went into
the same business in a different building?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 617
Mr Schrunk. Sir, our department, the sheriff's department doesn't
do the normal police work inside the city of Portland. The only time
that we move into the city of Portland is when the complaints come in
and the local law enforcement refuses to act on them.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask you this question— If I am getting
ahead of your examination, Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Counsel, I will be
glad to stop. , , . . s 4.
The Chairman. Would you let me ask him just two questions at
this point ?
Senator Mundt. I have a question, also. _
The Chairman. Did you make a list of the gambling equipment that
vou found there that night ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. Would it not have been proper course ot procedure
for you, if you got on the inside, and you observe those conditions, to
make a list of it for future use ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, I don't believe so.
The Chairman. Would it not strengthen your case if he opened up
again and you wanted to padlock him to have the record of what you
had found on a previous occasion? Is that not the normal way that
law-enforcement officers operate ? Do you not know that ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, I never went into that.
The Chairman. Let me ask you one more question. Was the owner
of that establishment ever fined for violating the law that night ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. t .
The Chairman. No charges were brought against him whatsoever i
Mr. Schrunk. Not at that time.
The Chairman. He was not padlocked, and he was not prosecuted?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, not at that time.
The Chairman. Notwithstanding the fact that you were the sheriff
and standing there at the door and you could have interrogated every
man that walked out of there, and you could have gotten a list of wit-
nesses and made the proof, You did not do that, did you ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir
The Chairman. Did you ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, I didn't.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Mundt. I want to find out a little bit about what you
term a raid, whether it was actually a raid, since other witnesses have
said it was a shakedown. I do not know what it was. I want to find
out a little bit about how you conducted it. You said you were driv-
ing out in front of the place and you saw people going in and out of it,
is that right ? And so that was the first you had known that the place
was open, on September 11 ? Am I right so far ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You got on your police radio and you called in
some of your deputy sheriffs and told them or one of them to try to
get legal entrance into the place to see what was going on, is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. One of them followed the crowd in, and he got
into the place legally, is that right?
618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. How long was he in the place ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, possibly 2 or 3 minutes.
Senator Mundt. Why did he come out so soon ?
Mr. Schrunk. Because Mr. Bennett asked him to leave and de-
manded if he had a search warrant.
Senator Mundt. He did not need a, search warrant to be in there
as long as he got in legally ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, he would have to have a search warrant
to come in without being invited.
Senator Mundt. All right. He was in there 2 or 3 minutes and
he came out and reported back to you, is that correct?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, to myself.
Senator Mundt. To try to reconstruct what he told you when he
came back, you had ordered him to go in and bring back a full report ?
Mr. Schrunk. He said there was quite a crowd in there, and he
saw no slot machines, and there were little tables around and people
drinking.
Senator Mundt. What questions did you ask him ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I asked him if he saw any young people,
any minors, anyone drunk or disorderly. I asked him if he was sure
about slot machines. I don't recall, sir, just what were all of the
things we talked about.
Senator Mundt. Did you ask whether he saw anybody drinking
liquor ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes. he said he saw them.
Senator Mundt. Did you ask him whether he saw anybody pur-
chasing liquor?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know specifically if I asked that question
or whether he volunteered it.
Senator Mundt. Was not the purpose of sending him in as a one-
man expeditionary force to find out whether or not you had sufficient
evidence to break into the place, and was that not why you sent
him in?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Why did you send him in ?
Mr. Schrunk. I was hoping that we might, as we sometimes have,
get what we term a lucky break and find one or half a dozen slot
machines in there. On sight you can seize them, and you can make
an arrest.
Senator Mundt. You seem to have an obsession about slot machines.
Is that the only crime you were interested in as sheriff ? You always
come back to slot machines.
Mr. Schrunk. I was talking about the tools of the business, sir,
and that is one of the things.
Senator Mundt. One of the tools of the business is selling whisky
after hours, is it not? Is that not one of the tools of the business
that is illegal?
Mr. Schrunk. It is illegal, sir, but you just can't because the person
has a drink in their hand
Senator Mundt. That is right, and it would seem to me, therefore,
it would be logical for you to ask this one-man detective force of
yours, Did you see anybody buying liquor ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 619
Mr. Schruxk. This officer was in uniform.
Senator Muxdt. Very well.
Mr. Schruxk. If he could have bought a drink there
Senator Muxdt. He did not have to buy it. Could he see somebody
else buy it?
Mr. Schruxk. He would have to buy it.
Senator Mundt. He would have to buy it ?
Mr. Schruxk. Those people are pretty smart and they are not going
to do something in front of a uniformed officer like that.
Senator Muxdt. There was a big crowd of people, and if the sheriff
was smart or the deputy sheriff was smart as the people or those run-
ning it, I would think he could watch what was going on. But I am
curious that you did not even ask him the question whether he saw
anybody buy liquor.
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, I am not sure of all of the questions I
might have asked, or what the discussion was. That has been quite a
little while ago.
Senator Muxdt. At least you do not remember asking him that
question, and you just remember asking him about the slot machines ?
Mr. Schrunk. I wouldn't say I did or didn't. We discussed it.
Senator Mundt. You said a little earlier that you followed Mr.
Bennett around some months later to a second place.
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't know Mr. Bennett was in this other es-
tablishment, or who was operating it. As a matter of fact, our war-
rants were "John Doe" warrants.
Senator Mundt. You did raid a place and found Mr. Bennett was
running it, and this time you did it with all of the power of the law
behind you, and you had the necessary warrant and the necessary evi-
dence, is that not correct ? That is the second time. You had under-
cover people in there gathering the evidence ?
Mr. Schrunk. There were 3 officers and 2 women visited the place
1 evening.
Senator Mundt. Did they see things which are illegal ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. They reported back to you ?
Mr. Schruxk. They came back and made their affidavits.
Senator Muxdt. What did you do then ?
Mr. Schruxk. I didn't do anything directly. It was processed in
the normal course by the investigating officer and he secured his war-
rant and he set up a raid.
Senator Muxdt. You set up a raid ?
Mr. Schruxk. Yes, sir.
Senator Muxdt. Was the raid successful ?
Mr. Schruxk. No, sir, the place was tipped off.
Senator Muxdt. It was tipped off ?
Mr. Schruxk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. What happened then ? You got there and every-
thing was hunky-dory ?
Mr. Schruxk. Well, I wasn't there personally. When the officers
got there the place was closed.
Senator Muxdt. When you got there, the place was closed?
Mr. Schruxk. Yes, sir.
620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. Who tipped off the institution ?
Mr. Schrunk. We would certainly like to know.
Senator Mundt. It must have been somebody in your office, was it
not?
Mr. Schrunk. Xo, sir, I don't think so. One of the detectives was
recognized by a bail bond man in the establishment, and we think the
leak came from there.
Senator Mundt. At the time the second raid took place, did you
know at that time that Mr. Bennett was running it?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did your undercover people not discover that? If
they were astute they would know who was running it.
Mr. Schrunk. They were reasonably sure it was one of Mr. Elkins"
establishments.
Senator Mundt. Were they reasonably sure that Mr. Bennett was
involved ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did any of them ever mention Mr. Bennett to you
after they made the report ?
Mr. Schrunk, Well, I believe that I inquired from the officers as
to various people in the establishment and I felt reasonably sure
after the description of one man that very possibly it was Mr.
Bennett.
Senator Mundt. How come you did not accompany them on that
second raid? This was the man you had tried to catch the time be-
fore, and he had gotten through the net. It seems to me you would
be very much concerned personally to follow through the second time.
But you said you did not accompany the raid. Why not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, we have a county of over half a million popula-
tion. As the sheriff of that county I had 230 men and women, includ-
ing a tax division, and it is a little difficult to run all of those things
myself. Sometimes I had to, to keep my own men on their toes, to
take direct action as I did down in Kenton, and demand something
be done.
But as far as running around and doing that, I spent too much time
because of the problems that existed there on the details myself. Nor-
mally, the sheriff just wouldn't be doing that any more than a Senator
would be typing all of his own letters.
Senator Mundt. You were just too busy the second time with other
duties to go along with the raid; is that right? You had too many
other duties ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, I worked pretty long hours.
Senator Mundt. I am not making any accusation, and I am serious.
This is a pretty notorious fellow, and you tried to close him up, and
he opened up on you again, and you yourself found he was open, and
you ordered one of your men to get legal entrance, and he got in, but
his raid was a flop, and you did not accomplish anything.
You arrested a few drunks, and you worked your way in, and you
said, "If we ever get you, brother, we are going to deal roughly with
you." He opened up again, and you knew he opened up again, and
another raid was ordered, and I thought maybe this would be more
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 621
than just an ordinary run of the mill raid, and you would just wan!
to be there yourself.
Mr. Schrunk. Apparently I did accomplish something that first
raid. I really got Mr. Elkins so excited that he goes to almost any
extent to try to ruin me.
Senator Mundt. We will find out about that as the hearings pro-
gress. But you accomplished one thing we know of. You got him to
move his location to another place. In all events, the second time you
did make some arrests. The second time your people made some-
arrests, and your raid was successful ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; they had been tipped off.
Senator Mundt. So the place was closed. What kind of investiga-
tion did you make as to the tipster?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe that the criminal division checked the bail
bondsman and tried to ascertain from the Oregonian where they got
their tip and they had a photographer sitting up there on the raid.
Senator Mundt. How would the bail bondsman know you were
going to make a raid ? .
Mr. Schrunk. I suppose he was just suspicious and recognized the
deputy sheriff in the establishment.
Senator Mundt. He recognized your plainclothes man, you mean?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. What did the deputy who was in the estab-
lishment find?
Mr. Schrunk. They were operating and they made "buys ot illegal
liquor and they participated in gambling.
Senator McCarthy. I am speaking now about the second raid, the
one where you think that the bail bondsman tipped the manager off.
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. He found that it was operating illegally; is
that right?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Did the deputy?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Did you take abatement proceedings or pad-
lock proceedings? We call them padlock proceedings in my State
and I guess you call them abatement in yours. Did you take suclr
proceedings after this second raid flopped?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Why not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Because we watch the place and we had a paper
to move against them the first time that they started operating, or as
soon as we could find the people and have them indicted. We had
legal paper to move at that time.
Senator McCarthy. You stated, I believe, that normally the sher-
iff's department did not operate inside the city and that is the sheriff's
department of Multnomah County, I assume. They did not operate
inside the city unless a complaint were made. Can I ask you who
made the complaint in the first case and who made the complaints in
the second case?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, the first one, well, had been oyer a period of a
year or two, a problem in that general area and I cited some arrests,
that were made earlier by action of the Liquor Commission.
622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The last information came to a head through a bad check that was
passed as a result of gambling.
Senator McCarthy. A bad check was passed for what?
Mr. Schrunk. A bad check was passed apparently in this estab-
lishment at 8212 and in the course of an investigation, one of the
detectives learned of the establishment.
This was this material that I told you about earlier. It caused
the investigation to start.
Senator 'McCarthy. Now, let us shift quickly, if we may, to the
telephone post.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask a question ? On that second place that
was raided unsuccessfully, who owned that place? Who owned the
property there ? Who owned the building ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't have that report here. I am not sure.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember?
Mr. SciiRrxii. It was checked out, and I don't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember who it was? You do not
remember ?
Mr. Schrunk. There was a name, and I can't recall the name.
There was some maneuvering done on that, too.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot remember that name ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not right offhand.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the maneuvering that was done ?
Mr. Schrunk. I understand Mr. Clark
Mr. Kennedy. Was the name Ilene Allen?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe that was the name.
Mr. Kennedy. And do you know of the name Ilene Allen ?
Mr. Schrunk. I learned of it during election time.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been to Ilene Allen's home?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know where she resides and I don't know why
I would be there.
Mr. Kennedy. Knowingly, have you ever been to Ilene Allen's
home ?
Mr. Schrunk. No ; not knowingly.
Mr. Kennedy. She was one of your supporters during the cam-
paign ; was she not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not know she had charge of one section of
the city of Portland for you ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. You never met Mr. Bennett there at Ilene Allen's
home ?
Mr. Schrunk. I never did.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you sure of that?
Mr. Schrunk. I am positive of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Just before he opened up this new place, you did not
meet with him there?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
Mr. Kennedy. She did not introduce you to him ?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 623
Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that?
Mr. Schrunk. I am positive.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you positive she did not have a section of your
city in the campaign ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, now, I don't know what you mean by "section
of the city." She might have been a precinct committeewoman or
something like that. She was not on my committee, as such.
Mr. Kennedy. Just going back, is the sale of liquor after hours
illegal?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is the giving away of liquor after hours illegal?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In Oregon, under Oregon law ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The giving away of liquor is not ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It is not.
Mr. Schrunk. Unless to a minor.
Mr. Kennedy. Otherwise it is not?
Mr. Schrunk. To the best of my knowledge, it is not.
Mr. Kennedy. And having this gambling equipment is not illegal,
even though there are chips on the tables and it looks like it is being
played.
Mr. Schrunk. To the very best of my knowledge, it is not.
Mr. Kennedy. Why do you ever go into a place ? If the operators
do not have slot machines, why do you ever bother going in ? There
is no way you can make an arrest. You say you went up there to
look for slot machines and all of these other things are not illegal.
Why do you bother going into a place ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't quite understand the counsel's question.
Mr. Kennedy. What I am trying to find out, is why you ever
bothered raiding any place. You say, as you are putting it out now,
that the only thing illegal was the possession of slot machines.
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, 1 didn't say the only thing illegal was that. It
is illegal to gamble and it is illegal to make illegal sales of liquor after
hours.
Mr. Kennedy. But now you have an agent in there that came in
with a great large group of people.
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir and if he had been in plain clothes and been
able to move over to the bar and make a "buy," or go over and put
$5 or $10 into the game and played the game, then he would have
grounds for an arrest.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mayor, how many times during your term
of office as sheriff did you make raids within the city limits of
Portland?
Mr. Schrunk. Probably 20 or 30 times, I couldn't say. Do you
mean my department?
Senator Goldwater. Your department, yes.
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, 20 or 30 times probably.
Senator Goldwater. You say that you made those only after you
had complaints that the local police were not performing their duties ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes. sir. On the 8212 Club, for instance the night
I was down there, one of the things that burned me up so badly was
80330— 57— pt. 2 13
624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
as I watched this place, the city police car drove by it and they couldn't
help but know it.
Senator Goldwater. Had you had complaints that night or prior
to that time that the 8212 Club was operating and the police had not
closed them up ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, there have been complaints of various kinds,
yes. I had some.
Senator Goldwater. Will you just answer the question? Did you
have specific complaints that the 8212 Club was operating and the city
police had not closed them up ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, I had compaints.
Senator Goldwater. Was that the reason you were out there that
night ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. As I said, I live in that general area and I
happened to be on the way home out in the county and I just took a
swing around the block.
Senator Goldwater. You had no complaints and you had no normal
reason to follow your usual practice of going into these places inside
the city limits only when the city police were not performing ?
Mr. Schrunk. On that particular night, that is true.
Senator Goldwater. What was the reason, then, that you stopped in
there ?
Mr. Schrunk. Because it had been under investigation.
Senator Goldwater. By your office?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Why by your office when it was in the city
limits?
Mr. Schrunk. Because the city was not doing anything about it
and it had a reputation in the area. One of Mr. Elkins' places was
being protected.
Senator Goldwater. Why had you not gone out there sooner?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I don't quite follow you.
Senator Goldwater. You have these complaints and you say that
you never operated inside the city limits without complaints that the
city was not performing and you heard these complaints prior to Sep-
tember 11 ; why had you not moved before that time ?
Mr. Schrunk. We turned it over to the city police.
Senator Goldwater. When did you turn it over to the city police?
Mr. Schrunk. Which time?
Senator Goldwater. When did you turn it over ?
Mr. Schrunk. It had been turned over at different times, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Did you turn it over on September 9 when your
investigation had been completed ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure whether it was then. It would be the
investigating officer and the normal way would be to pass it
Senator Goldwater. You could have then investigated this place
on your own at any time prior to September 11, for a number of nights,
could you not?
Mr. Schrunk. You mean the officers?
Senator Goldwater. Your department could have investigated this
place and gone out there and attempted to have done what you did do
on September 11 any time prior to September 11. You knew it was
operating and you said that you had complaints, and why had you not
moved out there before that night?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 625
shrunk. Sir, on the 9th, I believe, the officer was out there,
is the day he interviewed the landlady and the place didn't
Mr. Schkun]
and that
open that night, and he was watching it.
Senator Goldwater. It was not open the 9th ?
Mr. Schrunk. Apparently not the 9th or the 10th.
The Chairman. You have been testifying or referring to a docu-
ment there which appears to the Chair to be a pink paper or papers.
Will you identify what that is?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, I did before.
The Chairman. Maybe I did not understand you. Will you iden-
tifv it again?
Mr. Schrunk. This is a letter under date of September 2, 1955, a
report addressed to me by James Madison, detective, criminal division,
Multnomah County sheriff's office.
The Chairman. Will you submit it to the committee for its inspec-
tion?
Mr. Schrunk. Surely.
The Chairman. The committee will receive it. Are there any
further questions ?
Senator Mundt. I had some questions, but I thought we had to be
out of here.
The Chairman. The chief counsel is engaged at the moment mak-
ing an inquiry about a matter.
Senator Mundt. This is a short question.
Mayor Schrunk, if you have this difficulty which I can understand
of a uniformed investigator getting into a' pi ace and buying drinks
from the bar, why did you not send an ununi formed investigator into
the club that night, instead of a uniformed investigator? It is just
as easy for him to follow the crowd as the fellow with a uniform.
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't have one, sir.
Senator Mundt. You did not have one ?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
Senator Mundt. You mean you do not have them in your employ-
ment ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, I do. But at 4 o'clock in the morning, it is a
little difficult on short notice to round somebody up.
Senator Mundt. You cannot catch these afterhours clubs working
in the daytime.
Mr. Schrunk. We did the very best we could.
Senator Mundt. When you sent out your police call, you could not
find a man who was a plainclothes man ?
Mr. Schrunk. There wasn't any plainclothes men on duty at that
time of night.
Senator Mundt. There were none on duty ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Well, now, Mr. Mayor, you certainly could
have gotten a plainclothes man to go into this place, could you not?
There is no question about that, is there ?
Mr. Schrunk. I suppose, yes, if we had let them run that night and
tried to get somebody else. I would not be able to walk in myself. I
was in civilian clothes, but I would not be able to walk in.
Senator Mundt. Mayor Schrunk, were you in uniform that night,
yourself?
626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Why did you not go in ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am pretty well known out there.
Senator Mundt. But, certainly, your face is not as easy to observe
as a uniform going through the door. You said the uniformed man
just followed the crowd, and it was kind of dark and they did not
see Mm. It would be easy to pull your hat down and just walk through.
Since you could not find anyone else with no uniform, why not
Schrunk?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know. I didn't.
Senator Mundt. I just wondered, because I am trying to find out. I
do not know anything about the business, but it would seem to me it
would be better to have a fellow in there without a uniform on, and
I can see that. If you did not have a uniform on yourself, I think
you could say to the deputy, "You stand here and watch the exits,
and I will pull my cap down and see if I can follow it through." It
would be easier for you to go through without a uniform than a fellow
with all of the brass and polish of a policeman's uniform. You will
agree it would be as easy, certainly, would it not ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know. It might have. The thing I was
unhappy about was the place was operating and the city police weren't
apparently interested in it, and so I tried to do something about it.
Senator Mundt. I think that is commendable, but I think your
unhappiness should have led you to go in there since you were not in
uniform and really get the lowdown and to catch this fellow. It
would seem to me that you were exceedingly lucky even to get the uni-
formed man in there, walking in the door.
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, we were.
Senator Mundt. But he did not do anything when he got in there.
Mr. Schrunk. We were lucky.
Senator McCarthy. I have one final question, if I could.
The Chairman. All right. I want to get something in, and we have
to adjourn.
Senator McCarthy. I was going to say, Mr. Mayor, I have been
a circuit judge for quite some time, and I have been a defense attorney,
and I know quite a bit about that type of a raid. I have never in my
life heard of a sheriff sending a uniformed man into a joint to try
to get information unless he wanted to tip the joint off that there was
to be a raid.
Now, could you just in a few words tell us why you sent a uniformed
man into this place that you said you were disturbed about? Has
it ever been done before? Do you know of any other law-enforcement
officer that operates in that fashion except for a tipoff ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, there was no tipoff. I don't know what
others did. It was just a longshot. There were two possibilities.
One that he could get in, and if he did we might see something some
grounds for an arrest.
Senator McCarthy. How many days had you been considering this
raid ? Did it come up on the spur of the moment at 4 o'clock in the
morning?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I don't recall what time it was, 3 : 30, or some-
thing like that.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you had not thought of it
before at all?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 627
Mr. Schrunk. I turned it over to our department to investigate,
and the people had been working on it, and they said it was not
operating.
Senator McCarthy. They had been working on it for days; had
they not?
Mr. Schrunk. Two or three days ; yes.
Senator McCarthy. And you could have a plainclothes man go
in and try and gamble or buy liquor ; could you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. They hadn't been open, sir, on the 9th or 10th, I
believe.
Senator McCarthy. I guess I am encroaching on the Chair's time.
The Chairman. The Chair would like to ask one question, and
before we excuse the witness for today I wanted to interrogate him
or have the staff interrogate him about another matter quickly.
I just wish to ask you if you have a copy of this document :
Oregon Journal's analysis of the vice situation in Portland.
Have you been supplied a copy of that?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; I haven't been given a copy of that.
The Chairman. Has Mr. Brad Williams provided you with any
document, a copy of any document, any report or analysis ?
Mr. Schrunk. You mean since I have been back here, sir ?
The Chairman. At any time since you have been here.
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did he supply you with one just before you came
here ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. I had some material, different material,
from Mr. Williams, at different times. That is typewritten material.
The Chairman. In connection with this investigation?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Now, I have one other question. You have been testifying as to
your lack of authority under the law of your State, and as to what is
an offense against the law that you have jurisdiction of. Are you
familiar with the law sufficiently to know what your duty is in con-
nection with making arrests for these violations of the law ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I hope so, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know the laws of your State, and your
duty ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not all of them. I studied them to the best of my
ability.
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, I would like you to refresh the witness'
memory of the law in some respects about which he has testified here
this evening.
Mr. Kennedy. Just for a minute, Mayor Schrunk. I asked you a
little while ago about the possession or giving away of drinks in an
establishment such as this, is that correct ?
I asked you whether that was illegal.
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, I think that you did.
Mr. Kennedy. You stated to me under the Oregon law that that
would not be an illegal act, to give away liquor.
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't believe so, like a man in his home or some-
thins: like that.
628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. I will refresh your recolleciton. Under 471.620, it
states in Oregon Kevised Statutes that any unlicensed establishment,
where there is liquor given away, is a violation of the law. In a
licensed establishment where liquor is sold it is not a violation. But
in an unlicensed establishment where liquor is given away it is a viola-
tion of the law.
Now, this was not a licensed establishment, was it?
Mr. Schrttnk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. I would suggest that you may be interrogated a
little further about the law, and I would suggest that during the
recess period you make a little inquiry.
Mr. Kennedy. Under that statute, the point is. Mayor Schrunk
could have made an arrest of Mr. Bennett. I think that is the point of
it, Mr. Chairman, whether he saw a sale of liquor or not.
The Chairman. The Chair is going to recess, and before doing so
I am going to make two announcements.
The Chair has been requested by members of the committee to call
an executive session at some early or convenient time. I do not know
what will be discussed, but the Chair will call an executive session for
9 : 30 in the morning in room 357.
The Chair will also state that in the morning when we convene at
10 o'clock, I will be in a position to announce the report of the lie-
detector test made on Witness Nathan Zusman. So that report will
be made public in the morning when we reconvene for public session
at 10 o'clock.
The committee stands adjourned until that time.
The witness will be back.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 50 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
10 a. m., in open session, Friday, March 8, 1957.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1957
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
in the Labor ok Management Field,
Washington, D. C.
The Select Committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room of the Senate
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the Select
Committee) presiding.
Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.,
Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michi-
gan ; Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin ; Senator
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Barry Goldwater,
Republican, Arizona.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the Select Com-
mittee ; Jerome Adlerman, assistant counsel ; Alphonse F. Calabrese,
investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan,
Ives, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Will Mr. Zusman come around, please?
TESTIMONY OF NATHAN ZUSMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
JOHN BONNER— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Zusman, when you testified before the com-
mittee on Wednesday you requested and even urged that you be given
a lie detector test. The committee arranged for you to have it. The
Chair now has a report on the results of that test.
I stated at the time that when the" report came in it would be made
a part of the record of these proceedings and the letter which I am
now about to read will be incorporated in the record at this point.
It is dated March 7, 1957.
Treasury Department, Office of the Chief,
United States Secret Sek^tice,
Washington 25, D. C, March 7, 1957.
Hon. John L. McClellan,
Chairman, Select Committee To Investigate Improper Acts in Labor and
Management Field, United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Senator : At the request of Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel of the
Select Committee To Investigate Improper Acts in Labor and Management Fields,
United States Senate, a polygraph examination was given in the Washington
629
630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
field office of the United States Secret Service on March 6, 1957, to Mr. Nathan
Zusman, who has testified as a witness before the committee.
The purpose of the polygraph examination was to determine the truthfulness
of Mr. Nathan Zusman, who has denied certain allegations made against him.
Prior to submitting to the examination, Mr. Zusman willingly signed a state-
ment in the presence of his attorney, Mr. John Bonner, that he had been duly
advised concerning his constitutional right and that he volunteered to take the
examination.
Following is a list of the relevant questions which were asked of Mr. Zusman
during this examination :
(a) Did you offer to finance a call-house operation for Helen Hai*dy?
( &) Did you offer to finance a call-house operation for Helen Smalley?
(c) Did Helen Hardy pay you $120 for referring 2 men to her call-house
soon after she started operation?
(d) Did Helen Smalley pay you $120 for referring 2 men to her call-
house soon after she started operation?
(e) Did you ever tell Helen Hardy that you had information that William
Langley was going to permit call-houses to operate?
(/) Did you ever tell Helen Smalley that you had information that Wil-
liam Langley was going to permit call-houses to operate?
(g) Were you told by Mr. Maloney that William Langley would allow call-
houses to operate?
Mr. Zusman answered "No" to each of the above-listed relevant questions.
Analysis of the test results by the polygraph specialist who conducted the
examination reveals specific reactions which are indicative of untruthfulness on
the part of Mr. Zusman in his responses to the relevant questions.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) U. E. Baughman,
Chief, United States Secret Service.
The Chairman. A copy of this letter already has been furnished, I
am advised by the staff, to Mr. Zusman and his counsel. The letter is
made a part of the transcript of this proceeding and a copy of it will
be transmitted to the Justice Department to supplement the previous
transcript of the witness' testimony and the other testimony that has
been submitted to the Justice Department for its attention and appro-
priate action.
Is there anything further, gentlemen ?
All right, you may be excused as far as the committee is concerned.
Mr. Zusman. I would like to have the original of the chart.
The Chairman. I beg pardon \
Mr. Zusman. I would like to ]
would like to have it examined by a specialist.
The Chairman. All right. If we can procure it for you, we will do
that. I do not know. It is the Secret Service, one of the highest
agencies in the Government.
Mr. Zusman. Am I excused to go back to Portland ?
Mr. Kennedy. We do not need him further.
The Chairman. You may be excused from further attendance.
All right, call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to recall a witness for a few questions who
appeared yesterday.
TESTIMONY OF VIRGINIA JENKINS— Resumed
The Chairman. Mrs. Jenkins, will you come around, please?
Mrs. Jenkins, you testified before this committee yesterday?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are under the same oath that was adminis-
tered to you yesterday.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 631
Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You testified yesterday, Mrs. Jenkins, regarding
a conversation that you had with Mr. Bennett.
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, while you testified I did not go into, or the
committee did not go into, detail about the sheriff, the deputy sheriffs
that came into the club. How did the sheriffs get in and how many
of ("hem were there?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, there were two, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There were two that came in ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, there was some testimony yesterday after-
noon that only one came in. Are you sure that there were two?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they come right into the room where there was
gambling and drinks being served?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Gambling going on and drinks being served?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell the committee what happened or what
you observed as far as these two sheriffs were concerned?
Mrs. Jenkins. One deputy stood right at the door and he stayed
there for the time he was there, and the other one circled the room
to look at gambling paraphernalia and the bar.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there gambling actively going on during this
period of time?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you see that from where you were standing?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You could observe the door, and also see into the
room ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes. sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was gambling going on ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And what about drinks ? Were they being served ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, how long did these two deputies stay in the
room?
Mrs. Jenkins. I would say approximately 15 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. About 15 minutest
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They were up there and saw all of these activities
going on ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did everything cease when they came into the room ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Not immediately ; no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How many people were there there ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Between 100 and 150 people.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I will not go further into that. I believe that
is all.
632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness, Did you give
testimony yesterday that you saw some money being put in an en-
velope ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir. I was asked for an envelope, but I didn't
see the money put in it.
Senator McNamara. You were asked for an envelope ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Did you provide it ?
Mrs. Jenkins. I don't recall whether I got it for Mr. Bennett or
he got it himself.
Senator McNamara. You did not see any money put in an envelope
that night while the disturbance was going on ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. I think that is all.
The Chairman. I think maybe the conflict in testimony may be
cleared up to some extent. I think that other testimony has shown
that there was one officer who stood at the door and that one officer
went in and circled the place, as you have stated.
The question, then, would be whether the officer at the door stood
on the outside of the door or on the inside.
Mrs. Jenkins. He stood on the inside, sir.
The Chairman. The testimony was that 1 stood at the door, but
you say that 1 standing at the door stood on the inside and, therefore,
there were 2 within the house, or within the room.
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes.
The Chairman. Now, let us make it clear, and I do not want any-
thing that is not absolutely a fact. Was gambling actually going on
and people sitting at tables gambling when these officers were there?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What kind of games were they playing ?
Mrs. Jenkins. The 21 game.
The Chairman. Playing a 21 game ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair is not quite sure how it is played. Is<
that what they call blackjack ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is blackjack ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Were they playing with chips or money ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Well, they play with chips on the table, after they
are given the money and the money is put in a box.
The Chairman. The chips that were on the table were chips that
had been purchased from the house ; is that right ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Then, they play with the chips ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, If they lose, of course, they cannot cash in ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. If they win, or have anything left of what their
original investment was, they cash that in?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. When the game is concluded?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 633
The Chairman. Could there be any mistake about drinks being
served at the time, people actually buying drinks while the officer was
there ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. You were there?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Or the two officers were there, but particularly the
one that was circling the place, could he possibly have not observed
gambling and drinks while he was there ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir ; he had to see it.
The Chairman. He had to see it ?
Mrs. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are not mistaken about that ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. With respect to the envelope, did you have any
information afterward from Mr. Bennett as to what was done with
the envelope ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. You do not know ?
Mrs. Jenkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. He only asked for it and that is all you know?
Mrs. Jenkins. That is all.
The Chairman. You do not recall whether you gave it to him or
whether you told him where it was and he got it himself ?
Mrs. Jenkins. I don't.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Senator Mundt. I just want to put in the record that I think Senator
McNamara confused this lady's testimony with that of Mr. Vance.
He said yesterday he saw the money put in the envelope.
Senator McNamara. That is quite possible, I think.
The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside for the present.
Mr. Kennedy. Mayor Schrunk.
The Chairman. Mayor, will you come around, please ?
TESTIMONY OF TERRY SCHRUNK— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. Sheriff Schrunk, yesterday there were some state-
ments you made. You stated that this was a conspiracy on the part
of Mr. Elkins to ruin you because you closed one of his places down.
Mr. Schrunk. I closed several, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You closed several of his places down, then. Now,
I would like to point out to you that a good deal of the evidence on this
matter comes from I believe, three people, individuals who had no
connection or testified they had no connection with Mr. Elkins, and
do not know him.
I would like to take you, after you went in and through the place,
through Mr. Bennett's 8212 Club. You came outside then ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, what did you do? I want to find out what
steps you took then. Did you get into your car and drive away or
did you walk across the street, or what ? We have a chart here and
I would like to go through that with you.
The Chairman. First let the Chair ask you this : Were you present
yesterday and heard the testimony of the other witnesses?
634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, I did.
The Chairman. Then, you are familiar with that testimony?
Mr. Schrttnk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have the club right here [illustrating].
Did you, during that early morning, cross the street at all %
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, I crossed the street.
Mr. Kennedy. You crossed the street here ?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe I was parked over there.
Mr. Kennedy. Is this where your car was parked ?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe so and I can't state for sure.
Mr. Kennedy. You did cross the street. Prior to that time had
you radioed for two patrol cars to come pick up a bicycle as was testi-
fied yesterday %
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, I certainly did, and it seems rather fan-
tastic that I would send for city police officers to come watch me take
a bribe or something there on the street corner. I don't know how
silly a charge like that could be. If I wanted a bribe from Mr.
Elkins, all 1 would have to do was call him and he would deliver it
and he would be happy to put me on his payroll.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did call for these police cars ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. To pick up a bicycle ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you see them when they were there ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, I talked to them.
Mr. Kennedy. So that you identify the fact that they would have
been there that evening. You personally were the one that brought
them there and you know they were there that evening?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you come out of Bennett's club, and then you
walked across the street like this?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you walk across the street and did you get
over here on the corner ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pick up an envelope?
Mr. Schrunk. As a matter of fact, I believe I stood over on the
corner and watched the operation for a while, while the patrol cars
were there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pick up an envelope here ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are sure you did not pick up an envelope?
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't pick up anything.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not pick up any object here ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. Will you identify the place?
Mr. Kennedy. By the fountain, around the telephone pole and the
fountain across the street from Bennett's club. Did you pick up an
envelope ?
Mr. Schrunk. No. I picked up nothing.
Mr. Kennedy. You have three individuals
Mr. Schrunk. I took a drink at the fountain. I might have done
that. It is possible.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 635
Mr. Kennedy. You did not pick up an envelope or any kind of an
object?
