(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of improper activities in the labor or management field. Hearings before the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field"

^ - \--. ^.r^.- 




Given By 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BBFOBB 'I' HHl 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



MARCH 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1957 



PART 3 



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 

SELIEC^ COMMITTEE 
ON IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSirANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



MARCH 12, 13, 14, AND 15, 1&57 



PART 3 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 195T 



Boffton PuWIc Uhnry 
Superintendpnt 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 B. MUNDT, South Dakota 

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan BARRY GOLDWATBR, Arizona 

ROBERT F, Kennedy, Chief Counsel 
Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk 
II 



CONTENTS 



AUEA : PORTLAND, OREG., SEATTLE AND SPOKANE, WASH. 

Page 

Appendix 107 1 

Testimony of — 

Brewster, Frank W 993, 1045 

Calabrese, Alphonse F 898, 986 

Crosby, Clyde C 757, 783, 802 

Elkins, James B • .L 942, 967 

Gi vens, Leonard 916 

Langley, William M . 932, 972, 989 

Mikesell, Reginald R 853, 902 

Neuberger, Hon. Richard L 1026 

Schrunk, Terry D 759 

Sheridan, Thomas J 921 

Exhibits 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 
45. Copies of nine reels of tape recordings seized in the home of 

of Ray Clark 759 (*) 

46A. Letter or bill rendered from R. R. Mikesell, secretary of the 
joint council to John Sweene}^, secretary-director of 
Western Conference of Teamsters, itemizing reimbursable 

expenditures by Joint Council 37 totaling $3,426.57 812 1071 

46B. Check of Western Conference of Teamsters No. 8428 dated 
May 4, 1955, in the amount of $3,426.57 payable to Joint 
Council 37 accompanied by letter 812 1072 

47. Check drawn on Citizens Branch, United States National 

Bank dated August 10, 1956, in the amount of $2,000 
representing contribution to campaign expenses of Gov. 
Robert Holmes out of Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37 
Special Account ■. 819 1073 

48. Contract between Teamsters Union No. 223 and the Coin 

Machine Men of Oregon, dated March 29, 1955 843 1074- 

1076 

49. Record book of entry of the joint council 857 (*) 

50. Registration card and folio and bill rendered to Western Con- 

ference of Teamsters for Tom Maloney, at the Olympic 

Hotel, Seattle, dated December 17, 1954 899 1077- 

1080 

51. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37 ledger sheet, page 34, 

showing payment of Maloney's bill at Hotel Benjamin 

Franklin, December 16-20, 1955 900 facing 

1080 
62. Air travel request signed by Majorie Pearson, Western Con- 
ference of Teamstsrs, card No. U-Q 13110 W 57104, for 

Tom Maloney on December 9, 1955 900 1081- 

1082 
53. Telephone bills at the Park Plaza, Portland Towers, and 
King Towers, Inc., for Tom Maloney covering period from 

February 1955 through October 17, 1955 900 1083- 

1085 
64. Toll call slips from Maloney's and McLaughlin's King Towers 
Apartment, No. Capitol 8-1707 from October 18 through 

October 31, 1955 902 1086- 

1088 
55. Statement of election expenditures of William Langley for 

District Attorney Committee dated November 4, 1954 983 1089 

and 1090 

•May be found in the files of the select committee. 

in 



IV CONTENTS 

Exhibits — Contiuued 



Intri dueed Appears 
on page on page 



56A. Olympic Hotel, San Francisco, registration card for William 

Langley and Family dated November 6, 1954 986 1091 

56B. Statement to the Western Conference of Teamsters from 
Olympic Hotel, San Francisco, in the amount of $75.95 
for William Langley 986 1092 

56C. Western Conference of Teamsters check payable to the 

Olympic Hotel, San Francisco, in the amount of $75.95-- 986 1093 

57 A. Registration cards for William Langley dated November 26, 
1954 and Janice Langlev dated November 28, 1954, at 
Olympic Hotel, Seattle 988 1094 

57B. Statements from Olympic Hotel, Seattle, dated November 
28, 1954, for Tom iNIalonev and William Langley in the 
amounts of $35.86 and $39.27 billed to Western Confer- 
ence of Teamsters 988 1095- 

1098 

57C. Check of Western Conference of Teamsters in the amount 
of $227.20 paid to Olympic Hotel, Seattle, dated Decem- 
ber 15, 1954 : 988 1099 

58. Cash expenditure sheet for month of December 1955 showing 

amounts paid to Benjamin Hotel for Langley and Crosby 

by Joint Council No. 37 988 facing 

1100 

59. State of Oregon, Department of Motor Vehicles, letter with 

certification re Tom Maloney car registration 988 1 lOly 

60 Check of Western Conference of Teamsters to William Lang- 

ley in the amount of $500 dated October 1954 989 1 104 

61 Check of Western Conference of Teamsters dated February 

28, 1952, in the amount of $5,000 payable to "Special Ac- 
count Public Relations Division," and signed by Dave Beck 

and F. W. Brewster r." " " - -t^ rf.- ^^^^ ^ ^^'^ 

62. Check of Western Conference of Teamsters payable to i ublic 
Relations Division dated February 15, 1951, No. 3173 in 
the amount of $6,000, signed by Dave Beck and F. VV. 
Brewster 1009 1106 

63 Check of Western Conference of Teamsters dated August 2, 

1951, No. 3667, payable to "Special Account, Public Rela- 
tions Division" for "^$5,000, signed by Dave Beck and F. W. 
Brewster, and deposit slip of Nathan Shefferman for $5,000 
in the Harris Trust & Savings Bank 1010 110/ 

64 Check of Western Conference of Teamsters dated November 

21, 1951, No. 4039, payable to Pubhc Relations Division 

for $7,000 f--V^T-----u - ^^^^ 

65 Check of Western Conference of Teamsters dated November 

20 1952, No. 5321. payable to Nathan Shefferman in the 

amount of $2,068.27 1052 1109 

Proceedings of — 

March 12, 1957 7o7 

March 13, 1957 »»^ 

March 14, 1957 929 

March 15, 1957 ^^^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select CoMivnTTEE on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or JVIanagement Field. 

Washhigton, D. C . 

The select committee met at 10: 00 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the Caucus Room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat jMcNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; and 
Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; also present Robert 
F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the select committee; Jerome Adlennan, 
assistant counsel ; Alphonse F. Calabrese, investigator ; and Ruth 
Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan, 
Ives, Goldwater, and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Counsel, call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clyde Crosby. 

TESTIMONY OF CLYDE C. CROSBY; ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
WARREN E. MAGEE— Resumed 

The Chairman. Have a seat, Mr. Crosby. You are tlie same Clyde 
Crosby who testified before this committee last week '( 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath that was ad- 
ministered to you at that time, and you acknowledge that ; do you { 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask your 
indulgence for a second to introduce what I think is very imi^ortant 
evidence to this committee in relation to testimony made by other par- 
ties. That is documented and it is sworn to, and I believe will meet 
your requirements in that respect. 

The Chairman. You may submit any documents you have to the 
committee for its inspection. 

Mr. Crosby. I would like to read it, if I may. 

The Chairman. No, sir; you will have to submit it to the connnittee. 
We require that, and that is t]ie rule of the committee. 



758 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. In that event, Mr. Chairman, I want to have copies 
made of it, so that I can retain a personal copy. 

The Chairman. You may have copies made of it, or the original 
will be returned to you, either way. If you desire, you may have a 
copy made, and you may retain the original, if you desire, and submit 
a copy to the committee, just so it is an exact copy. 

Mr. Crosby. I did not receive them until late last night, and I did 
not have an opportunity to make copies. 

The Chairman. You will be permitted to make copies, submit them 
to the committee for its consideration. The committee cannot just 
accept any kind of a document admitted into evidence until it has had 
an opportunity to examine it. 

]Mr. Magee. May I make a statement to the Chair, sir ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Magee. Friday afternoon your counsel, Mr. Kennedy, called 
me and advised me that the committee had met and had ordered Mr. 
Crosby to produce the wire recordings which he described in his testi- 
mony. I told Mr. Kennedy that we would make every effort to have 
them here this morning, and we obtained them, and they came in on 
the plane at 11 o'clock last night from Oregon. I have the nine copies 
here which I am ready to deliver to the committee now. 

The Chairman. That was the purpose, I may say, of recalling Mr. 
Crosby at this time. The Chair will question him about them. 

Mr. Crosby, you have heard the statement of your counsel that you 
have nine wire recordings ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have nine pieces of material, Mr. Chairman, of which 
I am not well enough informed about to be able to tell you how much 
testimony is on them. But it is the entire amount of spools of wire 
that I had in my possession. 

Now, some of them carry the conversations that are of interest to this 
committee. Others, I believe, are blank. But all I could do was to 
have the whole works shipped out here because I wanted to comply 
with the committee's request. 

The Chairman. Are there included in the nine pieces of material, as 
you referred to it, or wire recordings — are there included all of those 
that you made copies of at that time you were in Mr. Brad Williams' 
home, when he played for you and permitted you to copy the record- 
ings, the tape recordings that were seized under the warrant that was 
issued to search Mr. Eay Clark's home, and which search warrant was 
later held to be fraudulent or illegal ? Are these the recordings that 
you are now turning over to the committee, and are they included in 
this group of nine reels of wire, or whatever it is you are turning over ? 

Mr. Crosby. The entire substance is included ; yes. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are those the only copies that you have? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. 

(The witness consulted with this counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. I would like to know if I may have them back after you 
are through, Mr. Kennedy, with them ? I think it might have some 
bearing on some of the proceedings that will take place in the State 
of Oregon. I don't know whether you are going to give them back 
or not, but I am at least going to make the request. 

The Chairman. So far as the Chair can determine now, there is no 
reason why, if they are needed by either you are the State or any other 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 759 

tribunal of interested parties in a proceeding, there is no reason so far 
as the Chair knows now that they cannot be made available. The 
committee is not familiar with their contents. We will of course play 
them and have the staff play them and evaluate them. But I would 
think, sir, that if there is anything in there of any value to you and 
you consider it of any value to you, either the original will be sup- 
plied you, or copy thereof. 

Is there anything further, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have nothing at this time. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. There were no copies made from these wire tapes 
for anyone ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. As a matter of fact, I heard them in their full 
degree at the time they were being recorded. One other time in my 
home, I played them for my own edification, and after about an hour 
of it I got disgusted and quit and rewound it, and you have them now 
as they were since that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of them has been demagnetized at all ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't even know what that means. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of the voices have been taken off the wire at all ? 

Mr. Crosby. Certainly I am not qualified to do that, and I am sure 
that has not happened to these. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all at this time. 

The Chairman. These nine reels of wire may be exhibit No, 45 for 
reference. 

(The items referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 45" and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Crosby, will you step aside for a moment. We 
have another matter that we wish to proceed with if we are ready. 

Everyone can be at ease for a few moments. We are waiting for a 
messenger before we can proceed with the other matter, so that you 
may be at ease for a little while. 

(Present at the taking of the recess, the chairman, Senators Ives, 
Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

(Short recess.) 

(Present at reconvening following the recess, the chairman, Sena- 
tors, Ives, Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Call your next witness, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mayor Schrunk. 

TESTIMONY OF TEREY D. SCHRUNK, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, MARSHALL I. STEWART— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mayor Schrunk, you appeared before the commit- 
tee last week, and testified under oath ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You acknowlegde you are under the same oath as 
you testify today ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. "Wlien you testified before the committee last week, 
you did not have counsel present with you at that time, I believe. 

Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. 



760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Have you elected to have counsel present with you 
today ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I have a oentleman with nie, an attorney that is here, 
that has asked to sit in with me. 

The Chairman. That is your privilege. Will counsel identify him- 
self for the record, please ? 

Mr. Stewart, My name is Marshall Stewart. I have offices in the 
Realty Building, Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. jNIr. Chairman, when Mayor Schrunk testified last 
week, he requested that he be given a lie detector test. Those arrange- 
ments were made with the Secret Service Department. Yesterday 
Mayor Schrunk went down and kept an appointment at the Secret 
Service at 2: 30 in the afternoon, and they went through the prelimi- 
naries. We submitted a list of questions that we wished to have asked 
of Mayor Schrunk. Mr. Calabrese brought those questions down and 
the operator of the lie detector changed them in accordance with their 
procedure, and then the}^ were reviewed by Mayor Schrunk's attorney, 
Mr. Stewart, and by Mr. Calabrese, and approved. 

Mr. Schrunk then went in to take the test, and as I understand it 
they go through the questions three times, and Mayor Schrunk, as I 
understand it, went through the list of questions once, and then said 
that he wanted 6 of the 9 questions eliminated. 

Mr. Calabrese telephoned me and said that this is what Mayor 
Schrunk wished, and on that basis we felt that the test would not be 
proper or complete. 

So the test was discontinued at that time. 

The Chairman. The Chair will read at this point the letter just 
received from the Secret Service dated March 12, 1957. 

Hod. John L. McClellan, 

Chairman, Select Committee To Investigate Improper Acts in Labor and 
Management Field, United States Senate, Washington, 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 Field, 
United States Senate, arrangements were made to give Mayor Terry D. Schrunk, 
of Portland, Oreg., a polygraph examination by the United States Secret Service 
on March 11, 1957. 

Mayor Schrunk, before taking the examination, willingly signed a statement, 
in the presence of his attorney, Marshall I. Stewart, that he had been duly advised 
concerning his constitutional right and that he volunteered to take the examina- 
tion. 

A list of nine relevant questions to be used in the examination was prepared by 
your staft and agreed to by Mr. Stewart. Before the test was completed Mayor 
Schrunk refused to continue with the examination unless the following six 
questions were eliminated, on the basis that the subject matter was not a part of 
his testimony before the committee : 

1. Are you personally acquainted with Jim Elkins? 

2. While in a restaurant, did you receive several hundred dollars that waK sent 
by Jim Elkins? 

3. While sheriff, did you receive any payoffs from Stan Terry? 

4. While sheriff, did you receive any payotfs from any pinball operators? 

5. While sheriff, did you receive any payoffs from bootleggers through Ray 
Kell? 

6. While sheriff, did you receive any payoffs from any gamblers? 

^tayor Schrunk was agreeable to continuing the test using only the following 
three questions: 

1. Did you pick up a package or envelope following the 8212 Club incident? 

2. Did you receive several hundred dollars directly or indirect! v from Clifford 
O. Bennett of the S212 Club? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 761 

:>. After the 8212 Club incident, did you assure Clifford O. Bennett that his 
operation at lO'lS Southwest Fifth Avenue would not be bothered by the sheriff's 
olfioe? 

Mayor Schruuk's objections were referred to Mr. Alphonse F. Calabrese of 
your staff", who advised that the committee desired the examination be discon- 
tinued. 

Yours sincerely, 

U. E. Baughman, 
Chief, United States Secret Service. 

^Nlayor Scliniiik, you have heard the letter read. Is it substantially 
.urrect? 

-Mr. ScHRUNK, Substantially it is true, sir. 

Tlie CFiATintAX. All right. 

]\fr. ScHRi'XK. Senator Mundt, after we had some eight witnesses 
parade before this committee alleging that I had taken a bribe near 
some telephone ])ost in the Kenton area, after closing up the Kenton 
Club, asked if I was willing to be examined on this matter. I at that 
time said "Yes." At the committee's urging, I was perfectly willing 
to stand and get the facts out. The only witness that could have been 
helpful to me was frightened away from testifying, and that is Mr. 
Bennett. 

The Chairaean. Now, that statement is not correct so far as this 
connnittee is concerned. He was not frightened away by this com- 
mittee. He was given every opportunity to testify. 

Mr. SciiRUNK. I did not say ''the committee," sir. I am not sure 
who frightened him away. 

The Chairman. T am not sure he was frightened away. He had 
been here, and he was given the opportunity to testify, and he was not 
frightened away, because he was here. 

]V[r. ScHKUNK. Pie certainly did not testify. 

The Chairman. We know that. Go ahead. 

Mv. ScHRUNK. At the time of the detector test I asked it be given 
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or by a recognized national 
expert. It was insisted by the committee that it be given by the 
Secret Service. Certainly I haven't anything to say adversely against 
the Secret Service, but when I went down there, I found out that 
instead of tryin.g to determine which of the witnesses — and I inci- 
dentally invited all of the witnesses concerned at the 8212 incident 
to take the test — when I got down there I found that they had a fishing 
expedition lined up with some very tricky questions. Apparently 
they were aimed at trying to make me flunk the test. 

The Chairman. Now, let us see, sir. Were these questions sub- 
mitted to your attorney before you took the test? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I did not have an opportunity to see them. 

The Chairman. Did your attorney not acquaint you with the ques- 
tions ? 

Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did your attorney approve the questions ? 

Mr. Schrunk. I don't know, sir. I was not 

The Chairman. What lias he advised you about it, that he did or 
did not? 

Mr. Schrunk. He Avas with the committee. 

The Chairman. With what committee ? 

Mr. Schrunk. With the representatives of this committee, sir, and 
the Secret; Service. 



762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. The letter says specifically Mr. Stewart did ap- 
prove the test, Mr. Stewart stands before us, and I suggest we ask 
Mr. Stewart. I am sure he will tell us the truth. I would like to 
find out about the Secret Service now, whether they are committing 
perjury. The witness indicates that Mr. Stewart did not approve the 
questions. I am inclined to believe the Secret Service, and I would 
like to find out. 

Mr. Stewart, did you or did you not approve the questions ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stewart. I examined and approved the questions from my 
standpoint, but I did not discuss them with Mayor Schrunk. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know much about these tests, but I would 
not assume that the lie detector people rehearse the acts with the 
people they are trying to examine. I would not think that was cus- 
tomary. 

Mr. Stewart. Wliat Mayor Schrunk has said is true in that it was 
not discussed with him. The questions themselves from my stand- 
point, from a legal standpoint, from the angle I looked at them. 

Senator Mundt. And it is also true that you approved them, as 
far as your responsibilities as an attorney went to approve them. 

Mr. Stewart. But I was not present at the testimony to see whether 
these questions were within the scope of the prior testimony. In other 
words, all I did of course was to read the testimony, and Mayor 
Schrunk was in more of a position to tell from that standpoint. 

Senator Mundt. We will read the letter. 

A list of nine relevant questions to be used in the examination was prepared 
by your staff and agreed to by Mr, Stewart. 

Is that true or false ? 

Mr. Stewart. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. I note one of the first questions here and the Chair 
is going to proceed to interrogate you about them. The first question 
that you objected to answering on the test is : 

Are you personally acquainted with Jim Elkins? 

I read from the transcript of your testimony last week : 

Senator McNamara. Do you know Mr. Elkins? 
Mr. Schrunk. I know of him. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know him personally? 
Mr. Schrunk. No, sir ; not personally. 

The first question asked on this list which you refused to answer was, 

Are you personally acquainted with Jim Elkins? 

The Chair now asks you that question again. 

Mr. Schrunk. To reply to your question, sir, referring to my pre- 
vious testimony, I have met the gentleman that I recall once, and I 
know quite a bit of him, and I certainly recognize his pictures and 
things of that kind. 

The Chairman. Wliat was your objection then to answering the 
question that way on the test ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Well, you could not answer it that way, sir. When 
it said "personally", I am not sure what kind of a loaded question 
that is. 

The Chairman. Do you think asking a witness or asking anyone, 
"Do you personally know someone", that is a loaded question ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 763 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Well, a person with a contact, I know a great deal 
of the man, and as far as having any social contact or things of that 
nature, no. 

The Chairman. If this is a loaded question, then many, many wit- 
nesses and many, many people are asked that loaded question. I just 
cannot conceive that being a loaded question. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. It would appear to me, sir, that it could be answered 
either way in my case. 

The Chairman. It could be answered truthfully. 

Mr. Schrunk. Truthfully either way, sir. 

The Chairman. Were you unwilling to answer it truthfully and 
give your explanations ? 

Mr. Schrunk. You don't have a change to give any explanations 
down there, sir. That is the trouble. 

The Chairman. You can answer "yes" or "no", whether you know 
him personally or not, can't you ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, I suppose that you could answer either way, 
yes or no. But I am not sure which would be the right way. 

The Chairman. If you do not know, aside from you and Mr. Elkins, 
I do not know who else would know. It would seem to me that you 
would know. 

Mr. Schrunk. I have explained to the committee my contacts with 
Mr. Elkins. 

The Chairman. I think you would know better than anyone else, 
because it is a question that is directed to your knowledge. 

All right. Wliat is your answer to it now? I ask you, are you 
personally acquainted with Jim Elldns? 

Mr. Schrunk. I know him, sir, and I do not know him personally 
other than one meeting. 

The Chairman. All right. Question No. 2: 

While in a restaurant, did you receive several hundred dollars that was sent by 
Jim Elliins? 

Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. 

The Chahiman. ^Vliat would be your objection to answering that 
question in a test ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Well, sir, the test was on the 8212 Club, and that is 
going a little far afield. 

The Chairman. All right. Do you think that is going far afield? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I will ask you No. 3 : 

While sheriff, did you receive any payoffs from Stan Terry? 

Mr. Schrunk. My first impulse was to answer the question "No," 
and secondly I realized that Mr. Terry has at times paid sums of 
money to me for various things, such as our Roaring tVlieels show, 
which the men sponsored annually on behalf of our boys' club, and 
we sold tickets, and he has delivered the money to our office. 

The Chairman. That does not come within the category of a 
"payoff," does it ? That would come in the category of a contribution. 

Mr. Schrunk. He has also made contributions to such things as 
the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association and District Attorneys' Asso- 
ciation Conventions. 

The Chairman. You do not regard those as payoffs, do you? 



764 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHKuxK. Xo, sir, I don't. 

The Chairman. Well, you knew what they were asking about here 
when they were asking you about payoffs, didn't you? 

Mr. ScHRUNK, Well, that question could be loaded, too, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, it could be. I do not know. Now, No. 4 : 

While sheriff, did you receive any payoffs from any pinball operators? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. The answer is "No." The same thing, of course, 
applies. That is relative to contributions. Undoubtedly they made 
various contributions to different things. 

The Chairman. Well, let the Chair ask you noAV, you recognize 
the difference between a contribution and payoff' to a public official. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I would imagine that you mean payoff, something 
that would accrue to his personal benefit. 

The Chairman. Something that would l)e illegal. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You and I have the same impression about it. 
No. 5: 

While sheriff, did you receive any payoffs from hootlegsers through Ray Kell? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. 

The Chair3[an. What Avas your ol)jection to answering that 
question? 

Mr. Sciirunk. Well, I just could not see where that tied into the 
questions under investigation. 

The Chairman. Well, it may tie in. What is your answer to it now ? 

]VIr. ScHRUNK. No, sir, I received no payoffs from bootleggers that 
I ever knew about. 

The Chairman. No. 6: 

While sheriff", did you receive any payoffs from any gamlilers? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. What is your objection to answering 
that question on the test ? 

Mr. Schrunk. It still was not a subject before the examination. 

The Chairman. You have had tests before, have you not? 

Mr. Schrunk. One, sir. 

The Chairman. You know they ask you a number of questions that 
are not directly related to the subject under inquiry, do they not? 

Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That is part of the way of making the test. 

Mr. Schrunk. Not the one that I had. 

The Chairman. All right. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to explain that first question, Mr. Chair- 
man. As you read in the transcript here. Mayor Schrunk was asked if 
he knew Mr. Elkins personally, and he said no, he did not. We had 
information that they knew one another personally, and so it was 
])ased on the fact that we felt that the information that he had given 
the committee might be false that that question was put in the 
questions. 

Now he has straightened the record out and admits that he did know 
him personally. We have further information, based on all of these 
questions, that are in here for the reason that we have certain informa- 
tion indicating that, for instance, while in the restaurant, you did 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 765 

receive several hundred dollars that was sent by Jim Elkins. That is 
the reason the qnestions are in there. 

Now, yon had said von did not know Jim Elkins personally at all. 

The Chairman. All right. The Chair has now asked the qnestions, 
and the witness has answered them under oath. 

Senator Muxdt. I wanted to clear np what I had in mind, Mayor 
Schrunk, and what I thon^jht yon had clearly in mind when we were 
havinji our colloquy abont the lie-detector test. It goes on for several 
pao;es, bnt the gist of it was in this statement when I said : 

I do think that any witness who is trying to establish his veracity has a right 
to request tliat of the committee and let the chips fall where they will. 

That was referring to a lie-detector test. And then yon said : 

I will be happy to take the lie-detector test with the assurance of the commit- 
tee 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. 

We go on in that vein at some length. 

Now, is it your contention this morning that yon have changed your 
mind about that, and that the Secret Service is not an impartial gi'oup 
to conduct the test and try to determine a witness' veracity ? 

Mr. Schrunk. I certainly care to make no aspersions against the 
Secret Service. This committee will recall that I said that I would 
have greater confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but we 
discussed the possibility of a private agency, a nationally known au- 
thority, and the committee said that would be impossible, and so I went 
down "in good faith to the Secret Service. 

Incidentally, I have stayed around "Washington 4 days for this test. 
I was trying to cooperate with the committee. 

Senator Mundt. I interjected tliis discussion of a lie-detector test. 
Mayor Schrunk, with the preliminary statement that I was predis- 
posed to believe a mayor of the city of Portland as against somebody 
who was an underworld character, and probably is an underworld 
character today. I said that we had a wliole series of conflicting 
statements, ancl we had a lot of conflicting evidence, and to establish 
your veracity I thought it would be in your interest to take a lie- 
detector test if you requested it. 

You said : 

Yes ; I request it if it is fair. 
We discussed for ])ages wliether the Secret Service w;is a fair institu- 
tion to do tliat, and whetliei- Mr. Elkius covild control them or whether 
anybody else could control them. It is in the record pretty clearly 
that you agreed with me that the Secret Service was not going to be 
subservient to any outside force. 

Xow, you nnist realize tliat this ])ut you in a terribly bad light. I 
cannot think of any witness who has gotten himself in a woi'se box 
than you have yo\u"self in now; that is, by asking that :i lie detector 
test be taken. I qualify that. Mr. Zusman is one degree worse otl'. 
lie took it and flunked it. You started to take it and walked out, so 
you are a little bit ahead of him, but not much. 

Bnt I did this in your interest, and I am shocked and amazed and 
disappointed tliat the mayor of a great city, after agreeing to take a 



766 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

test, and having it made available, walks up to the testing room and 
then says halfway through the test, or a part way through the test that 
he is going to discontinue taking it, because he does not like the ques- 
tions. Obviously, nobody taking a lie detector test likes the questions 
because the questions are designed to test his veracity. I am positive 
Mr. Zusman also disliked the questions. That is one of the perils of 
taking a test. But an honest man trying to give honest answers to 
questions does not have to worry about what the questions are. I am 
terribly disappointed, because I did this in your interest, and I was 
predisposed, as I said, to want to believe you. But to determine how 
anybody can believe a witness who walks out of a detector test, I will 
have to consult the writings of Solomon. I am not wise enough to 
figure that one out. 

I want to ask you again now, then, in view of the situation in wliich 
you have placed this committee, and in which you find yourself, 
whether on more serious reflection you would not like to take a lie 
detector test in which the people who run the test write the questions 
rather than the man who takes the examination ? Obviously you can't 
write the questions yourself. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Well, sir, if I am to be expected to rebut all kmds of 
testimony that I haven't even had an opportunity to hear, charges and 
countercharges, certainly I should know about it ahead of time. All 
the testimony ahead of our discussion dealt with some 8 witnesses, as 
I recall, or 7 that paraded up and made certain allegations. 

Senator Mundt. Had their lie detector test included the question, 
"Did you kill a man in the Presidential Room of the Statler Hotel at 
midnight Sunday night?" would you object to that question? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I would think that it would be irrelevant ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me you have got to ask some irrelevant 
questions if you are going to have a lie detector test. How else can you 
tell whether the needle fluctuates at the proper time ? It seems to me 
that you have got to ask questions. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Senator Mmidt, thank God this is still America, and 
that this type of thing is just not making sense. 

Senator Mundt. A lie detector test, you mean? It does not make 
sense ? You understand certainly that a lie detector test has to include 
a variety of questions, so that the people taking it can determine on the 
pertinent questions whether you have different reflexes and reactions 
from what you have on the irrelevant questions ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Yes, sir; I understand that, but I also understand 
that at least some of your staff members on the committee have a tre- 
mendous stake in seeing that I flunk the test so as not to impeach the 
weight that you place on Mr. Elkins' testimony. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. Will you identify the members 
of this cormnittee that have a serious interest in your flunking a test ? 

Mr. SciiRUNK. No, sir; that is, no member of the committee. I 
did not say that. 

The Chairman. Did you not say members of the coimnittee? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon, then. Do you think some mem- 
bers of the staff? 

Mr. Schrunk. I think possibly so ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think that they could have any influence 
on the test down there ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 76' 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I think so ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How ? Now, that is a reflection upon the Service, 
if you mean it. I do not know anyone in that Service, a, Government 
institution, and I have not contacted anyone in the Service, and I 
doubt if any member of the committee has, and I do not believe the 
charge that you are implying here, that someone there could be 
influenced by someone on this committee to cause you purposely to 
flunk a test. I do not believe that is correct. I want to know if you 
want to leave that accusation in the record. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I hope it is not correct, sir. 

The Chairman. I am leaving it up to you whether you want to leave 
that charge in the record or withdraw it. 

Mr. ScHRtjNK. I am not making a charge, sir. I am merely ex- 
pressing an opinion. 

The Chairman. We will consider it. Go ahead. 

Senator Goldwater. Mayor Schrunk, did you take a lie detector 
test in Portland prior to coming here ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were the questions asked you all relevant to 
the subject? 

Mr. Schrunk. There were 2 questions, 2 relevant questions ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And the rest were not relevant ? 

Mr. Schrunk. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How many questions were asked you in Port- 
land? 

Mr. Schrunk. I would guess maybe 10 or 15. 

Senator Goldwater. And there were only two of them that were 
relevant ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And yet back here you object because you say 
5 of them were irrelevant, or 6 of them were irrelevant? 

Mr. Schrunk. The other questions, supporting questions, sir, were 
questions that dealt with names, height, color of hair, and color of 
suit you are wearing and things of that nature. 

Senator Goldwater. But they were questions that were designed to 
establish on this machine a pattern that would reflect your truthfulness 
or lack of truthfulness, is that not true ? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, they tended to establish that. 

Senator Goldwater. You have been a law enforcement officer and 
you know how a lie detector apparatus works ? 

Mr, Schrunk. I have never operated one. 

Senator Goldwater. But you have seen them work. You know 
that there has to be some pattern established by the needle to know 
when the subject is telling the truth, so that when he tells an untruth 
there is a deviation from that pattern. Don't you understand that? 

Mr. Schrunk. Yes, sir, I understand that. 

Senator Goldwater. Why didn't you object in Portland to the ques- 
tions that you felt were not relevant to the subject you were being 
queried on? 

Mr. Schrunk. Because the questions there inferred no charge or 
accusation. They were positive-type questions. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you pass that test in Portland ? 

Mr. Schrunk. I am not positive. I haven't seen the graph. I re- 
ceived word that it was negative, whatever that means. 



768 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. I ask the counsel if staff has any knowledge as 
to the outcome of the test that was given in Portland? 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that Mayor Schrunk's testimony that 
he received an adverse test or received an adverse report on the test 
is correct. That is, that he flunked the test, and I understand that 
testimony of Mayor Schrunk is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Mayor Schrunk, I merely want to echo what 
Senator Mundt has said. I was trying my best to believe you. I have 
been in city government, and I have a high regard for the type of 
work that you are charged w^ith doing. But it rather pains me to see 
the mayor of a great city come here, after asking, and refuse to take 
or complete a lie-detector test. I think that it is a bad reflection on 
you, and I certainly think it is a bad reflection on your city. I hope, 
like Senator Mundt, that you might reconsider your decision and sub- 
ject yourself to this, knowing full well as a former law enforcement 
officer how this lie-detector apparatus operates. 

Mr. Schrunk. Certainly, Senator, I came here in the best of faith, 
hoping to be of some assistance in the investigation of the potential 
racketeering and labor management. 

But the longer I stayed, and I washed some of the dirty linen in the 
city of Portland, which we apologize for — we realize we have a prob- 
lem—when I was confronted by this committee or the chief counsel 
with a list of 35 alleged places in the city of Portland, demanding 
why I hadn't cleaned them up in 2 months, upon checking that and 
finding that it was extremely inaccurate, the report, 1 of the places 
alleged to be operating was in an adjoining county, 1 of the houses 
was vacant and has been vacant for a period of time 

Senator Goldwater. Mayor, I do not think that that has any bear- 
ing on the subject we are discussing. I think the committee would be 
disposed to believe that cleaning up 35 places like that in the short 
space of a month or two would be a rather difficult task for a mayor. I 
do not think it had any bearnig at all, to speak of, on this case. But 
what we are talking about now is j^our refusal to answer questions 
that certainly are relevant to this case, and objecting, I might say, to 
questions that you say are irrelevant, when in Portland you did not 
object to similar irrelevant questions. 

(At this point. Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Schrunk. There was no similar irrelevant 

Senator Goldwater. They are simply trying to establish a pattern 
of veracity. That is all the questions were intended to do, the ques- 
tions that the chairman read off this morning. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, since there has been so much said 
about lie detectors, I just want to put my opinion of lie detectors 
on the record. As a superior court judge in North Carolina, I was 
called on at one time to rule on the question of whether I thought a 
lie-detector test had sufficient probative value to permit it to he of- 
fered in evidence against a defendant on trial for a criminal offense. 
I made such study as I could at that time and I found that lie detec- 
tors operate on what I would say is the theory of the recording of 
agitation. In other words, the apparatus rex^ords the mental turmoil 
or agitation or tension of the party being subjected to the test, and 
the result of the test is based on the inference which the operator or 
examiner of the record draws of the psychological meaning of the 
]iliysiral reaction. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 769 

From my study of it, I came to the conclusion that a man who is 
agitated, regardless of whether he be innocent or whether he be guilty, 
and regardless of whether he be truthful or whether he be unveracious, 
he will stand a poor test, 

Tlie more brazen a man is, and the more possession he has of his 
faculties, the better he passes the test, regardless of how untruthful 
lie may be. For that reason, I excluded the results of the lie-detector 
test from evidence, because I came to the deliberate conclusion after 
studying the subject, that the alleged results of lie detectors are evi- 
dentially unreliable. 

I make this statement because I would not want anyone to imply 
from the many questions asked ahout this, that I, as a member of 
tills committee, place any great value on the results of alleged lie- 
detector tests. 

I am not passing on the psychological effect on the minds of the 
committee or anybody else of the refusal of a person to submit to a 
lie-detector test. 

Mr. SciiRUXK. I tliink the Senator has certainly made a very good 
point. 

(At this point, Senator Ives entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this statement. I think the 
record clearly reflects that the Chair has not at any time ordered 
anyone to take a lie-detector test. We were confronted by another 
witness with the demand that he be given a lie-detector test, along 
with another witness whose testimony conflicted with his. The Chair 
arranged for a lie-detector test to be made for that witness, througli 
the efforts of the staff" and the cooperation of the Secret Service. At 
that time Senator Ervin made siome statement about dou]>ting the 
validity or probity of that character of testimony. 

The Chair stated then he has no opinion one way or the other about 
it, because he v^as not familiar with it. 

When this witness came on the stand, I believ^e it was Senator 
Mundt who raised the question with him in view of the conflict of 
testimony as to whether lie would take a lie-detector test. 

The Chair announced at that time he would not arrange for it 
unless the witness requested it. 

After other questions by Senator Mundt, the witness said he did 
request it. 

That is the status of the record, so far as I recall, and if I am inaccu- 
rate about it, I would like to be corrected. But T think that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would say that my recollection 
accords 100 percent with the recollection of what the chairman has 
just stated. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator McNamara? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any si)ecia] ques- 
tions to ask the witness, but I have been more or less compelled to take 
somewhat of an interest in lie detector tests. After reading something 
abont it in the last few days, I get the impression that the result of a 
surprise question to a witness, one that he might term — well, somebody 
used the example of "Did yon kill a man at midnight at the Statler 
Tlotel"' — will give yoii a similar livi'-tion on the machine to an unti-ntl^ 
because the sur})rise element v.ould canst' a fellow to junq:). too. So I 
S!l.'!30— fiT— lit. .-. ■_• 



770 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

do not think it is all black and white. I think for what it is worth, 
we ought to give it consideration, but definitely for what it is worth. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives? 

Senator Ives. I believe that the mayor, in his statement, said that 
he did not receive any payoffs from any source, with one possible excep- 
tion, which I will come to, but that he did receive contributions. 

That is correct, is it not ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. That is substantially correct, sir. 

Senator Ives. Contributions for various charitable undertakings of 
one kind or another, is that right ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Yes. We sponsor in our city a very fine boys club. 
I happen to be active with that, and have spent a lot of time. I served 
as the chairman of the building committee. 

Senator I\^s. Did you keep those contributions you received in a 
separate fund or did you put them in your own fund ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. They went into the corporation fund. 

Senator I\tes. Have you any record of those contributions that were 
made. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. All the records are in the corporation, yes. 

Senator Ives. They are all in existence ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. But on the matter of the contributions, there would 
be all types of tickets that would be sold. We had a thrill show called 
"Roaring Wheels", which many of the pinball operators as well as 
many other people sold those tickets and bought them. 

Senator Ives. I am not criticizing you for getting money for con- 
tributions. That is not the point. I am wondering if you had a record 
of it, or whether you put the money with your own fund. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. There are regular accounts filed. We have 
a nonprofit corporation. It is all accounted for. 

Senator Ives. In one answer, you caused me to pause : Wliile sheriff, 
did you receive any payoff's from any gamblers? As I recall, the 
answer that you gave to that was not that you were aware of, is that 
right ? I think that is what you said in reply. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I don't recall what the reply was. 

Senator Ives. I think that was your reply. Is that what you meant ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I meant that I received no payoff's from any gambler. 

Senator Ives. That you definitely received no payoffs from any 
gambler, is that right? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. That is right. 

Senator Ives. There is no doubt about it ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Nor anyone else. 

Senator Ives. That is what I mean, no doubt about it at all in your 
mind? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. But I suppose what I had in mind was each of you 
gentlemen have been in political campaigns, and there might be con- 
tributions and you don't know whether the man is a bootlegger or a 
gambler or things like that. That is certainly conceivable. 

Senator Ives. You do feel that you may have received contributions 
from such sources for your campaign, is that correct ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I don't know of any specific, but I think it is certainly 
possible. I wouldn't want to put myself out on a limb and say "Well, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 771 

I just didn't" and have you produce John Jones who would say, "Well, 
I put $10 in his campaign, or $100." 

Mr. Kennedy. How about Al Winters of the Sahara Club? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I never received any. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You uever received any contributions from him? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, for your political campaign ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen him since- 



Mr. Kennedy. Did he send you any contributions for your last 
political campaign ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. I didn't even hear from him or see him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I am sure I didn't see him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I did not ask you that. Did you receive any political 
contributions from Al Winters who owns the Sahara Club in your last 
political campaign? 

Mr. SciiRUNK. No, sir. He never sent anything to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking did he send it to you. He may have 
sent it to someone for you. 

Did you receive any political contributions directly or indirectly 
from Al Winters? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I don't know what you mean by indirectly. I re- 
ceived no contributions from Mr. Winters. I have had no associa- 
tion with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking that. Did you receive any political 
contributions from Al Winters directly or indirectly in your last 
political campaign ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Well, I don't know how you 

Mr. I^nnedy. This would be somehing; that you would know 
about it. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. How can you answer indirectly? What do you 
mean by indirectly ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did someone else call you, or come to one of your 
committees for you ? This is something you would know. I am talk- 
ing about where you actually knew about it. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No. Our committee has two basic principles. Num- 
ber one, we accept money from no one where there are any obligations. 
We have made no commitments. Number two is that the committee 
raise suificient money to pay the bills they incur. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mayor Schrunk, I will give you a little background as to what 
motivated me to ask you whether you wanted to take this lie detector 
test or not. We had at that time received before the committee evi- 
dence which is in the public record that you had already taken a lie 
detector test given by the State police in Oregon and that you had 
flunked that test. We had scores of witnesses before us testifying 
under oath, making specific charges against you. Some of them were 
witnesses in whom I was not inclined to place very much confidence. 
But at least two of them were patrolmen under your employment in 
the city of Portland, Oreg., whose whole tendency, naturally, would 
be to protect their chief, not to incriminate him. They had testified, 
and they looked like honest young men, that they noticed certain 
things which incriminated you pretty badly. 



772 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

So, as T say, I Avas inclined to believe you, because of the position 
that you hold, and my resj^ect for the city of Portlan.d, Oreg. I 
thought that this might be a way for you to demonstrate your veracity, 
if, indeed, you have been telling us the truth. That is why I brought 
up the colloquy about taking the test. 

You complain now about six of the questions because you say they 
are irrelevant. That leaves me terribly cold, because I know that in a 
lie detector test you have to ask irrelevant questions. Then you stick in 
once in a while a pertinent question. It is in that way that you test 
the reactions of the individual. 

Suppose that first question had read instead of, "Are you personally 
acquainted with Jim Elkins" — and I accept the validity of your uncer- 
tainty because knowing that you do not know him, you say socially, 
and you say you do not know whether that makes you personally ac- 
quainted with him or not — suppose that first question read this way : 
"Did you ever thank Jim Elkins for any gratuities that he gave you?" 
What would your answer be? 

Mr. SciiRUNK. Well, gosh, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Tliat is a pretty clear question. Let me read it 
again. Did you ever thank Jim Elkins for any gratuities that he gave 
to you, or sent, that lie sent or gave to you ? This is something now 
within your own knowledge, certainly. If you thanked him, you did, 
and if you did not thank him, you did not. 

Mr. Shrunk. Well, now, I don't know. It is possible. If he con- 
tributed at a convention, I might have dropped him a note, I might 
have called him. It is conceivable. 

Senator Mundt. It is conceivable that you did thank him? 

Mr. SciiRUNK. If he made a contribution to 

Senator Mundt. To your campaign ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I don't recall Mr. Elkins ever contributing to my 
campaign. 

Senator INIundt. Why would he be giving you money? It would 
not be a payoff, would it ? 

Mr. ScHUNK. No, sir. What I said was if he contributed to some- 
thing like the Lower Columbia River Peace Officers Association meet- 
ing or convention in Portland, or something like that, if he made a 
contribution like that, it is possible. 

Senator Mt^ndt. He does not quite impress me as the kind of char- 
acter that would be one of the directors of the boys club. I doubt if 
he would be contributing to that. 

Mr. SciiRUNK. We have a lot of people contributing to it, sir. 

Senator Mitxdt. Well, I do not doubt that, but I just did not think 
perhaps he would be involved in that kind of organization. 

Mr. ScHUNK. My mother always taught me that the good Lord put 
some good in all of His people and a little bad in the best of them, so 
even probably Mr. Elkins contributed to the boys club. 

Senator Mi'ndt. I accept your mother's philosophy. 

He is possibly telling us the truth on all of these different items 
before us. That is what we are trying to explore. Since some of 
his statements involve you, we are trying to explore every way we 
can, and giving you an o])portunity for you to defend yourself if you 
are innocent. 

You said you were rather incensed about this list of 35 illegal places 
operating in your city. You have made a check since you heard 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 773 

about it. Two of them were certainly not at the present time injuring 
the reputation of Porthind, since one of them was outside of Multno- 
mah County and one of them was closed or vacant. AVliat did you 
find about the other 33? Were they all in that category? 

^Ir. SciiRUNK. No, sir. I will be most happy to go into that. If 
the Chair will pei-mit, I will submit a report by the Oregon Journal, 
in which they checked each of the ])laces independently. I also have 
the police reports, too, from the chief. 

Senator ]\Iundt. I would be a little more inclined to like the reports 
from the police department, because the Oregon Journal seems to be 
sort of a protagonist of yours, for some reason or another, in this 
hearing. 

Mr. ScnRUNK. You must say they are objective. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. I w^ould not say they are objective. You can say 
tliat if you want to. I do not know. I hope they are objective. 

Mr. SciiRUNK. I think they just want all the facts in it. 

Senator Muxdt. That is what we want. What did your police 
department say? You do not rely on the Oregon Journal when you 
have the police department. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir; I was just going to submit this for the 
committee's information as an outside source, outside the police 
department. 

Senator INIundt. I have no objection to j^our including that in the 
record so far as I am concerned, but I would rather get it from a law 
enforcement agency. 

Mr. ScHRiTNK. This re]3ort is from the chief of the vice division, 
directed to the chief, William Hilbruner, relative to the current vice 
situation. 

In response to the highly inaccurate information gathered by an investifjating 
committee that some 35 "joints" are going wide open, we will offer in rebuttal 
the following facts : First the attached list of 35 spots Avith a quick survey made 
within a couple of hours upon receipt of the list, with comments and results on 
the part of the surveying vice officer, Howard Wold. I will go through the list 
making a further comment and explaining some of the things an uninformed 
citizen might question. 

Do you want me to read this whole report, sir? 
Senator Mundt. Hoav long is it ? 
Mr. Sgiirunk. Two pages. 

Senator Mundt. I think it would be interesting to have it in the 
record, yes. 

Mr. ScHRUNK (reading) : 

During the last 2 months, we have had information that the Bellevue had 
ceased operations as a walk-in joint, but had been sneaking a few old customers 
and men sent from contact places. 

Senator Mundt. That is point one for the investigating staff. They 
got that one. It is still open. Go ahead. 

Mr. Sgiirunk. No, sir ; not open, as such. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I did not mean they had neon signs up say- 
ing "Come on in," but if they can sneak in, I would call it open. We 
are talking about the sneak-in places. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Sir, you have that same type of situation right here 
in Washington. I received a personal call at my hotel, soliciting. 
It is a matter of record with your local police department. 

Senator Mundt. I am glad to hear the evidence you have on AVash- 
ington. We can put that in the record. 



774 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Sir, I am sure that the committee 

Senator Mundt. I am not saying that we should necessarily hold 
you culpable with regard to the fact that they are there. I am simply 
pointing out that the staff said there were 35 of them, and I thought 
you were saying that they did not exist. Wlien you say one of them is 
operating secretly, to my mind that exists. That is what the staff had 
in mind. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. But it has still improved materially over the way it 
was operating 2 months ago. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the criterion you use in law-enforcement 
work in Oregon, that you have to dwindle them down a little bit at 
a time ? Can you not close them up when you know they are operating ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. It is a little difficult all the time ; yes, sir. All that 
you can do is keep the pressure on, attempt to get your arrests. 

Senator Mundt. Have they made any arrests out there in the last 
2 months on that place ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Not in the Bellevue. Across the street, the Irving 
Hotel, they cleaned out three beUhops, three taxicab drivers, and a 
couple of girls. 

Senator Mundt. Why do they not arrest them in the building, since 
thej^ know it is going on, since the vice squad reported it? If they 
know it is operating occasionally, with people sneaking in, why do 
they not go in and arrest them ? 

Mr. ScHRUNK. You know how you have to get an arrest. You have 
to have a proposition, money exchange hands, and an overt act. 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead. 

Mr. ScHRUNK (reading) : 

The Irving Hotel is also no longer a walkin, but they have been sneaking, 
evidently with oriental customers, Chinese and Filipino, as during our surveil- 
lance we have noticed and stopped and questioned orientals coming out, and our 
questioning has prevented others from entering. The limited and select clientele 
of both of these hotels as well as others makes tbese places definitely not wide 
open. 

Senator Mundt. I will give your investigating staff credit for No. 2, 
then. They found a place where illegal activities are going on. That 
is all they allege. Your report confirms it. 

Mr. ScHRUNK (reading) : 

Enforcement of the prostitution laws in these places is extremely difficult as 
we have no complainants and the operators are sure of their customers as they 
know we have no oriental policemen, nor can we get an oriental undercoverman. 

Senator Mundt. That is a pretty good alibi for the police depart- 
ment, but it certainly does not nullify what our very competent in- 
vestigative staff found, does it? You would not expect the "Good 
Housekeeping" label to be applied to Portland, Oreg., on the basis 
of that testimony there. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I think the point is well taken, sir, but this is an old 
art, and it is pretty hard to eliminate. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. I am simply saying that you were 
incensed at the staff because you said they brought in 35 cases and 
that they obviously did not exist. You mentioned that 1 was now a 
vacant house and 1 was outside the county line. 

Wliy do you not just put the rest of them in the record, miless you 
would rather read them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 775 

The Chairman. Put them into the record and give them to the press, 
if he wants the press to have them. 

Senator Mundt. As long as we get the facts. I have one other ques- 
tion, Mr. Mayor. 

The Chairman. Just to try to move along here, if he has a long list 
there with the explanation, I think if it is agreeable, just place them in 
the record at this point, the full report, the document he is testifying 
from. As far as I am concerned, he can release it to the press if he 
desires. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. I only have the originals which were sent to me here, 
sir. 

The Chairman. If you will trust anybody on the staff, I will have 
copies made immediately. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. That will be printed in the record at this point. 

(The documents referred to follow:) 

City of Portland Interoffice Correspondence 

(Not for mailing) 

March 9, 1957. 
From : Department of Vice Office. 

To : Department of . 

Addressed to : Cbief William Hilbruner. 
Subject : Current vice situation. 

In response to tbe highly inaccurate information gathered by an investigating 
committee that some 35 "joints" are going wide open, we will offer in rebuttal the 
following facts. 

First, the attached list of the 35 spots with a quick survey made within a 
couple of hours on receipt of the list, with comments and results on the part 
of the surveying vice officer, Howard Wold. I will go through the list, making 
further comments and explaining some of the things an xminformed citizen might 
question. 

During the last 2 months we have had information that the Bellvue has ceased 
operation as a "walk-in" joint, but has been sneaking a few old customers and 
men sent from contact places. 

The Irving Hotel is also no longer a "walk-in" but they have been sneaking, 
evidently with oriental customers (Chinese and Filipino), as during our sur- 
veillance we have noticed and stopped and questioned orientals coming out, and 
our questioning has prevented others from entering. The limited and selected 
clientele of both these hotels as well as others makes these places definitely not 
wide open. 

Enforcement of the prostitution laws in these places is extremely difficult as 
we have no complainants and the operators are sure of their customers as they 
know we have no oriental policemen, nor can we get an oriental imdercover man. 

I might explain what we mean by surveillance. It means watching a known 
or suspected spot for periods of time at various hours of the day and night, and 
actually checking the public parts — halls and lobby — and the register and the 
people coming and going. This surveillance is not liked by the illegitimate op- 
erators and is called harassment, as it discourages vice-minded customers and 
makes the operators overly cautious. They just can't operate wide open under 
close surveillance. Surveillance properly carried out amounts to a prevention 
and repression of vice crimes which is almost as important as arrest and 
prosecution. 

This close surveillance by both the uniformed division and the vice squad had 
resulted in prostitution being practically eliminated on a walk-in basis. This 
drives the prostitutes to work on a "call girl" basis which is even more difficult to 
stop. The call girl operates with the connivance of bellhops and cabdrivers who 
identify and carefully screen would-be customers. It is known that they have 
a list of old known customers and also possibly a taboo list of policemen and their 
descriptions. We recently "busted" 1 call-girl ring, arresting 3 cabbies, 3 bell- 
hops, and a pimp, charging them with felonies on 13 counts, which has rarely 
been done in the past. MoiSt vice arrests on prostitution, the defendants were 



776 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

charged with "bringing 2 people together" whicli is only a misdemeanor and 
brings a fine of nsually $50 and a sentence of 30' days suspended. This punish- 
ment is like paying a fee to operate, as they are back in business the next night 
and one "trick" pays the fine and possibly even the attorney. 

Attached is a list of immoral-woman arrests made last year and note the 
number of suspended sentences. 

The high prices paid here to call girls for prostitution. $100 to $700 a night, and 
.^20 for end up for a trick is witness to the scarcity of the product and not the 
quality. 

Twenty-two of the spots mentioned, Nos. 13 to 34, inclusive, are "colored joints" 
and cater to Negroes only. We have Negro policemen, but after making initial 
vice arrest, they are now known and barred from entry. I have appealed to a 
prominent local leader of citizens for help through his national organization to 
get complaints from the law-abiding Negroes and the help of new colored faces 
to enter and get gambling and other vice evidence necessary for an affidavit and 
search warrant or gambling complaints. This appeal was made a month ago, 
and no help has been forthcoming. We have made some arrests and, in 1 
gambling place alone, we arrested 67 Negroes. However, with the small fines 
and no jail sentences, the operators and customers were back in business the 
next night, at another address. 

That prostitution is under control or down to that "irreducible minimum" 
that leading police authorities say is the best result possible to obtain is attested 
by the attached Armed Forces off-limits report. Portland and its inunediate 
environment has both Army, Air Force, and naval bases, and yet there is only one 
off-limits place listed, that being the Harbor Club, which is neither a house of 
prostitution nor a gambling house. Our neighboring cities of comparable size 
to the north have 10 or more off-limits places listed. Under the interpretation 
of the courts on our present city ordinances, we are handicapped in making legal 
gambling and prostitution arrests. For instance, to make a gambling arrest, we 
have to show an exchange of money. It is easy to enter a gambling spot, but 
through lookouts and signal devices, they stop the actual game and what we 
see is money, checks, or chips, on the table with dice or cards, but can we make 
an arrest? No, because we have not seen an actual exchange of money. An 
undercover agent is our only chance, and in a game Avhere only known players 
are allowed and others are carefully screened, what chance have we. To make 
a prostitution arrest, a proposition is not enough. We need four points, namely 
the proposition, the naming of a price, the paying of a price, and an overt act. 
It is hard to coach an undercover man in these legalities. 

Attached also is a breakdown of the vice arrests for the months of January 
and February, while the present vice squad has been in operation. The dates of 
arrest in January will refute any testimony that we have been making arrests 
only since the institution of the hearings in Washington. D. C. 

In conclusion, I might state that any rounder, prostitute, pimp, gambler, 
informed citizen, or any of the policemen not politically involved, will say that 
this town is dead as far as vice is concerned and has been since last year and 
particularly since the first of the year. 

Lt. W. W. Nelson, 
Vice Squad, Port la nd, Orcg., Police Department . 

City of Portland, Oke., Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Police 

officer's report 

No March 8, 1957. 

SuJ)ject 

Time 

Captain : Chief William Hilbruner 

Sir : The following is a list of vice outlets mentioned in Oregon Journal this 
date as having been in operation since January 1, 1957. In addition, we have 
added various information that we have on each location. 

1. Bellvue Hotel. — This hotel is run by Blanche Kaye. In the past few years 
there has been several arrests for prostitution, Iiowever, during the past several 
months, it has been constantly checked by both the uniform division and this 
office. We have made many attempts to effect an arrest, however, each time 
our man has been turn down. 

2. Irving Hotel. — The hotel license is made out to a Lee Dewey, however, it 
appears to be managed by a Evelyn Aull alias McNight. We, along with the 
uniform division, make frequent visits to this location, l)ut to date have found 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 777 

no evidence of any prostitution. We have received numerous complaints that 
tills hotel is catering to old customers. This is quite possible, due to the fact 
tliat every man that we send in is turned down, even prior to reaching the top of 
the stairway which leads to the main floor. 

3. 180 8W. Morrison. — There is no such address as this, however, they are 
undoubtably referring to 170 SW. Morrison. This location is run by Marie 
Maynard alias Marie Rogers. This location is also checked quite frequently 
by the uniform division and our office. We have received several complaints 
that the hotel is operating for prostitution, however, each time that we check it, 
we find the front door locked. We have been informed in the past that Marie 
Maynard is living there. The hotel has no city license and there are no rooms 
for rent. 

4. Libbij Hotel. — The hotel is run by Jerry K. Libby. He, in the past, has been 
the manager of the Arthur Hotel which we had reason to believe was used for 
prostitution. Since he took over the Libby, we have sent men into the hotel to 
effect arrests, but with no avail. We have also, in the past few months, kept 
numerous surveillances on this hotel, but have noticed nothing out of the 
ordinary. 

5. Victory Rooms. — This hotel is at 19 NW. 6 and is run by a Sara A. Goldie. 
She has been talked to many times by members of this division and definitely 
states that she rents "rooms only." We have made surveillances on this location 
numerous times, but have noticed nothing to suggest any violations of the law. 

6. Evelyn (SW. Morrison between First and Second). — This is the Morebridge 
Hotel at 82 SW. Morrison. The Evelyn referred to is Evelyn Brown, who, prior 
to 1953, ran the Irving Rooms at 10 NW. 4, which at that time, was a house 
of prostitution. During the past several months we have made many visits to 
the Morebridge Hotel. Each time, we find "Blind Evelyn" and a Marie Johnson 
of 836 NE. 23, playing cards. There has been no evidence at all of any prostitu- 
tion going on at this address. Marie Johnson informs us that she is acting as a 
"sitter" for Evelyn due to the fact that Evelyn is blind and very near helpless. 
We have no record on Marie Johnson. 

7. Little Rusty (First and Arthur). — This woman is known to us as Leona 
Wright alias Gosser. She has a past record for prostitution and an arrest for 
receiving the earnings of a prostitute, however, this case was dismissed in 
Oregon State Supreme Court. She has been known to frequent the Desert Room. 
We have received no complaints on this woman, however, it is quite possible that 
shQ is caterinLT to old customers, if she is operating. 

8. Villa Rooms. — These rooms are run by Delia Brown alias Florence Miller, 
and located at 9 NW. 3d. She was arrested in February, this year, by this office 
on a felony charge of receiving the earnings of a prostitute. 

9. Eric Caldwall {Rodney d Cook). — This person's house is located at 3237 
NE. Rodney. He was arrested by this office in February this year for 6 counts 
of reeiving the earnings of a prostitute, 1 county of ex-convict in possession of 
a firearm, and since then, has been charged by the Federal Government with an 
indictment of violation of the Mann Act. He is at the present time, in the 
Multnomah County jail. 

10. Haye Hamen.— On February 23, 1953, she was arrested at 1983 NW. Flan- 
ders bringing two together. After her trial, she left town. To this date, we 
have received no information regarding her whereabouts, or any of her ac- 
tivities. 

11. Anne Greennough (NW. 2Jfth and Ov'erton). — This person's name has come 
to our attention several times as having a call business ; however, we have had 
no complaints or any information regarding any of her activities. In 1942 she 
was arrested two times for "bringing two together." At that time, she listed 
her address as 2284 NW. Overton. A recent traffic citation gives her present 
address as 2555 NW Savier. 

12. Nwtmia Hotel.— This hotel is located at 409 SW. 11th and is operated by 
a Dave Feves. On February 25, 1957, this office arrested 3 bellhop employees 
at this hotel for 1 count of receiving the earnings of a prostitute (gi-and jury 
indictments). 

13. 74 NE. Cook. — This house is occupied by one Sylvester Frasier. He was 
arrested last year in a gambling raid at 19 N. Knott condu.cted by this office. 
We have received no complaints and have observed no unusual activities at 
74 NE. Cook. 

14. 72 NE. Monroe (Freddie). — Freddie is known to us as Freddie Lee John- 
son. He, at the present time, is the proprietor of the House of Sound at 2628 
N. Williams Ave. This is a phonograph record shop. He is known to us as a 



778 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

"procurer," and rumor has it that he has two white girls working for him. We 
have, thus far, been unable to make any contacts to effect an arrest. 

15. 77 NE. Morris (Marji). — This particular house is a two-story job with 
a phone listing to a Louis Cook. There is a 1955 Chrysler Imperial Newport, 
Ore. 2C7578, parked in front. It is registered to a Mrs. A. P. Winter of 933 SW. 
Davenport. This woman has been identified as the wife of Alf "Winters, fonner 
partner in the Turf Club. We have received no complaints or information re^ 
garding this house. 

16. 5 NE. Thompson {S. Baker). — This house has a phone listed to a Peach 
Creig. We have no information or have we had any complaints regarding this 
address. 

17. 1721 No. Vancouver (Armetta). — This address has a telephone listing to a 
Mrs. Armetta Jones. We have no information, nor have we had any complaints 
regarding this house. No activity has been noticed in that particular area. 

18. Sefback house on Russell, tvest of Union. — This house is 318 NE. Russell. 
On March 12, 1956, we arrested a Deloris Rawlins for "immoral woman." She 
was arrested again on April 24, 1956, at this address for "immoral woman." 
On the date of this writing, we received a complaint that the house was again 
operating. We attempted to get a man into the house to affect an arrest 
at approximately 9 : 80 p. m. There was no answer at the door and the house 
was dark. 

19. 106 NE. Weidler (Pearl). — The owner of this house is Pearl Johnson. In 
the past years, there have been many arrests at this location ; however, during 
the past year, it has been operated strictly as a roominghouse. We have spent 
many nights in surveillance at this location, but have observed no violations of 
any laws. 

20. 1510 NE. 1st (Eiser).— On January 28, 1956 Kiser, David, was arrested for 
conducting gambling at this location by this oflace. Shortly after, he moved 
and another family moved in. Kiser has been gone from this address for approxi- 
mately one year. 

21. 150^ NE. 1st (RohUe and Otis). — Persons referred to are Robbie Jean 
Jackson alias Harris and her mother Otis, last name unknown. They moved from 
this address approximately 1 year ago. 

22. Nance's Bar-B-Q (Nance). — This location as listed in the journal is strictly 
a restaurant. It is quite possible that they mean to name the Fairmont Cafe 
at 37 NE. Weidler, which has an adjoining section Immediately to the west of 
the restaurant, which is used for gambling. This is also controlled by David 
Nance. On September 8, 1956, this office conducted a gambling raid at this loca- 
tion. Since that time, we are keeping a constant surveillance at this address. 
As late as March 7, 1957, we had a talk with Nance, and were informed that 
he would keep his gaming room closed. As of this date, he is closed. 

23. i7S7 N. Ross (Lovise).— There is a 19.52 Olds sedan parked in front of 
this address, registered to a Louise Lessane, who apparently is the woman named. 
We have no information nor have we had any complaints regarding any vice 
activity at this location. 

24. 819 N. Cook (Sammy). — We do not have a name to go with the "Sammy" ; 
however, we have had several complaints regarding approximately 3 to 5 colored 
men shooting dice. This appears to us to be a small neighborhood "crap" game. 
The house sits up high on a bank which makes it impossible to observe any 
activity within. There has been very little activity observed in recent months. 

25. 3626 N. Commercial (Mamma). — This house has a telephone listing to a 
William Walker. We have no information, nor have we received any com- 
plaints on this address. A check this date revealed no activity. 

26. 3705 N. Commercial (Jessie). — Telephone listing to a Jessie D. Simms. 
We have no information, nor do we have any complaints regarding any of his 
activities. 

27. 3539 N. Commercial (Sailor). — Telephone listed to a Donnie W. Long. 
There is no record with us. We also have had no complaints on this location. A 
check tonight revealed no activity. 