Mr. Schrunk. I picked up nothing.
Mr. Kennedy. This is not testimony from Mr. Elkms or anybody
that knows Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Schrunk. I am not so sure of that.
Mr. Kennedy. We have Mr. Daniels in this car that saw you pick
up an object and we have two of your employees that were standing
here on the corner who saw you pick up an envelope.
Now, there is nothing there to do with Elkins. Did you or did
you not pick up something here?
Mr. Schrunk. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And yet you have three individuals that saw you
pick something up.
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know why they would perjure themselves.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot blame that on Mr. Elkins. Here are
3 people who saw you pick up an object here on the corner, 2 of them
employees of yours.
Mr. Schrunk. At the present time, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you plan to let them go? What do you mean,
"at the present time" ?
Mr. Schrunk. They weren't at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. They are testifying before this committee while they
are employees of yours.
Mr. Schrunk. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you walk across the street then to go to your
car?
Mr. Schrunk. I am sure I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Just as they identified you having done. So, every-
thing is correct in their testimony except the fact that you deny that
you picked up an object there.
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Kennedy, do you think that I would set up a
pickup like that ? I am sure that the committee
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me.
Mr. Schrunk. I am certain that the committee would know that
anybody who wanted a bribe, it is like the Senator if he was going to
be bribed, doing it in the Senate Chamber and calling the Secret
Service to watch him. It just doesn't make sense. That is the reason
this charge is so fantastic.
Mr. Kennedy. We still have these 3 people that have nothing to do
with Mr. Elkins, all testifying, 2 police officers with nothing to do
with Mr. Elkins, Mr. Daniels has nothing to do with Mr. Elkins and
he comes by and says that you picked up something that looked like
an envelope.
We have other people in the club that gave Mr. Bennett an envelope
and saw Mr. Bennett put money in the envelope, and then other wit-
nesses that saw that he paid you over $500. Then, we have these other
witnesses who had nothing to do with Mr. Elkins, who saw you pick
up the envelope.
How can you possibly explain it?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know what their purpose is. They are police
officers, whether it is the power of suggestion that lias been made to
them, or what it is. I think that you should know that we have some
of our police officers in the city of Portland under indictment for what
636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
they call, smiling money. I think there are about 6 or 7 indictments
released and there should have been about 30.
I don't know if that has anything to do with this or not.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you charging these two officers?
Mr. Schrunk. I think the committee should have asked the officers
yesterday if they were aware that the place was operating, and if they
were, why they allowed it to operate.
I think the committee should know that Officer Sutter testified that
he knew it was operating and because he misunderstood the action,
because his own people were being paid off, he was pretty unhappy
about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Those officers were not in this district. We did ask
them that, Mr. Chairman. The staff did. They said they did not
know, and they were not in this district. They were two districts
away.
Mr. Schrunk. An officer cannot work in the north end of town very
long, without knowing what is going on.
Mr. Kennedy. The fact remains, Mayor Schrunk, you have eight
witnesses against you. How would you get all eight of them to lie
about it ?
Mr. Schrunk. They certainly stacked it pretty hard against me,
and that is the reason I say it is so fantastic.
Mr. Kennedy. Two people employed by you and another man driv-
ing up in a car, all saw you pick up the envelope. Let us assume that
all of these other five witnesses are in the pay of Mr. Elkins, which
they are not, but let us assume that he could have gotten them to lie
like that.
You still get back to the fact that these three people who had nothing
to do with Mr. Elkins, saw you pick the envelope up.
Mr. Schrunk. I can't go along with you that they haven't anything
to do with Mr. Elkins. I am not convinced of that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any evidence to the contrary ?
Mr. Schrunk. Unfortunately, no.
The Chairman. Are there any questions from any members of the
committee ?
Senator Mundt. Did you know Mr. Daniel before you saw him in
the room yesterday ?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
Senator Mundt. Can you think of any conceivable reason why he
should want to tell a lie about you and get you in trouble ?
Mr. Schrunk. If he was paid for his testimony, it is very possible.
Senator Mundt. Aside from that, aside from the assumption that
he was paid by Mr. Elkins to come here and tell a lie, can you think
of any other reason ?
Mr. Schrunk. Personally, no, sir. I just don't know if we ever
had him in jail or anything like that.
Senator Mundt. Can you think of any reason why Patrolman
Amundson would want to come here and lie about you ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, I have no knowledge of any reason. I have
always assumed everyone was honest until proven otherwise.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you think of any reason why this other patrol-
man, I have forgotten his name, should come here and lie about you?
Did you have any particular trouble with these two patrolmen?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 637
Mr. Kennedy. You said they were before the grand jury and failed
to get indictments. You said 30 of them should have been indicted
and 6 of them were. Were these two before a grand jury and did
not get indicted?
Mr. Schrunk. These people were before the grand jury on this
problem. I understand they were.
Senator Mundt. On this charge ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. But they were not brought before the grand jury
as suspects ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, sir.
Senator Mundt. It would seem that all of the motivation in the
world for a man working on the police force for a mayor would be
to avoid getting in trouble with the mayor if they could.
I cannot think of any such motivation that would induce the two
patrolmen to come here and say that, "We are sorry to report that
we saw our boss pick up an envelope." That does not square with
human emotions and human instincts very well.
Mr. Schrunk. There are only two reasons that I could see. One
is an honest misinterpretation of my act if I walked across the street
there and happened to take a drink. That is one possibility. And
the other is that they possibly could be being paid off as some of the
other people were.
Senator Mundt. You walked over to take a drink after you and
your deputy had boen inside the club, is that right? You told us
last night that after the raid, Mr. Bennett invited you in to look the
club over, and it was after that that you walked over and took a drink
and got in your car.
Mr. Schrunk. That's right. That is the reason, Senator. I think
that justice should be done. And all of the witnesses be called. They
are stacked pretty much and it is pretty black and the committee
should get all of the facts and bring back the deputies that were
actually on the raid, and detectives who made the investigation and
certainly Captain Duquesne of the Oregon State Police who conducted
the vice raid and labor rackets investigations in our area.
Senator Mundt. You told us yesterday, Mr. Schrunk, that you
sent 1 deputy in and you heard the lady testify this morning that
there were 2 deputies inside the room. How do you explain that?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, sir. Of course, I wasn't up there at
the time and whether another officer went up with him or not I
would not be in a position to say. , I was under the impression that
one officer went up.
Senator Mundt. You were in charge of the raid?
Mr. Schrunk. I had a sergeant in charge of the actual operation,
yes, sir, and I was there and I was the senior officer present.
Senator Mundt. You told me that you sent the officer in and told us
how he got in and the questions you asked him when he came out, and
what he told you when he came out, and that there was only one man
inside.
Now, you are uncertain and you think that there might have been
two inside.
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; I don't think so. But I say I didn't observe
it and the best testimony on that would certainly be the officers
concerned.
638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. I am trying hard to believe you, Mr. Mayor, but
I have a little difficulty
Mr. Schrunk. Well, you should.
Senator Mundt. Because your evidence just does not very well
answer the accusations and you do not establish a motive for these
two fellows doing what you allege they have done.
I am a little bit intrigued at least, by the fact that right after you
and your deputy had been in the restaurant looking the place over and
walking across the street 50 feet, you got thirsty enough to walk over
to a water fountain to get a drink. Certainly, if you were thirsty,
there was a chance to get a drink of water in that restaurant while
you were there.
Mr. Schrunk. In the club ?
Senator Mundt. Yes.
Mr. Schrunk. I don't think they were serving much water up
there, sir. It was all closed up when we were there.
Senator Mundt. Certainly, I would assume in a club of that kind,
water would be available. Maybe not, maybe they just sold whisky.
Mr. Schrunk. I rather imagine there probably was water there,
sir.
Senator Mundt. Your report to the committee now, and I want to
get this the way you want it in the record, is that after you and your
deputy had been in the club, you got thirsty and you walked across
the street to a water fountain and stopped and took a drink and got
in your car and drove off. Is that the picture now ?
Mr. Schrunk. I said it is entirely possible that I might have taken
a drink. This would be a year and a half ago, and I honestly don't
remember. I couldn't testify and swear that I took a drink or I
didn't take a drink. It is very possible. I didn't come back here to
the committee with "pat" answers. I thought that it was a fact-find-
ing investigation and you would want all of the facts.
Senator Mundt. You are exactly right on that.
Mr. Schrunk. That is the reason I brought up these other wit-
nesses that were directly concerned with it. I think it is just fantas-
tic. I am not too smart, I realize that, and I did manage to get a col-
lege degree and served as a naval officer during the war, but I just
don't think I am stupid enough to set up that type of a bribe. It
is so fantastic, gentlemen, it just doesn't make sense.
But someplace along the line, I don't know, maybe these same people
have sold that story to the Oregonian to the point that they believe
it, too, I don't know. I thought at first possibly it was vicioiisness on
the part of the Oregonian for political purposes, but maybe they have
even been duped by this.
Mr. Kennedy. I could not quite understand what the Oregonian
has to do with it. Say the information came from the Oregonian, or
whatever you want. They are not any one of the eight witnesses, and
you have eight witnesses here. What has that got to do with it, Mayor
Schrunk ? That is, to attack somebody else. Just answer the question
about this.
Mr. Schrunk. I am not here to attack anv one, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But you keep talking about either Jim Elkins or
the Oregonian, or vice or something else. What we are looking into
is about this question of the $500. That is what we are asking you
questions about. Did you pick up the $500 ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 639
Mr. Schrunk. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pick up an envelope?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, there are all of those witnesses.
Senator Mundt. You can recognize, from the standpoint of the
committee which is trying to get the facts
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon me.
Senator Mundt. You must be able to realize with your college de-
gree and your naval background, and your administrative background,
that from the standpoint of the committee trying to get facts
Mr. Schrunk. I appreciate that.
Senator Mundt. It looks like some pretty serious conflicting evi-
dence. I want to ask you this question because I am trying to get at
the facts as we all are: My disposition is to believe a mayor in con-
trast with an underworld character, of course.
But to do that we have got to have something in the nature of
evidence in the record. I would like to ask you whether you would
like to ask the committee to make arrangements for you to take a lie-
detector test on these statements the way we did with Mr. Zusman.
Mr. Schrunk. I have no objection to taking a lie-detector test.
Senator Mundt. It is not a question of objection and we cannot in-
sist that you do, but we are trying to get at the facts and it would be
something that you would have to volunteer.
When you say you would like to take a test, I think we could ar-
range it, but I do not think we should suggest it.
Mr. Schrunk. I would be willing to, but I think I would like to
appeal to the committee to see that an authority gives the test, a
recognized individual.
Senator Mundt. If it were taken at all, you would know in advance
it would be taken by the Secret Service, which is a Government au-
thority and certainly not under the employment of Mr. Elkins or this
committee or the mayor of Portland. It should be what I would say
is a pretty fair and competent source.
Mr. Schrunk. I am not familiar with them, or lie detectors, and
they are no better than the people who run them. The reason I men-
tioned to the committee about this fantastic frame, I just don't want
the other. The facts are the facts and you can't change them.
Senator Mundt. That is right and a lie detector is a device which
is invented for the purpose of trying to get facts. I have never seen
a lie-detector machine. Did you ever see one?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Have you ever taken a lie-detector test ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. When was that ? Would you want to tell us about
that?
Mr. Schrunk. I took one before the grand jury on this matter.
Senator Mundt. The grand jury where?
Mr. Schrunk. Multnomah County.
Senator Mundt. Who administered that ?
Mr. Schrunk. The Oregon State Police.
Senator Mundt. The Oregon State Police ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. I am not going to try to tell you how to best defend
your reputation and character and present your case, but I did want
89330 — 57 — pt. 2 14
640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
to suggest that this might be one way you could tend to establish
something firm.
Mr. Schrunk. I am perfectly willing.
Senator Mundt. To counteract what you must admit is certainly
impressive testimony from people that we cannot determine have any
motive to try to smear you.
We are trying to get at the facts. I just want to say as one member
of the committee, if you were to request a lie-detector test, I am sure
we could make it available and it would be done by the Secret Service.
I am sure that you would agree that they are competent and that they
are unprejudiced in this matter.
Mr. Schrunk. Would you also suggest that to these other witnesses
and T would be most happy to have each of them.
Senator Mundt. Each man has to make up his own mind. As we
found out in the case of Mr. Zusman, and Mrs. Hardy, we cannot
bring them in in pairs, but I do think that any witness who is trying
to establish his veracity has a right to request that of the committee
and let the chips fall where they will.
Mr. Schrunk. I will be happy to take the lie-detector test with
the assurance of the committee that I will get a fair test. I don't want
to be framed on this one, too.
Senator Mundt. So that we know in advance what you consider a
fair test, would you or would you not consider a test given by the
United States Secret Service a fair test?
Mr. Schrunk. I have confidence in the Secret Service and I don't
know the individual involved.
Senator Mundt. I would assume that these are reputable individ-
uals and a competent individual and an expert in the field of lie-
detector tests.
But I think that we should establish first, whether you would con-
sider that to be a fair test. There is no use to have you take a test
and then have you say the Secret Service is under the control of Jim
Elkins. I do not think that is right and I do not think you believe
that.
Mr. Schrunk. No, I don't; but unfortunately, sometimes people
reach a long ways, as I am rapidly learning.
Senator Mundt. You are not trying to say they reach into the Secret
Service of the United States.
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; I don't say that.
Senator Mundt. So you would hold then, that they are a fair and
competent group to conduct the test ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; I would be happy if the Secret Service and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation did it.
Senator Mundt. Thank you.
Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.
Mr. Mayor, how long have you been mayor of the city of Portland ?
Mr. Schrunk. Two months, sir, approximately and I assumed
office
Senator McNamara. Was this a nonpartisan election ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; it was a nonpartisan election.
Senator McNamara. Did you have the support of the teamsters
union in the election?
Mr. Schrunk. I had the endorsement of all organized labor in
our area. The teamsters was part of that ; yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 641
Senator McNamara. Did you have support of all of the teamsters
officials; did you know? Were there exceptions?
Mr. Schrunk. Some of them, I am sure, supported my opponent.
Senator McNamara. You are sure ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes ; I understand that.
Senator McNamara. There is no evidence before this committee that
any of the other teamsters officials supported your opponent. Do
you have any evidence or do you want to make a statement to that end ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; I cannot prove that they did. I merely
understood that some of them that had been serving on committees and
different things felt obligated to the former mayor, but that is some-
thing that there is an official record of.
Senator McNamara. You indicated you had the support of other
unions. Did you have the support of the building trades organiza-
tion ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir; the building trades and boilermakers.
Senator McNamara. Did you have the support of the industrial
workers in your area ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Did you have the support of the Teamsters
District Council ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. How about the municipal employees?
Mr. Schrunk. They were supporting me.
Senator McNamara. Did you have the support of any of the news-
papers ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Which ones ?
Mr. Schrunk. The Oregon Journal.
Senator McNamara. The Journal was actively supporting you in
the campaign ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Did you have the support of other organized
groups ?
Mr. Schrunk. They did after. I would say they supported me
after. I think they were neutral in the primary and then supported
me editorially in the general election.
Senator McNamara. Did you have the support of other organized
groups besides labor organizations?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Businessmen's groups?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. I had also wide support from both political
parties in our area.
Senator McNamara. Official endorsement by businessmen's groups
or not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I cannot recall right offhand official endorse-
ments as such.
Senator McNamara. Did you have official endorsement of any other
organized groups other than labor organizations and this one news-
paper ?
Mr. Schrunk. I had a lot of support from church groups.
Senator McNamara. Fraternal and church groups?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Can you name any of them ?
642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. I had fine support from people at Portland Uni-
versity.
Senator McNamara. That would not be an official endorsement, as
it was in the case of the labor groups. That would not be an official
endorsement, a public endorsement?
Mr. Schrunk. No; it wouldn't be the same. The Alumni Associa-
tion of Portland University, I am not sure if they were quite active.
Senator McNamara. Do they have a paper of some sort, a publica-
tion that supported you ?
Mr. Schrunk. There is an alumni paper.
Senator McNamara. You do not know whether or not they officially
endorsed you in the press, in publication ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not as such. The alumnus carried activities and
there was a very nice writeup in there on my behalf.
Senator McNamara. On another line of questioning, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, do you know Mr. Crosby ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Is he known in your community as a public
official?
Mr. Schrunk. He served on the exposition and recreation com-
mission in the city of Portland.
Senator McNamara. You use the past tense and he has served ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Is he now serving ?
Mr. Schrunk. He resigned.
Senator McNamara. He resigned ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Was there any reason that you know for his
resignation ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir; the indictment was returned against him,
or maybe two indictments.
Senator McNamara. Do you know Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Do you know him as a labor leader ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not as such; no. He was an outsider to our area
from Seattle.
Senator McNamara. Do you know him as an underworld character ?
Mr. Schrunk. I do at the present time. I didn't when I met him.
Senator McNamara. Was the answer, "Yes."
Mr. Schrunk. I know him as such now.
Senator McNamara. Was he also a political leader or known as
such in your community?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I don't think that the term, "political leader"
would actually apply. In my opinion he was not a political leader,
although he was working in Mr. Langley's campaign. But he wasn't
the type of person, I think, that would make a leader in the move-
ment. I saw no great activity that he carried on.
Senator McNamara. Do you know Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Schrunk. I know of him.
Senator McNamara. You do not know him personally ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; not personally.
Senator McNamra. He is known in your community as a business-
man?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 643
Mr. Schrunk. He is known in our community as the king of the
rackets.
Senator McNamara. Are you saying to me now that he is known
in your community as a racketeer or an underworld character?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. I think that the committee might be in-
terested, too. Senator McCarthy asked a question about prostitu-
tion of Mr. Elkins.
Senator McNamara. My question does not lead to prostitution.
Do you want to divert ?
Mr. Schrunk. It is up to the Senator.
Senator McNamara. I would rather continue, and I have just a
couple of more questions and then, it is up to the Chair as to whether
you want to go into something else.
Mr. Schrunk. Thank you.
Senator McNamra. Mr. Elkins, is he known as a racketeer and an
underworld character, as you stated ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Is he known to you as such ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir: and it is my opinion that he is a narcotic
addict.
Senator McNamara. Is he known in the community as a politican?
Mr. Schrunk. Not as a politician ; and they think in terms of
him as a kingmaker. They say if you want to stay in politics at the
local level, you have to get along with Mr. Elkins, and I don't happen
to believe that. There are too many decent people in the city of Port-
land, once they get the facts.
But what happened to me is, the way he controls not only the police
department, but too often public officials.
Senator McNamara. Now, I have another line of questioning. In
your testimony you established yesterday that you did not have
enough evidence to make an arrest when you were at this club at 3 : 30
in the morning. You indicated that you had to find slot machines
or you had to make a "buy."
I thought your testimony was a little vague as far as gambling was
concerned, to recognize certain types of tables and certain type tables
that you thought commonly were used, I believe, for what was indi-
cated as a blackjack game.
One of the committee tried to question you as to the top of the
table, and I presume that is commonly referred to as a layout. Was
the table in j'our estimation covered with a cloth or a felt or some-
thing of such kind ?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe it was ; yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Then, was it marked out as it usually is marked
out for players in various stations ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not positive of that fact, sir. That is, whether
it was or not. I saw several of them since and we have conducted
several raids and some have been marked and some have not.
Senator McNamara. If it were so marked, then your officer that
you had in there could have accepted that as evidence of gambling,
could he not, as much as a slot machine?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't believe so, sir. Some time ago we took an-
other big place out in the city of Portland, and I think you have
heard something about the place already, run by Mr. Burgess Bird,
644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
and we confiscated at that time some $6,400 in money. We took 3
or 4 tables and we made arrests and we got a person in and we got
evidence and warrants and we seized a lot of liquor.
You know, out of that big place that had been going, the fine was
$200. They made me give all of the money back, even the money that
we took off the table. They made me give the tables back.
Senator McNamara. Who did this ?
Mr. Schrunk. The court.
Senator McNamara. The judge ruled that?
Mr. Schrunk. The judge ruled that way, and I think that he was
dead wrong. I asked for the money to go into the State to help pay
the cost of that, but the money was returned. That is a matter of
official record.
I mentioned that $200 fine, too, because one of the witnesses yes-
terday said it was better to pay the sheriff $500 than to have a $1,500
or $2,000 fine. If you will search the records of our city, you will
find that fines have" been far too low. I wish they were $1,500.
Senator McNamara. Did I gather from your testimony yesterday
that you meant to imply that the Portland police were closely watching
you and your activities at that time ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Because you implied that you would raid places
that they were more or less protecting or allowing to operate. Was
that what you intended to imply in your testimony ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes; that is what I meant to say and not just imply..
Senator McNamara. You do not have any evidence to prove that
these city of Portland police were actually protecting these places.
You have not submitted any. I take it it was an implication rather
than a charge ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. There has been a lot of evidence presented
to our grand jury out home and there have been indictments returned.
Senator McNamara. But you have nothing to present to this com-
mittee ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes; I would love to. I have here before me a
statement of Richard A. Sutton, city police officer. It is quite
lengthy, and I hope that you will insert it in the record.
Senator McNamara. I am going to leave that to the judgment of
the chairman.
Mr. Schrunk. I would like to just call your attention to one part
in here.
The Chairman. Will you submit a copy of it to the committee for
its consideration ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Examination and consideration ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. There was some indication or you made the
statement here just a few minutes ago, did you want to read a section
of this, incidentally ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; if I can find it, in a minute here.
The man says —
I would like to make a statement concerning the fact that I had been
ordered by superior officers to watch Sheriff Sehrunk's home from August —
this is a mistake —
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 645
from February 22, 1956, until March 30, 1956. The reason I was assigned to
watch the sheriff's house was that they were afraid the sheriff would get up
some time during the night and leave his home and go out and knock over some
of their bootleg joints or gambling establishments, or some of their illegal
enterprises.
I was told at that time that I could work this assignment either with my own
car and plainclothes, or with a city car and plainclothes, or in uniform and
unmarked city car, whichever ycu preferred.
I would like to state here I didn't like my assignment, and I didn't want it.
I didn't want it to appear that I had gone along with them and in this as much
as taking it on myself to wear plainclothes.
The Chairman. Mr. Mayor, the Chair has indulged you to read
that and I will permit you to read any other part of it you want to.
But I want you to know that in doing so, I am leaning away over and
departing to a degree from proper procedure.
But I want to be extremely fair to you and give you any opportunity
that you think would be to your advantage.
Mr. Schrunk. I appreciate that, sir.
Senator McNamara. You have indicated that you want a copy
of it and the witness has promised that he will provide it for the use
of the staff.
The Chairman. Ordinarily, before we let any statement be read,
even of the witness himself, that is the rule of the committee that it
be submitted 24 hours in advance. But the Chair, without objection,
has departed from that rule in order to be fair to the witness.
Mr. Schrunk. To finish, in answering your question, this is one
officer. But lying on my desk at the present time and under investi-
gation in the city of Portland is a bill for some $80,000 for overtime
pay for city police officers. Some of it is legitimate, and a great
deal of it was chasing people around like myself and like newspaper
reporters and things like that and chasing Mr. Bennett around.
Senator McNamara. I have one more question. You made refer-
ence to the taking of a lie-detector test before a State grand jury.
Was that it?
Mr. Schrunk. A county grand jury, under State law.
Senator McNamara. What was the result of the test ?
Mr. Schrunk. They have never revealed it to me. They have
revealed it to the attorney general.
Senator McNamara. It has never been made public ?
Mr. Schrunk. And to the grand jury, apparently. I have asked, at
that time, for a copy of it.
Senator McNamara. You do not know what the result of the test
was?
Mr. Schrunk. No.
Senator McNamara. Were you charged with anything when you
took this test?
Mr. Schrunk. No ; I was not charged. Well, yes ; this same prob-
lem started at that time. They used this in the campaign and tried
to frame me at that time and the matter went before the grand jury
and it was investigated by the attorney general of our State. At that
time the grand jury kind of got a little bit out of control and they
didn't intend it that way, but that is when Mr. Elkins was indicted
on a great many things.
You mentioned something about the chief of police. The chief of
police at that time, of the city of Portland, was indicted for something
for allowing these things to happen that we are talking about.
646 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. Indicted but not convicted ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator McNamara. Were most of these things that we have been
talking about here, made a part of your campaign and were they issues
that you had to face in the campaign ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir; and the people of Portland had the facts
on this and our own grand jury studied it and saw no reason for an
indictment because they had all of the witnesses before them.
Here, you only have I side of the thing, 1 set of witnesses. Ins spite
of all of that, which was used in the campaign, I still carried the elec-
tion by some 39,000 votes.
Senator McNamara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further
questions.
The Chairman. The Chair wishes to make this statement and unless
the Chair is overruled at some time by the committee in the future or
unless most unusual circumstances indicate otherwise and the com-
mittee agrees that it is, the committee will not order or provide a lie
detector test except at the request of the witness or his counsel.
The only authority that we can properly, I think make arrangements
with under the circumstances for the test to be made is the Secret
Service of the United States. If that agency is not under the orders,
direction, or under the employment of the committee, that agency
cannot be relied upon to do the "job honestly and as accurately as those
facilities may provide, then if the committee undertook to employ
just to serve it, some outside agency or facility of that character, then
the charge could very well be made, whether it could be sustained or
not, that the committee had handpicked some agency or authority to
make these tests.
Therefore, it would be charged that they were trying to provide
what the committee wanted in each instance. So the Chair, unless
the committee feels otherwise, will not order or arrange for a lie
detector test for any witness except that that witness requests it.
If a witness requests it, the same arrangements will be made in the
other case.
The Chair will also hold that any such testimony, as soon as it
becomes available, the result of it will be made public and put in
the record. That will be the ruling of the Chair for the present, and
until such time as some circumstance or condition or situation indi-
cates that a different ruling shall be made or until such time as the
committee directs otherwise.
Senator Mundt. I think that is a very fair and reasonable state-
ment, Mr. Chairman. In line with that position and the previous
colloquy I had with Mr. Schrunk, I wish we would now interpret
for the record and for me and for the Chair, whether what he said
in response to my line of questioning was a request to have the lie-
detector test taken or was it not.
Do you make that request?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes ; I will make a request of the committee to take
the lie-detector test.
Senator Mundt. Under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I think
we should provide the facilities.
The Chairman. The Chair will immediately direct the staff to make
the same arrangements, if it can, that it made yesterday or the day
before yesterday.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 647
Senator Mundt. I think I heard you say, Mr. Schrunk, and I do
not want to put words in your mouth, but I thought I heard you say
a moment ago that Mr. Elkins was a narcotics addict. Did you say
that?
Mr. Schrunk. I said that in my opinion he was. I haye the testi-
mony here of a person, a statement from this person, taken by a court
reporter. Of course, it is not the best type of witness.
Senator Mundt. That would seem to me to be a matter of public
record, would it not? If you are a narcotic addict, are you not ar-
rested and put in places and have thing done for you ?
Mr. Schrunk. He has
Senator Mundt. He testified that he was arrested one time for pick-
ing up a package which contained narcotics. Your information is
the first that I had heard that he was a user of narcotics. We had
had no testimony and no information on that. You said that he was
a user of narcotics.
Mr. Schrunk. According to Kathleen Weeks, convicted prostitute,
who worked in one of the houses of prostitution in the city of Port-
land, that Mr. Elkins had an interest in, in my opinion, according
to her testimony he made collections from the madam that ran the
place, along with Ray Clark, another one of Mr. Elkins' employees.
She testified — I asked the question :
Were most of the girls working for Jerry hooked?
The Chairman. Let the Chair inquire,
Go ahead, but I want to get this straight. Go ahead and finish
answering the question.
Mr. Schrunk. She went on to testify that — I asked her if she
bought from Mr. Elkins. She said no; she had bought from Jerry,
but she had used with Mr. Elkins, used narcotics. She stated that
Mr. Clark and Mr. Elkins, and Mr. Clark's wife, all three, were hooked,
as the term goes. That means that they were addicted.
Senator Mundt. What year was that?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon?
Senator Mundt. What year ?
Mr. Schrunk. This testimony was taken- — this statement was taken
February 17, 1957.
Senator Mundt. By whom ?
Mr. Schrunk. It was taken — the court reporter is Bernice Lee.
Present were these two ladies, these are the pictures, and I use the
term loosely [indicating photographs]. This is the subject [indicat-
ing photographs]. There was the deputy district attorney, a de-
tective, a matron, and myself present, as well as the two subjects.
The Chairman. Is that statement sworn to ?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon ?
The Chairman. Is that statement sworn to that you have ?
Mr. Schrunk. It was not sworn before a notary public; no, sir.
The Chairman. It was not sworn to ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. It is not a sworn statement ?
Mr. Schrunk. The sworn statements are now on the matter before
the
The Chairman. On the basis of that information, did you take any
action to arrest any of those guilty ?
648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Sciirttnk. Yes, sir. The matter is before the Federal grand
jury, and also
The Chairman. Has anyone been arrested ?
Mr. Schrunk. Not as yet, sir. These two girls are under arrest.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I just ask you on that: Those girls admitted
that they were dope addicts, themselves ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes ; they admitted that they were.
Mr. Kennedy. How long were they in custody %
Mr. Schrunk. These girls — well, they have been in custody at
different times.
Mr. Kennedy. How long were they in custody prior to the time you
took that Q and A ; the questions and answers ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure exactly how long. They had been
brought back from Texas. They were questioned there by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and questioned up there also.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they allowed to have any narcotics prior to
the time that they
Mr. Schrunk. Made the statement ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Schrunk. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. They had been kept in isolation from narcotics?
Mr. Schrunk. They had been kept in withdrawal down in Texas
where they were held. They were over withdrawal pains.
Mr. Kennedy. How long had they been kept in isolation away from
narcotics? These are two narcotics people themselves. How long
had they been kept in isolation prior to the time that you took those
questions and answers from them ?
Mr. Schrunk. Sir, I don't know how long they had been kept in
isolation. They had been traveling.
Mr. Kennedy. They were in your custody ; were they ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How did 3^011 happen to be there ?
Mr. Schrunk. Because this case started during the time that I
was sheriff.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was the district attorney ? You talked about
the assistant district attorney. Who was the district attorney?
Mr. Schrunk. There was no district attorney there.
Mr. Kennedy. Whose office was it?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Langley's office.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Langley's office?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So you and Mr. Langley and these two girls, they
were narcotics agents themselves, or took narcotics themselves, they
had not been treated or received any narcotics themselves, during this
period of time, just prior to the time you took that Q and A?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Langley was not present, Mr. Lonigan
Mr. Kennedy. But it was one of his employees, one of the people
in his office ?
Mr. Schrunk. Right.
Senator Mundt. Is that the sum total of evidence on which you base
your charge that Mr. Elkins is a narcotics addict; or do you have
other evidence.
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. I base it on reasonable belief, based on
information from Mr. Jack Merril, the narcotic agent for the State
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 649
•of Oregon, whom we have been in touch with. I base it on the
opinions
Senator Mundt. Has he made a statement to the effect that
Mr. Elkins is a narcotics addict?
Mr. Schrunk. He has made the statement that he is convinced that
he is hooked and is using it.
Senator Mundt. Will you read that statement to us?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon?
Senator Mundt. Will you read that statement to us?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't understand, sir.
Senator Mundt. Will you read that statement to us ?
Mi". Schrunk. No; he has not made a written statement. I am
talking about our discussion on this matter.
Senator Mundt. All in conversation?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. But you have no other written statement except
the unsworn statement of* this prostitute?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. That is the extent of that. You mentioned a man
1 >y the name of Merril ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. A State narcotics agent?
Mr. Schrunk. federal.
Senator Mundt. He has authority to make arrests; does he?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir ; on narcotics charges.
Senator Mundt. Did he arrest this well-known suspect that he was
talking to you about, Mr. Elkins?
Mr. Schrunk. I have asked him about that. That was the reason
of our conversation. I wasn't sure whether Mr. Elkins was dealing
in narcotics in our community or not. There were too many around,
too many of these people that were arrested as prostitutes and things
like that, that were turning up as addicts. Mr. Merril told me he was
working on it, trying to do the best he could.
Senator Mundt. Did he arrest him ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know that he ever has.
Senator Mundt. You do not know whether he has or not?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Could you find out and supply that information to
the committee ?
Mr. Schrttnk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Will you ?
Mr. Schrttnk. Yes. Mr. Merril is out in Portland.
Senator Mundt. Well, a telephone call would bring the informa-
tion, certainly. If he made an arrest, it is a matter of public record.
If you did not make an arrest, we should have that information in
the record. Whichever it is, I do not know. But will you get that
over the noon hour and give it to the committee ?
Mr. Schrunk. I can try, sir.
Senator Mundt. All right. I heard you make another statement,
I believe.
Mr. Schrunk. Your staff would be able to make the call there, sir.
Senator Mundt. Well, you brought it into your testimony as evi-
dence, so I would think that since you know who he is and where he
can be located it would certainly support your charge if you can say
650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
that Mr. Merril arrested him. That is how we would know. I would
hate to think that we have a Federal narcotics agent who knows about
a well-known addict running around the streets of Portland, who he
talks about to different friends of his, and then does not arrest him.
But we have had unfaithful Federal people sometimes. Maybe that
is the case, or maybe there is a good reason why he did not arrest
him. Whatever it is, this is a factfinding body, and we are just trying
to get the facts. If you can do that over the noon hour and will report,
we will appreciate it.
Mr. Schrunk. Will the committee pay for the call ?
Senator Mundt. The committee will pay for the call. I guess so.
Does the committee have authority ?
If it will not, I will.
The Chairman. Let me say this: The Chair, I think, as every
lawyer present knows, and I am sure many laymen realize, has leaned
over very far to accommodate this witness, to give him every oppor-
tunity to make any defense that he has, or offer any facts that he
thinks are pertinent. I have departed from what I know to be proper
procedure in rulings here. But this witness occupies a position of
trust, elected by the people in a large community in our country. I
have permitted testimony here that normally would not be permitted.
lam going to go one step further, and, at the risk, maybe, of being
criticized, permit the taxpayers of this country to pay for the call, if
the mayor does not want to do it for himself.