28. 3316 N. Vancouver (Fowler) — The occupant of this house is Hershall 
Fowler. On June 16, 1956, this office made a raid at this location, at which time 
Fowler was charged and convicted with conducting gambling. Fifteen visitor 
arrests were made. Since then, we have kept a surveillance on the house and 
have observed considerable amount of activity on Friday and Saturday nights. 
As this is a private home, it is very difficult to effect an arrest, according to city 
attorneys. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 779 

29. 1200 N. Larrahee {Water Boy). — This house is vacant and boarded up. It 
is also listed as vacant in the latest city directory. 

30. 120 NE. Multnomah (Hazel). — The name mentioned is Hazel Stamps, who 
is known to us as a prostitute. The house is a large frame dwelling with four 
apartments. Hazel has the upstairs rear apartment. She may pick up an occa- 
sional person from the street and take him to her room. Very small operati(m. 

31. ISJf NE. Halsey {Rita). — This house is occupied by Alex Rainey, Mary 
Rainey, and Melba Mae Fisher. There have been several arrests made at this 
location in reference to prostitution since both Mary Rainey and Melba Fisher 
are known prostitutes. We are making a continual check each night at this 
address. We have complaints that both women are working; however, many 
surveillances reveal no law violations and no activity around this address. 

32. l-'f76 N. Williams Court {Lis). — This is an old house on the corner of NB. 
Williams Court and NE. Cherry Court. During the past year there has been no 
activity of any type that we can observe. We did learn, several months ago, that 
there was an elderly man residing at this location. A constant surveillance 
revealed nothing. 

33. 633 NE Morris {Poppa) . — The telephone listing to this house is to a Tom E, 
Shea. He has no record with this department nor have we received any informa- 
tion or complaints regarding either he or his house. A check, this date, revealed 
nothing to suggest any vice activity. 

34. Old Chinese gambling place near Williams and Russell. — The establish- 
ment referred to is quite possibly 2639 N. Williams. The proprietor is one Roma 
Ollison. He, at the present time, has a city restaurant license. We are and 
have been working on this location, the results of which will undoubtedly be an 
arrest in the near future. At the present time he is, according to complaints that 
we receive, conducting gambling. 

35. Fireside. — We have no information on this establishment due to the fact 
it is in Clackamas County, outside of our jurisdiction. 

Respectfully, 

Howard E. Wold, 
Vice, Nights, No. 500. 

Senator Mundt, Assuming that we eliminate question No. 1, be- 
cause you seem to have difficulty in reconciling in your own thinking 
whether your knowledge or acquaintanceship with Jim Elkins is some- 
thing which you would call personally acquainted or not, and since 
on the gratuities you would not know how to answer, suppose we elim- 
inate that question also and ask the remaining eight. 

I would like to have you tell me now whether you desire, after re- 
considering this, to have the Secret Service give you this lie detector 
test or not. I will leave that entirely up to you. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. No, sir. After considering and spending about 11 
days around here, in my opinion this matter is going to be settled in 
the courts in the State of Oregon. I shall rest on that. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. I should supplement your opinion by 
saying that I am sure the Department of Justice in Washington will 
also be involved in this case, because it is an obvious case of perjury on 
the part of someone. We do not know who. 

Mr. ScHRUNK. Yes, sir; there certainly is. 

The Chairman. May I again make the announcement that no lie 
detector test will be arranged for by the committee unless a witness 
specifically requests it. 

As I understand, the witness does not desire to proceed with the test. 
Therefore, the Chair has no further control over it, and the committee 
has no further control over it. 

I will take the position that the committee does not have the author- 
ity to order a lie detector test. It can only be done voluntarily. There- 
fore, if the witness does not desire to proceed with the test with these 
questions, then that will end the test as far as the Chair is concerned. 



780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Tliat is perfectly satisfactory with me, Mr. Chair- 
man. The witness does not only not request it, but he specifically 
refuses it. I want to say that for the record. 

The Chairman. Will this witness be needed further ? 

As soon as copies are made of the document which he submitted for 
the record, return the original to Mayor Schrunk. 

Mr. Schrunk. Thank you, sir. And may I have back fi^om the com- 
mittee the booklet that I presented last Friday that you requested that 
the staff have an opportunity to examine ? 

The Chairman. A what? 

Mr. Schrunk. A booklet. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. I understand that the committee has 
made a copy of it, and the Chair now returns that to you. The other 
will be returned just as soon as copies can be made. 

Mr. Schrunk. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

If, not, thank ^-ou very much, sir. You may stand aside for the 
present. We will trj^ to determine during- the day about releasing you 
from further attendance before the committee. 

I might do this, and I think I shall, as in all of these cases we cannot 
know definitely. When you are advised by the staff that you are no 
longer needed for this particular hearing, will you acknowledge that 
you are mider recognizance to appear again without being further 
subpenaed upon reasonable notice being given ? 

I do not kno^^' that you will be needed, but you are under subpena, 
and you can remain under subpena. Will you agree to return, if the 
committee desires any further testimony from you, upon reasonable 
notice, of course? 

Mr. Schrunk. Surely. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Schrunk. Will I hear sometime today ? 

The Chairman. I hope so, sir. The Chief Counsel advises me that 
we are finished now, and with that understanding you may go. 

Mr. Schrunk. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, when Mayor Schrunk testified on 
Friday, he introduced an affidavit from Mr. Sutter. 

Mr. Sutter at first testified before a grand jury out in Portland, 
Oreg., that he recognized Mayor Schrunk as the one that picked up 
the package. He stated in this affidavit that he was mistaken, or at 
least he saw somebody come by and pick up the package outside of 
Bennett's place but he is now unsure as to who picked up the package. 

There were two police cars, as you will remember, in front of Ben- 
nett's place. He was traveling in the police car with a Lieutenant 
Lindholm. We have an affidavit from Lieutenant Lindholm. 

The Chairman. Did I admit this affidavit ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You allowed Mr. Sutter's affidavit to go in. 

The Chairman. At the request of Mayor Schrunk? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The Chair received editorial criticism, I believe, 
from one paper, that he had not admitted it, when in fact he had. I 
know I received a telegram complaining about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 781 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, 1 think we should have the counsel 
read tliis affidavit, since it was issued by the man in the car with 
Mr. Sutter. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Kenneth Lindholin. If you will remember, 
there were four police officers that came up. There was Kenneth 
Lindholm and Sutter in one car and the two witnesses who have al- 
ready testified in one car. 

The Chairman. We ])laced the other in the record? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have. We placed Sutter's affidavit in the record 
and we have the other two officers as witnesses. 

The Chairman. Read the affidavit. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading). 

I, Kenneth Lindholm, a city of Portland police officer, legally residing- at 5608 
North Wan-en Avenue, Portland, Oreg., freely and voluntarily make the follow- 
ing statement to T. George Williams who has identified himself to me as a 
memher of the professional staff of and an agent for the United States Senate 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 
No threats, force or duress have Iteen used to induce me to make this statement. 
I am fully aware of the penalties for perjury or falsely swearing and I have 
been informed that this statement may be introduced as evidence in the hearings 
l)efore the aforementioned Senate Select Committee : 

During September 10o5 my regular duty assignment consisted of patroling in 
a police car with another officer in the north section of Portland, on the second 
night shift, midnight to 8 A. M. About 3 : 30 A. M. in the moi-niug of September 
11. 10."), I was carrying out my regular duties in company with police officer 
Richard Sutter. 

(At this point, the chainiian withdrew from the hearinj>- room.) 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

As our police car was proceeding northward along Denver Avenue, we came 
uix)n ajiother police car parked on Kilpatrick street, just east of the intersection 
with Denver. 

We .stopped our car and noticed that officers Lowell Amundson and Merlin 
Tiedemann in the other car had picked up a bicycle which had been found in the 
vicinity. I also noticed a Multnonuih County sherifi's car double parked on 
Denver near the intersection and 2 or 3 Multnomah County deputy sheriffs, 
whose names I did not know. 

I asked officers Amundson and Tiedemann what was going on and they told 
me that the deputy sheriffs must be conducting a raid. Then I noticed Multno- 
mah County Sheriff Terry Schrunk and Clifford Bennett standing near each other 
on the sidewalk, apparently engaged in conversation. After chatting a few 
moments with officers Amundson and Tiedemann, Sutter and I took our ixdice 
car around to Denver and parked it on the west side of Denver Avenue, headed 
south about 2 or 3 car lengths north of the intersection with Kilpatrick Street. 

After the car was parked, Sutter got out and walked across Denver Avenue 
and stood talking to officers Amundson a~nd Tiedemann. In the meantime, the 
proprietor of the Kenton Club, Merle Eastman, came up to the car and chatted 
with me while I remained seated in the car. 

After Sheriff Schrunk and his deputies had left, Sutter returned to our car. 
Sutter stated that he bad seen Sheriff Terry Schrunk pick up a package near 
the utility pole on the northwest c()rner of the intersection of Kilpatrick and 
Denver. Sutter was certHin that Schrunk had received a payf)ff of some sort 
and be angrily denounced him as a dirty rotten crook. 

I have read the foregoing statement, consisting of 2 pages, at the bottom of 
each of which I have affixed my name, and to the best of my present knowledge 
and belief, it is true and correct. 

Signed, Kenneth Lindholm. Witness : Moredock and Williams, and notarized 
by Henry B. Skelton. 

I. Bobby J. McClendon, a city of Portland police officer, legally residing at 
1326 SE. 4Sth Avenue, Portland, Oreg., freely and voluntarily make the follow- 
ing statement to T. George Williams who has identified himself to me as a mem- 
ber of the professional staff of and an agent for the United States Senate Select 



782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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. I 
am fully aware of the penalties for perjury or falsely swearing and I have been 
informed that this statement may be introduced as evidence in the hearings 
before the aforementioned Senate select committee : 

I first became a Portland police officer in March, 1955. From that time until 
the present date I have become well acquainted with Portland police officer 
Richard Sutter, in fact, so well acquainted that he has treated me as a confidant. 
During one period we were assigned to night duty in the same police patrol car. 
In addition, I have made frequestn social visits to his house. 

In the summer of 1956, after Sutter had first testified before a Multnomah 
County grand jury, Sutter reported to me that he had testified to the grand 
jury as follows : 

1. Sutter saw Clifford Bennett place a package beside a utility pole at the 
northwest corner of Denver and Kilpatrick Streets about 4 a. m., on the morn- 
ing of September 11, 1955. 

2. Sutter saw Sheriff Terry Schrunk pick up this package a few minutes later. 

3. Sutter explained to the grand jury at great length and in considerable 
detail what a crooked man Terry Schrunk was. 

4. Sutter accepted "smile" money and spent it. 

Sutter told me that he had had a difficult time trying to convince the grand 
jury, and that he had later found out that two persons on the jury were personal 
friends of Terry Schrunk. Sutter claimed that he also told the jury that at one 
time he had been assigned to watch Schrunk's house at night. 

During subsequent conversations with Sutter, he reported to me that Lieuten- 
ant Bryan of the Portland police department was talking to him about the 
Kenton raid and Sutter's knowledge of it. According to Sutter, Lieutenant 
Bryan at that time did not know the substance of Sutter's testimony in his first 
appearance before the grand jury. Sutter stated that Bryan kept telling him 
what an honest man Schrunk was and later told him that if a man said and did 
the right things, he might be able to become a sergeant in about a year. Sutter 
was persuaded by Bryan that Bryan would become chief of police if Schrunk were 
elected and that thereafter Sutter would receive appropriate rewards. 

According to Sutter, Lieutenant Bryan attempted to set up a meeting between 
Sutter and George Minielly, a deputy in the Multnomah County .sheriff's office. 
Sutter at first declined the opportunity because of the testimony he had given to 
the grand jury. Later Sutter finally told Lieutenant Bryan of his testimony 
before the grand jury and also of his assignment to watch Terry Schrunk's home. 
According to Sutter, Bryan informed him that he would explain it all to Schrunk, 
and Bryan was confident that Schrunk would still want to meet Sutter. 

Sutter never told me when or where he met Schrunk, but on a subsequent 
occasion both Sutter and his wife told me what a fine man Schrunk was and 
both of them declared that I should meet Schrunk. I have never met Mi*. 
Schrunk. 

A few days before the election in November 1956, Sutter told me that he had 
given a sworn statement to Terry Schrunk about the Kenton incident because he 
felt that Schrunk should have this statement in case the Oregonian should pub- 
licize the Kenton matter just before the election. Very shortly after this conver- 
sation, I learned from Sutter, Lieutenant Bryan instructed Sutter to leave the 
city for some time. Sutter claimed that he picked up his wife and child, packed 
up and left in 15 minutes, and did not return to the city for more than 2 weeks. 

After Sutter appeared for a second time before a Multnomah County grand 
jury, Sutter told me that he had changed his earlier testimony concerning the 
pickup of the package in Kenton. He stated that he told the grand jury that he 
believed he was honestly mistaken about the identity of Schrunk. 

In February 1957, Sutter learned that I had been subi^enaed to appear before 
a Multnomah County grand jury and he called me at the North Precinct Station 
the day befoi-e my appearance and asked me to stop off at his home after I fin- 
ished work. When I arrived at his house he asked me why I had been subpenaed. 
I told him I had no idea of the reason for my call and he then said that he had 
mentioned my name a few times before previous juries and that probably any- 
body whose name had been mentioned was being called to testify. Sutter asked 
me if I had told anyone about his conversations with me. I replied that I might 
have talked to somebody about these conversations. Sutter then asked me not 
to mention these conversations to the grand jury. I replied that I could not lie to 
the grand jury and I would not take a chance of being indicted for perjury. 
Sutter then claimed he wasn't asking me to lie and stated that if I were asked 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 783 

about these conversations with him I should be vague and evasive and that I 
should tell the grand jury that I could not remember the conversations. I told 
Sutter that I would not know what it was all about until I got in the grand jury 
room and then I left his house. 

On the following day after testifying before the grand jury I arrived for duty 
at the North Precinct about 6 p. m. My superior officer called me into the 
sergeant's locker room and related to me that prior to my arrival Lieutenant 
Bryan had telephoned my superior concerning my testimony before tlie grand 
jury. Neither my superior nor I have any idea how my testimony before the 
grand jury leaked out, but in any case, Bryan apparently had learned of the 
testimony. According to my superior, Bryan was very enraged and called me 
profane names. Biyan had declared that there was a conspiracy against him 
and he named me along with several others as being involved. 

On the following day I was recalled to the grand jury to testify concerning this 
incident. 

I have read the foregoing statement, consisting of three pages, at the bottom 
of each of which I have affixed my name, and to the best of my present knowl- 
edge and belief, it is true and correct. 

/s/ Bobby J. McGlendon. 

Witness : 

T. George Williams. 
Watson Eastman. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for Multnomah 
County, State of Oregon, this 11th day of March 1957. 

C. N. King. 

Senator Ives (presiding). Clyde Crosby, come back to the witness 
chair. 

(Members present at this point : Senators Ives, Ervin, McNamara, 
Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

TESTIMONY OF CLYDE C. CROSBY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
WAREEN E. MAGEE— Resumed 

(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We were talking the last time you testified about 
the E & K project, is that right, Mr. Crosby, and about the work that 
had been done in your basement by two employees of Mr. Elkins ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; there was testimony to that effect. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You Stated, I believe, that these employees informed 
you that they had been working for Mr. Elkins, is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. I stated that I learned that 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not state that they informed you prior to 
the time they finished their work ? 

Mr. Crosby. I can't recall making that statement exactly that way, 
Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, what happened, then ? 

Mr. Crosby. I said I think I ultimately realized that they were 
working for Elkins. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they did not tell you that ? You did not state 
that, that they told you that they were employed by Elkins ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe that I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will have to look the record up. It was a little 
confusing to me, because when I talked to you out in Portland, you 
had told me that tliey hadn't informed you, and I believe on Friday 
you said that they had informed you, but now I believe the testimony 
is that they did inform you, is that right? 

(At this point. Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 



784 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. The exact manner in which I became aware that they 
were employed by Elkins isn't clear to me. 

Mr, Kennedy.' Did they tell you that they worked for Tom Maloney 
or indicate that they worked for Tom Moloney ? 

Mr. Crosby. No ; they did not, but any discussions held with refer- 
ence to the progress of the work were held with myself and Mr. 
Maloney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with them about the 
fact that they worked for Tom Maloney ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is another thing tliat confuses me. Again, we 
have a tape recording of our conversation in Portland which we can 
put in the record, but you told us at that time that they indicated that 
they worked for Toin ^Nlaloney. The only jiroblem I have, Mr. 
Crosby 

Mr. Crosby. I am relying on a memory of an incident that took place 
a great time ago. For me to say under oath something concrete and 
specific, unless I can clearly remember it, I don't see how you can expect 
me to be concise on it, 

Mr. Kennedy. I would not mind, you know, if you said you did not 
remember. That would be perfectly satisfactory, and if you had said, 
'T don't remember" out in Portland. But the problem for me is that 
you give one answer out there and then you change it here. It is a little 
confusing. 

But we can go on. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I liave a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater, Mr. Crosby, when this work was being done in 
your liome, in the basement of your home, by, I believe, Mr. Slim Jen- 
kins and Mr. Bernie Kane, did you at any time try to find out if those 
men were meml)ei-s of a union? 

Mr. Crosby. I think I just assumed that they were ])art of some con- 
struction firm at tlie time they started the work. 

Senator Goldw^vter. But you did not try to find out if they were 
actually members of any of the building trades? 

Mr, Crosby. I did not. Senator. 

Senator Goldwa'j-er. Is that not customary, to find out if a man is a 
member of a union, who is doing work for you ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I would say yes : it would be customary, with tht 
exception of the fact that I just had a lot of things on my mind, and was 
busy, and I didn't pay a great deal of attention to it. 

Senator Goldwater. Did these men ever woi'k Saturdays or Sun- 
days ? 

^Ir. Crosby. Frankly, I cannot recall whether they did or not. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you recall that they worked overtime ? 

Mr. Crosby. I can't even recall that. 

Senator Goldw^vter. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Crosby. I explained that by stating that it was only rare excep- 
tions. I was aAvay at tlie time they were working. 

Senator (toldwater. This is one of the strange occurrences in this 
wlu)1e case, to me, that an international organizer would not ascertain 
if men doing work in his own home were members of a union. I can 
say tliis, that if any of we people who are not members of a union 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 785 

attempted to do such a thing, we would know of it within a few min- 
utes of trying. It is a very unusual thing for me to find an interna- 
tional organizer who has not found out that the men working for him 
are members of a union. 

Mr. Crosby. Senator, I considered it a rather insignificant thing. 
I have no apology or no excuses to ofi'er for my failure to do exactly 
what you were suggesting. 

Senator Goldwater. As far as this case goes, I agree with you, it is 
insignificant. But as far as the union movement goes, I do not think 
it is insignificant at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss this matter with Mr. Elkins ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. He came to my house during the latter stages of 
the thing on one of his two visits. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the fact at that time that this work 
had been done ? 

Mr. Crosby. He asked me how it was coming along. 

Mr. ICennedy. Was there any discussion about the money that you 
owed him ? 

Mr. Crosby. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that you paid Tom Maloney for the 
work ? 

Mr. Crosby. There was no discusison about money. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are sure of that? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

:Mr. Kennedy. I hate to keep coming back to this, but you can 
understand that it is confusing. You do not remember telling me out 
there that you told Elkins that you had paid Maloney $200 ? 

Mr. Crosby. I was under the impression that you were talking about 
the instance when Elkins was at my home. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was another instance? I asked you, I think, 
whether you ever discussed this matter with Mr. Elkins. ' 

Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I can't even recall discussing it with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, what were you talking about in this home? 

Mr. Crosby. I am talking about recalling the discussion relating 
to any money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nq, ^o. I asked you if you ever discussed the fact 
that you had paid Tom Maloney for this work that had been done, 
and then you said yes— no, I asked vou if you had ever discussed this 
matter witli Jim Elkins, and you said, "Yes, I did," in your home. 
That was at one of the two times that he was at your home! Will you 
tell me what the facts are? 

Let me start again. Did you ever discuss the matter with Jim 
Elkins ? 

Mr. Crosby. What matter? 

Mr. Kennedy. The matter of your basement, the work done in 
your basement ? 

Mr. Crosby. I state that he paid an ostensiblv friendly visit to my 
home the first time that he came there, and asked me something in 
relation j;o liow it was coming along. 

Mr. Kennedy. How what'was coming along ? 

Mr. Crosby. The basement. 

Mr. Kennedy. O.K. So what happened ? 

803.30— 57— pt. 3 3 



786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. I can't think of anything peculiar that happened. I 
didn't attach any great deal of importance to it, because I didn't think 
he was doing the work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he not tell you that his men were doing the 
work? 

Mr. Crosby. He did not tell me that, no. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

What did he say to you about the men that were doing the work ? 

That is the question I asked. This is your answer : 

He aslved me if the work that was done in my basement was satisfactory, or 
something similar to that, and I asked him "What is it to you?" 

and then you answered, and he said : 

"Well, I did the work, my boys did the work." 

Then you are saying : 

I didn't particuhirly like it. I didn't see what I could do at that point. It was 
done. 

Mr. Crosby. We are talking now about the second incidence when 
he was in my home. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you discussed this matter twice ? 

Mr. Crosby. When he was playing these recordings for me that was 
discussed, primarily along that line. I can't recall the exact trend of 
the conversation, but I think he wanted to impress upon me that in 
some way I was obligated to him. I didn't feel that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell him then about the money? 

(At this point, Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Crosby. As I recall, I think I told him that I took care of the 
matter with Tom Maloney. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did. Now you remember that? 

Mr. Crosby. To the best of my ability to recall, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that you did tell him ? 

Mr. Crosby. You are asking me the same question. I just answered 
it, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you tell him? You told him about the 
money ? 

Mr. Crosby. In detail ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Did you tell him about 
the money that you had paid ? 

Mr. Crosby. I told him that I took care of this matter through 
Tom Maloney. 

Mr. Kenn]:dy. Then you did tell him that ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you tell him you paid Tom Maloney ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't recall that I ever stated the amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did he say "You should have paid me" ? 

Mr. Crosby. He might have inferred such. I don't recall any 
specific statement along that line. 

iNIr. Kennedy. But that was the end of the conversation ? 

Mr, Crosby. Tliat is right. He was there primarily to play 
recordings. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. Now, tell me this : On the E & R matter that 
you were discussing, when you said that you had no discussions with 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 787 

:Mr. Jim Elkins about it, or that there were any discussions a.bout 
you making any kind of an agreement with him, did you ever have 
any discussions with his brother, Fred Elkins? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't even know his brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know his brother ? 

Mr, Crosby. No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. You never met his brother ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mi% Kennedy. You never took a tour around this place where the 
E & E would be established ? 

Mr, Crosby. I did not. 

Mr, Kennedy. You never discussed this with anyone, then Did 
you ever discuss it with Joe McLaughlin ? 



Mr. Crosby. Explain again to me, Mr. Keimedy, exactly what you 

?an by discussed. If you are talking about discussing an illegal act, 
„..e answeris "No, ' 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you discuss the fact with Joe McLaughlin 
that you thought you could get the location for this E & R, the Steel 
Bridge site? 

]Mr Crosby. I believe the record will show that I discussed with 
everybody who raised the question with me mv conviction that I felt 
that it should be put there. 

Mr, Kennedy, Yes, but did you ever discuss that matter ? 

Let us go back. Did you ever mention that matter to Joe McLauff h- 
lin ? => 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room ) 
Air. Crosby. I think it is conceivable that I might have discussed it 
.Mr. Kennedy. The problem is that when I talked to you in Port- 
land, you sa.id you hardly knew Joe McLaughlin. I am trvine to 
establish that this is one of the matters you discussed 

Mr. Crosby Let me point out, Mr. Kennedy, that upon meetino- 
someone for the first time, dui-ing that period of time, and because 
of the civic interest involved, you can almost count on a second or 
third subject discussed, that E. & R. did come up. 
Mr. Kennedy. Was he interested in E. & R. ? 
Mr. Crosby. Whether he was or was not, I am not aware. 

an iSe^sTinS R ? "" '^"^^ ^^'"^'^ '^^^^^- ^^^^ ^^ --- '^ ^-- 
(At this point Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room ) 
Mr. Crosby. Nothing abnormal that I knew of ^ -^ 

Pm^tl^J^TT?? ?'''\ ^'! T^' ^"^ ™'^ ^^'^ community built up in 

M^ Kpnf T''* T ^^""''v ^""""T. ^""''^ ^ ""^^'^ ^"''^^^" ^ question like that, 
relation to fr ^"'^ ''^'^'''^'' peculiar show of interest in 

Mr. Kennedy. But you think you did discuss it with liim? 

Mr. Crosby. I think I discussed it with everybody I talked to 
Xf}%^>^''^T- T'"'' ^^'- ™''''^ ^^'^^ "^'^l^"^g tl"s contract with 

h^ ;h? r^ ^^f ' v^^' IT' '^?^P'^^ «"t °^ ^<^' '^'^^^ ^^^^ ^ conversation 
in tlie office of either Mr. Sloniger or :\Ir. Kelley, the real estat^ 

nnHnr^'^fL '"''!['• "^"f^J't^^^^-^ ^^«" ''''^ finding out exactly what 
options to take on this E.&R. business. j ^^ 



788 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. One moment, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. Would you repeat the question, pleased 

The Chairman. Will you read the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will rephrase the question. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. McLaughlin ever discuss with you about 
the taking of certain options on the E. & R. property ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. i ^ i t, i ^. 

Mr Kennedy. Did he ever discuss with you by telephone what 
property would be included in the steel bridge site, if that was 

Mr. Crosby. If he did, I certainly can't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible that he might have 

called you? ^ . n*- Tr at 

Mr. Crosby. I can only answer you as I have, Mr. Kennedy, l 

^Mr. iSnnedy. Well, I am just asking you if you think it is possible 
that he might have called. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) ^ , „ , 

Mr Crosby. Go ahead, sir. The answer is that I don't know. 

Mr Kennedy. You cannot remember that? Would not that be 
slightly unusual that he would call, somebody coming from feeattle, 
whom you did not know very well, who callecl you ivp and said he 
wanted to Imow about the options on the E. & R.? That would be 
something that would stick in your mmd, would it noU 

Mr Crosby. Not necessarily, because the question ot options on 
many sites was a big discussion and subject that was discussed amongst 

the commissioners. - ^ n • i.^„4- fi.o 

Mr I^NNEDY. I understand that. We are not talking about the 
commissioners. We are talking about Joe McLaughlin whom I under- 
stood you knew to be a gambler. Did you know he was a gambler? 
Mr. Crosby. No ; I didn't. ,,. . i uv^^ 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not understand him to have a gamblmg 

place? , , 

Mr. Crosby. I understood he had a restaurant. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you not place some bets through his place i 
Mr. Crosby. Yes. ^^ , , 

That is where you can get in trouble, Mr. Kennedy, by answering 
a simple question "Yes" or "No". Mr. McLaughlin at one time that 
I met him in Seattle told me a telephone number where I could place 
a bet if I ever wanted to bet on a horse. IVliether he handled it or 
whether it was related to someone else, I don't know. j. , -, 

Mr Kennedy. That, again, is something that you have refreshed 
your recollection on. You will remember, again, when we talked 
first, you said that your bet had been placed through his place m 

Seattle? , . , . ., . 

Mr. Crosby. I don't recall making that statement that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say now that he just gave you a number and 
you didn't know? . . 

Mr. Crosby. To the extent that you are questioning me, a great 
deal depends on personal assumption, I might have assumed at the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 789 

time and given that inference, but I had no way of knowing specifically 
that he handled bets personally, and I don't Iniow yet that he does. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would you know 2 months ago and know that 
he had a place up in Seattle, 2 months ago, when you don't know now ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I don't see how you can say that I knew 2 months 
ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told me 2 months ago when I was out in Port- 
land. 

Mr. Magee. Mr. Chairman, ]3oint of order. Can't we have coimsel 
put his questions without testifying, to ask a specific question? If 
Mr. Kennedy wants to testify to that conversation under oath, I 
would be happy to cross-examine him about it. 

The Chairman. The Chair indulged you to make a statement. 
Counsel has a right to ask him, "Do you not know you told me so 
and so 2 months ago," or "Well, you told me that" or "Did you or 
did you not?" 

]\Ir. Magee. That is correct, sir, but I submit that is not the way 
he put that question. 

The Ciiairman. Let me ask you, then. I think I can take care of it. 

Did you have a conversation with Joe McLaughlin about a betting 
establishment where you could place a bet ? 

Mr. Crosby. I indicated at one time to him 

The Chairman. I did not ask you what you indicated. Did you 
have a conversation with him about where you could place a bet ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think I did ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did he tell you you could place it ? 

Mr. Crosby. He just simplj^ gave me a telephone number. 

The Chairman. Where was that number ? 

Mr. Crosby. It was in Seattle. 

The Chairman. Was that his place of business and did he tell 
you that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I do not know. He did not tell me that. 

The Chairinian. Did you tell the counsel in your conversation that 
that was his place of business or that you placed a bet through Joe 
McLaughlin's place of business? 

Mr. Crosby, I said I placed a bet based on information that I re- 
ceived from Mr. McLaughlin. 

The Chairman. Is that your exact statement now ? 

Mr. Crosby. To the best that I can recall. 

The Chairman. What connection did he have with gambling? 

Mr. Crosby. I have no knowledge of any connection that he had 
with gambling. 

The Chairman. Were you a pretty close associate of his ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever travel with him ? 

Mr. Crosby. On one occasion. I don't consider that I traveled 
with him. 

The Chairman. Why do you not? 

Mr. Crosby. Because I was requested to obtain a ticket for him by 
another person. 

The Chairman. To obtain a ticket for him out of union funds ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; that is what happened. 

The Chairman. And that is what you did ? 



790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir; I complied 

The Chairman. You traveled with him where? 

Mr. Crosby. To San Francisco. 

The Chairman. From where? 

Mr. Crosby. From Portland. 

The Chairman. For what purpose? 

Mr. Crosby. There was no purpose between Mr. McLaughlin and I. 

The Chairman. What conversations did you have with him after 
you got down there? 

Mr. Crosby. None whatsoever. I checked in the hotel and reported 
up at the Teamster Building. 

The Chairman. Did you go to the prizefight with him? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you pay his hotel bill? Did the teamsters 
pay it? 

Mr. Crosby. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. You say they did not pay it? 

Mr. Crosby. I think 

The Chairman. Do you not know it was paid by the teamsters ? 

Mr. Crosby. No; I 

The Chairman. You took him on that trip ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I don't know it was paid, Mr. McClellan. 

The Chairman. You know the fare was paid, the plane fare was 
paid, do you not? You know that? 

Mr. Crosby. The ticket was obtained at the request of another party. 

The Chairman. Wlio is the other party? 

Mr. Crosby. John Sweeney. 

The Chairman. John Sweeney was who? 

Mr. Crosby. Secretary -treasurer of the Western Conference of 
Teamsters. 

The Chairman. And you obtained a ticket for him to travel with 
you down to San Francisco at the request of John Sweeney, who was 
a high official in the union, and you jDaid for that ticket out of union 
funds ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir; I think that is correct. 

The Chairman. All right, out of union funds. By that you mean 
out of the dues paid by the members of the union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think I would have to answer in the affirmative. 

The Chairman. I think so, too. 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Jolin Sweeney is dead ; is tliat right ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you are putting the responsibility for this on Mr. 
John Sweeney, who is dead ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am telling the truth, Mr. Kennedy, alive or dead. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Sweeney ordered you to take Joe Mc- 
Laughlin down? 

Mr. Crosby. As I recall, Mr. Sweeney called me the day previous, 
which I think was a Sunday. I would like to point out that we were 
in the process of the final stages before a strike. I was going to San 
Francisco to discuss some of the ramifications of it with San Francisco 
members. He knew I was going. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who Imew you were going? 



IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 791 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Sweeney. We discussed it on the telephone. He 
simply asked me if I would mind obtaining a ticket for Mr. McLaugh- 
lin, and I complied with his wish in the manner in which I would. My 
air-travel card doesn't permit the purchase of tickets for other people. 
So I got ahold of Bill O'Connell and asked him to come to the airport 
and get a ticket for Mr. McLaughlin. 

Mr. Kenxedt. AMiy did they want to take Joe McLaughlin down 
to San Francisco? 

Mr. Crosby. I can't answer the question. 

Mr. Kenxedy. You have no idea ? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't spend any time with ]\lr. IMcLaughlin in San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Sweeney tell you what the reason was? 

Mr. Crosby. He didn't explain ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Pie did not ex])lain why they wanted Joe McLaugh- 
lin to come down to San Francisco? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir; he didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me see if I can phrase this correctly. Did you 
tell me in Portland that you had not seen Joe McLaughlin except at 
the fights in passing when you went down to San Francisco ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think you asked me a question if I was traveling with 
him. I still maintain "that even though I arranged to get the ticket, 
I was not traveling with the man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sit with him ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you on the same plane with him ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you arrange to get his ticket ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to the same hotel ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take the same transportation in from the 
airport to the hotel ? 

Mr. Crosby. As 1 recall, there were about five people that got into 
the same cab. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take the same transportation in? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you traveling with him ? 

Mr. Crosby. Not as such, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you register at the hotel? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you register at the same time? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have adjoining rooms ? 

Mr. Crosby. That I don't know. 

?vlr. Kennedy. Well, the record shows that you did. 

Mr. (Crosby. The record could very well show that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you consider traveling with somebody if 
that does not describe traveling with somebody ? You buy his ticket, 
get on the same plane, take a trip to the same place, you get off, get the 
same transportation from the airport into the hotel, you register at 
the hotel at the same time, and you have adjoining rooms. Is that 
traveling with him, when you bought his ticket, arranged to buy his 
ticket? 



792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosbt. Yes, you are right, but I would like to say this- 



Mr. Kennedy. Can I go back before you say that? Did you not 
tell me when I was out in Portland that you had not traveled with Joe 
McLaughlin ? 

Mr. Crosby. And I don't feel that I ever did as such. I interpreted 

your question to mean did I arrange to travel with him for any specific 

purpose between Mr. Laughlin and I, and I certainly did not do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has your relationship been with Mr. Tom 

Maloney, Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Crosby. Unfortunate. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you meet Mr. Tom Maloney? 
Mr. Crosby. It has been a bad relationship. 
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 
Mr. Crosby. It has been a bad relationship. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did it originate, your relationship with Tom 
Maloney ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Maloney came into the Teamsters Building, and 
introduced himself. He showed me a withdrawal card from a San 
Francisco local, if I am correctly recalling the incident, and stated 
that he had been a prizefight manager, and knew many things and was 
able to be of assistance to anyone on political campaigns. 
Mr. Kennedy. When was this, 1954 ? 
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I am sure it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. During tlie election or prior to the final election in 
1954? 

Mr. Crosby. The exact date in 1954 I cannot recall. 
Mr. Kennedy. No, but it was probably around October 1954? 
Prior to the final election ? 
Mr. Crosby. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. O. K. So this ex-manager of prizefighters came into 
the Teamsters Building. AVhat did he want? 

Mr. Crosby. He wanted to be of assistance in a political campaign. 
He professed a love for the teamsters union, and so on. Very frankly, 
he sold me a bill of goods. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tom Maloney did, the man who has been a wit- 
ness before this committee? 

Mr. Crosby. Tom Maloney ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, when he came in to see you — let me 
go back a little bit. You had formerly endorse Mr. McCourt for the 
district attorney, is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. In the priniary, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Teamsters had endorsed Mr. McCourt. In the 
final election they endorsed Mr. Langley ? 
Mr. Crosby. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maloney came down there and was one of the 
assistants to Mr. Langley, is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe he worked a great deal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Maloney's arrival in Portland have any- 
thing to do with the support, the Teamster support, of Mr. Langley ? 
Mr. Crosby. No, it didn't, not to my knowledge. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did all the unions get together and decide at a 
meeting who they would support between Mr. McCourt and Mr. 
Langley ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 793 

Mr. Crosby, The legislative committee of the joint council met 
and discussed the problem, yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you have the minutes for that meeting ? 

Mr. Crosby. They were informal meetings. I don't think any 
minutes were kept. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any minutes for the meeting wlien you 
decided that you were going to vote to support Mr. Langiey ? 

Mr. Crosby. As I say, those meetings, basically, were informal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that not a i)retty important step, to decide who 
the Teamsters are going to support for the district attorney ? 

yir. Crosby. I don't know whether it was important or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do yon not tliink it is important? You are a Team- 
ster. Is that not important? 

Mr. Crosby. To be perfectly frank 

Mr. Kennedy. Please do. 

Mr. Crosby. I don't recall that I was particularly upset one way 
or another about who was elected district attorney in the primary. 
I did become a little concerned when I obtained confirmation of the 
fact that Jim Elkins was financing some of ]Mr. McCourt's campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear during this period of time that 
he had anything to do with Mr. Langley's campaign ? 

Mr. Crosby. That who did? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, I think I have heard that, but I believe he fol- 
lowed an age-old creed of backing both candidates so he can't lose. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. O. K. "\Yliy did you people back Mr. Langiey? 

Mr. Crosby. Because Mr. Langiey, to my knowledge, indicated no 
particular friendliness for prostitution or for the various other things 
that were allegedly going on in the city. He seemed to want to try- 
to do a job to the best of his ability. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it because Mr. Elkins was backing Mr. Mc- 
Couit? 

Mr. Crosby. That could have had something to do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was also backing Mr. Langiey. 

Mr. Crosby. I am stating here that I don't know to what extent he 
did, if he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a lot of evidence or a considerable 
amount of evidence ? 

Mr. Crosby. I had something that I considered unimpeachable and 
I will be glad to relate it to you wheij you get around to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Fine. Go ahead. 

Mr. Crosby. Some time in the summer or early fall of 1954, a man 
by the name of Leonard Givens came to my office. He identified him- 
self as a member of the investigating staff of District Attorney Mc- 
Court. His purpose for coming there was to find out if there was any 
way that I could help him in his quest for reinstatement upon the 
Multnomah County sheriff's department. He had formerly been a 
lieutenant, but at the election of Mike Elliott, who was later recalled, 
he got embroiled in some sort of personality differences and told me 
tliat Sheriff Elliott practically rode him out of the department. 

He wanted to know if there was any way the Teamsters could help 
to try to get him reinstated. I talked to him at some length concern- 
ing the subject, and I told him this : "The only thing that I know that 
I could do is that I am personally familiar with one of the members of 



794 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the Multnomah County civil service commission. I could speak to hun 
about it and ask him at least to give it consideration to see if there are 
any grounds for reinstatement. "But," I said, "before I agree to do 
that, I want an answer from you on something that I am perplexed 
about." 

I asked him simply this : I said, "I know you are on Mr. McCourt's 
staff, and I know that you know the answer to this question. If you 
don't answer it either way, then I will assume that you don't want to 
answer it and you can look elsewhere for your assistance. But either 
way I would like to have an answer." I simply asked him this: "Do 
you have any knowledge of Jim Elkins financially supporting John 
McCourt?" 

He hemmed and hawed for several minutes. Finally, he said, 
"Well," he says, "you could get me into a lot of trouble if you identify 
me as your source of information. But," he says, "the facts are that 
Jim Elkins is putting a pretty big chunk of dougli into McCourt's 
campaign." 

I don't feel that he had any motive for telling me a lie. He could 
just as well have told me "No," and I still would have tried to help 
him. I would like to go on to say that the Multnomah County civil 
service commission did reopen Mr. Givens' case. He was reinstated 
to the sheriff's department with his former rank, and a contest de- 
veloped between the Civil Service Union, of which the deputy sheriffs 
are members, in the courts as to the validity of the thing. It later 
developed that a court decision came out stating something along this 
line, that the Multnomah County civil service commission had ex- 
ceeded its authority, and they nullified the action. 

Mr. Kennedy. Based on tliis information that Mr. Givens gave you, 
the Teamsters backed Mr. Langley over Mr. McCourt? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not have any minutes of the meeting at which 
you made that decision ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am not sure. But as I recall they were informal 
conferences. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever explained to the rank and file that the 
reason you were backing Mr. Langley and that you had switched from 
Mr. McCourt to Mr. Langley, was because of the fact that you found 
Jim Elkins was interested in Mr McCourt? 

Mr. Crosby. I am sure that that point was carefully explained to all 
of the secretaries who, in turn, meet with their membership and go 
into the ramifications of any recommendations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you not puzzled to see some of Mr. Elkins' em- 
ployees working for Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy, I think Mr. Elkins' employees are per- 
juring themselves when tliey state that they were all over the city 
helping him. I don't think they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had Mr. Slim Jenkins who testified before the 
committee who said he helped Mr. Langley. He delivered some signs, 
put some signs up. Do you say that he is perjuring himself? 

Mr. Crosby. I frankly don't believe he did. But, then 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever 

Senator Mfndt. You do not believe lie perjured himself or j'ou do 
not believe he put out the signs? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 795 

Mr. Crosby. Perhaps I should recant on that, Senator. It is quite 
a charge to make, to accuse someone of perjuring himself. But, to my 
knowledge, neither Elkins nor any of his employees contributed any- 
thing toward Mr. Langley's election. 

Senator Mundt. So you do not believe Mr. Jenkins told us the truth 
when he said he was active in the Langley campaign ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never met with Mr. Elkins yourself during that 
period of time ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to him? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he never delivered a speech to you that had 
been made up, with the possibility of having it delivered? 

Mr. Crosby. A speech for whom ? 

Mr. Kennedy. For Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. Crosby. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any discussions with him at all about 
Mr. Langley's campaign ? 

Mr. Crosby. I absolutely- had no discussions with Mr. Jenkins in 
relation to District Attorney Langley. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliat about Mr. Maloney ? What was Mr. Maloney 
doing there ? Who had he been sent by during this period of time ? 

Mr. Crosby. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think he was 
sent by anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was paying his bills during this time he was 
working for Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. Crosby, The joint council in Oregon absorbed some of the man's 
bills during the period of time we felt he was performing a service 
for us. 

The Chairman. They absorbed his bills ? Do you mean they paid 
them? 

Mr. CRasBY. I think they paid a telephone bill. I later found out 
they paid some hotel bills. 

The Chairman. Paid out of union funds ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, paid out of fimds allocated for legislative 
activity. 

The Chairman. Paid out of dues collected from union members? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of October 

Senator Mundt. May I question at this point ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Let us see if I have this picture right. 

The only function that Mr. Maloney was performing for the Team- 
sters, as I understand it, was that he was helping with the Teamsters 
program to elect Mr. Langley over Mr. McCourt, is that right? He 
was not an organizer or a business agent, or a full-paid operator, but 
his only function for the Teamsters was helping them in that particu- 
lar objective? 

Mr. Crosby. Senator Mundt, I don't like to agree that the word 
''only" is appropriate there. I was under the impression that he was 
also working in support of otlier candidates that were being supported 
by the Teamsters. 



796 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Let me rephrase it. I was not trying to trick you. 

The only function of Mr. Maloney for the Teamsters was to help 
them in connection with their endorsements and campaigns for can- 
didates ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And, in that capacity, he did not draw a salary 
from the Teamsters? 

Mr. Crosbt. He did not. 

Senator Mundt. But the Teamsters paid for hotel bills and tele- 
phones. I think you testified that you got a telephone in his name 
that you paid for? Did you not make that testimony the other day? 

Mr. Crosby. I said I authorized the installation of a telephone for 
him. Whether it was in his name or the joint council's, I am not 
aware. 

Senator Mundt. But you authorized it to be secured for his use and 
to be paid for by the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And those funds were paid from the Teamsters' 
treasury ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair wants to clear up one point. 

I believe you said the money used to pay these bills of Maloney 
was out of funds allocated by the central council for legislative 
work. Is that correct? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I think it is, although there are some quali- 
fying 

The Chairman. Well, is that what you said ? 

Mr. Crosby, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I understood you correctly? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The ChzVIRman. Mr. Langley was not a candidate for the legisla- 
ture, was he ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; but that 

The Chairman. Just a moment. He was not a candidate for Con- 
gress ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct. 

The Chairman. He was a candidate for district attorney? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct. 

The Chairman. He could not enact legislation if he was elected, 
could he ? He had no power to enact legislation, to vote on any legisla- 
tion, either National, State, city, or county, could he, if he were 
elected ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, then. You were using dues of union 
members to promote a political campaign, pure and simple, were you 
not? Is that not the truth? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, if you will permit me to clarify this thing 

The Chairman. Answer yes or no. 

Mr. Crosby. The question of 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Was not the money used, out of 
the union funds paid in by dues from the members — was not that money 
used, according to your testimony, simply to promote a political 
campaign ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 797 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, on State, county, city, and every other level. 

The Chairman. I do not care how broad it was. How much did you 
allocate out of the dues of the members to promote these political 
campaigns ? 

Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I do not have the figures. I didn't disburse 
the funds. 

The Chairman. Can we get those figures? 

Mr. Crosby. I think you will have them before you are through 
here. You have another witness. 

The Chairman. I imagine we will get them or something in the 
neigliborhood of the amount, maybe. But the point I am making 
here is the question of whether you high officials or council, or what- 
ever it is, have the authority, either under the union or under the 
constitution and bylaws of the union, or under the law, to take the 
money paid in as dues for membership to belong to a union and to 
keep in good standing, to take that money allocated to support candi- 
dates for office and use it for that purpose. I do not believe you have 
that right. Therefore, 1 wanted to determine if that is exactly what 
you were doing. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I have not had an opportunity. Senator, to prop- 
erly identify our organizational setup so it would be clear to you. 

The Chairman. I do not care what the 

Mr. Crosby. You refer to money being taken out of local unions. 
No money to my knowledge was taken out of local unions. The funds 
that were used were funds in the treasury of the joint council, which 
is a parent organization over the local unions. 

The Chairman. How does it get its money ? 

Mr. Crosby. On a per capita tax basis. 

The Chairman. From the members, is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. From the local unions, that is correct. 

The Chairman. From the local unions, and they get it from the 
members ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is the ultimate source, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the ultimate source. They have to pay 
that per capita tax, if it came from that fund. They have to pay that 
per capita tax to keep in good standing, to keep their membership in 
good standing, is that not true ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, that is true. 

The Chairman. And then you make the decision, your high officials, 
your council, or whatever it is makes the decision, to take that money 
and allocate it to someone's political campaign and use it for that 
purpose, is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. Based on as good a judgment as possible, that is 
correct. 

The Chairman. I am basing it on your testimony. Is your testi- 
mony true ? 

Mr. Crosby, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, then, there is no other conclusion, is 
there? Can you draw any other conclusion from it except what I 
have stated ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, Senator, I don't agree with your conclusion that 
we have performed an illegal act. 

The Chairman. Whether it is illegal or not, the conclusion on the 
facts is correct, is it not, as to the source of the money and the use of it ? 



798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct. 

The Chairman. We will determine about the other later. 

Senator Goldwat«r ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Crosby, do you have any idea of how much 
money went into the Langley campaign from the Teamsters? 

Mr. Crosby. Only a hazy idea, Senator. Somewhere between $1,900 
and $2,300. I am \inable' to give you the exact amounts because I 
didn't handle disbursements of those funds. 

Senator Goldwater. Would it be over $2,400 ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, again, based on information that I received, I 
don't believe so. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, it might be interesting at this 
point to note that between thie date of the 27th of October and the 2d 
of November, 1954, just those few days, in four checks for the Langley 
campaign, it totaled $2,489.80. That is just in a few days. 

Mr. Crosby, do you not have a better recollection of the total amount 
spent by the Teamsters in this campaign? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I don't; because I didn't have any particular 
handling of that particular phase of it. Senator. What the money 
was spent for, I am unalile to say. Probably for bills incurred, for 
unpaid printing, or for advertising, or for this or that. I just don't 
feel qualified to be able to answer it. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you recall if the teamsters backed the gov- 
ernor in his campaign ? 

Mr. Crosby. Paul Patterson ? 

Senator Goldwater. No. I believe his name was Holmes. 

Mr. Crosby. We did, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You backed Governor Holmes. Do you re- 
call how much you put into tliat campaign? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How much was it ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have a ]:)hotostatic copy of a check with ine that was 
given to Governor Holmes in the amount of $2,000. 

Senator Goldwater. That is the extent of the help that came from 
the teamsters that you are aware of? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe so, sir; other than the publications that we 
printed wliich did not constitute linancial aid. 

Senator Goldwater. At any time, did your kx^als hold a meeting 
to determine whether or not you would support either Langley or 
Governor Holmes? Was it put to a vote of the membership? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, the matter was discussed tirst in the joint coun- 
cil meetings. These joint council meetings that are held are for the 
purpose of getting the feel of the }n\\se of the membei-ship of the 
various local unions, through their officials. 

Senator Goldwater. How do you get the feel of the pulse on a 
political cami)aign unless you ask the members to vote on it? You 
have both Re])ublica7is and Democrats, and I will admit the Repub- 
licans are probably in the minority. 

Mr. Crosby. We have supported Republicans. 

Senator GoldWx\ter. 1 am taliving about this particular time. Did 
you call for a vote in tliese locals to determine whether you would 
support Langley or support Governor Plolmes ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 799 

Mr. Ckosby. The only way I can answer that question, Senator, 
would be to refer you to the secretaries involved, since I did not 
participate. 

Senator Goldwater. To your knowledge, was there a vote taken '^ 

Mr. Crosby. I just don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. You do not know? 

^Ir. CRasBY. Xo, sir. 

The CiiAiRr^iAN. The Chair would like to ask you this one question : 
Was the $2,000 that you gave to Governor Holmes from the same 
source as the money you gave to Langley ? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. I just vranted to know about that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further along 
tiiat line. I know it is close to the time to recess, but I do have one 
more question as I want to get the record straight inasmuch as several 
references have been made to the State that I represent. 

It is true, I believe, that you testified that you were convicted of 
a felony in 1930, in Arizona ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. And it is true, I believe, that you testified that 
in 1956, 1 believe it was July or August, you made efforts to have that 
charge expunged from the records ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And you were successful in having that done ? 

Mr. Crosby. The judge complied with the request and granted it; 
yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Just one more question. 

Am I right in assuming that having this charge expunged has re- 
moved one count of indictment from you in Portland ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is the legal conclusion of my attorney, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have. 

The Chairman. Senator McXamara ? 

Senator McXamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
just a couple of questions. 

I think the record shows now, as I understand it, that all of the 
money that went into the campaign for Mr. Langley came from union 
dues? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You did not have any voluntary contributions 
for political activities ? You did not have what is commonly known 
as voluntary contributions? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, yes ; we did. 

Senator McXamara. Do you consider them union dues? 

Mr. Crosby. Xo ; not in that sense. 

Senator McXamara. Was there any of that money involved in this 
thing? 

Mr. Crosby. Xo, sir. 

Senator ]\IcXamara. Xone of the political activity money was in- 
volved in this thing ? 

Mr. Crosby. Xone of the voluntary money that was 

Senator McXamara. That was separate ? 

Mr. Crosby. That was turned directly over to Federal candidates. 

Senator McXamara. You did not use any for State candidates? 



800 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. Not voluntary money ; no, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Were you secretary-treasurer of the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. What was your connection? What was your 
job? 

Mr. Crosby. My job — are you referring to just prior to this 1954: 
election ? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. This same incident that we are talking 
about with these sums of money. 

Mr. Crosby. I was a member of the legislative committee, sir. 

Senator McNamara. The legislative committee is a peculiar term 
to me. Does that mean the political activity committee? 

Mr. Crosby. Basically; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then you would make no distinction between 
the political activity committee of your union and the legislative com- 
mittee? It would, in effect, be just another name for the political 
activity committee ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think that is a fair statement ; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Your testimony is that all of the voluntary- 
funds went into Federal campaigiis and none of it went into State or 
local campaigns ? There was that distinction ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. That is to the best of my knowledge, and I am 
sure that I am correct in that. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. I take it that the teamsters did not rely solely on 
the political genius of Maloney to conduct their campaign for Langley ; 
is that right? Impressive as he is, I doubt whether you would rely 
entirely upon his political acumen. 

Mr. Crosby. That is very true, Senator. Many of our business 
agents took time out to take Mr. Langley around and introduce him to 
members of our organization at work, and I think that helped mate- 
rially in his campaign. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have any other full-time workers in addi- 
tion to Mr. Maloney, or was he the only full-time man devoting his 
time to this project? 

Mr. Crosby. As I recall, we had a couple of other fellows who were 
paid officials of the teamsters, who normally do organizing work, but 
during that period at our request they concentrated on political 
activity. 

Senator Mundt. And the only pay they would receive, I presume, 
would be their regular union salaries, and any expense, out of pocket 
money, that they invested ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. There would be two of those only, or would there 
be more than two ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I think there were times when all of us jumped 
in, in an effort to help under some certain situation. We would attend 
political rallies. We would go to areas where large crowds gathered. 
We had a panel truck. We even put a loudspeaker on it, suggesting 
or requesting that the people give consideration to such and sucli a 
candidate. 

Senator Mundt. Of course the cost of all of that would come out 
of this same legislative fund or political activity fund that you men- 
tioned earlier? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 801 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And which ultimately comes from the dues of the 
members ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Senator Mundt. In 1954 you had, I suppose, an election that in- 
volved other candidates besides Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir; we did. 

Senator Mundt. Did Mr. JSIaloney also help with the election of 
the other candidates endorsed by the teamstei-s ? 

Mr. Crosby. All I can say is that I was under the impression that 
he was generally helping with the slate that we had ; to wit, the extent 
that he was asked or his ability. That same year we were working very 
hard to insure the reelection of Eepublican Governor Paul Patterson. 

(At this point. Senator McNamara withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Mundt. Very well. Who else did you endorse that year? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, a great number of people for the legislature, 
whose names I couldn't recall at the moment. 

Senator Mundt. I am not asking you for the name, now. I am 
asking you for a recital of the f actvS. Did you endorse any candidates 
for the United States House of Representatives or the Senate? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And Mr. Maloney helped in connection with that? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. How could he divorce his activities? You said 
a minute earlier that he helped with the endorsed slate. You just got 
through telling me that. 

Mr. Crosby. I am trying to clear the air so there isn't some unin- 
tentional inference left. 

Senator Mundt. Let us rehearse your testimony. I asked you 
specifically on two different occasions whether Mr. Maloney helped 
with the entire slate endorsed by the teamsters — very directly — and, 
of course, you said, "Yes, sir; he helped the people that we endorsed.'^ 
1 asked you whether you endorsed candidates for the Senate or House 
of Representatives in Washington, and you said, "Yes," which means 
obviously that Mr. Maloney helped with the election in connection 
with the campaign of those endorsed candidates. 

Mr. Crosby. He may have assisted, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It is quite obvious that he assisted if he is helping 
with the endorsed slate, is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. I think that is a fair assumption, that he probably did^ 
to a limited degree. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. To whatever degree he was called upon, or 
to whatever degree his activity seemed justified, is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 
The witness will be back at that time. 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: The chairman and 
Senators Mundt and Goldwater.) 

(Wliereupon, at 12: 33 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day. ) 

-57— pt. 3 4 



802 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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, and Gold water.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Crosby, will you resume the stand, please, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF CLYDE C. CEOSBY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
WAREEN E. MAGEE— Eesumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Crosby, some of the testimony has been to the 
effect that Mr. Brewster and Mr. Sweeney were responsible for send- 
ing Joe McLaughlin and Tom Maloney down to Portland to organize 
vice, et cetera, and for their own purposes. 

Now you say that Mr. John Sweeney called you and told you that 
he wanted the transportation of Joe McLaughlin to be paid ? 

Mr. Crosby. I can't answer it that way. What he told me was this. 
He said, "I would like to have you pick up the airplane ticket for Mr. 
McLaughlin, who is coming down to San Francisco." I said, "Well, 
I am unable to do it myself, but I think that I can get it done." 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you want that done ? What did he tell 
you was the reason ? 

Mr. Crosby. He did not give me any reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Joe McLaughlin to be associated with 
the teamsters ? 

Mr. Crosby. To my knowledge, Joe McLaughlin has no official 
capacity with the teamsters. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Does he have an unofficial capacity with the 
teamsters '( 

Mr. Crosby. If he has, I am not aware of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would be the explanation, or what did you give 
for using union funds to pay the transportation of a gambler from 
Portland down to San Francisco ? 

Mr. Crosby. To whom, sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not give an explanation to anyone ? 

Mr. Crosby. No ; I gave no explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can use union fmids to pay transportation of 
gamblers or for any purpose and not have to give an explanation or 
accounting to anyone ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, the situation is, Mr. Kennedy, that Mr. Sweeney 
was to some extent my superior and I did not question his motives, and 
his reasons, and if he asked me to buy a ticket for the Queen of 
Rumania, I would have bought it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And use union funds and nobody knows the differ- 
ence, none of the union members were informed about it, is that right? 
Were union funds used to pay the transportation of this gambler from 
Portland to San Francisco ? 

Mr. Crosby. The answer to that is "Yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made no accounting to the union members 
as to \d\y their dues should be used for such a purpose ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 803 

Mr. Crosby. The fund from which the ticket was purchased was the 
joint council fund, and one that does not directly require reporting to 
the membership. It is a mother organization of a group of local 
unions, within the confines of jurisdiction area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Hadn't the unions, or wasn't that the union membei-s' 
money originalyy ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, certainly. 

Mr. Kennt^dy. I would just like to find out what your procedure is. 
Could you use that union money and union members' dues for any pur- 
pose that you wanted, if you and John Sweeney or Frank Brewster 
decide thai you are going to pay for anybody's hotel bills, while they 
are staying in Portland ? Could you do that ? 

Mr. Crosby. Certainly not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you use any of that union members' money to 
pay for the hotel bills of Mr. Tom^Maloney when he was in Portland? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy, I didn't pay Mr. Maloney's hotel bills. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you misunderstood the question. I asked was 
any of the union members' dues used to pay Tom Maloney's hotel bill or 
telephone bills wliile he Avas in Portland? 

Mr. Crosby. I rather presume that that is the case ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who gave the instructions for that ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, it was generally understood that he was perform- 
ing a service that merited the payment of certain expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under whose instructions was he down in Portland ? 

Mr. Crosby. He was not under anyone's instructions. He just 
simply sold me a bill of goods. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that he should have his hotel bill and 
his telephone bills paid by the union ? 

Mr. Crosby. Nobody told me that. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, do you take the full responsibility 
now for making union funds derived from the dues and assessments 
made against members of the union for providing Maloney with a 
telephone and paying other expenses of his while he was in Portland 
engaged in this political work or work with the union ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think that I can take that responsibility, sir. 

The Chairman. You do take it ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You were not directed to pay that, and you were 
directed to get a ticket for him, but you were not directed to take care 
of tliose expenses down there ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I liave to apologize, Mr. Chairman. I have a 
severe cold, and I am having trouble absorbing your statement. Now 
I have to admit that I am mixed up on what you said. Would you 
repeat it, please ? 

The Chairman. All right. Mr. Maloney was in Portland, Oreg., 
for some time, was he not ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. How long? 

Mr, Crosby. I don't know, but as a general guess I think he was 
probably there aroTUid a year. 

The Chairman. Around a year. During that time did you provide 
him a telephone and other expenses while he was there? 

Mr. Crosby. During the political campaign, he was provided with 
expenses liaving to do with his hotel bill and his telephone bill. 



804 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Did you pay any of his expenses after the cam- 
paign ? 

Mr. Crosby. I find out that we inadvertently allowed liim to main- 
tain a telephone beyond the election period. It was an oversights 

The Chairman. For how long a time ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know. 

The CHAiR]Nr.\N. I ask you, then, Did you get orders to do that from 
anyone, your su^.u-ior, to set him up in business down there or pay 
these expenses for him ? 

Mr. Crosby. Absolutely not. 

The Chairman. Then you take the full responsibility for it? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, Senator ; I do. 

The Chairman. That was the question I asked you, and you said 
you were mixed up. Now it is cleared up. I believe it is cleared up. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. While he was in Portland, after the political cam- 
paign that ended in November of 1954, you continued to pay his tele- 
phone bill ; is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. The record seems to indicate that someone neglected 
to shut the authorization off. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that possible with union members' dues? That 
you keep using them to pay people's bills, and nobody knows about it ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think anybody can be chiseled, Mr. Kennedy, corpo- 
rations, unions, or anybody elese. We were chiseled on a telephone 
bill by that man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Month after month you continued to pay Tom Ma- 
loney's telephone bill, and nobody knew anything about it. Is that 
what you want this committee to believe ? 

Ml*. Crosby. That is what I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in March of 1955, you paid his telephone bill, 
$67.80, and that is 4 or 5 months after the political campaign was fin- 
ished. In April 1955, $95.58 for his telephone. In May 1955, $36.03. 
In June 1955, $152.52. In July 1955, $92.10. In August 1955, $69.04. 
In September of 1955, $51.31. In October 1955, $53.52. In December 
of 1955, $11.55. ^Making a total of $707, you were chiseled, you say ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean that the union would give out $707 of 
union members' money, $707, and not know anything about it? 

]Mi\ Crosby. I don't even know the manner in w^hich we were billed 
for the telephone, whether it was billed in the name of the joint council 
that made it difficult to tell who it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was billed in care of the Teamsters Building 
Association, Tom Maloney. 

Mr. Crosby. Well 

Mr. Kennedy. This isn't a question — this bill comes in each month, 
and somebody decides it is going to be paid, and you have decided in 
March of 1955, and you decided again in April 1955, and May 1955, 
and June 1955, and July 1955, and August, September, and October 
and December of 1955. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you need some advice on his legal rights ? 

Mr. Magee. I think he does occasionally the way you ask questions ; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Crosby. No. 1, the question of detailed expenses of the joint 
council by and large are not my field. I don't disburse funds, with 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 805 

one minor exception. The question of the disbursement of funds cov- 
ering Mr. Maloney's bills were not my prerogative. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose responsibility is that ? 

Mr. Crosby. The secretary-treasurer of the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his name ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am sure you know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What ishis name, the man that you say is responsible 
for paying Tom Maloney's bills, loecause you are not. Wliat is his 
name ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am saying that the man authorized is Keg Mixell. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he the one that is responsible for paying Tom 
Maloney's bills? 

Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I think we are all derelict in that respect. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you say you are not responsible ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am saying that I had no daily, montlily, or weekly 
record of what was happening. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he never discussed this with you ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never discussed it with John Sweeney ? 

Mr. Crosby. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are in charge of that area, for the teamsters, 
and all of this money was coming out of teamster funds, with the union 
members being kept informed that this money was being used to pay 
Tom Maloney's bills? 

Mr. Crosby. Every month when we had a joint council meeting, a 
financial report was read and approved, and it is a matter of record in 
the minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So everybody knew that Tom Maloney's bills were 
being paid, and it was not a secret ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know if it was specifically pointed out in the 
way you put it. I do know that the trustees go o\er the books at 
various times, and they look at the bills. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could it get by? You said at the beginning 
it just sneaked by and nobody knew about it, and now you say the 
trustees went over the books and they knew about it. How did they 
let it go bv 2 

Mr. Crosby. It is perfectly explainable, I believe, if you will allow 
me about 5 seconds to try to explain. 