Senator Mundt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
T think I heard you also make a statement which intrigued me. You
said the grand jury got out of control. Will you elaborate on that ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, maybe I was being a little facetious.
Senator Mundt. It is a pretty serious statement when a mayor of a
city says the grand jury of the county got out of control. I want to
know what you meant.
Mr. Schrunk. I think that is a healthy condition, sir, where the
results that a grand jury has cannot be predetermined.
Senator MrxDT. Let us start back again. Who was trying to con-
trol the grand jury?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe Mr. Elkins, indirectly.
Senator Mundt. All right. Who called the grand jury ?
Mr. Schrunk. The attorney — it was called. The Governor di-
rected the attorney general to take over a grand jury.
Senator Mundt. Did the attorney general then call the grand jury?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, actually, he didn't actually call them.
Senator Mundt. In your State, does the Governor call a grand
jury or does the attorney general call the grand jury?
Mr. Schrunk. The grand jury happens every month by law. It is
set up, constituted, from the regular jury panel in our county. The
grand jury is constituted and drawn by lot.
Senator Mundt. You said you select some people from the panel.
Does the Governor do that or the attorney general ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir; it is done by a bailiff under the presiding
judge of the district.
Senator Mundt. Who was your presiding judge that was responsi-
ble for the grand jury?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure who the presiding judge was. They
alternate, We have a 9 or 12 or 13 — 13, 1 believe, now.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 651
Senator Mundt. To firm up your charge, then, let me put it this
way. ■ Will you explain to the committee in what manner you believe
Mr. Elkins was setting up his controls over the grand jury? Was
he working on the jurors ? Was he working on the attorney general ?
Was he working on the district attorney? How did he exercise that
control ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, there was a lot of pressure being placed on the
attorney general.
Senator Mundt. What is his name?
Mr. Schrunk. Robert Y. Thornton.
Senator Mundt. Thornton ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. I feel that there was considerable pressure
placed.
Senator Mundt. By Elkins?
Mr. Schrunk. Not directly. Mr. Thornton drove Mr. Elkins out
of his office if he came around. Mr. Thornton is a conscientious
person.
Senator Mundt. How does a man running out of an office control
the fellow who kicks him out ? I do not get that.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Schrunk. Most of the pressure came, in my opinion, through
the Oregonian.
Senator Mundt. Does Mr. Elkins control the Oregonian?
Mr. Schrunk. I can hardly believe that. He has quite a little in-
fluence, apparently, up there.
Senator Mundt. I am just trying to piece together in my own mind
what you have said. You have said the grand jury got out of control.
I said, "Who was trying to control it," and you said, "Mr. Elkins." I
said, "How did he control it?" And you said, "Through the attorney
general." I said, "How did he control him?" And you said, "The
attorney general chased him out of his office."
Mr. Schrunk. I said he probably would.
Senator Mundt. Then you said it was indirectly controlled through
the Oregonian. If he is going to do it indirectly, he has to have a
stooge, in the form of the attorney general, or in the form of the
Oregonian, or some other stooge, certainly.
Mr. Schrunk. The pressure was on Mr. Thornton from the Ore-
gonian, for one reason or another, because he apparently would not
do as they wanted, and they came up with indictments against Mr.
Elkins and people like that, they came out viciously opposed to him
at the election.
Senator Mundt. Was this a county grand jury?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Multnomah County ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Who presents the evidence to a county grand jury ?
Mr. Schrunk. Normally the district attorney does.
Senator Mundt. What is his name?
Mr. Schrunk. William Langley.
Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Langley ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. In your opinion, is he a good and competent dis-
trict attorney ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, I only know by my personal contact.
652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. Naturally, I am asking you on that basis.
Mr. Schrunk. We certainly haven't agreed on the proper way ta
handle some cases. We have argued. But I must say this, and I am
happy to say it for the record, that Mr. Langley at no time ever
approached me to do anything improper or to provide protection for
any underworld elements. I say that because I don't know whether
he is right or wrong, or whether he has done anything else. But in
fairness, I can only say what I know.
Senator Mundt. That would be at best what I would call damning
with pink praise, when I ask you if this is a good and competent attor-
ney general, and you say, "Well, he has never approached me or tried
to bribe me, the district attorney."
Mr. Schrunk. I made that statement with the thought in view of
all the discussions that you have before you.
The Chairman. The Chair has previously stated it has indulged
the witness quite extensively, I think. You read there a moment ago,
and the Chair permitted you to do it, from a document, an unsworn
document, of some prostitutes that made reference to Mr. Elkins.
The committee has had no opportunity to see that document. An
excerpt from a document might not reflect the whole picture.
Therefore, the Chair requests the witness to submit the document to-
the staff, to the committee, for its examination in its entirety.
Will the witness do that?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I didn't know how much more you were going
to talk. I have several points marked here, and I would hate to have
them lost, As I stated when I
The Chairman. I will instruct the staff not to remove any marker
in the document. I do not know what is in it, but when you read
excerpts from it, the committee is entitled to examine the document,,
just as the other document from which the Chair permitted you to
read.
Mr. Schrunk. How long
The Chairman. The document will be returned to you before you
leave. It will be made available to you at any time you need it in your
testimony.
Mr. Schrunk. Thank you.
The Chairman. We are not taking it away from you.
The document will be returned, and at any time the witness needs
it, it will be made available to him.
Mr. Schrunk. I prefaced my remarks on this, sir, at the time, that
I don't consider the two witnesses top witness
The Chairman. You do not consider them reliable ?
Mr. Schrunk. With that type of reputation behind them ? I think
they were telling the truth here, but I realize it is hearsay. I also-
realize that some of this other evidence that has been placed, some of
it damning to me, was hearsay. I would appreciate the Chair allow-
ing me the privilege of referring to this document.
The Chairman. The Chair has allowed you. But when we go
to refer to documents that are present, I am sure the committee is
not only empowered but it possibly has the duty to examine the docu-
ments.
Mr. Schrunk. I am very happy to let the committee do that..
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kknxedy. Mr. Chairman-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 653
The Chairman. Senator Ives will take the chair.
(At this point the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.)
Senator Ives (presiding). Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. You had an affidavit by Mr. Sutter that you had
presented to us, and which we have mimeographed, so that we would
make sure that it got into the record.
Mr. Schrunk. That you had mimeographed ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did we have it mimeographed or did you have it
mimeographed I
Mr. Schrunk. I had it mimeographed last night, because I was told
that you wasn't interested in it and 1
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe counsel did, unless I was mistaken.
Mr. Kennedy. I said that ?
Mr. Schrunk. I requested then permission to utilize that to testify
from.
Mr. Kennedy. You have read from an excerpt a little while ago.
1 thought if it was all right with the chairman, I could also read from
an excerpt.
Senator Ives. Without objection, go ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. This is from Mr. Richard A. Sutter. He was one
of the four policemen that were on duty that evening in front of
Bennett's place.
On page 2 :
I spent quite a bit of time — quite a few moments there at th^ north precinct
on that occasion. I spent 3 months there on that occasion and was since trans-
ferred to other precincts on a training transfer. But, I ended up at north pre-
cinct. And I spent some months at north precinct again. Then I transferred
to three-wheelers and worked the downtown district for traffic.
At the time I went back to north precinct — I can give you the date on that —
I was transferred back to north precinct the 18th of August 1955 from traffic.
At the time I became aware that an alleged bootleg joint and a gambling place
was running at 8212 North Denver Avenue ; that the commanding officers were
aware of the fact that it was running and the vice squad apparently was taking
no action on it whatsoever. And I as a uniformed officer couldn't do much
about it.
Well, I am sorry, I have read the wrong page.
Page 3. He states that he went over there, and arrived in this place.
We drove around a couple of blocks there or a block or so and came back up
and we parked on the northwest corner of Denver and Kilpatrick. and we ob-
served Mr. — well, we observed the alleged operator— or, I will say that because I
don't know really who — I have been told that Slim Bennett ran the place. I had
been told that Slim Bennett was the man's name that ran the place.
I observed the fellow who did run the place whom I believe to be Slim Bennett
walk across the street. And, I certainly don't remember him walking diagonally
as the other account states in the paper because I think I would have pinched
him for jaywalking. But, anyway, I observed this Bennett by this telephone pole
and this drinking fountain. And, as I recall, he — at least it appeared that he
bent down and placed something between the pole and the drinking fountain.
And then we observed another man whom at the time I believed to be Sheriff
Schrunk go over, and it seemed that he picked something up there. And. what it
was that this person picked up, I can't say. But I told the grand jury in my
testimony that it was Sheriff Schrunk, and I believed at the time that it was
Sheriff Schrunk, but since I have thought a lot about the thing and I have sijice
been convinced — and I will repeat that — have since been convinced it wasn't
the sheriff at all, and I am not even sure whoever it was picked anything up
there. And, that is the reason that T contacted Mr. Minielly and wanted to
talk to the sheriff was that I wanted to straighten it up in that the newspaper
654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
account accuses the sheriff of picking it up and apparently it comes from some-
thing I have said.
I thought you would want to have that in the record, too.
Mr. Schrunk. I
Mr. Kennedy. Also, there was some discussion about — you know,
these are things that you brought up, and I thought we would have
them straightened out — there was some talk about your appearing
before the grand jury and about some finagling with the grand jury
in connection with Senator Mundt's question. Do you remember that ?
(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Schrunk. I remember about the grand jury, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember, did you also discuss that there
was some finagling with the grand jury, that it was getting out of
hand, and there was something funny going on? It got out of
control ?
Mr. Schrunk. I think I used that term ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The grand jury considered this question regarding
whether you had picked up a bribe ; is that not correct ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you took a lie-detector test ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are not aware of the fact of whether you
passed or flunked it ?
Mr. Schrunk. No. I have asked for a copy of the report.
Mr. Kennedy. You were not told that you flunked the test ?
Mr. Schrunk. I heard from Mr. Turner and Lambert
Mr. Kennedy. No, did you hear from anyone else that you flunked
the test?
Mr. Shrunk. After I heard from Mr. Lambert and Turner who
had been talking about it, I went to the attorney general. He said
he thought the report was adverse.
Mr. Kennedy. Then I think that you should have straightened
that out when Senator Mundt asked you the question whether you
had any ideas about how you did in the test.
Mr. Schrunk. I still haven't seen a copy of the test.
Mr. Kennedy. No, but you heard from the attorney general of the
State of Oregon that the report was adverse ; is that right ?
(At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Schrunk. I tried to get details of it, and he wouldn't tell me
what was testified, but apparently it wasn't — as I said, a man that
wants to misrepresent a lie detector can read it any way. The oper-
ator is tremendously important, the reliability of the operator.
Mr. Kennedy. That is your explanation, Sheriff Schrunk. All
Senator Mundt asked was what the results were, and you said "I
haven't any idea."
Mr. Schrunk. I still don't know, because I haven't seen them.
Mr. Kennedy. You were told what the results were, that they were
adverse to you.
Mr. Schrunk. It was alleged.
Mr. Kennedy. No. The attorney general told you, did he not?
Did he not tell you that the lie-detector test that you took was adverse
to you? That has nothing to do with Mr. Elkins. How do you
explain that?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 655
Mr. Schrunk. I have still asked for a copy of the test. I have
told you today I am willing to take another one.
Let's put something else in the record, Mr. Kennedy, while we are
talking about that lie-detector test. The attorney general brought an
expert from down in California to give some tests. I agreed to take
one before the grand jury, and then all of a sudden the expert disap-
peared, and another party gave the test. That is the reason that I
mentioned to the committee the importance of having a reliable
person.
Mr. Kennedy. That is your explanation. The committee can accept
that or not, but I wanted you to straighten the record out.
One other thing I want to talk to you about is this grand jury. Do
you know a Mrs. Rossman ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, I know Mrs. Jane Rossman.
Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Rossman was on the grand jury that was con-
sidering your case ; is that not correct ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, she
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question, please.
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, I wasn't before that grand jury.
Mr. Kennedy. She did not consider your case ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I don't know. I think they probably did con-
sider it. !
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know
Mr. Schrunk. I was never before it.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know that your case was considered by
that grand jury?
Mr. Schrunk. I have reason to believe from some of the people sub-
penaed that they
Mr. Kennedy. Do you not also know that Mrs. Rossman voted one
way one day, then announced to the grand jury that she was changing
her vote, and the same day you appointed, or within a day you ap-
pointed her husband to the zoo commission ? Did you appoint Mr. Ross-
man to the zoo commission?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, Mr. Rossman was appointed to the zoo com-
mission.
Mr. Kennedy. And was not Mrs. Rossman on the grand jury ? And
did not Mrs. Rossman talk to your campaign manager, Mr. Ray Kell?
Mr. Schrunk. Not to my knowledge.
(At this point, Senator Groldwater entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. I want to read into the record what the judge said
when he threw the grand jury out.
In the first place, the conduct of the grand juror was most irregular, most im-
proper, and a violation of tbe instruction which the court gave the grand jury.
So far as revoting, that is entirely proper at any time concerning this matter or
any other matter. But so far as this grand jury, or any member thereof, con-
sulting any citizen, whether attorney or otherwise, on the outside concerning
matters which may have been the subject of your investigation, it is highly
improper, and any further conduct of that sort, if it comes to the attention of
the court, will be considered an act of contempt and will be treated accordingly.
and the judge dismissed that grand jury.
That is Mrs. Rossman, and her husband you appointed to the zoo
commission on that day. Is that not correct?
Mr. Schrunk. Former county commissioner of Multnomah County,
yes.
89330— 57— pt. 2 15
656 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You appointed him to the zoo commission ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And his wife was serving on the grand jury; is that
not correct ?
Mr. Schrunk. She served on the grand jury; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I have one other thing that you brought up, about
District Attorney Langley and your opinion of District Attorney
Langley. You have said that you have known nothing adverse of
District. Attorney Langley ; is that right ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I didn't say that I knew nothing adverse.
Certainly, I have been reading the papers, all the charges.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : Did you and District Attorney Lang-
ley ever conduct any raids on any places, any joints, after he was
elected district attorney ?
Mr. Schrunk. Jointly ?
Mr. Kennedy. No. Well, jointly. Did you ever use your men to
conduct a raid that he ordered after he was elected attorney general ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How many raids were conducted by you ?
Mr. Schrunk. Do you mean personally or our department ?
Mr. Kennedy. No. How many raids on after-hours joints or
houses of prostitution were conducted by you after District Attorney
Langley got into office ? How many ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I am not sure, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, approximately how many? Were there 30.
40? Other than this Bennett place?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, there was the Ferguson place, the Taft Hotel,
the Keystone Club.
Is this in the city of Portland, inside?
Mr. Kennedy. No. How many places did you raid or have raided
with your men ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I couldn't answer exactly Iioav many.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, how many, approximately ?
Mr. Schrunk. If you are talking about after-hours establishments
within the city of Portland, there is the Keystone Club, there is
Mr. Kennedy. How many, approximately? You do not have to
name them for me. How many, approximately ?
Mr. Schrunk. I suppose a half-dozen or so within
Mr. Kennedy. How many places did you order abated or request
that they have them abated ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I have a letter from the district attorney's
office at the present time on some places in Portland.
Mr. Kennedy. No, I am talking about while you were sheriff.
How many places did you request to have abated ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure of that, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know? You can't think of one, can
you, that was ever abated while you were sheriff and he was district
attorney ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't recall any.
Mr. Kennedy. In that connection, you have been mayor since
January 1957.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 657
This is according to the study that our investigators have made:
Operating in the city of Portland since January 1957 we have been
able to find 35 places. The Bellevue Hotel, which is a "house," oper-
ated by Blanche Kaye, and it is operating full time; the Irving Hotel
is a "house" and it is operating full time; 180 Southwest Morrison,
operated by Marie Maynard, is a "house" and it is operating split-
shift; the Libby Hotel, a "call house," is operating full time; the
Victory, operated by Snitzer, is a "house," and it is operating full
time, it is a house of prostitution. That is what I am talking about.
Evelyn, operating out of Southwest Morrison between First and
Second, operating full time; Little Rusty, First and Arthur, operat-
ing with Zusman, she takes calls, full time; Villa Rooms, felony
arrest, she has just been arrested within the last 3 or 4 days, is operat-
ing a house of prostitution, and is operating full time ; Eric Caldwell,
arrested within the last 2 or 3 days, operating a house of prostitution,
and sold liquor.
Mr. Schrunk. We have him in jail, too. There are rbout seven.
Mr. Kennedy. Since this hearing began, you have closed 2 or 3 of
these places, since February 25. Since this hearing began, you have
moved in 2 or 3 places. But I have a list here of 35 places that are
operating.
Mr. Schrunk. I would be most happy to have them from you, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You are talking about you and the district attorney
want to clean the city up, and Mr. Elkins is keeping it open. I have
a list of 35 places that have been operating since January 1, houses
of prostitution, callhouses, after-hours places, joints.
Mr. Schrunk. I doubt the list, sir, but then I would be most — with
your information, I would be most happy to have our vice chief
Mr. Kennedy. I think it is peculiar. You have been mayor in there
and you wanted to clean the place up, you and District Attorney
Langley.
Mr. Schrunk. I have been there 2 months. We have had a mass
transportation problem facing us, we have a financial problem, we
reorganized the police department. Do you expect miracles?
Mr. Kennedy. No. How long were you sheriff ?
Mr. Schrunk. Seven years.
Mr. Kennedy. You had authority in that area, did you not ? You
could close those places up. You could have them abated. Your
testimony here is that since Langley was made district attorney you
cannot think of one place that you suggested be abated. Since you
have become mayor of the city of Portland, there are 35 places that
we found in operation. Can you explain that?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I can assure you that as fast as we can find
them, they will be put out. It doesn't matter whose they are, whether
Mr. Elkins or anybody's. We will close them up.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you explain that you have these investi-
gators operating and they haven't found any of these places ?
Mr. Schrunk. I will ask the same question of my vice division
chief when I get back. They are operating
Mr. Kennedy. You have been around this area for 7 years and
2 months and you do not know about these places operating, and our
investigators have been able to find them?
Will you explain that? Here they are.
658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. I doubt it, but it is conceivable. Strange things
happen. We will be most happy to have the list and move against
them.
The Chairman. The Chair will suggest that counsel and the staff
provide the mayor with this list. I think if our staff can go out there,
2 or 3 of them, and find these places in just a little while, I would
think that you with your large staff, operating there all the time, and
who know the community, should be able now to take this list and
get out there and clean that place up.
Mr. Schrunk. I certainly have been trying, sir.
The Chairman. I think the good people out there would like to have
it cleaned up.
Mr. Schrunk. There is a lot of people who want it cleaned up.
The Chairman. I think they are looking to you to do it.
Mr. Schrunk. That is right.
The Chairman. And the district attorney and the sheriff. You are
responsible officials.
Mr. Schrunk. I am doing the best I can.
Mr. Kennedy. There was one other thing in connection with Mr.
Langley that I would like to bring up, and your relationship with
him. Back in 1956, 1 believe — I guess it was 1956 — the Oregonian ran
some stories about the tieup between certain gangsters and the team-
sters; is that correct? You are familiar with that?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, they ran a series of stories.
Mr. Kennedy. In the stories, they said there were certain tape
recordings that were kept, showing allegations of bad conduct on the
part of Clyde Crosby, who was the international representative of the
teamsters, and also William Langley, who was district attorney;
is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any part of conducting a raid on the
home of the person who was supposed to have had control over those
tapes, within a week of the time that this information was made
public ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You conducted a raid on that?
Mr. Schrunk. Our department did.
Mr. Kennedy. What?
Mr. Schrunk. Our office did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know about the raid being conducted?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do at the place? That just happened
to be the same house in which these tapes were; is that right? You
just wanted to conduct a raid on this house?
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't want to do anything, sir. I received a search
warrant, and they asked it to be executed. I turned it over to my
officers to execute.
Mr. Kennedy. Who procured the search warrant ?
Mr. Schrunk. It came from the district attorney's office.
Mr. Kennedy. The district attorney was one of those mentioned
with allegations of misconduct; is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 659
Mr. Kennedy. So the district attorney, Langley, brought in a
search warrant to go into the man's house who had control over the
tapes, who had possession of the tapes ; is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, of course, I didn't know that he had possession
of the tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the search warrant mention the tapes?
Mr, Schrunk. It mentioned
Mr. Kennedy. Did it mention the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't recall exactly what it did mention.
Mr. Kennedy. Were the tapes seized ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did seize the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. These tapes that were so important in this case ; is
that right ?
Mr. Schrunk. Some of the tapes were seized.
Mr. Kennedy. Did not the court determine the following day that
that search warrant had been obtained based on false information,
and threw it out?
Mr. Schrunk. I wouldn't want to say what day it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the court not hold that within several days ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, there was a period of time in which
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question.
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know that the court said that the search
warrant was illegal?
Mr. Schrunk. There was a series of hearings on the
Mr. Kennedy. Answer the question. Do you not know that, that
was a. fact, that the court held the search warrant was illegal?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure what they actually held. There was a
faulty search warrant, I believe was the rule, but they directed me to
turn the evidence over to the Oregon State Police.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the court hold that it was a faulty search war-
rant?
Mr. Schrunk. I believe the district court did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. All right. Now, after the tapes were seized, what
did you do with the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. Talking about me making copies of them?
Mr. Kennedy. You made copies of them ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you play them for anyone ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. Just the people who worked on the raid.
Mr. Kennedy. Be careful there, Mayor Schrunk. Let me ask you
this : Did you play or cause to be played or allow to be played these
tapes for anyone?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. For whom ?
Mr. Schrunk. For Mr. Williams, of the Journal.
Mr. Kennedy. Of the Oregon Journal ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that Brad Williams of the Oregon Journal ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes. He was assisting on the raid.
660 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. He assisted in the raid?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he is the one that yon mentioned yesterday ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he is the one that was mentioned by Mr. Nate
Zusman as coming up and listening in the next room while our in-
vestigators were interviewing Mr. Nate Zusman, who flunked the lie-
detector test ?
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't know Mr. Williams took a test.
Mr. Kennedy. No, this is Mr. Nate Zusman. Go ahead, who else
was there ?
The Chairman. Was Brad Williams an officer?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. But you earned him along on the search?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I didn't, sir. Newspapermen quite often go,
where they have knowledge ahead of time, and apparently he was
involved in getting the information that led to the search warrant.
The Chairman. Did you carry anybody representing the other
paper.
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I didn't go.
The Chairman. You know who was there, I suppose.
Mr. Schrunk. No, I don't believe there was anyone else.
The Chairman. Who did you assign it to ?
Mr. Schrunk. I assigned it to Detective Minielly.
The Chairman. Did you know that Brad Williams was going
along?
Mr. Schrunk. Brad Williams had come to my office, y&s.
The Chairman. You knew he was going.
All right. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. Who else did you play the tapes for?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, upon seizure, I called in the FBI, called in
the
Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer my question, please?
Mr. Schrunk. I called in the telephone company.
Mr. Kennedy. Answer my question. Who did you play the tapes
for? You played them for Brad Williams. Who else?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, the technicians, borrowed technicians, from
the Journal.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Schrunk. That was to make copies of the tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. Who else?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know their names, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who else did you play them for ? You played them
for the technicians, and you played them for Brad Williams. Who
else did you have the tapes played for or cause them to be played for?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know what you mean by caused.
Mr. Kennedy. Who heard the tapes?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, there was apparently lots of them, lots of
people.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you just answer my question.
Mr. Schrunk. The Oregon State Police heard them, Brad Williams
played a copy. I had copies made and they were stored in the vaults
of the Journal.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 661
Mr. Kennedy. They were given to the Oregon Journal? This
information that you seized in a raid you gave to one of the news-
papers?
Air. Schrunk. At my request, they were to go in their vault for
-a fekeeping.
Mr. Kennedy. You wanted them kept in the Oregon Journal's
vault, is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Why would you want the tapes that you seized hi
a raid, or information or material that you seized in a raid, to be kept
in a newspaper office? Don't you have your own vault?
Mr. Schrunk. We have a vault, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But you would not keep them in your own vault, you
wanted them kept in the Oregon Journal's vault?
Mr. Schrunk. I was afraid of a safe man taking a copy. They
were pretty important to some people.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were they important to ?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Kennedy. What ?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Kennedy. And who else?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Clark.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. Who else heard these tapes ? Were they
also important to Mr. Langley ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Were they important to Mr. Crosby?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay. Did they ever hear these tapes?
Mr. Schrunk. I understand that Mr. Crosby heard part
Mr. Kennedy. These tapes, after you seized them hi an illegal raid,
you gave them to the newspaper to keep in their vault, and you had
them played or allowed them to be played for Mr. Clyde Crosby,
who was under investigation ?
Mr. Schrunk. No. They were played without my permission.
Mr. Kennedy. Who played them for them? They were in your
custody, Mayor Schrunk, in your custody. These tapes were in your
custody, you are the one who seized them. Who allowed them to be
played for Mr. Crosby?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, apparently, as the story came back to me, I
didn't know it for quite awhile
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you the story ?
Mr. Schrunk. I think one of the newspaper — maybe it was a story
that the Oregonian carried or maybe it was something that one of
them said — I don't recall — that Mr. Crosby had been allowed to listen
to the tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. Who had he been allowed to listen to the tape by ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, apparently, as I found out later, Brad Wil-
liams was playing them for the Oregon State Police, and Crosby
came in.
Mr. Kennedy. Crosby came in ? Came in where ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure where it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it the district court room, or was it in your
office, or where ?
662 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Where was it ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You never inquired ?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Williams
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever inquire?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I might have at the time. I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, where was it played ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you inquire? You were shocked, weren't you,
that they had done this ?
Mr. Schrunk. I am not sure if it was at the Journal or Mr. Willams
home. I am not sure.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brad Williams, who you suggested that we
contact ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. Who else heard them ? Did District At-
torney Langley hear them? Do you not know that he heard them,
Mayor Schrunk? Do you not know that he heard them?
Mr. Schrunk. I rather imagine he probably did. I never released
them to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Crosby and Mr. Langley both heard them.
You seized these tapes on an illegal search warrant, turned them over
to the Oregon Journal, and had copies made or allowed copies to be
made for the District Attorney Langley, who was under investigation,
and Clyde Crosby, who was under investigation ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, I didn't
Mr. Kennedy. You are the one that is finding fault with Mr. Elkins,
and you are the one that is finding fault with two reporters from the
Oregonian. How can you explain this ? How can you explain allow-
ing all these places to run ?
Mr. Schrunk. I would appreciate having a copy of the list, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you something else in connection with
Senator McNamara's interrogation.
Out of the people that signed your nomination papers, what per-
centage would you say were teamsters or teamster officials ?
Mr. Schrunk. I would guess 25 or 30 percent, probably.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clyde Crosby has stated that he was instru-
mental in getting you to run for mayor of the city of Portland rather
than for the secretary of state for the State of Oregon. Did he have
any conversations with you in that connection ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes. We talked. But when he first came to talk
to me at the courthouse
Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Clyde Crosby, international represen-
tative of the teamsters ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, with some other officers.
Mr. Kennedy. Of the teamsters ?
Mr. Schrunk. He came in and
Mr. Kennedy. Of the teamsters ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What other officers came to see you ?
Mr. Schrunk. Pardon?
Mr. Kennedy. What other officers of the teamsters came to see you
to get you to run for mayor ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD ()63
Mr. Schrunk. This wasn't for mayor. When they first came they
offered to support me for secretary of state. There had been a lot of
t alk, and had been newspaper stories.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about when they had the conversation
with you about running for mayor. Did Mr. Clyde Crosby urge you
to run for mayor ?
Mr. Schrunk. After I announced my intentions, I think he did
offer to help in any way he could to support me.
Mr. Kennedy.* Then 25 or 30 percent of the individuals who signed
your nomination papers were teamsters or teamster officials, is that
correct ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question.
Mr. Schrunk. I should have the right to explain.
Mr. Kennedy. Say yes or no and then you can explain.
Mr. Schrunk. If I may explain afterwards, I would say "Yes."
Mr. Kennedy. Explain.
Mr. Schrunk. In Oregon, a candidate for public office can file two
ways, on a city nonpartisan election. You either pay a $25 filing fee
or you file, I believe it is, 100 affidavits, little individual slips, nominat-
ing petitions. The city provides you with 200 of these copies. Each
of them must be notarized. It is a little difficult to circulate them be-
cause they have to be circulated by the notary public. I suppose it was
my Scotch blood to save the $25 that I decided to go by the nominating
route.
I received these 200 copies, and I took a group over to the Insurance
Mortgage Co., where a friend of mine worked. I happened to be in
the area of the teamster building, and I thought, "Well, they have a
notary public in there," and I went into Mr. Lou Cornelius' office, I
believe, and asked him if they had a notary public. He said, "Yes,"
and I said, "Can you get some of these filled ?" And he said "Yes," he
would be happy to.
There were attorneys, and there were other people in Portland who
circulated them, people of that nature.
Mr. Kennedy. I just have one other matter that I wish to finish.
The Chairman. Are you going into another matter?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Mayor, this raid to procure the tapes was made
while you were sheriff?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Were those tapes ever taken to the sheriff's office ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And after they were in the sheriff's office, in your
custody, definitely under your control and authority, you permitted
them to be carried away, stored at some other place, copies of them
made, and to be played to the people who were directly involved; is
that correct?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, not quite, sir.
The Chairman. What is lacking?
Mr. Schrunk. Copies were made. It was my judgment at the time,
I felt it was public interest, Since there were Federal problems in-
volved, I called the FBI in.
The Chairman. How many copies were made?
Mr. Schrunk. One.
664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Just one copy?
Mr. Schrun k. Yes, sir ; to the best of my knowledge.
The Chairman. Who got that ? What became of it ?
Mr. Schrunk. It has been destroyed.
The Chairman. Who destroyed it?
Mr. Schrunk. I did.
The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Schrunk. Because the tapes were taken over by the Federal
Government.
The Chairman. The original?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And, therefore, you destroyed the copy that you
had made?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. For what reason?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I felt there was no use for it.
The Chairman. Why did you not turn it over?
Mr. Schrunk. To the Federal Government?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Schrunk. Because they wanted the originals.
The Chairman. Why did you not say "We have had a copy of it
made. Here is a copy for you, too" ?
Mr. Schrunk. I would have been happy to, if they wanted to, sir.
The Chairman. You did not inquire whether they wanted it or not ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. It had been moved to the State police
office
The Chairman. My understanding is that the originals were
ordered by the court to be turned over to the attorney general, Mr.
Thornton, is that correct ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is not the Federal Government.
Mr. Schrunk. The Federal Government subpenaed them from Mr.
Thornton, from the State.
The Chairman. But you did not turn them over to the Federal
Government ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. You turned them over to Thornton, the attorney
general ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. After the court ordered it to be done?
Mr. Schrunk. Eight.
The Chairman. Did the court know that you had made copies of
them at the time the order was made?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, because I had them in court 1 day.
The Chairman. You had the copy in court?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did the court order the copy destroyed?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did he order all of them turned over to Thornton,
or what did the court say to do with the copies ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't believe the court said anything, sir.
The Chairman. Did not the court order you to turn them all over ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't recall.
The Chairman. All the tapes, was that not the order of the court ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 665
Mr. Schrunk. All the tapes were, not the copies.
The Chairman. All the tapes? Well, the copies are tapes, too, are
they not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You withheld the copies that were made. Now,
did you withhold them for the purpose of giving those people involved
the benefit of them?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. While those copies were in my possession,
no one went over them.
The Chairman. How long did you keep them before you destroyed
them ?
Mr. Schrunk. Until just before I left the courthouse.
The Chairman. How long was that ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I left the courthouse on December 31.
The Chairman. Sir?
Mr. Schrunk. On December 31 is when I left the courthouse.
The Chairman. How long before had you made the raid ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't recall the date. It was in May. May 16, or
something like that. It was sometime in May.
The Chairman. I believe you said there was only one copy made.
Where did Mr. Crosby get his copy of them ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't know that Mr. Crosby has a copy.
The Chairman. You do not know that he had one ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
The Chairman. You do not know that ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know that anyone had copies of those
tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Maloney ? You state you
do not know that they had copies of the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; I hadn't heard that before.
Mr. Kennedy. You never had any discussions like that ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is, that they had copies of the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Miindt.
Senator Mundt. You gave the reason, and I wish you would repeat
it, as I am not sure I heard it, as to why you got the tapes in the orig-
inal raid. You did not put them in the sheriff's office, but you gave
them to Mr. Williams to put on the vault of the Oregon Journal.
What was the reason for that?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, what happened is, I asked if they had
technicians, and we got the technicians from one of the radio stations,
the newspaper's radio station, to make copies. The originals went in
my safe. The copies were put in the vault at the Journal. The reason
for that is that I
Senator Mundt. I think you said the reason for that was, to refresh
your memory, that you were afraid the Oregon State police mighl
raid them and take them out of your office ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; not the State police. They would have been
most welcome to them. I would have been happy to give them to the
State police or the Federal people. It was to prevent a safecracker
666 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
from taking the safe in the courthouse. I know it sounds a little far-
fetched, but Mr. Elkins had quite a few friends in that business.
1 he Chairman. We can use the term "fantastic," can we not »
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. So you had the tapes stored in the vault at the
Oregon Journal because you thought that was a safer place than the
sheriff's vault ; is that the idea ?
Mr. Schrunk. I didn't want them all in one place.
Senator Mundt. What did you do with the tapes when vou first
got them ? J
Mr. Schrunk. I took them back to the courthouse and played them
Senator Mundt. You played them?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And you heard the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. I understood vou had not heard them yourself
1 ou heard the tapes that night ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. That is the reason that
Senator Mundt. You can shed some light on what these tapes
said, because we have not heard the tapes. What did the tapes say*
Mr. Schrunk. Well, I don't know all it said, sir.
Senator Mundt. They were derogatory to Mr. Crosby, were they
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, some of them. I don't recall whether his
name was specifically mentioned or not.
Senator Mundt. Derogatory to Mr. Langley, the district attorney?
Mr. Schrunk. I am sure that there was some derogatory remarks
m there.
Senator Mundt. Did you hear Mr. Maloney's name mentioned on
the tapes ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't remember specifically whether his name
was mentioned. I think possibly it was.
Senator Mundt. Did you recognize the voices on the tapes?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, it is kind of a guess. I didn't know— I had
never met Mr. McLaughlin until I arrested him, and I have never
Senator Mundt. After you had arrested him, then you concluded
his voice was one of the voices on the tapes, did you ? That was your
guess ?
Mr. Schrunk. I wouldn't want to say. I only talked to him a very
short time.
Senator Mundt. By the way, is the possession of tapes against the
Oregon statute ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. How could you raid a place and take tapes which
it is not illegal to possess, when you found that you raided Mr.
Bennett's place and found liquor and gambling devices, which are
also illegal, but you could not arrest him.
Mr. Schrunk. We were operating on a search warrant, sir.
Senator Mundt. I am not a lawyer, sir, but does a search warrant
enable you to pick up anything, whether it is illegal or not, to take
a man's watch, his radio, his tapes, and anything you want to take?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. Whatever is mentioned in the search war-
rant or other items that are, on their face, illegal.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 667
Senator Mundt. Therefore, you got a search warrant which men-
tioned the tapes, did you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. I don't recall whether they mentioned— they pos-
sibly did mention tapes. I didn't get the search warrant-
Senator Mundt. What right do you have to have a search warrant
to take tapes which are legal to possess? Can you get a search war-
rant and come into my house and take my wife's rotisserie? Could
you do that ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; as I understood, the search warrant was
based on a search for obscene records, tapes, and material. I am not
sure just how it was covered. The committee probably has a copy
of it.
Senator Mundt. In fact, that is why they threw the search war-
rant out as being faulty, was it not, because you were trying to possess
something which was legal to keep in a man's home, and you had no
right to go in there and take it out, especially when you had a reputa-
tion of trying to avoid false arrests, as you had? You did not want
to jeopardize that reputation in picking up Mr. Bennett that night,
in picking up the gambling equipment, or the poker chips, or the cards,
or the blackjack tables, or the liquor.
Mr. Schrunk. We seized some 25 or 26 slot machines that were not
mentioned.
Senator Mundt. Now we are back on slot machines again. This is
not the slot machine investigating committee. You always get back
on these slot machines.
Mr. Schrunk. This is in the same raid I am talking about, The
slot machines were not mentioned on that.
Senator Mundt. They were in the same house?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes; we seized under that possession.
Senator Mundt. I have one other question. I was a little bit dis-
appointed, mayor, when you were not forthright to me in your reply
to my question about whether you had passed the lie detector test
which you had already taken, and you said you did not know. A
little later Mr. Kennedy received from you the fact that you had been
told by the attorney general that it had been adverse.
Mr. Schrunk. I think I passed it, as far as I am concerned. There
is no reason why I shouldn't.
Senator Mundt. So did Zusman, as far as he was concerned, too.
I met him in the hall yesterday noon, and he said "I certainly did well
with that test." When the fellow added up the score, it did not seem
to agree with him.
Forgetting that for the time being, you mentioned the fact that
the test was taken by the Oregon State Police, did you not ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And they had originally employed a California
expert ?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And he failed to show up, or disappeared or some-
thing?
Mr. Schrunk. No. He was there at the time I agreed to take it,
and then for some reason or another disappeared.
Senator Mundt. He disappeared. So who did take the test ?
Mr. Schrunk. A member of the Oregon State Police.
668 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mttndt. A member of the Oregon State Police. Who is in
charge of the Oregon State Police ?
Mr. Schrunk. Mr. Fod Mason, the superintendent.
Senator Mtjndt. Does he work under the attorney general ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir, not directly. For the purpose of this inves-
tigation, they conducted the investigation.
Senator Mundt. So for the purposes of this investigation, he was
working under the direction of the attorney general, is that right?
Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You have no reason to believe that either the attor-
ney general or Mr. Mason are under the control of Mr. Elkins, have
you?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. So that you have no reason to believe that the test
was framed against you ?
Mr. Schrunk. Well, neither Mr. Thornton nor Mr. Mason gave the
test.
Senator Mundt. No ; but it was given by people that they selected
and in whom they had confidence, and the Oregon State Police, who
were under their control, they took it. You told me that you thought
the Oregon State Police would be a fine organization to have the tapes,
for example, if you put them in their hands, that it was a creditable
outfit.
Mr. Schrunk. I still think that, and I think it would be a wonderful
thing for this committee to bring Mr. Guydane and some of the people
we investigated back here.
Senator Mundt. You implied that the lie detector test that you have
already taken was framed. You have no evidence, as I understand it,
to convince the committee that either Mr. Thornton or Mr. Mason, of
the Oregon State Police, would rig up a lie detector test against you,
have you ?
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. Mr. Mason and Mr. Thornton
Senator Mundt. I want to clear the record on that. If you have it,
we want to know about it, and if you do not have it, we want to know
that.
The Chairman. The Chair will say without objection that a copy of
the affidavit to which the witness referred, the affidavit of Mr. Kichard
A. Sutter, will be placed in the record, since the witness referred to it,
and we will determine about the other documents after we have had
an opportunity to examine it.
(Document referred to follows:)
Statement of Richard A. Sutter, taken at the office of Mr. Raymond M. Kell,
attorney at law, Equitable Building, Portland, Oreg., at 10:30 a. m., November
3, 1956
Appearances: Mr. Raymond M. Kell, Mr. Terry D. Schrunk, Mr. George
Minielly
Richard A. Suiter, being first duly sworn by the notary public, testified as
follows :
My name is Richard A. Sutter, and I reside at 9545 North Clarendon Street.
I am employed by the city of Portland as a Portland police officer. I have been
with the Portland Police Department 3 years this month. I came here of my
own free will after reading the newspaper articles, and I wanted to clarify my
position in it, and there is something I think that I need to clear up. I would
also like to state that I have never had any conversations with anybody from
the Multnomah County sheriffs office until last night when I contacted Mr.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES rN THE LABOR FIELD 669
Minielly by telephone and requested that I be permitted to meet with he and
Sheriff Schrunk in order to make a statement to them in order to clarify my
testimony before the grand jury regarding an incident which took place in
Kenton the night that the 8212 Club was closed.
In my testimony before the Multnomah grand jury I told the grand jurors that
I had observed a person whom I thought to be Sheriff Schrunk pick up a package.
At the time that I made this statement to tbe Multnomah grand jury I believed
it was true, but after thinking it over and thinking about the incident more, I
am convinced I was mistaken in my identification, and the party that I saw was
definitely not Sheriff Schrunk. And, that is why I contacted Mr. Minielly, I
wanted to get it straightened up.
I was assigned to the north precinct January 1, 1954, as I recall the dates. I
am pretty sure that's correct. And, at that time I became aware of the fact
that a bootleg joint was running, or, at least, an alleged bootleg joint, and that
gambling was supposed to be being conducted in the Kenton area. It was at the
bus turn-around in Kenton on Denver Avenue.
I spent quite a bit of time— quite a few months there at the north precinct on
that occasion. I spent 3 months there on that occasion and was since trans-
ferred to other precincts on a training transfer. But, I ended up at north
precinct. And I spent some months at north precinct again. Then I trans-
ferred to three-wheelers and worked the downtown district for traffic. But, I
later transferred back to north precinct and worked second nights.
At the time I went back to north precinct — I can give you the date on that —
I was transferred back to north precinct the 18th of August 1955 from traffic. At
the time, I became aware that an alleged bootleg joint and a gambling place was
running at 8212 North Denver Avenue : that the commanding officers were aware
of the fact that it was running and the vice squad apparently was taking no
action on it whatsoever. And, I as a uniformed officer couldn't do much about it.
Anyway, it was the early part of September and I and my partner were at the
Night Hawk, my partner was having coffee and I was in the car listening to the
radio as required, and a party told me that the bootleg joint in Kenton was being
raided. So, I asked him if he would tell my partner to come out to the car, which
he did. My partner came out and we went down to see what was going on.
Well, we got there — first we just drove by and I spoke to — and we stopped
alongside a county car tbat was parked just in front of the door at 8212 North
Denver Avenue and I spoke to a county officer — I don't know his name — but we
just call him Bed. He is a big fellow. Anyway, we talked to this officer for a
second. And, he had, in his ear at that time, under arrest, 3 or 4 men. I am not
sure whether it was 3 or 4. But, anyway, there were 3 or 4 and they were appar-
ently under arrest. We then drove down to the turn-around in Kenton and drove
back up Denver Avenue and made a left-hand turn on to Kilpatrick Street and
stopped right on the corner of Kilpatrick and Denver where we could observe
what was going on on Denver and the corner of Denver and Kilpatrick.
The county police car left with the prisoners and I noticed that Sheriff Schrunk
was standing on the corner by a bicycle. And, pretty soon another one of our
cars — well, at that time we heard one of our cars get a call to meet the sheriff
there on the corner. And, the car showed up and took the bicycle and left.
Well, we left too and we changed positions there and I observed a — anyway, I
i-emember hearing this call came out — come out for one of our cars to come up
chere. And, it seemed odd that they sent the car from St. Johns clear out there.
We were the closest car. But, anyway, they sent this car from St. Johns to pick
up this bicycle. And the sheriff turned over a bicycle that apparently had been
stolen and dumped there on the corner and the officers took the bicycle and
they left.
We drove around a couple of blocks there or a block or so and came back up
and we parked on the northwest corner of Denver and Kilpatrick and we ob-
served Mr. — well, we observed the alleged operator— or, I will say that because
I don't know really who— I have been told that Slim Bennett ran the place. I
had been told that Slim Bennett was the man's name that ran the place.
I observed the fellow who did run the place whom I believe to be Slim Bennett
walk across the street. And, I certainly don't remember him walking diagonally
as the other account states in the paper because I think I would have pinched
him for jaywalking. But, anyway, I observed this Bennett by this telephone
poie and this drinking fountain. And, as I recall, he — at least it appeared that
lie bent down and placed something between the pole and the drinking fountain.
And then we observed another man whom at the time I believed to be Sheriff
Schrunk go over and it seemed that he picked something up there. And, what
670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
it was that this person picked up, I can't say. But, I told the grand jury in my
testimony that it was Sheriff Schrunk, and I believed at the time that it was
Sheriff Schrunk but since I have thought a lot about the thing and I have since
been convinced it wasn't the Sheriff at all, and I am not even sure whoever it
was picked, anything up there. And, that is the reason that I contacted Mr.
Minielly and wanted to talk to the sheriff was that I wanted to straighten it up
in that the newspaper account accuses the sheriff of picking it up and apparently
it comes from something that I have said.
In order to clarify the reason that I thought the man that went over and
picked this up was Sheriff Schrunk, was the fact that I thought that this place
at 8212 had indeed been raided, and no truck showed up to haul out any gambling
tables or no whisky was brought out of the place and I considered it improper.
And, being a policeman, maybe I had kind of a suspicious nature, I thought that
in view of the fact that the city apparently had wanted the place to run, allowed
it to run, I thought, and the sheriff hadn't hauled out the stuff, I thought that
there had been some kind of a payoff, or something. And, then when I saw
Bennett walk over there and apparently put something there and this man who
had come from the direction in which I had seen the sheriff standing before come
over and apparently pick something up, I thought that it was the sheriff and that
he had been bribed. That I jumped to the conclusion that it was the sheriff,
I am deeply sorry for the mistake that I made. That's why I come here, because
I didn't want to see that innocent person hurt over some statement I had made.
I just wanted to get the thing cleared up.
In following nights after this raid at 8212 North Denver, I was assigned to
the district and on many occasions when making a tour through Kenton and
checking around there I had observed county cars going through. I would also
like to state that this bootleg joint at 8212 North Denver never opened again,
to the best of my knowledge. I think I would have known it if they had opened
up until the time I was transferred, anyway. I know nothing ran after that.
I would also like to make a statement concerning the fact that I had been
ordered by superior officers to watch Sheriff Schrunk's home from August — just
a minute. That is a mistake — from February 27, 1956, until March 30, 1956. The
reason that I was assigned to watch the sheriff's house was that they were afraid
the sheriff would get up sometime during the night and leave his home and go out
and knock over some of their bootleg joints or gambling establishments or some of
their illegal enterprises, anyway, and that was the reason that I was assigned
to watch his home.
I was told at that time that I could work this assignment either with my own
car in plainclothes or with a city car and plainclothes or in uniform and an
unmarked city car, whichever I preferred.
I would like to state here that I didn't like my assignment and I didn't want
to — I didn't want it to appear that I had gone along with them in the thing,
inasmuch as taking it on myself to wear plainclothes and out-and-out spy on
the sheriff. I wore my uniform the whole time, used an unmarked car, but I
made a point to get acquainted with the sheriff's newspaper boy, the Oregonian
boy and his father, so that if at any time anybody came along, such as the grand
jury, who was big enough to do something about the things that had been going on
in the city, I would be able to testify and prove the fact that I was in the area.
Incidentally, this Oregonian carrier and his dad were not aware that I was watch-
ing the sheriff's house. I think it was on Sunday his dad would take him
around to deliver the paper. His name was Wesley.
My instructions were if the sheriff should get up at any time during the night
and leave his home I was to get to the nearest telephone, not use my radio, and
call the north precinct and report the fact that he was leaving, the apparent
purpose in that being that they could shut down any vice operations that were
running at the time before the sheriff had a chance to move in on it.
During this time I riled no regular reports of any police activity that I was
actually engaged in at the time. Any conversations regarding it between myself
and superior officers were verbal, sometime by phone and sometimes in person.
I think I might add here that the person that ordered me to this assignment
has since been indicted by the Multnomah grand jury and I have given all this
testimony to the grand jury.
I would also like to add that during the time that the State police were con-
tacting Portland police officers during the course of their investigation concern-
ing vice and corruption in Multnomah County and in Portland, and before my
appearance before the Multnomah County grand jury, that I had become aware of
the fact that my home was being watched and I felt it was by the Portland police
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 671
department. I was fearful for my wife and the safety of my home because, well,
it was simply because they didn't trust me and they were afraid that I was going
to talk to the grand jury.
I would just like to repeat again that the only reason that I am giving this
statement or talking about these incidents at all is because I feel that I was
mistaken in my testimony regarding Sheriff Schrunk before the Multnomah
County grand jury and that all I want to do is be an honest police officer and do
my job in the right manner. And I feel it is my duty as long as this incident on
which I testified before the grand jury has come out in the paper that it is my duty
as long as I realized that I made a mistake and — not only my duty, and my
obligation to state that I was mistaken.
And I would like to say again that I am positive that it was not the sheriff
and I am not even sure if anything was picked up by the party I did see.
I would like to repeat again that I have given this statement to Sheriff Schrunk
and Mr. Minielly voluntarily and without any threats or promises.
(Signed) Richard A. Sutter.
State of Oregon,
County of Multnomah, ss:
I, Jack Elliss, a notary public for Oregon, and an official reporter of the
United States District Court for the District Court of Oregon, hereby certify
that Richard A. Sutter personally appeared before me on Saturday, November 3,
1950, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 113, Equitable Building, Portland, Oreg. ; that said
deponent was by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, and then proceeded to give me a statement; that said testi-
mony of said deponent in said statement was taken down by me in stenotype
and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me, and the foregoing transcript,
pages 1 to 10, both inclusive, constitutes a full, true, and correct record of said
testimony given in said statement by said Richard A. Sutter.
Witness my hand and notarial seal at Portland, Oreg., this 3d day of November
1956.
(Signed) Jack Elliss.
My commission expires August 10, 1957, notary public for Oregon.
The Chairman. The witness may have to be recalled after lunch.
1 am not sure. But at this time, the Chair wishes to announce to you
that if you wish to carry out the understanding that you will take the
lie-detector test, that you report to Mr. Kennedy or someone of the
staff designated by him for that purpose.
So that the public will understand, and you, likewise, the staff has
to take this record, the transcript of this record, and get from it the
questions that have been asked you in order for the test to be made.
So it takes a little time. This is Friday, and I am not sure just how
soon it can be arranged, but it will be arranged at the earliest possible
time.
If there are no other questions, we will stand in recess until 2
o'clock.
(Members present at the taking, of the recess: The chairman, Sen-
ators Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p. m., the same day. )
AFTERNOON" SESSION
(The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m., Senator John L. McClellan
(chairman ) presiding. )
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan,
Ives, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
The Chairman. Before we resume testimony, the Chair will an-
nounce, and I overlooked it at the conclusion of this morning's ses-
sion, that a transcript of the testimony of Mayor Schrunk and those
89330— 57— pt. 2 16
672 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
other witnesses who testified directly in conflict to his testimony will
be transmitted promptly to the Department of Justice for possible
perjury prosecution.
I would say that the Justice Department in some instances where
there is just a conflict of testimony between two witnesses will have a
difficult job in resolving the veracity of the witnesses.
In this instance, however, I think there is opportunity for the Jus-
tice Department by pursuing the matter to find the correct answer
and then determine what its duty is with reference to prosecuting the
guilty.
Senator Mundt. I think we should also follow the same practice
we did with Mr. Zusman, inasmuch as Mr. Schrunk has requested the
opportunity to take a lie-detector test and we have made arrange-
ments for him to do so.
I think the results whatever they show should be in our record and
should be sent to the Justice Department.
The Chairman. The Chair announced that as a policy this morn-
ing and, of course, that will be done if the lie-detector test is taken.
The results of it will be transmitted as a part of the record and the
results of it will be actually placed in this public record.
All right, Mr. Chief Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. I was discussing a list this morning of about 35
places in the city of Portland which had operated since January 1,
1957. Could we have this made a part of the record ? I did not read
the whole list. I would like to also explain that where I have here,
"Type of business — house," it means house of prostitution and that
"calls" means call house and that Zusman here is Nat Zusman whom
we have had as a witness.
The Chairman. That may be printed in the record.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
673
(The list referred to follows :)
Partial list of "joints" operating in Portland, Oreg., since Jan. 1, 1957
Address or name
Operator
Type of business
When
operated
1. Bellevue Hotel, 308 Southwest 12th
Blanche Kaye
Marie Maynard
Libby and cab
drivers.
do
Do.
ington Sts.
3. 180 Southwest Morrison
do - -
"Calls"
Split shift-
Full time.
5. Victory (Snitzer), Northwest 6th at
Couch.
6. Evelyn. Southwest Morrison between
1st and 2d.
"House"
... do ..
Do.
Do.
W/Suzman
"Calls"....
"House"
"House" and liquor...
Do.
V Villa Rooms (felony arrest Feb. 25, 1957)..
9. Eric Caldwell (Rodnev & Cook— felony
arrest, Feb. 25, 1957).
10. Kave Hanson (apartment house calls-
left town in 1950 but came back in 1957).
11. Anne Greenough Northwest 24th and
Overton.
12. Nortonia Hotel (arrested Feb. 25, 1957)....
Do.
3 bellboys operat-
ing calls with
cabs.
Very large call busi-
Colored gambling and
whisky .
Freddie
Mary
Full time.
Colored gambling and
whisky.
do
do
Full-time "house"
"House," gambling
and whisky.
Oamhling and whisky
Gambing and 'whisky.
"house".
Gambling and whisky
....do
Armetta
Do.
Pearl
Full time.
Do.
Robbie and Otis..
Do.
Do.
do
Mamma
Jessie
.—.do
do .
Do.
"Weekdays.
Fowler
— . do
....do
Do.
Do.
30. 120 Northeast Multnomah
Hazel
"House"
.do
Full time.
Do.
32. 1170 North "Williams Court...
Liz
Poppa
Gam bling and whisky
do
Policy, chuck-a-l:ick,
and wheel.
Craps and illegal
whisky.
Do.
Hams and Russel.
with Seattle and Spokane gamblers.
The Chairman. Who is your witness?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clyde Crosby.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Mr. Crosby. I do.
The Chairman. Be seated.
TESTIMONY 0E CLYDE C. CROSBY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL.
WARREN E. MAGEE
The Chairman. Will you please state your name, your place of
residence and your business or occupation?
Mr. Crosby. My name is Clyde C. Crosby. My home is at 3815
Southeast Alder Street, Portland, Oreg. I am a paid organizer for
674 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, assigned to the State
of Oregon.
The Chairman. You have counsel with you ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, I do.
The Chairman. Counsel, will you please identify yourself?
Mr. Magee. My name is Warren E. Magee. I am a practicing
attorney here in Washington and my office is at 745 Shoreham Build-
ing, Washington, I). C.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Crosby, I think we have asked all of the other witnesses, the
principal witnesses, where we had information about it and I will ask
you a few of the same questions, and there may be others that should
be asked you. Is Clyde Crosby your name ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, it is.
The Chairman. Have you ever gone under any aliases?
Mr. Crosby. There was an incident at a time when I was 15 years
old involving my incarceration, where I used another name, yes, sir.
The Chairman. That was the name of Hardy ?
Mr. Crosby. Bob Harper.
The Chairman. Bob Harper?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In what State?
Mr. Crosby. The State of Arizona.
The Chairman Have you recently taken actions to expunge the
court records ?
Mr. Crosby. I made an application before the judge at Prescott,
Ariz., under the statutes provided in the courts of Arizona to have
this judgment set aside and declared null and void and that action
was favorably acted upon by the judge, yes, sir.
The Chairman. When was that action filed ?
Mr. Crosby. The exact date escapes me, but I believe it was in
August of last year.
The Chairman. In August of last year ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That case is now on appeal, I believe, is it?
Mr. Crosby. It is not on appeal, Mr. Chairman. The constitutional
period for appeal was allowed to go by. But Mr. Thornton, of the
State of Oregon, in a conversation with the attorney general of Ari-
zona persuaded the attorney general of Arizona to test the constitu-
tionality or right of the judge to take this action on a writ of certiorari,
as I am told.
The Chairman. Was the prosecuting attorney there notified, and
did he have any knowledge of the action or the State attorney general
at the time the action was taken ?
Mr. Crosby. I can only say this: The prosecuting attorney of
Yavapia County, I believe it is, was present in the courtroom during
the taking of all of the testimony, corroborative evidence, and during
the rendering of the decision.
The Chairman. You did serve a sentence ?
Mr. Crosby. Sir?
The Chairman. You did serve a sentence, did you ?
Mr. Crosby. In 1915.
The Chairman. At that time
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 675
Mr. Crosby. I beg your pardon. I was born in 1915 and this inci-
dent happened in September of 1938. I did serve 15 months; yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Mundt. Do we have in the record what this crime was or
what the judgment was, or why you went to jail ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I would dearly love to have an opportunity to
tell you the whole story, but I know you are not going to allow me
so I will simply state that I was with another man and we got hungry,
and this man went into a house and took some food.
Senator Mundt. It was a burglary charge ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. That is all I wanted.
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to read a para-
graph of my statement?
The Chairman. Just one moment, Senator Ives had some questions
he wished to ask you, and then, the Chair will permit you. As I
understand, the statement has been filed and examined under the rules.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby said something about part of the state-
ment and I am sure he wishes to read his whole statement.
Mr. Crosby. I had intended in the interest of time, to just read some
excerpts from it, Mr. Kennedy. If it is your desire and wish, of
course, I will have to read it all.
The Chairman. It is filed before the committee and the Chair has
not read it. I think probably you had better read all of it. Senator
Ives ?
Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Crosby a few questions before
he starts reading the statement. One of the things that we are a little
bit obscure about here is the connection which you, as a representative
•of the teamsters, have with the rank and file of teamsters.
Now, as I understand, you are the international organizer for the
teamsters international for the State of Oregon, is that correct?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Ives. Just what is your title ?
Mr. Crosby. I am the international organizer for the State of
Oregon, paid by and in the employ of the international. I would like
to go one little step further, if I may, and explain the particular under-
standing that exists with reference to my employment there.
Senator Ives. Go ahead. I am trying to find out what your con-
nection is.
Mr. Crosby. Thank you. Senator. Customarity the organizers in
the field work under the direction primarily of the vice president of
the region.
Senator Ives. Who is that ?
Mr. Crosby. Frank Brewster, sir.
Senator Ives. That is Brewster ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; he is one of the international vice presidents
and I consider him my immediate superior in the region.
Senator Ives. Is he the one that appointed you ?
Mr. Crosby. No. I think that he recommended me.
Senator Ives. Who appointed you ?
Mr. Crosby. Dave Beck, sir.
676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Ives. The president himself ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, but I would like to say this-
Senator Ives. Do you know where Mr. Beck is at the moment ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I don't.
Senator Ives. Go ahead.
Mr. Crosby. I would simply like to say this : That the term "organ-
izer" to some extent is superfluous, at least in my area. Many of my
duties were taken up with the problems of coordination, aid and assist-
ance to local union areas, and contract negotiations, meetings with
employers, and so on.
In general sense the understanding of the word "organizer" means
to get out and organize somebody. But actually, that was not the
case with me, only in unrelated periods, or occasional periods. Basical-
ly I did coordinating work.
Senator Ives. What you actually did do was organize locals, is it
not ? Was that not part of your work ?
Mr. Crosby. Organize locals ?
Senator Ives. Yes.
Mr. Crosby. I just cannot state that that is my job.
Senator Ives. You had no connection whatever with locals in any
way, shape, or manner ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I do.
Senator Ives. What is your connection with the locals?
Mr. Crosby. Well, the local unions in the State of Oregon — they
always get you when you have your hand at your mouth — the local
unions
The Chairman. They do that to us, too, but the Chair will admon-
ish them to take your pictures when you are composed.
Mr. Crosby. Thank you.
That of any particular weaknesses or problems, part of my work
has been to try to aid and strengthen them. Since I have been on
this work I made a study of the local unions in the State of Oregon
under trusteeship, and strongly recommended to my immediate su-
perior, Mr. Brewster, that we take immediate steps to put these locals
on their feet, to get them into shape financially and contractually
so that thev could be removed from trusteeship and officers elected.
Senator Ives. How long have they been under trustees?
Mr. Crosby. I believe when I took the job there were eight locals
in the State of Oregon under trusteeship.
Senator Ives. How many now ?
Mr. Crosby. Four, sir.
Senator Ives. Two-thirds of all of the teamsters in Oregon were
under trusteeship, is that right?
Mr. Crosby. No. sir. There are 2'3 operating local unions in the
State, sir. It has always been my intention and I have always worked
toward the point where ultimately they would all be removed from
trusteeship.
Now, there is one local union that has a little bit different situation
involved. That was a brand new local union composed of over-the-
road drivers, local pickup and freight drivers.
It was chartered off of another local union that was becoming
cumbersome in numbers and details and difficult to administer. At
my recommendation, the international issued a charter for those peo-
ple I just outlined.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 677
That local is under trusteeship theoretically for a period of 2
years to give it an opportunity to plant some roots and to familiarize
itself with the work that is necessary so that it can then handle its
own affairs.
Senator Ives. Just what is a trusteeship? I do not think that
you defined that.
Mr. Crosby. A trusteeship is a system applied either by request
or at the apparent need upon any local union that appears to be in
difficulties, either from bad management or from just plain inability
to cope with the problems in its area. It is not intended to be a strong-
arm method to control membership. It is simply intended to guar-
antee that the local does not disintegrate.
Senator Ives. Well now, in that connection. I want to ask you
this, if that is a local : What is the average membership in a local ?
Mr. Crosby. That fluctuates so bad, Senator, that it would be im-
possible for me to strike a figure. As an illustration, the local union
that I had at the time I took this job, I had approximately 6,300
members and it was probably the largest local in the State.
Now, that would vary from that point down to 250 or 300 and so,
on, scattered around the State.
Senator Ives. And you have 30 some locals in Oregon ?
Mr. Crosby. I believe, if I am not mistaken, and I wouldn't want
to be held to this, that as I recall I think that there are 23 functioning
local unions of the teamsters in the State of Oregon.
Mr. Kennedy. There are 21, 1 think.
Mr. Crosby. We consolidated 2 locals and made 1 out of it.
Senator Ives. It does not have much bearing on what I am trying
to drive at fundamentally. I want to find out how often they have
elections in these locals.
Mr. Crosby. These locals in trusteeship, as a general rule, do not
have elections.
Senator Ives. They do not have elections ?
Mr* Crosby. Well, let me put it this way, Senator: Until they are
taken out of trusteeship. Now, there was a departure from that pro-
cedure in one of the local unions that is of important interest to this
committee. That is local union 223 of which Mr. Hildreth is the
secretary.
A man by the name of Eddy Davis was the secretary prior to Mr.
Hildreth, taking it over. At that time that he was secretary, Mr.
Jack Schlaht, the secretary-treasurer of local 162 was the trustee of
that local union.
I am sure that the records will show that an election was held per-
mit ring the election of officers even though a trusteeship existed. I
think that was an arrangement strictly between Mr. Schlaht and
Mr. Davis.
But I am here to answer frankly that as a general rule elections are
not held in local unions, at least in my State where I am qualified to
speak, until the local union is considered to be in a position where it
can handle its own affairs autonomously.
Senator Ives. That means, does it not, that there are many instances
or some instances at least, where a local might not be considered ever
to be able to handle its own affairs.
Mr. Crosby. Well, if there was some underhanded desire to control
a local, perhaps that is correct, Senator. I can assure you that such
678 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
was not the feeling of the people in ( )regon. We wanted as soon as I
was in a position to influence the situation to get these locals out of
receivership and get them functioning on their own basis.
I think we have made a considerable amount of progress in that
direction.
Senator Ives. Now, just a minute on that. How often are your
elections held in those locals that are not in receivership ?
Mr. Crosby. That are not in receivership ?
Senator Ives. Yes; and most of them are not in receivership.
Mr. Crosby. The constitution provides, sir, that elective offices
shall be filled for not less than 3 years and not more than 5.
Now, local union's constitutions and bylaws are adopted by many
local unions and approved by the president of the international some-
times, provided for periods ranging from 3 to 5 years. But not in
excess of 5 and not under 3, as I understand it.
Senator Ives. Is there any such thing as a quorum required of those
voting in an election of that kind ? Say you have a local and you are
talking of this local of 6,000 you had in 'it,' or 6,300.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Ives. I want to ask you this about that : On that 6,300 basis,
how many would be a quorum and would have to vote in an election to
have the election held officially or legally.
Mr. Crosby. Our elections, Senator, are held this way : Notice is
published in our weekly paper that certain individuals' terms are up
for election. In the month of November, and in the month of De-
cember, nominations are held for elections to those offices, to anyone
who qualifies by virtue
Senator Ives. Where are the nominations held, in your hall ?
Mr. Crosby. They are held at the regular meetings, sir.
Senator Ives. At the meeting place ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Ives. At the union hall ?
Mr. Crosby. That is correct. During the month of November and
December the nominations are held at the regular meetings. Some
time after December, after the December meeting, usually a date
embracing a weekend whereby those people who are out of the city
during regular work but return home for weekends have an opportu-
nity to vote, there is usually a 3-day period.
An election board is set up and ballots printed and every member
in good standing is entitled and does take advantage to come in and
cast his vote for the candidate that he feels the best qualified and that
is the manner in which the election is held.
Senator Ives. Well, I am still trying to find out what your quorum
is. That is your process to have your election but what is your quorum
and what do you have to vote for a quorum ?
Mr. Crosby. We have a regular procedure for all meetings. In the
local union over which I had some supervision as a secretary, that
required a minimum of 50 people to be present before you could
transact business.
Senator Ives. In other words, you do not have to have a majority
present to transact business ; is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir. A majority of 6,000 would
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 679
Senator Ives. You would have over 3,000, that is what I am driving
at. I understand that is a pretty big union. But you said you have
unions of around 200 and 300.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Ives. That would be around 150 to 200 to make a majority
there. Now, what I am driving at is this: Do you have what you
consider to be democracy in your locals ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, we do.
Senator Ives. How do you get it ? I cannot see that anything you
have said describes it. How do you get it ?
Mr. Crosby. Are you referring to locals in trusteeship ?
Senator Ives. I am referring to locals in trusteeship, and locals out-
side of trusteeship. You cannot have a majority participating.
Mr. Crosby. Many attempts have been made by the officials of local
unions, Senator, to encourage interest in the meetings. As a matter
of fact, the locals at many and various times have instituted pro-
grams whereby they have door prizes and give someone free dues or
a turkey or something like that to encourage them to come to the
meetings.
I engaged in a study at the time I was the secretary of local 162, to
try to determine why it was that in the normal course of events
throughout the year, generally speaking our attendance was not as
high as it should be.
Senator Ives. To what do you attribute that ?
Mr. Crosby. I sent out our business agents, at that time I think
I had nine, and I asked them to ask the members this : What is the
matter with our meetings and why don't you come? Are we con-
ducting ourselves in a dry manner that makes it a dead evening, or
what do you want us to do to improve it ? And what do you suggest
we do to improve it ?
The answers basically and fundamentally summed up as follows:
"As long as you take care of our affairs, contractually and straighten
out our beefs and look out for our interests, we are not too worried.
We like to bowl and we like to go fishing and we like to swim."
They have many interests and a lot of our drivers make a fair
amount of money and they have other interests. But I would like to
point out, sir, before I am through that at every occasion when a con-
tract came up for discussion and negotiation, that is the time you could
coimt on nine-tenths of those people being present in the meeting.
They were there to look out for their interest and to make their
wishes known.
Senator Ives. If you did not carry out their wishes, you knew about
it; is that correct?
Mr. Crosby. I have been blamed many times, sir.
Senator Ives. I expected that that would be the answer you would
give to the question. It is a question of "letting George do it." The
members of the rank and file are perfectly happy and contented as
long as things go their way, as they see it ; is that not right ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I have never heard of things going their way
as they would like to have them. But for instance, a contract that
has finally reached some conclusive stage in negotiations and brought
back to them for discussion and voting invariably will have a minority
group. They don't necessarily like the provisions of that agreement
and would like to go back and get more.
680 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I have always followed a policy of trying to obtain as nearly as
much as they expect to get consistent with good business judgment
and recognition of the employer's problems.
At that time, when I felt I reached that point, I went back to the
membership, and I simply told them this :
There isn't anything more here that I can get by a selling job. Personally, I
feel that this is fair, equitable, and should be given serious consideration.