No. 1, in its original instance, I was the one that was responsible 
for authorizing the telephone. In .the succeeding months that fol- 
lowed, when these bills were mistakenly paid, I believe that the finan- 
cial officers were going on the assumption that I had still O. K.'d them. 
They were being paid without my knowledge, and had I known about 
it, I would have had them shut off. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me tliis : If that is the explanation on the tele- 
phone bill, what explanation do you have for paying the hotel bill 
of Mr. Tom JSIaloney in Portland, Oreg., at the Hotel Multnomah, 
$•241.50, when he was there from January 6, 1955, to Februarv 2, 
1955? 

Mr. Crosby. The only explanation I can give you is it is very likely 
it was considered the tail end of the aftermath of the election. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 3 months after the election. 

Mr. Crosby. What I am trying to say is that I was not even aware 
of the bill. I am just trying to rationalize why it would be paid. 



806 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It appears to me that it is a very peculiar way of 
handlino; the union funds, that all of this can go on and nobody 
know about it, and nobody do anything about it. 

Mr. Crosby. I believe that every human being is vulnerable to 
certain types of approach from an individual, and I think the man 
used us for a patsy, and he got away with it, and I have no explana- 
tion for it. This is to the extent I have stated I am responsible and 
I am not ducking that responsibility. 

The Chairman. May I ask you this question, Mr. Crosby : Mr. Ma- 
loney was sent down there from Seattle, and you loiew that, did you 
not? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I did not. 

The Chairman. Did he not tell you he was sent down there from 
Seattle? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Maloney simply sold himself to me. 

The Chairman. Did he sell himself to you? He had to tell you 
something if he didn't tell j^ou he was sent down there from Seattle. 

Mr. Crosby. How can I answer a question that I don't know the 
answer to, Senator ? 

The Chairman. You know whether he told you that or not. 

Mr. Crosby. He did not tell me that. 

The Chairman. We will say he did not, and I ask you if he told you 
that. 

Mr. Crosby. I said it. 

The Chairman. Did Sweeney tell you he was sending Maloney 
down there ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Was Maloney under your direction or you under 
Maloney's direction while he was down there ? 

Mr. Crosby. Frankly, Maloney apparently to all extents was my 
responsibility. 

The Chairman. All right, he was your responsibility; now, what 
kind of a bill of goods did he sell you ? 

Mr. Crosby. He simply convinced me that he was in a position 
through knowledge and experience to be of aid and assistance to us in 
our election campaign. I bought the thing because he sold me a bill 
of goods, and he convinced me that he probably 

The Chairman. He was selling you a bill of goods that he could 
come down from Seattle, Wash., and take over the politics in Portland, 
and elect the officers you wanted elected? Is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. Not in that sense, no. 

The Chairman. In what sense ? 

Mr. Crosby. Aid and assist, which is an entirely different thing. 

The Chairman. Didn't you give him large measure of credit for 
having succeeded ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think we gave him credit for firing us up, and giving 
use some ideas we had not thought about, and yes, we did, we patted him 
on the back and we thought he did a real good job at the time. 

The Chairman. Is this the way you patted him on the back, in your 
November meeting, 1954, among other things, you said : 

Tom Maloney received a great deal of credit for the election of our new district 
attorney, William Langley, as it was principally due to his efforts that this was 
accomplished. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 807 

Is that a part of the minutes of your meeting of tliat date ? 

Mr. Crosby. I presume that it is. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Tom Maloney doing in Portland during 
the period of time from December 1954 until the time he left in 1955? 

Mr. Crosby. It is my understanding, and again it is hearsay and I 
don't know anything about the man on a concrete basis, I have since 
learned that he was on the payroll of Jim Elkins, for one thing, and he 
was also an undercover agent for the district attorney, for which copies 
of pay vouchers were published in the papers. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say you have since learned. Did you see him 
much when he was down in Portland ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I did not see him a great deal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go out to lunch with him much ? 

Mr. Crosby. I had to have lunch with him several times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to dinner with him ? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe I did, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times do you think that you might have 
gone to dinner with him ? 

Mr. Crosby. I can't state that with any degree of accuracy. 

Mr. Kennedy. A dozen times ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I don't believe it was a dozen times, by any stretch 
of the imagination. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never came to your house, did he ? 

Mr. Crosby. He came to my house a couple of times, yes, sir, and 
maybe more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could he have come to your house 10 or 11 times? 
Could he come to your home 10 or 11 times ? Were you that close that 
he would have come to your home 10 or 1 1 times ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I am glad you put it the way you do, because I 
want to take issue with that statement. 

No. 1, we were not close, and that made no difference to Tom 
Maloney, and if he wanted to go to your house, he went to your house, 
period. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he come to your house 10 or 11 times? We 
can't find out from Tom Maloney, and he takes the fifth amendment 
on his relationship with you. 

Mr. Crosby. I am not taking any fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you tell us. 

Mr. Crosby. I clont' know. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times did he come to your home? 

Mr. Crosby. He came to my house once that I can vividly remember^ 
because of the manner in which he opened up a discussion. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times do you think that he came all 
along, all during this period of time? Plow many times do you think 
he came to your house ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know, possibly 4 or 5 times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember? Let me ask this, did you tell 
me when I was in Portland that he came to your home 10 or li times? 
Do you want to change that? First, did you tell me that? 

Mr. Crosby. First of all, I don't know what I told you. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is getting obvious. You know what 
I would like to suggest to you, that you tell the truth, and then the 



808 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

same thing you told me 2 months ago— would you wait a minute—you 
told me 2 months ago would be the same as you told me now, and you 
would not have any problem. Jiist tell the truth. 

Mr. Crosby. You are asking questions on innocuous things, and a 
person can't be specifically accurate about them. Whether Maloney 
came to my house 3 times or 300 times, would not mean anything to 
me particularly, as I know the man and understand him. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are trying to find out about your relationship 
with him now. Now, during this period of time, the Teamsters Union 
was paying bills in Portland, Oreg., and you say that you did not 
find out what he was doing in Portland mitil novr, or recently. Now 
I am trying to establish whether you knew him quite well then. Now, 
if a man came to your house 10 or 11 times, you might have been 
discussing some of the things he was doing in Portland. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I can tell you this. Mr. Maloney did not discuss 
any of his nefarious activities w^ith me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you think he was doing ? Where was he 
getting his money from ? 

Mr. Crosby. I'don't know as I particularly paid too much attention 
to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was down there 

Mr. Crosby. I thought he was on the payroll of the undercover 
branch of the district attorney's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. You thought that during this period of time? 

Mr. Crosby. I had heard it, yes. I got confirmation of it when thf 
photostatic copies of the checks were printed. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn that his activities were 
nefarious ? 

Mr. Crosby. I guess concrete examples, when this stuff started in 
April of last year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Stuff from what ? What do you mean ? Wliat stuff ? 

Mr. Crosby. These disclosures by the Oregonian newspaper. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliich you considered to be accurate ? 

Mr. Crosby. The disclosures of the paper? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Crosby. Not to the extent that they attempt to involve us, 
no. 

Mr. Kennedy. But as far as Tom Maloney was concerned ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said, you are the one that said that you learned 
that his activities were nefarious, and I would like to find out about 
it. How did you learn that? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, newspaper rej^orters came to me and asked me 
my version of some particular story in the paper, and then they would 
in turn tell me something of what they had learned in other places- 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn 

Mr. ( Jrosby. That is the first time that I learned that Mr. Elkins 
paid a hotel bill for Maloney when he first came to Portland at the 
Congress Hotel, and apparently was giving him money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn also from reading these neAvspaper 
articles ? 

Mr. Crosby. Did I learn also what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. About Mr. Tom Maloney being mixed up in nefari- 
ous activities? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 809 

• Mr. Crosby, All I know is v.liat I read in the papei's, and I cer- 
tainly was concerned about it, but even up to now J am not in a posi- 
tion to state without equivocation exactly what the man's activities 
have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are also paying Tom Maloney's hotel bills, and 
certain of his hotel bills when he left the city of Portland. What 
explanation is there for that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know what you are talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Hotel Benjamin Franklin, is there one of those 
in Portland? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it is a Hotel Benjamin Franklin up in Seattle, 
Joint Council paid Mr. Maloney's bill there from December 16 to 
December 20, 1955, $33.73. Now, that is a year after the campaign. 
AAHiy were you paying his hotel bills a year after the campaign. That 
is 13 montlis. 

Mr. Crosby. Just a second, and I will try to reconcile the date; 
December 16, 1955, is that it? 

jNIr. Kennedy. Yes, I think that you might know about it because 
you were up there at the same time. 

Mr. Crosby. That is very possible. Don't tell me I was in bed 
with Maloney, though. Frankly, I think that date, Mr. Kennedy, in- 
volved a period whereby Joint Council 28, which embraces the local 
miions in Washington, annually has a big get-together whereby em- 
ployer and union representatives spend a part of tlie day together 
on a goodwill basis. Now, it is very possible that Mr. Maloney at- 
tended that thing. If he did, it is very possible that the bill was paid 
by us, and I don't know. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. For what reason? Was he considered a teamster 
at that time ? 

Mr. Crosby. He never was considered a teamster. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't understand. If he was not considered a 
teamster, why you are paying all of his bills during this period of 
time. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, Mr. Kennedy, I don't know why you are bom- 
barding me with those questions, because I am not the one that paid 
the bills. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever any arrangement made for sending 
the bills that you paid down in Portland, sending them up and being 
reimbursed by the Western Conference of Teamsters for Tom Ma- 
loney ? 

Mr. Crosby. To my knowledge there never was any understanding 
to that effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would there be such an arrangement, and why 
would the Western Conference of Teamsters want to reimburse the 
Teamsters in Portland for paying Tom Maloney's bills? 

Mr. Crosby. May I answer it now, I mean in detail, because it takes 
a detailed answer. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. If you think it does. 

Mr. Crosby. I know it does. The very pages that you are looking 
at, I think will indicate that an arrangement was made with the west- 
ern conference to provide some paid assistance to the Oregon area. 

Mr. I{JENNEDY. To the what? 



•SIO IMPROPER ACTRITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Ckosby. Some full-time teamster employees, and not Mr. 
Maloney. Each month the men were paid by the Oregon joint coun- 
cil. The matter of the money paid out was set up as a reimbursable 
item and forwarded to the western conference for reimbursement. 

Now, how Tom Maloney's bills got into that, if they did, is some- 
thing that I don't know. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What is your answer to the question? You don't 
-know? 

Mr. Crosby. I thought I answered it. 

Mr. Kennedy, You ended up by saying, "I don't know why his bill 
is in there." Is that the answer to the question ? 

Mr. Crosby. I did not prepare that statement, and I don't know 
why it is on there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any conferences or conversations 
with John Sweeney or Frank Brewster as to why the Western Confer- 
ence of Teamsters should reimburse the teamsters of Portland for 
Tom Maloney's bills? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr, Kennedy. Well, could you explain to us what your finanical 
arrangements are down there, and what procedure you are following, 
and your paying people's bills, and you don't know anything about it, 
and your sending bills to the Western Conference of Teamsters, and 
you don't know anything about it, and your buying a transportation 
ticket, airline ticket for a gambler from Portland to Los Angeles or 
San 1 rancisco, and you don't know anything about it ? 

Mr. Magee. Mr. Chairman, is this a question? Is there anything 
pending for this witness to answer ? I suggest if he has questions, to 
put them to the witness and not make these long speeches. 

The Chairman. He can remind the witness of the facts, and what 
the record shows, and predicate a question upon it. 

Mr. Kennedy, Can you explain that? 

Mr. Crosby. Can I explain what? 

Mr. Kennedy. I will go through it again. 

What financial procedure was followed by the teamsters in Portland 
that they paid the bills, some eight or nine hundred dollars of bills for 
Tom Maloney in Portland, and did not know they paid them? 

Mr. Crosby. That is quite a question in itself; if you are willing 
to wait, I will try to answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to get some answers, to tell you the truth. 
You answer that, then. 

Mr, Crosby. As I stated before, we had an understanding with the 
western conference that we were in a political campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, no, we are not talking about that, now. 

Mr. Crosby. You want to know how come these things happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us discuss from January or December after the 
political campaign is finished, December of 1954 to December of 
1955. 

Mr. Crosby. I would say right now that the western conference is 
still reimbursing joint council 37 for field help. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about that. We are talking about 
Tom Maloney now, and why would they be reimbursing you for Tom 
Maloney, that is the second question. "Why are they reimbursing you 
for Tom Maloney? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 811 

Mr. Crosby. I did not even know Tom Maloney was listed on there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I will let you see it. 

Mr. Crosby. I am not questioning your word ; if you say it is there, 
it must be there. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I^t the Chair get it straight. 
We will present it to the witness. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman, The clerk presents to you some documents. One 
purports to be a photostatic copy of a check. The other is a photo- 
static copy of a letter oi- bill rendered, for which the check is in pay- 
ment as a reimbursement. Will you examine those documents and 
identify them, if 3^ou can ? 

Single out one document and hold it up so we can identify it, and 
see if you can identify it and tell us what it is. 

The first document that you are looking at there is what? What 
does it purport to be? 

Mr. Crosby. It appears to be the certified copy of a check for an 
amount of $3,426.57. 

The Ch^virman. A photostatic copy, is it not ? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. AVlio is the check made payable to ? 

Mr. Crosby. Tlie Joint Council 37. 

The Chairman. By whom is it signed? 

Mr. Crosby. By F. W. Brewster and John J. Sweeney. 

The Chairman. Who were they? 

Mr. Crosby. The president and secretary-treasurer of the Western 
Conference of Teamsters, respectively. 

The Chairman. Now look at the second document. Wliat is that? 

Mr. Crosby. It appears to be a letter from the secretary of the joint 
council, R. R. Mikesell, to Mr. John Sweeney, secretary-director of 
the Western Conference of Teamsters, itemizing and outlining the 
amounts of money expended by the Joint Council 37 for which they 
were asking reimbursement. It involves pickets and full-time team- 
ster employees. 

The Chairman. Do you find the name of Tom Maloney on there? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, Tom Maloney is on there. 

The Chairman. For what ? 

Mr. Crosby. For a phone bill, in the amount of $93.01. 

The Chaibman. So whoever paid that bill could not have been mis- 
taken as to what part of the money ^eing a reimbursement for money 
paid to Tom Maloney, could they? 

Mr. Crosby. It simply came in as a bill from one council to another. 

The Chairman. Well, you check a bill, do you not, to find out if 
it is correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. If I handled it, yes, sir, but I did not handle it. 

The Chairman. Whoever handled it, that was notice to whoever 
paid that bill that there was being paid for Tom Maloney's benefit 
ninety-some-odd dollars, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Crosby. 1 think one of the problems here. Senator 

The Chairman. It is not a problem now. It certainly indicates 
that to whoever paid it, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Crosby. It indicates the phone bill was in there and was paid, 
yes, sir. 



812 IMPROPER ACTRITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That is right. Now, what is the amount of the bill 
rendered there ? 

Mr. Crosby. The total amount ? 

The CHAiKiirAN'. Yes. 

Mr. Crosby. $3,426.57. 

The Chairman. Now compare that with the amount on the check. 

Mr. Crosby. They are identicaL 

The Chairman. They are identical amomits? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you recognize the signatures of John Sweeney 
and Frank Brewster on the check, do you ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, they look familiar to me. 

The Chair^man. Those two documents may be made exhibit No. 
46, A and B. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 46-A and 
46-B" for reference, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1071 
and 1072.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have a few more. 

Going back to this fight for just a moment, when you w^ent down to 
San Francisco, for what reason did you go down there? 

Mr. Crosby. To discuss the details relating to an impending strike 
in an effort to try to devise ways and means to avoid it, but we were 
unable to and ultimately 35,000 people were on strike. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. How long were you down there ? 

Mr Crosby. I was down there overnight. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you go to the figlit ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Sweeney was down there? 

Mr. Crosby. John Sweeney was in the city ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy . John Sweeney is the one who asked you or re- 
quested that v' u use the union funds to buy or purchase Mr. Joe 
McLaughlin's ticket, is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. John Sweeney requested that I obtain a ticket; yes, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you stay down there 3, 4, or 5 days to have 
these conferences? 

Mr. Crosby. Can I explain that situation ? 

The Chairman. Well, answer this question and you may explain it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you stay down in San Francisco 3 or 4 days? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. KENNrj)Y. Did you come back the day after the fight? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you come back with Joe McLaughlin? 

Mr. Crosby. Not with him, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he come back on the same plane as you ? 

Mr. Crosby. You are stating he did ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ? I am asking you. 

Mr. Crosby. I don't knovr whether he did or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know if he was on the same plane? 

Mr. Crosby. I am not sure, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not see him on the plane? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 813 

Mr. Crosby. If I saw him on the plane, I certainly don't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember that at all, and you do not 
remember Joe McLaughlin l)eing on the plane? 

Mr. Crosby. I remember him going down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes? 

Mr. Crosby. But I don't remember specifically, him coming back. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you came back the day after the fight? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, that's correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you do not remember seeing Joe McLaughlin 
on the plane ? 

Mr. Crosby. Now may I explain this thin^ ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember seeing him on the plane? 

Mr. Crosby. That is what I stated. 

Mr. Kennedy. The records from United Air Lines indicate that 
they were on the same flight. 

The Chairman. You may make your explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are in the record, exhibit No. 37, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. If it is exhibit No. 37, 1 think the witness may have 
heard the testimony when these were placed in the record. Exhibit 
No. 37 is in the record, a photastatic copy of the record of the airline 
company showing the flight was made by you and Mr. McLaughlin, 
both down and back. 

(Exhibit 37 was introduced during the hearings on March 5, 1957, 
and will be found in the appendix of pt. 2, on p. 743.) 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't see those, or I wasn't present at the time. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to show them to you. We will 
exhibit this to the witness, please, and tell him to examine them and 
see what they are. They are already in as exhibits and they have been 
sworn to and placed in the record. That is why the questions are be- 
ing asked you, if you went with him on the same plane and you came 
back with him on the same plane. You made arrangements for the 
ticket. 

(A document was shown to the witness.) 

Mr. Crosby. There doesn't seem to be any question about it, Senator. 

The Chairman. I did not think that there was. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Crosby. I simply want to explain the circumstances relating to 
that trip. 

The Chairman. We will be glad for you to explain. 

Mr. Crosby. I had a briefcase full of material relating to these 
negotiations that we had spent a number of weeks in, and I was very, 
very much concerned with the impending strike we were faced with. 
When I got aboard the plane, I went to the tail end of the plane and 
I rode in the circular area, in the extreme tail end and T worked on 
these matters in my briefcase until we got down there. 

The Chairman. All right, now may I ask you what time did you 
arrive in San Francisco? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know exactly, but I imagine it was around 
noon, or shortly before. 

The Chairman. Around noon, and what time did you leave the next 
morning on your return flight? 

Mr, Crosby. Offhand, I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it the next morning or the next afternoon? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know. 



814 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The tickets that you examined there, do those indi- 
cate the hour of the flight ? 

Mr. Crosby. They may have, and if they did, I didn't notice it. 

The Chairman. Tliey\vill speak for themselves, if they do. What 
I want to determine is this : To lay it on the line, you went down there 
to see a tight, and that was the main purpose of your trip, was it not? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

The Chairman. AVhat did you do other than go to the fights ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain. 

The Chairman. All right, 1 am asking you to tell us. 

Mr. Crosby. I walked into the hotel to sign the register slip, and 
I asked the bellhop to take my suitcase upstairs and I took my 
briefcase and I v/ent to the office of Pat Andre and Joe Dillon in 
Telefaro Building, 25 Taylor Street. 

I spent the afternoon with them discussing many of the problems 
we were facing in relation to this impending strike. Later in the 
evening the three of us went down to a cocktail lounge called the 
Paddock, run by a man and his wife Avho are particular friendly to 
Teamsters. 

We had a cocktail hour there and we took a bus provided by the 
people that owned tlie cocktail lounge and went to the fights. We 
went to the fights at the Cow Palace in the bus and after the fights we 
got back in the bus and we came back to the cocktail lounge. 

We had a couple more drinks with some of the people there and I 
went to my room and I went to bed. 

The Chairman. All right. The only thing this Chair was trying 
to do, and I do not care about you getting a drink, the Chair was 
trying to determine what business you attended to. Did you see Mr. 
Sweeney while you were there ? 

Mr. Crosby. Only to nod to him, that's all. I didn't sit at the fight 
with him. I was with this other gang of people. 

The Chairman. Did you have any conference with him while you 
were there ? 

Mr. Crosby. Only on the telephone. 

The Chairman. You had a telephone conversation with him and 
was he interested in this impending strike ? 

Mr. Crosby. Very much so. 

The Chairman. He was your superior ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were down there to confer about that ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you naturally not have talked with Mr. 
Sweeney about it ? 

Mr. Crosby. I would have, had he had time available, but he was 
balled up in other meetings and I wasn't able to tear his attention 
away. 

The Chairman. You just had a telephone conversation with him? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ask him in that telephone conversation 
what this man McLaughlin was doing down there, and why he wanted 
him there ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I didn't. 

The Chairman. Do you not usually do that, and do you not confer 
about those matters ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 815 

Ml'. Crosby. I am not in the habit of questioning- someone I consider 
my superior, sir. 

The Chair^ian. I did not say you questioned liis judgment, but 
would you not naturally interrogate him or ask who is this man 
McLaughlin and what has he got to do with our Teamsters or what 
business he has here and wdiy do you want him^' 

Is that not a natural thing to do ? 

Mr. Crosby. It was a completely innocuous thing to me and I had 
no concern about him one way or the other. 

The Chairman. You mean the spending of nioney on a character 
like that is innocuous to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't mean to put that inference on it, Senator. I 
merely meant it was a detail to me that I knew nothing about. 

The Chairman. In other words, is it your practice whenever Mr. 
Sweeney called you or Mr. Brewster and told you to do something, you 
did it without question. Is that rights That is what you w^ant us to- 
understand ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't want to leave that kind of a blanket statement 
in the record. 

The Chairman. Well, you say you never questioned your superiors. 
I just asked you. It seems to me that you are close enough to them. 
You were the national representative there in that area, and it would 
seem to me you are close enough to them that you could talk to them 
about business matters and you naturally would do so. 

Mr. Crosby. There have l3een times when I have questioned Mr. 
Brewster and Mr. Sweeney over matters where there were dilTerences 
of opinion relating to contracts and that is the only way we have ever 
found that progress can be made. That is by arguing points of view. 

The Chairman. I am sure that that is true, and the Chair is not 
questioning it at all. I simply inquired about this particular matter. 
Would it not be the natural thing for you to talk about that ? Did you 
not talk about it ? 

Mr. Crosby. It was just to me an insignificant thing, that I did not 
talk to him about. 

The Chairman. All right, it is insignificant. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Talking about the use of union funds, you had some 
difficulty down in Arizona some years ago, did you not, in 1930? 

Mr. Crosby. That seems to be pretty well known, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliere was a move, a successful move to get that 
expunged from the record, is that right, within the last 6 or 8 months ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was that liandled by your own personal at- 
torney ? 

Mr. Crosby. I haven't paid him yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that handled by your own personal attorney? 

Mr. Crosby. I retained jMr. O'Brien to make anangements to find 
someone in the State of Arizona for me and to have him intercede 
in my behalf, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, is Mr. O'Brien the attorney for the teamsters? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, he is jjfeneral counsel for tlie Teamsters. 



816 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you say that you arranged to have him get 
in touch with somebody in Arizona. That implies that he never left 
the city of Portland on your behalf, is that correct? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I didn't imply that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry. 

Mr. Crosby. I simply said that as a result of that request, he re- 
tained a man by the name of E. C. Locklair in the city of Prescott, 
Ariz., who handled the details of the presentation to the court. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever make a trip to Arizona himself? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he made that in connection with your personal 
matter ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you know who paid for the transportation 
of Mr. O'Brien when he went to Arizona ? 

Mr. Crosby. He paid it himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that the Teamsters reimbursed him 
for that transportation? 

Mr. Crosby. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay him for that? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't think that I am ever going to get through 
paying him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay him for that trip ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I haven't paid him anything yet, and I am in- 
volved in so much trouble 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not reimbursed him at all, have you ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did not pay for his transportation down 
there. That was 8 or 9 months ago, was it not? 

Mr. Crosby. That's correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make any other trips? Did he come back 
here to Washington, D. C, in your behalf? 

Mr. Crosby. Oh, yes, just recently. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he come any other time on your behalf ? That 
is, on this personal matter of yours ? 

Mr. Crosby. I can't recall an;^ if he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many trips did he make to Arizona? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe two. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the attorney for the union, is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not paid him ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Crosby, the reason that 
the teamsters switclied from McCourt to Langley was because you 
learned that Jim Elkins might be interested in McCourt's election, is 
that right? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was never taken up with the rank and file of 
the union? 

Mr. Crosby. It was reported in the meetings to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. The rank and file union members; and were they 
ever given the reason that you were supporting Langley ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 817 

Mr. Crosby. Not publicly; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, as I understand it, you were very anxious to 
clean up the city of Portland if you could, is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I think that I made it clear in the record that 
I was not a crusader. Somebody or the press has portrayed me as 
some self-styled crusader. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. But you were supporting the elements in govern- 
luent that were attempting to rid the city of any vice? 

Mr. Crosby. I wanted the guy to leave us alone. 

Mr. Kennedy. The report that has come to this committee is that 
you made a visit, or at least according to the mayor himself, you made 
a visit to the mavor in order to get him to fire the chief of police, is 
that right? 

Mr. Crosby. I made a visit to the mayor upon two occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. On one occasion to ask him to get rid of the chief of 
police ? 

Mr. Crosby. On the second occasion I suggested that perhaps if he 
replaced the chief, Elkins' activities might better be controlled. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him at that time that the teamsters 
would not support him unless he got rid of the chief of police? 

Mr. Crosby. Not at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever tell him that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I may have, and I don't recall specifically telling it to 
him. 

Mr. Ejennedy. Now, Leo Plotkin has testified before this committee 
that Maloney was anxious to get rid of the chief of police because he 
was uncooperative. Maloney said that the teamsters were anxious to 
get rid of the chief of police because he was uncooperative. 

Now, you say you did go to the mayor and trj^ to get rid of the chief 
of police. 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy, you have my statement there, and you 
know the background. I went in the first instance at the i-equest of 
Mr. Russ Conger, a Portland detective and a representative of the 
policeman's union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the mayor that the teamsters would not 
support him unless he got rid of the chief of police ? 

Mr. Crosby. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that his testimony to that effect, the mayor's testi- 
mony to that effect, is not correct, is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. It is highly embellished. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him something like it ? 

Mr. Crosby. He might have gotten an inference from me to that 
effect, but I recall no such statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the inference that you intended to make? 

Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I don't recall whether I did or not. At that 
time, we were considered to be quite friendly. 

The Chairman. If he got that impression, he was not wrong, was 
lie i 

Mr. Crosby. As testified. Senator, he was not wrong at all. 

The Chairman. He was not wrong at all ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the mayor. Now, we also had a member of 
the public utilities commission, ^Ir. Howard Morgan, again going 

80330— 57— pt. 3 5 



818 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

into this idea that you were interested in cleaning up your city, and 
supporting those elements in government that were interested in clean- 
ing up your city. 

He stated before this committee that you said that the Governor 
should lay off in his investigation of the liquor commission, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is not correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was wrong, too, is that right? Is Mr. Morgan 
wrong, also ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Morgan is incorrect, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Morgan gave wrong testimony before this com- 
mittee, and so did the mayor, is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't think that there is any question in my mind. 
As a matter of fact, with relation to Mr. Morgan's testimony, there 
are eight points. I went over the transcript of his statements. There 
are eight points of definite statements that he made that, in my opinion, 
are grossly incorrect, if not outright something else. I would like to 
read them to you, if you would like to take the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is up to the committee. 

The Chairman. You may read them, because if you were connected 
with that in any way, as I recall the testimony, you are at liberty to 
read the statements that you say are inaccurate, incorrect, false, or 
lies. Proceed. 

Mr. Crosby. I am being charitable to Mr. Morgan when I say 
"inaccurate." 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Crosby. With reference to Mr. Morgan's statement before this 
committee, the first point that he stated that is wrong — and I admit 
that I probably don't have all of them in there that would be incorrect, 
but I have eight. 

No. 1, is the circumstances surrounding Paul Patterson and William 
Langley. He drew conclusions there that amounted to accusations 
that were untrue. 

No. 2, that a great deal of money was spent on Langley's campaign 
by the teamsters. The inference there is that a big pot was thrown 
in, which is not true. You haven't got the records of what was spent. 

No. 3, Crosby backed up Maloney in reference to the liquor com- 
mission investigation and that relates to Mr. Morgan's testimony hav- 
ing to do with INIaloney dropping ashes on the front of his suit. He 
deliberately misstated what I said to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the question I just asked you. Could you go 
into that a little bit ? You did not say that ? 

Mr. Crosby. May I read the rest of them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

The Chairman. Proceed with it and we will come back to that one. 

Mr. Crosby. No. 4, the statement that the teamsters were attempting 
to take over law enforcement in the State of Oregon. 

No. 5, the teamsters attempting to control the comity commissioners 
and remove James Gleason. 

No. 6, tlie statement that the teamsters led the attack on Mr. Thorn- 
ton's bid for reelection. 

No. 7, that the teamsters opposed Mayor Lee. 

No. 8, Mr. Morgan's inference that the teamsters did not contribute 
financially to Governor Holmes' campaign. Now, he left the inference 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 819 

in his testimony that, because of the circumstances surrounding the 
discussion he had with this other gentleman, and I forget his name, 
he inferred that $10,000 would be made available by the teamsters of- 
ficials provided someone was put on the liquor control commission. 
The facts are that Governor Holmes personally came to our office and 
I did not talk to him because I was under charges. 

He met with some other members of the legislative committee and he 
was given a check for $2,000, which shows that we did financially sup- 
port him. 

The Chairman. Just at that point, may I ask you, did you also 
financially support the other candidate? 

Mr. Crosby. Governor Smith '? 

The Chairman. Wlioever it was, the other candidate. 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, we did not support him. 

The Chairman. Did you make a contribution to him ? 

Mr. Crosby. Not financially, no, sir. 

The Chairman, Wliat kind of contribution did you make? 

Mr. Crosby. This is the only step that we took. Governor Smith, 
rather a young man, indicated a desire to appear before our joint 
counsel and explain his views on right-to-work legislation. 

We have always followed a policy of making candidates welcome 
from both parties to express their views on legislation that affects us. 
Governor Smith came to the meeting and he gave about a 10-minute 
talk and was received enthusiastically by the people in the meeting by 
virtue and for the reason of the statements that he made in relation to 
right-to- work legislation. 

I thanked the Governor and I think some pictures were taken and 
were ]:)rinted in our next issue of our paper. AVe printed a full account 
of it for the information of the members. But the following editions 
of the paper carried our regular endorsement for Governor Holmes. 

The Chairman. I was not talking about endorsement. I simply 
asked you if you made any financial contribution to the other candidate 
and the other one I understand is Smith. 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, not financially. 

The Chairman. You made no financial contribution to him ? 

Mr. Crosby. The only contribution 

The Chairman. I do not know that you did. I am just asking, did 
you make any to the other, you or the teamsters? 

Mr. Crosby. Sometimes people consider something besides money 
a contribution. Senator, and that is^all I was trying to get at. To the 
extent that we asked him or im ited him over to speak before our group 
and accorded him a welcome and thanked him for coming. That is 
the only contact that we had with him or his campaign. 

The Chairman. That is all right. You said you made a $2,000 
contribution to Mr. Holmes. 

Mr. Crosby. I would like to offer that in evidence if you would 
like to have it. I have a photostatic copy. 

The Chairman. Of what? 

Mr. Crosby. Of the check for $2,000 that was given to Governor 
Holmes. 

The Chairman. We would be very glad to receive it, sir, and it may 
be made exhibit No. 47 in the record at this point. 

(The document referred to was made Exhibit No. 47 for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 1073.) 



820 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN^ THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Crosby, while we are on this subject of 
union dues money for political purposes, liow many members would 
you say comprise council 37 ? 

Mr. Crosby. It fluctuates, sir, because of our large cannery per- 
sonnel, but I would say between 18,000 and 24,000 on an annual basis. 

Senator Goldwater. Are their dues the same as Avere recited here 
in the local about $5.25 a month ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, sir, it fluctuates all of the way from $4 to $5 
and $5.50. In some of the outlying areas, they go up to $6, 

Senator Goldwater. I Mould like to ask you if you are aware of 
having received questionnaires that were mailed out by the subcom- 
mittee on privileges and elections and asking for the reporting of 
monies spent in the political campaign of this past year. 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you aM-are of those ? 

Mr. Crosby. It was called to my attention that such a communi- 
cation did come in and I think from Senator Gore. 
' Senator Goldwater. Senator Gore's committee, yes. 

Mr. Crosby. It is my understanding that our office complied with 
tlie request in complete detail. 

Senator Goldwater. The reason I was asking that is this: In the 
conunittee repoi't it shoAvs the Joint Council No. 87 of Portland, Ore., 
as listing no contributions or expenditures on these reports. 

I was wondering if you had any explanation of that, in view of 
the fact that the Democratic State Committee shows rather sizeable 
contributions from this Council. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, Senator, I did not fill out tlie forms. 

Senator Goldwater. Was that your responsibility? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 



Senator Goldwater. The responsibility of someone el 



Mr. Crosby. That would be someone else's responsibility. 

Senator Goldwater. But you would know about the money that was 
s})ent from that council for ])olitical purposes ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. That is, basically. There might have been 
some money spent that I don't know of. 

Senator Goedwater. You testified to $2,000 being spent for 
Governor Holmes. 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater, Do you recognize $1,000 having been given 
eitlier to Mr. Sweetland or Sweethird, I do not know which it is, 
]-unning for Secretary or State? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, we made such a contribution. 

Senator Goldwater. Did your council give $14,000 to the Demo- 
cratic Party of Oregon ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is a question that I am not clear on, as to what 
extent we contributed to the Democratic Party of Oregon, sir. I 
would rather that yon would ask that question of someone who is 
better qualified to answer it. I don't know the total amount. 

Senator Goldwater. The Democi-atic Partv sliows three different 
contributions, $5,000, $5,000, and $4,000, which means that your 
council. Joint Council 37, gave a total of $17,000 to two candidates 
and the Democratic Party. AVould you say that is substantially 
correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 82 1 

Mr. Crosby. Senator Gokhvtiter, 1 am not tryino- to be evasive, but 
I am really not sure. 

Senator Goldwatek. $17,000 is not just pin money. It is not some- 
thing you vrould take out for a weekend. 

Mr. C'ROsr.Y. I ara awai-e of that. 

Senator Goldwatp:r. I)o you recall that that is about rights 

Mr. Crosby. I don"t know. I have to qualify it by saying, that, 
again, man}^ times I am away from town and I don't know exactly what 
has been done in exact, round figures. Filling out those forms, the 
summing up of our total expense, was done by the statistical division 
of our joint council, and I don't know that I am qualified to make a 
definite statement about it. 

Senator Goldwater. What do you have to do with the joint council's 
legislative committee ? Are you chairman of that ? 

Mr. Crosby. Figuratively speaking, I think I am the chairman. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you recall that an additional $4,000. in 
addition to the $17,000, an additional $4,000, went to — 1 do not recog- 
nize one of the names, but one of the names was a candidate at the 
national level, for the House. 

Mr. Crosby. Ko, sir. To my knowledge we made no such 
contribution. 

Senator Goldwater. The records that I have that are taken from 
the report of the Democratic Party of Oregon shows a total of $21,000 
having come from the joint council of Teamsters No. 87, and I find no 
mention of it at all in the Subcommittee on Privileges and Ele-ctions 
Report. Instead, I find your organization having stated that there 
were no contributions or expenditures during the election j^eriod. 

Mr. Crosby. The responsibility for the accuracy of that report. 
Senator, I don't feel is mine, because I didn't 

Senator Goldwater. I do not w^ant to take. the responsibilitj^ for the 
accuracy of this report, either. I was trying to sheet some light on the 
inaccuracy. 

Mr. Crosby. I can say this. I believe with a fair degree of as- 
surance that it was never any practice, nor did we indulge in, the 
spending of money on congressional candidates out of union funds. 
We did give some money to the State Democratic fund, but it was 
plainly marked on the checks to be used for State candidates only. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have. 

The Chairman. I just want to ask you 1 or 2 questions. 

The first is with respect to the $2,000 given Robert Holmes. This 
check that you have introduced, a photostatic copy of whicli appears 
to have been issued on the Joint Council of Teamsters Xo. 37, special 
account. Is that correct ( 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The check was signed by you and by one .Vnthony 
Vavrus? 

Mr, Crosby. The name is Vavrus, sir. 

The Chairman. Vavrus? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was this a special a«icovmt out of imion funds '< 

Mr. Crosby. Indirectly it was, sir. I would like to explain that 
special account. 



822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. What I am trying to determine— and I am just 
trying to expedite this — is, Are these funds that are represented by 
this check out of union dues ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The other funds there that Senator Goldwater 
has been questioning you about, some of which you identified as in- 
correct, were those out of union dues, originally, primarily? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I am treading on dangerous ground and I would 
like to explain why, Mr. Chairman, not because I want to be evasive, 
but because I want to be concise. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to clear this uj). All I want to 
know is, and I do not know, whether these contributions to cam- 
paigns — this one here represented by the $2,000 which you have sub- 
mitted a photostatic copy of the check given to Mr. Holmes — whether 
that came out of union dues. 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then I ask you the same question regarding those 
other items Senator Goldwater has just questioned you about, those 
of them that you identified. Did they come out of union dues? 

Mr. Crosby. Therein lies the problem, and I would like to make 
an explanation. I think I have to, in order to make the picture clear. 

The Chairman. You may. If they did, I want to know it, and 
if they did not, I want to know it. 

Mr. Crosby. Here is what the teamsters did. At our national con- 
ference — at our conference, not national conference — our western 
conference, held in Vancouver, we took up voluntary contributions 
from individuals for Senator Morse's campaign. Wlien we returned 
to Oregon, we discussed the matter amongst ourselves, and agi^eed to 
voluntarily contribute $100 from our own personal funds, and we 
recommended that all paid officials, if possible, try to meet that sort 
of an objective, to be utilized by Senator Morse in his efforts to be 
reflected. That money was turned over to Senator Morse, and it did 
not come from union funds. 

Whether that reflects any part of what Senator Goldwater was ask- 
ing me about or not, I am unable to say. 

The Chairman. In other words, there was a special fund or a politi- 
cal fund specifically collected from voluntary donations that went to 
Senator Morse. You know that ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So as to that which was voluntarily contributed 
from members, such as yourself and others, that would not be union 
dues? 

Mr. Crosby. That is right. 

The Chairman. It would be perfectly proper, from my viewpoint, 
and I would like to encourage it. I like to encourage political 
contributions. 

Mr. Crosby. As a matter of fact, a very, very large number of the 
members of various teamster unions sent in envelopes 

The Chairman. My friend here suggests specifically the Democrats, 
and I agree with liim. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Crosby. A great many of the membership of the teamster union 
sent in voluntary contributions in the amounts of $1, $5, $2 whatever 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 823 

they felt they could spare, and a receipt was written and mailed back, 
and the money was tabulated and turned over to the "Morse for Sen- 
ate" campaign. I don't know how much money was received. 

The Chairman". Let me ask you the question this way, and then 
you may answer it. I do not want to belabor this, but I am trying to 
identify, and I think the committee is interested in it, political con- 
tributions made from dues collected from members that they are com- 
pelled to pay to keep in good standing in the union. Can you identify 
any of the funds, the contributions, referred to by Senator Goldwater 
in his questioning as money that came out of union funds ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't think I can. Senator, because I am not familiar 
with the form. All I knew was that we received it. I believe that 
the man who filled it out would be the only one who could give a logi- 
cal explanation for it. 

The Chairman. But there is no mistake about this $2,000 ? 

Mr. Crosby. None whatsoever. 

The Chairman. It came out of the union. Thank you very much. 

Senator Goldwater. To clear that up, I asked you about $1,000 
for Mr. Sweetland. 

Mr. Crosby. That amount I recall specifically. There is no question 
about it. 

The Chirman. That came out of union funds ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. There are other donations listed under Joint 
Council of Teamsters No. 37, there is one for $5,000, another for $5,000, 
and another for $4,000, as being contributed to the Democratic Party. 
I think the chairman was trying to get out of you whether or not that 
sum of $14,000 came out of union dues. This was made to the Demo- 
cratic Party of Oregon. It does not include $4,000 additional. As I 
say, I recognize one of the names, and it is not a Senator. I recognize 
one of the names. I assume the other name must be a candidate for 
the House, also. 

There is a sum of $4,000. What the chairman is interested in is 
that $14,000, whether or not that was out of union dues. 

Mr. Crosby. I hesitate to try to answer the question. I am honestly 
not qualified. Senator. 

The Chairman. You honestly do not know either way, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. I would like to say this. I am positive there must be 
something incorrect about the report, if it indicates that $4,000 of 
union funds was spent for someone running for the House. 

Senator Goldwater. We will forget that. Let us assume that that 
might be. That $4,000 could very well be voluntary funds that were 
spent for the candidates for the National Congress. But we still have 
to account for $14,000 that went directly to the Democrat State com- 
mittee from No. 37. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, that is no question in my mind but what we very 
likely did contribute the money. I don't specifically know that we 
did. I don't think there is any reason to say that we didn't, because 
we probably did. 

Senator Goldwater. It is on the Democrat contribution list. Some- 
times I do not have high regard for the Democrats, but I think they 
are highly honest. 



824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. I am just not sure, Senator, but that is more than likely 
correct. 

Senator Goldwater. If it is more than likely correct, are we right, 
more than likely, assuming that it came out of the general fund, the 
union dues? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, that would be the case. 

Senator Goldwater. That is what we wanted to get. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we go back, Mr. Crosby, to your conversation 
with Howard Morgan ? I might say in that connection, on the $2,000, 
this check is dated August 10, 1956. Mr. Morgan's testimony was that 
the conversation with Spear and DeShazor took place in September, 
as I remember. 

Did the teamsters make anv contribution to Holmes after Septem- 
ber of 1956? 

Mr. Crosby. That is the total contribution of the teamsters to Gov- 
ernor Holmes campaign. My point was that I didn't think Mr. Mor- 
gan even knew about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Crosby. He certainly didn't mention it. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other thing 1 want to mention to you or ask you 
about is whether any other teamster organizations outside the State 
of Oregon made any' contributions to Mr. Smith's campaign. 

Mr. Crosby. I am unable to answer the question. I frankly doubt 
it. They look to the joint council for leadership in that direction, in 
which they participated. I can't say definitely, but I don't think that 
any money was contributed 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever understand there was any money given 
by the teamsters through California, for instance, to Mr. Smith's 
campaign ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, absolutely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never heard of tliat ? 

Mr. Crosby. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now would j^ou go back to your conversation with 
Mr. Morgan, where he stated that you spoke to him and said you 
thought the Governor should lay otf in his investigation of the liquor 
commission ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am real happy to. The incident that Mr. Morgan 
related took place at a night that they were holding a Democratic 
victory dinner. That night I had the privilege of presenting a 
brochure to 

Mr. Kennedy. He has explained about 

Mr. Crosby. To Congressman Green. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Why do you not get right to the facts? 

Mr. Crosby. Before the people were seated at the table, there was 
a gang of people tiled up around the entrance to the dining room. 
Among them was Mr. Morgan, and I was standing there waiting 
for someone. I believe it was mj^ wife. She had stepped out 
temporaril3\ 

I seen them talking. I could tell without much concentration 
that 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is "them" ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Malonev and ^Ir. Moi'can. 



t:\ipropp:r activities in the labor field 825 

I knew tlmt Mr. Morgan was mad by the look on his face. But I 
went np and asked him, I said, "What'^is that gviy doing, giving you 
ti-onblef He said, "Yes, he is giving me trouble." I said, "AYhat 
is it all about?" And he said, "Well, he is trying to tell me what 
to do in reference to advising the attorney general in reference to 
the liquor control investigation." 

I made one statement, and I could make it anyplace without any 
fear of being in violation of anything. I simply stated to Mr. Morgan 
this, that, "I think it would be a terrible state of affairs if Tommy 
Sheridan lost his accumulated 25 years of service to the State upon 
the accusation and proving that an industrv representative paid a 
$42 hotel bill for him." 

That was the sum and substance of the whole thing. I didn't 
ask him to lay off or anything else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Morgan testified before this committee that you 
did make such a statement. 

Mr. Crosdt. Mr. Morgan and I have found ourselves on opposite 
courses many, many times. 

Mr. Kennedy. But do you think that he came in here and testified 
falsely about that ? 

Mr."^ Crosby. I think Mr. Morgan certainly didn't state the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you are accusing him of testifying falsely about 
your statement ? 

Mr. Crosby. Just a second, please. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. I am simply relating it as I remember it. 

jNIr. Kennedy. You deny that you said to him that you wanted 
the Governor to lay off' the liquor commission. 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not say that ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Morgan's testimony to the contrary is in- 
correct, is that right ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I am not a judge or a jury. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. I am just asking you whether it is correct or in- 
correct. Is it incorrect ? 

Mr. Crosby. As far as I am concerned, it is incorrect. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Have you got any reason that he would come in 
here and testify in that manner if it was not true ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think there are a number of events that took place 
months prior that had something to do with the building up of a 
relationship that might possibly cause him to exaggerate, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And testif}^ falsely on this matter before the 
committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. Well, you are putting those words in my mouth. I 
said his statement was inaccurate. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there are matters in his background that would 
make him come before this committee and give inaccurate testimony ? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe ]Mr. Morgan is a political opportunist without 
the slightest moral sense of responsibility. Is that good enough? 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Tommy Sheridan ? He was a mem- 
ber of the liquor commission, was he not ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Tommy Sheridan 



826 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Was he not ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, he was not a member. He was an employee. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was an employee of the liquor commission ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conferences or conversations with 
him and Mr. Jim Elkins ? 

Mr. Crosby. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Jim Elkins ever bring Mr. Sheridan to your 
office? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, he did not. And I can tell you the party that 
did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me? 

Mr. Crosby. I can tell you the party that did. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. Elkins never talked to you about Mr. 
Sheridan ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Elkins, I think, was responsible for obtaining for 
me a photostatic copy of an improper travel expense voucher relating 
to another individual in the liquor control commission that I pre- 
sented to the Governor as an indication that 

Mr. Kennedy. Now would you answer the question ? 

Mr. Crosby. Wliat is the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Elkins bring Mr. Sheridan to see you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Attorney, would you mmd not coaching the 
witness ? 

Mr. Magee. I am not coaching the witness, sir. 

Mr. Crosby. He just told me to relax. I am sorry, Mr. Kennedy. 
1 have missed the question again. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will state it again. Did Mr. Elkins bring Mr. 
Sheridan to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Sheridan 
and Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible that you might have ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. I just don't recall any such conversation. I would like 
to relate the ones 

Mr. Kennedy. I want you to answer my question, and then if you 
want to relate who brought Mr. Sheridan to you, or someone else that 
brought Mr. Sheridan to you, that is fine. We have had some testimony 
here from Mr. Elkins that he brought Mr. Sheridan to your office, or 
that he talked with Mr. Sheridan and you. Do you state that he did 
not do that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have to interpret your question as did he and Mr. 
Sheridan sit down in my office and talk to me, or did they meet me 
and talk to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. Let us start over again. Did Mr. Sheridan and 
Mr. Elkins ever meet with you ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever have a conversation with you, where 
both of them were together and you were there also ? It is very clear 
now. 

Mr. Crosby. I cannot recall any such instance. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 827 

Mr. E^ENNEDY. You say you cannot recall that instance, but you 
know that you did not meet with them, is that right ? And there is a 
difference. 

Mr. Crosby. The reason that I am differentiating is because of the 
fact that I think I had several conversations with Mr. Sheridan, and 
it is possible that he might have been standing near by, or something, 
at the time I was talking to him. I am trying to be fair to myself, if 
you will permit me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever a conversation in your office? Let 
us start that way. Was there ever a conversation in your office be- 
tween Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Elkins, and yourself? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are absolutely certain of that ? 

Mr. Crosby. To the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would remember if that had happened. What 
do you mean to the best of your knowledge ? You would remember if 
that would have happened. 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy, I wonder if you will remember what wit- 
ness barged in your office on some matter. So many people come into 
my office, and you are asking me to make a definite statement when I 
just don't know for sure. I don't think it happened. 

Mr, IvENNEDY. You think it is possible that Mr. Sheridan, Mr. 
Elkins, and you met at your office ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't recall any such incident. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not recall it, but you think it is possible? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't say I thought it was possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you. Do you think it is possible ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. All I am saying is I don't recall any such instance. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you will not deny that it happened ? 

Mr. Crosby. Nor confirm it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss the Sheridan matter with Mr. 
Elkins? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe he called me one time and asked me if I could 
help the guy. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you are not denying the testimony of Mr. Elkins, 
then, on the Sheridan matter ? 

_Mr. Crosby. I am stating this — certainly I am denying any pre- 
vious statements that he made. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You think that the meeting might have taken place, 
and 3^ou think that Mr. Elkins might have asked you for help. 

Mr. Crosby. You know, we could get right to the heart of it if you 
would let it go. I can tell you in a few words exactly how that thing 
happened. I don't doubt but what Elkins had a lot to do with it, from 
what I learned since. 

Mr. Kennedy. Fine, you tell us. 

Mr. Crosby. I was contacted by Lt. Carl Crisp, who at that time 
was second night commanding officer of the Eastside Precinct. I don't 
mind telling you that I tried to build up a friendly relationship with 
those people, because we represent drivers, and occasionally they have 
problems. If we can get one of them out of jail and get him back 
to work, we certainly wouldn't be above trying to do it. 



828 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crisp came to me and <rave me the following story. He said, 
"'I wonder if there is anything that you can do to help Tom Sheridan. 
He is an old friend of mine. I worked with him in the police business." 

I don't remember whether he said state police or city police. And 
he says, ""They are framing the guy, and 1 wish to gosh that there 
was something that you could do. I know that you Avorked in Gov- 
ernor Patterson's campaign. Is there any possibility that you could 
speak a word for him r" 

I asked him this, I said, "What is it that they are accusing Mr. 
Sheridan of?'' He said, "No. 1, a $41 hotel bill paid by a liquor 
distillery representative at Seattle in a convention : and No. 2, there 
is some veiled accusations relating to an alleged $10,000 bribe that 
was paid to Tommy Sheridan and is causing a great deal of ruckus." 

I told Mr. ( 'ris]) that if there was a $10,000 bribe involved, 1 couldn't 
do a darn thing for him, that certainly I would not attempt to inject 
myself into a situation where that kind of a problem existed. 

These are roughly the words. T am snre they are not the exact words. 
He spent a great deal of time telling me the inaccuracy of the cliarge 
of the $10,000 bribe, and I told him, I said, "Well, if it simply is a 
matter of a $41 hotel bill, and it is pretty well recognized that these 
things go on in all segments of government and industry, at least to 
some extent — not perhaps with everyone but to some people — I will 
at least try it." 

I believe Mr. Ellvins was responsible — yes, Mr. Crisp referred to the 
fact that one other member of the Liquor Control Commission had 
been receiving travel expense, mileage, from Hillsboro to Portland, 
while, in reality, he was living in the city of Portland and not entitled 
to the money. 

I said, "Well, that parallels this thing. It is pretty much the same 
kind of a situation." 

The ChairmxVis-. The C^iair asks you at this point, to see if we 
can get away from the minute details, how well did you knew Mr. 
Crisp? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't know him too well. I have gotten acquainted 
with him. 

The Chairman. You are relating in detail quite a lengthly con- 
versation you had with him, which you seem to remember pretty well. 

Mr. Crosby. I remember the gist of it, Senator, yes. 

The Chairmax. All right, you remember the gist of it. You were 
asked with respect to this same matter whether Mr. Elkins, a man 
whom you regard, I believe, as a notorious character, and had known 
as such, from his business reputation and so forth, whether Mr. El- 
kins came with Mr. Sheridan and talked to you about it in your 
office. 

It seems to me if you could remember the long detailed conversa- 
tion with Mr. Crisp in so much detail, you would at least remember 
whether Mr. Elkins, this notorious character, brought Mr. Sheridan 
to your office and had a conference with you about it. Can you? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know as I was asked specifically whether or 
not — I guess I was asked whether or not a meeting was held in my 
office. I think I tried to get you to ask me that question. 

The Chairman. He did. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, the answer to that is "No." 

The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 829 

]VIr. Crosi5y. I drew some resei'vation with reference to conversa- 
tions I might liave liad with him outside of tlie building, on the street 
or something. 

The Chairmax. The question is, to put it direct: You say positively 
that Mr. Elkins and" Mr. Sheridan did not come to your office and 
have a conversation with you about this matter? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe so ; no. 

The Chairmax. Just a moment. I do not want you to swear to 
something — I am not trying to put words in your mouth. It struck 
me that you were remembering in great detail this conversation with 
Mr. Crisp, whom you didn't know much about. You know Elkins 
being the character he is, who is being portrayed here from time 
to time, and you didn't want to have anything to do with him, ap- 
parently. You would certainly remember if he brought a man to 
your office and talked to you there about this same subject. 

Mr. Crosby. The reason I am able to remember Mr. Crisp's conversa- 
tion is because we didn't meet in the office. ^Ye went down in the 
restaurant, sat down and had coffee, and discussed it at length. 

The Chairmax. Would you not remember just as well if a notorious 
character like Mr. Elkins would bring someone in there to see you 
and talk about it? 

Mr. Crosby. I think I would. 

The Chairmax. So according to your best recollection, you don't 
believe it happened^ 

Mr. Crosby. That is right, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. 1 may be Avrong, but it seems to me that, in 
answer to an earlier question, you said to Mr. Kennedy that you would 
tell him who brought Mr. Elkins to your office. Am I wrong about 
that? 

Mr. Crosby. No ; I meant I would tell him who brought Mr. Sheri- 
dan to my office. 

Senator Goldwater. 1 believe you said Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. Crosby. If I did, I made a mistake, Senator, and I am sorry. I 
was tr3dng to properly identify the basis under which I had met Mr. 
Sheridan. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. I would like to finish the conversation. 

The Chairmax. You may hnish. I do not want you to say some- 
thing that you do not mean, unless you can be cei'tain. I think we 
can maybe ]:)retty well establish tlrat Mr. Elkins did come to your 
office with Mr. Sheridan and talk to you about it. It may be some- 
thing of im])ortance in this matter. 

Mr. Kexxedy. It was at 7 o'clock :it night, Mr. Chairman. There 
"wasn't anyone else in the building. 

The Chairmax. I want to give you the benefit of every opportunity 
to say yes or no. 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy says the meeting was held at 7 o'clock 
at night and there was no one else in the building. I can certainly 
recall that that never h!ip])ened. 

Tlie (^hair."\iax. Proceed. 

^Ir. Crosby. "Well, the ui)shot of the conversation with Lieutenant 
Ci-isj) was that J did ask the Governor if I could speak to him the 
next time he hii])pene(l to be in Portland. I got a call from his ad- 



830 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ministrative assistant, I believe, to the effect that he was going to be 
in within a day or two, and giving me the time and date and place 
where he was staying. I went up and had a drink with him and 
raised the question. His immediate reaction was unfavorable. He 
didn't appreciate me bringing it up, and he simply stated that he did 
not feel that I should have interceded in the man's behalf in the 
first place. All I said, again, was that it just looks like a tragic thing 
for a man to lose 24 or 25 years of accumulated pension rights over 
an inadvertent incident where an industry member picked up a hotel 
bill. He said "Well, I am not convinced about this $10,000 situation," 
and I think that it later is a matter of record that the firm of Bobbett 
& Maguire, two attorneys with FBI experience, were retained by the 
Governor and conducted an exhaustive investigation, and that $10,000 
thing was never justified or charged. Mr. Sheridan appeared before 
the State civil service commission. He admitted the $42 hotel bill 
incident, and he was given 30 days off, at the end of which time he 
was returned to work. 

The Chairman. All right. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about this : Wlien we were talking 
about the finances, are all the books and records of the joint council 
37 all available to the committee for the period of time that Toin 
Maloney and Joe McLaughlin were in Portland ? 

Mr. Crosby, I am not qualified to answer the question. I didn't 
keep the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know whether all those books and records 
are available? 

Mr. Crosby. I am not aware what the situation is, exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know about the books and records ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, not to the extent that I could testify to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking you. Do you know about the books 
and records ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. It wasn't my function. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you whether it was your function. 
Do you know whether the books and records between the time Tom 
Maloney and Joe McLaughlin came to Portland and the time they 
left, whether those books and records are available to this eoimnittee ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know for sure. I know that some changes were 
instituted. I think that Mr. Mikesell is the man who can answer the 
question intelligently. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know, yourself, whether they are available ? 
You have that $2,000 check. That is what brought it to my mind. 
You were able to go in there and get a $2,000 check. I am sure you 
inquired about the rest of the books and records. 

Mr. Crosby. I can answer any other questions 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a joint council, a very important joint council, 
under your jurisdiction. Are the books of joint council 37 available 
from the period of time of the middle of 1954 to the middle of 1956 ? 

Mr. Crosby. As far as I am concerned, they are. The actual facts 
I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know ? 

Mr. Crosby. Not for sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never discussed that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 831 

Mr. Crosby. I have heard some remarks, but I don't know the extent 
of them, and I don't want to indulge m hearsay when I know you can 
get good expert testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. What have you heard about tlie books and records? 
Have your heard that the books and records for the period of time that 
Joe McLaughlin and Tom Maloney were in Portland have been 
destroyed ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't think there is the slightest connection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Aren't the books and records of the Joint Council 
37 available prior to August 1954, and after August 1956? Aren't 
the books and records available for that period of time ? 

]SIr. Crosby. I presume they are, but you are asking me to testify 
on something I know nothing about. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is under your jurisdiction, Mr. Crosby. You 
are in charge here. 

Mr. Crosby. No, I am not. You are giving me a great deal more 
authority than what I actually have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you the international organizer ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are your headquarters in Portland ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Aren't you in charge in that area ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no jurisdiction in that matter ? 

Mr. Crosby. Wait a minute. Not in charge in the general way 
you are putting it. You are leaving the impression that all I need 
to do is snap my fingers and anything would happen. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I am just talking about these very important 
books and records and I am trying to find out about them from you. 

Mr. Crosby. The president and the secretary-treasurer of Joint 
Council 37 are the people who handle the finances of the joint council. 
The secretaries of the local unions are autonomous groups that 
handle their own funds. I know nothing about them. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. Would it interest you that the books and records 
had been destroyed for that period of time, 1954 to 1956 ? 

Mr. Crosby. Would it what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Would it be of interest to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. It would be disturbing. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. It would be disturbing. That has not been 
brought to your attention ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have heard some remarks about some of the 

Mr. I{j:nnedy. You have heard some remarks about that, have 
you? You do know something about it? Mr. Crosby, if you would 
give the truth at the beginning, we would move along very quickly. 
Could you know something about it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. I am giving you the truth, Mr. Kennedy, and I cer- 
tainly feel that you are taking an unfair advantage of me when you 
imply that I am not. 

(Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. I^j^nnedy. Let me ask you the question again : Do you know 
or have you heard that the books and records from the middle of 
1954, certain of the books and records from the middle of 1954, to the 
middle of 1956 of Joint Council 37 have been destroyed ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



832 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Counsel, no coaching the witness. 

Mr. Magee. What do you want me to say ? 

The Chairman. You can answer that, whether you have any in- 
formation as to whether those records have been destroyed or 
whether they are avaihible. You have an interest in them. You said 
you would be disturbed if they were. You can answer that and we 
can move along. 

Mr. Crosby. I am trying to figure out to what extent I should try 
to qualify myself as someone 

The Chairman. You don't have to qualify yourself at all to simply 
say wliether you have information that they have been destroyed or 
that they have not been destroyed. 

INIr. Crosby. I think there are some records of an invoice and can- 
celed check status that have been destroyed. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : When did you get a photo- 
static copy of this check ? 

Mr. Crosby. Since I have been in Washington. 

The Chairman. Since you have been in Washington. The check 
was August 10, 1956. The term used here is from the middle of 1954 
to the niiddle of 1956. Apparently, from the information we have, a 
lot of records are missing, they cannot be found, or they have been 
destroyed. AVhat information do you have about those records for 
that period of time? 

INIr. Crosby. I don't know as I have any specific information. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that you have information as to 
whether those records exist or whether they are available, Avhether they 
can be made available ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't think some of them are, but to what extent, I 
don't know. 

The Chairman. If it would disturb you, would you have anv re- 
sponsibility to try to find out what happened to them, in your position ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't think that I have authority to 

The Chairman. Well, do you or don't you^ You ought to know 
what your authority is in your position. Do you have authority to 
inquire into it and try to find out what is wrong? 

Mr. Crosby. If I did, I didn't take that step. 

The Chairman. I know you didn't. You say you didn't take the 
step. I am asking you now do you have authority to do it? You say 
you would be disturbed if you found it was true. Do you have the 
authority in your position, representing the international as organizer 
in that area, do you have the authority to look into that matter? 

Mr. Crosby. Only if there was evidence that some attempt was being 
made to defeat some legitimate purpose or to comply with some legiti- 
mate requirement. 

The Chairman. Would you regard this investigation as a legitimate 
purpose ? 

Mr. Crosby. You know I am going to say yes to that. 

The Chairman. I thought you would. Then has it concerned you 
puongh, in your position, to cause you to make further inquiry to 
ascertain what the facts are up to now ? 

Mr. Crosby. The only trouble is that I am being walked into a dis- 
cussion relating to a subject that I am not sure about, I don't know the 
extent of it, and I think the information is here with another witness. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 833 

Tlie Chairmax. It may be. "What I am trying to determine is 
whether you. in your position, have any responsibility in that con- 
nection and, if so, what you have done about it. 

Mr. Crosby. If I am being asked if I have specific responsibility, I 
do not believe that I have. 

The Chairmax. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are your responsibilities? (.'an you give me 
that briefly? 

Mr, Crosby. ISLy responsibilities generally are to organize the seg- 
ments of our legitimate jurisdiction wherever possible, to aid in or- 
ganizational programs, to do coordinating work, and by instruction 
from the Western Conference, to aid and assist in contract negotia- 
tions, and so on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is one of your responsibilities to order pickets at 
local cafes or bars ? 

(Senator McClellan left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that one of your responsibilities ? 

Mr. Crosby. In any specific instance that turned out to be that 
way, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You ordered the pickets to the Mt. Hood Cafe, is 
that right? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you order those pickets on the instructions of 
any one else ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why it was that you 
took that responsibility, and why Mr. Lloyd Hildreth did not do it? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, Mr. Sweeney, prior to my becoming the inter- 
national organizer, had set in motion a program to organize the indus- 
try. For some reason or other it kind of broke up and didn't material- 
ize. When he left, the matter was brought to my attention and I again 
revived the thing, and attempted to organize the people working in 
the music machine and pinball machine business. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, pinball machines had been declared 
illegal by the city council, is that right? 