Outside of occasional one or two instances, I think that was sufficient
to close the matter, and I simply point out that even though the matter
was settled contractually, there was some segment who felt they didn't
get what they should have gotten.
Senator Ives. I have one more question. Is it not a fact that not
too many participate at times because of the work in which they are
engaged '. The teamsters do a lot of traveling and they cannot always
be in one spot. Does that not have something to do with it?
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; that is a problem at times. We have had to can-
cel meetings and reset them at a date that would permit the officials to
be in the meeting, and I think that has happened to me.
Senator Ives. The upshot of the whole thing is that, your locals
are where the primary work is done. I know a little bit about labor
organizations ; the home base is the local.
The upshot of the thing is that a majority of the members in the
locals are not participating. You have indicated that yourself, and
they are not participating tor one reason or another. I think that is
the answer that I was seeking.
Mr. Crosby. Well, I could sum it up this way, and I may be violently
castigated by some of my own colleagues, I don't know
Senator Ives. Be frank about this thing. I am looking at it from
a labor-relations standpoint,
Mr. Crosby. I simply feel this way, Senator, that a local union as
far as the members are concerned, and I have brought this matter up
before then many times, is a business. It is a business whereby the
member is a stockholder.
Now, at a stockholders meeting, unless something of major im-
portance comes up, many people stay away or give proxies. We don't
allow them to give proxies, but we do encourage every way that we
can, participation.
They just simply feel that the quality of the leadership is the pre-
dominant thing. If it is sufficient to merit their confidence they would
just as scon bowl or take the wife to a show as to come down and listen
to some dry statistics about the cost of living and political problems
and so on.
Now, I don't know the answer to that.
Senator Ives. On that point, let me interrupt you. You might be
interested to know that at one time, and this was some time ago, legis-
lation was considered, not seriously but it was considered, which
would require in labor organizations and the locals that a certain per-
centage of the membership to participate in elections, and that elec-
tions to be held periodically over a period of time.
That same legislation would have applied to corporations because
you cannot treat labor one way and corporations another way. That
w is '•oiisidered at one time. The legislation was designed to encour-
age the individual members of local unions to participate in union
elections.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 681
Mr. Crosby. We attempted to institute that same general type of
procedure by passing a motion in meetings to amend our constitution
and bylaws making it mandatory that the members attend at least
one meeting a quarter.
Some of our "sea" lawyers in our membership, and there are a lot
of them who know the business as well as we do and some of them
probably better, have pointed out that they are protected by the Taft-
Hartley law and would not have to face any sort of penalty in the
ewent that they choose to disregard such a rule.
Now, I would be tickled to death if legislation was passed that
made it mandatory for members of local unions to attend their meet-
ings at reasonable periods of time consistent with the other problems
that the normal man has.
I don't say he should be in every meeting, but I think that he should
be there at least two or three times a year to find out what is going on.
Senator Ives. He should certainly attend the annual meetings?
Mr. Crosby. They always attend annually if a contract is in there.
Senator Ives. I am talking about when you have your elections.
Those are annual meetings and sometimes they are every 3 years, you
say, or 5 years. Whenever those meetings are held, they ought to be
there; is that right?
Mr. Crosby. I beg your pardon ; I didn't understand.
Senator Ives. Each member should be present who possibly can be
present at every meeting where is an election.
Mr. Crosby. Sir, we have worked at that extremely hard, that is, to
get that very type of thing going. Many people are just lazy and they
say, "Well, Jack Jones has done a good job, and he is going to be re-
elected. Why should I get out of bed and go down and vote?"
It is a question just like you stated, to "let George do it" to a certain
extent.
Senator Ives. What would you think of that kind of legislation* I
suggested here ? You seem to indicate that you would kind of like it.
Mr. Crosby. I like any legislation that I think is constructive.
Senator Ives. Is that constructive, to force people by law to attend
meetings? I don't think it is, and that is why the idea was dropped.
Mr. Crosby. I didn't say that. I am getting in over my head.
Senator Ives. I think that you will agree that one of your problems
in the teamsters is the fact that the rank and file of your members do
not participate sufficiently in your organization. If you have any trou-
ble, it is due to that.
That is your basic trouble.
Mr. Crosby. All I can answer for, sir, is the State of Oregon. I
think that the percentage of participation is relatively high compari-
son nvise.
Senator Ives. But that is verv small, actuallv: vou just indicated
that.
M r. Crosby. That is the only area that I am qualified to speak on.
Senator Eves. You have indicated yourself it is very, very small,
actually. I am not talking about the State of Oregon. I am talking
about the participation.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Ives. Thank you very much.
The Chairman'. Mr. Crosby, you have a statement that you filed
with the committee and vou say vou desire to read. The Chair will
682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
permit you to read the statement in full or if there is any part of it.
as you approach it, you desire to withdraw for reasons that you may
state, you may withdraw it.
If you read the statement, anything that you leave in the record
will be under oath as a part of your testimony and if it is true, why it
will be true, and if it is not true, then you would have to take the
responsibility for it.
I am making that statement because I have read some from the first
page of your statement and, apparently, you realize that. So as you
read it, if you come to some part you wish to withdraw because you are
not sure it is true, and do not want to testify to it under oath, you may
indicate that part and the committee will pass on it.
All right, you may read your statement.
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a question.
Would you permit me to read the parts that I have left in the state-
ment with the blanket request that the rest of it remain out?
The Chairman. Well, let me ask you this: You have submitted
this statement to us. Why are you now wanting to withdraw some
parts of it ?
Mr. Crosby. For the simple reason, sir, that I got up at 3 o'clock
this morning and dictated this statement to my wife and I was in a
depressed state of mind. Since I have been here, and I have been
here since February 25, waiting for an opportunity to testify. I don't
feel that some of these statements are now appropriate, sir.
The Chairman. All right, the Chair is going to let you read such
parts of it as you want to read.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I make a statement there, Mr. Chairman?
This statement was submitted about 2 weeks ago, I believe, or 10 days
or 2 weeks ago, and it was also distributed to the press at that time.
It was within 3 or 4 days of the time I received it and so it has had
public consumption and Mr. Clyde Crosby submitted it as a state-
ment that he was going to read at the hearing.
Whatever he wants to do — if he wants to withdraw some of it if it is
untrue — that is fine.
The Chairman. The Chair is going to permit him to read such
parts of it as he wishes to read. He can withhold reading such parts
as he now thinks he does not want to read, but on any part of the
statement filed with the committee, the witness would be subject to
interrogation about it.
All right, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not have any other copies of it now, do you,,
that we could distribute generally ?
Mr. Crosby. No ; I don't, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Crosby. I respectfully request that I be given an opportunity
to make this statement prior to my being questioned as a witness. I
wish to state that it is my earnest desire to answer any and all ques-
tions that your honorable committee proposes to ask me if I am able
to do so.
The Chairman. Now, at the points where you skip, I wish that
you would pause and indicate so we can follow you. It is going to be
difficult unless you do that.
Mr. Crosby. I would give you the corrected statement, sir, willingly.
after I have read it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 683
The Chairman. We have the statement here and we will follow
it. This is just so we <l<> not go along and when we get through
try to question you about something we are not sure is in your state-
ment or out of it.
The last words you used were, "to do so."
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, now, anytime you come to a stop where
you want to skip indicate then you are skipping down to another
place so we can indicate it. It is to help us follow you, and the record
is being made.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. From the words, "do so," I have skipped
down to the words, "the Oregonian newspaper," which is in the middle
of the sentence.
Mr. Chairman. All right.
Mr. Crosby. The Oregonian newspaper, Big Jim Elkins, local head
of Portland's underworld syndicate, and some members of the Port-
land city government now holding office as well as former members
of city government not now holding office are responsible for these
indictments.
Apparently I have overlooked the statements, sir, that I am pres-
ently under four indictments in Portland, Oreg. What I did, I acci-
dentally passed it up.
May I go back over it, sir ?
The Chairman. Let me suggest that you read your statement. I
have already found difficulty with it. I cannot tell when you are
reading and when you are not.
Mr. Crosby. There is only a little more crossed out and then I will
be reading it verbatim.
Senator Mundt. It would be simpler to me if he would read the
whole statement and then, having read something he does not want
in the record, he can say, "I will ask the previous sentence be deleted,"
because I am getting entirely lost.
The Chairman. I cannot follow it.
Let us start from the beginning.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Start at the top and let us go.
Mr. Crosby. I respectfully request that I be given an opportunity
to make this statement prior to
The Chairman. Where do you go down to there ?
Mr. Crosby. Strike the rest of the sentence, "prior to being ques-
tioned as a witness."
Senator Mundt. That is not very important business to be bother-
ing the committee with for a half hour. All you have stricken out
is. "prior to the period that lies ahead," and that does not indict you.
Mr. Crosby. I have stricken some other stuff out, Senator.
Senator Mundt. I see. I am just trying to follow what you have
stricken out.
The Chairman. The Chair is not going to require the witness under
oath to testify to something he does not want to testify to. But you
certainly have placed a difficult problem here before the committee to
try to follow your testimony.
Mr. Crosby. I believe now, sir, I can go through it without bungling
the job.
684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. All right, I hope you can. Let us go on.
Mr. Crosby. Four indictments are presently lodged against me ill-
Portland, Oreg. Strike the rest of it down to "The Oregonian news-
paper."
The Oregonian newspaper, Big Jim Elkins, local heads of Port-
land underworld syndicate, and some members of the Portland city
goverment now holding office as well as former members of city gov-
ernment not now holding office — strike the words, "are responsible for
these indictments.'' I am striking the rest of the paragraph.
I would like to first point out some of the problems faced locally
by the teamsters in their fight with the underworld since the middle
of the year 1954.
The Chairman. Where is that ? That is not on the first page, is it \
Mr. Crosby. Yes, it is on the lower portion of the page, Senator.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Mundt. You are striking out a sentence there that appealed
to me very greatly. You said :
It is my intention to try to comply in every way with the desires of the com-
mittee.
Are you striking that out ?
Mr. Crosby. I have already said it before, Senator, and I think that
I duplicated that in the start.
Senator Mundt. I was hoping you would leave that in.
Mr. Crosby. I am sure that you will find me a willing witness.
Senator.
The Chairman. You state here, or this you are leaving out, '"realiz-
ing I am under oath, I wish to state that in a few short words," I just
want you to realize you are under oath. Now proceed.
Mr. Crosby. It is a well known fact that the teamsters have been
active in politics in a desire to support candidates from a local, State,
and Federal standpoint who have a liberal point of view to the extent
of giving labor a fair deal.
The situation in which I am presently involved in my opinion, began
after the primary elections in 1954. Prior to the primary, the team-
sters as wTell as other segments of organized labor endorsed for the
position of district attorney, the incumbent, John McCourt. During
the period between the primaries and the general election in the fall,
it came to my attention as well as other members of the teamsters
union that Mr. McCourt's campaign, at least to some extent, was finan-
cially supported by James B. Elkins, head of the syndicate, and for
this reason efforts were made on my part to confirm this.
The Chairman. Just one moment there. I do not want to interrupt
much. I want to bear that date in mind, back in 1954. That came to
your attention ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, after the primary.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Crosby. I received what I believed to be sufficient information
to constitute confirmation of this fact and, as a result, I took the lead
in turning the support away from McCourt to his rival, William
Langley.
When this activity on the part of the teamsters came to attention of
the public generally, I received a visit in my office from James B..
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 685
Elkins at which time he endeavored to convince me that we should
again make a change and return our support to Mr. McCourt.
I did not agree to his request and he appeared to be unhappy about
it. During the last few weeks before the election, the teamsters by
their own choice as far as I am concerned, conducted an all-out effort
to win support for Mr. Langley.
At the general election in November of 1954, Mr. Langley was elected
district attorney of Multnomah County. In the fall of 1954, the
teamsters engaged in a campaign to organize the people employed in
amusement business which included music machine routes and pinball
game routes.
It is estimated by the teamsters that approximately 125 to 150 people
were employed directly or indirectly in this business.
In the process of contacting employers and employees, I was made
aware of the fact that Mr. Elkins was not only the owner and operator
of a pinball route of substantial size, but in addition, his machines were
located in the recreational part of a building that housed many labor
organizations other than teamsters.
In the building known as the Portland Labor Temple. I use
Senator Mundt. You mean other than teamsters, or in addition to
teamsters? Were the teamsters in that building, too?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir; the teamsters had their own building.
Senator Mundt. Very good.
Mr. Crosby. I used my influence to keep Mr. Elkins from entering
the teamsters union because by that time I was aware of his activities
in the underworld. I even made it known that I was incensed because
Mr. Elkins could operate these machines in Portland Labor Temple
and suggested they should be thrown out in the street.
Elkins made at least one attempt to go over my head to gain admit-
tance to the teamsters.
Mr. Chairman, I strike out the word, "and following."
The Chairman. You strike out the words, "and he was not success-
ful'"?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I just strike out the one word, "and." He was
iiot successful. In tlie meantime, we began to make headway in or-
ganizing other members of this particular field. Two of the largest
operators, Mr. Stan Terry and Mr. Lou Dunis, I feel made the strong-
est efforts to resist organizing their companies. One day early in the
year of 1955, Mr. Stan Terry called on me and informed me that he
had purchased the pinball route formerly owned by Jim Elkins.
At that time I was suspicious and did not believe him. I regarded
this as an attempt on the part of Mr. Elkins to get into the teamsters
union indirectly with Mr. Terry as a front man. Mr. Terry insisted
vehemently that he had purchased Mr. Elkins' route and that it was
his property only.
It was perhaps ft weeks or 2 months before I began to believe that
Mr. Terry was telling the truth. In March of 1955, the teamsters
union accepted Mr. Terry and Mr. Dunis' people into the union and
a labor agreement was formalized and signed.
Shortly thereafter, City Commissioner Stanley Earl, who had orig-
inally— and Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that I was incorrect in
stating the year 1951 and I am correcting it to 1953 with your per-
mission.
The Chairman. That permission is granted.
686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. Who had originally, in 1953, offered and supported an
ordinance to permit the licensing of pinball machines in Portland
began a strong and strenuous attack upon the pinball industry in the
city.
Even though I knew that pinball issue in the city of Portland was
one of constant controversy, over a period of several years, I was also
aware that the pinball industry enjoyed a legal status in the State of
Oregon and if not a legal status in the city of Portland, at least a
quasi-legal status inasmuch as the controversy was in the State courts
and the United States Supreme Court and no effort was being made
to keep these games from the public by the police department.
It is my wish to point out that I was quite surprised by the violent
attack upon the pinball industry by Commissioner Stanley Earl, so
soon after Mr. Elkins had disposed of his financial interest in that
industry.
And in view of the fact that for such a long period of time prior,
he had been friendly to employers in that industry. I called upon him
as an official from the teamsters union which represented the em-
ployees working in the industry and asked him why he had undertaken
such a strong change of mind "about this problem.
He did not base his objections to this industry upon principle but
instead explained that there was some individuals in the industry that
he was going to get no matter what.
The Chairman. Why did you call upon him?
Mr. Crosby. Senator, I called upon him to ask him why he had
changed from someone friendly to the industry to one who was now
advocating the elimination of the industry.
The Chairman. Go ahead. I did not want to interrupt you.
Mr. Crosby. Never has it been my intention or desire to either criti-
cize or villify a city official who takes a position based on honest opin-
ion, but I didn't feel this was the case with Commissioner Earl. I
received numerous statements from people who knew the industry
better than I, that Mr. Earl's attack was, in reality, the work of Mr.
Elkins, who was determined to get rid of any pinball machines as long
as he could not control them.
I informed Mr. Earl that I didn't believe his position to be a valid
one, and that we felt the teamsters would support a different candidate
when he came up for reelection.
The Chairman. Were you taking the position — I cannot help but
ask this question — were you taking a position that the teamsters wanted
the pinballs to run, and that they would support any candidate who
would favor running them as against one who opposed their operation ?
Mr. Crosby. Not necessarily, Senator.
The Chairman. That is what you imply from this language. You
were representing the teamsters ?
Mr. Crosby. Sir?
The Chairman. You were representing the teamsters and speaking
for the teamsters, according to your statement.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, that is correct.
The Chairman. All right. Go ahead.
Senator Mundt. Let us follow through on that a little bit, Mr.
Crosby.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELL 687
I informed Mr. Earl that I did not believe his position to be a valid one.
His position was that he wanted the pinballs closed up, is that correct?
Mr. Crosby. His position had changed extremely fast, from a
friendly advocate for the industry to one of advocating elimination;
yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. That is right. At the time that he came to you, his
position was one of opposition to pinballs, maybe a recent position he
had taken, but it was at that time his position, is that right?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, at the time described.
Senator Mundt. You went to him ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And you told him that you did not feel that his
opposition to pinballs was a valid position, and that consequently you
had to support a different candidate; is that correct?
Mr. Crosby. That was substantially it, although I would like to
say this, Senator, that Mr. Earl and I had had some brushes on other
subjects relating to the entrance of organized labor which I will be
happy to go into at time you want to take apart on this statement.
Senator Mundt. Yes. Well, we may come to that.
The point I am trying to clarify in my own thinking here is that
you have said that your reason for dropping your support of Mr.
Earl, and giving your support to a different candidate was that as
international representative of the teamsters union, you wanted the
pinballs to operate, and he wanted them to close, so you had to support
somebody who would permit their operation. That is what it adds
up to at this point. You may have another reason, but that is a factor.
Am I right?
Mr. Crosby. To the extent that you have described it, although there
is more to it.
Senator Mundt. Yes. I do not know what else there is, but there is
that part.
All right.
Mr. Crosby. From that time on, Mr. Earl has engaged in many
attacks on the teamsters union in an effort to discredit its leadership.
During this same general period of time, I considered myself fortunate
to enjoy a cordial and friendly relationship with the mayor's office.
In July of 1954, I was appointed by Mayor Peterson as a member
of the exposition and recreation commission, 1 of 5 members empow-
ered to build a multipurpose sports facility and to operate the same.
This appointment also required the commission to select the site, pur-
chase the land, and supervise the construction.
In 1955, around the middle of the year, it became evident to me
that some elements of organized labor were extremely unhappy with
Mayor Peterson's administration.
Out of a feeling for friendship for Mayor Peterson, I endeavored
to determine the cause of this trouble. In a discussion with Mr. Russ
Conger, a Portland police detective and an official of the policemen's
union, I was informed that he hoped the teamsters were not going to
support Mayor Peterson for reelection. He also stated that a great
many members of the Portland police department would be quietly
working to insure Mayor Peterson's defeat. Upon inquiry from Mr.
Conger — from me, rather — Mr. Conger gave as his reasons for this
expected activity the fact that Chief of Police Jim Purcell, Jr., was
completely unresponsive to the legitimate complaints of the Portland
89330—57 — pt. 2 17
688 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Policeman's Union. He also stated that the contract covering the pur-
chase of uniforms for the personnel of the police department had
been changed from an eastern supplier to a local firm; and, as a
result, the cost for the uniforms remained the same but the quality-
had deteriorated considerably, necessitating greater expense to the
personnel.
The implication was that there was something irregular about this
transaction. I asked Mr. Conger why he didn't talk to the mayor, and
he stated that it was not proper for him to go over his chief's head.
I told Mr. Conger that I would bring this matter to the attention
of Mayor Peterson, which I did in a matter of 2 or 3 days.
I called upon the mayor and pointed out what I felt was a bad situ-
ation, and might cost him support in the coming election. He indi-
cated that he had confidence in his chief of police, Mr. Purcell, but he
also stated that he would be happy to talk to Mr. Conger.
Some time later I met Mr. Conger again, and I asked him if things
had improved any. He stated that he had talked to the mayor, but
that in his opinion it hadn't changed anything in the slightest. Con-
currently I was experiencing some difficulty as a member of the ex-
position and recreation commission. Five members of this commis-
sion were having difficulty in their efforts to come to an agreement as
to the location for his multipurpose sports facility.
In private discussions with Mayor Peterson, he indicated that he
favored the same central type of location that I did, but his views as
reflected in a public way were something different. I regarded this
peculiar thinking as an act of political expediency, but I was not
exactly pleased about it.
Several times during this period of time, Mr. Elkins mentioned an
increasing interest in the teamsters political activity, and it became
apparent to me that by one way or another it was his intention to
try to control the policy of the teamsters.
Although I knew something of Mr. Elkins' background, by that
time, I did not know that his influence within the city was as wide-
spread as it turned out to be.
In addition to his desire to tell us who he wanted us to support for
election to various offices, he also proposed using teamster economic
strength through picket lines to shake down taverns and cocktail
lounges.
I dismissed his ideas and him personally from the Teamster Build-
ing and considered his desires to be those of a crackpot.
One day while driving in the city I had occasion to accidentally see
Mr. Elkins and Chief of Police Jim Purcell, sitting in an automobile
on Southwest First Avenue in the vicinity of Morrison Street. In
order to verify what I had seen in a passing moment, I circled the
block, drove by the automobile again, and confirmed the identity of
the two individuals. This, together with the other situation described,
prompted me to call on the mayor again, at which time I complained
about the apparent freedom that Mr. Elkins had in his efforts to
intimidate people. I also cited that it seemed to me that he had too
much influence with the police department,
I complained to Mayor Peterson about these things, and even sug-
gested a new chief of police might better control Mr. Elkins' activities.
Mayor Peterson informed me that he didn't even know Mr. Elkins,
and that he didn't intend to let anyone tell him how to run the city.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 689
When Mayor Peterson disclaimed any knowledge of the identity of
Mr. Elkins, a man who had controlled vice generally in the city of
Portland for many years, I began to think of and believe some of the
disquieting reports that Mr. Elkins had some influence with Mayor
Peterson.
Taxicab drivers in the city of Portland were subjected to intimida-
tion by members of the Portland police and vice squad, and were told
that when delivering customers to houses of prostitution, gambling
dens, or other illegal liquor joints, if they wished to continue to drive
a cab in the city they must take their prospective customers to these
establishments controlled by Elkins and on his approved list.
It was common knowledge that any of these types of houses that
tried to operate without paying tribute to Mr. Elkins never functioned
very long before being raided by the police department.
At the same time, Mr. Elkins' establishments operated regularly,
with the exception of occasional raids, of which Mr. Elkins had prior
knowledge and, therefore, was able to salvage expensive equipment.
Someone representing Mr. Elkins would pay a nominal fine, which
made good statistics in the vice-enforcement record for the city.
. Instances where cabdrivers have lost their licenses to drive and also
have been beaten up when they attempted to defy the orders of Elkins
are a matter of record in the taxicab drivers union in Portland, and
can be verified by Lou Lampert, who formerly was manager for the
Radio Cab Co. in Portland, Oreg.
I began to receive veiled threats from Mr. Elkins that I had better
cooperate with his wishes, or things would not go well with me. I was
beginning to become incensed by the situation, and I took steps in my
own organization to change the political thinking about Mayor Peter-
son's administration. It became generally known that in the city,
that the teamsters would support a candidate other than Mayor Peter-
son, and then the pressure was really on.
A number of times while I was out of the city on business, my wife
and children were subjected to various types of phony telephone calls,
instances where no one would answer, and other times when someone,
unidentified, would make unintelligible remarks, that caused my wife
to become concerned.
On two occasions, while sleeping in a hotel room many miles away
from home, I received telephone calls from my wife, who was terrified
because someone was stamping on the porch, rattling the doors, or
prowling around the house.
Because of these things, I purchased a gun and left it at home. I
instructed my wife that if these things continued to occur, she should
point the gun out the window, up in the air, and fire once or twice on
the assumption that this would be sufficient to scare anyone away.
Purchase of the gun served as the basis for one of the indictments
presently existing in Portland. I didn't try to keep the information
secret that I had purchased a gun. As a matter of fact, I made it gen-
erally known, for I wanted Mr. Elkins to know about it, and I
promptly applied for a permit at the sheriff's office in the event I felt
it would be necessary to protect myself from attack from any of Mr.
Elkins' strong-arm squad.
When Mr. Terry Schrunk announced his candidacy for mayor, the
teamsters enthusiastically supported him for election, as did all other
labor, I would like to add as an afterthought. I made it known to
690 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Sclmmk that the teamsters desired only one thing from him if
he was successful and that was that we hoped that under his admin-
istration he would end Mr. Elkins' stranglehold on the city.
The results since the election of Mayor Schrunk's administration
have proved conclusively to the teamster organization that Mr. Elkins'
empire is fast tumbling due to a far greater and higher degree of
law enforcement.
However, prior to the election, and in the hopes of maintaining
Mayor Peterson, James Elkins quietly prepared a campaign to make
crooks and racketeers out of the teamster officials, thereby hoping to
completely discredit our organization and to insure the continuation
of the administration in office at that time, knowing full well that if
he was successful it would also insure his continued prosperity.
I began to get reports that teamster organizations in Oregon were
under intensive investigation, and many rumors came to me that Clyde
Crosby was going to "get his."
Mr. Elkins and his friends, both in and out of public office, ac-
quired the knowledge that 26 years ago, at the age of 15, I had been
sentenced to prison in Arizona and served a term of 13 months. This
provided his organization with an excellent device for blackmail, and
I was invited to make a choice : Either change the teamsters support
back to Mayor Peterson and become a tool of Elkins' organization,
or I would be faced with some real trouble. I have it.
Mr. Elkins' influence has extended into many facets of public life.
There are many reports that he can control some members of the
judges' bench, in circuit courts as well as in at least one instance the
State supreme court. Also, there are reports that he had considerable
influence with some members of the press, as well as practically having
the run of the city from the standpoint of the police department,
through his unusual friendship with Chief of Police Purcell.
His close association with Commissioner Earl has resulted in his
enjoying at least some influence with some members of the press in
Portland.
As an illustration, there is in Portland a club known as the Bourbon
and Ham Club, of which a goodly number of newspaper people are
members. For these functions, Commissioner Earl furnishes plenty
of liquor and food free of charge to the members of his club. In ad-
dition, suitable insignia pins were made available for the members to
wear if they so desire.
Reliable reports strongly indicate that the cost of underwriting
this type of thing was borne bv Mr. Dan Tomes and Mr. James B.
Elkins.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Tomes, that is a new name. Will you tell us
who he is?
Mr. Crosby. I believe he is the present operating manager or owner
of the Western Club in the city of Portland.
Senator Mundt. Is he a partner or business associate of Mr.
Elkins?
Mr. Crosby. I can only go on what I have received by way of re-
ports. I am told that he is close to Mr. Elkins, and that there is even
some report that they have a joint financial interest. I don't feel
qualified to state that as a fact.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 691
Two of the people whom I believe to be quite prominent in this
club, and the press club, are William Lambert and Wallace Turner,
who, jointly along with Mr. Elkins, are my chief accusers.
When it became apparent to James Elkins that his attempts to black-
mail and intimidate the teamsters was a failure, in April of 1956, just
prior to the primary elections, a vicious attack spearheaded by the
Oregonian Publishing Co. was launched against the teamsters. Every
conceivable effort has been made by this newspaper to convict me and
the teamsters generally in the eyes of the public of being the true rul-
ers of the underworld and vice generally, including gambling, opera-
tion of afterhours liquor establishments, prostitution, and so forth.
The motive of this attack was primarily political, but after it was
started, it became something that neither the teamsters could cope
with nor the Oregonian completely control.
I requested that Governor Smith assign the attorney general to
come into Portland for the purpose of conducting a complete and un-
biased investigation, which assignment was made.
I freely gave testimony before the Multnomah County grand jury,
in an effort to be of assistance, and a great many other people were
interrogated as a result of this investigation.
(At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Crosby. During the course of this investigation, it became
apparent to me that a great deal of background maneuvering was go-
ing on, and when the investigation was concluded, and I was indicted
on four separate counts.
I have stricken out about five words there. Senator.
Senator Muxdt. At this point in the record, will you indicate what
those four counts were ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; I think I can substantially tell you. One is a
conspiracy to be in some sort of a land deal with Jim Elkins, relating
to a site for the exposition and recreation commission.
One is an illegal gun charge having to do with the fact that I did
have a gun, and relating back to the Arizona incident when I was 15
years old.
The other two indictments were picket-line cases, where some un-
usual— let me say this : The two cases, one of them involves extortion,
attempting to extort, a pecuniary advantage — whatever that is, I don't
know — and the other one is — very frankly, Senator, I have lost it
Senator Mundt. Was one of the picket-line cases
Mr. Crosby. The other one is the Deacon Tavern case, whereby we
were involved in a dispute with the American Shuffleboard Co.
Senator Mundt. Was one of them in connection with the Mount
Hood Cafe?
Mr. Crosby. I think that is true, sir ; yes, sir.
One example of the Oregonian's inability to completely control the
course of the investigation became evident when the individual they
sought to protect, namely, Mr. James Elkins, was also indicted on
something like 15 different counts. This brought about a situation, in
my opinion, whereby the Oregonian viciously. opposed the reelection
of Attorney General Thornton who conducted this investigation.
Although these indictments were returned last August 1956, at least
in my case, none has been brought to trial as yet. The Oregonian recog-
692 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
nized and describes Mr. Elkins as merely a night-club bankroller and
fringe operator, while his record with the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation indicates a much more sinister background.
In addition to the indictments Mr. Elkins faces on a State level, he
has been indicted on nine separate counts of violation of Federal
law dealing with illegal wiretapping. One of his greatest mediums
for blackmail is this particular held of wiretap.
It is not merely the intercepting and divulging of telephone con-
versations that he indulges in, but he also has quite a flair for editing
and taking out of context conversations that he inserts for the purpose
of completely changing the meaning of the conversation to make it ap-
pear incriminating against his proposed victim.
It is my firm conviction that this type of activity, together with his
ability to persuade people to perjure themselves, and his own perjured
testimony, constituted the evidence that resulted in the returning of
the existing indictments against me by the Multnomah County grand
jury-
It is my complete and honest opinion that an extremely unusual
relationship exists between Mr. Elkins and the two Oregonian re-
porters, Mr. Turner and Mr. Lambert. Even at this time it is obvious
to me that they are working very closely together in an effort to make
the teamsters appear as the racketeers and to hide the nefarious ac-
tivities of Mr. Elkins, or at least to minimize them to a degree of no
consequence.
I have requested permission to tell this story prior to entering into
thorough interrogation by your honorable committee because I feel
that it is the only way I can make my side of the story known to you.
I sincerely hope — and I have struck out a very large paragraph, and
I am starting down with the last paragraph. Senator.
The Chairman. Is that on the last page ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Crosby. I sincerely hope that this statement to this committee
will serve to bring about a complete and extensive — or, rather, in-
tensive^— impartial investigation of the vice conditions as they really
existed in the city of Portland.
The Chairman. All right, sir.
Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
(Members present at this point: The chairman and Senators Mc-
Namara, Munclt, and Goldwater.)
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Crosby
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy, may I make one very small statement,
just a short statement?
Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to make one short statement?
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have another statement ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir; just verbally.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Crosby. I just want to say that for several days I have listened
to charges by Mr. Elkins that I participated in a land-fraud scheme as
a partner with him. I want to go on record as denying that. I had no
such scheme. I was not a part of it. I am prepared to state the case
as frankly and as clearly as I can in an effort to establish that.
Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps before we start, you could give us a little
bit of your background, Mr. Crosby.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 693
You were born where ?
Mr. Crosby. I was born in Berkeley, Calif., July 4, 1915.
Mr. Kennedy. And you lived there how long ?
Mr. Crosby. I lived there until I was 2 years old, at which time my
parents moved to Denver, Colo.
Mr. Kennedy. And you stayed there how long ?
Mr. Crosby. I stayed there until approximately 1932, and the Ari-
zona incident is involved in that interval.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other trouble with the law during
that period of time ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; I did. I was sent to the State industrial school
for boys, I think, when I was 12 years old.
Mr. Kennedy. And this later incident occurred when you were 15;
is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. The later incident occurred when I was 15 ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you moved from Colorado in 1932 ?
Mr. Crosby. Allowing for the
Mr. Kennedy. Roughly.
Mr. Crosby. Roughly, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you move to then ?
Mr. Crosby. I moved back to Oregon, the place of my parents' origi-
nal home, where they were married, and we settled in Oregon City.
I was in the CCC camp for the constitutional limit of 18 months. I
went to work in a paper mill in 1935, at West Linn, Oreg., Crown
Zellerbach Corp.
I developed a lung condition at that place of employment due to the
sulfuric acid floating around in the air when they blow off these big
digester pots.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did you stay there ?
Mr. Crosby. How long did I work there ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Crosby. It was seasonal work. I worked there from 1935 until
1938, 1 think.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you first join the teamsters union ?
Mr. Crosby. I joined the teamsters union in, I believe, September
of 1941.
Mr. Kennedy. And when did you become an officer of the teamsters
union ?
Mr. Crosby. I became an officer in July of 1950, if you would describe
a dock checker as an officer. That was the first full-time work that
I was employed at for the teamsters Union.
Mr. Kennedy. When you were with the teamsters, you were always
in the State of Oregon ; were you ?
Mr. Crosby. Do you mean my work kept me in the State ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Crosby. No. I was working
Mr. Kennedy. Your headquarters were in the State of Oregon ?
Mr. Crosby. I was assigned, basically, headquartered at Portland.
But I did a great deal of traveling in the interest of the Western
Conference of Teamsters.
Mr. Kennedy. You say in 1950 or 1951 you were a dock checker;
is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. In 1950 1 went to work
694 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. What was your next position in the teamsters ?
Mr. Crosby. In the fall of 1953 it became generally known that Mr.
Jack Schlaht was going to go into private enterprise, into business for
himself, and was going to resign.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you just answer the questions, and then you
can give any explanation you want. Just give me the date. When
did you next go in and what was the position ?
Mr. Crosby. My position became secretary-treasurer of Local Team-
sters Union 162, and I took office, I believe, in January 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your next position ?
Mr. Crosby. International organizer, and I assumed that work Octo-
ber 1, 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. That is when John Sweeney went up to Seattle; is
that right ?
Mr. Crosby. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Frank Brewster ?
Mr. Crosby. Very well.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ?
Mr. Crosby. Since 1950.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Dave Beck ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have yon known him ?
Mr. Crosby. It is difficult to say how long I have known him person-
ally.
Mr. Kennedy. Roughly, how long have you known him ?
Mr. Crosby. Probably since 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understood your statement, you said that al-
though you were appointed to your position as international organizer
by Dave Beck, that actually Frank Brewster was responsible for that
appointment ; is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. I didn't say that, Senator — Mr. Kennedy. I said that
I believe he recommended me for that position.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. You are still in that position ; is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes. sir. I just wanted to say that you left out the
one thing that I think is helpful to me, and that is 3^ years of service
in the United States Navy.
Mr. Kennedy. You also talked about your wife earlier. How
many times have you been married, Mr. Crosby ?
Mr. Crosby. I have been married five times.
Mr. Kennedy. In your statement, Mr. Crosby, you were talking
about the fact that you learned between the primary election and the
final election in 1954 that Mr. James Elkins was a real underworld
character ; is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I don't know whether that is the exact descrip-
tion. I want to keep my own quotes as nearly accurate as possible.
I certainly became aware that there was something unusual about the
man, and that he had interests other than legitimate interests.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, while we are following this line of
questioning that Mr. Kennedy has brought up about Mr. Crosby's rela-
tionships with some of the people who have been before our committee,
I would like to ask him a couple of questions.
Do you know Mr. Tom Maloney ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 695
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. How long have you known him ?
Mr. Crosby. I believe it was some time after the middle of the year
of 1954 ; possibly August or September.
Senator Mtjndt. Do you know Mr. McLaughlin?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mtjndt. How longhave you known him ?
Mr. Crosby.
to him by Tom Maloney.
Senator Mundt. In what capacity have you known Tom Maloney ?
Mr. Crosby. Senator, Tom Maloney is a fabulous character who has
all sorts of capacities. The direct answer to your question was that
he just pure and simple came in and sold me a bill of goods.
Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Frank Malloy ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. How long have you known him ?
Mr. Crosby. Since 1950, I believe.
Senator Mundt. In what capacity?
Mr. Crosby. Well, Mr. Frank Malloy at one time
Senator Mundt. Let us say at the present time. You know him as
business agent?
Mr. Crosby. I know him now as business agent for Local 223, Mis-
cellaneous Drivers; yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. You are his superior officer, are you not, in the
teamsters' union?
Mr. Crosby. I do not think that I rate that distinction, Senator.
An international organizer is not superior to the extent that he walks
around issuing orders to everyone.
Senator Mundt. However, this is a union which is in the hands of
your receivership?
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; but Mr. Hildreth is the receiver, not me.
Senator Mundt. But the international union is in control of Mr.
Hildreth; not Mr. Hildreth.
Mr. Crosby. May I hear that again, sir?
Senator Mundt. Yes.
I said the international union is in control of Mr. Hildreth's deci-
sions ; he is not in control of his own.
Mr. Crosby. I think Mr. Hildreth has a responsibility to the inter-
national as a trustee ; yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. To carry out the international policies, programs ;
is that right?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. Basically to rehabilitate the local union.
Senator Mundt. You represented in the State of Oregon, you said,
the teamsters international?
Mr. Crosby. Yes; that is correct.
Senator Mundt. So you were in charge of Mr. Hildreth, and you
were in charge of Mr. Malloy?
Mr. Crosby. The only thing that I am trying to straighten out, Sen-
ator, is I don't want to leave the impression that I was in charge of
anyone. The only possible way I could be in charge of someone would
be if some action under the constitution was taken by the general
office, and I received instructions to carry them out.
Senator Mundt. Did you have anything to do with the appoint-
ment of Mr. Malloy in his present position ?
696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Mundt. Will you tell us how he did get that present posi-
tion?
Mr. Crosby. I believe he was appointed by John Sweeney.
Senator Mundt. At the time John Sweeney was secretary, follow-
ing you, or preceding you ?
Mr. Crosby. At the time John Sweeney was the international or-
ganizer in Oregon; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I was asking you about between the primary election
in 1954 and the general election in 1954. You state in your statement
that you knew the type of character that Jim Elkins was; is that
correct ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I think I was beginning to get the idea. In
fact, when I first
Mr. Kennedy. Could you just answer the question, Mr. Crosby?
Mr. Crosby. I don't see how I can answer it that way. It sounds
like a loaded question, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. No; I am taking it from your statement. After the
primary elections in 1954 —
During the period between the primaries and the general election in the fall,
it came to my attention, as well as other members of the teamsters' union, that
Mr. MeCort's campaign, at least to some extent, was financially supported by
Mr. James B. Elkins, head of the syndicate, and for this reason, efforts were
made on my part to confirm this.
And then you went ahead to confirm it, and you stayed away from
Mr. McCort because of that.
Mr. Crosby. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, you say he was head of the syndicate.
Mr. Crosby. I found he was in something other than legitimate
business.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see him socially after that, after 1954 ?
When you found that he was head of the syndicate, I imagine
Mr. Crosby. I might have.
Mr. Kennedy. Wait a moment. I imagine you wanted to stay away
from him. Did you ever see him socially ?
Mr. Crosby. I might have, sir. I don't want you to put words in
my mouth.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not, I am just asking.
Mr. Crosby. The part about you imagine I wanted to stay away
from him. I had no fear of Mr. Elkins or anyone else. Many people
who might be regarded with suspect are people that I could very well
speak to.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not suggesting that you were afraid. Did you
ever see him socially ? For instance, did you go to lunch with him ?
Mr. Crosby. I think I had lunch with him one time.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think you might have had lunch with him
more than once ?
Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I doubt it.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't think so ? You had lunch once with him
after January 1955 ? Let's take that date. Or we can go back.
No, let's take January 1955. Did you ever have lunch with him after
January 1955 ? I think this is pretty important, Mr. Crosby, because
you were pretty alert back in 1954, and you found out what type of
person Elkins was, so, according to your statement here, every action
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 697
that you took after that time was to try to keep away from Mr. Elkins,
to try to keep him out of the union.
Mr. Crosby. No, I can't say that I particularly tried to keep away
from him.
Mr. Kennedy. You took certain actions so that you wouldn't get
too close ?
Mr. Crosby. I took certain actions detrimental to his interests ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have lunch with him just once ?
Mr. Crosby. I am not sure, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you have had lunch with him three times?
Mr. Crosby. I can't answer the question because I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. What about 10 times ? Would you have had lunch
with him 10 times ?
Mr. Crosby. I am sure that did not happen.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you testify that you did not have lunch with
him 10 times ? It is your statement. I didn't make it.
Mr. Crosby. I know. I am just trying to anticipate going 9, 8, 7,
6, 5, 4, but I did not have lunch with him 10 times.
Mr. Kennedy. But you think you had lunch more than five times
with him ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You never had dinner with him, did you ?
Mr. Crosby. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. You never went out to dinner with him ?
Mr. Crosby. I believe I had dinner with Mr. Sweeney one time and
Mr. Elkins walked up and sat down and had a drink.
Mr. Kennedy. But you never went out to dinner with him ?
Mr. Crosby. No, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You never went to any club with him ?
Mr. Crosby. Went with him ?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, or met him there ?
Mr. Crosby. That is two different questions, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet Mr. Elkins for dinner ?
How is that?
Mr. Crosby. I can't recall any such incidents.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, would you deny it, if you didn't, then?
Mr. Crosby. To the extent that I have. I cannot recall.
Mr. Kennedy. You never went to Amato's Supper Club with Elkins
and John Sweeney ?
Mr. Crosby. I was in Amato's Supper Club with Mr. Sweeney
when Mr. Elkins walked up to the table.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have lunch with Mr. Crosby at the
Prime Ribs ?
Mr. Crosby. With who ?
Mr. Kennedy. With Mr. Elkins, at the Prime Ribs? That is a
restaurant out there.
Mr. Crosby. I believe I did once ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you think again and think if possibly you had
lunch with him 2 or 3 times there ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, very frankly, I had lunch with so many people.
Mr. Kennedy. I know that, but here was an underworld character,
head of the syndicate. I am just trying to establish your relationship
with him. You have made the statement about him.
698 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. I am trying to avoid you establishing the relationship
that I was any crusader set out on a white charger to fight him. I just
ignored him. Or I might have talked to him on a completely different
matter, or something.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all right. I am not saying there is anything
wrong in having lunch with him. I am just asking you.
_ Do you think you might have had lunch at the Prime Ribs 2 or 3
times with him ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't believe I had lunch with him 2 or 3 times at the
Prime Eibs.
Mr. Kennedy. But you remember going to Amato's and meeting him
there ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't remember meeting him there. I didn't go there
to meet him. I went to dinner there with John Sweeney.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he there ?
Mr. Crosby. No. He came up to the table after we were seated.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have lunch with him at Bart's place?
I am trying to refresh your recollection, Mr. Crosby.
Mr. Crosby." I realize that.
Frankly, I cannot recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that is possible. Bart's place ?
Mr. Crosby. I just don't recall it.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember that? Certainly the head of
the syndicate, you never had him to your home, did you ?
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Elkins invited himself to my home.
Mr. Kennedy. He came to your home ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. How many times did he come to your home ?
Mr. Crosby. He came on two occasions, I think.
Mr. Kennedy. Just to visit ?
Mr. Crosby. One time he came — and you are opening up an entirely
different area of interrogation. If that is what you want, it is all
right with me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come to your home a couple of times ?
_ Mr. Crosby. Yes. Once to extort $10,000, and another time osten-
sibly as someone trying to be friendly.
Mr. Kennedy. He came to extort $10,000 ?
Mr. Crosby. He tried his best.
Mr. Kennedy. He wanted that for the tapes, did he ?
Mr. Crosby. He would have been very happy to have had it for the
tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. He asked for $10,000 from you ?
Mr. Crosby. He indicated that he paid somebody $10,000 to burg-
larize them out of an office, and that they were incriminating against
several teamsters.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he play them for you ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Was your voice on them ?
Mr. Crosby. He says my voice is in one
Mr. Kennedy. What sort of things were you alleged to have said on
the tapes?
Mr. Crosby. I was not alleged to have said anything.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 599
Mr. Kennedy. If your voice was on the tapes, what did you say on
them % What did your voice say on the tapes ? What sort of things
were you saying ?
Mr. Crosby. Don't rush me, Mr. Kennedy. You are asking me to
remember something that I am trying my best to comply with.
Mr. Kennedy. O. K.
Mr. Crosby. As I recall, I think there was only one instance, where
he states, and I certainly couldn't corroborate it, that my voice was on
the tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. 'What did it say ? What did the voice say %
Mr. Crosby. It was some sort of a telephone conversation from Tom
Maloney.
Mr. Kennedy. And what did Tom say ? What was the gist of the
conversation?
Mr. Crosby. The gist of the conversation was to the extent that
Tom was alleged to have said to me,
Say, I understand you are going in to see the mayor. For heaven's sake, hold
off, will you?
Or something similar to that.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did he want you to hold off ?
Mr. Crosby. He didn't explain.
Mr. Kennedy. It was nothing about the fact that he was going to
get some money from Elkins or anything ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't doubt but what he might have got money from
Elkins.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the tape that he played for you ?
Mr. Crosby. That he got money from Elkins ?
Mr. Kennedy. No, that he wanted you to hold off until he could
get the money from some of these joints that were open ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I recall no such text.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear the tapes again ?
Mr. Crosby. I am confused about tapes to this extent : I no longer
can recall what I have heard as it pertains to what I have read.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you that. I am just asking you if
you heard the tapes again ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I have heard tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear the tapes that were alleged to contain
your voice or the voices of Tom Maloney and Joe McLaughlin ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Under what circumstances did you hear those ?
Mr. Crosby. Is it all right to smoke, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Crosby. What was your question ?
Mr. Kennedy. Read it back, please.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Crosby. It had to do with the raid on Mr. Clark's house.
Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Ray Clark ?
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Ray "Dopehead" Clark ; yes, sir.
Those tapes, or at least a copy of them, were in the possession of
Mr. Brad Williams.
Mr. Kennedy. How did he tell you he had gotten them ?
Mr. Crosby. He didn't tell me how he got them.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't ask?
700 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. I didn't ask. All I knew was that I was fighting a
losing battle trying to keep myself even with the board in proportion
to the amount of accusations that were flowing around, and I was
trying my best to find out any and all information that might have
something to do with the case I was involved in or accused of being
involved in.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not finding any fault, Mr. Crosby. I am just
asking a question.
Mr. Crosby. I am just trying to properly
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have
Mr. Crosby. What is the question ?
Mr. Kennedy. I am just trying to find out under what circum-
stances the tapes were piayed.
Mr. Crosby. I heard that the tapes were going to be played for the
State police out at Mr. Williams' home.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you hear that from ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot recall that either ?
Mr. Crosby. No ; I can't, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember that?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I am sure I didn't get it from Mr. Wally Turner
or Bill Lambert but I don't know where I got it.
Mr. Kennedy. You cannot remember that ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get it from Brad Williams ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I don't believe I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get it from Mayor Schrunk?
Mr. Crosby. That I am sure I didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember who it was ?
Mr. Crosby. No ; I can't, I simply
Mr. Kennedy. But you were invited out there, were you, to hear
them?
Mr. Crosby. No ; I wasn't invited.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened?
Mr. Crosby. It created quite a stir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did someone call vou ud and sav. "We have the
tape"?
Mr. Crosby. No; I think someone in the building indicated that
the tapes were going to be played out at Mr. Williams' home, or some-
think of that nature.
Mr. Kennedy. Somebody in what building?
Mr. Crosby. In the Teamsters Building. I did something that I
don't ordinarily do. I practically invited myself into his home,
brazen-like, with no invitation from him, in an effort to find out
what was in those tapes that was so secret, that Mr. Clark was hiding.
I brought a wire recorder with me, and I took a wire recording
copy of the tapes. Many references were made in the tapes to Clyde
Crosby by other people.
I could recognize nothing to indicate that there was a conversation
of mine in the tapes. That is about it, I guess.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then with your copies of the tapes?
Mr. Crosby. I still have them.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you turn them over to the committee ?
Mr. Crosby. Certainly, if you will let me go home.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 701
Mr. Kennedy. Can you send for them ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't believe I could find them that easily. I recorded
them on wire, and they are somewhere in the house. Frankly, I don't
know just where.
Mr. Kennedy. Nobody could find those tapes? You could not
describe where they are, and have somebody send them?
Mr. Crosby. No, I can't. I can't tell you exactly where they are.
They are in a drawer somewhere. I think I can find them without
any question.
Mr. Kennedy. You what?
Mr. Crosby. I could find them without any question.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you not describe to somebody at home where
they are and have them turned over to us? We could all play them
and listen to them.
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy, I have no objection to everyone in the
room hearing the tapes.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you make arrangements to have them pro-
vided?
Mr. Crosby. I don't believe that is possible. I don't want to make
a commitment to this committee that I might not be able to keep.
Mr. Kennedy. Where are the tapes now ? Tell us —
Mr. Crosby. I don't know. They are in the house someplace.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know where you put them?
Mr. Crosby. I put them away so long ago that I am not sure where
I put them.
Mr. Kennedy. You have forgotten where you put the tapes ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, that is it, yes, sir. I know that they are there.
We are not talking about tapes in this instance. We are talking about
wire spools.
Mr. Kennedy. And they are copied from the tapes, is that right?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. About how long, in terms of minutes, would your
tapes run, when you would get them and play them?
Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I don't know whether I could answer that
intelligently or not, Senator.
Senator Mundt. You have some idea, surely.
Mr. Crosby. I think there were 3 or 4 hours, and maybe not that
much.
Senator Mundt. Three or four hours ?
Mr. Crosby. The total amount, yes.
Senator Mundt. Let me see if I can reconstruct the picture. There
was a meeting in the home of Mr. Brad Williams, who was there with
some members of the Oregon State police force. You had heard that
they were there for the purpose of hearing the tapes, and you invited
yourself out by going up to his house, and either pushing your way
in, or knocking on the door and saying, "You are having these tapes,
and I want to hear them, and I want a recording of them," is that
right?
Mr. Crosby. That is putting it brutally, sir.
Senator Mundt. That is about the way you have to do it. I am not
saying you broke in the house, but you said, "Here I am. You are
supposed to have tapes covering my voice, and I want to hear them
and I want a recording of them"?
Mr. Crosby. I cannot deny that.
702 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. In the room at that time was Mr. Brad Williams?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And Mr. Clyde Crosby ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And who else ?
Mr. Crosby. There was a State policeman by — I am not sure what
his name is. It seems to me, as I recall, that it was Church or some-
thing similar to that. I might be incorrect, Senator.
There was another member of the Journal.
Senator Mundt. What was his name ?
Mr. Crosby. I am not trying to withhold information, but for the
life of me I can't think of it.
Senator Mundt. The other was a reporter ?
Mr. Crosby. He was a reporter.
Senator Mundt. That makes five. Was there anybody else ?
Mr. Crosby. My wife was with me.
Senator Mundt. That is six. Anybody else?
Mr. Crosby. As best as I can recall, I think that was probably the
substance of the amount of people in the building, or in the house, with
the exception, of course, of Mrs. Williams, Brad's wife.
Senator Mundt. She was there.
What transpired ? You got to the house, invited yourself in, and
they said, "Gee, Clyde, come right in. I forgot to invite you to the
party. We are happy to see you" or did they say, "You cannot come
in" ? Or what did they say ? What was their reaction ?
Mr. Crosby. I think their reaction was one of embarrassment. I
know that the State policeman didn't like it. I don't think Mr. Wil-
liams liked it. But in the position that I was in, fighting something
that I didn't even know the existence of, I wasn't taking too — wasn't
paying too much attention to someone else's feelings.
Senator Mundt. I can understand your motivation perfectly. I
am just wondering what their reaction was. Did they try to keep
you from coming in? Or when you arrived, did they say, "Well,
come right in, come on in" ?
Mr. Crosby. They didn't say either. They didn't attempt to bar
me, nor did they make me welcome in the normal sense. I think they
wished I would have turned around and walked out.
Senator Mundt. Were they in the process of playing the tapes when
you got there ?
Mr. Crosby. I don't believe they had started yet. I know I worked
like the dickens to get that wire recorder hooked up so I could get
going as fast as I could.
Senator Mundt. They knew you were taking a wire recording of it?
Mr. Crosby. They couldn't help but know it. That is true, sir.
Senator Mundt. But once you were there, they didn't make any
effort not to go through with their program ?
Mr. Crosby. No. They went ahead and played the tapes.
Senator Mundt. What was that?
Mr. Crosby. They went ahead and played the tapes.
Senator Mundt. So they really did not resist very vigorously,
when you were the uninvited guest, you were the man that came
to dinner, and you walked in and said, "Well, I did not get the in-
vitation," but here you are, western hospitality, "sit down, and, by
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 703
the way, we are going to have a little tape recording, and you might
want to make a tape recording of it, yourself."
It sounds easy for people that did not hear it. They really were
not too much against your hearing the tapes, were they ?
Mr. Crosby. I believe that the State policeman was unhappy about
it, although I believe that he also decided that that was probably a
good time to ask me some questions in relation to what would be on the
tapes, which he did.
Senator Mundt. Is that on your recording, too?
Mr. Crosby. No. That was not recorded, sir, to the best of ray
knowledge.
Senator Mundt. I am just trying to set the thing in a framework
where I can understand it. I think everything sounds very plausible,
except I do not believe that they resisted very much your effort to
take a tape recording, because, obviously, in another man's home, if
you walked in and if there was no such program under way, they get
out the apparatus, and give you the earphones, and you say "Let's
start the party now," they were not trying too hard to keep you from
hearing it.
Mr. Crosby. I guess some people have gentler intents than others,
sir. I don't know what the countenance of my face looked like, t
know that I was extremely interested in them. I probably would have
ignored any request to leave unless they practically threw me out.
Senator Mundt. There is one missing link you cannot recall even
now. Have you learned about this program ?
Mr. Crosby. No, I can't unless it might conceivably have been
someone associated with our paper, who had run across the informa-
tion. It is difficult to establish
Senator Mundt. On the Oregon Journal ?
Mr. Crosby. No, the Oregon Teamster, sir.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, there is one point I would
like to question about.
The Chairman. I would like to make one observation.
The police officer, he was a law enforcement officer, was he not ?
Mr.. Crosby. Yes, sir. The State police was, I believe, ordered to
conduct the investigation, and obtain all pertinent evidence relating
to the vice situation in Portland for use of the attorney general's
office.
The Chairman. And Mr. Brad Williams had the tapes, they were
in his possession ? He was the one who was playing them ?
Mr. Crosby. It is difficult to say exactly who had them.
The Chairman. Who actually played them ? Someone had to op-
erate them.
Mr. Crosby. I believe that the State policeman actually operated
the machine.
The Chairman. He actually operated the machine?
Mr. Crosby. I think he made a copy, sir, of the text of the tapes,
and operated both machines.
The Chairman. Was Mr. Brad Williams at that time connected
with the Oregon Journal ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir; he -was.
The Chairman. Is that the customary thing for either a newspaper-
man or a law enforcement officer, or both, to permit those whom they
are investigating, at a time when the tape was supposed to be in the
)— 57— pt. 2 18
704 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
confidence of the people of the law enforcement agencies, to hear the
tape recording under such circumstances? Is that the way efficient
police, investigators, and newspapermen, who are trying to run down
crime or vice, is that the way they operate, in your judgment and
knowledge ?
Mr. Crosby. Senator, I am not qualified to answer that question.
I will say this, that I think it is extremely inopportune from the
point of view that I represent to this committee, that the findings of
the State police and the report of Capt. Lane Guydane and Fod Mason
is not a part of the information that you have available.
The Chairman. We may have some information. We cannot get
it all out in 1 day.
Mr. Crosby. I asked one of your committee members if he talked
to them and he said they didn't have time.
The Chairman. We do not have time to do everything in a day.
Mr. Crosby. I meant back in Oregon.
The Chairman. Maybe he did not know about him.
Let us get down to the facts.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Crosby, you mean you asked one of the staff,
not one of the committee members ?
Mr. Crosby. I beg your pardon. That is correct.
The Chairman. Here is the strange thing to me. There is a law-
enforcement agency, an officer, and someone taken in from the press
to help run down files, and they bring in one of those whose name was
recorded and give him an opportunity to make a wire recording of
it. I just do not understand that kind of law enforcement.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Crosby. Senator, they did not bring me in there.
The Chairman. They did not bring you there, you say?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir.
The Chairman. But they permitted you to stay there and per-
mitted you to make a wire recording of the tape. They knew that,
did they not, that you were doing that while you were there ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You told them that you wanted it?
Mr. Crosby. I did, sir.
The Chairman. And they permitted you to do it ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Where did the tape come from ? Where did Brad
Williams get it?
Mr. Crosby. I can't answer that question, sir.
The Chairman. Did you ask him?
Mr. Crosby. No, I did not ask him.
The Chairman. You did not have any curiosity about the tape,
about the origin of it?
Mr. Crosby. I knew generally that the tapes came from Clark's
house.
The Chairman. From Clark's house?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You knew that they had been secured by a search
warrant, did you not ? You knew that at the time ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir : I knew that.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 705
The Chairman. You knew that. And you knew later that that
search warrant was held fraudulent and illegal by the court? You
knew that, too, did you not ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. But there is so much illegal stuff floating
around that it has me over a barrel.
The Chairman. I am convinced of it.
But you knew it at the time.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed.
Senator Mttndt. Mr. Crosby, you told us earlier that you had vis-
ited the home of James Elkins twice that you could remember.
Mr. Cbosby. No, sir ; I did not.
Senator Mundt. I beg your pardon. Pie had visited your home
t wice ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And that on the first occasion he was trying to
extort $10,000 from you, for some tapes?
Mr. Cbosby. No, sir ; that was the second occasion.
Senator Mundt. All right, the second occasion. And that on that
occasion you played the tapes in your own home?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Were these the same tapes that you heard in the
home of Mr. Williams?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. These were different tapes ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did you hear all of the tapes that were picked
up in the house of Mr. Clark?
Mr. Crosby. I don't know whether I did or not, sir.
Senator Mundt. You made a kind of determined mission to the
home of Mr. Williams to hear the tapes. I would think probably in
the conversation you would have asked him "Have I heard all of the
tapes ?" Or "Have I just gotten a portion of them ?"
Mr. Crosby. Senator, I didn't know how many tapes there was.
Senator Mundt. Would you not certainly have asked Mr. Williams,
:lIs this all now or have you something else?" Otherwise, your mis-
sion would have been futile on the face of it. You would not want
to hear half of the tapes. You must have said, "Are these all the
rapes you have?" Did you not ask him anything like that?
Mr. Crosby. I don't recall asking him anything like that. I believe
Mr. Williams was pretty happy to get me out of there.
Senator Mundt. You went there for the purpose of hearing the
tapes.
Mr. Crosby. I certainly did, Senator.
Senator Mundt. It would not do you a bit of good to just hear a
third of the tapes, would it ?
Mr. Crosby. I got everything I could get.
Senator Mundt. Did you ask him any question, or the police officer
any question, as to whether you had heard all the tapes they had, or
whether they had any other tapes ?
Mr. Crosby. I do not recall asking such a question, Senator.
Senator Mundt. There would not be much use in your going there
at all if you did not ask that question.
706 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. I felt something like an interloper, and I was getting
that feeling more and more.
Senator Mundt. Yes ; but after the first 4 hours that feeling kind
of leaves you, does it not ? You must start getting to feeling rather
welcome after that. I can understand your feeling like an interloper
when you first arrived.
Mr. Crosby. I am unable to say whether I made any concrete effort
to ascertain whether I had heard them all or not.
Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out simply this : Whether or
not the tapes that you heard in your home — Mr. Elkins came to your
home — whether or not the tapes that you heard were included in the
tapes that you heard in Mr. Williams' home, and, if not, why not ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, the answer to that, Senator, is that the ones that
Mr. Elkins played in my home had absolutely no similarity to those
that were played in Mr. Williams' home. They were different types
of tapes, as far as I can recall. I say different types, meaning that
there were different conversations.
Senator Mundt. And they were derogatory to you ?
Mr. Crosby. I couldn't find anything on them that was derogatory
to me. There was something on one of the tapes.
Senator Mundt. Is this the one in your home or Mr. Williams'?
Mr. Crosby. In my home, sir.
Senator Mundt. Go ahead.
Mr. Crosby. That was designed, I think, to convince me that it
was incriminating against Mr. Sweeney. I listened to the conversa-
tion. As I recall, Mr. Elkins pointed it out to me. His introduction
to me, when he came in with the equipment, was that he had tapes
that were very damaging to teamsters' leaders.
Senator Mundt. The tapes that you heard in Mr. Williams' home,
were they taken at face value, were they damaging to you ?
Mr. Crosby. Only to the extent that some other individual refers
to "Clyde." I don't believe there was anything on there that indi-
cated a conversation that I was involved in.
Senator Mundt. Were the tapes that you heard in your home
alleged wiretaps of telephone conversations ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Were the tapes that you heard in Mr. Williams'
home also wiretaps of telephone conversations?
Mr. Crosby. At that time I didn't give it any thought. I don't
know as I could answer the question intelligently.
Senator Mundt. You must, after listening to them 4 hours, have de-
cided that they were either telephone conversations or made in a room
where a lot of people were conversing together. You must have had
some idea.
Mr. Crosby. Senator, I would like to explain why at one time I can
say "Yes," and at another time I couldn't answer. That is simply
this, that at the time I heard the tapes at Mr. Williams' home, I knew
nothing about the tape business or how it was done, how the machines
operated or anything else, or what was possible by someone skilled in
the use of electronic devices.
At the time they were played in my home, I had begun to discuss
the matter with various people and had gotten types of interpretations
as to what tapes are, what can be done with them, and so on. I felt
like I was a little better informed in the incidents in my home.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 707
Senator Mundt. Will you relate that to your experience, then, and
tell us what type of tape it was ?
Mr. Crosby. I think there were telephone conversations in it, but
that is only my belief.
Senator Mundt. Do you think they were also tape recordings of
conversations which occurred in a room or in an office or by some
bugging device that may have been put on the wall to hear the conver-
sations in an office, a hotel room, or apartment ?
Mr. Crosby. The difference between a tape, sir, that appears to be
the result of a room conversation and one that is a telephone conversa-
tion is the simple medium of erasing the ringing of the telephone or
the discussions held with the operator, and you can't tell the difference.
I don't know what the answer to your question is.
Senator Mundt. Were there a great many voices on the tapes that
you heard in Mr. Williams' home, or was it primarily a dialog between
two people, the way a telephone conversation runs ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, there was so much conversation on those tapes,
Senator, that it would be difficult, and I would hesitate to try to state
for the record here what I could recall in the way of what was on
them. I think if they were played, that it would be entirely much
more clearer to this committee.
The Chairman. Senator McNamara ?
Senator McNamara. What is your relationship, if any, with the
Western Conference of Teamsters ? Are you an official ?
Mr. Crosby. Not as such, Senator. My official reason for being in
there is my employment with the international. I am assigned to
Oregon with the general understanding that I work under the direc-
tion of the vice president in the area, which is Mr. Frank Brewster,
who is also president of the Western Conference of Teamsters. Mr.
Brewster put into effect a great many technological changes in the
manner in which we worked with employers on contracts, which neces-
sitated a great deal of travel, and I was one of the fellows that he used
in the field in a coordinating way, and to meet with employers, and
attempt to bring about this particular uniform type contract program
that was his objective, and that of the western conference.
Senator McNamara. Tell me this: Is the Western Conference of
Teamsters made up of affiliations of local unions? Is that the way
the function is? Is it an association of local unions, primarily, and
do the trusteeship locals belong in the same manner as the so-called
independent or free locals ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, briefly, Senator, in answer to your question,
the Western Conference of Teamsters is a body composed of delegates
from all local unions in the 11 Western States.
Senator McNamara. The trustee locals as well as the locals that
have local autonomy in the general thought ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; those locals who are official, and locals where
trusteeships occur, help to establish and make the policy for the West-
ern Conference of Teamsters.
Senator McNamara. You mentioned Mr. Brewster as the president
of the western conference.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Is he elected ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
708 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. For how long a term?
Mr. Crosby. The election normally is an annual affair. However, I
will say this, that there has never been any spirited contest, because
Mr. Brewster has always stood head and shoulders above the rest of
us, and from the standpoint of ability he merited the confidence and
trust and admiration and respect of 99.9 percent of the officials in 11
Western States.
Senator McNamara. Then they do have annual meetings, and there
are elections at the annual meetings, and you are saying that he is
generally elected by acclamation?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. Is that your answer?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. But there is, nevertheless, an election?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. You mentioned Frank Malloy as business
agent for a local, and I understood you to say a local which is in trus-
teeship.
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; that is correct.
Senator McNamara. Is he appointed as business agent by the in-
ternational, by Dave Beck, or by whom?
Mr. Crosby. The trusteeship of local 223, which is the one you
refer to, Senator, the papers that empowered Mr. Hildredth to act as
trustee were sent to him, I believe, during the period of time that Mr.
Sweeney was the organizer in Oregon. Exactly the manner in which
Mr. Malloy was assigned, the work as a business agent with that local
union, I am not sure about.
Senator McNamara. The man who is placed in charge of the local
as I am the authority. Who was the authority that appointed the
business agent of local 223?
Mr. Crosby. It would be Mr. Hildredth.
Senator McNamara. The man who is placed in charge of the local
union in trusteeship is authorized to appoint the officers ; is that right ?
Mr. Crosby. For the period of time that the local is in trusteeship ;
yes, sir.
Senator McNamara. That is what I was trying to establish.
Mr. Crosby. I am sorry I was not responding.
The Chairman. I have just one question at this point.
You spoke very complimentary, if not flatteringly, about Mr.
Brewster, and the high esteem in which he is held by 99.9, or some-odd
percent, of the rank and file of the teamster members. Would you
say the same thing for his chief, Mr. Dave Beck ?
Mr. Crosby. I believe that you acquire the right to establish at least
your personal view of someone by close association, Senator.
The Chairman. I thought you were talking about the views of the
99.9 percent of the membership.
Mr. Crosby. I was closely associated with those individuals and
Mr. Brewster. The same is not true with Mr. Beck, being
The Chairman. Since you wanted to compliment Mr. Brewster, I
thought maybe you wanted to treat Mr. Beck the same way. I did not
want him excluded if you, by oversight, had not included him.
Mr. Crosby. I certainly want to say this, Senator, that I have a
great deal of personal respect for the ability and accomplishments
of Mr. Beck.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 709
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman 1
The Chairman. Senator Goldwater.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Crosby, was there a meeting of the western
conference held in San Francisco recently, that is, within the last
week or 10 days ?
Mr. Crosby. Not as a western conference, Senator. A meeting was
held — and I am stating this strictly from hearsay since I was here in
Washington waiting to be heard — a meeting was called by the vice
president, Joseph Diviny, and two other officials, Peter Andrade and
Joe Dillon, asking the secretaries of the various local unions to come
to San Francisco, to sit down and discuss the ramifications of the
troubles and trials and tribulations we were having.
It is my understanding that a couple of resolutions were passed,
but the contents of those resolutions I do not know.
Senator Goldwater. Do you know if it is true that one of those
resolutions, and maybe both, endorsed the activities of Mr. Brewster
in this current condition that the teamsters find themselves in?
Mr. Crosby. Well, if that resolution was passed, Senator, I would
say I would have to vote for it, because, as well as I know Mr. Brewster,
I can tell you this with every feeling that is in me, I am stating the
truth. Mr. Brewster is not now or ever was involved in any inten-
tional activity to participate in anything illegal.