Mr, Crosby. There was controvers}^ in the courts. 

Mr, Kennedy, I understand 

Mr. Crosby. Wait a minute. I can't give you a legal interpreta- 
tion, because I don't know. 

Mr, Kennedy. I am not asking you to give me a legal interpreta- 
tion. All I am asking you is whether the city council had declared 
jjinballs illegal at that time. 

Mr. Crosby. I think they had, but I think they had been enjoined in 
the State courts. I am only quoting from a la3'man's memory. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the city council had passed an ordinance declar- 
ing the pinball machines illegal, and you were trying to organize 
them, is that right, organize the employees ? 

Mr. Crosby. They were still opei-ating as a legitimate concern with- 
out being policed out of business, and on that basis Ave attempted to 
organize them. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the answer to the question is yes? 

Mr. Crosby. I gave you the answer. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. All right, (to ahead. 



834 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Crosby. Go ahead with what? 

Mr. Kennedy. You were giving me an explanation as to what you 
were doing, why you ordered the pickets at the Mt. Hood Cafe. 

Mr. Crosby. All right, sir. In the conferences held with various 
individuals who made up the bulk of the association, it developed 
and became apparent that Mr, Terry and Mr. Dunis were probably 
the most influential. Mr. Terry and I got into quite a hassle about 
the type and structure of the agreement. He wanted a 6-day contract, 
he didn't want to pay any expenses for cars his employees would use, 
he didn't want the health and welfare program, and there was a lot 
of things he didn't want. In discussions with other individuals in the 
association, they indicated a willingness to meet those requirements, 
but they were standing back waiting for Mr. Terry to more or less 
call the shots. 

(Senator Goldwater left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Crosby. In an effort to break what I felt was a deadlock or stale- 
mate, I first discussed the matter with my attorney — at that time it 
was Jim Landye, who has since passed way — and asked him if we had 
the right, legally, to place an advertising picket. This is the first 
time, I think, this has come out in the hearings, but this is the actual 
facts. 

(Senators McClellan and Irvin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Crosby. The picket line that was placed there was simply a 
declaratory type banner stating that the machines inside of the estab- 
lishment were services by nonunion people. There were no instruc- 
tions given by me or anyone else that I know of to interfere with 
patrons patronizing the place, or to stop or to interfere with deliveries 
or pickups. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Do you know that that was done ? 

Mr. Crosby. Sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if that was done ? 

Mr. Crosby. If what was done ? 

Mr. ICennedy. Interfering with pickups and deliveries. 

Mr. Crosby. I think what caused the trouble was 

Mr. IVENNEDY. Could you answer the question ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have no knowledge of anything like that being done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it reported to you, Mr. Crosby? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, it wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody reported that to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. None that I can recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here we go again. Is it possible that it did happen, 
that somebody reported this to you ? 

You ordered the pickets, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, I instructed them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't they making a report back to you ? Weren't 
you interested to find out what was happening? 

Mr. Crosby. I think that I was out of the city part of the time 
during that episode. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you interested to find out and get a report 
as to what was happening? 

Mr. Crosby. Certainly I was interested. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you know that they weren't allowing 
deliveries ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 835 

Mr. Crosby. I certainly don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know that ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they allowing deliveries ? 

Mr. Crosby. They were not instructed to interfere with any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they interfere with deliveries ? 

Mr. Crosby. Not to mj knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never learned that ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never were told that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have heard accusations back and forth, but I received 
no call from any one of substance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever looked into it to find out whether they 
did or did not. We asked Mr. Maloy about it when he testified, and 
he took the fifth amendment on it, so we didn't find out much from 
him. 

Mr. Crosby. l^Hiat was the question again ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever find out about that? Did you ever 
look into it to determine whether they had stopped deliveries? 

Mr. Crosby. I think it only ran about 2 or 3 days. I don't believe 
there was time 

Mr. Kennedy. Did -you ever try to find out whether they stopped 
deliveries ? Did you ever make an inquiry into that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I specifically told them that they were not to inter- 
fere in the legitimate delivery or pickup, 

jMr. Kennedy.^ Could you answer the question now ? 

Mr. Crosby. Tou want to know whether I knew whether any 
interference 

Mr. Kennedy. Whether you ever inquired. You told me three times 
you told them not to. Did you ever inquire whether they had ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never tried to find out ? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't give it any particular attention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you asked Mr. Maloy since all of this came 
out in the papers? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Maloy to me denies that he interfered with any 
deliveries or any pickups of any type or nature of the place. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why wouldn't he state that to the committee ? 

Mr. Crosby. Why what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Why wouldn't he state that to the committee? Wliy 
wouldn't he come in and tell the committee that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]Mr. Crosby. I don't know how I can answer that. I did not advise 
ISIr. Maloy to take the fifth amendment. I didn't advise him how 
to handle himself here. 

Th Chairman. Have you talked to Mr. Maloy about this since you 
have been here ? 

Mr. Crosby. Since I have been here ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Had you talked to him about it beforehand, before 
you came ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I talked to him about it at the time 



836 lAIPKOPER ACTRITIP:S IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chaikmax. You lieai-d about tlii> for ;i loiio- time, about those 
deliveries were sto})pe<l. luuhi't you C You liad that inl'oi-niation for 
quite a lono; time, hadn't you f 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I haven't. 

The Chairmax. AYhen did you first get it i" 

Mr. Crosby. I haven't any yet thar is factual, as far as I am 
concerned. 

The Chairman, l^id you liear the owner of the restaurant testify? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't i-ecall what his testimony was. 

The Chairmax. Were you here when Mv. Crouch testified? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't recall that his testimony stated that no deliveries 
were made. 

The Chairmax. You don't recall the trouble he had. having to go up 
the street to get deliveries delivered from the deliveiy truck in to his 
own car in order to get the goods to operate his restaurant '( You don't 
recall that ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe I was here during the time that 

The Chairmax. You have been reading the transcripts of the pro- 
ceedings, haven't you ? 

Mr. Crosby. I haven't read that part. 

The Chairmax. You haven't read that part? 

Mr. Crosby. Some of the transcripts are in my lawyer's office. I 
haven't had them over the weekend. I read all those that I had. 

The Chairmax. Mr. Crouch testihed, as I recall his testimony, that 
they stopped deliveries, they wouldn't let them deliver coffee, meat, 
bread, various other things, and that it was about to shut down his place 
of business, and that he had to change machines, that is, these pinball 
machines, and get one that your people, the union, would approve, 
before he could get delivery and get the ]3icket line moved. 

Mr. Crosby. Xo such statement was evei- given to him by me or au- 
thorized by me. 

The Chairmax. I didn't say given to him by you. I say he testified 
to that. That is in substance what he testified to. There is probably 
more, but I recall that much. Do you mean to say you had no informa- 
tion about that, that Maloy never reported that to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe so, sir. 

The Chairmax. Maloy was operating under your directions, was 
lie not? 

Mr. Crosby. He was operating as a picket, yes, as an advertising 
picket. 

Tlie Chairmax. Under your directions. You had ordered it pick- 
eted ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax. And you put him in charge of it ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know that he was in charge of it. 

The Chairmax. Who w^as in charge? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't know who was in charge. 

The Chairmax. Somebody has to be in charge, somebody has to 
give instructions. 

]\[r. Crosby. It wouldn't require much supervision to simply walk 
u]^ and doAvn in front of a place. 

The CHAnnrAx. Xo. but it might require a little more if that is all 
you instructed him to do or had in mind for him to do, and somebody 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 837 

undertook to go out and stop deliveries, and close a man's place of 
business. Weren't you interested in knowing whether that picket was 
lying, or was operating in accordance with your instructions? 

Mr. Crosby. As far as I know, it was. 

The Chairmax. You don't believe they forced that man to go un 
the street and get his goods ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; I don't believe we took any concrete steps 

The Chairman. You don't believe that occurred ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. I don't. I could tell you what I think has oc- 
curred, and what has caused jSIr. Crouch some bitterness, and that is 
that the bulk of his business came from the garage where the Yellow 
Cab drivers are domiciled, union members, and he is near the railroad 
station. They probably did not patronize his place to the same degree 
that they had before, while that picket line was on there. 

The CiiAiEMAX. I am quite certain of that. That is what he testi- 
lied to. So you agree that he was correct to that extent ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : Have you ever, or have the Teamsters 
ever signed any contract with a group of employers to keep other 
people out of the industry ? 

Mr. Crosby. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nothing like that has ever occurred ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think the first time any remote instance like that was 
pointed out to us was the instance involving the original signing of 
the first agreement with the coin machine people. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that called, a fair trade agreement? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know anything about a fair trade agreement. 
All I am talking about is the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Miat was the contract? 

Let me ask you this : Was it specified in the contract that you would 
service the machines only of these operators that were members of this 
association ? 

Mr. Crosby. I believe that that language is involved in the text, or 
was. 

Mr. Kennedy. So therefore if somebody came in brandnew and 
wanted to send out his machines, you people would perhaps picket 
those places, is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, 

]Mr. Kennedy. It is not correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. The contract, it states in there that it doesn't bind us 
to take economic action against someone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken economic action in Seattle or Port- 
land, such as that ? 

Mr. Crosby. We had anotlier incident at a place called the Dekum 
Tavern. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question of whether you have 
taken such action as I have described, economic action, against some- 
body who was not a member of this employers association? 

Mr. Crosby. Not for the purpose that you are stating. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : Did you ever strike a place of a 
person who was not a member of this association ? 

Mr. Crosby. We put on an advertising picket 



838 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you put pickets out in front of the place? If 
you would rather not use the word "strike," you have put pickets in 
front of such places ? 

Mr. Crosby. One other instance involving a disagreement 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you just answer the question "Yes" or "No"? 

Mr. Crosby. By answering "Yes," I give the wrong inference. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just say, 'Yes," and then give an explanation. 

Mr. Crosby. The answer is "Yes", and the explanation is as follows : 
The Dekum Tavern was installing some sort of a play game in there, 
and it involved the moving into the city of a new company. 

(Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us just 

Mr. Crosby. You won't let me explain. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I will let you explain, but I want you to get 
it in detail. The Dekum Tavern had a shuffleboard in there, is that 
correct, that had been put in there by one of the members of this 
association ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, frankly, I am not sure about that. It might 
have. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is it that you thought they had in there ? 

Mr. Crosby. It was my understanding that a company represent- 
ative of the American Shuffle Board Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's find out what was in the bar. 

Mr. Crosby. I have never been in the bar. I couldn't tell you what 
was in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was in the tavern before this, before this new 
company came in from another city ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am very sorry, but I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any idea about it ? 

Mr. Crosby. I was never in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed a contract with these people, did you not ? 

Mr. Crosby. Is my signature on it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Crosby. Then I signed it. I couldn't even recall whether I did 
or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't recall that, either, even though the Dekum 
Tavern case is a case of some notoriety ? 

Mr. Crosby. The only thing that I understood was that we were 
involved in a dispute with American Shuffle Board Co. over a contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. O. K., then you explain it. Go ahead. 

Mr. Crosby. Loyd Hildreth came to me and stated that American 
Shuffle Board Co. was coming in, and they were going to sell their 
products in the city, and that they wanted a difi'erent type agreement. 
I asked him what kind of an agreement, and he went off into some 
long, detailed explanation, and I said, "Well, what is the matter with 
the regular association contract ?" 

He said, "Nothing, in my opinion." So I told him, I said, "Well, in 
that event, I think that we should stay by our guns and ask for the 
same contract." 

The American Shuffle Board Co. obtained two attorneys, and took 
the matter into Federal court. I am not sure whether they then sued 
the union or whether they sued somebody else. I am frankly not too 
clear about it. I don't think I was in the city too much at that partic- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 839 

ular time. But nevertheless, Federal Judge East issued a temporary 
restraining order and stated that some provisions of the contract were 
in restraint of trade, or something similar. As soon as I heard about 
it, I told Hildreth that he had better sit down and revise his agree- 
ment and clear it up so that it would comply with the law. That was 
done. We later sat down with American Shuffle Board Co. and have 
a signed agreement with that company now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that the agreement that had been followed 
in Seattle up until that period of time? 

Mr. Crosby. That is my understanding ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that agreement up in Seattle was signed by 
Mr. Fred Galeno; is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know who signed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no idea? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know who signed it up there for the pin- 
ball operators in Seattle? 

Mr. Crosby. I am not familiar with the heads of that group up 
there. 

Mr. Kennedy. See if I am right. This American Shuffleboard Co. 
came down to the Dekum Tavern and said, "Why rent a machine when 
you can own your own machine?" Is that right? 

Mr. Crosby. Not to my knowledge. I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know anything about it? 

Mr. Crosby. Only what I have heard. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me see if this is correct. 

They came down and said, "Wliy don't you own your own machine 
rather than renting your own machine?" and then they sold a ma- 
chine to the Dekum Tavern. Pickets from the teamsters came out 
and said, "You can't own your own machine. You have to rent the 
machine from one of the pinball operators." Wasn't that the posi- 
tion that the court took, that this was in restraint of trade, because 
they wouldn't even allow the tavern to own their own machine? 

Mr. Crosby. The position that the court took was in relation to a 
contract dispute with the company and not as a result of a picket line, 
as far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you are familiar with a little bit of it? 

Mr. Crosby. Certainly, I am partially familiar with it, but I 
didn't 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think if you were that familiar with it, 
you would also be familiar with what American Shuffleboard was 
trying to do, which is a very basic question. 

Mr. Crosby. We have absolutely no objection, then or now, as to 
what American Shuffleboard wanted to do. If they wanted to sell 
those things to every tavern in the town, as far as I was concerned 
that was fine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then why did you have a contract, or why were 
pickets sent out there to prevent this happening? 

Mr. Crosby. Because we wanted a signed agreement with the com- 
pany. 

Mr. Kennedy. These people wanted to just have their own ma- 
chines. That is all that was involved. 

Mr. Crosby. This company was installing the machine, and ap- 
parently owning it or something 



840 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Crosby. So we understood they were a distributor, and they 
gave inference that they were moving into the area on a wholesale 
basis. There was no reason in the world why we shouldn't want them 
as a constituent party of the association agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me go to something else. We have also had some 
testimony, going back a little bit regarding the mayor, that you went 
to see the mayor about getting rid of the chief of police. You say 
that that didn't happen in that way ; is that right? 

Mr. Crosky. Tlie introductory sure sounds nice. I went to the mayor 
the first time at the request of Russ Conger, a Portland police detective, 
who was com])laining about the unresponsive attitude of the chief 
with respect to legitimate complaints on the part of constituent mem- 
bers of the policemen's union. 

The mayor indicated that he had confidence in the chief, but that he 
would be glad to talk to Mr. Conger. I knew Mr. Conger rather well, 
because we had furnished our hall for their annual policemen's ball 
at no charge to them. 

Later, upon meeting jNIr. Conger again, I asked him if things had 
worked out any better, and he said that they hadn't changed in the 
slightest. He had also, at the first meeting, implied some sort of irreg- 
ularity with reference to the purchasing of uniforms. I brought that 
up with the mayor, too, in just an offhand way. 

I was confronted with a dilemma because we were supporting the 
mayor, and it began to look like some segments of organized labor were 
going to oppose him. 

During that same period of time, many other things were happening, 
Elkins' activities, as far as I was concerned, were becoming offensive to 
me. The second time I went to the mayor I went there as a different 
type of individual. I was a little hot under the collar. 

No. 1, he had, in my opinion, given me the runaround with reference 
to private conversations I had had with him in relation to the exposi- 
tion-recreation site selection. Privately he would agree that the Broad- 
way-Steel Bridge site was by and far the best, and when he Avas quoted 
by a reporter, he would take a different opinion 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer me this question, whether you dis- 
cussed the chief of police with the mayor ? 

Mr. Crosby. I did discuss him ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you at that time tell the mayor that you wanted 
him to get a new chief of police ? 

Mr. Crosby. I just simply stated that I thought it might better con- 
trol Elkins' activities if another chief was named. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that unless he got rid of the cliief of 
jiolice that the teamsters would support his opponent? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't believe — I might have left the implication, but 
1 didn't tell him that in so many words. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now to go on, did you ever discuss with anyone who 
should be the succeeding chief of police ? 

Mr. Crosby. Succeeding to whom? 

Mr. Kennedy. Succeeding to Purcell, if you got rid of Purcell, wlio 
was the incumbent chief of police. 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I don't recall if T did. I might have. 



LVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 841 

Mr. Kexnedy. Did you ever have any conversations with Lieutenant 
Bryan, about the fact that he might be the chief of pohce ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever talk with Mr. Johnson about whether 
he would be chief of police ? 

Mr. Crosby. I had lunch with Mr. Johnson one time, just to get 
acquainted. He asked us whether we would consider making a 
donation 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking whether you had lunch with him. 
Did you ever discuss the fact that the teamsters might be interested in 
having him be made the new cliief of police? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are sure you never discussed it with Lieutenant 
Bryan ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss the matter with John Sweeney ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, I discussed many things with John Sweeney, 
amongst which might have been the 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, the 

Mr. Crosby. Wait a minute. What are we talking about? The 
selection of a new chief ? 

Mr. Kennedy. A new chief of police. 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever mention Lieutenant Bryan to Jolm 
Sweeney, the fact that he might be a good chief of police ? 

Mr. Crosby. Lieutenant Bryan was a good friend of John Sweeney's, 
before I knew him. But he was not, in my opinion, even qualified. 
I think they had to select a chief from the captains, not from the 
lieutenants. He is a lieutenant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now could you answer the question ? Did you ever 
discuss about Lieutenant Bryan being the new chief of police with 
John Sweeney ? 

Mr. Crosby. Not to my knoAvledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet Lieutenant Bryan and John 
Sweeney up in Seattle ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? Did you ever go up to Seattle with 
Lieutenant Bryan ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did discuss with Lieutenant Bryan and 
Jolm Sweene}' the fact that he might be the new chief of police, up 
in Seattle ? 

Mr. Crosby. Up in Seattle ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Crosby. The new chief of police in Seattle ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. Up in Seattle, did you ever discuss the fact 
that Lieutenant Bryan might be the new chief of police ? 

Mr. Crosby. No. because I think tliat everyone would think that 
such a thing would be impossible. 

Mr. Kennedy. The answer is "No" ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is right. I have always been given to understand 
that the people who are potential candidates for chiefs of police must 



842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

be taken from the rank of captain. I could be wrong about that, but 
I have been laboring under that impression as far back as I can 
remember. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Crosby, why would tlie teamsters union be 
interested in a chief of police at all ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, No. 1, the activities of the chief of police at that 
time were such that it was disrupting the unity of the labor move- 
ment with respect to its political activity. In other words, I was 
simply given to understand that the policemen were in an uproar and 
sore at the chief. He would give them no consideration for their 
legitimate complaints. 

Senator Mundt. Are the members of the police force members of 
the teamsters union ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir ; they were members of the policemen's union. 

Senator Mundt. Were you the head of the labor council of Port- 
land at the time ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, I was not. I was a delegate and had occasion to 
meet and talk to those fellows at the weekly meetings. 

Senator Mundt. Who was the head of the labor council at that time? 

Mr. Crosby. The president was Mr. Bill Way. 

Senator Mundt. Who was the secretary ? 

Mr. Crosby. An elderly gentleman by the name of Gust Anderson. 

Senator Mundt Wouldn't it come within the purview of their 
responsibility to convey to the mayor any protests that they had about 
the chief insofar as their relations to labor were concerned, instead 
of to the international representative of the teamsters union ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, that is a reasonable assumption to make. How- 
ever, I will say this : that probably the reason he came to us is because 
we had been active in participating in budget meetings from a spec- 
tator's standpoint in an effort to get better wages and conditions for 
the policemen. 

I believe that that is one of the reasons that they came to us, because 
we had spent some time in that activity. 

Senator Mundt. As teamsters or as representatives of the labor 
council ? 

Mr. Crosby. As teamsters, sir. We were having quite a bit of 
trouble as far as that is concerned. Policemen weren't making enough 
money, so they would work their job and when they were off shift 
they would go and drive a truck. We had a problem, because we 
were hiring all of these men, and we didn't want policemen working 
two jobs. We wanted them to make enough to live decently on one 
job and let the other jobs be available to the regular members of the 
teamsters union, which I think is a legitimate objective. 

The Chairman. The Chair passes to you what appears to be a 
photostatic copy of a document, an original document, and I wish 
you would examine it and identify it, please. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you identify the document which the Chair 
just presented to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. To the best of my ability, I think it is a correct fac- 
simile of the original contract ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A photostatic copy of the original contract of 
what? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 843 

Mr. Crosby. Of the agrreement between Teamsters Local Union 223 
and the Coin Machine Men of Oregon. 

The CiiAiEMAN. Wliat is the date of it? 

Mr. Crosby. The 29th day of March. 

The Chairman. Was that original document signed by you? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In your capacity ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am a signatory party, and Mr. Hildreth, Mr. Goebel 
and Mr. Lasko. 

The Chairman. Is that the contract that was involved in the in- 
junction suit by Les Lystad and Stanley Lystad, which has been re- 
ferred to? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 48 for 
reference. 

(The document referred to w^as marked as "Exhibit No. 48" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1074-1076.) 

The Chairman. The Chair has here the order of the court in that 
case, but it is in no way authenticated. I will have to find out who 
can verify it. I don't want to put it into the record unless it is verified 
in some way. 

That Exhibit No. 48 can go in as an exhibit for reference, and at the 
decree of the court will be inserted at this point. 

Proceed. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

In the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon 

Les Lystad and Stanley Lystad, doing business as American Shuffieboard Sales 
Co., of Seattle, mid Clyde DeGraw, doing business as Dekum Tavern, Plain- 
tiffs, V. Local Union No. 223 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Lloyd Hildreth, Frank Malloy, W. M. 
Goble, the Association of Coin Machine Men of Oregon, and Danny Matin, 
doing business as General Amusement Company, Defendants 

Civil No. 8284 

memorandum 

East, Judge: The plaintiffs above named, in their complaint for injunction, 
demand, inter alia : 

(1) That a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction issue 
out of this Court, restraining the defendants and each of them, and their serv- 
ants, agents, and employees from in any manner interfering with the respective 
business operations of the plaintiffs, and from picketing or threatening other 
retaliation against any person or business which enters into a contract to pur- 
chase shuffleboards and scoreboards from plaintiff, American Shuffieboard Sales 
Co., of Seattle, and that after a trial of this cause, such injunction be made 
permanent 

(2) For a decree of this Court that the existing contract between the Asso- 
ciation of Coin Machine Men of Oregon and Local Union No. 223, tends to create 
a monopoly and restrain commerce between the several states and is for that 
reason a violation of the statutes of the United States and void. 

The several defendants have filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, 
the Court having ordered that the motions to dismiss should stand as making 
issue to plaintiff's complaint. 

A hearing was had upon these demands and the Court received the evidence 
offered by the parties, respectively. 

Plaintiff's, Les Lystad and Stanley Lystad, constitute a copartnership doing 
business under the name of American Shuffieboard Sales Co., of Seattle, Wash- 



844 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ington, and are the sellers of an amusement device generally known as a shuffle- 
board. The mode of utilizing this device is unimportant except that the players 
activate and become entitled to play the device by a coin receiving and operat- 
ing device. A manually activated electrical device is used for keeping the 
player's score. The Lystads, in the ordinary course of their business, offer 
their product for sale to citizens of other states, including the State of Oregon. 
We will refer to these plaintiffs as Lystads. 

The plaintiff, Clyde DeGraw, hereinafter referred to as DeGraw, is the owner 
and operator of a business in Portland, Oregon, known as '"Dekum Tavern." The 
business of this plaintiff is that generally known as a beer tavern offering the 
usual well-known commodities for sale to its patrons. 

For some time prior to September 1, 1955, DeGraw maintained in his premises 
for the amusement of his patrons, a coin operated shuffleboard of the general 
description aforesaid. This board was owned by the defendant, W. M. Goble, a 
member of the hereinafter mentioned "Coin Machine Men of Oregon," an Oregon 
corporation, hereinafter referred to as Association, and used by DeGraw under 
a rental arrangement, the rental being computed on a fifty-fifty basis of the 
"take" of the device. 

On or about August 26, 1955, DeGraw, through a traveling representative of 
Lystads, placed a "Purchase Order" for one of Lystads' shuffleboards at a pur- 
chase price and installation charge designated as follows : 

"Complete $9^7 

Delivery and installation 30 

1, 027" 

This written purchase order also bore upon its face the following stamped 
language : 

"It is understood and agreed that this order does not constitute a sale and that 
the equipment above described is left with the proposed purchaser on trial only 
for a period of not longer than 60 days. Either the seller or proposed purchaser 
may request that the said equipment be returned to the seller at any time within 
the said 60-day period. In the event of sale the terms of purchase shall be agreed 
upon by the parties, otherwise equipment shall be returned to the seller." 

Pursuant to this purchase order Lystads shipped from Seattle, Washington, to 
DeGraw at Portland, Oregon, the shuffleboard. On September 1, 1955, an em- 
ployee of Lystads commenced the installation of the shuffleboard in DeGraw's 
premises. This employee was a member in good standing of the Local Union of 
International Teamsters, etc., in Seattle, but not a member of the defendant, 
Local. 

The defendant, Local Union No. 223, of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, hereinafter referred to as 
Local, is an unincorporated association of individuals commonly known as a 
labor union made up of grocery, meat, motorized, and miscellaneous drivers em- 
ployed in Portland, Oregon, and particularly engaged in the delivery and servic- 
ing of coin operated amusement devices. 

The defendant, Lloyd Hildreth, is the secretary of Local, and the defendant, 
Frank Malloy, is an agent of Local. 

The defendant. Association of Coin Machine Men of Oregon, is an erroneous 
designation of the aforesaid Coin Machine Men of Oregon, an Oregon corporation, 
hereinafter referred to as Association, with its principal office located at 1003 
S. W. Front Avenue, Portland, Oregon, and the defendant, Danny Matin, is an 
individual doing business under the assumed name and style of General Amuse- 
ment Company in Portland, Oregon. 

For some time prior to all of the definite dates herein mentioned, the members 
of Association were "composed of individuals, partnerships, copartnerships, or 
corporations engaged in the owning and operating and distributing of amusement 
devices in the city of Portland, commonly known as Pinball or Marble Machines, 
Cranes and Diggers, and Automatic Phonographs and Amusement Arcades which 
are duly licensed by said City," and had recognized Local as the sole collective 
bargaining agent for their respective employees under a collective bargaining 
asfreement in writing, effective January 1, 1955, and continuing until January 1, 
1957. 

This written agreement contained, among its provisions, the usual provisions 
for wages and hours and working conditions of the employees, union security, 
etc., and also the two following provisions of interest : 

9. Paragraph 3 — 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD cS45 

"Service to equipmeiit on hwatiou shall l)e limited to iustalliitions of e<iuii)ineiit 
owned by recognized Union operators under contract to Local No. 22[i except 
where non-coin operated equipment is involved. 

"15. "Employees shall .service only equipment owned by tlieir Employer and 
shall not service location owned eipiipment." 

None of the plaintilfs are lueiiibeis of Association. 

During the period between September 1st and 3rd, lOoo, the defendants, Frank 
Malloy and Wm. M. Goble, in con\frsations with DeCiraw and the employee of 
Lystads. advised tliem that Lystads" shulllcboard was '•nonunion" and that un- 
less it was removed DeGraw's place ot l)nsiness would be picketed. The plain- 
tiffs refused to remove the device and on or about September 1st, pickets spon- 
sored by Local appeared carrying picket banners with the advice that DeGraw's 
premises maintained nonunion installations. The picketing has been continuously 
maintained. No deliveries of beer have been made to DeGraw's premises sint.'e 
the establishment of the picket line. DeGraw's gross business during the w^eek 
immediately preceding the picketing was between $90.00 and $100.00, with a net 
profit of approximately $30.00. That week's business was normal. DeGraw's 
business since the picketing has been reduced to a gross of $3r).00 to $40.00 per 
week, with practically no profit. 

Following the suggestion of the defendant, Goble, Lystads contacted the de- 
feudan. Lloyd Hildreth, as secretary of Local and were advised that Local 
desired Lystads to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with reference 
to their employee working in Portland, the terms being identical with the 
aforesaid contract with Association. Lystads offer to enter into the contract 
provided that Section 9, paragraph 3, and section in each l)e deleted from the 
contract. Local, through its secretary, refused. 

From the foregoing factual situation it is obvious that the placement of 
Lystads' shuffleboard in DeGraw's premises for trial purposes with the view of 
a future sale, was a legitimate course of business on the part of Lystads anci 
the entire transaction with DeGraw was had in the flow and course of interstate 
conmierce between the State of Washington and the State of Oregon. 

Likewise it is obvious that by reason of the negotiations ))etween Lystads and 
the secretary of Local, that a labor dispute within the meaning of the Labor- 
Management Act has existed. If the labor disi)iite is liona fide and lawful the 
picketing of DeGraw's premises by reason of the Lyst;ids t-quipment being located 
there is lawful. 

Sailors' Union of the Pacitic ( AFL) and :\loore Drv Dock Co. (92 NLRB 547. 
27LRRM110S (1950)) 

It goes without saying that if such labor disijute is bona fide and legal that 
this Court is without jurisdiction to issue any orders restraining the picketing 
by the very terms of the Labor-Management Act. The plaintiffs contend that the 
acts and conduct of the defendants above outlined constitute an agreement and 
conspiracy among the several defendants against the plaintiffs and to deprive 
the plaintiffs of the law protecting trade and commerce against restraints and 
monopolies as provided for in Title 15, U. S. C. Sections 1, 15, and 26. 

Sec. 1, supra, provides : 

•'Every contr.ict, comltination in the form of trust or otherwise, * * * in re- 
straint of trade (>!• commerce among the several States, * * * is declared to be 
illegal: * * *" 

Sec. 15, supra, provides : 

"Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any- 
thing forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of 
the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has 
an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy ;" and 

Sec. 2(5, supra, provides : 

"Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for 
and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdicti<m 
over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the anti- 
trust laws, including sections 13. 14. 18 and 19 f)f this title, when and under the 
same conditions and i)rinciples as injunctive relief against threatened conduct 
that will cause loss or damage is grantcil by courts of e(iuity, under the rules 
governing such iiroccedings. and upon the execution of proper bond against 
damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing that the danger 
of irreparable loss or damage is inmiediate. a preliminary injnnction may issue:" 

The authorities are legion to the effect tliat a labor disi>nt«' itetween a miUm 
and an employer is not or ceases to be a bona fide lawful labor di.spute when an 
tndawful demand on the part of a union is made upon an employer. Tlierefore. 
our (piery is narrow^ed to the question as to whether or not the demands of L<K'al 



846 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

as set forth in Section 9, paragraph 3, and 15, of the aforesaid coUective bar- 
gaining contract are lawful in view of Sec. 1 of Title 15, aforesaid. 

A reading of the provisions of said demands readily shows that the restraint 
against Association's employees' service to coin-operated equipment owned by 
any person other than "recognized union operators imder contract to" Local, 
arbitrarily discriminates against location owners, or, put another way, against 
ownership of a coin-operated shuffleboard by a tavern owner. In other words, 
it is an arbitrary premise of unionizing or nonunionizing one class of business as 
against another class of business. This arbitrary classification necessarily fore- 
closes any collective bargaining between an employer and the bargaining agent 
of an employee without reference to the respective labor demands of the employer 
or the bargaining agent. In plain language, these two paragraphs are a direct 
contractual covenant on the part of Local running in favor of Association not to 
permit its members to service coin-operated equipment of the nature involved in 
this matter owned by any class of business other than the operator members of 
Association. The ultimate effect of which is simply to deprive DeGraw of his 
right to own and operate property in the course of his lawful and legitimate 
business, as a matter of arbitrary action and not on the basis of whether or not 
there is a lawful labor dispute between Local and the proposed seller of such 
goods, or himself. 

Applying the effect of these two demands upon Lystads the ultimate conclu- 
sion is that there is no way that a sale of their shuffleboard to DeGraw through 
interstate commerce can be accomplished. If they agree to the demands and 
enter into the contract offered. Local would be obligated, under its contract with 
Association, to continue its refusal to permit its employee members to service 
the equipment owned by DeGraw. 

It is true that plaintiff's complaint alleges and all of the parties assumed that 
an actual contract of sale relationship existed between Lystads and DeGraw. 
The ultimate proof showed otherwise. Nevertheless, to interfere with extended 
good will or offer of sale of a prospective seller (placement on trial) of goods 
through interstate commerce is the same as interfering with a then contractual 
relationship incurred through interstate commerce. 

No realistic person will deny that the adverse economical effect upon DeGraw 
by the picketing will cause him to return the goods held on trial and defeat any 
hoped-for sale by Lystads. As stated, these demands contained in Section 9, 
paragraph 3, and Section 15, aforesaid, arise and are maintained by reason of 
a written contract between the defendants. Local and Association, and their 
respective agents, the defendants, Lloyd Hildreth, Frank Malloy, and W. M. 
Goble, and in the opinion of this Court constitute a contract between them being 
in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states within the meaning 
of and in violation of title 15, Section 1, supra. 

See Allen Bradley Co., et al. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, et al. (325 U. S. 797, pp. 8-9) , wherein it is stated : 

"But when the unions participated with a combination of businessmen who had 
complete power to eliminate all competition among themselves and to prevent all 
competition from others, a situation was created not included within the exemp- 
tions of the Clayton and Norris-LaGuardia Acts' ; and also : 

"The primary objective of all the antitrust legislation has been to preserve 
business competition and to prosci'ibe business monopoly." 

The Court is further of the opinion that the effect of the picketing if con- 
tinued constitutes irreparable injury to both the plaintiffs, Lystads and DeGraw. 

The Court concludes that the plaintiffs are entitled to an order providing, 
pendente lite, or further order herein, that the defendant, Local, and the 
defendants, Lloyd Hildreth and Frank Malloy, as agents thereof, be temporarily 
restrained from in any manner maintaining picketing the plaintiff, DeGraw's 
premises aforesaid, or threatening other retaliation against any person or 
persons engaged in business with the plaintiff, DeGraw, by reason of any 
matters or things arising or growing out of its demands against Lystads or 
DeGraw on account of the prospective or actual purchase of the shuffleboard 
involved. 

Plaintiffs may have said order upon giving of an approved bond against 
damage to the defendants for said injunctive relief if improvidently granted, 
in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) . It is so Ordered. 

Dated, October 7, 1955. 

Endorsed. 

Filed : Oct. 7, 1955. 

R. DeMott, ClerJc. 
By H. S. Kenyon, Deputy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 847 

United States of America, 

District of Oregon, ss: 

n,«V,.S; ^.^?f«"' Clerk of the United States District Court for the ._ 
Distiictot Oregon do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing is a true 
and full photostatic copy of the original memorandum, Civil No. 8284 Les 
BlotlJ^nn/nrr'' ^f^«^'/^«'- ^- ^^cal Union No. 223 of the International 
fourtS my office ■"'"■'' "' ''''"' ^'^"^^i^^^S ^^ong the records of the said 

«oaf J/fI'^°?'' WHEBEOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the 
1957. aforesaid court at Portland, Oreg.. this 18th day of xMarch A. D 

t®*^^^ R. DeMott, Clerk. 

By Mildred Spargo, Deputy Clerk. 
Mr. IvENNEDY. As I Understand from your statement, Mr. Crosby 
you were very anxious to keep Mr. Elkins' employees out of the miion 
is that right ? ' 

Mr. Crosby. I wanted to keep Mr. Elkins out of the union. That 
was my prime objective. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. There wasn't any reason for Mr. Elkins to get in 
the union ? *= 

Mr. Crosby. There wasn't ? He certainly made every eif ort he could 
to get in there personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you some documentation on his request to ^et 
into the union ? ^ ^ 

Mr. Crosby. No Only as was told to me, the steps that he took. 
Mr. I<j:nnedy. Let's get it down. Were his employees in the union 
at the time ? 
Mr. Crosby. They were not in the union as far as I knew. 
Mr. I^NNEDY. Have you found since then, or have you found re- 
cently, that they were in the miion ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have found out that some of Elkins' employee joined 
a different Teamsters Union at a time before I was even in the picture 
Mr. Kennedy. That was in December of 1953 ? 
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 
_ Mr. Kennedy. So that they were in the Teamsters Union already 
is that right ? ■^ ' 

Mr. Crosby. Obviously. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that the reason that you kept, according to 

your statement, the reason that you kept Mr. Stan Terry out of the 

union IS because you thought that he was fronting for Mr. Elkins « 

Mr. Crosby. As far as I knew, Elkins wasn't in the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. Elkins' employees were in the union. Mr 

Elkins employees were m the union ; is that correct ? 

Mr Crosby It now develops that they were in a different union, 
but 1 knew nothing about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you are mistaken in your statement here: is 
that right? ' 

Mr. Crosby. Am I ? 

Mr Kennedy. Well, are you, in the fact that they were trying to 
keep Mr. Elkins out of the union ? He is an employer. There wouldn't 
be any reason for him to be in the union. 

,J^^^' ^f^^""""^ ^^fi"^ ^^ *^'^ employers joined to take advantage of 
tills health and welfare program. 

Mr I^nnedy. Do you think Mr. Elkins, the head of the under- 
world in Portland, wanted to take advantage of the health and wel- 
fare program of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Crosby. Well, regardless of how you put it 



848 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You put it that way. I didn't want to put it that 
way. 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Elkins wanted to be a member of the Teamsters 
Union personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of his employees were in the union already. 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to your statement here, you say that you 
were trying to keep Stan Terry out in order to keep the Elkins' inter- 
est out of the union, and. they were already in the union. 

Mr. Crosby. I state, or at least my real purpose was to withhold 
Mr. Terry from coming in until I had some authentic information 
with respect to the sale that took place between Elkins and Terry. 
Testimony here at the court indicates, at this hearing indicates, that 
Mr. Terry did lie to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What ? 

Mr. Crosby. That Mr. Terry didn't give me the accurate informa- 
tion. He told me he purchased it. It has been testified here before 
this group that he leased the route with an option to buy, which is a 
dift'erent thing, although technically he could have purchased it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did Mr. Elkins tell you that lie wanted to get 
in the union 'i Why was he anxious to get into the union ? 

Mr. C'rosby. Well, I don't know 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, besides getting the heaUh and welfare fund 
lienefits '{ 

Mr. Crosby. He didn't mention healtli and welfare. I did, as a 
contributing reason why some employers might want to come in. Mr. 
Elkins just simply Avanted to be in the teamsters union. 

I don't know why, unless it would be that he might feel tluit he was 
in a better position to try to take over some control of its activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever write Mr. P^lkins a letter aliout his pin- 
ball operations ? 

Mr. Crosby. I am going throiigli the same routine now that I did 
ill the grand jurv. I don't know whether I wrote a letter to Elkins or 
whether I wrote a letter to Terry. P)Ut 1 do know that I did write a 
letter to one or the other of theiii, of which I could never find a copy. 

Normally, my office keeps copies. I was incensed about the installa- 
tion of Elkins' machines at the old labor temple in the city of 
Portland. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time you wrote that letter, they had been u. 
there for a year and a-half, is that right ( 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know how long they had been in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, they had been in there siiu-e October IDo?). I 
think you could have checked that. They had been in the labor tem- 
ple since October 19:)8, and von wrote the l<'tter in 1955, did you not? 

Mr. Crosby. What 1 could have done and what I did is not neces- 
sarilv the same. I don't know as 1 did anything. I just didn't want 
Elkins in the union, and I was hot about the thing, and T think I Avrot*- 
a letter. 

Mr. Ken'nedy. What did you say in the letter i 

Mr. Crosby. I don't recall now, but it had something to do with I 
thought the machines ought to be heaved out in the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not think that he should turn his niacliiues 
over to the Acme Amusement Co. ^ 

Mr. Chosp.v. I don't know who the Acme Annisement Co. is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 849 

Mr. Kennedy. You never heard of the Acme Amusement Co. ? 
Mr. Crosby. Not until just recently. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had not heard of it prior to that time? 
Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with Budge Wright 
about the Acme Anmsement Co. ? 

Mr. Crosby. I liad some conversations with Mr. Budge Wright about 
the general problems of the industry, not about Acme Amusment Co., 
unless he was already chartered under that name. As I understood it, 
his company was the Willamette Distributing Co., or something 
similar to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wrote this letter to Elkins about getting his 
machines out of the labor temple ? 

Mr. Crosby. Frankly, I don't know what I said in the letter for sure. 
I would be real happy to see a copy of it. Then I could testify. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know why you would want his machines 
out of the labor temple at the time ? 

Mr. Crosby. I didn't want him in the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was noticing in liere also that you were talking 
about the Bourbon and Ham C]ub of Mr. Stanley Earl, and you said 
the bills were paid by Mr. James Elkins. Do you have some real 
evidence of that? 

Mr. Crosby. Only heresay evidence. I made several attempts to 
confirm it. All you can get from people is the inference that that is 
right, but they won't go out on the limb and sign any statements. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made a statement to that eft'ect in here. 

Mr. Crosby. That is what I believe to be true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any evidence on it ? 

Mr. Crosby. I have nothing that would be acceptable here, no sir. 

(At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. There was also some testimony about the fact that 
you received some slot machines at your house. Is that testimony 
correct ? 

Mr. Crosby. IMr. Maloney is the one, again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get some slot machines at your house ? 

Mr. Crosby. I got two of them, and I got rid of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who sent those to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Maloney. That is what he told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Slim Jenkins brought them ox'vr i 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know who brought them over, i don't think I 
was home when he arrived. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were installed in your basement ? 

Mr. Crosby. They were stulied down in the basement. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Was there a partition where they were put '^ 

Mr. Crosby. Yes. That has a TV in it. But at that time, they were 
put up there. 

The Chairman. Did you order them ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir, I did not order them. 

The Chairman. Why do you think Maloney was imposing on 
you to send them over to you ? 

Mr. Crosby. I think Maloney was trying to keep me under some 
sort of sense of obligation to him. 

Tlie Chairman. Did he succeed ? 

Mr, Crosby. Only up to a point. When I got wise to him, he didn't. 

89330— 57— pt. 3 7 



850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Slim Jenkins? 

Mr. Crosby. I know Mr. Jenkins as someone that I seen in the 
basement, working down there, and since 

Senator Mundt. Is the only place you have ever seen Mr. Jenkins 
in the basement of your own home ? 

Mr. Crosby. I don't know whether I could honestly answer that 
question. I might accidentally have seen him in the building. I don't 
know. 

Senator Mundt. What building ? 

Mr. Crosby. In the Teamsters Building. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever take Mr. Jenkins for a ride in your 
automobile ? 

Mr. Crosby. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you hear his testimony here the other day? 

Mr. Crosby. I heard his testimony, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You heard him testify that he went to your of- 
fice in the Teamsters Building and that you took him in your car 
up past this location which you were supporting for the recreation 
and exposition grounds ; you heard that, did you ? 

Mr, Crosby. May I explain the motive behind Mr. Jenkins' testi- 
mony? 

Senator Mundt. I want to Imow whether you heard that testimony. 

Mr. Crosby. No. He never mentioned no such thing to me. Nor 
did I take him around 

Senator Mundt. Did you hear him testify to that effect in the 
committee room ^ 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, I did hear him. 

Senator Mundt. You heard him testify, then, that you drove him 
in your car, past the exposition grounds, and then over to your home, 
where you discussed together, according to his testimony, some of 
the details of your recreation room construction job. That is what 
he said, was it not ? 

Mr. Crosby. That is what he said. 

Senator Mundt. You deny that? 

Mr. Crosby. Flatly. 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. You deny ever meeting him in the Teamsters 
Union, you deny taking him in your automobile, you deny seeing him 
any place except in the basement of your own home? 

Mr. Crosby. I did not say that, sir. I stated that I might have 
seen him in the Teamster Building. So many members are running 
in and out of there that it is a possibility that I could have seen 
him. 

Senator Mundt. That is where he said he met you, when you 
went in your automobile to your home. 

Mr. Crosby. Such a statement is untrue. I would like to qualify 
what I believe to be the reason for the character of Mr. Jenkins' state- 
ments. It is simply this, that jMr. Jenkins is a collector and a handy- 
man in the rackets for Jim Elkins. 

Senator Mundt. He testified to that effect. 

Mr. Crosby. It is rather simple to have someone make any kind 
of a statement Mr. Elkins wants under those circumstances. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 851 

Mr. Crosby. He collects in houses of prostitution and everythino- 
else, and I have the information there to prove it, if I can read it or at 
least to establish it. ' 

Senator Mundt. Do you have information to prove that Mr. Elkins 
was operating or participating in the operation of liouses of pros- 
titution ? ^ 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, I do, and they are sworn, notarized statements, 
at least one of them taken by v court reporter. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Are they from individuals who desire to appear 
before this committee and testify under oath and submit themselves 
for cross-examination ? 
Mr. Crosby. I did not hear you ? 

Senator Mundt. Are they from individuals who want to appear 
before this committee and testify under oath and be siibiect to cross- 
examination ? 

Mr. Crosby. I feel that they would certainly testify if required by 
this committee. JNIany attempts were made on^he part of some of my 
people to get this type of corroborative evidence. Many of the people 
that we talked to simply stated "We don't want our neck broke." But 
we did get some. We got enough, we think, to put this man in his 
proper perspective, if given an opportunity. 
(The witness conferred with his comisel. ) 

Mr. Crosby. It deals directly 

The CiiAiRMAx. Just a moment. Do you have some statements or 
aftdavits you wish to submit to the committee for its consideration ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir, I do. But in recognition of your earlier state- 
"^^"l^ ^o^^y^ I woiilc^ ^ike to have an opportunity, first, to make copies. 
Ihe Chairman. You may do so. 

Mr. Crosby. They will be made available to. this committee. 
The Chairman. All right. 

May the Chair ask, for information at this time, this question : Is 
one of those affidavits from the same woman that Mayor Schrunk read 
a statement from the other day, the one tliat vou had on television out 
there yesterday ? I do not know that she was on television. Somebody 
told me she was on television yesterday. You might know. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Crosby. Just a moment, sir. May I consult with my attorney « 
The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I just asked the question if one of them was the 
same woman. 

Mr. Crosby. I want to look at the signatures, sir. 
Yes, One of them is by Lucille Kathleen Weeks. 
Tlie CiTAiR]MAN. When you make copies of them, you may submit 
either the copies or the originals. I think you should submit the 
originals for the committee's inspection. Then you may substitute 
later copies for the originals, if you desire to keep those. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have 
been trying to locate these two prostitutes since Friday afternoon and 
have not been able to locate them. I believe the authorities out there 
were aware of the fact, the mayor's office was aware of the fact, that 
we were trying to locate and interview these people. We have not been 
able to get close to them for 4 days. 



8s52 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chaikmax. Some members of the coiimiitfee have to attend 
anotlier meeting at 4 :30. I believe it is that time right now. 

At the request of Mayor Sclirimk, we let an affidavit go into the 
record tliat he had procured from the officer named Richard Sutter. 
The Chair has before him an affidavit from another officer who was 
there at the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is another officer with whom 
Mr. Sutter had conversations. 

The Chairman. He is a city of Portland police officer. I am 
going to order this affidavit printed in the record immediately fol- 
lowing Mayor Schrunk's testimony this morning, so that it may go 
into the record in its proper order. 

(The affidavit referred to appears on p. 781.) 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Chairman, are we through here ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have Mr. Sheridan on the telephone 
now, and he states that Mr. James Elkins did bring him to the office 
of Mr. Crosby. 

The Chairman. Where is Mr. Sheridan ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is out in Portland, Oreg. Would you like to 
talk to him ? 

The Chahiman. The Chair will talk to him a moment, but that is 
not evidence. Pie will have to either have an affidavit or be brought 
here. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Crosby, perhaps this question was asked while 
I was out of the committee room. Why was Stanley Terry kicked 
out of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Crosby. Senator, Stan Terry was given a withdrawal card for 
an academic reason. He maintained personal membership but a large 
number of employees that he had were not members. We felt that 
that was an improper situation, for an employer to belong to our 
union and employees not to. I sent him a withdrawal card, contingent 
upon the latter organization of the industry, and at that time that 
that was accomplished, he was, again, a member of the Teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. But he was still an employer the time he became 
a member the second time ? 

Mr. Crosby. Yes, he was, but he indicated a desire to participate in 
the health and welfare program. We have many individual owners 
in our organization as members, so it is not really unusual. 

The Chairman. The Chair has just talked to Mr. Sheridan, and 
he has informed the Chair that if he was subpenaed, he would testify 
under oath to the fact that Mr. Elkins did introduce him to Mr. 
Crosby, that he met him in the office about 7 o'clock in the afternoon 
and talked to him about his troubles with the liquor commission. 

Mr. Crosby. In the presence of Mr. Elkins ? 

The Chairman. That is what he said. 

We can have him subpenaed, if the committee wants him. I just 
talked to him. We can go to that expense if you desire. In the 
meantime, we can give that consideration. Each member of the 
committee has that information. 

If there is nothing else this afternoon, we will stand in recess until 
10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: The Chairman, 
Senators Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, and Gold water.) 

(Whereupon, at 4:35 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 13, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, MABCH 13, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select CoMivnTTEE on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. O. 

The Select Committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the Caucus Room of the Senate Office 
Buildins:, Senator John L. McClellan (Chairman of the Select Com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North 
Carolina ; Senator Pat JMcNamara, Democrat, Michigan ; Senator Karl 
E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Barry Goldwater, Re- 
publican, Arizona. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel to the Select com- 
mittee ; Jerome Adlerman, Assistant Counsel ; John Cye Cheasty, As- 
sistant Counsel; Alphonse F. Calabrese, Investigator; Ruth Yoimg 
Watt, Chief Clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

( Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan, 
Ives and Mundt. ) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mikesell. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that 
the evidence you are about to give before this Senate Select Committee 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF REGINALD R. MIKESELL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, WARREN A. MAGEE 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Mikesell. My name is Reg Mikesell. I live at 400 West 31st 
Street, Vancouver, Wash. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Mikesell. I am secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 501 in 
Vancouver, Wash., and also secretary-treasurer of Joint Council of 
Teamsters No. 37, 1020 Northeast Third, Portland, Oreg. 

853 



854 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiKMAN. State your name again. I probably misimderstood 
you. 

Mr. ]\iiKESELL. My full name is Reginald R. Mikesell, and I am 
called "Reg". 

The Chairman. I called you as a witness and I called you by another 
name. Is it Mikesell ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. M-i-k-e-s-e-1-1 ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Either way is correct. 

The Chairman. The Chair thought probably he had called the 
wrong witness. You have counsel representing you, I believe, present? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, you may identify yourself again for the 
record. You have appeared for other witnesses. 

Mr. ISIagee. IMy name is Warren A. Magee. I am a practicing 
lawyer here in Washington with offices in Suite 745, in the Shoreham 
Building. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mikesell, there was a subpena served on you a 
while ago for certain records of Joint Council 3^. Is that right? 

Mr. Mikesell. No, sir, that is not correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the subpena was served with your name on it, 
and given to Mr. Mike Steele, is that correct? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the subpena was for you, is that right? 

Mr. MiKESEix. Yes, I was out of town at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are secretary-treasurer of Joint Council 37 ? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Let me ask a question. You raise no question about 
tlie subpena, do you ? 

Mr. Mikesell."^ No. 

The Chairman. You have responded to the subpena, have you? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes. 

The Chairman. You are here in response to that subpena ? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. The subpena that I came here on was 
not the subpena, the same subpena for the books, however. 

The Chair3ian. You have also an individual subpena to appear. 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you are appearing in response to that subpena? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is correct. 

jSIr. Kennedy. Now, you were ordered to produce the books of Joint 
Council 37 from the period January 1, 1954, to date, is that correct? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have all of those books available ? 

Mr. Mikesell. The committee has the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of the books ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are all of those books intact ? 

Mr. Mikesell. To my knowledge the books are intact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, for the period from January 1, 1954, to see 
if I understand you correctly, you have all of the books and records of 
Joint Council 3t, and they are all intact and they are all available? 

Mr. Mikesell. Now, would you define what you mean by "books 
and records" ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 855 

Mr. Kennedy. Canceled checks. Do you have all of the canceled 
checks ? 

Mr, MiKESELL. No, we do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have all of the correspondence files from 
January 1 on ? 

Mr. IMiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have expense accounts from January 1, 1954 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We don't have the old invoices and statements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. JVIiKESELL. Old invoices and statements and such papers as 
that are not available. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee where they are ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. They have been gradually discarded as we had our 
audits by a certified public accountant. Those records being of no 
f ui'ther use to us, have been gradually discarded. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, do you have the canceled checks? Let me 
ask you this. Do you have the canceled checks from 1937 to 1954? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that they are probably in the storage room. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have the canceled checks from 1937 to 1954, 
but you discarded the canceled checks from 1954 to the middle of 
1956, is that right? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that is correct. I became secretary-treasurer 
in 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, could you explain why you would destroy the 
canceled checks from the middle of 1954 to the middle of 1956, and 
yet keep them from 1937 to 1954 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. May I take a little time to explain that, Mr. Chair- 
man ? We have changed our form of check about four times since I 
became secretary-treasurer. We have changed our bank. Our bank 
was formerly on the west side, which is very inconvenient with park- 
ing facilities, and they are not readily available. We changed to a 
bank on the east side, and at that time we also changed the form of 
check. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair ask you a question. This subpena 
says 

to produce for the period January 1, 1954, to date (1) its bank statements, check- 
books, canceled checks, .iournal, and he general ledger, cash receipts and 
disbursements, expense vouchers, financial records and books of account which 
will reflect and show each and every record pertaining to the union's expendi- 
tures made to, for, and in behalf of M. E. Steele, Jack Esterbrook, R. 11. Mikesell, 
William G. O'Connell, Mark Holmes, Thomas B. Maloney, Joseph Patrick 
McLaughlin, Clyde C. Crosby, William Langley, Terry Schrunk, Frank Brewster, 
and John Sweeney, including, but not limited to, general entertainment, public 
relations, legal fees, political contributions, hotels, telephones, transportation 
and other travel expenses. 

Do you have those records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I am quite sure that they all appear in the books that 
were given Mr. Kennedy there. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not an answer to the question. 

The Chairman. Do you have all the records here listed, and have 
you turned those over to the committee ? 

Mr. MiKESELL, Those that were available have been turned over. 

The Chairman. I understand, but you do not have all of them now ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Those that have been destroyed, it is impossible to 
turn them over. 



856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That would be impossible, that is true. Now, out 
of these, tell me which ones have been destroyed. Let us take them 
one at a time. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Invoices 

The Chairman. Let us take them one at a time and you tell me 
■whether they are destroyed or whether they are available, and whether 
they have been made available to the committee. 

Bank statements. Have these been destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Bank statements since 1954 I think have been 
destroyed. 

Tile (. 'HAiRMAN. Checkbooks? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We don't have what you would call a checkbook, 
as I explained. 

The Chairman. You don't keep a record or stub of the checks you 
issue ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, we did have a duplicate which was more or 
less an invoice and the check was written on the invoice showing the 
carbon copy which was retained for records and for the accountants' 
use when he made up the annual statement. 

The Chairman. Are those records available and have they been 
delivered to the committee? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, they have not. 

The Chairman. They have been destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. They have been destroyed. 

The Chairman. All right. Cancelled checks. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Cancelled checks have also been destroyed. 

The Chairman. They have been destroyed. 

Mr. MiKESELL. However, those are available at the bank, and I think 
you would be able to get those. That is a microfilm record. 

The Chairman. That is a secondary source that we have to go to if 
you have destroyed them, as you understand. Journals and general 
ledgers. 

]\Ir. MiKESELL. You have those. 

The Chairman. We have those? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can I ask you about that ? 

The Chair3ian. Do we have all of those ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is all of our books of records. 

Mr. Kennedy. The cash expenditures, do you have those? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir ; they are in the book. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are in here. 

Mr. MiKESELL. We don't have any cash, only checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. When our statf investigator first interviewed you, 
you told him that all records had been destroyed. During the last 
week you have been able to come up with this. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No ; it was before that, I think the first week that I 
was here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you tell our investigator that all of your 
financial records had been destroyed initially ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, I meant all of the old invoices, and the checks 
and things of that kind. 

]\Ir, Kennedy. He served a subpena on you and it was quite clear, 
asked you for any of those books and records, and you told him that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 857 

they had all been destroyed from the middle of 1954 to the middle 
of 1956. Following Mr. Calabrese's testimony before this committee, 
then you came up with this book. Was there any explanation for 
that? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that there was. I might say that I was rather 
confused in regard to the subpena. I actually never had the subpena 
in my possession. I did read it hurriedly, and I talked to Mr. Wil- 
liams, and in this particular book we had changed our method of 
recording the transactions on the first of the year. I had temporarily 
taken this particular book out of the office to my Vancouver office to 
study it and make an independent survey of costs in the different 
departements of the joint council. Now I had that book at that time 
in my Vancouver office, and since I came back here I sent back and I 
had it sent out so that it could be delivered to the committee. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair ask you one question. Do you rec- 
ognize what the Chair holds in his hand here ? 

Mr. MiKESEix. Yes, sir ; from the outside. I could not swear to the 
inside. 

The Chairman. We will pass it to the witness and let him look at it, 
and identify it, and tell us what it is. 

(A book of account was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. You do identify it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. "V\^iat is that book '? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That? 

The CHAiR]iiAN. What is that book or record ? You identify it for 
us. 

Mr. ISIiKESELL. That is the only book of entry that we have in our 
joint council. 

The Chairman. That is a book of entry of the joint council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 49 for reference only. 

(The book was marked "Exhibit No. 49" for reference and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairjian. Now, the Chair wishes to ask you this question: 
Of all of the records that the subpena calls for, is that the only record 
or instrument or document that you have delivered to the committee 
in response to the subpena ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No; I don't believe, so. I have not seen the records 
which Mr. Williams obtained, which were stored. I think he has a 
full record prior to December of 1954. 

The Chairman. I am talking about since 1954. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. Now, I would revise that statement, also, to 
the effect that we had a certified public audit in September, I believe, 
of 1956, and then another certified public audit preparatory to chang- 
ing our method of entry of accounts. I believe those records were still 
in the file from September 1956 to January 1, 1957. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mikesell, what the Chair is undertaking to 
determine is this : Is this book that has just been made an exhibit, this 
record, and whatever it is, is that the only record or instrument or 
document that you yourself have delivered to the committee in re- 
sponse to this subpena ? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is correct, except that Mr. Williams inter- 
viewed me when I returned on Thursday following the service of 



858 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the subpena on Mr. Steele, and asked me for entry to the storage room 
or vault, as we call it, where the old records are kept. I sent a girl 
down with him to open the vault and give him full access to all records 
that were there. 

The Chairman. I don't know about that. We will develop what- 
ever may have been obtained at that time. Counsel tells me nothing 
was found, and nothing was obtained, and I don't know. "We will 
check on that. But I am trying to determine if in response to this 
subpena this was the only record that you could produce and deliver. 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is the only one ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, when did you say these other records were 
destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Chairman, may I state that copies of all of the 
audits were delivered personally to Mr. Williams ? 

The Chairman. Copies of the audits? 

Mr. MiKESELL. By a certified public accountant. 

The Chairman. I am talking about the original records now here 
that you say were destroyed. I am asking you when were they 
destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There was no particular time that they were de- 
stroyed, only after the certified public accountant had completed their 
audit, and the records were disposed of. 

The Chairman. Wlien did you have that accountant, last 
September ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We had 1 in 1954, and 1 in 1955, and 1 in 1956, and 
we had 2 in 1956. 

The Chairman. You said something about changing your method 
of bookkeeping operations. When you would change, what was there 
about the change that indicated or caused you to feel that the previous 
records should be destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Our last change is a system which is modeled more 
after the IBM system. The checks are padded together and staggered 
so that the entry was written on the check also and constitutes an 
entry in your book of record. 

The Chairman. Now I can appreciate that, that you might make 
a change in your system of bookkeeping or operation, but I cannot, 
and I am unable, and I would like for you to explain why making 
such a change necessitated the destruction of your old records that 
were under another system. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, principally, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we 
were terribly crowded for space both in storage space in the so-called 
vault and also storage space in our own office. We maintain a statisti- 
cal and research department which requires a great deal of filing space. 

The Chairman. And this is another thing that it seems to me would 
need some explanation. "V^^iy would you not, in order to recoup space, 
destroy the older records of 1947 and 1946 and 1950, instead of destroy- 
ing the most recent records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Those older records, honestly, I have never gone 
through them. 

The Chairman. I did not say you had gone through them. But you 
say you are crowded for space. You have these old records but when 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 859 

you started destroying, you started to destroy them from the 
new records. It is a little strange to me when you want space that you 
would not discard the old records for which there would be the least 
future use possibly than those more recently. 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater entered the room.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. Possibly I was wrong in my judgment, but when 
I became secretary-treasurer I found that my own desk piled up with 
a lot of irrelevant material to my mind, and the files were full of 
material. After the audit was taken, we had a certified public ac- 
countant come in and go over the books and go through the files, and 
he made his statement to us, and I just told the staff that there is no 
longer any need to retain that material in the files and it was thrown 
away, rather than take it down to the vault. 

The Chairiman. Would you recognize and recommend that pro- 
cedure as good business practice ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not in the local unions. 

The Chairman. Then what is the difference? If they are impor- 
tant to a local union, why would they not be important to the posi- 
tion you occupy ? 

jVIr. MiKESELL. There is a great deal of difference Mr. Chairman. 
I have my own local union that I have been — I say my own local 
union. I mean the local union where I am elected at the various 
election periods for about 14 years, and the files are intact in that 
local union. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't you recommend that practice elsewhere 
througliout the union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Those files in the local union are vital to individual 
members and your joint council — — 

The Chairman. Would not your records be equall}^ vital to locals 
that compose your group ? 

Mr. ]VIiKESELL. To the local union secretary, yes, and they liave 
access to the books at any time. 

The Chairman. They can't have access to that which is destroyed, 
though, can the}^ ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The records are all in the book of entry. 

The Chairman. All of the record you have is this book of entry? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now you say that you instructed your staff' to take 
them down and destroy them rather than put them in the vault. Spe- 
cifically who did you instruct ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, our secretary who takes care of the joint 
council books. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVlio is that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. At that time her name is Dorothy O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dorothy O'Brien therefore took these books out and 
destroyed them? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There were no books destroyed, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, let us go back to the canceled checks. Did 
she take the canceled checks out and destroy them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. She had not taken them out. They were just thrown 
in the wastepaper basket, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did she throw them in the wastepaper basket? 

Mr. MiKESEiJL. After the audits were taken. 



860 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. She specifically — you told her to do that? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I told her to rid the office of this surplus material 
which in my opinion was no longer needed. 

Mr. E^ENNEDT. Did she also destroy or throw away the correspond- 
ence files? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, no, I would not say all of the correspondence 
file, but there are a lot of irrelevant correspondence files. 