Senator Goldwater. Do you think that that special meeting voices
the opinion of the rank and file membership of the teamsters in view
of the fact that Mr. Brewster came back here and left the teamsters
with a pretty black eye, from the viewpoint of the people of this
country, by refusing to testify before a Senate committee ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Crosby. Senator, you ask me a difficult question. I don't know
whether I am qualified to
Senator Goldwater. Well, do you approve of his activities ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I do, because I believe, and as I understand it, he
raised simply a constitutional question. I don't believe that he meant
any disrespect to the committee. He is far too intelligent a man for
that.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Crosby. I think what has happened since then is ample evidence
that since the question of authority has been cleared up, he has com-
plied in every way. I know he has been waiting for some time in
Washington to testify.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to follow through
on a question or two along the line of Senator McXamara's questions.
I do not think we have in the record something we probably should
have.
Mr. Crosby, what is your salary in the position that you have ?
Mr. Crosby. My salary
Senator Mundt. Salary or commission.
Mr. Crosby. As of December 1, of 1956, is $16,800 a year, sir.
Senator Mundt. Do you have an expense account beyond that ?
Mr. Crosby. I am allowed $15 a day away from home, plus an ad-
ditional $7.50 per day miscellaneous expense, and for which I get into
a whole peck of trouble with the income tax about.
Senator Mundt. Do you also get a salary by being a member of the
city commission, or whatever position you held ?
710 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. There was no salary involved there.
Senator Mttndt. That was not a salaried position ?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I have another question I would
like to ask, but I believe you wanted to read a telegram first.
The Chairman. The counsel wishes to ask one more line of ques-
tions, and then I hope that at that time we will let this witness stand
aside for a few moments and put on another witness so that he can
link his testimony up as we go along. At that time, the Chair will
have an announcement to make regarding the telegram.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to say before I start that, that Mr. Crosby
mentioned getting hold of Captain Guydane. Captain Guydane was
contacted, Mr. Chairman, and we have a memorandum here which
states that :
The writer telephoned Captain Guydane at the Milwaukee, Oregon State Police
Office and informed him that Crosby had asked that we get in touch with him for
information which would be of value to the committee hearing. Captain
Guydane told the writer that he had been following the progress of the com-
mittee hearings in the newspapers and that in his opinion he had no oral or
written information of benefit to the committee which was not already in the
hands of the committee or its staff. He further stated that from what he could
read the staff and the hearings had produced more information than he ever
had. He suggested that the writer also contact a member of the Attorney
General's staff for any information which Guydane might have given to that
office.
The writer then got in touch with a member of the Attorney General's staff
and was informed that in all probability any information received from Guydane
had been made available to the Senate committee, but that it might be advisable
to ask Crosby to state very specifically just what facts or information Guydane
might have which the Senate committee should know about.
Mr. Crosby. I could answer your question, Mr. Kennedy, or the
question related to you by Captain Guydane, by saying that in previ-
ous conversations with Captain Guydane, he indicated that he had
quite a fund of knowledge of the operations of Big Jim Elkins.
After hearing that statement from Captain Guydane, it looks as
though I owe you an apology, and I certainly am not ashamed to offer
one.
Mr. Kennedy. You were talking about Big Jim Elkins. I was
trying to find out what your personal relationship witli him was.
After you found out that he was head of the syndicate in 1954 and you
then in 1955 had lunch with him several times and possibly dinner a
few times, and he came to your house, did he ever do any favors for
you ? Did he ever do any work in your house?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Kennedy. Advise on his legal rights, Mr. Attorney. You have
a right to advise him on his legal rights.
Mr. Magee. I am advising on his legal rights. You haven't stated
the testimony, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Crosby. I was just going to say, Mr. Kennedy, that I don't be-
lieve you have correctly summed up the statements I have made.
Mr. Kennedy. Let us go over it. In 1954 you learned that he was
head of the synidcate, right?
Mr. Crosby. I didn't say that. I said that I learned that he was
something other than a legal operator. I do say it in the statements
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 711
Mr. Kennedy. You have in here that he was head of the syndicate.
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; I do. But I could be using a little bit stronger
reference than perhaps I should have.
Mr. Kennedy. Do not blame me for taking it from your statements
under oath.
Mr. Crosby. Not at all, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever do any favors for you, after 1955 ? Did
any of his employees ever do any work around your house?
Mr. Crosby. May I qualify the answer, sir?
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer yes or no and then give your explana-
tion.
Mr. Crosby. I think it is very important for the committee to know
the answer to that question in its full text,
Mr. Kennedy. I think it is, too. That is why I asked it. We
agree. Now would you answer the question?
Mr. Crosby. To my knowledge,
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Did his employees do
any work around your house after you found him to be head of the
syndicate?
Mr. Crosby. There was some work done in my basement but I did
not know it was Mr. Elkins employees, nor was the work contracted
by myself and Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Kennedy. You never knew they were Mr. Elkins' employees?
Mr. Crosby. Not specifically ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean not specifically? Did you,
generally ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, we are splitting hairs. I guess I might just as
well say that eventually I realized that they were Elkins' employees.
Mr. Kennedy. The allegation has been made, and I am sure you
want to clear the record up, that you never paid Mr. Elkins for the
work that he did, and his employees did, in your basement, and this
is after you learned that he was head of the syndicate.
Mr. Crosby. I would like to answer that statement very simply,
sir. He is right. I paid him nothing.
Mr. Kennedy. You never paid for all this work I
Mr. Crosby. I paid someone else, the person that I contracted the
work with.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you pay ?
Mr. Crosby. I paid Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you pay Tom Maloney. Tom Maloney?
Mr. Crosby. That is correct-
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you pay Tom Maloney for the work Mr.
Elkins was doing ?
Mr. Crosby. That is why I wanted the right to qualify the subject
matter, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back.
The employees did some work in your basement, right ? How many
of Mr. Elkins' employees were there that were doing this work in your
basement ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I don't know, because I am sure that I wasn't
there a good deal of the time.
Mr. Kennedy. And you never saw them? Did you talk to any of
his employees that were doing the work in the basement?
712 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I talked to two of them, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Kennedy. So at least there were two of them doing the work
in your basement, is that right?
Mr. Crosby. I think that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. How did they happen to get down there in the first
place?
Mr. Crosby. Get down where?
Mr. Kennedy. Into your basement to be doing this work?
Mr. Crosby. By the simple medium of knocking on the door and
going to work.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they just barge into your house ?
Mr. Crosby. No, they didn't. They, as I recall, and this may not
be correct in exact detail, but as
Mr. Kennedy. Make it as correct as you can, Mr. Crosby, because,
as you say, it is very important.
Mr. Crosby. As I recall, they came to the house one morning before
I left for the office, and stated that they were there to do the work
that I had discussed with Mr. Maloney. We went down to the base-
ment and I showed them briefly what I had in mind, and they began
to go to work.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you discuss with Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Crosby. The question of how that came up arose in this manner :
I was in our coffeeshop in our building having coffee with 2 or 3 of our
fellows, and remarked that I wanted to have a short partition put in
our basement that I could shut it off from the laundry facilities and
furnace. Mr. Maloney, sitting at another table, overheard the con-
versation.
Mr. Kennedy. This is in the teamster building?
Mr. Crosby. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this at the same period of time that Maloney
was a teamster official ?
Mr. Crosby. He never was a teamster official.
Mr. Kennedy. Were the teamsters paying his bills during this pe-
riod of time?
Mr. Crosby. The teamsters were paying his bills at a time that they
felt he was performing a service for them, but not on a salary basis.
Mr. Kennedy. Just an an employee; is that right? He was an
employee of the teamsters ?
Mr. Crosby. No ; he was not an employee.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said he was getting paid by the
teamsters.
Mr. Crosby. I said some of his bills were paid. We paid them
because we felt that he was performing a service,
Mr. Kennedy. What confuses me, of course, Mr. Crosby, is when
I was out in Portland, and we had our conversation, you said that none
of his bills were paid by the teamsters. I am glad you straightened
it out here under oath.
You had this conversation at the teamsters headquarters, and Tom
Maloney overheard it
Mr. Magee. Mr. Chairman, may I make an objection to counsel not
being permitted to testify unless he is going to be sworn? This is
putting into the record here the unsworn testimony of the prosecutor —
not the prosecutor, but of general counsel for the committee. I think
it is improper.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 713
The Chairman. Ask him the question. Did he tell you out there
ihat they did not pay his bills?
He can deny it. I will ask it.
Did you tell the chief counsel of this committee when he inter-
rogated you about it that the union did not pay Maloney's bills ? Did
you tell him that ?
Mr. Crosby. Senator, I can't recall whether that was the manner in
which the question was put to me. I certainly would have said no, had
it related to questions involving salary.
Mr. Kennedy. That wasn't the question. Expenses, any of his bills
or expenses. You were asked both questions, whether you paid any
of his salary, and I also asked you whether any of the bills or expenses
were paid.
Mr. Crosby. I can also answer that this way : To my knowledge, I
did not know we had been. I have found out these things since our
informal discussion.
The Chairman. All right, you said no at the time, if you did not
know it, did you not?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir; but I would like to qualify it, sir, so that I
am not a liar.
The Chairman. You were not a liar because you said you did not
know it, and you say you are not a liar because you did not
Mr. Crosby. I guess I am a liar
Mr. Kennedy. You said you were a liar ?
Mr. Crosby. Basically, I am not, but I believe at the time you asked
me that question I had O. K.'d Mr. Maloney having a telephone. I
had forgotten about it. The question of these other bills that were
paid during the period of political activity of Mr. Maloney were some-
thing that I didn't know about in detail.
The Chairman. You did not know about it at that time?
Mr. Crosby. No, sir.
The Chairman. You have learned of it since ?
Mr. Crosby. I certainly have, sir.
The Chairman. At the time you had forgotten that you had
ordered the telephone paid for for Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. But you had already done so, and you had for-
gotten about it at the time ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Crosby. I have lost the continuity of what you are saying,
sir, somehow. I am not trying to be
The Chairman. I am only trying to be helpful. I do not want you
to make the statement that will appear to be false. As I understand
it, and I am trying to straighten it out as quickly as we can, when you
were asked those questions by the chief counsel when he was out in
Portland, you stated that you had not paid any expenses or bills of
Mr. Maloney's, did you not, and you answered "No"; is that correct?
Mr. Crosby. That is correct.
The Chairman. At that time, you had paid, or authorized the pay-
ment of, telephone bills for Mr. Maloney, but you had forgotten about
it at that time ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
714 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. At that time you did not know about the other
bills that had been paid by the union? You have learned of those
since ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is correct, is it not ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now the record is correct.
Senator Mundt. At that time did you know that Mr. Maloney had
been rendering some services to the teamsters, some political activi-
ties? Did you know about that when Mr. Kennedy was talking to
you?
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; I did.
Senator Mundt. Did you think he was just doing that out of his
own good will without getting any expense money from any source?
Mr. Crosby. Very frankly, Senator, the answer to that question
lies in the fact that I was in and out of the city so much that I didn't
know exactly what Mr. Maloney's real capacity was, whether he was
working for a political organization other than the teamsters and
used some of our machinery to aid in his work, or what. He had me
convinced that he knew many things about elections and could be
helpful, and, frankly, I accepted them, ill-advisedly.
Senator Mundt. Did he impress you as being a pretty competent
and reliable political manager?
Mr. Crosby. I really don't know how he impressed me. I was
partly repulsed and partly attracted to the man.
Senator Mundt. I can understand the first part of your statement
Mr. Kennedy. We are going back to the meeting that you had at
the teamster headquarters. Tom Maloney said something to you at
that time ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; he did. He came to me alone, when there was no
one else around me, and he said —
Listen, I have already got connections with builders around here. I can get
that done for you at a good price.
I declined. I said —
Well, what I am going to have done can't involve too much money, and I
would just as soon do it through the normal channels.
But you don't say "No" to Mr. Maloney too easily and make it stick.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ?
Mr. Crosby. You can tell him "No," and in 2 seconds later he is work-
ing on you again, and before you know it, you
Mr. Kennedy. So did you finally give in to him ?
Mr. Crosby. Finally I told him to go out to the house and take a look
and give me some idea what he thought it would cost.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes?
Mr. Crosby. He was shown out there, and I believe I was there,
what it was that I wanted, and he said —
Well, I can get that taken care of for a couple of hundred dollars.
Mr. Kennedy. So the workers came out, is that right, these two
workers ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I told him, "If you can do that, go ahead." That
set the wheels in motion whereby these fellows came out.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 715
Mr. Kennedy. And they worked around your place. For how long
a period of time were they around your basement ?
Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I don't know, but I know that I often won-
dered why they didn't make more progress than what they were
making.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with them?
Mr. Crosby. Yes ; I think I talked to them while I was there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they identify themselves as working for or the
employees of Jim Elkins?
Mr. Crosby. At the latter part of it, I think it came to my attention.
Mr. Kennedy. It did. Then did you pay these individuals or Jim
Elkins for the work that was done, as head of the syndicate?
Mr. Crosby. I didn't contract with Mr. Elkins for the work. I con-
tracted with Mr. Maloney for the work. He was paid the agreed price.
Mr. Kennedy. He was paid?
Mr. Crosby. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay him by check?
Mr. Crosby. I paid him in cash.
Mr. Kennedy.. So there is no record of that?
Mr. Crosby. I know that is intended to make it look funny, but that
is the fact. I gave him $200 in cash.
Mr. Kennedy. If you knew that these people were employees of
Mr. Elkins, why did you not pay Mr. Elkins for the work he was doing?
Mr. Crosby. Because I didn't contract with Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Kennedy. But these were people that were working for him.
He is the one that deserved the money, not Tom Maloney. Did they
tell you to pay Tom Maloney?
Mr. Crosby. They didn't mention it.
Mr. Kennedy. When they told you they were working for Jim
Elkins, how did they mention that?
Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I don't recall the conversation.
Mr. Kennedy. Did not one of them ask you at one time —
Where are you going to get the money to pay for all this material and all the
work we are doing —
and you said —
When these E. and R. options come in, we will have plenty of money?
Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question?
Mr. Crosby. I certainly can. I made no such statement, period.
You can underline it in the record.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did make any such statement?
Mr. Crosby. No; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And you never had anything to do with Jim Elkins
and the E. and R. options, is that right?
Mr. Crosby. I had no — wait a minute. I had no connection with
the man with reference to his obtaining options. I cannot say that
at some obscure time I might have talked to him about E. and R.,
the same as I talked to everybody
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever suggest to him that you might be able
to <ret this steel bridge site selected ?
Mr. Crosby. That is what makes this thing
716 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question, Mr. Crosby. You do not
have to make a speech every time. Just answer the questions, yes or
no, and then you can explain it later on.
Mr. Crosby. What is the question ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Elkins about getting
the E. and K. situated in the Steel-Bridge area?
Mr. Crosby. I think that anybody that I talked to
Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I want to clarify it. Can I clarify it afterwards ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. You can help us, and it is proper, if you will answer
the question "Yes" or "No," or "Yes but," or "Yes" something else,
or "No" something else, and make such explanations as you think
proper.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. But if you go off making a long explanation with-
out answering the question, then it has to be asked again.
Mr. Crosby. I don't think it happened that way, Senator. I think-
that I simply
The Chairman. Do you know it did not happen that way ?
Mr. Crosby. I simply talked to the man, if I did, in the same vein
as I talked to hundreds of other people, because it was well known
that I was an advocate of a development of the Broadway Steel-Bridge
site.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would wonder at this time, because
we are not going to get through Mr. Crosby anyway, and we have
several witnesses who I would like to get through so they could go
back to Oregon, including one that is pertinent to Mr. Crosby's testi-
mony, if he could stand aside a moment.
The Chairman. Mr. Crosby, you will stand aside for the moment.
The Chair will take this occasion to make a statement for the
record.
During the noon hour, I received this quite lengthy telegram from
Mr. Arden X. Pangborn, editor of the Oregon Journal. I will not
undertake to read all of it, but there are 1 or 2 things about it that
I would like to read, and then I will read into the record the reply that
I have sent.
This whole telegram may be printed in the record, and anyone may
see it who desires.
Among other things, it says that —
Patrolman Sutter, in his sworn affidavit, reveals for the first time that from
February 16, 1956, until March 30. 1956, he was ordered by his superior officers
to watch Sheriff Terry D. Schrunk's home at 5407 North Houghton Street as a
full-time job and to report to the police bureau's north precinct if Schrunk left
his home during the night to "knock off some of their bootleg joints or gambling
establishments."
7. Mayor Schrunk told the Journal he is "ready and willing" to take a
lie detector test on the question of the Kenton "pickup" to be "given by the
United States Secret Service.
Schrunk, on Thursday, attempted to introduce in evidence the Bennett and
Sutter affidavits. Senator refused to allow their admission because Bennett,
subpenaed as a witness, would not testify before the inquiry committee.
"Bennett just folded up," Schrunk told the Journal. "He is scared to death."
The mayor said that Bennett had previously been harassed by agents of
Elkins who followed him into Nevada, California, and Montana. He said Ben-
nett told him that earlier this week he was threatened by a newspaper reporter
who said, "Don't get out on a limb. We have it all fixed."
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 717
Schrunk spoke bitterly of the committee's attitude toward the Bennett and
Sutter affidavits. "The committee will allow Elkins, a thug, a narcotics user
and notorious hoodlum, to put into the record all the hearsay evidence he
wishes," he said.
"It seems remarkably strange that while the committee will listen to hear-
say evidence from a man like Elkins they are not willing to accept on affidavits
submitted by the mayor of Portland, who, unfortunately, in this instance, does
not happen to possess a police record," Schrunk added.
(Telegram referred to follows :)
Portland, Oreg.
The Honorable John L. McClellan,
Chairman, Senate Select Committee,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C:
The following story will appear in the Friday editions of the Oregon Journal
in Portland. It will be backed by photographs of documents cited.
"Bribery allegations laid against Mayor Derry D. Schrunk in Washington,
D. C, this week have been found to be demonstrably false.
"Documents and testimony unearthed by Journal investigators early today
indicate that Schrunk is innocent of charges by Portland Vice Czar James B.
(Big Jim) Elkins that he took $500 from Clifford O. (Jimmy) Bennett, operator
of a Kenton district after-hours joint.
"The Journal early today telegraphed this information to Senator John L.
McClellan, Democrat, of Arkansas, chairman of the Senate committee investi-
gating vice and corruption in Portland.
"The Senate committee Thursday heard Vice Czar Elkins and others testify
that former Sheriff Schrunk on September 11, 1955, picked up a 'package' under
a utility pole outside the 8212 Club on North Denver Avenue.
"Mayor Schrunk, telephoned by the Journal Thursday night, described the
allegations as 'fantastic' He has categorically denied any payoff or attempted
payoff by Bennett.
"The Journal's investigation of the charges laid by Elkins and others has
turned up the following information not disclosed by witnesses at the Washington
hearings :
"1. Bennett, on December 5, 1956, at Vancouver, Wash., signed an affidavit
denying that any payoff had ever been made to Schrunk or his deputies. The
affidavit was witnessed by Clifford B. Alterman, a Portland attorney, and George
Minielly, a deputy sheriff of Multnomah County.
"2. On December 19, 1956, in Great Falls, Mont:, Bennett made a further
signed affidavit denying that he had ever paid Schrunk a bribe. The affidavit
was witnessed by Irene L. Jones, a notary public for the State of Montana.
"3. On November 3, 1956, Richard A. Sutter, a Portland police officer, com-
pletely recanted his previous testimony and swore in an affidavit that he did not
see Schrunk pick up any package outside the 8212 Club. Sutter told the same
story to the Multnomah County grand jury last month and the grand jury did
not indict Schrunk. Sutter's affidavit was witnessed by Jack Ellis, an official
reporter for the United States district court.
"4. The Journal has corroborated statements made by Sutter, Schrunk, and
Minielly that Schrunk on the morning of the 'raid' radioed to the county police,
to ask the city police to pick up a stolen bicycle found near the scene of the 8212
Club. The radio logs kept by both the" Portland Police Department and the
Multnomah County police show entries which substantiate this version of affairs.
(Said Minelly : 'If anyone wanted to pick up a bribe, I can't imagine them calling
in city police to watch the show.')
"5. The policeman's notebook kept by Patrolman Sutter bears an entry for
September 11, 1955, which indicates that Sutter on the morning in question was
working with Patrolman K. W. Lindholm and not with either Patrolman Merlin
Tiedeman or Patrolman Lowell Amundson. Patrolman Lindholm did not testify
at the Washington hearings nor was his name mentioned by the police officers
who did testify.
"6. Patrolman Sutter, in his sworn affidavit, reveals for the first time that from
February 16, 1956, until March 30, 1956, he was ordered by his superior officers
to watch Sheriff Terry D. Schrunk's home at 5407 North Houghton Street as a
full-time job and to report to the police bureau's north precinct if Schrunk left
his some during the night to 'knock off some of their bootleg joints or gambling
establishments.'
718 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
"7. Mayor Schrunk told the Journal he is 'ready and willing' to take a lie
detector test on the question of the Kenton 'pickup' to be given by the United
States Secret Service.
"Schrunk, on Thursday, attempted to introduce in evidence the Bennett and
Sutter affidavits. Senator refused to allow their admission because Bennett,
subpenaed as a witness, would not testify before the inquiry committee.
" 'Bennett just folded up,' Schrunk told the Journal. 'He is scared to death.'
"The mayor said that Bennett had previously been harassed by agents of
Elkins who followed him into Nevada, California, and Montana. Ha said Ben-
nett told him that earlier this week he was threatened by a newspaper reporter
who said, 'Don't get out on a limb. We have it all fixed.'
"Schrunk spoke bitterly of the committee's attitude toward the Bennett and
Sutter affidavits. 'The committee will allow Elkins, a thug, a narcotics user
and notorious hoodlum to put into the record all the hearsay evidence he wishes,'
he said.
" 'It seems remarkably strange that while the committee will listen to hearsay
evidence from a man like E.kins they are not willing to accept on affidavits
submitted by the mayor of l'ortland, who, unfortunately in this instance, does
not happen to possess a police record,' Schrunk added."
I trust this information will be of help to your committee.
Arden X. Pangborn,
Editor, the Oregon Journal.
The Chairman. The Chair wishes to announce that this morning
while Mayor Schrunk was testifying, before he received this telegram
or before he knew any contents of the article that was to be published
in the Oregon Journal today in its news account of these hearings,
that he permitted the Schrunk affidavit to be made a part of the
record, and it is now a part of the record; that he refused and still
refuses to permit an affidavit to be placed in the record from Mr.
Bennett, who was subpenaed here as a witness, and wTho refused to
testify so that he might be cross-examined on any affidavit he had
given.
But the Chair went further this morning and permitted Mayor
Schrunk to read from a document that he, too, with the aid of 1 or
2 others, including a reporter, got from 2 dope fiend prostitutes, in
order to try to substantiate his testimony.
I do not know how I can be more lenient than that. It did not
belong in the record. The statement that he read from is not even
sworn. He afterward said that he would not put much confidence
in it.
We are trying to get evidence here, and to check on evidence, that
will give us the substance and facts. I just want to say for the
benefit of the paper in Oregon, and I will say this for the press and
for the record, that I have now wired Mr. Arden Pangborn, editor, the
Oregon Journal, Portland, Oreg., as follows :
Reurtel this date, quoting from a newspaper article your publication of today
regarding hearings of the Senate select committee now in progress. If you
have any facts or information of substance that will aid the committee, and
will provide the committee with a statement of such facts or information,
that you can and will testify to under oath, the committee will gladly consider
what you submit, and if it finds that such facts and information are relevant,
it will be very glad indeed to have your testimony before the committee.
I hope that Mr. Pangborn will respond in the affirmative and
submit to this committee any facts or information that he feels to
be worthy of its consideration, and to which he wTould be willing to
testify.
Call the next witness.
(Those present at this point: The Chairman, and Senators Mc-
Namara, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 719
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Slim Jenkins.
(At this point the chairman left the hearing room.)
Senator Mundt (presiding). Mr. Jenkins, do you swear that the
testimony you are aDout to give is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Jenkins. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES Q. JENKINS
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jenkins, what is your residence, your present
residence ?
Mr. Jenkins. Contact, Nev.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not wish an attorney ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You used to reside in Portland, Oreg. ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. During what period of time ?
Mr. Jenkins. From about last December, for 25 years prior to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been arrested at all for a felony?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never have ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. During the war you were in the service ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You were in the Navy ?
Mr. Jenkins. In the Army.
Mr. Kennedy. And you served in the South Pacific ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You used to work for Mr. Jim Elkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. During what period of time?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, from about October of 1955, for about 17 years
prior to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you work in the. campaign for either Mr. Wil-
liam Langley or Mr. McCourt ?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Langley.
Mr. Kennedy. You were in Mr. Langley's campaign?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes; I assisted.
Mr. Kennedy. You were doing that as an employee of Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it generally known at that time that you were
an employee of Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby has put in his statement here that one of
the reasons that the teamsters stayed with Mr. Langley is that Mr.
Elkins was with Mr. McCourt.
Were you working for Mr. McCourt or Mr. Langley ?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Langley.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Crosby at all during this period
of time?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; I talked to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he aware of the fact that you were working for
Mr. Langley?
Mr. Jenkins. I am sure that he was.
89330— 57— pt. 2 19
720 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. He was aware of that fact?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. We also had some testimony regarding some re-
pairs or a room that was built for Mr. Crosby's basement. Were you
here for that testimony ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You were one of the employees that worked in that
room?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. How did it arise that you went to do those repairs ?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Elkins talked to me about it the first time, and
asked me to take Mr. Kane, Bernie Kane, over to Mr. Crosby's home,
and see what we could do.
Mr. Kennedy. You are sure Mr. Elkins talked to you and not
Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Jenkins. I am positive.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Jenkins. He asked me to take him, and he went over and
looked the place over to see what he needed done. He was there at
the time.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby was there ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he aware that you were working for Mr.
Elkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, there was hardly any way he could keep from
knowing it. We were driving a truck of Service Machine Co.
Mr. Kennedy. You were driving Mr. Elkins' truck ?
Mr. Jenkins. And we parked it in his driveway. I am sure he
knew it.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the Service Machine Co. ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That was Mr. Elkins' company ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You went down there and ultimately started to
work there ; did you not ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. When you came to do the work there, did you park
the Service Machine truck?
Mr. Jenkins. Every time.
Mr. Kennedy. So there wasn't any question but what Mr. Crosby
knew during this period of time ?
Mr. Jenkins. No ; he couldn't help but know the truck was there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversation about the payment
of money with Mr. Crosby for the work being done ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What conversations ?
Mr. Jenkins. In the first place, I received the money from the safe
at our office, at Mr. Elkins' office, and I had to account for it some-
where along the line.
Mr. Kennedy. What had you gotten that money for ?
Mr. Jenkins. For materials for the work on the room.
Mr. Kennedy. You people bought the material for Mr. Crosby's
basement ?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 721
(At this point the chairman returned to the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. From what companies did you buy that material ?
Mr. Jenkins. We used some asphalt tile on the floor that I bought
from a linoleum store, I think it is Lugi's Linoleum Floor, and I
bought some ceiling material, some acoustical tile. I bought it from
a lumber company on 29th and Stark. I don't recall the name of it
right now.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you went ahead and did that labor yourselves ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You and Mr. Kane ?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Over what period of time did you work there ?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, the best I can recall, it was quite a long period.
I think it was well over a month, because we didn't stay at it steady.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Crosby ever mention to you that he hated
to have anybody associated with Mr. Elkins working around his
basement ?
Mr. Jenkins. He certainly did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever make any derogatory remarks about
Mr. Elkins?
Mr. Jenkins. He did not.
Mr. Kennedy. As being head of the syndicate ?
Mr. Jenkins. He did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Or that he didn't want to have anything to do with
him, not to be associated with him ?
Mr. Jenkins. He did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Crosby ever have any talks with you about
paying for this material that you purchased, and for the labor that
you were doing ?
Mr. Jenkins. I think it was the conversation when I brought up
the fact that I — -
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to him ?
Mr. Jenkins. That I had to account for the money and I wanted to
know where the payment for it was coming from. I think at that
time I had about $300 or maybe a little more invested in material.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
Mr. Jenkins. He told me, "At the time that the thing on the
E. and E. thing clicks," he said, "We will have money for this and
everything else, too."
Mr. Kennedy. He said, "If the thing on the E. and R. clicks, we will
have money for everything" ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at that time what was going on in
the E. and R. ?
Mr. Jenkins. I had a general knowledge, through conversations
with Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Kennedy. With Mr. Elkins?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any other conversations with Mr.
Crosby about E. and R ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You never drove around
722 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Jenkins. I drove around. He called me one time
Mr. Kennedy.. Who is "he"?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Crosby called me one time and wanted me to
meet him at the union hall, and he was going to — and we were going
from there to his place, to his place. I went over there in our truck,
with Bernie Kane, and from there I told Bernie to go ahead and go
on out with the truck, and I rode with him.
In the process of going to his house, he showed me around the
approximate site of the center.
Mr. Kennedy. He showed you the area ?
Mr. Jenkins. The steel bridge site.
Mr. Kennedy. On the E. and R. ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
. Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any other conversations with him
about getting paid for this job ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have conversations with his wife? Did
she know that you worked for Jim Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I am reasonably sure that she knew.
Mr. Kennedy. You saw her every day ?
Mr. Jenkins. Not every day, but I saw her several times while I was
there. Often we worked late in the evenings, and at times she was
there and at times both were there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring any gifts over to Mr. Crosby's home?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes. Prior to the time that we started on the party
room, we delivered two slot machines to him.
Mr. Kennedy. You brought two slot machines to his house ?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you put those ?
Mr. Jenkins. We put them in the place that was later to be the
party room.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't Mr. Crosby say to you, "I don't want to
receive any such gift from Jim Elkins, the head of the syndicate"?
Mr. Jenkins. No ; I am sorry ; he didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you leave them there ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they stay there ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You never came back to pick them up?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you deliver those in your truck?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The same truck ?
Mr. Jenkins. The same truck.
Mr. Kennedy. What date was that, approximately ?
Mr. Jenkins. I will have to look here. I am not very good on
dates.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately when was it?
Mr. Jenkins. Early 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. Going back to this room, approximately how much
was your labor worth, and the materials you purchased?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 723
Mr. Jenkins. The material run a little over $300, and I just esti-
mate the labor would run approximately the same amount.
Mr. Kennedy. So it was worth about $600 worth of work that you
did?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You also delivered these two slot machines?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Crosby received those, did he not?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he know who they were from?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes; he definitely knew who they were from.
Mr. Kennedy. There is no question about that?
Mr. Jenkins. In my mind, there is no question about it. If I
brought them in the truck with the name of the company, there is no
question.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby states in his statement, and I read from
the second pa^
I used rny influence to keep Mr. Elkins from entering the teamsters union
because by that time I was aware of his activities in the underworld.
You were an employee of Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kane was an employee of Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank Bates was an employee of Mr. Elkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lee Appelgate was an employee of Mr. Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Vance?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Audie Elkins, Jim Elkins' nephew, also worked
for Jim Elkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you people kept out of the union?
Mr. Jenkins. No ; to the best of my knowledge, we were amongst
the first to be taken into the union.
Mr. Kennedy. So you did get into the union as Mr. Elkins' em-
ployees ?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you got in in December of 1953 ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You got in in December of 1953. So this state-
ment that —
I used my influence to keep Mr. Elkins from entering the teamsters union
because by that time I was aware of his activities in the underworld —
there is a mistake there ?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, it is apparent that there is.
Mr. Kennedy. You were in in 1953, and how long were you in then ?
Mr. Jenkins. For approximately 2 years. I think I took a with-
drawal card out myself along in November of 1956 — 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. About November of 1955?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
724 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. That was after Jim Elkins had sold his pinball
route ?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So there was no need to be in?
Mr. Jenkins. No need.
Mr. Kennedy. One other matter I want to cover is this: Were you
ever in Tom Maloney's apartment?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever deliver any money there ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. You brought money yourself up to him ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was Joe McLaughlin and Tom Maloney present
when you brought the money ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. How many occasions?
Mr. Jenkins. Either 4 or 5.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that money from the various joints that Mr.
Jim Elkins was operating?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, definitely.
Senator Mundt. How much money was involved ?
Mr. Jenkins. I don't know just offhand. I can look and tell you. I
got it right here.
The Chairman. What are you referring to ?
Mr. Jenkins. It is just a statement that I have some dates on.
The Chairman. Is it your own statement, something you compiled
yourself ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
The Chapman. You are just looking at it to refresh your memory?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
The Chapman. Proceed.
Mr. Jenkins. I would say it was somewhere in the neighborhood
of between $3,500 and $5,000.
Senator Mundt. The total amount that you delivered ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; I am not positive.
Senator Mundt. You would deliver several hundred dollars at a
time?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
(At this point Senator McCarthy entered the hearing room.)
Senator Mundt. You said you went over to the labor hall to meet
Mr. Crosby, you and Mr. Kane went over. And Mr. Kane then drove
over to Crosby's home on the truck, and you drove with him in his car?
Mr. Jenkins. That is right.
Senator Mundt. What was your purpose in going to his home at
that time ?
Mr. Jenkins. I think, if I am not mistaken, we were in the process
of some part of the work. I believe it was the ceiling that he wanted
put in, and we went over to look it over and decide on the type of
material he wanted to use for it.
Senator Mundt. Did you ever find out whether Mr. Elkins was
paid for the $600 that you fellows invested in this project, or any
part of it?
Mr. Jenkins. To the best of my knowledge, he never was.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 725
Senator Mundt. Did you ever hear him tell you that he was not
paid?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; he told me that he was never paid for it.
Senator Mundt. Did he ever indicate that he might have gotten part
of the payment through Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Jenkins. No; he did not.
Senator Mundt. Did he ever mention receiving $200 from Tom
Maloney ?
Mr. Jenkins. He did not.
Senator Mundt. He did complain about the fact that he had in-
vested the $C>00 in the material and the time of his employees and had
not been repaid ?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I don't know that he complained about it. I
wouldn't say that.
Senator Mundt. You heard him mention it?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, it probably was me, the one that mentioned it,
because I was out the amount of money that I had used to buy the
material with, and I wouldn't say that he complained about it or
said anything about it.
Senator Mundt. You complained about it because you were out the
money ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; I had to account for the money in the safe.
Senator Mundt. Did you have to reimburse Mr. Elkins for that
money ?
Mr. Jenkins. No ; but it was a matter of keeping the money in the
safe.
Senator Mundt. Keeping a record ?
Mr. Jenkins. Keeping the records straight.
Senator Goldwater. May I ask a question ?
The Chairman. Senator Goldwater.
Senator Goldwater. When you were in the process of constructing
this playroom in the basement of Mr. Crosby's were you a member
of any of the building trades unions ?
Mr. Jenkins. No; just the teamsters.
Senator Goldwater. Did Mr. Crosby ask you if you carried a card
in any of the building trades unions ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Senator Goldwater. Did you think it was rather strange that an
international organizer was not interested in whether or not the
man working in his house was a member of the union ?
Mr. Jenkins. Frankly, I can't say that I even gave it any thought.
The Chairman. Did you tell him you were a member of the team-
sters union ?
Mr. Jenkins. I presumed that he knew.
The Chairman. You presumed he knew ?
Mr. Jenkins. That he knew that.
Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator McNamara.
Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a couple of
questions.
Did you customarily do this kind of work in the normal course
of your employment with Mr. Elkins, in other places ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
726 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McNamara. Do they have a building code in the city of
Portland?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; they do.
Senator McNamara. Are you required to take out a permit for
such a major operation as this?
Mr. Jenkins. I don't know that. I couldn't tell you. I don't know
whether that portion of the work Ave did requires a permit or not.
Senator McNamara. You are totally ignorant of the building code ?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I am not totally ignorant.
Senator McNamara. What is that?
Mr. Jenkins. I am not totally ignorant of the building code, but
I don't know whether that part of the work that we did required
a permit or not.
Senator McNamara. Did you ever take out a building permit on
any operation ?
Mr. Jenkins. I have taken out several building permits since,
because I went into business for myself after that, after I left Mr.
Elkins employ. I went into business for myself.
Senator McNamara. While you were an employee of Mr. Elkins,
did you ever take out a building permit?
Mr. Jenkins. I don't recall that I ever did ; no.
Senator McNamara. You never would find any building inspectors
on any of your work ?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Senator McNamara. This obviously was what would be considered
a fairly major job if you worked all of these men that were men-
tioned, and over a period of 2 months, and spent $300 for labor.
Mr. Jenkins. Just a moment, Senator. These men were employees
of the company, but only Bernie Kane and myself were involved in
this one project.
Senator McNamara. Just two of you ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Senator McNamara. Mr. Maloney was there at times, but he didn't
work on it ?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Maloney was never there.
Senator McNamara. He was never there ?
Mr. Jenkins. He was never there.
Senator McNamara. I see. Obviously, the job was large enough
so that it should have had a building permit. My line of questioning
was to the end that we might establish whom the building permit was
issued to, and that might clear up who the contractor was. That
question seems to be in controversy.
Thank you.
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator Goldwater.
Senator Goldwater. To follow my previous questioning: To your
knowledge, were the other two members of Mr. Elkins' company who
worked on this project in Mr. Crosby's home members of any building
trades union at the time?
Mr. Jenkins. There was only one other member.
Senator Goldwater. Was the other man a member of the building
trades ?
Mr. Jenkins. No: he was not.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 727
Senator Goldwater. Neither one of you belonged to the building
trades unions?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
Senator Goldwater. Thank you.
The Chairman. Counsel, any further questions?
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Stand aside, and we will call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tom Maloney.
The Chairman. The Chair will announce we are going to run a
little late, because we are not going to run a session tomorrow, and
we are trying to dispose of witnesses to get through with them so
they may go home.
(Members present at this point: The chairman and Senators Mc-
Namara, McCarthy, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr. Rand. May I ask that the lights be turned off, Mr. Chairman,
and the photographers desist ?
The Chairman. You may turn off the lights, and you will make
no flash pictures while the witness is testifying.
Now, Mr. Maloney.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS E. MALONEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, HARRY I. RAND— Resumed
The Chairman. Mr. Maloney, you testified
Mr. Rand. May we have the lights off? I can't even see you,
Senator.
Senator McCarthy. It is all right, is it not, if they turn the lights
on the Chair, but not on the witness ?
The Chairman. It is all right to turn the lights on here. I have no
objection, and I am sure Senator McCarthy does not.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I believe counsel did not state this,
but I believe the reason for his rather unusual request is that Mr.
Maloney has been ill.
Is that the reason you want the lights off ?
Mr. Rand. Indeed, Mr. Maloney was just ordered about a half-hour
ago by the Capitol physician to go to the hospital or that he should
go on home.
Senator Mundt. I thought that should be in the record.
The Chairman. I was just trying to expedite it.
Mr. Maloney, you testified before this committee a few days ago.
Is that correct?
Mr. Maloney. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are under the same oath. You have the same
counsel present who identified himself for the record at that time?
Mr. Maloney. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen Mr. Maloney
before. I have heard the testimony about him. It occurs to me that
if he has been ordered to go to the hospital by competent doctors, that
we perhaps should let him do that and bring him back after he has
come back from the hospital.
The Chairman. As I understand, there are only 1 or 2 questions
counsel wants to clear up. It will not take too long. We are trying
to do this to accommodate him as much as the committee.
Proceed.
728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maloney, you were here in the room when Mr.
Crosby testified that he gave you $200 for the repairs done in his room.
Did you ever inform Mr. Crosby that you were going to get some
individuals, some workers, to do work in his basement ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I am going to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. You will not answer that ?
Mr. Maloney. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us what your relationship was with
Mr. Clyde Crosby?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt?
Mr. Maloney, you understand that when you invoke the fifth amend-
ment you are, in effect, professing your guilt to all who hear this
testimony.
You see, if you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, you do
not have to invoke the fifth amendment, It is only when you have
been guilty of wrongdoing that you invoke it. I assume your counsel
also knows that the invocation of the fifth amendment, while it cannot
be used in a criminal case, can be used in a civil case.
I am not acting as your counsel now, but I do think that you should
know the impression, at least that I get, and I assume the other mem-
bers of the committee, and I assume everybody in the country, when
you invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Band. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, since Senator McCarthy
referred to counsel
Senator McCarthy. I wish you would merely consult with your
client and not address the committee, if that is all right with the Chair.
I think that is our rule.
Mr. Kand. I thought, Senator, you addressed me. I am sorry.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. I am sure witness has employed counsel of his
own choosing. I mentioned to the witness if he wished to do so, which
he has the right to do, and which I advise all of them to do if they
think they need an attorney, that it is up to the attorney to guide,
direct, and consult with them, and the Chair is not going to undertake
to usurp the responsibility of counsel that they choose.
Proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask Mr. Maloney a question?
I hesitate doing this in view of the word that I get that you have
been ordered to go to the hospital. I do not want to keep you here any
unnecessary length of time.
Do you honestly feel that if you answered the two questions that
Mr. Kennedy propounded that your answers might tend to incrim-
inate you?
(Tlie witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I do.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. While you were down in Portland, Oreg., in 1954
or 1955, were you acting as a teamster official ?
Mr. Maloney. If I was acting as a teamster official ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 729
Mr. Maloney. What do you mean "acting" ? How do you mean by
that, "acting"?
Mr. Kennedy. Did you set yourself forth as a teamster official?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I claim the fifth amendment on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you claim to be a teamster official?
Mr. Maloney. I claim the fifth amendment on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you a teamster official ? Were you a teamster
official at that time?
Mr. Maloney. I claim the fifth amendment on that.
The Chairman. Do 3^011 think it would incriminate you ? Are you
taking a position here before this committee, and the whole country,
that to admit that you belong to the teamsters union, and that you
acted as an official in that union, such fact or testimony might tend to
incriminate you ?
Do you honestly believe that ?
(Tlie witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I do.
The Chairman. You honestly believe it would.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, could I get this straight ?
Do you mean to tell us now that you feel it would incriminate you
if you admitted you were a member of the teamsters union? You
cannot believe that ; can you ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Rand. May I advise the witness, Senator, and Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. You may counsel him as to his legal rights.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. If I gave an answer to that, I would tend to incrim-
inate me.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Maloney, I do not want to argue the point
with you, but I have not thought that being an official of the teamsters
union was a crime. I have high respect for 98 percent of the members
of the teamsters union, and I think you are doing a great disservice
to the union to which you belong when you say it would incriminate
you to even admit you were an official of that union.
You certainly have the right ; I am not questioning that. If your
counsel advises you not to answer that, so be it.
Mr. Rand. Mr. Chairman, I-
Mr. Maloney. Why do you not stop those pictures for a minute?
The Chairman. Just a moment.
The Chair has ordered no pictures taken. Is there anyone that did
not understand that order ? The next one that snaps a picture will be
barred from the room. I hope you get that understanding.
Proceed.
Mr. Rand. Perhaps Senator McCarthy may be aided.
Senator McCarthy, apparently, or I, mistook the question by Mr.
Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was not asking this witness whether he
was ever an official of the teamsters union, but whether he had held
himself out as such.
If the question is put as to whether Mr. Maloney was ever an official
of the teamsters union, I believe he is prepared to answer that.
Senator McCarthy. I believe if the question was reread, and I do
not want to burden the reporter with going back over all the argument,
730 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I am sure that Mr. Kennedy's question was, "Were you a member of
the teamster's union ?" Perhaps the record should speak for itself.
The Chairman. It will speak for itself.
If he does not want to answer the question, he can take the fifth
amendment. I do not agree with his conclusion that admitting he is a
member of the union or an official of the union might incriminate him.
I do not agree with him. But it is his counsel, his oath and his action.
Proceed.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Frank Brewster, president of the
Western Conference of Teamsters ?
Mr. Maloney. Just a minute. I want to answer Mr. McCarthy's
question.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Maloney. I have never been employed by the teamsters union.
I have never been an official of the teamsters union.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you in that connection, then
The Chairman. You may proceed to examine him now.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you receive moneys when you
were in Portland from the teamsters union, if you were never em-
ployed by the teamsters union ?
Mr. Maloney. I will claim the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
Ask the question so he understands it. The Chair will order him
to answer.
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you receive moneys from the
teamsters union when you were in Portland in 1955 ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques-
tion. You say you were not an official of the union.
Mr. Maloney. I refuse to answer the question.
The Chairman. You say you never did any work for the union?
Is that correct? You never did any work for the union?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I was never an employee.
The Chairman. You were never an employee. Well, if you did
work, you would be an employee, if you did it with their knowledge,
and with their approval, so you were never an employee of the union ;
is that correct?
Mr. Maloney. Yes, that is correct.
The Chairman. Although you received money from them, you were
not an employee ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I refuse to answer. I invoke the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer that ques-
tion, whether you received money from them.
You say you were not an employee; you never did any work for
them.
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the
question.
Mr. Rand. He has been twice, Senator.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 731
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, so that the witness cannot
claim ignorance of why he is being ordered to answer, if some future
criminal proceeding develops, I think he should be told now that under
our interpretation of the fifth amendment privilege, once you answer
a question dealing with a subject, then you cannot invoke the fifth
amendment on the details of that subject.
I think you should know that. I am not asking for an answer, but
I believe that is the position of the Chair. I know it is my position.
I hate very much to take your time here when you claim you are sick,
but as long as you are here, we must examine you on these subjects.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Rand. There is no pending question, as I understand it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you do any work for the teamsters union?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, you got paid by the teamsters union ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Senator McCarthy. I think he should be ordered to answer, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. He is ordered to answer both questions, and he is
also directed to answer. I will make it as strong as I know how.
Mr. Maloney. I refuse to answer.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your connection with the teamsters union ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any financial connections with
the teamsters union ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have financial connections with Frank
Brewster?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby testified that he ordered and paid for a
telephone for you. Was his testimony true or false ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Senator McCarthy. Were you guilty of any criminal activities in
connection with the teamsters union ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Maloney. I. invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer me this : While you were being paid by
the union or receiving your expenses from the union, were you attempt-
ing to set up afterhour joints, gambling places, and houses of prosti-
tution ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that being done with the full knowledge of the
teamsters ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you keeping Mr. Frank Brewster informed
while you were doing this ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Kennedy. Would they have paid you your expenses without
knowing that you were trying, or attempting, to set up houses of prosti-
tution and afterhour places ?
Mr. Maloney. I invoke the fifth amendment.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I will have
many questions to ask of this witness. I note that he is sweating and
732 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
wiping his forehead. I rely upon counsel's statement that he was
ordered to the hospital. If that is true, I think he should be excused
and brought back. I do not want to excuse a man and not ask a
question which I think we should ask, merely because of the claim of
sickness. If he is sick, he should be allowed to recover and come back.
Mr. Rand. Mr. Chairman, may I
Senator McCarthy. I may say, Mr. Counsel, that I do have many
questions to ask this witness.
Mr. Rand. I need not tell the chairman that this witness has been
here for 10 days. Mr. Maloney, I think, rather than go to the hospital,
would prefer to get on a sleeper and go on back home where he can be
looked after. He has been alone here for 10 full days.
The Chairman. The Chair intends to exercise the witness, but keep
him under recognizance, under the present subpena, so he will be back
here when he is notified to be.
If the attorney and the witness will accept that, it will be the purpose
of the Chair to excuse the witness until he is notified to return, and
notification to you, Mr. Counsel, will be sufficient if the witness will
agree to it.
Mr. Maloney. I will agree to anything you want me to.
The Chairman. You will not agree to answering questions.
Mr. Maloney. I am under five indictments.
The Chairman. Just five ?
Mr. Rand. It is a small number for witnesses before this committee.
The Chairman. I knew. That is why I made the reference.
Are there any other questions? Then, you will be excused under
the agreement that you are to return whenever your counsel is notified
to have you here. You will be given a reasonable time for transporta-
tion to make the trip and so forth.
Senator McCarthy. Could we, Mr. Chairman, receive a report from
the doctor periodically when this man is physically able to return?
I do have a great number of questions to ask him.
The Chairman. Of course, we can receive that and we can question
the doctor as to whether he is able to return. We can find out about it.
All right; you are excused.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry, but we have another witness that wants
to leave and must leave also. •
The Chairman. Let us call him. I would rather do this than work
tomorrow.
TESTIMONY OP JOSEPH P. McLAUGHLIN, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, CHARLES E. RAYMOND— Resumed
The Chairman. You testified before this committee' a few days ago
under oath?
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You acknowledge the same oath ?
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are under the same oath at present and you
have with you the same attorney you had the other day whose name
is already a matter of record ?
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you specifically
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 733
Mr. McLaughlin. Could we have pictures before or after ?
The Chairman. All right. Snap your pictures right quick.
We will proceed. The picture taking will cease.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McLaughlin, you came down as I understand it,
to Portland during the early part of 1955 and could you tell the com-
mittee for what reason you came down to Portland ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I would like to read this this time and make a
statement in answer to that.
Mr. Kennedy. You have a statement you want to read ?
Mr. McLaughlin. Please. I am sorry that I cannot answer that
question. As you know, I am under indictment out in Portland, Oreg.,
on several gambling and conspiracy charges. My answer would tend
to incriminate me under both Federal and State criminal laws. I,
therefore, claim my constitutional privileges, especially under the 5th
and the 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America, section 12 of article I of the Constitution of the State of
Oregon.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss going down to Portland with Mr.
Frank Brewster, president of the Western Conference of Teamsters ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I am sorry I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Kennedy. On the ground of the fifth amendment?
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes; I cannot answer that question because my
answer would tend to incriminate me and, therefore, I stand on my
constitutional rights as I said before.
Mr. Kennedy. What instructions did Mr. Frank Brewster give you
prior to your coming to Portland ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my an-
swers would tend to incriminate me, and, therefore, I stand on my
constitutional rights as stated before.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Frank Brewster send you to any other areas
of the county ?
(The Avitness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because of my
answer would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my
constitutional rights as stated before.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever use your connections with the team-
sters union to set up the Acme Amusement Co. ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question, because my an-
swer would tend to incriminate me, and, therefore, I stand on my con-
stitutional rights, as I said before.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever use your connections with the team-
sters union to organize a punchboard operation in the city of Port-
land?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question, because my an-
swer would tend to incriminate me, and, therefore, I stand on my con-
stitutional rights.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Frank Brewster send you to any other areas
of the country to set up similar operations?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question, because my an-
swer would tend to incriminate me, and I, therefore, stand on my
constitutional rights, as I said before.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask one question here, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. You may.
734 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator McCarthy. I think this question has been asked before, but
let me repeat it. Were you an employee or an official of the teamsters
union ?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question, because my an-
swer would tend to incriminate me, and, therefore, I stand on my
constitutional rights, as I said before.
Senator McCarthy. Do you feel that if you were to tell us whether
or not you were an official or an employee of the teamsters union that
that answer might tend to incriminate you ?
Do you honestly feel that?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. Would you repeat the question again, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Would the reporter read the question ?
(The pending question was read by the reporter.)
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, I do, because it might possibly forge a link
in a chain of evidence.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have sat for a
good many years listening to witnesses take the fifth amendment.
I feel that there are times when they certainly can.
However, you cannot help but get a bit disturbed when there is a
frivolous use of the fifth. I think that this witness should be ordered
to answer that question, because certainly, being an official or an em-
ployee of the teamsters union in and of itself could in no way incrimi-
nate him.
As far as I know, that is a fairly honorable union with some crooks,
perhaps, in it. So I ask the Chair to order him to answer that question.
The Chairman. All right, if that will expedite it, the Chair orders
you and directs you to answer the question.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
The Chairman. That is, whether you have been an employee or an
officer or a member of the teamsters union.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I have never been an official or an employee of
the teamsters union.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever received any money from the team-
sters union ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I have never received any money from the
teamsters.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever had your expenses paid by the team-
sters union?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my constitu-
tional rights.
The Chairman. I order and direct you to answer the question.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer the question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my con-
stitutional rights as I said before.
The Chairman. Did you receive any pay for any services rendered
to the teamsters union or to any of its officials ?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I never received any pay.
The Chairman. Did you ever receive any expenses ? Did they ever-
pay for anything for you ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 735
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. What is that question again, sir ?
The Chairman. Did they ever pay any expenses or pay any money
to you for any services rendered ?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. You are asking me 2 or 3 questions there and I
cannot answer the question.
The Chairman. I will ask them one at a time. Did you ever re-
ceive any money from Frank Brewster ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did he ever pay you for any services that you
rendered to the union ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did he ever pay you with union funds for any
services or for any other reason ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did the union ever pay any of your expenses or
telephone bills?
Mr. McLaughlin. I am sorry I cannot answer that question. As
you know I am under indictment out in Portland, Oreg., on several
gambling and conspiracy charges.
The Chairman. You said you never received any expenses and
now I order and direct you to answer that question, whether you re-
ceived hotel expenses, hotel bills were paid for you, telephone bills
paid for you, by the teamsters union or by Frank Brewster.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and, therefore, I stand on my con-
stitutional rights as I said before.
The Chairman. All right, are there any further questions ?
Is anybody taking pictures ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I want to be fair.
The Chairman. He can shoot this way all he wants to.
Mr. McLaughlin. Everything is all right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever involved in any financial way with
Mr. Clyde Crosby?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my con-
stitutional rights as I said before.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever involved in any financial way with
Mr. Frank Brewster?
The Chairman. The Chair orders you to answer the last question
and directs you to answer it. Let us proceed.
Counsel, just a moment here.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. Raymond. I think my witness is very confused at the moment.
The Chairman. Get him unconfused and let us proceed.
Senator McCarthy. May I remind counsel he is on the air when he
is talking there.
Mr. Raymond. I don't care. That's all right with me.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. McLaughlin.. The question is regarding Frank Brewster, if
I had any financial transactions with Mr. Frank Brewster?
The Chairman. Yes.
89330 O — 57— pt. 2 20
736 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE ' VBOK T
Mr. McLaughlin. No, I never had any.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss any financial transactions with
Mr. Frank Brewster?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, I will go back to this question that you refused
to answer before. Did Mr. Frank Brewster ever arrange for you to go
to any other section of the country other than Portland ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely not, and you are sure of that? You
were never sent by Mr. Frank Brewster to any other section of the
country other than Portland ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I was never sent to any of these things.
.Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever requested by Mr. Frank Brewster
to go to any other section of the country other than Portland?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir, not to my recollection. I cannot recall
it.
Mr. Kennedy. You never were requested by, or did you have any
conversation with Mr. Frank Brewster about going to another section
of the country?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir, not to my recollection. I cannot recall
ever talking about anything like that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do any work in connection with the
teamsters in any other section of the country other than Portland?
(Witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir, I never have.
Mr. Kennedy. What were your dealings or what was your relation-
ship with Frank Brewster?
Mr. McLaughlin. There wasn't very much.
Mr. Kennedy. What was it?
Mr. McLaughlin. I have known the man for 15 or 20 years and
the extent of my relationship is running into him occasionally, seeing
him here or there, and "hello" and "how are you?"
Mr. Kennedy. Did you used to call him long distance from vari-
ous sections of the country and tell him how you were doing ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot recall ever calling him long distance.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to Mr. Frank Brewster long
distance ?
Mr. McLaughlin. What time element are you asking me about?
Mr. Kennedy. Let us take from January of 1953. Did you ever
talk long distance with Mr. Frank Brewster?
Mr. McLaughlin. From 1953 on? On back or on to now?
Mr. Kennedy. In this direction.
Mr. McLaughlin. 1 don't ever recall talking to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to him from Portland long distance?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my con-
stitutional rights.
Mr. Kennedy. You already stated that you did not talk to him at all
long distance since January of 1953.
The Chairman. The Chair orders you to answer the question.
Mr. McLaughlin. I can never recall talking to Frank Brewster
long distance. Like I say, I knew him for twenty-some years, and the
thing of it is that I lived in California about 7 or 8 years and I may
have made a great many long distance calls from California to Seattle.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 737
There is something I would like to state or say if I could in regards
to going back these years. Before 16 years ago I was stricken down
and just lost all — I was a very sick man for about 60 days. I couldn't
think, and I couldn't walk and I lost all of my faculties.
The Chairman. That was 16 years ago?
Mr. McLaughlin. That's right. With it I have been taking medi-
cine and going to doctors ever since. About 4 years ago 1 started
to have a recurrence of this trouble to the extent, when I was living
in California, that I would get up to go to the store and the stores in
Seattle.
These things would start to come back on me and I finally came up
to Seattle and I went to see my doctor and we had a lot of thorough
X-rays taken and he put me under a lot of medication.
At that time I was worried that I had arthritis of the brain, because
that was a form of my serious trouble years back, in my spine and
throughout my body and I was in fear of that coming.
This thing, when you are asking me going back 2 or 3 or 4 years,
this is 4 years ago that I had all of these tests taken and with it, going
back to knowing exact dates and things, I have lost my memory. At
that time I Avas confused and I didn't know what town I was in and I
moved out to Seattle 10 years ago and at the time I was in Seattle I
would get in the car and I would drive on out to the home that I used
to live in and things of that kind.
Therefore, I am confused.
The Chairman. Let me ask you this : Did you have a loss of memory
or were you confused when you were operating in Portland.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question^ My answer
would tend to incriminate me, under both the Federal and State
criminal laws.
The Chairman. You injected this into the discussion and so, there-
fore, I order and direct you to answer the question. You are going
back 16 years.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because of my
answer would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my
constitutional rights as I said before.
The Chairman. What the Chair is trying to find out is whether
you knew what you were doing when you were in Portland Oreg.
You have gone back and you built this case of disability, trying to
throw some light on this thing, and why you cannot answer.
I want to ask you the direct question : Were you so afflicted and
did you lose your memory and not know what you were doing when
you were operating in Portland, Oreg. ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and 1, therefore, stand on my constitu-
tional rights as I said before.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer it.
Senator Mi not. I would like to ask you this question, Mr. Mc-
Laughlin. Did you attend a prizefight in San Francisco on May 16,
1955 ? There is nothing criminal about that.
Mr. McLaughlin. Did I what?
Senator Mundt. Did you attend a prizefight at San Francisco on
May 16, 1955?
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
738 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. That is the Cockrill-Marciano fight. Maybe you
can remember the fight better than the date.
Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, I attended the fight.
Senator Mundt. Did you fly down to that fight from Portland to
San Francisco or were you living in San Francisco at the time ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my consti-
tutional rights.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques-
tion.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer the question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me, and I, therefore, stand on my consti-
tutional rights.
Senator Mundt. Did you stay in the Olympic Hotel the night that
you attended that fight?
Mr. McLaughlin. I believe that was the name of the hotel.
Senator Mundt. Did Mr. Clyde Crosby stay in thf» Olympic Hotel
that same night? Did you see him at the fight or see him in the hotel.
I will put it that way.
(The witness consulted with his counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my constitu-
tional rights.
The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer it.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer the question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I, therefore, stand on my consti-
tutional rights.
Senator Mundt. Did you and Clyde Crosby fly down from Portland
to San Francisco the morning of the fight? Did you fly down to-
gether on the same flight ?
Mr. McLaughlin. Your Honor, I am under indictment with Clyde
Crosby for conspiracy and half a dozen other things.
Senator Mltndt. You and Crosby were indicted together ?
Mr. McLaughlin. That's right.
Senator Mundt. That is why you do not want to associate your
name with his ?
Mr. McLaughlin. This is all a chain and a link of evidence and I
don't know what it is. That is the reason I cannot answer the ques-
tion.
Senator Mundt. I didn't understand you and were you indicted
together ?
Mr. McLaughlin. That's the reason.
Senator Mundt. You answered a question previously which I would
like to have you answer again because you have answered it and I want
to be sure what your answer was.
Mr. Kennedy asked you whether you had ever had any financial
transactions with Mr. Brewster. On that you took the fifth amend-
ment. Or rather, I think not. On that you said, "No.v Then you
were asked the same question as to whether you had any financial
transactions with Mr. Crosby and on that you took the fifth amend-
ment.
Mr. McLaughlin. That's right.
Senator Mundt. You do not want to answer that question?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 739
Mr. McLaughlin. I am on indictment and let me read this over, and
this includes Clyde Crosby and half a dozen fellows in labor and I
don't know half the people included, but I am mixed up pretty good.
I am sorry — I mean in Portland — I am sorry that I cannot answer
that question and as you know I am under indictments out in Port-
land, Oreg., on several gambling and conspiracy charges, and my
answer would tend to incriminate me under both Federal and State
criminal laws, and I therefore claim my constitutional privileges es-
pecially under the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution of
the United States of America, and section 12 of article 1 of the Con-
stitution of the State of Oregon.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask a question there ? Counsel asked
you a question a short time ago and that is whether or not you had
long-distance calls to Brewster subsequent to 1953. Do you want to
answer that or do you want to refuse on the grounds of the fifth amend-
ment?
(Witness consulted counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my an-
swer would tend to incriminate me, and I therefore stand on my con-
stitutional rights.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. McLaughlin, if the Chair will indulge with
me for about 10 seconds, I would like to say that you are doing a tre-
mendous disservice to the teamsters union and to Mr. Brewster. I
don't know whether Mr. Brewster is lily pure or a crook. I have no
idea. But you are creating the impression that there is something
crooked here. If you don't remember as you said a minute ago,
whether or not you had those conversations, just say you don't re-
member. When you say your answer would tend to incriminate you,
it sort of negatives your story about your bad memory. It indicates
that you do remember. I just wonder why you don't tell us what you
know. Certainly it is no crime to have had a conversation with Brew-
ster. Certainly it is no crime to have traveled on the same airplane
with Crosby. I just wonder why you hide behind this privilege, and
I think that you are doing it fictitiously. I just wonder if you would
want to consider or I should say reconsider, and tell us the answer to
the question counsel asked you. You are helping neither yourself
nor anyone else by this.
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer the question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me, and I therefore stand on my constitu-
tional rights.
Senator McCarthy. All right. Now you said your memory was
bad. Do you remember — and I am not asking whether you had the
conversations — but do you remember whether you had long-distance
conversations with Brewster during or after 1953 ?
(Witness consulted counsel.)
Senator McCarthy. Just, do you remember ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me and I therefore stand on my constitu-
tional rights, as 1 said before.
Senator McCarthy. Did you ever pay any money to Brewster ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Did you ever receive anything of value from
Brewster?
740 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(Witness consulted counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. You mean in hundreds of dollars, or dollars,
or to buy a drink, or what ?
Senator McCarthy. Anything of value whatsoever. I am not in-
terested in a drink or something like that.
Mr. McLaughlin. Let us have the question again.
Senator McCarthy. Did you ever receive anything: of value from
Brewster ? Now you said, "Do you mean a drink ? " The answer is of
course "No." I am not referring to having a drink at the bar or some-
thing like that.
(Witness consulted counsel.)
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me, and I therefore stand on my constitu-
tional rights.
Senator McCarthy. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. Kennedy. I want to recall Mr. Bennett for just half a minute.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Bennett, come around.
This witness will be placed under recognizance to reappear. Do you
accept that without further subpena ?
Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You will agree to return if the committee needs
further testimony from you upon notice to your counsel and you are
given a reasonable time to appear.
Mr. Bennett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bonner. Might be that we would be engaged in a trial on some
of these matters, and I want to say that for the record. When that
time comes, you may have a transcript of the evidence.
The Chairman. The committee will of course take those things into
account, and we don't want to put anyone in jeopardy because he
cannot do two things at one time.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. McLaughlin before he leaves,
whether he ever received any inside information from Mr. Crosby on
thisE. and R. matter?
Mr. McLaughlin. I cannot answer that question because my answer
would tend to incriminate me, and T therefore stand on my constitu-
tional rights.
The Chairman. The witness is excused until such time as his pres-
ence may be required for futher testimony, upon notice to his counsel.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask you one final question? Do any
of your indictments concern Mr. Brewster, also ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. They do not ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to recall Mr. Jenkins.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES Q. JENKINS— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. When you were here before, Mr. Jenkins, I asked
you whether you had been arrested on any matters other than just a
traffic thing.
Mr. Jenkins. I am under six indictments now.
Mr. Kennedy. You have been indicted six times now ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 741
Mr. Jenkins. Ves, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you have been indicted on more counts than Mr.
McLaugh]
Mr. Jenkins. I presume ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And also than Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Jenkins. I don't know about that.
Mr. Kennedy. And you felt free to talk even without an attorney
before the committee ?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins has been indicted on 26 counts.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he also testified before the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. The committee will stand in recess until
10 o'clock Tuesday morning.
(Thereupon, at 5:45 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m., Tuesday, March 12, 1957.)
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. 37
744
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38A
ftOOMMO.
t<4
,»0.mfAlTT
t
• A.M.
P.M.
OWAlTUftt
A. ML'
ft
Br.
AAfcw
•W 1ST J WITHOUT 8. <«:«■* A*f AMI WOUBSTK* TO MY IN ABVWMCI
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 745
Exhibit No. 38A— Continued
746
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38B
tOOM NO.
4tf
HAT!
r
MO.wr/Ajmr
' AftttVAL
A. 14
*.*
OffAtJURS
A.M.
f.M.
Olympic Jiotd
fofiihdtioH Ga*d
a*-?/^
SUSfc^ „,tl^
Rm»-
A<Mwm
6tf BTS WITHOUT |Aft*A6f AM MQUISTH) TO *AY IN AOVANCt
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38B — Continued
747
! S
748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38C
WtMOMT |
nnn**M
muv
«ATU«0«Y
MHNMT
Date
Explanation
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 749
Exhibit No. 38C — Continued
1U28 BREWSTER, FRANK
5-1U SEATTLE, WASH.
750
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38C — Continued
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38D
751
vnerrmo sum umtmm
. MATU4 .
cjo SAN
M|IAO<B> -WliKr 'OI«H Myt
UMITmO AIR UNtf
_
LINE*
iisco
;co
ws sutvj'
Rf
TEW » *•*■** / ^31,63 I
»wu«:f »o 'a* itoii^iSi.
r
El
UMirmq Aim utumm
l^/frli:..f.../-gi \vJ
roirr coupo* i
AIR/CWCS
fwst
'mm. WWTLAM
* SA* FWklSOO Rf
g» p»-yo
*LA
ffC-t*2?0
&
y*¥«\ H^m
vn>
89330 O— 57— pt. 2-
752
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 38D — Continued
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 753
Exhibit No. 39
111
! (i
c
ft,
6 «
- — U
-» J* c
o - r
o u c
c
c • —•
c n- «
o o
^» »-> c
*j x:
C E +■>
© o
» J- u.
♦^ *- c
x> -v f~
C C 3
U > Xi
«, *»
3 t c
.C * 4)
t- e
ft, 4J
C i-. m
o *>
J= >
•n o t
c
'1
754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 40
z*
u
3 -* d
* P • -.
*J T. t Xj
o > •
> * < «
o. X) • »
• t. •
•brlH
*, tip
*> c *
~?
u ?
•
»
o a
C
^
> c
g
- §
• —
•
^-» ■
© *->
a
c g
t *
«o
u t.
«.
M o
«w
X} »^
• a
'.
• M
^
3 ■
-> •
O
■ «
a
$ §
o
*J
p *
s
* *
0
o
o t.
§
^ .c
a
•1
**
• v-4
u •
c
•"> •
o <-*
£
Ok a
<->
• m
a
u
c
3 *i
•
o o»
• JR
►» ^
♦> ^
M
C
o
K fc.
r-f •
«
•
O m
a ►.
c
£
•
8 t
c
o
2 *
o c
*>
■
o u
a
A
m
c «
• o
o
It
5 3
u
c
a Q.
L
-»
■O C
B
d
« ^4
•
^
■
«
t. JC
•
<-• O
• -*
«
o
•
*>
— <
*
I I
f-4 .-
■
u
! S
•
►.
V,
• Q
c
«
c
•
§ •
JC •
3
i
*J
I
*
!
A*
c
fit t.
*-.
r-«
C O
o
a,
•< Q.
►» €.
**
c
• o •
s E
s
■>
• c
a «c
o
o
■ 4J «4
1 s
s
r-<
*» * M
O
C ** -t
O -1
c
€ m u.
O P.
c
• m
< •
a
c •
*»
t, ^
Q, «
**
- • c
CO •
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 40— Continued
755
;§^M^m.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05445 6676
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11