Mr. Kennedy. Between September of 1954 and September of 
1956, did Miss O'Brien take the correspondence files and destroy that 
or throw it out ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I would say this in regard to correspondence, that 
the correspondence accumulates from one council meetnig to another. 
At the joint council meeting the correspondence is taken before the 
executive board in an afternoon meeting, and prior to the executive 
meeting of the joint council in the evening, which is usually attended 
by a larger delegation than the average local union meeting. Then 
the recommendatic)ns of the executive board, those parts of the cor- 
respondence which are pertinent are acted on and recommendations 
are made by the executive board in the afternoon, and taken to the 
evening meeting. Then only those parts of the correspondence which 
are pertinent to action which should be taken are retained temporarily 
in the files. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't keep the rest of your correspondence? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not any of the correspondence which is not relevant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. You keep the correspondence, yourself, 
don't you, of the correspondence file? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We do keep correspondence in the file, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio destroyed the correspondence file? We will 
come back to that. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Just much the same as the other records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you give it to, or who did you tell to de- 
stroy the correspondence file ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The girl. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss O'Brien did that, too? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. She did the canceled checks and the correspondence 
files? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Miss O'Brien was the employee who did all of 
this? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is tliat right? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Wliile she was working for the council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does she still work for you? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, she does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is she now ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. She is some place in Asia, and I don't know where 
she is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some place in Asia ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. That is true, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Let us have order. Let us proceed. 



U^IPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 861 

Mr. Kennedy. The fact that you were changino; over your audit 
system, why was that a factor in destroying these files ^ 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that the first statement that I made in regard 
to revision was in regard to checl^s, our changing of our form of ciiecks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would that lead you to destroy the correspond- 
ence files, for instance ? 

Mr. Mikesell. This particular bookkeeping system has been used 
ever since I have had any connection witli the joint council, which has 
been for about 14 years I have been on the board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you decide in the middle of 1954 to de- 
stroy these books and records from the middle of 1954 to the middle of 
195() ? 

Mr. Mikesell. There were no books destroyed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, then, your records, your correspondence files, 
and your cancelled checks, if you want me to pinpoint it each time. 

Mr. Mikesell. If we call old invoices and old checks and old check 
vouchers and such things as that, if we call those "records"', then they 
are destroyed, yes. 

The Chairman. Let us go back to that. Your correspondence files, 
and your concelled checks from 1937 to 1954 are intact'^ How do you 
explain that ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Because to me, Mr. Kennedy, they created a problem, 
and they created a problem of storage. 

The Chairman. I understand they created a problem. So therefort^ 
I would destroy, if I v.as going to destroy something, and if I did not 
have any ulterior motive, I would destroy my records back from 1937 
and 19^38 and 1939 and 1940 and 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 
1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950. I would get rid of all of those records and 
I would not in the middle of 1956 destroy my books and records or my 
correspondence files and checks and some of these other records from 
1954 to 1956. 

Mr. Mikesell. As I explained before, this material, I don't think in 
all of my experience I have had occasion to refer back. 

The Chairman. Why didn't you get rid of that instead of these other 
records that you miglit need ? 

Mr. Mikesell. I am trying to explain to you. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Mikesell. I have never had occasion to refer back to any of 
that material in all of my experience in the Joint Council. Conse- 
quently, in my opinion there was no iieed of retaining that irrelevant 
material which had already been proved insofar as the certified 
public audit was concerned. I could see no reason for retaining it. 
Now, maybe I gave the wrong order, as I say, but that was the order 
that I gave and that is what has been done, and the material is not 
available. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you refer back to your records of 1937? 

Mr. Mikesell. Did I ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. You were referring to that, your records of 1937? 

Mr. Mikesell. No. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Why didn't you get rid of those records? 

Mr. Mikesell. I am referring to the records you referred to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been referring back to your records of 
1937? 



862 IMPROPER ACTB^TIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. I never have. 

Mr. E^ENNEDY. Why didn't you get rid of those records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because they were down covered with dust in the 
storage room. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just told us that you were terribly crowded for 
space, and that is what you said in answer to Senator McClellan's 
question. You said you were terribly crowded for space, and so in- 
stead of destroying 15 years of records that went back to 1937, you 
selected these 2 years of records, the most recent records you had. 
You destroyed those, the most recent records that you had? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I was probably taking the path of least resistance, 
which would require the least effort, and it may be a fault, but that is 
what was done. 

The Chairman. Tell us the date these records were destroyed. I 
am talking about jonr canceled checks and your correspondence file 
between September 1954 and September of 1956, those records. Tell 
us the date they were destroyed. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I could not give you any specific dates. 

The Chairman. It was subsequent to September of 1956, was it not ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It never had — — 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. You can't give the exact date, but 
■was it subsequent to September of 1956 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is correct, after the audit. 

The Chairman. It has been since then. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. I might add that I would want it distinctly 
understood that it was not all of the records at that time, only those 
which had accumulated during the past year. 

Senator Goldwater. How many employees do you have working in 
the office of the Council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We have seven employees altogether. 

Senator Goldwater. Seven employees? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How do you handle their social security 
records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. In the regular way. 

Senator Goldwater. How do you handle their withholding tax, the 
amounts you withhold for tax purposes ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. In the regular manner. 

Senator Goldwater. What is one of your employees going to do if 
the income tax bureau comes to him and questions his income tax, and 
lie has no records of yours to go back to ? If tlie records, say, of 1956 
liave been destroyed, and 1951 have been destroyed, and the income tax 
bureau questions one of your employees relative to his income tax, he 
can't go back to the books and find out how much was withheld for 
him ^ 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think those have been destroyed. 

Senator Goldwater. They have not been destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think so. 

Senator Goldwater. You use them in the normal course of book- 
kee))ing, don't you ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Those of course are handled through the banking 
records, and that money is deposited in the bank. 

Senator Goldwater. You have to keep a record of it and your entries 
have to show it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 863 

Mr. MiKESELL. We fill out the regular forms. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, are those records destroyed along with 
the others? 

Mr. jMikesell. I don't think so. 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you know ? You keep those books, don't 
you ? 

Mr. ^Iikesell. No, I do not. 

Senator GoldWx\ter. You are the treasurer. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I am secretary-treasurer. How^ever, my secretary 
keeps the books. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if those books are kept ? 

Mr. jNIikesell. I could not say positively before the committee with- 
out going and looking in the files. 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you think it is rather important for your 
employees to know whether or not they have any record of social 
security payments or any record at all of money withheld from their 
salaries for tax purposes ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Oh, definitely. 

Senator Goldw^\ter. And you don't know, as supervisor of that 
bookkeeping, whether or not that is being done ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I know that the records are available, and they would 
be available at the bank. 

Senator Goldwater. There must be some entry in your normal book- 
keeping of these amounts, and it has to show some place. If you have 
destroyed them, you have done your employees a pretty bad turn. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, the checks, with the amount that is paid out, 
withholding tax and deductions for social security are all recorded in 
the book wliich the committee has. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not destroy those particular checks or 
records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Oh, no. 

Senator Goldwater. You just destroyed the records that might 
have some effect on this hearing. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, the checks are destroyed. Those records are de- 
stroyed. However, in the book you will find the notations of all checks 
which are issued by the Joint Council and all income which is enjoyed 
by the Joint Council, which of course is in the form of per capita tax 
from the various local unions. 

Senator Goldwater. This money that you take in is not taxable, and 
you pay no income taxes to the State or Federal Governments on any 
union moneys ? 

J\lr. MiKESELL. No. 

Senator Goldwater. So you have no reason to keep it for income-tax 
purposes for your own organization, but you certainly have an obliga- 
tion to keep these records for your employees, and I can't understand 
3^our not knowing whetlier or not they are available. 

Mr. MiKESELL. When I say that l" don't know, I was speaking of the 
forms wliich are necessary to submit to tlie Internal Revenue and to the 
various agencies which are responsible for receiving the money we sub- 
mit to them. 

Senator Goldwater. All of this money which has been paid out 
to Mr. Maloney was actually tax-free money, wasn't it ? 

Mr. jNIikesell. Well, I suppose it was. 



864 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. It came from union dues, and I think the 
amount was probably in the neighborhood of $20,000 we were talking 
about yesterday, and it is tax-free money. There is no record of it, 
and you not only have failed in an obligation to your union, but I think 
that you have failed in an obligation to your country when you fail 
to keep records like that, particularly when you operate under the 
benefits of no taxes. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Senator Goldwater, I am sure that you are in error 
on $20,000. 

Senator Goldwater. That sum came to my mind, and I may be 
in error. But certainly it is an amount of money, whether it was 
$20 or $20,000, it is tax free. 

Mr. MiKESELL. It is all recorded in the book. 

Senator Goldwater. And there should be some accounting for it. 

Mr. MiKESELL. It is recorded in the book. 

Senator Goldwater. All of the money is recorded in the book ? 

Mr. JVIikesell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. All of the moneys that you ever give to polit- 
ical campaigns or political organizers, are available in record form? 

Mr. MiKESELL. You will find in examining the books that the checks 
with the number of the check 

Senator Goldwater. How about the money that was spent in 1953 
and 1954 ? Can we find a record of that ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. I am sure that that is in the vault. I am sure that 
your man, Mr. Williams, has it. 

Senator Goldwater. I asked if there was a record of the amounts 
spent in 1954 and 1955, and I am told that we can see those amounts. 
I thought we were talking about records that had been destroyed. Are 
those records available ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Oh, yes ; those checks are all recorded. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the cancelled checks and the docu- 
mentation for this book ? 

]Mr. MiKESELL. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those have been destroyed, isn't that correct? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any documentation that shows that this book is 
accurate has been destroyed. 

Mv. INIiKESELL. Well, you have copies of the certified public accomit- 
ant's reports each year, and those records were retained until that 
certification was made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does the certified public accountant's report show 
how much money was paid to Tom Maloney, for instance ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that they would. 

]Mr. Kennedy. It shows how much was paid to Tom Maloney ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that they would. I don't remember whether 
it was itemized and put in there as a certain amount for this, and a 
certain amount for that. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Don't you know ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I know that that is very accurate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it broken down just into categories and it is 
not broken down into what individual gets the money ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Ch.virman. Just a moment, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. JVIagee. Yes, ]\Ir. Chairman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 865 

The Chairman. You know the rules of the committee. You are 
to advise the witness as to his legal rights. 

Mr. Magp:e. May it please the Chair, I was asking the witness 
whether he had finished liis answer, because I am sure that Mr. Ken- 
nedy is cutting off the complete answer of the witness, and he has 
done that on each instance. 

The Chairhian. If you will address the Chair, the Chair will see 
that the witness gets a chance to answer. 

Mr. Magee. He says he has not been permitted to finish his answer. 

The Chairman. It is ditlicult to know here what you are saying 
and I wanted to again remind counsel that your duties are to advise 
him as to his legal rights, and it is the duty of the witness to do 
the testifying. With that undei-standing, and that being observed, 
we can proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have this book for 1954? This is from 
January or December of 1954 to 1955. Where is the one from Jan- 
uary 1, 1954, to date? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I have no way of knowing, because Mr. Williams 
was given full access to all of our records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mikesell, you were ordered under the subpena 
to produce those documents. Where is the book from January 1, 1954, 
to date ^ 

Mr. Mikesell. I understood that Mr. Williams had them, because 
he did not ask for anything. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Wait a minute. He asked you for all of these books 
and records from January 1, 1954, to date. You told him that from 
September of 1954 to, I guess, August of 1956, that all of your books 
and records have been destroyed, including this. 

Then since this hearing started, you have come up with this. Isn't 
that true ? And you also, told him that you had no explanation as 
to why they were destroyed? You have come before this committee 
and given an explanation of some kind of an audit that had been 
taken. But at that time he asked you what explanation you had, 
and you said that you had no explanation and you just destroyed 
them. Didn't you say that to him ? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. What explanation could I have ex- 
cept that in my judgment there Vv'as no use to keep them longer and 
they were destroyed? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : You did not turn over those 
books at that time, and where is the book fi'om January 1, 1954, to 
January 1, 1955 ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Well, there would be a longer period of time. There 
would be a ledger just the same as this one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is it? You were ordered to produce it to 
this committee. 

Mr. Mikesell. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that intact? 

Mr. MiKESELii. I thought it was in the storage room. 

The Chairman. May i ask you if these records are in your custody 
as secretary-treasurer of that joint council ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes, that is right. 

The Chairman. They are in your custody ? 

Mr. IViiKESELL. Yes. 

80330— 57— pt. 3 8 



866 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And now you cannot account for the other book just 
preceding this one ? 

Mr. JVIiKESELL. I gave Mr. Williams carte blanche to go down and 
take any information that he wanted. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about information. I am talking 
about the physical document itself. Do you mean you don't know 
where the other book preceding this is ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. As I say, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion that book 
was filed down in the storage room. I thought until just this minute 
when he came to the committee that Mr. Williams had that book. 

Senator Mundt. Maybe we can clear this up by this question: 
Did you personally destroy the book in question ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir ; I did not. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever give an order to have it destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. To your knowledge, has it been destroyed ? 

]Mr. JMiKESELL. I l)eg your ]5ardon, sir 't 

Senator Mundt. To your knowledge has it been destroyed ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. To my knowledge it has not been destroyed. 

Senator Mundt. Are you positive it has not been destroyed ? 

Mr. jSIikesell. I have no reason to think that it has been destroyed. 

Senator Mundt. Is there anybody that has authority to destroy 
those books without an order from you ? 

Mr. JVIikesell. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Can you not therefore tell the committee cate- 
gorically that it has not been destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I can tell the committee that if it has been de- 
stroyed, it certainly has not been destroyed by any permission given 
by myself or to my knowledge anyone else. 

Senator Mundt. Who else would have authority to order the de- 
struction of the books ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No one. 

Senator Mundt. It would have to be a pure act of vandalism ? 

Mr. ISIiKESELL. In my opinion, the books of first entry should never 
be destroyed. 

Senator Mundt. Certainly. It is essential in line with the question- 
ing by Senator Goldwater that those books be kept permanently, is 
that right ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. I think then that we should pursue our search until 
we find that book, and since we have the testimony of the witness 
that it has not been destroyed, it must be available somewhere, unless 
he is misrepresenting things, which I doubt. 

The Chairman. The Chair will order and direct the witness when 
he returns to his office to make a search for that book and if it is 
found, that the witness promptly deliver it to the committee, and if 
it is not found, that he so report with any explanation that he may 
give for it being missing. 

Do you accept that order ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I will accept the order and I will do my best to 
clear it up. 

The Chair3han. Make a search for it and find it, and if you can 
find it, deliver it to the committee. If you do not find it, make a 
i-e])<)rt to this committee upon your efforts to find it, and anything 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 867 

else that would be pertinent that would aid the committee in trying 
to locate it. 

(The followin<r was subsequently submitted:) 

Joint Council of Teamsters, No. 37, 

Portland, Oreg., March 22, 1957. 
Hon. John L. McClexlan. 

Chairman, Senate Select Committee, 

Room 101, Senate Office Bnilding, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Senator McClellan : In accordance with your instructions, I have 
instituted a diligent search for the ledgers extending through the years 1953-54, 
and I am very sorry to report that I have been unable to locate them. However, 
canceled checks, check stubs, and other materials which would be entered in this 
bock are available, and have been made available during the entire period to 
your Mr. Williams. 

I have discussed this matter with Mr. Williams and have told him that I 
was writing you this letter in conformity with your instruction to me prior 
to my departure from Washington. 

If it is your desire that this material be sent to you in your office in W^ash- 
ington, we will, upon your instruction, do so immediately, or the material will 
continue to be made available at this office to your Mr. Williams. 
Very truly yours, 

R. R. MiKESELL, 

Secretary-Treasurer. 

Tiie Chairmak. All right, proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to ask just a question about this 
bookkeeping. Now, up until March of 1955 in your cash expendi- 
tures for each month, you have a column of "Political expenses'*. 
Now, after March of 1955, I am unable to find any listing for cash 
expenditures for the month under a heading of "Political expendi- 
tures". How did you list that, under which column, after March? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That I could not say. The girls change those col- 
umns from time to time if they have need for another column, and 
I don't know whether aii}^ change has been made or not. I did not 
Ivnow that that was a fact. 

Senator Goldwater. Could it be under some other heading? I 
can't find anything about political expenditures. The reason I ask 
it is I referred just a moment to $20,000 of tax-free money. That is 
quite a sizable item, and it should be in here some place. There was 
$14,000 went to the State Democratic Committee, and $2,000 to Gov- 
ernor Holmes' campaign, and $1,000 to the Secretary of State's cam- 
paign, and $2,400 to the Langley campaign, and $700 worth of tele- 
phone bills for Mr. Maloney. Did you install this system? 

Mr. MiKESELL No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Would I be out of order, Mr. Chairman, to 
ask the gentleman when he is looking for the otlier book to ask who- 
ever keeps these liooks how they list political expenditures? 

The Chairman. Well, I think this witness should know. It is his 
responsibility. Do you know ? 

Mr. Mikewell, Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax. How do you list them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. How do I know what ? 

The Chairmax. It is your responsibility to know how political ex- 
penses are listed, and liow they are kept on the records. You are 
secretary-treasurer and the records are kept under your authority 
mid supervision, are they not? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think. Mr. Chairman, you will find 



868 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Answer my question first. These records are kept 
under your authority and supervision, are they not, as secretary-treas- 
urer ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Then you should know how you list an account 
for political expenses. How do you ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that you will find each individual check when 
it is entered in tlie book 

The Chairman. We don't have the checks, and they have been 
destroyed. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I mean the notation in the ledger there will state 
what the check was for. 

The Chairman. I will ask Senator Goldwater, he is pursuing this 
matter, to check and see if he can find anything after that date, any- 
thing listed as political expenses. 

Senator Goldwater. We had four checks yesterday. 

The Chairman. I think you should clear this up for us, and I think 
the witness should know. For a time you kept a political column here, 
listing political expenses in this record. This is the record, the entry 
book. Thereafter you ceased keeping that column apparently. Then 
if there were political expenses after that, in what column or in what 
category did you list them ? You are in charge of these records, and 
I think that you have the major responsibility, and you should know. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, I can assure you that any check that is written 
and listed in that book, that there will be 

The Chairman. We can't get the check. 

Mr. MiKESELL. There will he a notation made as to what the check 
was for. There was a special column. Whether it is not in the special 
column, when the audit is made, it will be allocated to the proper 
classification. 

The Chairman. What is the proper classification for political ex- 
penses ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I suppose 

The Chairman. What is the proper classification for it in your 
record ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Political expenses, I suppose it would be. 

The Chairman. A^Hien you discontinued using that category, then 
what category did 3^011 place them in? 

Mr. ]\IiKESELL. Well, special columns are peculiar things to figure 
out sometimes. 

The Chairman. Do you know ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't know ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know why the column was discontinued. 

The Chairman. You do not know why it was discontinued ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No. 

The Chairman. Didn't you have greater political expenses after 
March of 1955 than you did in that period prior, or immediately prior 
to it, when you were keeping this political column ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We probably did. 

The Chairman. You probably did? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Aren't you sure of that, and don't you know you 
did? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 869 

Mr. MiKESELL. In 1955 ? 

The CHAiRivrAN. You had a political campaign in 1956, didn't you? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, in 1956. 

The Chairjman. Now, can you tell us where those political con- 
tributions are listed in your record for 1956 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Without looking at the book, I can't say. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to show you the book. 

Senator Goldwater. I have found one check to the Democratic 
Party of Oregon for $5,000, but it is listed under "Other expendi- 
tures." 

The Chairman. I want you to tell us where you listed them. Ex- 
amine the book if you can and tell us where you list your political 
expenses. 

(Book was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. I am sure that you are familiar with that record. 
That is the only one that you kept. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I want to see when the change was made here, Mr. 
Chairman, in 1955. The only thing I can say is that probably this 
was a slack period and we did not have any particular political ex- 
penses, and it was just dropped from the column. 

The Chairman. I thought you just said you had more political ex- 
penses in 1956, since it is a campaign year, than you would have in 1955. 

Mr. MiKESELL. This is going into another period. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. MiKESELL. This is carrying on into another period. This pe- 
riod here was kept by one girl, Mrs. O'Brien I was talking about, and 
then in the 1956 period we had another girl. 

The Chairman. It isn't a question of one girl or another girl. You 
established the system and you ought to know where they are directed 
to place those entries. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not insofar as 

The Chairman. You don't leave it to any girl that walks in there 
and takes a job to just enter tilings in the books any way she wants to, 
surely ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not insofar as the special columns are concerned. 
You will notice that this is tlie book that is ordinarily used by local 
unions, and it constitutes various columns for dues and reinstatements, 
applications, and so forth, which are used in the local union, but do 
not apply in any way whatever to a joint council. Those columns are 
more or less devised by the particular girl who is keeping the books for 
her own convenience. She makes out a montlily statement which is 
read every month to the membership and I cannot say why 

The Chairman. Would you recommend this system of bookkeeping 
in any business institution that has to pay income taxes and make a 
record ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. That is the reason we changed our system 
as of the first of January 1957. 

The Chairman. What is the date of tliat book, the first entry in it, 
and the last ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. December 1954, 1 believe, is the first month. It is to 
and including December of 1956. 

The Chairman. Well, it covered 1955, when you did have a political 
column in it, early 1955 and throughout 1956, the campaign year, you 
have no political column. 



870 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 

The Chairman. And therefore such expenditures as were made, if 
they were accounted for, are in some other category, and you cannot 
identify which category they are in. 

Mr. MiKESELL. However, in the new system which we have 
installed 

The Chairman. Under the new sj^stem can you identify them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Everything can be identified where there was a check. 

The Chairman. They oould be identified if you had kept the 
checks, but since the checks are destroyed, can you ideiitify them now? 
Can you point out the column there, and point out one single item of 
political expense after you have stopped the political colmim? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There is no doubt that I could. Our auditor has, 
and I think it is available, and the committee has the copy of those 
audits. I am sure that they are segregated into proper classifications 
by the auditor. 

The Chairman. The audits carry a political column ? You should 
know. My goodness. It seems to me you Avould give some attention 
to this business. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir ; they do, I am sure. 

The Chairman. Are you sure ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. You have the copies. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will get those. 

The Chairman. I do not know, and I have not looked at them, 
but I would think that you would know. 

Mr. Kennedy. The committee has them. 

Senator Mundt. There seems to be some question as to whether or 
not you first told the committee that you had destroyed the red book 
that we now have. I would like to clear that up. Did you ever tell 
any committee investigator, any member of our staff, any member of 
our committee, that you had destroyed tlie big book that Mr. Magee 
now has in his hand ? 

Mr. MnvESELL. No, sir ; I did not. 

Senator Mundt. You did not ? 

Mr. ^MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did 3^ou tell them at anv time that vou could not 
find it? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir ; not these books. 

Senator Mundt. I asked the question, Mr. Counsel, whether he ever 
told any member of our staff that he had destroyed or could not find 
this big red book that Mr. Magee now has. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did. He said he had destroyed all the records 
from, I guess, August of 1954 to August of 1956. 

You are not denying that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It certainly was not my intention to convey the im- 
pression that any books or entry had been destroyed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator Mundt, Mr. Williams of the committee staff 
went to Mr. Mikesell and subpenaed certain books and records starting 
January 1, 1954, to date. 

Mr. Mikesell explained to him at that time that he could give most 
of the records from the beginning of 1954 to about July or August 
of 1954, but that all the records from August of 1954 to approxi- 
mately August of 1956 had been destroyed. We never knew that this 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 871 

book existed until about a week after the hearings began, and none 
of the other records have been made available. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I am trying to clear up, Mr. Mike- 
sell. Did you say that or did you not ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It wasn't my intention to convey the impression 
that these books had been destroyed. 

Senator Mundt. Did you at that time deliver this book? The 
subpena was served upon you for the books. Did you deliver it in 
response to the subpena or did you hide it ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. I delivered it to Mr. Calabrese, not to Mr. Williams 
in Portland. 

Senator Mundt. Did you deliver it at the time the subpena was 
served on you by Mr, Williams ? 

Mr. jVIikesell. As I say, I was never served with a subpena. 

Ml". Kennedy. It was served on Mr. Steele. You knew about the 
subpena. You were the one that had the conversation with Mr. Wil- 
liams, is that not correct ? 

Mr. JVIiKJESELL. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not tell Mr. Williams that you had none of 
the records from the middle of 1954 to the middle of 1956 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. He was looking 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Did you not tell him 
that? 

Mr. Magee. Mr. Chairman, may the witness be permitted to answer 
these questions without being cut off ? The questions are put to him 
and then he is not permitted to answer. 

The Chairman. You may be given an oportunity to answer. An- 
swer the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Answer the question: Did you tell Mr. Williams 
that the books and records for 1954, the middle of 1954, to the middle 
of 1956, had been destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think that I said the books had been de- 
stroyed at any time. I said the records had been destroyed, which 
meant 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Let me ask. Did you tell him that the records of 
the joint council had been destroyed from the middle of 1954 to the 
middle of 1956? 

Mr. Magee. Mr. Chairman, I again protest and point out the wit- 
ness is not being permitted to complete his answer. He was cut off in 
the middle. 

The Chairman. As I understood this question, it was : Did you tell 
Mr. Williams that those books had been destroyed, yes or no? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I told Mr. Williams that 

Senator Mundt. May I suggest that if the counsel is going to be 
meticulous about letting the witness finish the question, the Chair 
should be equally meticulous about getting a "Yes" or "No" answer 
to the question. We should be strictly in conformity with protocol 
on both sides of the table. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Did you tell him or did you not ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Chairman, I told him that the records had been 
destroyed which he was looking for in the file. 



872 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. In other words, the records he was looking for, at 
the time you told him they had been destroyed ? 

Mr. JNIiKESELL. Right. 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Did you at that tune give him the book which we 
now have before us? 

My. Mikesell. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Mundt. At what time did you deliver this book ? 

Mr. Mikesell. I delivered the book to Mr. Calabrese here in 
Washington. 

Senator Mundt. Today or recently ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Pardon? 

Senator Mundt. Recently, or when you came to Washington ? 

Mr. Mikesell. No, I think it was last — the first of last week, if I re- 
member right. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to call your attention to an entry in 
February 1955, Mr. Mikesell, check No. 384, issued to the Hotel Mult- 
nomah. The entry says date to which paid January 1 to February 2, 
that is a month, paying a hotel bill for Mr. Maloney. And then the 
entry it is listed under says "Officers' and delegates' expense allow- 
ances." Was Mr. Maloney an officer or was he a delegate? 

That is on page 22, Mr. Magee. 

Mr. Mikesell. Well, Senator Mundt, he was certainly not an officer. 

Senator Mundt. Then he must have been a delegate, or else the 
books were fictitiously kept and that is pretty serious. 

Mr. Mikesell. I wouldn't consider him a delegate, but I would say 
that it was put in that particular column, again, as a matter of con- 
venience for the girl who was keeping the books or for no particular 
reason. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mikesell, it seems to me that whether your 
organization is subject to income taxes or not, books are supposed to be 
kept with a certain sense of fidelity, so that auditors. Government in- 
vestigators, your own members, know what the money is spent for. 

When you list this under the heading of officers, and delegates, ex- 
penses, certainly anybody looking at it would assume that he is either 
an officer or a delegate. 

Mr. Mikesell. That is correct. 

Senator ISIundt. If your books are not honest, if we cannot take 
them at face value, it does not mean much whether we have them or 
not. 

Mr. Mikesell. However, I am sure that in the new books, which 
have been installed as of January 1, 1957, that matter will be cor- 
rected. It will be much more easy to designate the purposes for which 
expenditures are made. 

Senator Mundt. Your testimony is that even if we had these books 
they would not mean much because they do not mean what they say 
on the face, is that right, up until January 1 ? 

Mr. Mikesell. To a certain extent, because they were never de- 
signed for the use of an organization such as we liave in the joint 
council. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask this : When did Mrs. O'Brien 
leave the organization ? 

Mr. Mikesell. She left in September of 1955. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 873 

Mr. KJENNEDY. September of 1955 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understood in your answer to Senator McClel- 
lan's statement as to who had destroyed these correspondence files 
and the canceled checks, that they had been destroyed in 1956. 

Mr. IMikesell. Those which accumulated up until the fall audit of 
1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. You said they had been destroyed in 1956, as 
I understand it. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. I am sorry, I didn't say that. I said that 
when I became secretary-treasurer in August or September of 1954, 
that I gave instructions 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator McClellan said, and I though I understood 
you, that these records had been destroyed subsequent to September 
1956. Did you not say that in aswer to Senator McClellau's question ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, I certainly don't want that to appear in the 
record 

The Chairman. Well, it certainly does as of now. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because of the fact that my order went back to 
September 1954, to start cleaning out the files. We had an audit as of 
September 1954. 

The Chairman. Just a minute, now. You could not clean out 1956 
files in 1954. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Correct, sir. 

The Chairman. You could not destroy 1956 records in 1954. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Correct. 

The Chairman. The records for 1956 have been destroyed. When 
were they destroyed? I asked you that. You said subsequent to 
September 1956. 

Mr. MiKESELL. You are correct. For 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told me in answer to my question as to who had 
taken the canceled checks and correspondence files and destroyed them, 
that you had given them to Mrs. O'Brien and Mrs. O'Brien was in 
Asia. Who did you give the ones for 1956 to, to destroy them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, Mr. Kennedy, in 1954 I couldn't give any files 
for 1956 to Mrs. O'Brien. 

Mr. Ejinnedy. Right. We agree. So who did you give 

]\Ir. MiKESELL. But there is an accumulation of material which 
extends down through the years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you give the records from the end of 1955 
and the beginning of 1956, who did you give those to, to destroy ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The present secretary. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom { 

Mr. MiKESELL. The present secretary. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is her name ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mrs. Noack. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Noack ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Noack. 

Mr. Kennedy. And she is the one who was told to destroy them : is 
that right? 

Mr. MiKESELL. She was told to discard them, to get rid of them, 
there was no use to keep them longer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? Go ahead. What was she told ? 



874 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. Those records were in her charge in the files, and 
she was told to clean out the files and discard the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you tell her to do that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. After the audit was taken in the fall of 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which records did you tell her to take out and 
destroy ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Whatever were irrelevant to her continued keeping 
properly of the books. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you left it up to her as to what records would 
be destroyed, is that right ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. You did. So that was her responsibility, to go 
through the records and decide w^hicli ones should be destroyed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It wasn't her responsibility. It was my responsi- 
bility. She was acting on my orders. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take it up with any of the members of your 
board, that you were destroying these records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss it with any of them ? 

(At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not to any great extent. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, Mr. Steele, when was he informed that 
you had destroyed these records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I imagine after the coimnittee started their investi- 
gation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inform anyone prior to this last two weeks 
that you had destroyed those records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I would see no reason for making a point of it. To 
me it was simply a matter of routine housecleaning in the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you never discussed it with anyone ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No. 

(At this point. Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You never told Mr. Clyde Crosby ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Clyde Crosby— during the time I probably sat down 
with Clyde Crosby for 15 minutes in about 3 months' time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never told him ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you never told anyone that you were destroying 
these current records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I didn't figure that it was any point whether they 
were destroyed or not. I figured they were no longer any use to the 
council. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You liaveii't had any discussions with the Internal 
Revenue Department about the advisability of keeping your records 
for three to five years back ? Have you ever heard that the Internal 
Revenue Department wants you to keep your records that long? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I haven't personally, no. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So you feel that you can just destroy any records as 
you see fit. Wliat is your feeling about tax-exempt funds being used 
for political campaigns and for the paying of the bills of gamblers 
and racketeers ? Do you think that is proper ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think those two questions combined are very 
dissimilar. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 875 

Mr. Kennedy. I will take them one at a time. Do you think it is 
proper that tax-exempt funds that come from union members' dues 
should be used to pay the bills of raclceteers and gamblers? 

]\Ir. MiKESELL. No, sir, I do not. Certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Would you tell us why the funds of Joint Council 
37 were used for that purpose ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think that in our knowledge, anyone's knowl- 
edge, in the Joint Council, that we ever paid any bills for any 
gamblers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about the bills of Mr. Tom Maloney? Why 
were you paying the bills for Mr. Tom Maloney ? 

Mr. ^NIikesell. These things have come up. They occurred at a 
time that we didn't have knowledge of the conditions that apparently 
must have existed, from the testimony that has come before this com- 
mittee. We thought that we were honestly reflecting the welfare of 
our various affiliated local unions, and accomplishing something that 
was for the betterment of the organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. To pay the bills during 1955 of Mr. Tom Maloney, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Mikesell. We paid some phone bills. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Yes, and also some hotel bills. 

Mr. Mikesell. And also some hotel bills. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What was Tom Maloney doing during that period 
of time? "V^riiat was he doing during that period of time that made 
it advisable for the union to be paying his bills? 

Mr. Mikesell. That I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^^iat was he doing for the union that you were 
paying him for ? 

Mr. Mikesell. I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you paying the bills ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Why :' It was largely a carry-over from the politi- 
cal campaign, wlien he did work on behalf of Mr. Langely for dis- 
trict attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the bills in July, August, and 
September of 1955. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, let us go back to page 22, in line 
with counsel's question. 

There was no campaign on in Portland, Oreg., in Multnomah 
County in February 1955, was there? 

Mr. ]\IiKESELL. No. that is right. 

Senator Mundt. In February 1955, the entry about which I talked 
to you previously, for $241.50, paid to the Hotel Multnomah, and the 
date, was paid for Mr. ]Maloney's bill there. His bill ran fi'om Jan- 
uary 1 through the second day of February. 

As I called to your attention, it was classified as officer and dele- 
gates' expenses. I asked you if Mr. Maloney was an officer and your 
answer was "No". Is that right? 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Then I asked you if he was a delegate, and I 
think your answer was also "No". 

Mr. Mikesell. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. so it is a matter of great curiosity to me still, from 
looking at that column, Mr. Mikesell, right next to the column where 
you entered it under the heading of officers' and delegates' expenses 



876 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of $241.50, right next to it is a column marked "Political." You did 
not enter it in "Political." 

Obviously, you were paying for something at that time other than 
political activities, or the books were being falsified. Which is the 
case? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The books haven't been falsified. 

Senator Mundt. All right. You were paying him for something 
other than political activities at that time, is that right? It has to 
be right. It has to be right, because here is your column right next 
to it for political expenditures. You say you were not paying him 
for political expenditures, that you have not falsified the books. 
Therefore, what were you paying Mr. Maloney for if it was not for 
his racketerring activities in Multnomah County. It has to be for 
something. You are not an eleemosynary institution, giving money 
away, specially to Mr. Maloney. 

Mr. Magee, I am asking this, please, of the man who knows. 

Mr. Magee. I have said nothing. 

Senator Mtjndt. I must insist, even though I have a high respect 
for you as an attorney, and the gentleman is a friend of yours, that 
the rules of the committe are that the witness can turn to your for 
counsel. 

I am going to insist pretty soon, Mr. Chairman, that we separate 
a little further the witnesses from the attorneys, if we are going to 
have a dialog in frontof us all the time when I ask a question. 

Mr. Mikesell, you have heard the questions. I want an answer. 

Mr. Mikesell. Well, Senator, I don't pretend to be able to tell 
you why the girl entered that in that particular column. I don't 
instruct her what columns to use for those different items. She uses 
her own judgment. She might have entered it "political," she might 
have entered it delegate, she might have entered it in miscellaneous 
or anyplace else. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know whose handwriting these records 
are in ? 

Mr. Mikesell. In 1955 they would be in the handwritng of Dorothy 
O'Brien. 

Senator Mundt. Dorothy O'Brien? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And she is now in Asia ? 

Mr. JViiKESELL. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. That makes it a little hard for us to hunt her down, 
as you can well appreciate. 

Was she in charge of these books, or are you in charge of these 
books ? 

Mr. Mikesell, Actually, I am in charge of the books. Manually, 
I do nothing whatever on the books. 

Senator Mundt. We know one of two things is true. We know 
either that you were paying Mr, Tom Maloney at that time for his 
activities other than political in Portland and Multnomah County, or 
we know the books ha'\'e been falsified, I am not saying that you 
falsified them, as you did not make the entries, but somebody falsified 
them. The books themselves clearly indicate that an expense was 
being charged under the heading of delegates and officers, which you 
have testified under oath is not the truth. That leaves only the other 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 877 

two alternatives. The books were deliberately falsified, because you 
could not mistake it, since the next column is "Political," right next 
\o it, or else the teamsters were paying Mr. Maloney for his activities 
in Portland, which I believe to be racketeering activities. You have 
testified that, since these hearings have developed the information, you, 
too, recognize that they are not the kind of activities in which team- 
sters should be engaged. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I would like to state to you. Senator Mundt, that 
to my knowledge, in all honesty and sincerity, there has never been 
any deliberate effort to cover any expenditures in those books, or to 
falsify any record. 

Senator Mundt. Whether it is deliberate or not, I am not saying it 
is on your part. It might have been on the part of this young lady 
conveniently traveling in Asia. Maybe somebody had given her 
instructions. I am willing to accept your word that you did not tell 
her to do that, that you did not know it took place. But you cannot 
argue witli the multiplication table. You cannot argue with a set 
of books. There they are. Auditors, tax collectors, members of unions, 
everybody is completely up in the air if the books do not faithfully 
disclose what happens m the coui'se of the treasury's activities in the 
teamsters union. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of dis- 
cussion about this Asia 

Senator Mundt. About Avhat ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. This point of this young lady being in Asia. I would 
like, if I may, to explain it. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to have it. 

Mr. MiKESELL. When she left our employ, she went directly to Asia, 
employed in — I don't know what she is doing, but I think she is work-, 
ing for some branch of the Govermnent. She has been there ever 
since. Her children are in school. She has, I believe, three children. 

Again, in this particular entry, it states in the ledger itself that the 
expenditure was for Maloney. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. MiKESELL. So that is evidence 

Senator Mundt. But it also states that it was paid to Maloney 
because he was a delegate or an oflicer. 

Now if you will tell me he is a delegate or an officer, this is fine. 
But Crosby said he was not. You say he was not. 

Mr. MiKESELL. He is not. 

Senator Mundt. Therefore, the books are false. 

Mr. MiKESELL. He is not and never had been. 

Senator Mundt. Therefore, the books are false. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Inadvertently. 

Senator Mundt. Maybe it was inadvertently when they put 
Maloney in there in the first place. I do not know. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to ask a question or two here 
relative to a check. First of all, what is the address of your office, 
the joint council of teamsters No. 37 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. 1020 NE. Third. 

Senator Goldwater. I have before me a photostatic copy of a check 
written to Robert Holmes, which is exhibit 47, check No. 517, in the 



878 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

amount of $2,000. I cannot find it in the cash expenditures for the 
month of August. The check was written August 10, 1956, and 
there is no such clieck listed in August in your cash expenditures. 
Could it be that there was another account ? 

(Exhibit 47 will be found in the appendix on p. 1073.) 

Mr, MiKESELL. I couldn't say, Senator Goldwater, unless I saw 
the check. 

Senator Goldwater. Here is the check. 

The Chairman. Take the check and your book, your entry book 
for that month, and see if you can find it. I want to see if it is in 
this book. This is the record that is supposed to reflect the trans- 
actions. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

The Chairman. Will you point out if that item is listed in that 
book during that month ? 

Mr. MiKESELL, Well, this, Mr. Chairman, is not signed by myself 
or Mike Steele as officers of the council. 

The Chairman, It is signed on that account, is it not ? 

Mr, MiKESELL, No ; it is not written on the general account. This 
is written on the special account and does not appear in here. 

The Chairman, Where is the special account? AVhere is the rec- 
ord of the special account ? 

Mr, MiKESELL, I do not have that. Mr, Vavrous keeps that. 

The Chairman. Wlio? 

Mr, MiKESELL, Mr. Vavrous, our statistician. 

The Chairman. Is he under your jurisdiction ? 

Mr. Secretary-Treasurer, do you have jurisdiction over this special 
account ? 

Mr, MiKESELL, Indirectly, yes. However, I do not record in the 
general fund expenditures amounts written from this account. 

The Chairman. All right. Pass the book back and the exhibit. 
It is not in there. You say it is in a special account. Pursue that. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that special account kept up by transfers 
from this general fund ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes ; that is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Are the transfers noted in here, noted in this 
book ? Can we find them in this book ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think you will find some. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you not know? It totals about — ^well. 
just 1 page here, covering about 9 months totals $21,000. 

Again, that is not pin money, and it seems to me that the secretary- 
treasurer should know if $24,000 was transferred out of the general 
fund into a special account. 

Mr. MiKESELL. We also have the building account, a building fund, 
which is a separate account from our general fund of the joint council. 

Senator Goldwater. You would not take transfers from a building- 
fund into a special account that is to be used mostly for politics, 
would you? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. So we can close that door ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Now the other door is open. Can we find 
in this book, which covers 2 years, transfers from this general fund 
into this special account ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 879 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, actually, I don't know too much about the 

special account, except it was set up, I think, with a 

Senator Gold water. Who set it up? Do you remember that? 
(At this point, the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Mr. MiKESELL. The joint council. 

Senator Goldwater. Did they set it up by formal action? Did 
they take a vote on it ? 

(Members present at this point: Senators McNamara, Mundt, and 
Goldwater.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't remember now whether it was set up by 
formal action. I believe it was. But I couldn't say for sure. 

Senator Goldwater. You do not know anything about the records 
of this special account ? You do not keep them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I couldn't say positively how much has been trans- 
ferred from the general fund to the special account. I do know that 
at times if we ever did accumulate a few dollars, we might be able 
to transfer some in there. But, unfortunately, we have never had 
too much money to put in there. We had to borrow money to set 
it up. 

Senator Goldwater. Out of the total amount of money that was put 
into this special fund, some $24,000, $20,000 of it went for politics. 
Why did you feel it w as necessary to set up a special account in order 
to handle political transactions ? Why could that not have been han- 
dled out of the general fund, out of the general books ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, it probably could. However, we considered 
that it would probably be better to segregate it. Actually, we bor- 
rowed the money to set it up. We didn't see any reason for depositing 
the money in the general account and, as a matter of expediency and 
accounting practice and not getting our receipts involved between the 
per capita received from the local unions, we thought it better to handle 
it this other way. 

Senator Goldwater. You borrowed $20,000 from the Citizens 
Branch of the United States National Bank to get this special fund 
started. Have you paid that back ? 

Mr. IMiKESELL. We are paying it back at the rate of $1,000 a month 
plus interest. 

Senator Goldwater. Actually, the money you spent for politics you 
did not even have ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. You were spending the bank's money. They 
pay taxes on that. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, it isn't the bank's money after they loan it. 
Senator Goldwater. It is the bank's money until you pay "it back. 
Are the records of this special fund available I 

Mr. MiKESELL. Certainly ; I think they are, sir. I don't have them. 
Senator Mundt. Mr. Mikesell, why did you not bring them in re- 
sponse to the subpena ? The subpena covered them. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Vavrous has the records of the special account. 
He is the statistician. I have never had them in my charge, Senator. 
Senator Muxdt. But the subpena was served on you as secretary- 
treasurer of joint council No. 37. It specifically stipulates that they 
are part of the records that the subpena covers. Why did you not 
bring them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It never occurred to me. 



880 IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Did you read what the subpena provided ? Wlien 
you were packinij: your bag and getting ready, did you read what you 



me: 



were supposed to br 

Mr. MiKESELL. Very hurriedly ; yes. As I say, I never had the sub- 
pena in my possession. 

Senator Mundt. It is rather important. It is not just like getting 
a Christmas gre-^ting card. They are important. It says here the 
bank statements, bankbooks, canceled checks, et cetera, and then it 
goes down and says financial records, books of account, which will show 
each and every record pertaining to the union expenditures made to or 
in behalf of a lot of people, and then it adds at the bottom, "but not 
limited to general entertainment, public relations, legal fees, political 
contributions." It is right in there in black and white. 

The subpena called for it. Has that book been destroyed? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Oh, I certainly do not believe that any records have 
been destroyed. 

Senator Muivdt. You are positive that the book 

Mr. MiKESELL. With regards to the special account unit. 

Senator ISIundt. That the book Senator Goldwater is talking about 
is in existence ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I am not positive, 1)ecause I have never had anything 
to do with it. 

Senator jMfndt. Yon just got through raying that you certainly did 
not believe any records had been destroyed. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know any reason why they should be. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. What is the name of the man in charge of it? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Anthony Vavrous. His signature appears on the 
check. 

Senator Mundt. Anthony Vavrous. 

Senator Goldwater. This is a very interesting thing, and I would 
like to have your answer to this. At the time this special fund was 
set up, disbursements were to be made from it on checks signed by 
Clyde Crosby and Anthony Vavrous. Neither Mr. Crosby nor Vav- 
rous were officers of the joint council at that time, were they? 

(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Crosby is recording secretary. 

Senator Goldwater. He is, but he was not at that time. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Oh, yes. Mr. Crosby has been recording secretary 
and a member of the board of the joint council. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Crosby was a member of joint council 37 
when the fund was set up ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg vour pardon. Senator. Would vou repeat 
that? 

Senator Goldwater. Was Mr. Crosby an officer of joint council 37 
at the time this special fund was established ? 

]\Ir. MiKESELL. May I elaborate just a little bit ? 

Senator Goldwater. Well, yes or no and then you can go on. 

Mr. MiKESELL. He was an officer. 

Senator Goldwater. He was an officer ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. A recording secretary and member of the board. 

Senator Goldwater. At that time ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you sign the checks for the building fund ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 881 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever think it unusual that you were 
given the authority to sign the checks out of this special fund ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Does that occur rather often in union activities, 
where the secretary-treasurer had no control, no full control, over the 
money ( 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, I saw no reason why there should be any ques- 
tion with regard to this particular item. The building fund is actu- 
ally a part 

Senator Goldwater. Well, the building fund we have eliminated. 
But is this a customary practice ? It seems rather strange to me that 
a treasurer does not have absolute control over 100 percent of the 
funds that his particular unit is charged with. I have never heard of 
it before, in business or out of business. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I never raised any point. 

Senator Goldwait^r. I do not question that. It might not have 
done any good to raise the point. But the fact is still there, of a 
special account that is being used for political purposes, mostly, and 
yet you as a treasurer cannot draw on it, you have no authority over 
it, and Mr. Crosby has carte blanche entry to the account. He can 
do what he wants with it. That is very strange. 

Mr. JMiKESELL. I will say this, if I may. Senator. In my particular 
position as secretary-treasurer of the Joint Council, I am entirely 
unfamiliar with the political situation in the State of Oregon. 

Senator Goldwater. We are not talking about that. We are talk- 
ing about money. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I am a Washingtonian. 

Senator Goldwater. We are talking about money. It seems strange 
to me, and I would think it would seem strange to you, that you all 
of a sudden find yourself in a position where you cannot say how 
much money you have, where you have no say over some $24,000 that 
is going to come out of your general fund sooner or later. Yet you 
are making payments, I believe, at the rate of $1,000 a month plus 
interest out of your general fund each month, are you not ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Eight. May I say this, that Mr. Vavrous, who is our 
statistician and researcher, is also quite active politically. That was 
the reason that we put him on this particular fund. If it was to go 
for political purposes, any part of it, he would be familiar with it. 
We thought it was more expedient to handle it that way than any 
other way. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you one further question. Were 
you elected to the office that you hold ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I was, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. By the Council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat would the elective body consist of? 
How many people ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The Joint Council would consist of all of the 23 
affiliated local unions, their elected representatives and executive 
boards as delegates, which would constitute 

Senator Goldwater. Let us get down to the rank and file members. 
Just the heads of the locals constitute the councils ? 

89330— 57— pt. 3 9 



882 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IMiKESELL. The members of your boards are rank and file 
members. 

Senator Goldwater. When were you elected to that job ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I was elected the last time in 1954, 1 believe. 

Senator Goldwater. How often do you stand for election ? 

Mr. JViiKESELL. Three years, every three years. 

Senator Goldwater. I have nothing further. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Pursuing this line of questioning about your 
election and for how long a term, and such, you indicate that you 
are elected by the officers. You mean the officers of the various local 
unions, do you, or what ? 

Mr. ^liKESELL. Correct. Our Joint Council is composed of affiliated 
local unions throughout the State of Oregon and the five and one-half 
southwest counties of Washinton. 

Senator McNamara. Does the local union decide who represents 
them in the Joint Council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator McNamara. Does the local union decide who represents 
them in the district council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Their officers, of course, are elected within the local 
union by the members of the local union. And the bylaws of the 
Joint Council say that any elected member of the executive board, 
which constitutes seven members, is a delegate to the Joint Comicil. 

Senator McNamara. I see. 

Now tell me : What happens in the case of a trusteeship local ? Do 
they have delegates to the western conference, or joint council, what- 
ever it is ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, indeed. 

Senator McNamara. How are they selected ? Not by the rank and 
file? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That I would not be too definite on, but in my own 
opinion in most cases, even in your locals who are in receivership, 
your executive board is still selected by the membership. Either the 
prior executive board is retained or additional elections are made. 
So they operate very, very similarly insofar as we are concerned to an 
autonomous local, when they are under receivership or trusteeship. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know about how many locals of this 
council are in trusteeship ? 

Mv. ^MiKESELL. I think there are at the present time 3 or 4. 

Senator McNamara. Out of how many ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Out of 23. 

Senator McNamara. Three or four out of 23 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. There were 7 or 8, and just last year 3 or 4 
of them were taken out. 

Senator McNamara. It is your opinion, then, that the delegates to 
the council are not appointed by the man w^ho is placed in charge of 
the local union by the national office ? 

(At this point, Senator Kenned}^ entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. Definitely not. Mr. Crosby has been very anxious 
to get all of the local unions within the joint council out from under 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 883 

receivership. He has been working constantly toward that. We give 
them help as much as possible from our salaried personnel in the joint 
council. 

Senator McXamail^. You said there were 7 under trusteeship and 
now there are 3 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think there are three. 

Senator McNamara. When were these four eliminated from trustee- 
ship ; recently or over a long period ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, that was just last year. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

The Chairjian. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as the expenses for the international organ- 
izer, did the joint council pay some of those expenses '( 

Mr. MiKESELL. There may be, on occasion, some expenses paid by the 
joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice in here pretty regularly about once every 
week you were paying Clyde Crosby. Doesn't he get his expenses from 
the international ? 

Mr. MiKESELL, Limited expenses ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you pay him expenses also ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, we do not, as a regular matter. He does serve 
on the board, as I stated, as recording secretary and I believe there is 
a check for $20 a week written to him on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You pay him $20 a week for what ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Serving as recording secretary. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you put that under expenses. What is "Ex- 
penses, political committee, 75'"? That is PolCom, for Clyde Crosby. 
Wliat would that have to do with, in August of 1956 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL- That would be hard for me to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is under delegates expense allowances. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is under delegates expense allowances. Why 
would he get $75 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It may be some particular meeting that he attended 
and was allowed that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he not get his expenses from the international ? 
Is that not the way the constitution is set up ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. He receives limited expenses from the international. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by limited expenses? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know just what his expenses are, but I know 
he does not receive very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he receive $12 or $13 a day ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Something like that, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you supplement that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. At times, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You give him $20 a week ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is for services to the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. It savs expenses, officers and delegates expenses, 
August 31, 1956, $20 ; August 25, 1956, $20. You do not have it in here. 
It says officers and delegates expense allowances. 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is regualr. That will appear regularly each 
week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you paying him $20 a week ? 



884 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because he serves as recording secretary of the joint 
council, and renders service to the joint council. That was voted by 
the membership, and is a part of the bylaws of the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was your attorney during this period of time, 
1956? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Cliff O'Brien. 

Mr. Kennedy. Cliff O'Brien ? When did he become your attorney ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. When our former attorney died, Jim Landye. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any other attorney, other than Cliff 
O'Brien ^ 

Mr. MiKESELL. We may have had. At different times we had a 
tremendous attorney expense during the past 2 years on various things 
which have come up, the National Labor Relations Board and others. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you know who paid the expenses when Mr. 
O'Brien went down to Arizona for Mr. Crosby? Who paid those 
expenses of Mr. O'Brien ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the joint council pay them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know if they have ever been paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible they might have paid 
them? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think so. I think I would have known if 
they had been paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Tanner^ What services was he 
performing ? Do you know Mr. Tanner ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know Mr. Tanner ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I know him, yes. I have met him since I came to 
Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of any services he was performing? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know him as the attorney for Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I kaow Mr. Tanner. As I say, I have met him as 
I came to Washington, and I understand he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understand he is the attorney for Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I understand that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you do not know of any services he performed 
for your joint council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have an entry in this book, dated the 21st of 
August 1956, Check No. 2782, K. C. Tanner, retainer fee, $5,000. That 
is Mr. Langley's attorney. What were you paying Mr. Langley's at- 
torney $5,000 for ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I am sorry, I couldn't inform you, Mr. Kennedy, as 
to the 

Mr. Kennedy. This is $5,000 of union money, union dues being used 
to pay Mr. Langely's attorney, in August of 1956. It is Check No. 
2782. Do you want to see it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir, I would like to. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. I have never met Mr. Tanner until I met liim here 
in Washington, D. C. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 885 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get a voucher for that bill ? Did you receive 
a voucher ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. How do you mean a voucher ? 

j\Ir. Kennedy. Did you ever receive a bill from Mr. Tamier ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, there must have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those books and records, those bills have been sub- 
penaed. Where are they ? Would not your records show it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think probably the auditors' report there would 
show it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any records yourself to show what Mr. 
Tanner was doing ? 

Mr. ]\Iikesell. I doubt it now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not have any records at all showing what Mr. 
Tanner was doing for the Joint Council 37? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We have had a number of — you will also find on a 
ledger report there, I am sure, expenditures and payments which have 
been made to Dick Morse, wlio is also an attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me this : Did you pay out $5,000 from Joint 
Council 37 and not know how it was used? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It does seem a little silly, doesn't it ? 

]Mr. Kennedy. Yes, it does. 

The CiiAiKiiAN. Do you not know it was paid to this attorney to 
represent Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

The CiiAiR^iAN. Do you not know you paid union funds, union dues 
out of union funds, to Mr. Tanner to represent Mr. Langley? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, I do not. 

The Chairman. T\Tiat did you pay him for ? You ought to know. 
You are the treasurer, and you pay the bill. You should have seen it, 
you should have located it, you should have known something about it. 

Mr. MiKESELL. AVliat phase, what particular phase, of our troubles 
that Mr. Tanner is representing us in, I do not know. 

The Chairman. You have no idea ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. N"o. 

The Chairman. If you liad the correspondence about it, and your 
vouchers and your bills, you could refer to them and find out, could 
you not ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think there was ever any correspondence 
about it. 

The Chairman. Who told you to write the check ? Where did you 
get that authority or instruction ? Can you answer that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, I cannot truthfully answer you for what 
reason that clieck was written. 

The Chairman. Would you say this is kind of a strange thing, hav- 
ing your organization out there, j^our labor organization paying the 
attorney of Mr. I^angley ? Is that not a little strange to you ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think it is probably a coincidence. Senator. 

The Chairman. Caji you explain the coincidence ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, I cannot. 

The Chairman. The other action, item, or circumstance that caused 
it to be coincident ? Can you explain it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There is no reason for me to tell you something that 
I do not know to be the truth, and I am not going to, because I do not 
know. 



886 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right. We will leave it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^Vlien you retained an attorney, who would know 
about it better than you ? 

Mr, MiKESELL. Probably nobody should. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then if you retained an attorney for $5,000, you 
would know about it, would you not? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I should know about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he was retained ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, I do not know that he was retained. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Tell me this : Do you know of any services that he 
performed for the teamsters during this period of time ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not. And if anybody would know, it would 
be you, is that correct ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, I wouldn't say that. I should know about it. 
I should remember it. I don't remember any circumstance at the pres- 
ent time. 

Senator Mundt. Who else in your organization would order the 
payment of a $5,000 check besides the secretary-treasurer? Is there 
somebody else who could do that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There are only two of us that sign the checks, and 
that is Mr. Steele, the president, and myself. 

Senator Mundt. Do both of you sign them or does either one sign 
them alone? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We both sign them. 

Senator Mundt. So you both must have signed this check. 

Mr, MiKESELL. When I leave town, I sign checks to carry on the 
business while I am gone, and when he leaves town, he leaves signed 
checks to carry on the business while he is gone. However, they have 
to be countersigned by one or the other before they are valid. 

Senator Mundt. 'V'\^io is the other fellow who signs the checks ? 

Mr, MiKESELL. Mr. Steele, who was served with a subpena. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question 
or two at this point. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Langley is an attorney, I take it. Does he 
have a law firm, or is he just an individual attorney ? Does he have 
a law firm ? Are there other attorneys associated with him, as far as 
you know? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Langley is district attorney of Multnomah 
County. 

Senator McNamara. And he does not have a law practice outside 
of that as far as you know ? 

Mr. MiKESELL, That I couldn't say, Senator, I know his father has 
been in the law business in Portland for many years. 

Senator McNamara, You do not live in Oregon ? 

Mr, MiKESELL, No, I do not. I live in Washington. 

Senator McNamara. This question would probably be more prop- 
erly directed to someone who lives in Oregon, who knows about the 
operation. Is that your idea ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There are many things in the Oregon political sit- 
uation, and otherwise, that I am not familiar with. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 887 

Senator McNamara. Does this check appear to be paid to Mr. 
Langley while he was district attorney ? Is that it? Was it during 
that period ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That was August 1956, of this year, that the check 
was made to Mr. Tanner. 

Senator McNamara. Was he at that time the district attorney ? 

Mr. JVIiKESELL. Yes, he was. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Can you think of any way that we can throw some 
more light on this check? The check is very important. To my 
mind, it is sort of a link, and the most important link, between all of 
the allegations which we have had before us, with Langley, in collu- 
sion witli Mr. Maloney, and certain people in the teamsters miion to 
spread rackets through Portland. 

Now it is rather shocking to see a $5,000 check paid by the teamsters 
union to the attorney for Mr. Langley. That seems like a mighty 
important link. It sort of buttons this thing up. I think it is in 
your interest, sir, to try to find us some better reason than that you 
cannot remember. I would gather from your testimony that what 
you want us to believe is that you left a blank check with your signa- 
ture on it, and this other gentleman countersigned it and put it in the 
name of Mr. Tanner. It seems to me if he did that, he must have 
said something to you about it when you got back. That is a pretty 
good size check. 

You gave Mr. Maloney a lot of checks, but you gave the money to 
him in dribbles. But a $5,000 check is pretty good size money. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Senator, I don't want to leave the impression that in 
my opinion, this check was written on behalf of Mr. Langley. I don't 
believe it was. 

As I say, we have had a great deal of litigation in the joint council, 
for individuals within the joint council, during the i)ast 3 or 4 years, 
and 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me if my name was Jones or Bloke or 
Smith, and I had written a check for the attorney to Mr. Langley 
for illegitimate reasons, I would have destroyed the records or had 
them destroyed. If I had written them for good and proper reasons, 
I would have some voucher for it, or some correspondence, or some 
documentary proof as to what the check was written for. 

Are you telling us that there is nothing in your files, nothing in 
your records, that everything has bieen wiped off clean so we have 
to rely on your memory only for a check of that size? Or do you 
believe you can find this documentary evidence as to why Mr. Tanner 
submitted a bill for $5,000 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That I wouldn't answer. In my opinion, the docu- 
mentary evidence will probably be in the files. 

Senator Mundt. In the files ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I believe so. 

Senator Mundt. Before you came to Washington in response to the 
subpena, you must have gone through the files, in accordance with 
the subpena. You did not willfully and deliberately, I am sure, try 
to fool this committee by not bringing the records we requested in 
to the committee, did you ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, I gave Mr. Williams full access. 



888 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You looked through the files painstakmgly and 
accurately, trying to find the correspondence and papers. Did you 
find that correspondence ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I didn't go through the files at all, sir. I gave full 
access to the files to Mr. Williams, who represents the committee. 

Senator Mundt. He had full access to the file ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In what file would you suggest we have Mr. Wil- 
liams look to find the information on this matter ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That should probably — he is able to contact Miss 
Noack, there, Angela Noack. She is the secretary that would have 
the information. She would be the one that he would have to see. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I suggest, then, that we have 
counsel, during the noon hour, contact Mr. Williams by telephone and 
have him go today to the appropriate office where Miss Noack is, and 
see whether or not there is anything in the file. If this is a legitimate 
transaction, it certainly is in the file. If it is not, I am sure the papers 
have been destroyed. 

Mr, Kennedy. Again we come back to the fact that Mr. Mikesell 
has informed us that the records for that period of time, August 1956, 
have been destroyed. He has already stated, that, Senator Mundt. 
Those records have been destroyed. 

Senator Mundt. But he has just told me that there would be a 
record in the file, and that Miss Noack would know about it, if this, 
indeed, is a legitimate transaction. I do not know whether it is or 
not. He has told us that. I think we should give credence to what 
he has told us. Call up Mr. Williams, have him see Miss Noack, and 
find out whether we are being deceived or not. It is a pretty easy 
thing to do for about a $3.75 phone call. 

The Chaerman. The Chair will direct that that expenditure be 
made. 

"Wliile we are talking about attorney" fees, let us talk about another 
one for a minute. Who is your general attorney or regularly retained 
attorney for joint council 37 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Cliff O'Brien. 

The Chairman. When did he become general counsel ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Upon the death of James Landye. 

The Chairman. Give me some date. How long ago ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Early in 1956, 1 believe. 

The Chairman. Early 1956. "What salary do you pay him as a 
retainer fee ? 

Mr, MiKESELL. Well, the retainer fee has been such a small item 
compared to overall cost of our attorney bills. 

The Chairman. All right, then, what fund do you pay it from ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The general fund. 

The Chairman. All of his fees are paid out of the general fund ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, si r. 

The Chairman. They are not paid out of the special fund? 

Mr. Mikesell. Well, as I say, I would be unable to say in regard 
to the special fimd, I couldn't make that statement because I do not 
know. 

The Chairman, You would not know about that ? 

Mr, MiKESELL. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 889 

The Chairman. Who would know about it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Vavrous and Mr. Crosby signed the checks. 

The Chairman. I note here that he was paid by check from the 
special fund on August 21, by check No. 518 out of the special fund, 
that he was given a check for $3,000. Was that on the occasion when 
he interceded to make arrangements for Mr. Crosby to have the 
records of his conviction expunged out in Nevada or Arizona ? Do you 
recall that? 

Mr. JNIiKESELL. Mr. Crosby would be in a better position to answer 
that than I would. 

The Chairman. He would be in a better position to answer than 
you would ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because I don't know. 

The Chairman. You do not know anything about that? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know when this happened in Arizona. 

The Chairman. It is about the same time. Maybe he can explain it. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, when I was asking the witness 
questions previously, I assumed that the check for $5,000 was made 
out to Mr. Langley. I find out now it was made out to Mr. Tanner. 

Is ]Mr. Tanner an attorney in Oregon or in Washington ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, he is in Oregon. He is a Portland, Oreg., 
attorney. 

Senator McNamara. And apparently the record indicates he was 
an attorney for Mr. Langley, is that correct ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is what I have found since I came to Wash- 
ington. 

Senator McNamara. Did you have any knowledge that he was 
employed by the teamsters union in any manner, to do work for them? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I didn't know that Mr. Tanner was on any retainer 
fee from the teamsters or had been paid any money by the teamsters. 

Senator McNamara. You did not know it until it was just now 
brought to your attention ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. As I say, I didn't meet Mr. Tanner until 
I came back here. 

Senator McNaimara. Do you know anything about Mr. Tanner's law 
firm? Does he have associates, or is it an individual attorney? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No; I think he has associates. He is a very well 
known and reputable attorney in Portland. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Mikesell 
a few rather irrelevant questions as far as his particular duties are 
concerned, but they are for my own information. 

Do you know Mr. Tom Maloney ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I met Tom Maloney in the fall of 1954 when he came 
into the political campaign, and I probably talked to him a half-dozen 
times. 

Senator Mundt. Where did you meet him, Mr. Mikesell ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. In the Teamsters' Building, in Portland. 

Senator Mundt. In Seattle ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No; in Portland. 

Senator Mundt. In Portland? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You live in Seattle ? 



890 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKEsELL. I live in Vancouver, Wash., just across the river from 
Poi-thmd. 

Senator Mundt, On your trips to Portland, you met him maybe a 
half-dozen times in the Teamsters' Building in Portland ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did your discussions with him all involve political 
matters, would you say ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I never had very much discussion with him, sir, 
because, as I say, my interests were very little involved, except insofar 
as it was related to the business of the joint council, on the political 
situation. 

Senator Mi xdt. I am sure you axe not very close to him, if you do 
not know him very well. But as you met him and talked to him in the 
Teamsters' Building in Portland, did you look upon him as a Team- 
sters' official or a union member or a newspaper reporter ? What did 
you think he was ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I would hate to tell you. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to know. 

Mr. MiKESELL, No; I never had a great deal of respect for Tom 
Maloney. He was, to my knowledge — he worked hard at whatever 
he had to do, I guess, but he was more or less of a drifter and a chiseler. 

Senator jMundt. "\Vliat did you think his connection was with the 
teamsters that you should meet him so frequently in the Teamsters 
Building in Portland? 

Mr. JMiKESEix. Well, I thought he was just in there to help what 
he could in trying to prosecute the campaign to elect our candidates. 

Senator Mundt'. Where did you meet him? Did you meet him in 
the coriidor ? Did 3'ou meet him in the office of Mr. Crosby ? Did you 
meet him in Mr. Hildreth's office? Where did you meet him? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I might meet him any place around the building. 

Senator Mundt. He seemed quite familiar with the building, as 
tlkoiigli lie had been there quite a bit? 

Mr. MiKESELL. He was just walking around. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever meet Mr. McLaughlin? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. I never saw Mr. McLaughlin until I ar- 
rived in Washington. 

Senator Mundt. You never saw him before? 

Mr. IMiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever meet Mr. Hy Goldbaum ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir ; I never did. 

Senator Mundt. You never saw him. 

Did you ever meet Mr. Elkins ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. I had never met Mr. Elkins. 

Senator Mundt. Is your office in Washington in the same building 
as Mr. Brewster's office? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. I am in Vancouver, Wash. He is in 
Seattle. 

Senator Mundt. I thought that was your home. But your busi- 
ness address is also Vancouver ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Senator Mundt. So somebody visiting back and forth in Brewster's 
office would, of course, not come to your attention ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 891 

Senator Mundt. I was under tlie impression you lived in Vancouver 
but worked in Seattle. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

The Chairiman. The Chair wishes to ask you 1 or 2 questions, which 
I think might be very important. 

I am reading from a report of the staff, one of the investigators, 
and I just wanted to determine about the accuracy of it. In our ef- 
forts of trying to get the facts here, we run into so many difficulties in 
getting answers and getting the facts because they do not remember 
or something else, so I want to get this straight one way or the other 
from your testimony. 

I will read part of this report. It is King's report for the period 
ending July 31, 1956, and December 31, 1956. I will ask you if you 
know who King is and what his reports are. Is he connected with 
the labor council out there, the joint comicil? King is your auditor, 
I believe. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. He is with a firm of accountants. 

The Chairjman. That is what I asked you. 

King's reports for the periods of July 31, 1956, and December 31, 1956, men- 
tioned a loan from the Citizens Branch of the United States National Bank to 
joint council 37 in the amount of $20,000. This money was not deposited in the 
regular bank account, but was set up on an account designated as "special fund," 
and was not run through the regular records of cash receipts. 

Did that $i^0,000, to your knowledge, go into the special fund about 
which you have been testifying, and not through the general fund? 
Mr. MiKESELL. That is correct, sir. 
The Chairman (reading) : 

Disbursements from this bank account were not entered in the regular records 
of cash disbursements. 

That is this record here, is it [indicating] ? The special fund was 
not carried in this record. 
Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 
The Chairman. That much is correct. 
Now: 

The executive board of joint council 37 did approve this loan and authorized 
the proceeds to be set up in a "special fund," disbursements from which were 
to be made on checks signed by Clyde C. Crosby and Anthony Vavrous. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is correct. 

The Chairman. This is what I want to know, and if you have 
the records to prove it I want to get those records. 

This says, according to the investigators, what they learned : 

Neither Crosby nor Vavrous was an officer of joint council 37 at that time 
although Vavrous does hold the position of statistician.. 

Now, were these officers of joint council 37 from July 31, 1956, to 
December 31, 1956? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Clyde Crosby is recording secretary of joint council 
37, and a member of the executive board. 

The Chairman. How long has be been such ? I am not saying it 
is true or not, but I just want to get the record straight. 

Mr. MiKESELL. He was elected as recording secretary when he was 
secretary-treasurer of local 162, the largest local in the joint coimcil. 



892 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Give me a time. How long ago ? I am trying to 
get this covered. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think he was elected in 1953. 

The Chairman. You think he was elected in 1953. Then if he was 
elected in 1953, and he continued to hold office, this would be an error, 
that Crosby was not an officer. He would be an officer at that time and, 
therefore, authority was delegated on this loan of the special fund, 
for Crosby, as an officer of joint council 37, to sign the checks on the 
special fund ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. As a member of the executive board. 

The Chairman. So he does have the authority to sign these special 
fund checks ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. He does, because he has been delegated that 
authority. 

The Chairman. He has been delegated that authority bv joint coun- 
cil 37? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Right. 

The Chairman. What position does Mr. Vavrous hold ? What offi- 
cial position? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Vavrous is statistician and research director. 

The Chairman. Is that an office? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not an elective office. He is an employee. 

The Chairman. It is not an elective office, but he is an employee? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. 

The Chairman. So you had Mr. Crosby and an employee signing the 
checks on the special fund. 

Senator Mundt. Who would be the appointing officer of Mr. 
Vavrous ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. Who appointed your statistician, Mr. Vavrous ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The statistician was appointed by the executive 
board and concurred in by the joint council in a regular meeting. 

Senator Mtjndt. Who would nominate him to the board? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Vavrous is not a member of the board. 

Senator Mundt. No, but you said he was appointed by the board, 
so somebody had to bring his name before the board. I say who 
nominated him for the position? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I believe Mr. Ward Graham, who was at that time 
secretary-treasurer of the Joint Council. That was prior to 1954. 
I think he brought his name in. He used to be employed by the war- 
no, by the Wage Stabilization Board. 

Seiiator Mundt. With the Government ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. So he was appointed or nominated for appoint- 
ment by your predecessor as secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. MiKESELL. By our then secretary-treasurer. 

Senator Mundt. And who was your immediate predecessor ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I was president at that time, but I was lal^er, upon 
his resignation, I became secretary-treasurer. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask a question in connection 
with this $20,000 loan. Do you know who negotiated it? ^^^o went 
to the bank ? 



EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 893 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. Mr. Mike Steele and myself. 

Senator McNamara. What security did you have for it? What 
was put up in security for the $20,00 at the bank ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Just the o;ood name of the Joint Council. 

Senator McNamara. Nothing for security except the name of the 
Joint Council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. In other words, the fund of the Joint Council 
was the security for the $20,000 loan? 

Mr. MiKESELL. There was no guarantee except the signing of a note. 

Senator McNamara. Was this a personal transaction rather than 
a union transaction ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Wlien you say it was just a guarantee, that 
the signing of the note was a guarantee, does that mean that the peo- 
ple who signed the note guaranteed the $20,000 and not the union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We did. Of course we rendered a financial state- 
ment. We also furnished — I don't know what you would call it. 
It was a contract of payment, I guess, besides the note, and more or 
less of a statement of assets and liabilities. But it was negotiated 
between the bank and the Joint Council. 

Senator McNamara. And the funds of the Joint Council were 
pledged in payment, in your estimation ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Right. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I just talked to Mr. Mike Steele 
on the telephone, and he stated that he had never heard of Mr. Tanner 
doing any work for the Teamsters or the Joint Council, that he had 
no knowledge that he was retained, and that he was very surprised 
to hear that there was a check to him. 

I talked to Miss Noack, also, the secretary, and she said that when 
she looked through the correspondence file, she said there was no 
correspondence file dealing with this subject, that she had received 
instructions from someone, and she doesn't remember whom, to make 
a check out for $5,000 to Mr. Tanner. But she does not know any- 
thing more about it than that. 

Mr. Steele, to go back to him 

The Chairman. Wlio is Mr. Steele ? 

Mr. Kennedy. President of the Joint Council. 

Senator Mundt. And the man who countersigns the checks with 
Mr. Mikesell. 

Mr. Mikesell. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He says he has no knowledge of any work that Mr. 
Tanner did for the joint council or for the teamsters. He never 
saw liim around the building doing any work for the teamsters. 
He has no information as to why he was retained. Miss Noack just 
merely says she remembers the name and remembers somebody in- 
structing her to write out a check for $5,000 ; that it could have been 
Mr. Mikesell, it could have been Mr. Mike Steele, or it could have 
been Mr. Clyde Crosby, or possibly other members of the board, but 
she doesn't have any further information on that. 

The Chairman. Does the committee think it is necessary that they 
be subpenaed and bring them in here and have them testify to it? I 
think in view of that 



894 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I would say, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how to 
answer that question as a member of the United States Senate. But 
if I were a teamster paying dues to the union, I would certainly 
favor a subpena to laiow what was happening to my money. 

The Chairman. The point is the Chair is trying to operate as 
economically as Ave can. If there is any question about it, if the 
witness questions the report we have in anywaj^, I would like him 
to question it now, to make any statement to question it if he desires 
to do so. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is a good idea. 

Have you any reason to believe that Mr. Mike Steele is not telling 
our counsel the truth on the telephone ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Do you mean Mike Steele ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator Mundt. You are willing to accept what he told us ? 

Mr, MiKESELL. I haven't anything definite that I can say at all on 
it, except insofar as our legal technicalities have been involved in the 
past. I think we paid out in the year of 1956 about $21,000 or more 
in attorney fees. Attorney fees have been quite a considerable 

Senator Mundt. Name one of these other attorneys. Mr. Morse, 
you said. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Dick Morse. 

Senator Mundt. Who employed him ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. He was emploj^ed by the joint council in a certain 
phase of one of our 

Senator Mundt. At a meeting of the joint council, you discussed it 
and selected him, right ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, he was drawn into it by a Government agency. 

Senator Mundt. By whom ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. By a Government agency. He represented certain 
people who were involved in litigation in which we were one of the 
participants. Dick Morse 

Senator Mundt. If he was representing a Government agency, you 
would not be paying the money, surely. 

Mr. MiKESELL. The NLEB, the National Labor Relations Board. 

Senator Mundt. Let me get that straight. He was representing 
them, working for them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you were paying him ? That does not make 
sense. Start again. You left the wrong impression in my mind, 
certainly. 

Mr. MiKESELL. He was representing the security office, which is in 
the same building with the Joint Council. The security office handles 
all health and welfare funds for all of the members coming under 
Joint Council No. 37. Consequently, this suit was brought jointly 
against the security office and the Joint Council. 

We had our attorney, and Mr. Dick Morse, and one of the trustees 
of the security office, representing a large segment of employers who 
contributed to the health and welfare and went through the office, 
was chosen by the trustees to represent the security office. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. Name another attorney to whom they 
paid money at this time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 895 

Mr. MiKESELL. We also paid money to Jim Landye who at that time 
was alive. 

Senator Mundt. How was he employed ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. And to Cliff O'Brien. 

Senator INIundt. Tell us how Mr. Jim Landye was employed. Who 
selected him ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Jim Landye was the regular attorney. 

Senator Mundt. You paid additional money to Jim Landye. Jim 
Landye was at that time the regular attorney for the Teamsters, and 
you may have paid him a little extra because he was doing some extra 
work? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Right. 

Senator IMundt. You mentioned a Landye. What was his work ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Landye was associated with a law firm. I believe 
the name of the firm was Anderson, Franklyn and Landye. On his 
death, Mr. O'Brien became associated with the firm, and he was the 
attorney then who represented us. 

Senator Mundt. Can you name any other attorney to whom you 
paid money during this period of litigation, of troubles, that you had ? 

Mr. ]VIiKESELL. No. I think the most of it went through 

Senator Mundt. Those three fellows ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The office, yes. 

Senator INIundt. You see, this is a peculiar situation. You know 
exactly how you happened to employ Mr. Landye, and so do we. 
You know exactly how you happened to employ Mr. O'Brien, and so 
do we. You know exactly how you happened to employ Mr. Morse, 
and so do we. It is all very possible, all very logical, all very proper. 
But just nobody knows how you happened to employ Mr. Tanner and 
give him $5,000, except evidence shows that he is the attorney to Mr. 
Langley, who has been many times indicted. The evidence throughout 
this testimony links together Mr. Langley, the Teamster officials, Tom 
Maloney, Mr. McLaughlin. We have a very important link now in 
the form of a $5,000 check which shows up in your books, that you 
paid to this man, very conclusive evidence that you were paying him, 
in my opinion, for something improper. 

I am trying to get you to refresh your memory by asking you these 
other questions as to why in the world you paid $5,000 to Mr. Tanner. 
Your associate who countersigned the check says he never heard of 
him, knew nothing about it, and he never did any work that he knows 
about. 

You tell us exactly the same thing. You led me to believe, as a 
matter of fact, that probably you had signed the check in blank, and 
Mr. Mike Steel had written in the name and countersigned it, in ac- 
cordance with the way you have handled certain checks. 

But we have nothing in the records indicating any legitimate reason 
at all why Mr. Langley's attorney should be subsidized to the extent of 
$5,000, paid out by the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, Senator, as I said before, litigation which I 
went into specifically doesn't, by any means, cover the litig:''ion in 
which members and employees of our joint council are involved in in 
the city of Portland. It is unfortunate, but that is true. The grand 
jury hearings, indictments, and other things which have been rendered 
against our people 



896 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Because of involvements with Mr. Langley, right ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because of so-called actions of which they are not 
guilty. 

Senator Mundt. I did not say they were guilty. I said there were 
involvements with Mr. Langley. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I know, I say that advisedly, I say that with all my 
heart. 

In my opinion, this Mr. Tanner is probably in some connection in 
the defense of those suits. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is right, including Mr. Langley. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Money means nothing where men's good names are 
at stake. There are a lot of good names being dragged through the 
mud on this thing. 

Senator Mundt. Why would the Teamsters be interested in pro- 
tecting the good name of Mr. Langley ? That is what I cannot under- 
stand. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think Mr. Tanner is employed by the joint 
council to defend Mr. Langley. I think he is, if he is employed, I 
think he is employed by the joint council to defend our own people. 

Senator Mundt. A^^lich ones ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know any place you could get any more 
specific information about this check ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know any 

Senator Mundt. You suggested Miss Noack, and we got her on the 
phone quickly. You suggested we contact Mr. Mike Steel, and we 
got him on the phone immediately. All we got was a couple of goose 
eggs, as far as information was concerned. It was of no help. 

We are simply trying to find the facts. We have listened to this 
evidence for weeks. Here comes a very important link in the chain, 
and you give us no help at all. 

(At this point. Senator McNamara withdrew from the hearing 
room. ) 

The Chairman. I want to ask you just one question. I think maybe 
you have been asked this. 

Did you give instructions to this girl to write this check to Mr. 
Tanner? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I certainly signed it. 

The Chairman. Did you give her instructions to write the check ? 
She said someone told her to make out a check to Mr. Tanner. Did 
you give her those instructions ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't remember. Senator. I don't remember the- 
transaction. That sounds silly, too, but I don't remember the check 
being made out. 

The Chairman. You could have done so ? 

Mr. jNIikesell. I could have done so. 

The Chairman. In your position of responsibility, a check of that 
size, would you not have some information about — when was it 
issued ': 

Mr. Kennedy. August 1956. 

The Chairman. In August 1956, about 7 or 8 months ago. Would 
not you be able to remember writing a check or some circumstance 
that caused you to direct that a check be written for your signature,, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 897 

to pay out $5,000 of the union money to an attorney that had not 
been previously employed? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It looks that I would, yes. 

The Chairman. It certainly does. 

Senator Mundt. It not only looks like you would, but do you not 
really think in your heart that you would? Do you not think that 
if you had given those instructions, you would remember? 

Mr. MiKESELii. Not necessarily. 

Senator Mundt. Hoav many checks a month for $5,000 do you 
sign ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not very many. 

Senator Mundt. How many would you say you signed in 6 months ? 
The books do not disclose very many. According to the books there 
are not very many. 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So if you signed a check for $5,000 for a man 
that you did not know, whose services you could not understand, if 
you had told the girl "Make out a check to Mr. Tanner for $5,000", 
you certainly would remember that you told her to write that cheeky 
would you not ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It looks like it. 

Senator Mundt. I think so. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. I am not accusing you of having instructed her, 
but I am simply pointing out that to me it is unthinkable that you 
could have been the man giving the instructions and then telling us 
that you could not remember, when probably it is the only $5,000 
check you signed since that date. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Mundt is 
making a very good point, but before we recess for lunch, I think we 
are overlooking another point in that same direction. 

Senator Mundt, the $3,000 check that was written from the special 
fund on the 21st of August to the regular attorney Clifford O^Brien, 
this is just about the time that Mr. Crosby's case was expunged from 
the records of Arizona. I think it might prove very interesting to 
find out why the regular attorney for this council was paid an extra 
sum of money out of a special account over which Mr. Crosby has 
control at about the time his name was cleared in the State of Arizona. 

I think it is important to know because if it is true that Mr. O'Brien 
Avas paid for services rendered to Mr. Crosby, then it is highly im- 
proper that the union or any union concern itself with a record of a 
man that is some 20 years old, and suddenly try to help that man get 
that record expunged. 

I think it is something that we should go into more thoroughly. 

It seems highly irregular to me that a regularly hired attorney 
should be paid an extra amount of $3,000 out of a fund over Avhich you 
have no control but over which Mr. Crosby evidently has full control, 
at about the same time that services were rendered in the State of 
Arizona. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, I might also add that that is on the same day 
as this $5,000 check was dated. 

Senator Goldwater. I did not realize that. That makes it $8,000. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

89330— 57— pt. 3 10 



898 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I suggest we recess for lunch. I have some more 
questions. 

The Chairmax. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 35 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m., the same day. ) 

( Members present at the taking of the recess : The chairman, Sena- 
;:ors Kennedy, Mundt, and Goldwater. ) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The hearing resumed at 2 p. m., Senator Jolin L. McClellan, chair- 
man, presiding.) 

The Chairman. The connnittee will be in order. 

(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan, 
Ives, Mundt, and Goldwater. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Chief Counsel, will you call your first witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, please. 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought it might be well to sort of summarize the 
bills that we have found in this pertinent period to have been paid for 
by the teamsters. We put some of them in the record and we did not 
have time to put some further ones in the record when we met the last 
time. 

The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Calabrese. You have been 
sworn ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. You have previously been sworn to testify before 
this committee in this curent investigation ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have. 

The Chairman. All right, you will remain under the same oath. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, you have already put in the record the 
fact that when Mr. Maloney registered at certain hotels, both in Seattle 
and in Portland, he registered as an organizer for the teamsters, is that 
right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that he had his bills sent to the teamsters head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, for instance, we put in the record already about 
the Olympic Hotel in San Francisco, where Mr. Maloney stayed from 
November 5 to 9, 1954. That bill was paid by the teamsters. 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct, Western Conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was $21 .20, is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That check was signed by Frank Brewster and John 
Sweeney ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, the Olympic Hotel in Seattle, November 26 
to ?>0, 1954, tliat was a bill for $35.86 and that was paid for by the 
Western Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Calabrese. That's correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the Hotel Multnomah, from December 6 
to 11, 1954, that was paid for by the teamsters, is that right? 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 899 

Mr. Calabrese. That was paid originally by the joint council No. 37. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the Olympic Hotel, Seattle, December 11 
to 13, 1954, $27.40 was paid by the teamsters ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlie Western Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Olympic Hotel, Seattle, December 17 to 
19, 1954, $28.86, that was paid for by the teamsters? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir, and I might say, Mr. Kennedy, that that 
record has not been insei'ted yet. We have it here. 

The Chairman. The Chair will be absent for a little while, and 
the vice chairman, Senator Ives, will take the chair. 

Mr. Calabrese. We have a registration, photostatic copy of a regis- 
tration card for Tom INIaloney, 3711 East Second Street, Spokane, 
Wash., at the Olympic Hotel in Seattle, Wash. The registration date 
is December 17, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have that made an exhibit? 

Senator Ives. It is made exhibit No. 50 (The document referred 
to was marked "Exhibit No. 50" for reference and will be found in 
the appendix on pp. 1077-1080.) 

Mr. Calabrese. He stayed 2 days and we have a billing to the West- 
ern Conference of Teamsters for the amount of $28.86. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Olympic Hotel, January 3 to 6, 1955, for 
$44.17, is that right? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was also paid by the Western Conference of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Signed by John Sweeney and Frank Brewster?' 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the joint council 37 paid the Hotel Multnomah 
in Portland, Oreg., from January 6 to February 2, 1955, $241. 50, is 
that right? 

Mr. Calabiiese, That is correct. Incidentally, three items previ- 
ously, December 6 to 11, 1954, stayed at the Hotel Multnomah, they 
stated it was paid by the joint council No. 37, and I stand corrected. 
It was the Western Conference of Teamsters, as you had already 
outlined. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was the Western Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That $241 was paid for by the joint council 37 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for the bills of Tom Maloney and Joe 
McLaughlin? 

Mr. Calabrese. Tom Maloney. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the Western Conference of Teamsters 
paid the Olympic Hotel in Seattle, February 22 to 24, 1955, $17.32, is 
that right ? 

jNIr. Calabrese. Tliat is correct. 

Senator I\t3S. IVIr. Cheasty is going to ask the witness a question. 
INIr. Cheasty. Did the Western Conference of Teamsters pay a 
bill from April 13 to 16, 1955 for Tom Maloney, for quarters at the 
Olympic Hotel in Seattle amounting to $29.13? 
^Ir. Calabrese. That is correct. 



900 IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cheasty. Did the same conference of teamsters pay a bill for 
the same man at the Hotel Benj amine Franklin, from December 16 
to 20, 1955, amounting to $33.73? 

Mr. Calabrese. The records that were turned over by Mr. Mikesell, 
which we spoke of this morning, reflect that this hotel bill was paid 
by the Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37, at Portland, in the sum of 
$33.73, that is correct. I would like to introduce a photostatic copy 
of that ledger indicating that expenditure. 

Senator I\^s. It will be exhibit No. 51. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 51" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix, foldin facing p. 1080.) 

Mr. Cheasty. Did the Western Conference of Teamsters pay a bill 
to Northwest Airlines for transportation for Tom Maloney on Decem- 
ber 18, 1955, in the sum of $18.87? 

Mr. Calabrese, That is correct. 

Mr. Cheasty. And a similar bill to the United Airlines on Novem- 
ber 3, 1955, amounting to $31.35 ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Cheasty. Also, to the United Airlines on December 9, 1955, 
amounting to $31.35 for the same Thomas Maloney ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. That expenditure has not been 
introduced as yet and I have here before me a photostatic copy of an 
air travel card request which was signed by Marjorie Pearson, Western 
Conference of Teamsters Card No. U-Q13110W57104. 

Senator Ives. Do you want to enter that as an exhibit ? It will b.^ 
Exhibit No. 52. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 52" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1081 and 1082. 

Senator Ives. Proceed. 

Mr. Cheasty. Do j^ou have any exhibits covering telephone bills at 
the Park Plaza, Portland Towers, and King Towers, Inc., at which 
Mr. Maloney received and McLaughlin sometimes received? 

Mr. Calabrese. I do. 

Mr. Cheasty. Do you have the bills as follows: March, 1955, for 
$67.80? 

Mr. Calabrese. I believe those figures come from the records that 
Mr. Mikesell turned over to us this morning. I have here the account- 
ing stubs from the telephone company of Portland, Oreg., showing the 
billings to Tom Maloney, care of the Teamsters Building Association, 
1020 Northeast Third Avenue. 

Now, these billings date from February of 1955 through October 17, 
1955. In most insl^ances they correspond with the expenditures as 
were shown in the cash expenditure book of the Joint Council No. 37 
which they turned over to us. 

Senator Ives. Do you want those entered as Exhibit 53? It is so 
ordered. 

(The documents referred to were marked Exhibit No. 53 for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1083-1085.) 

Mr. Cheasty. Would you read them, please. Would you show the 
amounts ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The billing dates are as follows : February 26, 1955, 
to telephone AT-0592, $67.80. March 26, 1955, to the same number, 
$93.01. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 901 

April 26, 1955 to AT-4551, $93.01. May 26, 1955, AT--t551, $152.25. 
June 26, 1955, to same telephone number, $244.64. 

Mr. CiiEASTY. Would you read the amounts on the rest, please ? 

Mr. Calabrese. July 26, $69.04 ; August 17, 1955, $120.35 ; September 
17, 1955, $77.55. The final one is October 17, 1955, to telephone 
CApitol 8-1707, $53.52. 

Mr. CuEASTY. Did you see any Joint Council of Teamsters cash book 
covering similar bills '^ 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Cheasty. Did you find entries paying these bills in the Joint 
Council of Teamsters cash book ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The cash expenditure book indicated certain ex- 
penditures for these telephone bills. 

Mr. Cheasty. Do you have a record of those expenditures there 
before you ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cheasty. Would you read them to the committee, please ? 

Mr. Calabrese. March, 1955 shows an expenditure of $67.80. April 
of 1955, $95.58. May of 1955, $36.03. June of 1955, $152.02. July 
1955, $92.10. August of 1955, $69.04. 

September of 1955, $51.31. October of 1955, $53.52. And the final 
entiT on December of 1955, $11.05, on a total of $707. 

Mr. Cheasty. These were sums paid by the Joint Teamsters 
Council? 

Mr. Calabrese. These are sums that were paid by the Joint Council 
of Teamsters, No. 37. 

Mr. Cheasty. Did you find any books or records showing payments 
for McLaughlin for airplane travel under the date of May 16, 1955 ? 

(At this point in the proceedings, Senator Ervin entered the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Calabrese. We introduced records that Mr. 0"Connell, business 
agent for Joint Council No. 37 used his air travel card, that is the card 
issued to him by Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37 for airplane travel, 
for Joseph McLaughlin, from Portland to San Francisco and back 
on May 16 and May 17, 1955. 

Mr. Cheasty. For how much money ? 

Mr. Calabrese. A total of $73.48. 

Mr. Cheasty. And in respect to William Langley, did you find any ? 

Mr. Calabrese. No. 

Senator Mundt. That total for INIaloney is how much ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Senator, that total was with regard to tlie telephone 
bills in the apartments used by both Maloney and McLaughlin. 

Senator Muxdt. You gave a total there a minute ago. 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. That was a total of telephone bills ? 

Mr. CxVLabrese. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. For Maloney and McLaughlin both ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. There is no way of telling which is 
which. 

Senator Mundt. Have you the total of the hotel bill separately? 

Mr. Calabrese. I do not have a resume of that. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. You do not know how much that was ? 



902 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Calabrese. I would estimate about $500 or $600 ; that is a rough 
estimate. 

Senator Mundt. That was all Maloney ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is all Maloney, yes. 

Senator Ives. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Cheastt. Do you have any further information ? 

Mr. Calabrese. With regard to the telephone information we do. 
We subpenaed the toll call slips made from Maloney's apartment 
and McLaughlin's apartment at the Kings Towers, Capital 8-1707, 
and those that were available indicate, and there are some 12 calls 
made, two were made on October 18, 1955 to the Western Conference of 
Teamsters, 551 John Street, in Seattle. 

One was made on October 24, to Seattle number Main 0027 and it 
is believed this number is the number assigned to Battersby and Smith, 
that is McLaughlin's restaurant, 906 First Avenue. 

There were four calls made on October 24, October 25, October 30 
and October 31 to Seattle number Minor 3037, which is J. P. McLaugh- 
lin's telephone number at 1903 Crescent Drive. And there are four 
calls, one on October 18, one on October 21, one on October 23, and one 
on October 28 to a Spokane, AVash., number, Keystone 7116, 
which is the telephone foi- Thomas Maloney at East 3711 Spokane. 

Mr. Cheasty. Do you have any further information you want to 
present at this time ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is all, sir. 

Senator Ives. You are excused. 

These last records will be made exhibit 54. It is so ordered. 

(The documents referred to were marked Exhibit No. 54 for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1086-1088.) 

Senator Ives. Mr. Mikesell, will you take the stand again, please? 

TESTIMONY OF REGINALD R. MIKESELL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, WARREN E. MAGEE— Resumed 

Senator Ives. You have already been sworn, I believe ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes. sir. 

Senator Ives. All right, please sit down. Senator Mundt has some 
questions to ask you. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mikesell, when we recessed at noon, you had 
just responded to a question asked by Senator Goldwater concerning a 
check of $3,000 drawn in favor of Mr. O'Brien whom you identified as 
the regular attorney for the teamsters union following the death or 
resignation or something of a James Landye, who had preceded him 
in that capacity, is that right ? 

Mr. Mikesell. Correct. 

Senator Mundt. Do you remember signing that check for $3,000 to 
Mr. O'Brien? 

Mr. Mikesell. May I address some remarks to the Chairman? I 
have some pertinent information which I have obtained during the 
recess. 

Senator Ives. Wait a minute, Mr. Mikesell. Is this in connection 
with a reply or response to the question raised by Senator Mundt? 

Mr. Mikesell. Yes, this particular check and also the $5,000 check. 

Senator Ives. If Senator Mundt has no objection, the Chair has no 
objection. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 903 

Senatoi- ]Mrxi>T. I want to get an answer to the question, first. I 
have no objection to getting the information. But do you remember 
signing the check ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. No, sir ; I did not sign the check ; the $3,000 check, 
I believe, was written from the special fund. 

Senator Mundt. Not the funds over which you have custody ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That's right. 

Senator Mundt. Tell us first of all then, from whom you got the 
information over the noon hour. 

Mr. JVIiKESELL. From Mr. Crosby. 

Senator Mundt. From Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt, I think the committee would be interested in hear- 
ing what Mr. Crosby said to you and if you want to tell the committee. 

Mr, MiKESELL. These two checks, Mr. Crosby has the full informa- 
tion in regard to them and will be very glad to transmit that infor- 
mation to the committee. 

Now, the check w^as used for purposes of transmittal of funds for 
union purposes. I am sure that he can satisfy the committee as to 
the fully legitimate use of the funds transmitted by those checks. 

Senator Mundt, I think on those questions, we should ask Mr. 
Crosby rather than get it from you secondhand. We will ask him 
about those checks. 

Let me ask you a little more about the O'Brien check. Was Mr. 
O'Brien the lawyer who represented Mr. Crosby in his proceedings 
before the judge in Arizona ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That I am not in a position to make a statement on, 
Senator. I don't know" anything of the particulars and I was not 
there, and I was not involved. Who the attorney was, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. What arrangements did you have with Mr, O'Brien 
as the official attorney for the teamsters ? Was he on a monthly re- 
tainer or was he on a salary, or did you pay him for services rendered 
when he submitted a bill, or what was his status as your regular union 
attorney ? 

Mr. MiKESELL, He was on a very, very nominal retainer, but the 
firm did submit bills for services rendered. 

Senator Mundt. In other w^ords, he was not a full-time salaried 
lawyer. 

Mr. MiKESELL. He has been full time practically the last 2 years 
or in the last — since he has been working on this. 

Senator Mundt. I will rephrase the question. He was not employed 
on a full-time salary ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No ; that is correct. 

Senator Mundt, To work exclusively for the teamsters union. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Tliere was never any arrangement of that kind made. 

Senator Mundt. So that he was paid in accordance with bills which 
he submitted to you ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Is that all ? Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. He was paid on a monthly basis, as you say, 
paid for services rendered ? What service did he give for that $3,000 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, that I couldn't say, sir." The bill that the 
firm carried evidently after Mr. Landye's death, we were several 
months in paying it off. That, of course, the estate of Jim Landye, 



904 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

who was one of the three partners, was involved in that particular 
part of the accounts which were being paid into the firm. 

Now, what the arrangements were, I don't know. Whether Mr. 
O'Brien's bill to ns was figured separately, I don't know, but I do know 
that Mr. Landye's estate figured considerably in the back debt which 
we owed to the firm when he died. 

Senator Goldwater. You think it is rather an unusual coincidence 
that on the same day in August there was $8,000 paid out for attorneys' 
fees? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that Mr. Crosby can give you the informa- 
tion, Senator, in regard to that. 

Senator Goldwater. But you signed one of those checks, -and you 
signed the $5,000 check. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you remember what it was for? I have 
been looking through this book and the largest checks 1 can find so far 
are around $2,000 or $2,100. Certainly, you can remember a $5,000 
check ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't like to start the explanation which I received, 
Senator. I don't feel that I am qualified to give you the full informa- 
tion on it. However, I can explain the reason that signing the check 
made so little impression on me. 

Senator Goldwater. We will not question you necessarily about 
the $3,000 check because you have admitted that you have no control 
over that fund and Mr. Crosby is the man that runs that fund and he 
can tell us what the $3,000 was for. 

But you run the general fund, and you wrote a check for $5,000 for 
legal services to Mr. O'Brien. All we want to know is, what did he 
do for that $5,000 ? We do not want a long explanation about it ; what 
did you pay him for and what did he do to earn that $5,000. 

Mr. ]\iiKESELL. That is what I was referring to when I said that. 

Senator Goldwater. Can you tell us ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The explanation can be made so much easier and so 
much more completely by Mr. Crosby. 

Senator Goldwater. What does Mr. Crosby know about the gen- 
eral fund ? He is not the treasurer of the council. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Actually, Senator, as I have found out and my mem- 
ory has been refreshed, and not fully, so I am not in a position to give 
you full information in regard to it, but there was a check came in 
for $5,000 from the western conference of Teamsters and it does 
appear on the book, and I have checked it myself, and it came in on 
the 20th and this check was written on the 21st, and it is simply an 
in-and-out deal. We ran it through the general fund and drew a 
$5,000 check. 

Senator Goldwater. That was just last August, and that is a very 
few months ago. If this had happened 2 or 3 years ago there might 
be some reason to believe that a $5,000 check did not ring a bell in your 
memory. 

But back last August, certainly you can remember what services 
this attorney did for the council that caused you to pay him $5,000. 
That is not a little amount of money. 

Mr. MiKESELL. It isn't a small amount of money, but the money 
came into the joint council from the we!5tern conference of teamsters 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 905 

apparejitly specilicully for the purpose of being transmitted to Tanner. 

It was transmitted to Tanner by a check from the joint council 
on the following day, and I signed it. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, we are getting some place. Did you not 
ask the western conference what this was for ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That, Senator, is one of the reasons I am not pre- 
pared to follow through on this particular phase. I would much rather 
that you would take it up with Mr. Crosby when he is on the stand and 
he can give you the full information in regard to it. 

Senator Goldwater. How often do you write checks, just being the 
go-between, between the western conference and others ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. It doesn't happen very often. 

Senator Goldwater. Does it not give you something to worry about, 
do you not want to know^ what you are doing when you sign these 
checks ? That is buying an awful pig in a poke for $5,000 when you 
do not know what it is for. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Actually, when the money comes into the general 
fund, and it is paid directly out of the general fund, it balances. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not arguing about that, I am not worried 
about getting these books in balance. That is not any difficult job, 
if you have a pen and an eraser it can be done. But Avhat I am getting 
at is this : 

You have signed a check for $5,000 for attorney fees and the biggest 
attorney fee I have come across so far, starting at the beginning of 
this book, and I am about halfway through, is $2,000. That seems to 
be a fairly constant amount tliat you pay some of these attorneys. 

But all of a sudden a check comes to you for $5,000 and you did not 
bother questioning what it was for. Did you even ask who the man 
was, and did you know the name ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because as I said. Senator, the check came into the 
joint council from the western conference specifically for the purpose 
of being transmitted through the joint council. We wrote the check 
and transmitted it to the pro])er individual or firm. 

Senator Goldwater. Why did you not just endorse it over? That 
would have been a lot easier and saved you some bookkeeping. 

Mr. MiKESELL. It could have been done. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you told specifically to do it that way by 
the western conference ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. However, I have never known of any case where a 
check comes into the joint council, that it isn't deposited in the bank 
and a clieck written and in that way w^e have a complete account. 

Senator Goldwater. You say on this witness stand under oath that 
you have no idea what the services were in connection Avitli that 
$5,000 fee? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I have no idea, but my idea is not as complete or not 
as authentic 

Senator Goldw^ater. Can w^e have your idea, as incomplete as it is, 
because it will give us something to work on when we get somebody 
who knows a little more about it. 

Senator Muxdt. Is this your idea or is this the idea that you got from 
Mr. Crosby during the noon hour ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, this is my idea. 

Senator Mundt. You did not have any idea up until 12 o'clock and 
I tried very hard to get your idea at that time. 



906 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. I told the committee this morning, Senator^ that in 
my opinion this money was paid out to this attorney in connection with 
the indictments which were outstanding against various Joint Council 
people in the city of Portland. 

Senator Mundt. You said that this morning and is that the same 
idea that you have now ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The same idea I have now. 

Senator Goldwater. Were those people all members of the Team- 
sters Union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Oh, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Langley ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. This check, in my opinion, has no connection or no 
basis of fact in being connected in any way with Mr. Langley 

Senator Mundt. How about Mr. Maloney ? He also was indicted. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, it has no connection with Mr. Maloney. 

Senator Goldwater. How about Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, gentlemen, I am making some answers here 
that I don't know. Now, in my opinion, certainly Mr. Crosby. 

Senator Mundt. You are not sure about your answer about Maloney 
and Langley either, are you ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. In my opinion, Mr. Crosby would be included in any 
defense that was offered by a law firm whether they were paid by the 
Joint Council or paid independently. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you think it would be justified to use 
some of that money to expunge the record of Arizona, so that Mr. 
Crosby might get out of an indictment against him in Portland ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know that that was done, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. But the money was used, according to your 
idea, to aid in the defense of Mr. Crosby. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know whether it has been used at all. I don't 
know whether it was payment in advance or whether it was payment 
after services rendered, and it is the reason I am not in a position to 
make any statement under oath on this particular pliase of our 
operations. 

Senator Ives. Are there any further question ? 

Senator Mundt. Could you give the committee a good reason, Mr. 
Mikesell, why if the Western Conference of Teamsters felt that they 
owed $5,000 to Mr. Tanner, they should not make a check drawn out 
to Mr- Tanner to pay him instead of routing it through your office ? 

Mr. Mikesell. I don't just understand the question. 

Senator Hundt. As I understood your testimony, you said this 
was an "in and out" transaction, that you got a check for $5,000 from 
the Western Conference of Teamsters with instructions to make out a 
check to Mr. Tanner for a like amount of $5,000. 

Now, I say, if the Western Conference of Teamsters felt that they 
owed Mr. Tanner $5,000, can you give this committee any good reason 
why they should not have made the check out to Mr. Tanner instead 
of running it through your office, the way it was handled ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel. ) 

Senator Mundt. You do not have to ask your attorney, he would 
not know. He is a smart fellow, but he was not there. 

Mr. Magee. I do know, Senator, but I won't testify about it. 

Mr. Mikesell. I do not know why the Western Conference made 
the check to the joint council and why they asked us to write the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 907 

check from the joint council. I do know that the funds of the joint 
council were not depleted in any manner when the check was written. 

Senator Mundt. That I accept from your testimony, but it seems 
a curious way in which to pay a lawyer. Let me ask you, is this fre- 
quently done? Can you give us several other instances where you 
paid bills for the Western Conference by having them deposit the 
money in your account and you write checks and take it out again? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know that the joint council owed Mr. Tan- 
ner's firm and as I say, I never met Mr. Tanner until I arrived in 
Washington. 

Senator Mundt. You are not telling us that the Western Confer- 
ence was just giving $5,000 to Mr. Tanner for no reason at all ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't know whether it was for services rendered 
or services anticipated. 

Senator Mundt. That is what the committee is trying to find out. 
Do you know of any other examples where the Western Conference 
has paid its bills by the device of depositing the money in your ac- 
count and then having you write a check to take the money out again ? 
Wliy is tliere this triangular system ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, it isn't an isolated case. 

Senator Mundt. Give us a couple of more examples. 

Mr. MiKESELL. In instances we have borrowed money from the 
Western Conference of Teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. I am not talking about borrowing money. I am 
talking about paying bills that the Western Conference owed, and 
why tiiey do not write the check to the man who has the money com- 
ing to him and why they route it through your office. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, Senator, I don't know that they owed the 
money. 

Senator Mundt. They paid the money. 

Mr. MiKESELL. They paid the money to us and we paid it. 

Senator Mundt. For services rendered or services anticipated. 

Mr. MiKESELL. That's correct. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know of any other cases where the West- 
ern Conference paid people for services rendered or services antic- 
ipated by, first of all, depositing the money in your account and then 
having you write the check ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think just in that manner and such a quick 
transmittal. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot think of any others ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No. 

Senator Mundt. So it was a bit unusual, was it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The Western Conference is our parent organiza- 
tion. 

Senator Mundt. Thats' right. 

Mr. MiKESELL. They give us assistance. 

Senator Mundt. It is a little bit unusual to pay bills that way even 
so, is it not? This did not deplete your funds and it was not your 
transaction and it was apparently an obligation in which the West- 
ern Conference was interested. 

Mr. MiKESELL. That's right. 

Senator Mundt. You can think of no other case where they ever 
used that particular device for paying their bills ? 



908 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. Not in the same manner where the money was paid 
out immediately. 

Senator Mundt. Why do you suppose it was done this time? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That t couldn't tell you. 

Senator Mundt. Give us an educated guess. You were closer to it 
than this committee was. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think that I have any. The answer will be 
forthcoming from Mr. Crosby, I am sure. 

Senator Mundt. Did you in your capacity as secretary-treasurer 
of the joint council take orders from Mr. Crosby and was he your 
superior officer? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mr. Crosby, as the organizer for the international 
assigned to the State of Oregon, in many ways would be my superior. 

In other ways, he would not be my superior. 

Senator Mundt. Was he your superior in the rather important 
business of handling the money that belonged to the union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. In a case such as this, transmittal from the western 
conference, Mr. Crosby would be the man who would handle the 
transaction, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So when he told you to do it this way, you had 
no reason to question his authority. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I had no reason to question it. 

Senator Ives. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. Mikesell, are you familiar with the constitu- 
tion that guides joint council 37 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Our joint council 37 operates under the international 
constitution. We do not have separate bylaws or separate constitu- 
tions. It is only those actions which are taken in executive sessions 
or bv the council itself. 

Mr. Adlerman. Under the constitution of the international that 
you are guided by, are you familiar with the provision about the 
mutilation or destruction of records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Are you familiar with section 8 of article 15 of 
this constitution? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I couldn't quote it. I know in essence what the 
article consists of. 

Mr. Adlerman. Now I would like to read into the record at this 
time from the constitution of the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, section 8, 
article 15, which provides as follows : 

Any member who, one, Avrongfnlly takes or retains any money, books, papers, 
or any other property belonging to the International Brotherhood of Chauffenrs, 
Warehousemen, and Helpers, and any joint council, local union, or other sub- 
ordinate body, or who, two, mutilates, erases, destroys, or in any way injures 
any books, bills, receipts, vouchers, or any property of the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers, and any joint 
council, local union, or other subordinate body, may be tried in a manner pro- 
vided for the trial of other offenses. 

Has any charge been brought against you for the destruction of 
these records? 

Mr. Mikesell. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Has anybody been aware of this fact up until this 
time? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 909 

Mr. M1KE8ELL, Not until this tieariiig was called. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did Mr, Steele, who is the president of your local, 
know that you destroyed these records? 

Mr. jNIikesell. He does now ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlekman. Did he know 2 weeks or 3 weeks ago ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't tliink that he did, sir. 

Mr. Adler3ian. When were you served with a subpena ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. To come back here, you mean ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That's right, to produce the records. 

Mr. MiKESELL. To produce the records, I believe, the subpena was 
served on Mr. Steele on Monday. I was absent at a policy meeting. 

Mr. Adlerman. That was about February 6, was it? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think about that time, yes. 

Mr. Adlekman. And at that time Mr. Steele did find out that you 
had destroyed the records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Monday the 11th or — Monday was the 11th. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did he have knowledge of the fact that you had 
destroy- ed the records before that date ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I believe not. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you think it is peculiar, the fact that you de- 
stroyed only those records for that period of time which is covered 
in the time that McLaughlin and Maloney had transactions with the 
union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Does not that period of time that you destroyed the 
records coincide with the time McLaughlin and Maloney had trans- 
actions with the union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Because of a peculiar circumstance in my election 
just prior to Maloney's appearance on the Portland scene, that may be 
true. However, I did not have charge of the records before that time. 

Mr. Adlerman. I am talking now of the period of time in 1954 and 
1955. Did you have charge of the records for the period 1954 to 1955 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. After September of 1954. 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right, you had the records in your 
possession. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. You were the one who destroyed them or ordered 
them destroyed? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Don't you think it is a peculiar coincidence that 
you ordered only that period of time, the records for that period of 
time that McLaughlin and Maloney had transactions with your union, 
that was the period of time that you ordered the records destroyed? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't think so. As I say, when I took over as 
secretary-treasurer, I adopted that more or less as a policy and it was 
carried out after the audits were made. It happened to be during 
that period of time. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you ever discuss the destruction of the record 
before they were destroyed or the reason why it should be destroyed 
with anyone in your union ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, I don't remember because it was such a routine 
thing, and it was a thing that we had been doing. 

Mr. xYduerman. It was a routine thing, you say ? 



910 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKESELL. Insofar as my administration was concerned. 

Mr. Adlerman. Your administration only lasted from January of 
1954, you say, until to date, is that right? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That's right. 

Mr. Adlerman. And it was routine. How many other times have 
you destroyed records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I haven't destroyed any, any time. In my local 
union you can go and find the records back 

Mr. Adlerman. I am talking about your joint council records. This 
is the only time, is that not right ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, I would like to inquire a little more specifically 
on the question. If you mean that all of the records were destroyed 
at one time, that is not correct. 

They were gradually eliminated over the period of 2 years. 

Mr. Adlerman. AVliat was the name of the secretary or the book- 
keeper that worked for you? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Now, you mean ? 

Mr. Adleiuman. That's right. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Mrs. Noack. 

Mr. Adlerman. Have you discussed with her the destruction of 
those records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Nothing more than I told her to eliminate them after 
the audit was completed last fall. 

Mr. Adlerman. That was right after the start of this investigation? 

Mr. IViiKESELL. No, sir, this investigation was never even thought of 
at that time, that is, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Adlerman. I mean the State's investigation. 

Mr. MiKESELL. The State's investigation ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That's right. They started looking into the trans- 
actions of Maloney and McLaughlin, did they not? 

Mr. MiKESELL. The State investigation has been going on for 

Mr. Adlerman. Several months. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I couldn't say exactly, but it has been going on for a 
long time. 

Mr. Adlerman. Since last July and August. 

Mr. MiKESELL. July and August. 

Mr. Adlerman. Is that the time that you destroyed the records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Alderman. "Wlien did you destroy them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. After the audit w-as taken this fall. 

Mr. Adlerman. When was that? 

Mr. MiKESELL. You have the date of it, and I think it is September. 
I believe it includes the month of August. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Mikesell, while they are hunting for some data, 
I would like to ask if that policy was only a policy applicable to 
two years, 1954, through 1955, into September of 1956? You talk 
about a new policy here of destroying records. 

As nearly as I can find out, the only application that policy had 
was for that particular period of time. _ The thing that I am inter- 
ested in knowing is why in blazes name, if you had a new policy, did 
it not apply all along the line, instead of just two particular years. 

Wliy did you separate those two years and destroy the records 
during that period of time? You have not answered that question 
in any way, shape, or manner. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 911 



Mr. MiKESELL. Well, Senator, the only answer that I have 

Senator Ives. You do not seem to have any. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I was not elected as secretary-treasurer until 2 
years ago. 

Senator Ives. What has that to do with it? You are the person 
who put the policy into effect, and this was your policy destroying 
these records according to what you say. 

Mr. MiKESELL. That's right. 

Senator Ives. Why did you apply it to 2 years and not all of the 
years in the past for which you had records? Why select those two 
particular years? You have not answered that question, and in 
blazes, you cannot answer it, and you do not dare answer it. 

Mr. MiKESELL. The only reason is because those records were in our 
working office. 

Senator Ives. That is no answ^er at all, and you know it as well as 
I do. That is no answer that any reasonable person would ever 
accept. Go on with your questions. 

Mr. Adlerman. I would just like to refresh your memory on this. 
We had a discussion with Miss Noack and she stated that sometime 
in 1956, in August, after the audit was finished she removed all prior 
records from the office and placed them in a cardboard carton. She 
did this on your orders. This carton she believes sat in the office for 
a week or so, and then one morning she came to work and the box 
containing the records was gone. 

The instructions for removal of the files for destruction, according 
to Mrs. Noack, were given by Mr. K. R. Mikesell, secretary-treasurer. 
Is that a cori-ect statement of what happened? 

2\h: MiKESELL. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you expect to be charged under this section of 
the constitution with the destruction of records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I think that will be up to the international union, 
probably. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you feel that you have violated that section? 

]Mr, Mikesell. I don't in the case of the joint council, sir. That is 
because of tlie fact that the records are available, and the books are 
available and tho audits have been made and there is nothing wrong 
in transmittal of the records from the invoices which originally were 
received by the joint council, in the computing of the amounts in- 
volved and in the receipts and disbursements of the joint council. 

I feel as far as the custody of the accounts and the records of the 
joint council that I have nothing to fear. 

jMr. Adlerman. Do you not feel that the destruction of these records 
concealed certain facts from the State and from the Federal 
Government ? 

Mv. Mikesell. Unfortunately, it may have resulted in that result. 
However, that was not the purpose. 

j\Ir. Adlerman. Have you ever filed an exemption from taxes with 
the Federal Tax Office, the Department of the Treasury? 

Mr. Mikesell. That, I couldn't answer without looking at the 
records. Mr. Williams asked me that, too. 

Mr. Adlerman. Are you exempt from taxes at the present time ? 

Mr. Mikesell. I know that as far as the local union is concerned, 
we do file those. 



912 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Adlerman, I am not talking about the local union. I am talk- 
ing about tlie joint council. That is Joint Council No. 37, and have 
you filed an exception of taxation ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That I couldn't answer without checking. 

Mr. Adlerman. Have you paid any taxes ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. We pay taxes to the State on personal property. 

Mr. Adlerman. Have you paid any taxes to the Federal Govern- 
ment ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Xo, sir, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you feel that you might have violated the law in 
not keeping or retaining the records of an organization that is re- 
quired to pay taxes ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. If we have, it has been inadvertently, 

Mr. Adlerman. Have you filed an annual return for exemption of 
taxation ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That, as I say, sir, I couldn't answer until I would 
look. 

Mr. Adlerman. You are the secretary-treasurer, and isn't that 
your job and your duty? 

Mr. MiKESELL, We file a number of forms with the Federal Govern- 
ment and also with the State. Now, we have religiously followed 
the proper procedure in filing those forms. But in the case of this 
particular form you are speaking of, I don't know whether it has ever 
come to the joint council. 

If it had been submitted to the joint council by the Internal Revenue, 
certainly it would have been filled out and transmitted. 

Mr. xIdlerman. Well, I feel that if you have not filed such a return 
you are liable for that tax, and if you are liable for that tax, I think 
that the Treasury Department has a right to examine the books and 
records to see how much the tax amounts to. 

You have destroyed those records. Did you do it with the design 
to conceal those records? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Did I do it on anyone's instructions? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you do it with any design to conceal the facts ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you do it on the orders of Mr, Crosby? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you discuss it with Mr. Crosby before you 
destroyed these records. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you discuss it with the council, the union 
council ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerisian. You discussed it with nobody but your secretary 
and bookkeeper, is that correct? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I gave the secretary instructions, what I thought 
should be done. 

Mr, Adlerman. Did you discuss it with Mr. Steele, the president of 
the joint council? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you discuss it with the executive board of the 
joint council? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 913 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. You take the responsibility entirely on yourself? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Are there any other questions? 

Senator Er\t[x. You have custody of all of the records of the joint 
council as treasurer, do you not ; financial records ? 

Mr. jSIikesell. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. How far back do they run ? 

Mr. JViiKESELL. How far back ? 

Senator Er\in. Yes. 

Mr. ]\IiKESELL. Our joint council was organized, I believe, in 1935 
or 1936. 

Senator Ervin. In 1935 or 1936 ? 

Mr. INIiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you have in your custody the records from that 
date, the financial records, as treasurer ? You did have them in your 
custody ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Those records which are not maintained in our busi- 
ness office were filed in a room which we called the vault downstairs. 

Senator ERV^N. The ones filed in that vault started about 1935 or 
1936 and came down to what time ? 

Mr. IVIiKESELL. Down until 1954, 1 believe. 

Senator Ervin. They came down to the period of which the records 
have been destroyed by you ? 

Mr. IViiKESELL. That's correct. 

Senator Ervin. "V^^iat size vault is that ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Ervin. What size vault is that, where you keep the other 
records that you did not destroy ? 

Mr. IViiKESELL. It is not large enough, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, why did you not take some of the records 
from 1935, 1936, and 1937 along in that period of time and destroy 
them, and take your current records and move them into the vault 
if you did not have room in your office for them ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, I discussed that with the committee this morn- 
ing. It was a matter of expediency. Seeing no further necessity 
for retaining the current records, which have been audited by a certi- 
fied public accountant, I told the girls to eliminate them. 

Senator Ervin. Wliy did you not destroy some of your old records 
that were out of date and transactions on which the statute of limita- 
tions had run, instead of destroying your current records on which 
the statute had not run ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Probably that should have been done, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Where is this vault with reference to your offices ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Ervin. Where is this vault located where you kept the old 
records, with reference to where you kept the new records ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Two stories down from the office. 

Senator Ervin. In the same building? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir, in the same building; however, all of the 
local unions who use the building also store their records there. 

Senator Ervin. And you swear to this committee that you did not 
have enough room in this vault located in the same building two stories 

89330— 57— pt. 3 11 



914 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

below your office in wliicli to put the records for this period of time 
starting in 1954 ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I might exphiin, sir, that this vault is also used for 
the storage of unused stationery and all kinds of supplies for the local 
unions. 

Senator Ervin. Unused stationery for whom ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. For the local unions in the building. 

Senator Ervin. ^V\\y in the world did you not take out the unused 
stationery and put the current records in, in lieu of the unused 
stationery ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Well, there was.no place else to store the unused 
stationery. 

Senator Ervin. Are you testifying on your oath that you did not 
have room enough in that vault to have put these current records ? Is 
that what you are swearing to ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I am not swearing that the records could not have 
been crammed in there, Senator, but it created a very congested condi- 
tion and we had been asked to relieve that condition. 

Senator Ervin. So in order to avoid all trouble of that kind, you 
elected to destroy records which were absolutely current, records which 
were necessary and could possibly have been necessary to establish your 
proper handling of funds, and records which could conceivably have 
been necessary to protect the joint council against claims? 

Instead of doing that, you destroyed the records which by a strange 
coincidence are the records Avhich would throw light on the matters 
which this committee is investigating and which were being investi- 
gated in State court out in Oregon. 

Is that what you say ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. That is true, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. And the whole thing was just to get a little space to 
store records, when you could have moved out and destroyed the 
records for 15 previous vears and made space for those records. Is 
that right? 

Mr. SliKESELL. Apparently, it is. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to ask, were those records all kept 
in books about this size? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir, they were not. One of those books would 
cover about 3 years, as you can see there. 

Senator Goldwater. This book covers 2 years. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, 2 or 3 years. 

Senator Goldwater. But tlie other books would be fairly consistent 
with this size? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Just the same, 3'es, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if we piled up 21 years of this 
record it would make a stack about 15 inches high. 

Xow that must have been an awfully small storeroom if you could 
not file 15 inches in there. 

Mr. MiKESELL. Senatoi' Goldwater, I am not talking about the 
books of record. T am talking about invoices, and old checks and 
everything and correspondence tliat clutters up an office. Those books 
have uo<^ been destroyed. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, you have an average of ;ib:)ut 40 eii'^ries 
u montlu Tliat is about ."^iGO enti'ies a vear. Tliat woidd be alniut 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 915 

3,000 entries, or say 4,000 entries or pieces of paper that you would 
liave to account for. 

Now, that is not a lot of paper. You know it is not a lot of paper 
and you know how much space it would occupy. You could put 
it in a space as big as the desk you are sitting before, if that were a 
box. 

Mr. MiKESELL. I don't like to make a contrary statement, but that 
is not a fact. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, I have had a lot of dealings with paper- 
work, and 1 think I know what I am talking about. I think you 
destroyed those 2 years for some purpose you are not telling us about. 
It would make sense to destroy the years you had no more use for, 
but it does not make sense to me, and I do not think it does to this 
conunittee or the general public, for you to make a statement that 
you destroyed 2 years because it would give you more space, 2 years 
of entries that could not possibly give you enough additional space 
to put anything of any substantial size in. I cannot l)uy that. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. You did not answer very clearly Senator Ervin's 
question about how big this storage vault was. You said it was not 
big enough. Can you give us the dimensions in feet, approximately? 

Air. Mikesell. No, I couldn't. Senator. I couldn't give you the 
exact dimensions. 

Senator Mundt. Have you been in the room yourself? 

Ml-. MiKESEix, Yes, at one time. 

Sojiator Mundt. Is it bigger than this chamlter i 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is it smaller? 

Mr. MiKESELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. How big is it? Do not give it to us by inches, 
but 

Ml'. MiKESELL. I would Say probably 15 by 20. 

Senator Mi ndt. Fifteen by twenty. 

Mr. MiKESELL. And all cut up into shelves for the storage of sta- 
tionery and various supplies for the unions in the building. 

Senator Mundt. How big a cardboard carton was it that she placed 
these 2 years of records in, if they were all in one box? 

Mr. AIiKESELL. I don't know. I don't think I ever saw it. 

Senator Mundt. You said it sat around the office several days or 
about a week, and then you ordered it destroyed. You must have seen 
the box. 

Mr. MiKESELL. No, it was ordered destroyed, and apparently sat 
around the office before the refuse collector, or whoever it was, took 
it out. 

Senator Mundt. It would not be a very big box, would it, if you were 
able to tote it around the office and move it ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. I couldn't say how large a box it w^as. 

Senator Mundt, You have no idea ? 

Mr. MiKESELL. No. I tliink there were probably 2 or 3 boxes, at 
least. 

Senator Mundt. I think you have candidly said that if you wanted 
to cram it in tliat room, you could have gotten it in all right ? 

Mr. INIiKESELL. Oh, yes, there is no question about that. It could 
liave been crannned in the room. 



916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mukdt. If we were to send Mr. Williams down to look at 
the vault, you think he could probably find open space enough in 
which to have placed those records ? 

Mr. MiKESELi.. That is right. There is no question about that. 
It could have been crammed in. 

Senator Mundt. I think so, too. 

The Chairmax. Are there any further questions of this witness? 

(At this point. Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. If there are no further questions, you may stand 
aside. 

(Members present at this point: The chairman, Senators Ervin, 
Mundt, and Go] d water . ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Givens, Mr. Leonard Givens, come forward, 
please, sir. 

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 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Gi^t:ns. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LEONAED GIVENS 

The Chairman. Mr. Givens, please state your name, your place of 
residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. GiAT.NS. Leonard Givens, King County, Seattle, Wash., a mem- 
ber of the uniform patrol of the sheriff's office. 

The Chairman. How long have you been a member of the patrol of 
the sheriff's office ? 

Mr. Givens. Since May 22, 1955. 

The Chairman. May 22, 1955 ? 

Mr. Givens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you conferred with members of the staff and 
know the general nature of the inquiry that may be made of you re- 
garding your testimony ? 

Mr. Givens. I have talked to Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. You have talked to Mr. Kennedy. You have 
elected to waive counsel, have you ? 

Mr. Givens. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you verj^ much. 

JNIr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Elkins has testified before this 
committee that the teamsters had originally supported Mr. McCourt 
for district attorney. Then when they brought Mr. Maloney down 
into Portland, Mr. Maloney was able to get the teamsters to switch 
from Mr. McCourt to Mr. Langley for district attorney. Mr. Crosby 
was asked yesterday as to why the teamsters did switch from Mr. 
McConrt to Mr. Langley, and he stated the following. Well, he stated 
at that time, and I will read from the testimony, that he had informa- 
tion tliat Mr. Elkins was backing Mr. McCourt in the district attorney 
race, and that because of liis feeling for Mr. Elkins, and that Mr. 
Elkins was an underworld character, that the teamsters wanted to stay 
away from that, and they wanted to back, and decided to back, Mr. 
Langley, instead. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 917 

He said that that information came from an unimpeachable source. 
That information, he said, came to him from Leonard Givens. 

On page 1666, in connection with that conversation : 

I asked him simply this, 

talking about Givens — 

"I know you are on Mr. McCourt's staff, and I know you know the answer to this 
question. If you don't answer it either way, then I will assume that you don't 
want to answer it and you can look elsewhere for your assistance. But either 
way, I would like to have an answer." I simply asked him this : "Do you have 
any knowledge of Jim Elkins financially supporting John McOourt?" 

He hemmed and hawed for several minutes. Finally, he said "Well," he says, 
"you could get me into a lot of trouble if you identify me as your source of in- 
formation. But," he says, "the facts are that Jim Elkins is putting a pretty big 
chunk of dough into McCourt's campaign." 

Mr. Givens, I want to ask you : Did you ever say to Mr. Clyde Crosby 
during 1954 that "Jim Elkins" or anything like this — 

the facts are that Jim Elkins is putting a pretty big chunk of dough into 
McCourt's campaign. 

Mr. Gi-v-ENs. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything like that ? 

Mr. Givens. Not with that amount of — what would you say — vo- 
cabulaiy of piessure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not a fact that Mr. Crosby asked you if Mr. 
Elkins was supporting Mr. McCourt's campaign ? 

Mr. Givens. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did ask you ? 

Mr. Givens. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say to you: 

Isn't it general knowledge that Mr. Elkins is supporting McCourt's campaign? 

Mr. Givens. I don't think the words "general knowledge" — I think 
the question was asked this way : Isn't it correct, or isn't it right, that 
Elkins is supporting McCourt ? 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you state at that time that you had no 
knowledge, but if he said so, that is fine? 

Mr. Givens. I said, I think, just as a last wording, "Perhaps you 
are right," and that ended our conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Perhaps you are right"? 

Mr. GrvENS. "Perhaps you are right." And that ended the con- 
versation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any information at that time that 
Elkins was supporting McCourt's campaign ? 

Mr. Givens. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any information at all that Elkins was 
supporting McCourt's campaign ? 

Mr. Givens. Nothing definite. Nothing concrete ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything nonconcrete ? 

Mr. Givens. Well, I don't know wdiat you would call nonconcrete. 
I think that it was a case of probably talking when I should have been 
listening. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this. I do not think that quite 
answers the question. Did you have any information of any kind 
that Elkins was supporting McCourt ? 

Mr. Givens. No. 



918 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You cUd not ? 

Mr. GivENS. I definitely did not. 

Mr Kennedy. You never had heard, even, that Elkins was support- 
ing McCourt's campaign? 

Mr. GivENs. Rumors during political times are fast and furious. I 
couldn't qualify anything of that nature at all as definite. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you had no specific information of any kind 
that you could put your finger on that Elkins was supporting Mc- 
Court's campaign? 

Mr. GivENS. I just used that phraseology of "perhaps you are 
right." 

Mr. Kennedy. But you never told him that the facts are that Jim 
Elkins w-as putting a pretty big chunk of dough into McCourt's 
campaign ? 

Mr. GivENS. No, because that would be wrong for me to say to begin 
with, because I don't know that as a fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. The furthest that you might have gone is "Perhaps 
you are right," but you did not go beyond that? 

Mr. Gr'ens. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the facts are that you had no information that 
Elkins was supporting McCourt's campaign during that period of 
time ? 

Mr. GivENS. That is true. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, did I understand this is the witness 
whose name was given as the unim])eachable source by Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is on page 1665 : 

Did you have a lot of evidence or a considerable amount of evidence? 
And I am talking about the evidence that Elkins w^as supporting 
McCourt rather than Langley. 

The Chairman. You are quoting from Crosby's testimony? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am questioning Crosby, and I am asking him 
whether he had a lot of evidence or a considerable amount of evidence 
to the effect that Elkins was backing McCourt. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the question. 

Mr. Crosby replied : 

I had something that I considered unimpeachable and I will bo glad to relate 
it to you when you get around to it. 
Mr. Kennedy. Fine. Go ahead. 

Then he starts to talk. 

Sometime in the summer or early fall of 19.54, a man by the name of Leonard 
Givens had come to my ofHce. 

Had you come to his office ? 

Mr. GivENs. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

He identified himself as a member of the investigating staff of the district 
attorney — 

and then he W' ent on to say that Mr. Givens was trying to get reinstated 
and the teamsters might help. Then he goes on to the subject matter 
that I just read. 

The Chairman. All I want to be sure of is that this is the witness 
that he named as the unimj)eachable source. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 919 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. If you are the unimpeachable source, you have un- 
inipeached the fact that you made any such statement, is that correct? 

\h\ (tivens. AVell, if I am the unimpeachable witness, I figure that 
I try to tell the ti-uth and that is the best that I know on that score 
there. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. In that conversation which you had with Mr. 
Crosby, did j'ou give Mr. Crosby any information which he did not 
alread}' have in connection with any relationship which might have 
existed between Jim Elkins and Mr. McCourt ? 

Mr. GivENS. That i)articular infornuition was secondary in my 
mind. I was more concerned with my own reinstatement. That was 
what I went there originally for. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. But what I am trying to find out 
is whether in that conversation with Mr. Crosby you gave any informa- 
tion of any kind indicating that Mr. McCourt was in the racket busi- 
ness in connection with Mv. Elkins, under control of Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. GivENS. Xo. 

Senator Mundt. Did you give Mr. Crosby any information that Mr. 
Langle}' would be an excellent, fine, unimpeachable attorney if he 
were elected? 

Mr. GivENS. Xo, I wouldn't. I worked too many years under Mr. 
McCourt to make any remarks of disloyalty of that kind. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, vou had confidence in Mr. Mc- 
Court? 

Mr. GivENS. Definitely. 

Senator Mundt. And you had no reason to know that Mr. T^angley 
would be a better law enforcement official than Mr. McCourt ? 

Mr. GivENs. Xo. 

Senator Mundt. I mentioned that because Mr. Crosby a little fur- 
ther down in his testimony says this. Mr. Kennedy says "Based on 
this information," the information we have been discussing : 

Based on this information that Mr. Givens gave you, the teamsters backed 
Mr. Lani^ley over Mr. McCourt ? 
Mr. Crosby. Yes, sir. 

So he attributes to you his sole reason for switching the teamsters 
from McCourt to Langley. You tell us that there was nothing in 
that conversation which would induce any voter to switch his alle- 
giance in that way, is that right ? 

Mr. GivENS. Well, in all fairness £o Mr. Crosby, I don't think that 
anything that I implied by saying "Maybe j^ou are right" would 
swing the whole picture of a political campaign. Once again, if that 
is the situation, I was talking when I should have been listening. 

Senator Mundt. Certainly, saying to Mr. Crosby he was right, 
would not be giving him any new information. That is quite obvious. 

Mr. GI^'ENS. How is that again, please ? 

Senator Mundt. I say certainly by your saying to Mr. Crosby 
"Probably you are right," you w^oulcl not be giving him any new in- 
formation. You would simply be commenting on something he told 
you. 

Mr. GiVENS. Personally, I don't like to delve into anything of that 
kind. I was still more interested in getting my own reinstatement 
started. 



920 mPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. That is right. I wanted to make sure that your 
interest in getting reinstatement did not induce you to say some 
things about Mr. McCourt that might have changed the support. 

Mr. GivENS. No ; definitely not. 

Senator Mundt. Definitely not. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Givens, why did you go to Mr. Crosby 
to see about getting reinstated ? 

Mr. Givens. Many months prior to that situation, I had an occasion 
to make an investigation which led me to the teamsters hall, which at 
that time involved a past employee. I am not just too sure whether 
it was a check or a bill or something of that nature. I was informed 
that they had ceased their employment there with them. As I got 
into the situation, I was directed to Mr. Crosby to discuss the matter, 
because it was something the office girl didn't care to handle. 

In so doing, our conversation developed that this party knew the 
combination of their office safe. So, just in the course of our con- 
versation, I asked him about whether he had made any change in 
their combination, and so on, and he said "I didn't give it a thought. 
I appreciate your courtesy." 

That just about terminated my conversation there, and leaving with 
this remark from Mr. Crosby, that at any time he could be of assistance 
to me, or the office, to make inquiry, which I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Was it general knowledge around Portland 
that, when you were interested in a job, either getting one or being 
reinstated in one, Mr. Crosby or the teamsters were the people to see ? 

Mr. Givens. No. No. I think perhaps why I chose Mr. Crosby 
was the fact that I surmised in my own mind that this acquaintance- 
ship with some of the members of the Civil Service Board may be of 
some value to me. For that reason, I felt that I could at least say 
"Hello, Mr. Crosby," and lay my problem on his desk. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you get reinstated ? 

Mr. Givens. I was reinstated, and then they brought a proceedings 
on the merits in the fourth circuit court, in which time they decided 
against me, and that is on appeal to the Supreme Court. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

(At this point, Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I would just like to say in this connection once again, 
Mr. Chairman, I think that the importance of this cannot be over- 
estimated. Mr. Elkins' testimony was that the teamsters were back- 
ing Mr. McCourt, and then Tom Maloney was brought down by them 
into Portland and was able to switch, through his connections with 
John Sweeney and Frank Brewster was able to switch, the teamsters 
from backing McCourt as they had before, to backing Mr. Langley. 

Mr. Crosby said that was not the reason, but it was because Leonard 
Givens had given him this information about the big chunk of money 
that the head of the syndicate, namely Jim Elkins, was putting up for 
Mr. McCourt. 

Mr. Givens comes in and gives this testimony under oath. 

I think that testimony of Mr. Elkins and Mr. Crosby, which is 
directly contradictory, is extremely important. It begins the whole 
setup of the power of Tom Maloney. 

The Chairman. Have you any further comment, Mr. Givens? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 921 

Mr. GivENS. No, I haven't. I appreciate the courtesy of your kind- 
ness here. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan. 

(Members present at this point: The chairman, Senators Mundt, 
and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Sheridan, 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 nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Sheridan. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. SHEEIDAN 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, your 
business or occupation, or official position if you hold one. 

Mr. Sheridan. Thomas J. Sheridan. I reside in Portland, Oreg. 
My official position is assistant administrator of the Oregon Liquor 
Control Commission. 

The Chairman. Have you talked with members of the staff here 
i-egarding your testimony? 

Mr. Sheridan. I talked with Mr. Kennedy yesterday afternoon 
on the telephone. 

The Chairman. You also talked with me yesterday on the telephone, 
did you not ? 

Mr. Sheridan. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, I assume. You do not have 
counsel with you. 

Mr. Sheridan. No. I don't care for counsel. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan, in 1954 you were the subject of an 
investigation in connection with the Oregon Liquor Commission? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was with regard to certain expenses amount- 
ing to something over or around $40 that you had incurred, your 
family had incurred, at a convention, is that right ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. In 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. Back in 1951. And those expenses had been paid, 
by one of the members of the convention, or some liquor supplier, or 
something? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So during this period of time you had been sus- 
pended from your job ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. I was suspended. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, when this was made public, you were sus- 
pended, is that right ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were anxious, as I understand it, to be able to 
tell your story and to get your job back. Did you speak to Mr. Elkins 
about that? 



922 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sheridan. Well, I had an occasion to meet Mr. Elkins and 
during the course of the conversation, my difficulties were mentioned, 
and that I was on suspension. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Elkins make arrangements to bring you to 
Mr. Clyde Crosby? 

Mr. Sheridan. Not at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he, at a later time ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Subsequently he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately to what date are we now? 

Mr. Sheridan. This would be in November 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. November 1954? ■ 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. INIr. Clyde Crosby at that time was international 
organizer for the Teamsters in the Portland area, in Oregon? 

Mr. Sheridan. I presume that was his position. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known Mr. Crosby prior to that time? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So Mr. Elkins at a later time, subsequent to the time 
you originally talked to him about this, did he say that he would 
bring you to Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. He called me up one night and asked me if I could 
meet him over at the Teamsters' Building at 7 o'clock, and I said "Yes." 
He said, ''Well, I want to introduce you to a friend of mine there." 
I met him over thei-e at the Teamsters' Building and he introduced 
me to Mr. Crosby. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is approximately 7 o'clock at night? 

JSIr. Sheridan. I think so. It could have been 7 : 30 but it was early 
in the evenmg. 

Mr. Kennedy. He brought vou in and introduced you to Mr. 
Crosby? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

The Chairman. How long was this after your first conversation 
with him in which your troubles were mentioned ? 

Mr. Sheridan. With Elkins? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Sheridan. Possibly a week. I am not sure. Senator. 

The Chairman. In other words, you had a conversation with him 
in which your troubles were discussed, and about a week later, Mr. 
Elkins called you and asked you to meet him at the Teamsters' Build- 
ing, that he wanted you to meet a friend of his ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins did bring you down to the Teamsters' 
Building and introduce you to ]\Ir. Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No. 1 met Elkins at the Teamsters' Building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he take you in to meet Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And both of you went into the office, is that right? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He staj^ed for approximately 30 minutes or so. Mr. 
Elkins? 

Mr. Sheridan. I would say ]:)Ossibly 20 to 30 minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then he left ? 

Mr. Sheridan. He left. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 923 

Mr. Kennedy. And you stayed on with Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. And explained the whole matter to Mr. Crosby. 

Mr. Kennedy. You explained all of your problems, is that right? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

]Mr. Kennedy-. There is no question in your mind that it was Mr. 
P^lkins that brought you down to see Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No. 

]VIr. Ivennedy-. Did JSIr. Crosby and Mr. Elkins appear to be ene- 
mies at that time, or did Mr. Crosby appear not to like Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, there was no evidence of animosity between 
either one of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Crosby act as if he did not want to be asso- 
ciated with Mr. Elkins ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Well, I couldn't say that he gave that impression, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not give that. Well, did they appear as 
friends? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did. 

Now, Mr. Crosby testified befoi'e this committee yesterday. At 
page 1745, for instance, he was asked the question, I will state it again : 

Did Mr. Elkins bring Mr. Sheridan to you? 

The answer was^ — 

No, sir. 

Again on page 1745 : 

No. Let us start over again. Did Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Elkins ever meet 
with you V 

Mr. Ckosby. No, sir. 

Then, 

Was there ever a conversation in your office? 

Let us start that way. 

Was there ever a conversation in your office between Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Elkins 
and yourself — 

meaning Mr. Crosby. 

Mr. Crosby's reply to that "No." 

In fact, there was such a meeting, is that right ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And as Mr. Elkins has testified, that meeting took 
place in Mr. Crosby's office ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

The CiiAiR3iAN. Do you now know Mr. Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you see him in this room ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, he is back there. 

The Chairman. You recognize him? 

Mr. Sheridan, Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Elkins ? 

Mr. Sheridan, Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you see him in this room ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, he is sitting back there. 

The Chairman. You are telling us under oath that the three of 
you were together that evening in Mr. Crosby's office? 



924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And that Mr. Elkins called you to meet him there 
and you did meet him ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. Elkins called me at my home. Mr. 
Elkins called me at my home and asked me. 

The Chairman. He called you and arranged for you to meet him 
there? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

The Chairman. He was going to introduce you to a friend of his? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have any information until now that 
they were not friends? I am talking about friends at that time. 

Mr. Sheridan. At that time ? No. 

The Chairman. That is what I am talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just wanted to read or also quote to you from page 
1753. This is a statement I made which described the time of the 
meeting. 

It was at 7 o'clock at night, Mr. Chairman. There wasn't anyone else in 
the building. 

The Chairman. I want to give you the benefit of every opportunity to say 
yes or no. 

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Kennedy says the meeting was held at 7 o'clock at night 
and there was no one else in the building. I can certainly recall that that never 
happened. 

In fact, it did happen, is that right? 

Mr. Sheridan. The meeting? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you see anyone else in the building at the 
time? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, I didn't. There was possibly some janitors or 
somebody like that around there, but I didn't pay any attention to 
them. 

The Chairman. You did not see anybody there that you recognize 
as working with the teamsters or officials or anyone like that ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No. 

The Chairman. Or any other callers on Mr, Crosby ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, 

The Chairman. No activity in the offices other than possibly the 
janitors, and so forth? 

Mr. Sheridan. Well, the janitors were not in the office in which we 
were. 

The Chairman. I mean, you saw no activity around the building 
other than you might expect when a building was not occupied? I 
mean outside of business hours. 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. Of course, there could have been 
activity on some other floor that I wasn't on that I knew nothing about. 

The Chairman, So far as you observed, there was no other activity, 
not other business being transacted, on the floor you were on ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also have an affidavit here that 
bears a little bit on the general relationship of Crosby and Elkins 
during this period of time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 925 

The Chairman. May the Chair inquire if this Mr. Carl E. Crisp 
is the Mr. Crisp that was referred to in Mr. Crosby's testimony? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Do you want anything further from this witness? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just one other thing. 

During the period of time that Mr. Langley was district attorney and 
was involved in the liquor investigation, of the liquor commission, did 
you have some coiversation with him? 

Mr. Sheridan. With Langley ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did some of those conversations take place in Mr. 
Maloney's room ? 

Mr. Sheridan. One did. 

Mr. Kennedy. One did. And that conversation lasted for a period 
of about an hour? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, the district attorney was allegedly 
investigating activities in the liquor commission, is that right? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he had a conversation with you at that time, 
outlining what he expected to do and what information he expected to 
have ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Well, I don't recall that he did that. I think the 
main purpose of that meeting was that he wanted to get the facts from 
me, as to just how I was involved in the matter. I don't believe that 
he disclosed to me any information that he may have had other than 
what I gave him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That took place in Mr. Maloney's room? 

Mr, Sheridan, That is what I learned later. At the time, I didn't 
know whose apartment it was. 

Senator Mundt. How did it happen to happen in Mr. Maloney's? 
I cannot quite get this straight. Why not Mr, Langley's office, if he 
was trying to get information ? 

Mr, Sheridan, Mr. Langley called me and asked me to meet him 
at the King Tower Apartments, 

Senator Mundt, Mr. Langley called you and asked you to go to a 
certain apartment ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. 

Senator Mundt, At that time, yoii did not know whose apartment 
it was ? 

Mr, Sheridan. No. 

Senator Mundt. When you got there, you found Mr. Maloney was 
in the room and it was his apartment ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, Mr, Maloney was not there. 

Senator Mundt. He was not there ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. But it was Mr. Maloney's apartment ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is right. I learned later that it was Mr. 
Maloney's apartment. 

(At this point, Senator Ives entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. When you arrived, was Mr. Langley in the apart- 
ment ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, he was there. 



926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. He was there by himself ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. No one else came in or went out while you were 
there? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, sir. rr- 1 •. j; 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have these two affidavits Irom 
Carl Crisp. I think there was at least a suggestion yesterday by Mr. 
Crosby that it was through Mr. Crisp's intervention that he took the 
action in Mr. Sheridan's case. ^ , -^ x nr 

We have an affidavit on that, and also we have an affidavit from Mr. 
Crisp regarding the relationship between Mr. Elkms and Mr. Crosby. 

The Chairman. The affidavits may be read in evidence If the 
committee then feels he should be brought here by subpena for cross- 
examination, that will be in order. -, i . i • i 

Mr Kennedy. I asked Mr. Crisp to come, and he has been sick 
and he is confined to his house. The doctor felt that it was better that 
he should not travel. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The affidavit may be read. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

T Carl R Crisp, a citv of Portland police officer, legally residing at 20 N W. 
16th Avenue. Portland, Oreg., freely and voluntarily make the following state- 
ment iJt George Williams who has identified himself to me as a member of the 
Zfeslnailaff of and an agent for the United States Senate Select Committee 
oriSpioX Activities in the Labor or Management Field. No threats, force 
oidiSess have been used to induce me to make this statement. I am fully aware 
of ?he penaltres for perjury or falsely swearing and I have been informed thut 
Sis statement may be introduced as evidence in the hearings before the afore- 
mentioned Senate Select Committee : , ^. ^ ^.i, 

mentionea benaie . Sheridan for 15 years or more, dating from the 

never been together at the same place at any time. 
The Chairman. This affidavit may be printed in the record m full 

^^ Mr.' Kennedy. Then, Mr. Chairman, the same preliminary state- 
ment on the next affidavit. 

^ T. 4-1 /I ^ March 12, 1957. 

City of Portland) 

County of Multnomah) SS. 

State "of Oregon) 

T Pari R Crisp a city of Portland police officer, legally residing at 20 NW. 

Blkins Leoause EIM„s vvjs '""l ;<"■" "".'"^"J f . .",*V^ ,pm" ks nt that time. I 

i,^Lt'LrTrr,;r„rnt'"^'"r;^;n;ra's^,i,,.,, t„. ■.- •■ .as t... 

Maloney. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 927 

I didn't want to get in the middle of an argument between these men and I 
replied that I had known Elkins for some years and that he had a reputation 
of keeping his word. I added that Elkins might be slow at times in Iceeping his 
appointments but that eventually he got around to keeping his promises. 

I have read the foregoing statement, consisting of this page, at the bottom of 
which I have affixed my name, and to the best of my present knowledge and 
belief, it is true and correct. 

(S) Gael R. Crisp. 
March 12, 1957. 
Witness : 

(S) T. George Williams. 
(S) Jane E. Williams. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for Multnomah 
County, State of Oregon, this 12th day of March 1957. 

(S) Harry D. Skleton. 
My commission expires September 11, 1960. 

The Chairman. Both of those affidavits are dated yesterday, is that 
correct? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. They will both be in the record. 

The staff has some work to do that will have to require the atten- 
tion, also, of the chairman for a while this afternoon. 

Under those circumstances, I think it would be inadvisable to start 
with the next witness, whose testimony will be of some duration, I may 
say. So I feel that we should recess at this time, and come back and 
start afresh in the morning. 

The committee stands in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: The chairman. Sena- 
tors Ives, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

Whereupon, at 3 : 40 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a. m., Thursday, March 14, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. G. 

The select oommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L, McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena- 
tor Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., 
Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan ; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Sena- 
tor 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, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The Chair will make a brief statement for the 
record. 

Since the committee recessed on yesterday, there have been some 
rather interesting developments and a great deal of it has already been 
publishd in the morning papers. But I thought for this record the 
Chair should make a statement. I shall read into the record the 
statement I made last night to the press after Mr. Jimmy Hoffa was 
arrested by the FBI for violation of Federal law in attempting to 
bribe a Government official and for other crimes that may be involved 
in the activities associated with that action. 

Mr. Hoffa was arrested last night about 11:10, I believe, at the 
Dupont Plaza Hotel as he was entering the elevator or in the elevator, 
as he started to his room. Immediately preceding that he had had a 
contact with a member of this committee's staff somewhere in the area 
of Dupont Circle, at which time the member of this staff gave Mr. Hoffa 
some papers and documents from the files of this committee. 

This was not the first occasion that Mr. Hoffa had received docu- 
ments out of the files of this committee. This all starts with a date 
sometime early last month, near the middle of last month rather, when 
Mr. Cheasty was contacted by a lawyer here in Washington, named 
Fischback, who persuaded him to go to Detroit to see Mr. Jimmy Hoffa 
under the assurance that Mr. Hoffa had a job for him to do. He met 

929 

89330— 57— pt. 3 12 



930 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

with Mr. Hoffa in the teamsters headquarters in Detroit at which 
time Mr. Hoffa employed him to undertake to become a member of 
the staff of this committee, and if successful, then to serve him in that 
capacity by getting information for him and doing anything else that 
might be helpful to Mr. Hoffa or that might be of interest to him and 
for his benefit. 

He was to be paid a total of $18,000 for his services, $1,000 of 
which was paid in cash at that time. Mr. Cheasty returned to Wash- 
ington and promptly reported what had occurred to this committee. 
The chairman immediately arranged for a conference with Mr. J. 
Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at 
which time it was decided that the Justice Department, the FBI, and 
the committee would work together cooperatively to explore this 
matter and see just what it meant. 

I may say that even prior to that time, the chairman who has been 
working diligently and expeditiously and carefully to select a staff to 
do this work had received information from sources that someone or 
certain elements would undertake to place someone on the staff, one 
or more people, to keep them informed of plans of the committee and 
so forth. 

Following that conference, Mr. Cheasty was interviewed at my 
office with the reporter of this committee present and he made a 
complete record of his statement which he swore to and at that time 
$700 of the first $1,000 was delivered to the FBI for safekeeping. 

Shortening the story since then, Mr. Clieasty has had many con- 
tacts with Mr. Fischback and also with Mr. Hoffa. On Monday night 
of this week Mr. Cheasty with our knowledge and with the knowledge 
of tlie FBI delivered to Mr. Hoffa some documents from the committee 
file, at which time Mr. Hoffa paid him $2,000. 

The FBI covered that meeting as it had covered many telephone 
conversations between Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Cheasty. Thereafter, that 
same night, about 12 o'clock that night, those papers were returned. 
There was another meeting between Mr. Hoft'a and Mr. Cheasty and 
those papers or documents were returned. 

Last night another meeting was arranged between Mr. Hoffa and 
Mr. Cheasty, and they met and some more papers were delivered and 
promptly thereafter Mr. Hoffa was arrested with the papers on him. 

Mr. Hoffa is now under $25,000 bond, and Mr. Fischback was 
promptly arrested in Florida, somewhere, in Miami, I believe, and 
placed under $10,000 bond, and Mr. Hoffa's secretary, a lady by the 
name of Mrs. Fred Dobrescu, who has been the intermediary between 
:Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Cheasty. 

Xow, the Chair issued this statement last night to the press : 

The information came to us more tlian a month ago that Mr. Hoffa was 
undertaliing to plant someone on the committee staff to represent him, to giv 
him information, and l^eep liim informed of the committee's plans, and of any 
information the committee might obtain or possess that would he of interest 
to him. When we checked and found that this was a fact, we immediately had 
a conference with Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal lUireau of In- 
vestigation. We also had conferences with the Justice Department. It was 
agreed that the committee, the FBI and the Justice Department would all 
cooperate in this undertaking. Daily constant contacts have been maintained 
by us. 

AVhat happened tonight is the result of this combined and coordinated effort. 
I am sure I speak for our Government and all good citizens of this country 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 931 

when I say that we are grateful to Mr. Cheasty, a member of- our staff, for his 
ureat courage and patriotic devotion, and for his loyalty to his country and to 
t he position of trust which he occupies with this committee. 

This action of Mr. Hoffa is clearly indicative of the steps that the gangster 
elements are undertaking and will continue to undertake to hinder, hamper, 
obstruct and destroy this committee. This committee will pursue its duties. 

This committee will pursue its duties and it will endeavor with 
fidelity to our country and to the best interest and welfare of our 
people to carry out the assignment that has been entrusted to it. We 
will probably encounter other obstacles, and other difficulties and more 
interference. But I want to assure those who plan such a course that 
we will try to meet them and accept their challenge, and deal with 
them accordingly. 

( At this point. Senator McNamara entered the room. ) 

Senator ^Iundt. Mr. Chairman, I think we should make clear one 
]y.n't of your statement that the jjress might possibly misconstrue, when 
you said that the FBI covered the telephone conversations. That was 
not wiretapping, and it was not an}' illegal covering, and I do not 
think that vou meant that. 

The Chairman. The Chair will clarify that. The FBI heard one 
end of the conversation. There was no wiretapping involved any- 
where at any time. 

Senator Mundt. I thought we ought to have that in the record. 
Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that speaking for myself, as I told some 
reporters that called me up with some of these phone calls you get in 
this business, about 1, 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, that it occurs 
to me that with high officials of the Teamsters Union destroying 
records at one end of the continent, and other high officials of the 
Teamsters Union trying to steal documents and records at the other 
end of the continent, there are facts and information which these offi- 
cials desire to conceal from their dues-paying members and from the 
l^ublic and from Congress which obviously are much more startling 
than the early evidence before this committee would have led us to 
])resume. I think that our staff and the FBI are to be congratulated 
on demonstrating to the country that goon-squad methods applied to 
the United States Senate will not work. 

The CiTAiRMAN. Thank you. Senator Mundt. Is there anyone else? 

The Chair might add one thing, I am sure the press knows it, but 
Mr. Iloffa practically controls all transportation except railroad 
between the Atlantic Ocean and the Rocky Mountains. That is the 
stature of his figure in the Teamsters Union according to the best 
information I have. 

All right, call the first witness. 

Mr. Kexxedy. The district attorney of Multnomah County, Wil- 
li;) m Langley. 

Tlip Chatrm.an. Come around, Mr. Langley. 

( Present at this point in the hearing were Senators McClellan, Ives, 
McXamara and Mundt.) 

The CiiAuntAx. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, t:he whole 
ti-uth and nothing but the truth, so lielp you God? 

Mr. Laxcley. I do. 



932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. LANGLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, EICHAED R. CARNEY 

The Chairman. Mr. Langley, state your name and your place of 
residence and your business, profession or occupation. 

Mr. Langley. William M. Langley, Portland, Oreg., district at- 
torney of Multnomah County, Oreg. 

Tlie Chairman. How long have you been district attorney of that 
county, Mr. Langley? 

Mr. Langley. Since January, 1955. 

The Chairman. Mr. Langley, you have elected to have counsel 
present while you testify ? 

Mr. Langley. That is correct. 

The Chairman. He is counsel of your own choice? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you please identify yourself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Carney. Mr. Chairman, I am Richard Carney, attorney at law, 
Portland, Oreg. and I practice law in Portland with Mr. K. C. Tanner. 

The Chairman. That is Mr. K. C. Tanner and you are associated 
in the firm together? 

Mr. Carney. Yes, we are. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Carney. Before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, may we not have 
the cameras and flash bulbs in front of us during the testimony ? 

The Chairman. Do you object to the lights? 

Mr. Carney. Not except the one straight ahead there, we have no 
objection. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the photographers will desist from tak- 
ing flash pictures and I think that we had better apply that whether 
there is a flash or not to certain of you folks, because if there are those 
who have some camera that works without flashes that gives them an 
advantage. 

Let me inquire now whether the snapping of the cameras without 
flash you think distracts you, and would you like to have it all cease. 

Mr. Carney. We would rather have it all cease until we are finished. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Gentlemen, you will obey the order of the Chair. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Langley, could you give me a little bit of your 
background, where you were born ? 

Mr. Langley. I was born in Portland, Oreg. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what year and what date ? 

Mr. Langley. March 26, 1916. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went to school there, did you ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere about? 

Mr. Langley. Do you mean 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, what high school did you go to ? 

Mr. Langj^ey. Grant High School. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Portland, Oreg. ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And college? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 933 

Mr. Langley. University of Oregon, and I graduated from a law 
school, Northwestern College of Law, in Portland. 

The Chairman. What year did you graduate from law school ? 
Mr. Langley. I graduated in 1938 and I was admitted to practice 
law in Oregon in 1938. 

The Chairman. Did you go into the practice of law in 1938 ? 
Mr. Langley. Yes, sir, with my father. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did your father have some official position in 
Oregon ? 

Mr. Langley. Well, he practiced law in Portland for 60 years. At 
one time he served as district attorney of Multnomah County. 
Mr. Kennedy. When was he district attorney ? 
Mr. Langley. It was from 1930 to 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, from 1938 you practiced law until what time ? 
Mr. Langley. Well, I was an assistant United States attorney for 
a period of time, but I followed the profession of law at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become an assistant United States 
attorney? 
Mr. Langley. I believe it was in 1942. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you served as an assistant United States attorney 
from 1942 to when ? 

Mr. Langley. To 1946. 

Mr. Kennedy. From 1942 to 1946 you were an assistant United 
States attorney ? 

Mr. Langley. I think those dates are approximately correct. 
Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was the U. S. Attorney ? 
Mr. Langley. Mr. Carl Donaugh. 
Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name? 
Mr. Langley. D-o-n-a-u-g-h. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, in 1946 did vou go back into the practice of 
law? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir, with my father. 
Mr. Kennedy. With your father ? 
Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the first time that you ran for public 
position ? 

Mr. Langley. Well, I am not sure. I ran for the Oregon Legisla- 
ture one time and I am not sure whether that was — it was about 1947, 
I think. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. About 1947 and were you elected at that time? 
Mr. Langley. No Democrat was elected at that time. 
Mr. Kennedy. And you ran as a Democrat ? 
Mr. Langley. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. When did you run again ? 
Mr. Langley. Well, I ran for district attorney in 1949. 
Mr. Kennedy. And were you successful ? 
Mr. Langley. No, I was not. 
Mr. Kennedy, The next time, when did you run. 
Mr. Langley. In 1954. 
Mr. Kennedy. And you were successful ? 
Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your term now runs through to when ? 
Mr. Langley. Well, it was a 4-year term and it began January of 
1955 and so it runs to 1959. 



934 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee when you tirst met 
Mr. JimElkms? 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave the background, you ran and were 
elected in 1954? 

Mr. Langley. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have a primary contest that year ? 

Mr. Langley. No, I did not. 

Senator Mundt. You were elected by the Democratic Party without 
any contest? 

Mr. Langley. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Nominated, I should say. You were nominated, 
or in other words you filed for nomination and nobody filed against 
you ? 

Mr. Langley. We have an open primai-y system in Oregon and I 
ran unopposed in the primary and I was nominated. 

Senator Mundt, And you defeated Mr. McCourt in the fall 



campaign 



Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Senator IMundt. The Republican incumbent? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee when vou ttrst .met 
Mr. JimElkins? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Obviously this counsel is not familiar with the 
procedure of the committee and I think that you should explain to 
him that under our rules you have a right to consult with your client 
at any time he asks you to, but no right to volunteer information to 
him. 

Mr. Carney. I understood. Senator Mundt, that he leaned over 
to me and started talking first. 

Senator Mundt. I was not complaining, and I was just making 
certain we did not go through a sort of pagan ritual that has been 
going on before us. 

I propose to get it stopped if I can get it stopped. I was not com- 
plaining about what you had done. You are not a Washington attor- 
ney and so I thought 

Mr. Carney. No, sir, but I have been here since the 25th and I have 
become aware of the rule. 

The Chairman. Since counsel is aware of tlie rules he will be 
expected, of course, to observe them. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Langley. I respectfully decline to answer the question and 
invoke the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. District Attorney, would you tell the committee 
when you first met Mr. Jim Elkins? As the district attorney of 
Multnomah county, Oreg., would 3'ou tell the committee when you 
first met Mr. Jim Elkins ? 

Mr. Langley. I have answered that question. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you again and I do not know whether 
I understood you correctly. 

Mr. Langley. I am respectfully declining to answer the question 
for the reason that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair will ask you at this point, and probably 
ask vou n number of tiuies, do you state under your oath to this com- 
mittee that you honestly believe that if you answered that question 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 935 

and told the truth tliat such answer and the truth thereof might tend 
to incriminate you? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Laxgley. In this setting, the answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Laxgley. I say in this setting the answer might tend to incrim- 
inate me. 

'riie Chairman. You mean to reflect upon this setting? 

Mr. Langley. Not upon the committee, your honor. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, let us get a little more information 
about this setting. Will you dilate on that a little bit? What are 
you complaining about? 

Mr. Langley. I am only using the language of the United States 
Supreme Court, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Will you apply the language of the United States 
Supreme Court to the Senate caucus room of the United States Senate 
so I can understand it? 

Mr. Langley. I think that it means the type of hearing and the 
statements made in the circumstances of the witness. 

Senator Mundt. Let us take those up one by one, beginning with 
''the circumstances of the witness." What are the circumstances of 
the witness other than the fact he is the district attorney of Mult- 
nomah County, Oreg. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lancjley. AVell now. Senator, I am under indictment in Mult- 
nomah County on a conspiracy charge and in view of the testimony 
that has been introduced here I feel that I ought to invoke my con- 
stitutional rights. 

Senator Mundt. How many indictments rest against you? 

Mr. Langley. I have three, all involving the same situation in my 
opinion, but they ai-e in the nature of conspiracy indictments. 

Senator Mundt. Are they State or Federal? 

Mr. Langley. They are State. 

Senator Mundt. That is what you mean when you talk abnur the 
circumstances of the witness ? 

Mr. Langley. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Now we go to the second clause and that is the 
nature of the hearing. Now what do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Langley. Well, this hearing is an investigation and it is not 
a trial and I feel that my personal difficulties can best be settled in a 
trial in Oregon. 

Now I intend to be a witness there in my own defense and, of course, 
the transcript of my testimony will be available to this committee. 
I would add, too, that if the committee thinks that there are any 
questions which I could answer that would assist this committee in 
eventually making its findings, if those questions are transmitted to 
the attorney general, I am sure he will ask me those questions and 
they will be in the transcript which will be available to this committee. 

Senator Mundt. Surely you must appreciate, Mr. Langley, that this 
committee prefers to interrogate its witnesses directly, rather than 
straining the testimony through the lips and mind of the attorney 
general of Oregon. 

Mr. Langley. I appreciate that. 



936 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You can either answer them or refuse to answer 
them, but certainly we are not going to present our interrogation by 
that kind of a triangulation. 

Mr. Langley. I am only pointing out to the Senator that I am not 
shutting the committee oif entirely. 

Senator Mundt. But you will answer some questions? 

Mr. I7ANGLEY. If I feel that they do not incriminate me. 

Senator Mcjndt. If they do not involve your particular indictments, 
will you feel free to answer the question? 

Mr. Langley. I will have to pass judgment on those as the ques- 
tions are asked. 

Senator Mundt. Very good, we will be asking some. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the questions, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been your relationship, Mr. District At- 
torney, with Mr. Tom Ma.loney ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel that an answer to that question might 
incriminate you? 

Mr. Langley. It might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Joe McLaughlin. What has your 
relationship with Mr. Joe McLaughlin been ? 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And what about your relationship with Mr. Clyde 
Crosby, who is the international organizer of the teamsters? 

Mr. Langley. I am not sure as to your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat has been your relationship with him ? AYhen 
did you first meet Mr. Clyde Crosby ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. On when you first met Mr. Clyde Crosby, the in- 
ternational organizer of the teamsters, you take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he involved in any of your indictments? 

Mr. Langley. Well, now, I will be glad to make an explanation 
if the committee will assure me that it will not be constituted as a 
waiver against my position. 

The Chairman. You have counsel to advise you and the committee 
will not undertake to advise you. It will interrogate you about mat- 
ters that are relevant and pertinent on this inquiry. 

Mr. Langley. In those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would then 
invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you just tell the committee whether Mr. 
Clyde Crosby is involved in any of your indictments ? 

The Chairman. That is a matter of record and I think the witness 
knows that. If he does not want to, that is his privilege. 
(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I will answer that question in this way, that cir- 
cumstantially, he possibly is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he named a defendant or a party to any of your 
indictments ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 937 

(At this point in the proceedings, Senator Gold water entered the 
room.) 

Mr. Langley. No, he is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then now will you tell the conimittee when you first 
met Mr. Clyde Crosby, the international organizer of the teamsters ? 

Mr. Langley. I decline to answer that on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just admitted he was not involved as a party 
in any of your indictments and did you not give the committee that 
information ? 

Mr. Langley. I would be glad to explain my position in that 
matter. But I am hesitant to do it if you are going to claim that I 
have constituted a waiver. 

Mr. Kennedy. As the chairman said, that is up to you and your 
attorney. 

Mr. Langley. Under those circumstances, I am invoking the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know the mayor of Portland, Mr. Terry 
Schrunk? 

Mr. Langley. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Langley. Since about 1949, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you and he ever work, since 1949, to abate any 
afterhours places in Portland? 

(The witness consulted with his attorney.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is some 7 or 8 years ago. 

Mr. Langley. Now I don't understand your last statement about 
6 or 7 years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since you met him, in 1949. 

Mr. Langley. Of course, I was not in an official position. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since 1954, you are right. 

Mr. Langley. If you are asking me whether I filed any abatement 
cases, I can answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, let me ask, I will break it down, did he 
ever request that you have any places abated? 

Mr. Langley. No, he did not. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. From the time that you became district attorney in 
1954, he never requested that you abate any afterhours places or houses 
of prostitution or call-girl place ? 

Mr. Langley. Well, of course, there is some ambiguous language in 
the question, but I think that I can^answer that question by saying 
he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you tell the committee there has been 
some testimony th^t when you ran for district attorney, back, I be- 
lieve, the first time you ran for district attorney in 1949, was it ? 

Mr. Langley. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you any interest in any gambling establish- 
ments at that time? 

Mr. Langley. I woidd decline to answer that and invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, that is 1949, and it has nothing to do with your 
indictments in 1955. 

Mr. Langley. Well, I am charged in a conspiracy, and a conspir- 
acy is based on circumstantial evidence, and I feel quite strongly that 
the answer might tend to incriminate me. 



938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did _you own an establishment with Mr. Jim Elkins 
durin^r the 1940's? 

Mr. Lax(;ley. I woukl decline to answer that and invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Ml'. Kexxedy. Was there gambling going on in that estaVdishment 
when you owned it jointly with Mr. Jim Elkins ^ 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Laxgley. I would decline to answer that and invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you ever pay any moneys to Mr. Jim Elkins ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Laxgley. Would you name the time and place, please ? 

Mr. Kexxedy. In 1949, did you ever pay money to him? 

]Mr. Laxgley. I would decline to answ^er that and invoke the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. In 1950 did you pay any money to him? 

Mr. Laxgley. I would decline to answer. 

Mr. Kexxedy. In 1951 did you pay any money to him? 

Mr. Laxgley. I would decline and invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. In 1952, did you pay any money to him? 

Mr. Laxgley. I would decline and invoke the fifth amendment. 

Tlie Chairmax. The Chair asks again as to these questions that 
have been asked you now, when you take the fifth amendment do 
you state to tliis committee under oath that you honestly believe that 
if you answered these questions truthfully, a truthful answer might 
tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Laxgley. My answer is the same as it was before, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairmax. What was your answer before? 

Mr. Laxgley. That the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairmax. Thank you. Proceed. 

Senator ]Muxdt. I would like to ask the witness, have you received 
any money from Mr. Elkins since you were indicted by the grand 
jury? 

Mr. Laxgley. I w^ould invoke the fifth amendment and decline to 
answer that question. 

Senator Muxdt. Why did you ask the counsel to name the places 
and the times if you were going to take the fifth amendment on all 
of it? 

(Tlie witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Laxgley. Well, the question was ambiguous and I thought it 
ought to be exact. 

Senator Mfxdt. He made it very exact and then, after he made it 
exact, you were afraid to answer, is that right? 

Mr. Laxgley. Now, Senator, I don't thinlv you shoidd say that. 

Senator Muxdt. Well, you declined to answer under the fifth 
amendment because it might tend to incriminate the district attorney 
of Multnomah County; is that right? 

Mr. Laxgley. Senator, I don't want to be disrespectful of you, but 
when you took an oath, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution 
and the fifth amendment is a part of the Constitution. And now I am 
entitled to mv legal rights, and you ought not to embarrass me about it. 

Senator Muxdt. You embarrass yourself about it and it is very 
embarrassing to me as a citizen of this countrv to find any district 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 939 

iittoniev presently sitting in tluit office, hidiii*;^ behind the fifth amend- 
ment. It is eniburrassino- to me to think of the people of Portland, 
Oreo:., with a mayor Avho flunks a lie-detector test and a district attor- 
ney hidino; behind the fifth amendment. 

If I lived tliere I would siiofgest they pull tlie fla^ down at half 
niast in public shame. So I am embarrassed. 

Tlie Chairman. The Cliair wishes to make this statement. 

Mr. Langley. I would like to 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The Chair makes this statement, 
that the fifth amendment or the taking- of the fifth amemhnent is not 
a duty. It is simply a privi]eo:e that a witness may exercise. In my 
judiiinent he can only exercise the privilefje, if in t»;ood conscience, he 
honestly believes tliat tlie ijivin^ of a truthful answer under oath 
would f"end to incriminate him. 

So it is upon that ])remise this witness is being- questioned. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yon take an oath of oliice wlien you were sworn 
in as district attorney? 

Mr. Langley. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy.. Yon did, and you would know. Did you? 

Mr. Langley. Well, I believe I did; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that oath of office to uphold the laws of Mult- 
nomah County? 

Mr. Langley. I presume so, and I have forgotten the contents of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you kept that oath of office to uphold and en- 
force the laws of Multnomah County ? 

Mr. Langley. No. I am indicted under a statute charging mal- 
feasance in office and for that reason I must decline to answer your 
question and invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you kept your oath of office to uphold the laws 
and enforce the laws of the State of Oregon ? 

Mr. Langley. I give you the same answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that answer, Mr. District Attorney? 

Mr. Langley. I am indicted for alleged malfeasance in office and for 
that reason I am declining to answer and invoking the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question : 
Mr. District Attorney, you are a lawyer and I presume a pretty g:ood 
one, and I am not. J am just a country boy from South Dakota, but 
I would like to have j^our answer to this question : 

If the counsel says to you, "Have you kept your oath to enforce the 
laws of the State of Oregon," and you answer affirmatively and em- 
phatically, "Yes," how does tliat hurt you with your indictment? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Well, Senator Mundt, if I answered that question it 
coiUd vei-y easily constitute a waiver, and then you would be entitled 
to ask me other questions along the same line, which I would be obli- 
gated to answer, having waiverl the invoking of the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. You would have waived it in connection with the 
area of the question which was whether or not you had enforced the 
law. 

Mr. Langley. I feel it might constitute a waiver, Senator. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliile you were district attorney of Multnomah 
County, did you receive any moneys from Mr. Tom Maloney ? 



940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were district attorney of Multnomah 
County, did you receive any moneys from Mr. Joe McLaughlin ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss receiving moneys with Mr. Tom 
Maloney in Mr. Tom Maloney's apartment? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive moneys from Mr. Tom Maloney and 
Mr. Joe McLaughlin for afterhours joints that they were operating? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you receive any moneys from Mr. Tom Maloney 
and Mr. Joe McLaughlin from any call houses they were operating? 

Mr. Langley. I will invoke the first amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money from Mr. James Elkins ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been in the apartment of Mr. Torn 
Maloney ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been in the hotel room of Mr. Joe 
McLaughlin ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee whether your bills, any 
of your bills, have been paid since the time that you have been elected 
district attorney, by the teamsters' union? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Now, werc your bills, hotel bills when you visited 
Seattle, Wash., paid by the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you were elected district attorney in Novem- 
ber of 1954, did Mr. Tom Maloney bring you down to the State of 
California ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were in California, were your hotel bills 
and your vacation bills paid by the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet Mr. Frank Brewster in the State of 
California when you were there? 

(The witness consulted w^ith his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. All of these questions 
will be answered in my trial and you will have a transcript of that 
testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet Mr. John Sweeney when you were 
down in California? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay your hotel bills when you were there I 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements with Mr. Frank Brews- 
ter and Mr. John Sweeney for opening up after-hours places ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. I tell you again all 
of these questions will be answered in my trial and this committee will 
have a transcript of that testimony. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 941 

The Chairman. Mr. District Attorney, I have no way of knowing 
when and if a trial ever will be had in some other jurisdiction. This 
committee has a duty and a responsibility to the United States Senate, 
and to the citizens and taxpayers of this country to carry out the 
assignment reposed in it by a resolution unanimously adopted by the 
United States Senate. 

This committee is going to pursue its task. It is going to question 
jou about everything that is in your knowledge that is pertinent to this 
inquiry. So whether you like the questions will make no difference. 
You will have the opportunity, you are being given the opportunity, 
to answer questions which, if you can answer them truthfully, might 
refute testimony that is already before this committee regarding your 
official conduct. 

Therefore, sir, the committee will pursue these questions. You can, 
and it is your privilege, to take the fifth amendment, if that is what 
you choose to do. But the fact that you choose to do it will not cause 
the committee to be reluctant to pursue its duty. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some tape recordings that 
are available to be played and possibly the other members of the com- 
mittee would like to ask some questions prior to that time. 

The Chairman. Do any other members of the committee have 
questions ? 

The Chair may say for the information of the committee, that we 
have certain tape recordings that will be introduced in evidence while 
this witness remains on the witness stand. 

They will be played and they will be verified and sworn to before 
they are played. Are there any other questions ? Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Has the date been set for this trial that you 
make reference to ? 

Mr. Langlet. Yes, and one of the committee assistants assured the 
judge that I would return about February 29. Now, I have been here 
since February 25, but what the judge has done about the case since 
I have been away, I do not know. 

Senator McNamara. I want to ask what is the date set for the 
trial? 

Mr. Langley. I think it was some consideration about March 8, 
which date has now passed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say that I have had some conversa- 
tions with the judge, and the judge realizes that you are here on im- 
portant work and he has agreed that you may stay and testify before 
the committee. 

The Chairman. All right. Are there any further questions ? 

All right, if not, Mr. Counsel, you may bring your witness to testify 
as to the documents in the nature of tape recordings which you wish to 
introduce. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

I do not think you have been asked the question this morning I 
would like to ask you. Did the Teamsters Union support you in your 
successful campaign for district attorney? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Well, Senator, I think the answer to that is common 
knowledge, but because it might be involved in this conspiracy case, 
I am declining to answer on the fifth amendment. 



942 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Muxdt. It would seem to me that your declining to answer 
that on the grounds that it might incriminate you puts a rather bad 
stigma on the Teamsters Union wliich 1 presume will be your friend. 
1 wonder if it is a matter of common knowledge why you do not 
answer it, 

Mr, Langley. Is that in the form of a question ? 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr, Langley. Would you repeat it, please? 

Senator Muxdt. Yes. It seems to me that your refusal to answer 
that question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate you 
stigmatizes the Teamsters Union which I presume to be your friend. 

1 Avonder whether you would not like to give us a direct an.swer 
instead of taking the fifth amendment, 

Mr, Langley. I have stated my position, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. You do not care to change it ? 

Mr. Langley. No. 

The CiiAiR]MAN. May I ask the witness just to remain where he is 
and if they will set up another chair right here before these micro- 
phones for the other witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins, would you come over here, please? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Resumed 

The CiLMKMAX. As I underst:snd it, it is all right to make the pic- 
tures except when the witness is testifying. 

Mr. Elkins, you have been previously sworn at these hearings and 
have given previous testimony regarding the subject matters that 
inquiry has been made of you? 

Air. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAiRMAX'. You will remain under the same oath and do you 
acknowledge that ? 

Mr. Elkins, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, xlll right, Mr, Counsel, proceed, 

Mr, Kennedy, Now, Mr. Elkins, we have discussed in the past the 
fact that you put a tape recorder into the room of Mr. Tom Maloney, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Ei.KiNs. That is correct, 

Mr, Kexxedy. And what address was that tape recording put in? 

Mr. Elkixs. It was in the King Towers apartment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. That is in the city of Portland ? 

Mr. Elkixs, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VAriiat was the mechanics of it and where did vou 
put it? 

Mr, Elkins, It was put in the living room, and there Avas a micro- 
phone put ill the living room and run into the next apartment, and 
the wires run in, 

Mr, Kennedy, Was the microphone put in the living room, and 
the wires ran into the next apartment ? 

Mr. Elkix^s, That's correct, 

Mr. Kennedy, And their conversations were taken down, is tliat 
rig'ht ^ 

Mr. I^LKixs, That's right, 

Mr. Kennedy, And they were i)ut on tapes. 

Mr. Elkixs. That's correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 943 

Mr. Kennedy. Noav you say tliat there are about 70 or more hours 
of tapes, is that right ^ 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Let me ask you, the tape machines recorded the 
conversations as they took place? 

Mr. EIlkins. That's correct, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. So what we have here is the tape recordings that 
yon have turned over to this committee — that we now propose to 
play are tape recordings that you, yourself, made? 

Mr. Kennedy. Or supervised. 

The Chairman. AVere you present at all times when this tape re- 
cording was being made? 

Mr. Elkins. Xo, sir: I wasn't present at all times. 

Mr. Carney. "We cannot hear and I think the microphones are dead. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Elkins. I wasn't present in the room where the recorder was 
all of the time. 

The Chairman. But you were there much of the time ? 

Mr. Elkins. That's correct, and they were turned over to me and 
they weren't out of my possession until I turned them over to otlier 
people. 

The Chairman. Mav I ask you before we begin, if you have heard 
these tapes played since. 

Mr. Elkins. Well, some parts of them, yes. 

The Ciiair:man. Can you identify the voices that will be recorded 
on the tapes ? 

Mr. Elkins. Most of them, yes, sir. 

The CiiAiR:\rAN. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

Senator Mundt.. Could I ask one other question ? 

Mr. Elkins, are you willing to state under oath that you have not 
changed, or altered, or tampered with, or demagnetized, or subtra^-t-ed 
from or added to anything that we are about to hear on these tapes :' 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. I have not. 

Senator Mundt. They have not been changed in any way ? 

Mr. Elkins. They have not. 

Senator Mundt. You make that statement under oath? 

Mr. Elkins. I do ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

Senator McNamara. I have a question. Since you were not there 
when, these recordings were made all of the time, did you hire somebo<ly 
to do this job? 

Mr. Elkins. I did, sir. 

Senator McNamara. This is a hired job by you ? 

Mr. Elkins. That's correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now these conversations, which you have the text 
in front of you, are excerpts from certain conversations, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Elkins. That's correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator Mundt asked you, and they are exact tran- 
scripts as much as you could understand the transcripts being made ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have not been tampered with and they have 
not been altered ? 



944 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Elkins. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By you or by anybody under your supervision? 

Mr. Elkins. No. That's correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can swear to that ? 

Mr. Elkins. I will swear to that ; yes. sir. 

The Chairman. I think the Chair should make one statement for 
the information of the witness and also for others who are interested. 

There are some parts of these recordings that are so obscene and 
vulgar that they cannot be played. A transcript is available to the 
committee, however, and so are the tapes where anything that is left 
out of the recording that you will hear is still available, and any ex- 
amination of it will substantiate what the Chair is saying. 

They are of that nature that they should not be played in this public 
hearing. 

All right, proceed. 

Senator Mundt. I think we should have one other fact in the rec- 
ord, Mr. Elkins, in response to the question of Senator McNamara. 
You said that you hired somebody to make the tapes. I think we 
should liave the name of the person you hired in the event we might 
want to call him. 

Mr. Elkins. Eaymond Clark. 

Senator Mundt. Of Portland, Oreg. ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do we have his address? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have it, Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can proceed, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will get started. 

The Chairman. Mr. Elkins, I want you to follow the tapes, follow 
the playing, and be able to identify voices as we proceed. 

(Recording was played as follows :) 

Maloney. See, uh, he just put down the uh, the total see! They totaled the 
whole G— D— thing. 

The Chairman. Is that Maloney's voice? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes. 

(Recording was played as follows :) 

See, it uh, the bar took in twenty-five ninety-seven twenty-five. They opened 
up the twelfth, Joe. G — D — , I thought it was open the night of the tenth. They 
was open ten days through last night. The bar took in twenty-five hundred 
and ninety-seven dollars and uh, twenty-five cents, in, in ten days ; beat-the- 
dealer took in two hundred ninety-seven dollars and fifty cents in ten days ; 
the twenty-one game took in twelve hundred and fifty-two dollars and twenty- 
five cent in uh, ten days. Well, that was figur'n without what they did 
Saturday night on the twenty-one. Cigarettes, fifty dollars and forty-five 
cents and over here it says — bar, from, from twenty-five hundred ninety-seven 
dollars and twenty-five cents, you take for sev — eighty bottles of whisky, four 
hundred and twenty-five dollars. Wages, approximately five hundred and fifty; 
he said, the Swede put down here would he. would be, if Swede was down here 
this time, why, it would be a hundred and fifty more, it would make seven hun- 
dred instead of five-fifty, see? He subtracted two hundred and fifty-six dollars 
and eighty cents, that's uh, for uh, entertainment and uh, and uh, all that kind 
of b — — . So, he then subtracted twelve forty six eighty from forty one ninety 
seven forty five — take that — shows the joint registered in ten days — has got 
to net around twenty-eight, twenty-nine hundred dollars. Is that any — is that 
all right for you? 

McLaughlin. Not only that, uh 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 945 

The Chairman. Stop the recording at that point. 

Do you have a transcript before you? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

The CHAiRMAiSr. Will you read from your transcript or follow as 
I read it, that part Avhich has just been played? 

Mr. Elkins. All right, sir. 

The Chairman". Will you state whether you recognize from the 
record the statements as I read. 

Maloney. See, uh, he ju?t put clown the uh, the total see ! They totaled the 
whole G — D — thing. See, it uh. the bar took in twenty-tive ninety-seven twenty- 
live. They opened up the twelfth, .Toe, G — D — , I thought it was open the night 
of the tenth ! They was open ten days through last night. The bar took in 
twenty-five hundred and ninety-seven dollai's and uh, twenty-five cents in, in 
ten days; beat-the-dealer took in two hundred ninety-seven dollars and fifty 
cents in ten days ; the twenty-one game took in twelve hundred and fifty-two 
dollars and twenty-five cents in uh, ten days. Well, that was figur'n without 
what they did Saturday night on the twenty-one. Cigarettes, fifty dollars and 
forty-five cents and o^'er here it says — bar, from, from twenty-five hundi-ed 
ninety-seven dollars and twenty-five cents, you take for sev — eighty bottles 
of whisky, four hundi'ed and twenty-five dollars. AVages, approximately five- 
hundred and fifty ; he said, the Swede put down here would be, would be, if 
Swede was down here this time, why, it would be a hundred and fifty more, it 
would make seven hundred instead of five-fifty, see? He subtracted two hun- 
dred and fifty-six dollars and eighty cents, that's uh, for uh, entertainment 

and uh, and uh, all that kind of b . So, he then subtracted twelve forty 

six eighty from forty one ninety seven forty five — take that — shows the joint 
registered in ten days — has got to net around twenty-eight, twenty-nine hundred 
dollars. Is that any — is that all right for youV 

McLaughlix. Not only that, uh 

The Chairman. Now, did you hear that ])laved from what I have 
read? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am not sure just where the machine stopped. 

McLatjghijn. Not only that, uh— — 

Maloney. Or would you like to see a "every-day" 

Where did the machine stop ? 

Mr. Elkins. When, I believe, McLaughlin's voice came in. 

The Chairman. When McLaughlin's voice came in ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Resume playing the machine at that point. 

You follow it closely. You are under oath. 

Mr. Elkins. I am ctoing the best I can. 

(Eecording was played as follows:) 

Malonet. Or would you like to see a "every-day" 

McLaughlin. Uh, I want to see — He's got the "every-day" and he Just — he 
just 

The Chairman. Will you identify the voices as we go along? 
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. That was Maloney and this is McLaughlin. 
The Chairman. Resume the recording. 
(Recording was played as follows:) 

Maloney. Well, Joe, now Jes — , I told you what he did ; I told him th — , if he 
had "every-day" figures for me and he says, "yes," so this is the way he answered; 
that ain't "every-day," that's just — he's just making a total out there ! 

McLaughlin. Uh, that's right. I didn't know — when you was see'n him I 
thought, I with it, you — "do you want me to get a copy of it or do you want me 
to get the slips from him?" 
893.50 — 57 — i)t. 3 13 



946 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Matoney. I did 

McLaughlin. I said to get the slips from him. 

Malone. That's right. That's his, that's his, uh, that's his uh, he's taken 'em 
off another piece of paper, he left that piece of paper up in his room but I never 
ask him. I says, "is this all — all of it?" He says, "yes, right to the, to the, 
to the nickel." 

(no voice for fifty seconds) 

McLaughun. I don't know what — whether here, whether uh, the dealer got 
his end off of this here 

Maloney. Yah, that's right. The dealer's got his end off; everything is, 
everything is, uh, paid. It's the net. It should be — come up. twenty-nine hun- 
dred dollars. Now you take a tax off that, won't he?" 

Mr, Elkins. I am lost, sir. 

The Chairman. What part are they in now ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is what I say. I am lo.st. 

Senator Mundt. They are on the second paragraph of page two, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The Chair will read to that point. 

Senator Mundt. Can you slow your machine down a little ? 

Mr. Elkins. No. I just have a one-track mind. 

Senator Mundt. I am wondering if he could play it a little slower. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is starting with "Beat-the-dealer." He has come 
to that. Just a line above that. 

Now you take 

Mr. Elkins. Okay. 

All right. 

(Recording was played as follows:) 

McLaughlin. Beat-the-dealer, beat-the-dealer wages is off and the tweuty-one 
wages is ofL"? 

Malonett. That's right. 

McLaughlin. About taxes — no tax here, I think 

Mr. Elkins. That is McLaughlin's voice. 
(Recording was played as follows :) 

Maloney. Well, didn't he give you some tax proposition last time? 

McLaughlin. Well, that's on wages, on wages (indistinct phrase). 

Maloney. He said that Kenton is run'in, they're running. 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct sentence. ) 

Maloney. The party said, that uh, said that there was another joint open 
(indistinct phrase) he's goin out around — F^-iday and Saturday and Sunday 
(indistinct phrase). Well, I told him to stick his nose in it to see what it 
was do'in and he found out there was just notliing do'in (indistinct phrase) 
they could hardly make the "nut". What time did you decide you was gonna 
meet him? 

McLaughlin. I said, "ten", didn't I? 

Maloney. Well, twelve, fourteen-hundred dollars — Jes — , well we'll have to, 
accord — if that's the case, he's gonna give us three hundred and he, and he 
snatches three hundred for himself, cause that's — that's figure'n twelve hundred 
net. I believe it because — Leo — so, for twelve hundred net, why, the guy that 
runs it gets six hundred and then, uh, uh, .Jim grabs three hundred and takes 
three himdred and splits it between you and I, between 

McLaughlin. That was for two weeks. 

Maloney. What two weeks? Yeah, but the only one, they opened up on a, 
a Saturday and we made sixty dollars ; 

The Chairman. Whose voice is that? Mr. Elkins, whose voice is 
that? 

Mr. Elkins. That is Maloney's. 
(Recording was played as follows :) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 947 

Maloney. What two weeks? Yeah, but the only one, they opened up on a, 
a Saturday and we made sixty dollars. 

The Chairman. Stop the machine at that point. 
You follow as I read, and tell me if this is what the machine re- 
corded, 

Maloney. Well, Joe, now Jes — , I told you what he did; I told him th — , if 
he had "every-day" figures for me and he says, "Yes," so this is the way he 
answered ; that ain't "every-day," that's just — he's just making a total out there. 

McLaughlin. Uh, that's right. I didn't know — when you was see'n him I 
thought, I with it, you — do you want me to get a copy of it or do you want me 
to get the slips from himV 

Maloney. I did 

McLaughlin. I said to get the slips from him. 

Maloney. That's right. That's his, that's his, uh, that's his uh, he's taken 'em 
off another piece of paper, he left that piece of paper up in his room but I never 
ask him. I says, "Is this all — all of it?" He says, "Yes ; right to the, to the, to 
the nickel." [No voice for 50 seconds.] 

McLaughlin. I don't know what — whether here, whether uh, the dealer got 
his end off of this here 

Maloney. Yah, tliat's right. The dealer's got his end off ; everything is, 
everything is, uh paid. It's the net. It should be — come up, twenty-nine hun- 
dred dollars. Now you take a tax off that, won't he? 

McLaughlin. Beat-the-dealer, beat-the-dealer wages is off and the 21 wages 
is off? 

Maloney. That's right. 

McLaughlin. About taxes — no tax here, I think 

Maloney. Well, didn't he give you some tax proposition last time? 

McLaughlin. Well, that's on wages, on wages [indistinct phrase]. 

Maloney. He said that Kenton is runnin', they're running. 

McLaughlin. [Indistinct sentence.] 

Maloney. The party said, that uh, said that there was another joint open 
[indistinct phrase! he's goin' out ai'ound — Friday and Saturday and Sunday 
[indistinct phrase]. Well, I told him to stick his nose in it to see what it was 
doin' and he found out that there was just nothin' doin' [indistinct phrase] they 
could hardly make the "nut." What time did you decide you was gonna meet him? 

McLaughlin. I said, "ten," didn't I? 

Maloney. Well, twelve, fourteen hundred dollars — Jes — well, we'll have to 
accord — if that's the case, he's gonna give us three hundred and he, and he 
snatches three hundred for himself, 'cause that's — that's figure'n twelve hundred 
net. I believe it because — Leo — so, for twelve hundred net, why, the guy that 
runs it gets six hundred and then, uh, uh, Jim grabs three hundred and takes 
three hundred and splits it between you and I, between 

Who is Jim? 

Mr. ELiaNs. That is me, sir. 

The CKArR]MAK. O. K. Have I read down as far as the record 
played ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It went down to $60. 
The Chairman. I will read to that. 

McLaughlin, That was for two weeks. 

Maloney. What two weeks? Yeah, but the only one, they opened up on a, a 
Saturday, and we made sixty dollars. 

Now you may resume playing. 
(Recording was played as follows:) 

that's what he give you — gave us on that proposition. Sixty dollars ! Then they 
opened up the last weekend, he's gone all this week now, and last Sat. — weekend 
so we'll see what kind of a tigux-e he gives you on that one, this week. You got 
the envelope there, Joe. It says sixty-six dollars ! On one weekend there, he 
had on — two hundred and something. It's pretty hard to get information out 
of that joint because Slim's old lady, uh, runs the high-dice game out there and 
runs — uh, another fellow handles the twenty-one. And it's just a closed shop 
corporation there and — but I'm just tellin' you what I, what I understand they're 



948 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

doin' weekends. But this is right to a penny — what this is! What he figures, 
net, that's in ten days, well, that would make that, in ten days, making three 
hundred dollars a day — let's see what figures Mr. Elkins gives you tomorrow ! 

The Chairman. Hold the machine there. I will finish reading that 
paragraph, Maloney talking : 

Then they opened up the last weekend, he's gone all this week now, and last 
Sat — weekend so we'll see what kind of a figure he gives you on that one, this 
week. You got the enveloi>e there Joe. It says sixty-six dollars ! On one 
weekend there, he had on — two hundred and something. It's pretty hard to get 
information out of that joint because Slim's old lady, uh, runs the high-dice 
game out there and runs — uh, another fellow handles the twenty-one. And it's 
just a closed shop corporation there and — but I'm tellin' you what I, what I 
understand they're doin weekends. But this is right to a i:)enny — what this is! 
What he figures, net, that's in ten days, well, that would make that, in ten days, 
making three hundred dollars a day — let's see what figures IMr. Elkins gives you 
tomorrow ! 

Were you supposed to give him some more figures^ Is that what 
they were checking ? 

Mr. Elkins. No. They had the man, this Leo Plotkin in there, 
and he had taken the figures, and then they would check it up the way 
he seen it and then they would say, "Well, we will see what Elkins 
comes u|> with tomorrow," sir. 

The Chairman. He would come in and make an estimate to them of 
wliat your take was at those places? 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And they would check what his estimate was 
against what you reported to tliem ? 
"Mr. Elkins. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that what they are talking about here? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. ^"^lio is this fellow Slim? 

Mr. Elkins. That is the man Slim Jenkins 

Senator Mundt. The man who testified ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And his wife, also? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes. But she Avorked on the door, in the checkroom. 
She wasn't dealing in that place. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

The Chair is going to ask the counsel to do .some of this reading. 

Mr. Kennedy. The participants here are Tom JNIaloiiey and Joe 
McLaughlin. As I understand, McLaughlin is in a room conversa- 
tion with Maloney, regarding ]Maloney allowing Clyde Crosby to find 
out the actual income figures from illegal operations. 

Is that what the gist of this conversation is? 
. Mr. Elkins That is correct. They didn't want Crosby to know 
they were stealing from him. 

The Chairman. Play the machine. 

(Recording was played as follows:) 

McLaughlin, (noise) — think you — you can't let him know too much — Clyde. 
Maloney. But you told him, Joe. 

McLaughlin. I didn't tell him s Tom. 

]\L\LONEY. Well, that's what he said 

McLaughlin. .lust a minute. I told him (interrupted) 

Maloney. Well he told 

McLaughlin. Just a minute — I told him that they padded the — all the bills 
find what have you and put in a lot of expenses and he wanted to know how we 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 949 

(lid out of the outa the outa the bootlegging joint. I told him they'd padded-up 
a lot of expenses and had to tear up all the books back to then and I says "out 
of your end your supposed to get" I says "there's three-thousand dollars in — In 
bills." And I says "(indistinct word) and building a bar and what have you" so 
I says "it's kind funny (indistinct phrase)". So I says "we'll see what they got 
to put in it next month". Didn't tell him nothin about what "Swede" got what 
you or I got 

M-4XONEY. Well here's — (interrupted) — see 

AIcLaijghi.im. I didn't tell him — told him nothin I just told him I couldn't— 
I wasn't going to see him going for free. Because I'm a little warm because with 
it before we "cut" up any money they went ahead and took out over three 
thousand dollars in bills and I says "with it we wasn't in with the Swede in that 
joint when it was going two months ago, a month ago, three months ago" I says 

"cause we're pay'n either back rent or back bills and all that c that Swede 

had from that joint and maybe from the other joint." I says "I suppose those 
are the things you gotta cut up with". So I says "I never got nothin out of it 
'because' I said "they went ahead and put down three thousand". Irregardless 
Tom, they won't let you have all that you get out of this here report to .iohn. 
Tom if you don't — if — you — you — you gotta have it your way 

Maloney. (two words indistinct.) 

(At this point, the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Senator Mundt (Presiding). You can stop the machine now. We 
will have counsel read that bit of tape. 
Mr. Kexnedy (reading) : 

McLaughlin, (noise) — think you — you can't let him know too much — Clyde. 

Maloney. But you told him Joe. 

McLaughlin. I didn't tell him s Tom. 

Maloney. Well that's what he said 

McLaughlin. Just a minute I told him — (interrupted) 

Maloney. Well he told 

McLaughlin. Just a minute — I told him that they padded the — all the bills 
and what have you and put in a lot of expenses and he wanted to know how we 
did out of the outa the outa the bootlegging joint. I told him they'd padded up 
a lot of expenst^s and had to tear up all the books back to then and I says "out 
of your end your supposed to get" I says "there's three-thousand dollars in — in 
bills." And I says "(indistinct word) and building a bar and what have you" 
so I says "it's kinda funny (indistinct phrase)." So I says "we'll see what they 
got to put in it next month". Didn't tell him nothin about what "Swede" got 
what you or I got 

Maloney. Well here's — (interrupted ) — see 

McIiAUGHLiN. I didn't tell him — told him nothin I just told him I couldn't — I 
wasn't going to .see him going for free. Because I'm a little warm because with 
it before we "cut" up any money they went ahead and took out over three 
thousand dollars in bills and I says "with it we wasn't in with the Swede in that 
joint when it was going two months ago, a month ago, three months ago" I says 

"cause we're PAY'n either back rent or back bills and all that c that 

Swede had from the joint and maybe from the other joint." I says "I suppose 
those are the things you gotta put up with". So I says "I never got nothing out 
of it 'because'." I said "they went ahead and put down three thousand". 
Irregardless Tom they won't let you have all that you get out of this here report 
to John. Tom if you don't — if — you — you — you gotta have it your way 

Maloney. (two words indistinct.) 

That is it. 

What does that mean ? 

Mr. Elkixs. Well, the}- are cooking up. McLaughlin is accusing 
Maloney of telling Crosby and John too much, and he is giving him 
a.n explanation so they would both stick to the same story to Sweeney 
and to Crosby. 

]Mr. Kennedy. They are arguing who told Crosby the story ? 

Mr. Emvins. That is right. That is in the first part. Tom Maloney 
told him there was more monev taken in than what Joe told him. 



950 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Then they covered it up by saymg that I was taking out $3,000 in 
bills and for a bar and bills, and things like that. 

(At this point, Senator McNamara withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So that is where the money disappeared, that you 
had taken it and paid it for these expenses and that is why they did 
not have the money they were supposed to have, is that right? 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And John is John Sweeney ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Who is Swede ? 

Mr. Elkins. Swede Ferguson. He operated a bootlegging place. 

Senator Mundt. He was one of your men ? 

Mr. Elkins. He was the manager of it, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Working for you ? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, we were partners, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You and Swede were partners ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is right. 

(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Elkins. That is why they were raising the devil over there 
because he took $600, and I slipped the $600 to them. 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead with the recording. 

(Recording was played as follows:) 

McLaughlin. You can't let him know what your 

Maloney. Oh, I don't — (interrupted). 

McLaughlin. — Well, with it 

Maloney. W^ell did I — did I give him the right answer? 

McLaughlin. You shouldn't have given him any answer. You shouldn't have 
told him because you get hot that Swede cut over three thousand. Because 
that is — just makes that — now we'll have to put in everything that you win. 
So, he'll mark it on down, you understand, uh, with it, and "Bill" will beef and 
he and he'll be cryin' for some more. — Cause you break him in that way and 
that's the way you'll have him/ 

Maloney. I didn't "break him in," Joe, I just — because he jumjyed on me. 
He said, Je — , that bootlegging joint did pretty good and that's and that's from 
the figure 

McLaughlin (interrupting). What figure, Tom? 

Maloney. Three thousand dollars 

McLaughlin. That's right. But — with it — that was paid on out in bills. 

Maloney. Yah, but he didn't say anything about it being paid out in bills — 
bills — except that uh, you — he put somebody in — cause he said, he said— that — 
"Jesus, that bootlegging joint's allright", he says, uh, uh, "something about three 
thousand dollars" and I says, "what the hell you talkin' about, three thousand 

dollars." I said, "All the, all the money was paid out in bills", I says, "s ", 

I says, they're pay in' for — payin' rent on on two joints and everything else and 
I don't know if — if the thing is gonna be a successful venture. I 

McLaughlin. Don't be yellin' at me — Tom — cause I'm just tellin' — if you 
coulda figured wrong, your — you'll never forget about it 

Maloney. Joe, I'm not breaking him in wrong but he said 

McLaughlin. You see, if you can 

Maloney. Well, he lied, he just lied to me about what you told him, that's all 
and that's a hell of a different story. I'm just tellin' you what he told me. 
Well, I jumped right on over him, that's all, and I says, "he don't know what 

the f he's talkin' about — three thousand dollars that they — all he did was 

pad" 

McLaughlin. And I told Bill to close 'em, I told you and I told Clyde about the 
three thousand dollars in bills they "cut". That's why he was so "hot" about 
the joints being closed cause he was hope'n we'd open on up. Here, we go ahead 
and they take out three thousand dollars in bills and Tom and I have gotta stand 
our end of it and then the joint does on down — they blamed the chief of police; 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 951 

now if I'm mistaken, I planned then on another new Chief of Police cause when 
you're sittin' down with a guy, that's with him and I told Bill — at the same time, 
I told Clyde the same thing. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, read and let Mr. Elkins verify it. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

McLaughlin. You can't let him know what your 

Maloney. Oh I don't 

McLaughlin. Well with it 

Maloney. Well did I — did I give him the right answer? 

McLaughlin. You shouldn't have given him any answer. You shouldn't have 
told him because you get hot that Swede cut over three thousand. Because that 
is— just makes that — now we'll have to put in everything that you win. So, 
he'll mark it on down, you understand, uh, with it, and "Bill" will beef and he 
and he'll be cryin' for some more — cause you break him in that way and that's 
the way you'll have him. 

The Chairman. Who is the "Bill" referred to? 

Mr. Elkins. Bill Langley. 

The Chairman. Bill Langley, the district attorney ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Maloney. I didn't "break him in" Joe, I just — because he jumped on me. 
He said, Je — , that bootlegging joint did pretty good and that's and that's from 
the figure 

McLaughlin. What figure, Tom? 

Maloney. Three thousand dollars 

McLaughlin. That's right. But — with it— that was paid on out in bills. 

Maloney. Yah, but he didn't say anything about it being paid out in bills — 
bills — except that uh, you — he put somebody in — cause he said, he said — that — 
"Jesus, that bootlegging joint's all right", he says, uh, uh, "something about three 
thousand dollars" and I says, "what the hell you talkin' about, three thousand 

dollars." I said, "All the, all the money was paid out in bills", I says, "s ", 

I says, "theyre payin' for — payin' rent on on two joints and everything else and 
I don't know if — if the thing is gonna be a successful venture. I" 

McLaughlin. Don't be yellin at me — Tom — cause I'm just tellin — if you 
coulda figured wrong, your— you'll never forget about it— — - 

Maloney. Joe, I'm not breaking him in wrong but he said 

McLaughlin. You see, if you can 

MAI.ONEY. Well, he lied, he just lied to me about what you told him, that's 
all and that's a hell of a different story. I'm just tellin you what he told me. 
Well, I jumped right on over him, that's all, and I says, "he don't know what 

the f he's talkin about — three thousand dollars that they — all he did was 

pad" 

McLaughlin. And I told Bill to close em, I told you and I told Clyde 

The Chairman. "Wlio is Bill, there, that he told to close him? 

Mr. Elkins. Bill Langley, sir, the district attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. "I told Clyde," and that is Clyde Crosby? 

Mr. Elkins. That is Clyde Crosby. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

about the three thousand dollars in bills they "cut". That's why he was so 
"hot" about the the joints being closed cause he was hop'n we'd open on up. Here, 
we go ahead and they take out three thousand dollars in bills and Tom and I have 
gotta stand our end of it and then the joint goes on down— they blamed the chief 
of police ; now if I'm mistaken, I planned then on another new chief of police 
cause when you're sittin down with a guy, that's with him and I told Bill — at 
the same time, I told Clyde the same thing. 

The Chairman. Is that the same Clyde and Bill you referred to a 
moment ago? 
Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 



952 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the gist of this conversation ? 

Mr. Elkins. Bill Langley was checking up some other way, and they 
told him they made $3,000, and apparently talking to Tom, Tom ad- 
mitted it, and Joe is apparently raising the devil with Tom for telling 
how much they are making, and he says break Bill Langley in right 
so he won't want too much of the take. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would not expect too much ? 

Mr. Elkins. Wouldn't expect too much. 

The Chairman. He did not want to tell Bill Langley the correct 
amount ? 

Mr. Elkins. Nor Clyde Crosby nor John Sweeney. 

The Chairman. They wanted to hold out on them ? 

Mr. Elkins. They were holding out on them. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the amount of money was mentioned without 
mentioning the fact that some of this money had to go out in bills, that 
they were giving the whole figure rather than considering that some 
of the money had to be paid out in bills ? 

Mr. Elkins. They are telling them there is a lot more paid out in 
bills than what there was. They are trying to cover up the $3,000 be- 
cause they don't know where he got the figure, and they are trying 
to cover up in case he knew what he was talking about on the $3,000 
basis. 

Mr. Kennedy, And that Clyde Crosby was also interested at the 
same time ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is tape No. 3, the third one recorded in Sep- 
tember 1955. It is tape No. 12, but it is the third group. It was 
recorded in September 1955, The participants are William L. Lang- 
ley, district attorney, and Joseph P. McLaughlin. 

The Chairman. All right. Play tape No. 12, No. 3 on our schedule, 

Mr. Kennedy, This is William Langley. 

(Eecording was played as follows:) 

Langley. You see, there's another way you can 

Mr. Elkins. That is the district attorney's voice, (Eecording was 
played as follows:) 

McLaughlin. With it, it's the only way to handle it, to curb it, is through the 
police department. 

Langley. To my way of thinkin', is this, that he can make all the money he 
needs if he does this — I can see where the punchboards — is such a big proposi- 
tion, that's difficult to handle, but get the Swede goin' and get this poker goin' 
down there and if you can get a goiy to come in and to run the book and get a 
book goin', why, hell, between those things Tom oughta pick up pretty good 
money. It'll be the only book in town 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. That amounts to a g — damned. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. I know damned good and well that when I was bettin' I bet 6 to 5 
and when you get stuck you'll have 

The Chairman. Would you point out Langley's voice ? 
Mr. Elkins. I did, sir. 
(Recording was played as follows:) 

you'll bet the damn 10 percent, you're so damn crazy in the head that you'll take 
10 percent for it .iust to get into the action. 

McLaughlin. You got to get the action. 

Langley. Y'eah. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 953 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langlet. To get even. So if he starts it off, charging everybody the 10 
percent it'll be all right and, as I say, if he starts them off and if it don't go 
he can close down. And, but — and he's got to make it a (Langley continu- 
ing * * *) Of course, it'd have to be cut up a lot of ways, he'd have to bring in 
some guy to run it, but this town could — could stand a pretty good book, you 
know. And I take that card room down there and — down around — he's done 
pretty good, you know. Well, Tom — Tom gets all stirred up and he gets unduly 
concerned about things. He's out frontin' the g — damned — he get's out in front 
for the uh — for the union. Well, so we should sit back and calculate abonit it, 
but if they make a change, fine and dandy and it's the Teamsters' business, but 
I — I have — Teamsters' business, see. Here's the way I feel about it, Joe, the 
Teamsters have been good to me, but I don't want people thinking that the 

Teamsters own me and yet on the other — I feel 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) morally. 

Langley. Yes. Now, on the other hand, I'm a stand up guy that's uh — al- 
though I don't want to try to dictate what they're doin', I don't want to see 
'em doin' something that's going to hurt 'em. It hurts them and then, of course, 
indirectly it — it hurts me. But you've got to — you've got to— you've thought it 
out clearly of course uh uh — Sweeney throws up his hands and says it's up to 
Pete to figure out his own way of gettin' uh — uh, uh, you know, of getting rid of 
Purcell. We'll have to see what he — we'll have to see what he says about that. 
But it still gets back over to Tom's thinking is all wrong, Joe. Tom's thinking 
is all wrong l)ecause he's not going for the 10 percent proposition, what the hell's 
he changing for cuz if he changes that's all the more that's gonna be due, Joe. 
McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. I can't see — you don't think I'm wrong about that. You can't let 
these sporting houses go. I don't think they'll like it. I don't think there's 
any use in it. 

McLaughlin. — no. 

Langley. ^^'ell, uh now especially when I've taken a position I have 

McLaughlin. You gotta have a position. With it, I was never for it. John 
was never for it, I don't think it's any good for any town. I think there's a 
smarter way of doing it, I think we can do it in a easier and a smarter way and 
it looks like you'll have a fight if Uncle Sam is in there and besides there's no 
way to cope with a deal like, you understand. There's no ofiicial involved in it 
and that's — and that's the officials you want to try to — to get 'em to come on 

down the line. So how are you 

Langley. Why, sure, I can't uh — I can't 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) He ran a whorehouse for over thirty years. Just 
like Tom, with a half a dozen girls up there. (Indistinct) even made money 
off his own wife (indistinct) 

Langley. I told him that to start out with except I put the slots in — I mean 
the pinballs and they were — doesn't seem to be in the picture now. And the 
punchboards would be all right if you could get them out with just the ten 
percent tax. I mean, get the things taxed. It's a difficult thing to get accomj)- 

lished. But he's already got two things going — he's got the bootleg joint and 

McLaughlin. Now, comes the cards — — 

Langley. Now he's got the cards 

McLaughlin. And there should be a book. 
Langley. (Indistinct.) 
McLaughlin. Absolutely. 

Langley. And he should ma — and he should make himself a thousand, fifteen 
hundred off that. That's all he's gonna do, see? He had some wild adea about 

the abortionists. I never heard any more about that. But 

McLaughlin. That's right, I 

Langley. See, that's about what's (indistinct) See, that's another reason 
the bootleg joint's gonna go. If it keeps going maybe he can get another one 
goin' here someplace and uh have it going so he can pick up a few more bucks. 
But he oughta do well enough on that without creating a rumpus in here. You 
got this guy Elkins now in the best shape you've ever got him, right now, 
haven't you? 

McLaughlin. I think so. 
Langley. Yeah. 
McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Well, Joe, I don't know anything to report. We'll wind up our 
conversation. Except insofar as the Kenton trouble is concerned. That is not 



954 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

in my office. That's where your responsibility is. And then uli I'll give the 
mayor a call tomorrow about the gj'psies. So when do you go back? Tomorrow 
night? 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. Well, you might call me 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) 

Langley. Huh? 

McLaughlin. Tom will be here tonight. You want to go see those fights, 
some pictures of the heavyweight 

Langley. Now, I don't care about fights. I don't like fights. He'll be back 
home tomorrow though, won't he? 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) because he's a top fighter, you know. You like 
to admire a champion, but if you've seen 'em fight a few times you'd admire 
'em. 

(Indistinct) 

Langley. What the hell's good about watching some guy knock some other 
guy in the head. I can't see it. (Background laughter). Well, Joe, hear from 
you before you go back. 

McLaughlin. Yeah. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. All right, I'll do that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, read it. 

Mr. Elkins, will you follow ? I may want to ask you a question or 
two about it. 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio is Swede? 

Mr. Elkins. A partner of mine in a bootleg joint. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Maloney is Tom Maloney and Langley is Bill 
Langley ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY (reading). 

Langley. You see, there's another way you can 

McLaughlin. With it, it's the only way to handle it, to curb it, is through 
the police department. 

Langley. To my way of thinkin', is this, that he can make all the money he 
needs if he does this — I can see where the punchboards — is such a big proposi- 
tion, that's difficult to handle, but get the Swede goin' and get this poker goin' 
down there and if you can get a guy to come in and to run the book and get a 
book goin', why, hell, between those things Tom oughta pick up pretty good 
money. It'll be the only book in town 

MCLAUGHLIN. That's right. 

Langley. That amounts to a g damned. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. I know damned good and well that when I was bettin' I bet 6 to 
5 and when you get stuck you'll have — you'll bet the damn 10 percent, you're 
so damn crazy in the head that you'll take 10 percent for it just to get into 
the acti,on. 

McLaughlin. You got to get the action. 

Langley. Yeah. 

McLaughlin, That's right. 

Langley. To get even. So if he starts it off, charging everybody the 10 
percent it'U be all right and, as I say, if he starts them oft and if it don't go 
he can close down. And, but — and he's got to make it a — (Langley continu- 
ing * * *.) 

Of course, it'd have to be cut up a lot of ways, he'd have to bring in some 
guy to run it, but this town could — could stand a pretty good book, you know. 
And I take that card room down there and — down around — he's done pretty good, 
you know. 

Mr. Chairman, there is some remark by McLaughlin that we do not 
have, right in there. It is a correction to the transcript. 
The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 955 

Mr. Kennedy. And then Langley continuing : 

Well, Tom — Tom gets all stirred up and he gets unduly concerned about things. 
He's out frontin' the g__damned — he get's out in front for the uh — for the 
union. Well, so we should sit back and calculate about it, but if they make a 
change, fine and dandy and it's the Teamsters' business, but I — I have — 
Teamsters' business, see. Here's the way I feel about it, Joe, the Teamsters 
have been good to me, but I don't want people thinking that the Teamsters own 
me and yet on the other — I feel 

McLaughlin, (indistinct) morally. 

Langley. Yes. Now, on the other hand, I'm a stand up guy that's uh — 
although I don't want to try to dictate what they're doin', I don't want to see 'em 
doin' something that going to hurts 'em. It hurts them and then, of course, 
indirectly it — it hurts me. But you've got to — you've got to — you've thought 
it out clearly of course uh uh — Sweeney throws up his hands and says it's up to 
Pete to figure out his own way of gettin' uh — uh, uh, you know, of getting rid 
of Furcell. We'll have to see what he — we'll have to see what he says about 
tliat. 

The Chairman. Wlio is Pete ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is the mayor of Portland, sir, Fred Peterson. 

The Chairman. Fred Peterson. 

All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Purcell was the chief of police ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. KEN^•EDY. Langley continuing: 

But it still gets back over to Tom's thinking is all wrong, Joe. Tom's thinking 
is all wrong because he's not going for the ten percent proposition, what the 
hell's he changing for cuz if he changes that's all the more that's gonna be 
due, Joe. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. I can't see — you don't think I'm wrong about that. You can't let 
these sporting houses go, I don't think they'll like it. I don't think there's any 
use in it. 

McLaughlin. No. 

Langley. Well, uh, now especially when I've taken a position I have. 

McLaughlin. You gotta have a position. With it, I was never for it John 
was never for it, I don't think it's any good for any town. I think there's a 
smarter way of doing it, I think we can do it in a easier and a smarter way and 
it looks like you'll have a fiijht if Uncle Sam is in there and besides there's no 
way to cope with a deal like, you understand. There's no official involved in it 
and that's — and that's the officials you want to try to — to get 'em to come on 
down the line. So how are you — 

'What does that conversation mean? That it would be difficult to 
get somebody to go along in an official capacity ? 

(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room; and at 
this point. Senator Gold water witlrdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Elkins. On houses of prostitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because then you would get into the Federal 
Government ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is right. They figured if they could open call 
houses, they wouldn't have to be out in front like they would in 
walkups. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the houses of prostitution would bring you 
undei- the Mann Act and bring in the Federal Government ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Langley. Why, sure, I can't, uh — I can't 

McLaughlin, [Indistinct] He ran a whorehouse for over thirty years. Just 
like Torn, with a half a dozen girls up there. [Indistinct] even made money off 
his own wife [indistinct]. 



956 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Langley. I told him that to start out with except I put the slots in — I mean 
the plnballs and they were — doesn't seem to be in the picture now. And the 
punchboards would be all right if you could get them out with just the ten 
percent tax. I mean, get the things taxed. It's a difficult thing to get accom- 
plished. But he's already got two things going — he's got the bootleg joint and 

McLaughlin. Now, comes the cards 

Langley. Now he's got the cards — 

Senator Mundt. "Wliat does he mean by "he" all the time, Mr. 
Elkins? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, Tom Maloney. 

Mr. Kenkedt. Tom Maloney ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, sir ; Tom Maloney. That is he. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

McLaughlin. And there should be a book. 

Langley. [Indistinct.] 

McLaughlin. Absolutely. 

Langley. And he should ma — and he should make himself a thousand, 
tifteen hundred off that. That's all he's gonna do, see? He had some wild 
idea about the abortionists. I never heard any more about that. But 

McLaughlin. That's right, I 

Langley. See, that's about what's [indistinct]. See that's another reason 
the bootleg joint's gonna go. If it keeps going maybe he can get another one 
goin' here someplace and, uh, have it going so he can pick up a few more bucks. 
But he oughta do well enough on that without creating a rumpus in here. 
You got this guy Elkins now in the best shape you've ever got him, right now, 
haven't you"? 

McLaughlin. I think so. 

Langley. Yeah. 

McLaughlin. [Indistinct.] 

Senator Mundt. "Wliat does he mean by saying that he has the man 
Elkins in the best shape he ever had ? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, I made up my mind to get evidence against them 
and I am telling them I am scared to death of them, whatever they 
say I should do, I will do. 

Senator Mundt. You have been telling them vou are afraid of 
them ? 

Mr. Elkins.. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. You are decoying them ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Langley. Well, Joe, I don't know anything to report. We'll wind up our 
conversation. Except insofar as the Kenton trouble is concerned. That is 
not in my office. That's where your responsibility is. And then, uh, I'll give 
the mayor a call tomorrow about the gypsies. So when do you go back? To- 
morrow night? 

Wliat about the gypsies? '^'V^lat was that in connection with? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, there is a housing rule or something, an ordi- 
nance in the city ordinance, that gypsies or anyone else couldn't live 
in a store building, because of the sanitary conditions, sanitation, 
I guess. They couldn't find anything else to ask to have the chief 
of police thrown out, and those gypsies live all over the north end 
of town and part of the south end, in these buildings, and they have 
their door open, and telling fortmies, and things like that. They 
decided they would use that as an excuse to go to the mayor and t^Il 
him the chief was getting money out of those g^q^sies to let them live 
in those store buildings. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 957 

They would use that as an excuse to remove the chief of police. 
But they eventually decided — I don't think they ever went to him 
for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. With that reason about the gypsies ? 

Mr. Elkins. They finally, I think, decided it was too weak a reason. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know what they meant by the Kenton 
trouble? 

Mr. Elions. Well, that is the raid on Kenton, the 8212, that wasn't 
reopened. 

Do you mean the Kenton trouble? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. It says. 

Except insofar as the Kenton trouble is concerned. Tliat is not in my office. 

Mr. Elkins. He meant that he had no part of it. 

Senator Mundt. That is the place that Mayor Schrunk was al- 
leged to have raided when he was a sheriff ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is right. Neither Joe nor Langley knew that 
Tom had stirred it up. A\Tien they got pretty mad about it, why — 
that is what they nre talking about the Kenton trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then : 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. Well, you might call me 

McLaughlin. [Indistinct.] 

Langley. Huh? 

McLaughlin. Tom will be here tonight. You want to go see those fights, 
some pictures of the heavyweight 

Langley. Now, I don't care about fights. I don't like fights. He'll be back 
home tomorrow though, won't he? 

McLaughlin. [Indistinct] because he's a top fighter, you know. You like 
to admire a champion, but if you've seen 'em fight a few times you'd admire 'em. 

[Indistinct] 

Langley. What the hell's good about watching some guy knock some other 
guy in the head. I can't see it. [Background laughter.] Well, Joe, hear from 
you before you go back. 

McLaughlin. Yeah. [Indistinct.] 

Langley. All right, 111 do that. 

Tlie Chair3ian. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next is tape No. 47. It is tape No. 47, recorded 
August 22, 1955, participants being District Attorney Langley, 
Joseph McLaughlin and Tom Maloney. The persons mentioned are 
Attorney General Robert Thornton, described as "that screwball in 
Salem"; Jim Purcell, Jr., at that time chief of police in Portland; 
Leo Plotkin, referred to by his code name "the spy"; Johnny De- 
laney, an underworld character in Portland who was working as an 
investigator for Attorney General Thornton; Gordon McCreary, 
Chief of Hard Liquor Enforcement Division for the Oregon Liquor 
Control Commission. 

The Chairman. Play it. 

(Recording was played as follows:) 

Langley. No reason why he couldn't. Because he can't see him on account 
of his dads de — that's — Jim Purcell is so g damned hungry for money that he 
wouldn't even go to his dad's funeral if it meant makin' a few bucks. I'm telling 
you — he's money — crazy guy. Well, the only worry I got that — that you fellows 
get taken care of. If you're satisfied, why, it's alright with me. As far 

The Chairman. Whose voice is that? 
Mr. Elkins. That is the district attorney. 



958 BSIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Kecording was played as follows:) 
Maloney. Well, I'm not satisfied. 

Mr. Elkins. That is Tom Maloney that says, "Well, I'm not 
satisfied." 

(Kecording was played as follows:) 

Langley (laughing). Well, you better do something then 

Maloney. Joe's not satisfied. 

Langley. Well, I'm not holding you back, you know that. Well, I gotta go 
home. You'll a — if anything happens the, you nh — this Spy will call you and 
you call me. Okeh. And then, Joe, I probably won't be seeing you for a little 
while. You won't be down until after Labor Day, anyway, will you? 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) . . . next week. Maybe I'll call you up before I 
come in. 

Langley. Oh, no, you don't have to do that. You can call me up 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Maloney. Why don'cha call up once in a while? Put some money in — in the 
box. 

Langley. I called you up the other night. 
Maloney. Puttin' the money in the box? 
Langley. Sure I did. 
Maloney. Well, that's good. 
(McLaughlin laughing.) 
Maloney. How about overtime? 
Langley. I've had — I had overtime this time. 
McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. She says — she says, "Three minutes is up." 
Maloney. What'd you say — how'd — how much? 
McLaughlin. (Laughter.) 

Langley. I says, "How much." And Joe says, well, he says, "Wait — wait'll 
you get through. Well, now, you wait until you get through and I don't put it 
in what happens? 

McLaughlin. Not nothin' just — I'll tell you what happens, they charge it on 

the other end. Cuz a 

Langley. Oh, do they? Oh, they charge it up to your end, is that it? Well, 
you can't have any prostitution going, Joe, with this screwball in Salem. 
McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. You can't have 'em going because he'd — I'm telling you, he's nuttier 
on prostitution than he is on this thing. 

McLaughlin. That's right. And now, with— with this thing here if he uh if 
you're not on his side or he feels as though you did — he knew, you know, that 
you did some— didn't do everything that — that he wants you to do, why, uh, and 

if he draws a blank on it, why, that would be the next move. I 

Langley. He'd try to hurt me somewhat. 
McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. He'd be mad at me, but uh 

McLaughlin. How long is he in there for? 

Langley. Well, they gotta defeat him and uh, he's in there until uh all next 
year, he's in there until January the first '50 — '57, They have to defeat him 

next year or it will be a nightmare for 4 more years. This b 

Maloney. Oh, he'll get beat. There's no chance for him. 
Langley. I don't know. 

Maloney. Well, all right. I'm just telling you. I know politics. 
McLaughlin. Maybe he's doing the screamin' a little earlier, Tom. People 
forget. 

Maloney. You see, people forget all about him, and they think he's screwey. 

Langley. Well, uh anyway, he's nuttier on prostitution than he is on this. 

So, if you give him any opportunity on prostitution he'll go. Let 'em run in 

some counties around here and then he'll focus on those. They're running, you 

know, in Ontario and places like that. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. So the prostitution is out. And now it's no good and we don't want 
it anyway and it's too dangerous with him. Do you see. So the only way 
you're going to do any good is cards, high dice. Like I told you all along, cards 
and book and then if you get into the pinballs and punchboards, that's all right 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 959 

But that's what it amounts to. That bootleg joint if it'll— if it will so if you 
can make anything. That's all right. I don't see any reason to close that down 
now. 

McLaughlin. That's right. Because we'll be right there and if any— if he 
signs a complaint on out there, you'll be the first one to know it. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Oh, I don't know about that. I don't— I don't care to be anything 
on it anyway. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. That's er the Governor's business, it's not — it's not mine. Do you 
see? See, you— if Sheridan wants to close it, why. he ought to close it. Let 
him close it down, see. 'Cause they're the ones that are going to stand to get 
embarrassed. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. I'm not going into all that junk about the administration of the 
liquor commission and they're lettin' bootleg joints go and all that kind of stufE. 
I'm not going into that. I just want to find out whether there's been any bribery 
and— and he's not talking about bribery. Now that's the only thing that Delaney 
might bring in. Delaney might claim there's been some bribery to let these 
bootleg joints go, see? Well, I don't see how he's going to prove it. It's only 
speculation on this Delaney's part. And then if it is the Character's got to 
give it to — been givin' it to that McCreary or whatever his name is so maybe 
we could get the Character into a mess — that someway. 

JIaloney. Oh, .1 — C — ■ (chuckles) I don't want no part of that. I don't want 
no part of anybody going to jail. I don't want 

Langley. Well, I'm not asking you to have any part of it, but if — if this 
Delaney comes in here and with that (chuckles) got some proof that that 
character's giving up money, why, you're not in the g damned— I don't — ain't 
got no patience with that s-o-b. He's no good. He's cheated me and he's 
horsing you guys around. You got too much — you have too damned much 
patience with him. He's a no good bastard. He won't treat anybody right, 
except a bunch of those dizzy policemen I guess, or some of them, some of 

them, (pause) Trys to uh . He's doin' to you just exactly like he did to 

me. He lied to me once a month for four years. 

Langley. He's been lyin' to you now once a week for 6 weeks — for 6 months, 
see? It's exactly the same g-damned thing. Yeah. Is that what you're going 
to give me? 

Maloney. Yeah. 

Langley. All right. I tell you, the same axe that I got. He lied to me once 
a month for 4 years. He's lied to you once a week for (j 

Maloney. Put your hand underneath it. Bill. 

Langley. for six weeks. So you're gettin it. Well, I'll see you, Tom. 

Maloney. Okey, kid. 

Langley. Okey. 

Langley. Okey. You'll call me then. You'll probably be back down Monday, 
huh? 

Maloney. Yeah. 

Langley. All right. You won't be back into town before he is? 

Maloney. Oh, he might be in any day. 

Langley. Wha — Wha • 

Maloney. But never can tell when he'll come in. 

McLaughlin. Well, like I say, you can't tell when I'm gonna [indistinct]. 

Langley. Is this pajamas or a shirt? 

McLaughlin. Yeah, it's, huh 

Langley. Yeah, it's a shirt. Is that your shirt? 

McLaughlin. No. Uh-huh. 

Langley. Uh, what'd you do? Get 'em laundered? 

Maloney. What's that? 

Langley. But if I want you, I can get you at either that Main number or — 
or that other number and I got yours in Spokane, I guess, Tom, haven't I? 

Maloney. Yeah, Yeah. 

Langley. If something happens, I could call Sea — up there and get it and I 
could 

Maloney. Don't cost you a goddamned penny to 

Langley. Oh, I got the call from there. I'm not worried about the money 
part of it. I just don't want anybody listening in 

Maloney. You're not worried about the money part of it? 

Langley. No. 



960 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Maloney. Well, be sure it's three miuutes then, when you talk on this tele- 
phone if you're not worried about the — the money. 

Langley. I don't talk long. 

Maloney. Yeah. 

Langley. And uh — yeah, I gotta, oh yeah, and I got John's number up there, 
too. What — yeah, Clyde talked to me today. He said he might go to Seattle. 

McLaughlin, (indistinct). 

Langley. Okeh, Well, I'll see you, Joe. [Door closes.] 

The Chairman. All right. 
Mr. Counsel, you may read it. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : Langley. No reason why he couldn't. Because 
he can't see him on account of his dad's de — that's — Jim Purcell is so g — 
damned hungry for money that he wouldn't even go to his dad's funeral if it 
meant makin' a few bucks. I'm telling you he's — he's money — crazy guy. Well, 
the only worry I got that — that you fellows get taken care of. If you're satisfied, 
why, it's alright with me. As far 

Maloney. Well, I'm not satisfied. 

Langley (laughing). Well, you better do something then. 

Maloney. Joe's not satisfied. 

Langley. Well, I'm not holding you back, you know that. Well I gotta 
go home. You'll a — if anything happens, then, you uh — this Spy will call you 
and you call me. Okeh. And then, Joe, I probably won't be seeing you for a 
little while. You won't be down until after Labor Day, anyway, will you? 

McLaughlin (indistinct). * * * next week. Maybe I'll call you up before I 
come in. 

Langley. Oh, no, you don't have to do that. You can call me up 

McLaughlin (indistinct). 

Maloney. Why don'cha call up once in a while? Put some money in — the 
box. 

Langley. I called you up the other night. 

Maloney. Puttiu' the money in the box? 

Langley. Sure I did. 

Maloney. Well, that's good. 

McLaughlin ( laughing ) . 

Maloney. How about overtime? 

Langley. I've had — I had overtime this time. 

McLaughlin (indistinct). 

Langley. She says — she says, "Three minutes is up." 

Maloney. What'd you say — how'd — how much? 

McLaughlin. [Laughter.] 

Langley. I says, "How much." And Joe says, well, he says, "Wait — wait'U 
you get through. Well now, you wait until you get through and I don't put it 
in what happens?" 

McLaughlin. Not nothiu' just — I'll tell you what happens, they charge it on 
the other end. Cuz a — — 

Langley. Oh, do they? Oh, they charge it up to your end, is that it? Well, you 
can't have any prostitution going, Joe, with this screwball in Salem. 

That is the screwball referring to the attorney general, Robert 
Thornton. 

Mr. Elkixs. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And presently attorney genei-al in the State of 
Oi'egon ? 

Mr. Ei.KiNS. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Well, you can't have any prostitution going, Joe, with this screwball in Salem. 
McLaughlin. That's right. 

L.\ngley. You can't have 'em going because he'd — I'm telling you, he's nuttier 
on prostitution that he is on this thing. 

McLaughlin. That's right. And now, with — with this thing here 

"this thing" means the liquor investigation? 
Mr. Elkins. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 961 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

With this thing here, if he uh, if you're not on his side or he feels as though 
you did — he knew, you linow, that you did some — didn't do everything that — 
that he wants you to do, why, uh, and if he draws a blank on it, why, that would 
be the next move. I 

Langley. He'd try to hurt me somewhat. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. He'd be mad at me, but uh 

McLaughlin. How long is he in there for? 

Langley. Well, they gdtta defeat him and uh, he's in there until uh all next 
year, he's in there until January the first '50 — '57. They have to defeat him 
next year or it will be a nightmare for 4 more years. This b — — 

Maloney. Oh, he'll get beat. There's no chance for him. 

Langley. I don't know. 

Maloney. Well, all right. I'm just telling you. I know politics. 

McLaughlin. Maybe he's doing the screamin' a little earlier, Tom. People 
forget. 

Maloney. You see, people forget all about him, and they think he's screwy. 

Langley. Well, uh anyway, he's nuttier on prostitution that he is on this. So, 
if you give him any opportunity on prostitution he'll go. Let 'em run in some 
counties around here and then he'll focus on those. They're running, you know, 
in Ontario and places like that. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. So the prostitution is out. And now it's no good and we don't want 
it anyway and it's too dangerous with him. Do you see. So the only way you're 
going to do any good is cards, high dice. Like I told you all along, cards and 
book and then if you get into the pinballs and punchboards, that's all right. But 
that's what it amounts to. That bootleg joint if it'll — -if it will go if you can 
make anything. That's all right. I don't see any reason to close that down now. 

McLaughlin. That's right. Because we'll he right there and if any — if he 
signs a complaint on out there, you'll be the first one to know it. [Indistinct.] 

Langley. Oh, I don't know about that. I don't — I <lon't care to be anything 
on it anyway. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. That's er the governor's business — it's not — it's not mine. Do you 
see? See. you — if Sheridan wants to close it, why, he ought to close it. Let him 
close it down, see. 'Cause they're the ones that are going to stand to get em- 
barrassed. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Sheridan was in the liqnor connnission ? 

Mr. ElkiNs. That is right, sir. The same man who testified yester- 
day. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

T>angley. I'm not going into all that junk about the administration of the 
liquor commission and they're lettin' bootleg joints go and all that kind of stuff. 
I'm not going into that. I just want — 

Now he is talking about the investigation of tlie liquor commission; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. PTERINS. That is correct. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

I just want to find out whether there's been any bribery and — and he's not talk- 
ing about bribery. Now that's the only thing that Delaney might bring in. 
Delauey might claim there's been some bribery to let these bootleg joints go, see? 
Well, I don't see how he's going to prove it. It's only speculation on this 
Delaney's part. xVnd then if it is the Character's got to give it to — been givin' 
it to that McCreary or whatever his name is so maybe we could get the Character 
into a mess — that someway. 

The Chairman. Who is "the Character" ? 
Mr. Elkins. Jim Elkins, that is me, sir. 

89330— 57— pt. 3 14 



962 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kent^edt. So when lie says "Maybe we could get the Character 
into a mess," is that right ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is right. 

The Chaieman. Who is the McCreary? 

Mr. Elkins. He is a lieutenant in the — he works under Mr. Sheri- 
dan. He is a lieutenant of hard liquor. 

The Chairman. He says here you have been giving him money. 

Mr. Elkins. That isn't true. 

The Chairman. That is what he said, though. 

Mr. Elkins, That is what they claim, because I asked them to do a 
favor for Sheridan. If you have .a minute, I will tell you the whole 
thing. 

The Chairman. All right. I think I can take a minute, 

Mr. Elkins, Tommy Slieridan come to me and this McCreary, and 
they was looking at a burro I owned. 

The Chairman, A what? 

Mr, Elkins, A burro. Do you know what a burro is? 

Senator Mundt. A small-size jackass. 

The Chairman. A burro ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes. 

The Chairman. Yes, I believe I know. 

Mr. Elkins. So he mentioned that he had been suspended and told 
me what over, and I said, "Maybe I got a friend tb.at will help you." 
So I go ask Mr. Crosby to help him. They help him. Then immedi- 
ately after, Mr. McCreary and Mr. Sheridan moved all the furniture 
in the bar out of one of the bootleg places. So they got madder than 
the devil. They said, "Do you mean to tell me that he would do that 
after you helped him ?" 

I said, "I didn't do that to help him. He has a family. I didn't 
mean that I had ever paid him anything." 

And they figured that I had to be giving him money or I wouldn't 
have asked somebody to have done a favor for me. That is it. 

The Chairman, I see. 

Mr. Elkins. But I didn't pay him any. 

The Chairman. But they thought you had ? 

Mr. Elkins, That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Maloney. Oh, J C (chuckles) I don't want no part of that. I don't want no 
part of anybody going to jail. I don't want 

Langley. Well, I'm not asking you to have any part of it, but if — if this 
Delaney comes in here and with that (chuckles) got some proof that that 
Character's giving up money, why, you're not in the g damned — I don't — ain't 
got no patience with that s-o-b. He's no good. He's cheated me and he's horsing 
you guys around. You got too much — you have too damned much patience with 
him. He's a no good bastard. He won't treat anybody right, except a bunch of 
those dizzy policemen I guess, or some of them, some of them, (pause) Trys to 

uh . He's doin' to you just exactly like he did to me. He lied to me once 

a month for 4 years. 

Senator Mundt. Who did he mean by that "he" ? 

Mr. Elkins. He means me, sir, and I am the one he is calling "a no 
good bastard," 

Mr, Kennedy. You are the one that lied to him once a month for 
4 years? 

Mr. Elkins. That is his story, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY (reading) : 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN TPIE LABOR FIELD 963 

Langley. He's been lyin' to you now once a week for 6 weeks — for 6 months, 
see? It's exactly the same g damned thing. Yeah. Is this what you're going 
to give me? 

Maloney. Yeah. 

Langley. All right. I tell you, the same ax that I got. He lied to me onee a 
month for 4 years. He's lied to you once a week for &— — 

Maloney. Put your hand underneath it, Bill. 

Langley. For 6 weeks. So your're getting it. Well, I'll see you, Tom. 

Maloney. O. K., kid. 

Langley. O. K. 

Langley. O. K. You'll call me then. You'll probably be back down Monday, 
huh? 

Maloney. Yeah. 

Langley. All right. You won't be back into town before he is? 

Maloney. Oh, he might be in any day. 

Langley. Wha — Wha 

Maloney. But never can tell when he'll come in. 

McLaughlin. Well, like I say, you can't tell when I'm gonna (indistinct) — 

Langley. Is this pajamas or a shirt? 

McLaughlin. Yeah, it's, huh 

Langley. Yeah, it's a shirt. Is that your shirt? 

McLaughlin. No. Uh-huh. 

Langley. Uh, what'd you do? Get 'em laundered? 

Maloney. What's that? 

Langley. But if I want you, I can get you at either that Main number or — 
or that other number and I got yours in Spokane, I guess, Tom, haven't I? 

Maloney. Yeah, yeah. 

Langley. If something happens, I could call Sea— up there and get it and 
I could 

Maloney. Don't cost you a goddamned penny to 

Langley. Oh, I got the call from there. I'm not worried about the money- 
part of it. I just don't want anybody listening in 

Maloney. You're not worried about the money part of it? 

Langley. No. 

Maloney. Well, be sure that it's 3 minutes then, when you talk on this tele- 
phone if you're not worried about the — the money. 

Langley. I don't talk long. 

Maloney. Yeah. 

Langley. And uh— yeah, I gotta, oh yeah, and I got John's number up there, 
too. What— yeah. Clyde talked to me today. He said he might go to Seattle 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. O. K. Well, I'll see you, Joe. 

The Chairman. ^Vlio is John ? 

Mr. Elkins. John Sweeney, sir. 

The CiiAiKMAN. All right. 

The Chair suoo-ests that we might take a recess now. The Chair 
has to hold another committee hearing at 1 o'clock, a different com- 
mittee. We will recess mitil 2, and I hope I can be back by that time 
to reopen the hearings. 

We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Members present at the taking of the recess : The chairman. Sena- 
tors Ervin, and Mundt.) 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 10 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. McClellau, chair- 
man, presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Present at the convening of the hearing were Senators McClellan 
and Ives.) 



964 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we had been through our fourtlit 
tape and we were starting on tape No. 62, w^hich is fifth in our order,, 
and recorded in late August of 1955. Do we have a copy for Mr. 
Elkins? 

The participants are District Attorney William M. Langley, Joseph 
McLaughlin, and Thomas E. Maloney. The persons mentioned axe 
"he" is Elkins, and "character" is Elkins. 

"The spy" is Leo Plotkin. When Langley wants to "knock him 
out of the box" he is talking of Elkins. Kenton is a district of Port- 
land. "Archer" is Bob Archer, a poolroom operator, and "Jim" is 
Jim Elkins. 

This is the last one, I think, Mr. Chairman, at least for now. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

(The recording is as follows:) 

Langley. Yeali, I'm tired. Hello, Tom. 

Maloney. Hello, Willy, how are you. Here — sit down. 

Langley. Have you got to — the Archer going yet? 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. (Lauahter) Huh? 

Maloney. ( Indistinct. ) 

McLaughlin. Well, that's what I come to hear (?) about. They want a 
they — they a I don't know (indistinct) . . . it's a bad deal. 

Langley. Oh, it's bull. 

Maloney. Tell "im, tell 'im, tell 'im, tell 'im (laughter). 

Langley. Well, if he's so damned scared, why don't he close down the rest of 
his stuff? 

McLaughlin. It's a 

Maloney. They closed the Chinaman down, BilL 

Langley. Oh, did they? 

McLaughlin. Or 

Maloney. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. What Chinaman? 

McLaughlin. Oh, we have three of them 

Langley. Oh. He didn't close the ones downtown though? 

Maloney. No, no, no. 

Langley. How'd he happen to close the one in jig town, I wonder. 

Maloney. Well, I told him you wanted him closed. That's — is that what you 
told me? 

Langley. Wha — who'd you tell that to? 

Maloney. I told the Character. 

Langley. Oh. 

Maloney. We've got chuckaluck, we've got whites and everything else and I 
said, "Bill don't want it to go." And he says, "All right, if he wants it closed." 
I says, "That heel over there give me an O. K. on things, and I knew he — ^he 
didn't close it." Said he had a piece of it. I knew if he closed, it that he 
didn't have no piece of it. So it closed. 

Langley. (Laughter.) Well, that's not the one of them that's supposed to be 
in that bit, is it? 

McLaughlin. No. 

LanglI'^y. Or he'd put a squawk up. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. Yeah. 

McLaughlin. ( Indistinct. ) 

Langley. Well, that's right then. If it's not doin' any good for anybody it 
goes down ; that's — that's a sure thing. 

Maloney. The spy made a prediction about the grand jury this afternoon. 

Langley. What does the spy say? 

Maloney. You tell 'im. that — that 

Langley. Well, he— that's just speculation. That's no facts. 

Maloney. Well? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 965 

Langley. Well, I don't — I didn't come down to talk about that. So — the guy 
closed down the — that closed over there, huh? 

McLaughlin. So I asked him, you know. I says, it isn't wise to talk on the 
phone he had started you know (indistinct) can do tliat over the weekend — can 
have it open, see. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Well, then just tell them to close everything; that's what you tell 
them. Just tell them if the chief is so worried about — about — ^just to close 
everything then. 

McLaughlin. Well, they a — they said it would be O. K. to open up the 21 
game. They don't want them high dice. So just I 

Langley. Open it up where? 

McLaughlin. In the Elite. I says when I called, "Open 'er up right next, open 
'er on up." So I says "Well, in that case" I says (indistinct). 

Langley. While — what excuse did he give you for putting in 21 and not poker? 

McLaughlin. Well, this here guy he didn't want to open up poker until after 
the dogs is over with. This here, in fact the powers that be with a the dogs and 
what have you a he want, a he has an understanding with the chief that if he 
doesn't have no poker — gambling in town while a — while the dogs are running • 

Langley. I don't follow that one line. What does the gambling have to do 
with the dogs? 

McLaughlin. Well, they do that pretty much. Bill. We've got it up in Seattle 
when the racetrack is open. 

Langley. (Indistinct.) 

McLaughlin. But they gotta — they take care of everything in that town. It 
seems like it — when we're a — when we're — when the county — when we went 
ahead into the county we wouldn't do no business in the city you know. You 
see, what we'd do, we'd take care of the city police to keep the town down. 
Pretty nice arrangement (indistinct). I tell you the trouble here that's about 
what 

Langley. Well, this thing — this grand jury thing will go on for a couple of 
months. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

liANGLEY. (Indistinct breakin.) 

McLaughlin. Pertaining to — to anything anyway. A it's — it's in regards to 
that liquor deal. It's — of course, anything. I know, can be drawn on into it, 
but the 

Langley. Yeah, if you're gonna close anything down the first thing to close 
down is the bootleg joints. If you — you know 

McLaughlin. That's right. If there was any — that would be the closest 
thing to it on this investigation. 

Langley. Well, do as you like — it doesn't make any — any — you handle it any 
way you want to. He's a no good. So he gives you one excuse after another 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. If you're going to get the football — the dogs aren't over until 
October. (Indistinct two voices.) 

McLaughlin. Over Labor Day. 

Langley. No 

Maloney. No. No; the 7th. 

Langley. If you're going to get any book on football, you've gotta get yourself 
established 

McLaughlin. Well, I 

Langley. Pretty soon. For the first part of September. 

McLaughlin. You — we realize that. That's a serious problem. We realize 
that. The football situation 

Maloney. Well, I wouldn't worry about it (indistinct). 

Langley. Where's that (indistinct) made? Where's (name indistinct). 

McLaughlin. I don't — he didn't leave me the address. He said someplace 
upstairs. I said upstairs 

Langley. Well 

McLaughlin. ( Indistinct. ) 

Langley. It looks to me that you're just wasting your time. You've got to 
knock him out of the box, that's all. You know a, it's what — I've said all along 
that you were never going to do any good being with him. That you've got to 
be away from him. The — you have your own operation, but he's not going to 
let you have your own operation. That's Wliat I say. But if — anything is agree- 
able with me, a I don't — you decided what you want to do. If you want to keep 
on trying to do business with him that's all right or put him out. It's all right. 



966 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Maloney. I got some meat in there I want yon to take home with you when 
you leave. Cuz I'm leaving tomorrow — be gone for 3 or 4 days so I wanta 

Langley. Yeah — are you coming back before the weekend or after the week- 
end? 

Maloney. After the weekend. 

Langley. You'll be back next Monday, probably? 

Maloney. Yeah, you can come up here and lay down. 

Langley. Ah * * * I don't have time. 

Maloney. You won't have time? 

Langley. Ah eya 

Maloney. Here's another key if you need it. 

Langley. No, I've got one. You're going back up tomorrow, Joe, Huh? 

McLaughlin. Yeah. 

Langley. Oh, is he still going out there in Kenton? 

McLaughlin. Yeah. 

Langley. Well, if you fellows can take 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Yeah 

McLaughlin. That poker game 

Langley. What? 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) — that poker game. 

Maloney. The big seven. 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) you know that Dahl and Penne guy. 

Langley. Oh, the Greek. (Pause.) Well, now he gave me something for the 
2 — he give me 4 bills — 2 of them for each 1 the Chinamen and 50 bucks for some — 
for the Big Seven or some damn thing? 

McLaughlin. For the Big Seven and a 

Langley. Two for the two Chinamen going? 

McLaughlin. Only supposed to be one. 

Langley. There's two China joints going, isn't there, Tom? Two China 
joints going. 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Oh. 

McLaughlin. There's just one. 

Langley. Well, that's 2 — what's the other 2 for? 

IVIcLaughlin. For the Big Seven and poker game in the outlying districts, 
I'll get the addresses off him in the morning so we'll know — so we'll know what's 
what. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Well, what are you going to do with those two? Keep monkeying 
along with them? Is that what you're figuring on doing? 

McLaughlin. Not going to keep monkeying along with them. We're going 
ahead with the situation 

Langley. And a — well, he says he's not going to go along with us 

McLaughlin. Well, because the chief wouldn't stand for it. So with it, he 
wants to go on down to the sheriff's office. (Indistinct.) So I told 'em, I said, 
"You tell 'em I'm not interested (indistinct). That if we can't do this thing 
along — this thing right, why a, we'll forget about it. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. What did Archer say when you talked to him? 

McLaughlin. He a — well a — he wants to move — he wants to go. 

Langley. And what did you say to him? 

McLaughlin. ( Indistinct. ) 

Langley. I mean, how does he take the explanation from you? Does he 

McLaughlin. Yeah, he says he can't go until Jim tells him to. 

Langley. Yeah, well, has he got confidence in that Jim or does he think he's 
horsing him aroimd? 

McLaughlin. Well, I don't know, with it, I a, I think everything that he's 
been doing up there the last couple of months — years, why a, he's went along 
that line that— 

Langley. Has he done much up there? 

McLaughlin. Well, as little that's been done in town, he's done. This Dahl 

and Penne guy 

Langley. Well, tell him I want my 8.500 when you talk to him some more. 
You can tell him that, too. The s — of b — , he — you guys can have the 8,500. 
(Maloney laughs in the background.) 

Langley. I don't want it, but I don't want that dizzy bastard acting the 
way he's acting. 

(L. laughs) J — , that's 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 967 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) You can't tell on the chief of police. 

Langley. Yeah. 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) When Tom tells him about (indistinct) — you 
know, anytime you're closed for fishing you can't go ahead and (indistinct). 

Langley. He's just lying to you, that's all. He's just a — it's flus — its frus- 
trating for you as well as Tom — it's frustrating for you to talk to a guy that 
don't know how to be honest and square, you know. It's a g — damned pity. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may read it, and Mr. 
Elkins, you follow it and we may want to ask you some questions 
about that. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. ELKINS— Eesumed 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) . 

Langley. Yeah, I'm tired. Hello, Tom. 

Maloney. Hello, Willy, how are you. Here — sit down. 

Langley. Have you got to — the Archer going yet? 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. (Laughter.) Huh? 

Maloney. (Indistinct.) 



Well, that is what I came to hear about." 
That comes in for Langley rather than for McLaughlin there and that 
is a mistake. Then, McLaughlin goes on : 

McLaughlin. They want a they — they a I don't know (indistinct.) * * * It's 
a bad deal. 

Langley. Oh, it's bull. 

Maloney. Tell 'im, tell 'im, tell 'im, tell 'im. (laughter). 

Langley. Well, if he's so damned seared, why don't he close down the rest of 
of his stuff? 

McLaughlin. It's a 

Maloney. They closed the Chinaman down. Bill. 

Langley. Oh, did they? 

McLaughlin. Or 

Maloney. ^Indistinct.) 

Langley. What Chinaman? 

McLaughlin. Oh. we have three of them 

Langley. Oh. He didn't close the ones downtown though? 

Maloney. No, no, no. 

Langley. How'd he happen to close the one in jig town, I wonder. 

Maloney. Well. I told him you wanted him closed. That's — is that what you 
told me? 

Langley. Wha — who'd you tell that to? 

Maloney. I told the character. 

Langley. Oh. 

The "character" is Elkins. 

Maloney. We've got chuckaluck. we've got whites and everything else and I 
said, "Bill don't want it to go." And he sa.\ s, "All right, if he wants it closed." 
I says, "That heel over there give me an O. K. on things and I knew he — he 
didn't close it." Said lie had a piece of it. I knew if he closed it that he didn't 
have no piece of it. So it closed. 

Langley. (Laughter.) Well, that's not the one of them that's supposed to be 
in that bit, is it? 

McLaughlin. iNo. 

Langley. Or he'd put a squawk up. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. Yeah. 

McLaughlin. ( Indistinct. ) 

Could you tell us what that all means in there, Mr. Elkins? Could 
you put it together ? 



968 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, I can put it togetlier. They were after an address 
and so I am feeding them money and I gave him $450 for Bill Langley 
and he said, "What is the address?" Well, the Big Seven had been 
arrested and there were some complaints going in against the China- 
man with the chuckalnck game that I knew about and I just said, "The 
Big Seven and another poker game and the two Chinamen and the 
Greek." The Greek was a place that I had 25 percent of, that I was 
giving them. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the conversation about telling you that you 
should close it? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, Maloney told me, "You should close that, the 
Chinaman, in jig town," and I said, "Well, it will be closed," because 
I knew it was going to be pinched, so it was no problem of mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did he say he wanted to have it closed? 

Mr. Elkins. Because Langley wasn't getting paid for it. There 
were three others. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, continuing : 

Langley. Well, that's right, then. If it's not doin' any good for anybody it 
goes down, that's — that's a sure thing. 

Maloney. The spy made a prediction about the grand jury this afternoon. 

Langley. What does the spy say? 

Maloney. The spy says, "I don't know," he says, "that the district attorney 
is wasting his time going into the grand ,iury. He ain't got nothin'." 

Langley. (Laughter.) 

Maloney. You tell 'im that — that 

Langley. Well, he — that's just speculation. That's no facts. 

The spy is Leo Plotkin. 

Maloney. Well? 

Langley. Well, I don't — I didn't come down to talk about that. So — the 
guy closed down the — that closed over there, huh? 

McLaughlin. So I asked him, you know. I says, it isn't wise to talk on the 
phone ; he had started you know [indistinct] can do that over the weekend — can 
have it open, see [indistinct] ? 

Langley. Well, then just tell them to close everything. That's what you tell 
them. Just tell them if the chief is so worried about — about — just to close 
everything then. 

McLaughlin. Well, they a — they said it would be O. K. to open up the 21 game. 
They don't want them high dice. So just, I 

Langley. Open it up where? 

McLaughlin. In the Elite. I says when I called, he says, "pen 'er up right 
next, open 'er on up." So I says, "Well, in that case," I says * * * [indistinct]. 

Langley. While — what excuse did he give you for putting in 21 and not 
poker? 

McLaughlin. Well, this here guy, he didn't want to open up poker until 
after the dogs is over with. This here, in fact the powers that be with a the 
dogs and what have you a he wants a he has an understanding with the chief 
that if he doesn't have no poker — gambling in town while a — while the dogs 
are running 

Langley. I don't follow that one line. What does the gambling have to do 
with the dogs? 

McLanghlin. Well, they do that pretty much, Bill. We've got it up in Seattle 
when the race track is open. 

Langley. [Indistinct.] 

McLaughlin. But they gotta — they take care of evei^ything in that tovjrn. 
It seems like it — when we're a — when we're — when the county — when we went 
ahead into the county we wouldn't do no business in the city you know. You 
see, what we'd we'd take care of the city police to keep the town down. Pretty 
nice arrangement [indistinct]. I tell you the trouble here that's about what 

Langley. Well, this thing — this grand jury thing will go on for a couple of 
months. 

McLaughlin. That's right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 969 

Lakgley. [Indistinct breakin.] 

McLat:ghlin. Pertaining to — to anything anyway. A it's — it's in regards 
to that liquor deal. It's — of course anything I know can be drawn on into it. 
But the 

Langley. Yeah, if you're gonna close anything down the first thing to close 
down is the bootleg joints. If you — you know 

McLaughlin. That's right. If there was any— that would be the closest 
thing to it on this investigation. 

Lanqley'. Well, do as you like — it doesn't make any — any — you handle it any 
way you want to. He's a no good. So he gives you one excuse after another 

He's a "no-good" refers to whom ? 
Mr. Elkins. To me. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading). 

McLaughlin. That's right. 

Langley. If you're going to get the football — the dogs aren't over until October. 
[Indistinct; two voices.] 

McLaughlin. Over Labor Day 

Langley. No 

Maloney. No, no ; the 7th. 

Langley. If you're going to get any book on football you've gotta get yourself 
established 

McLaughlin. Well I 

Langley. Pretty soon. For the first part of September. 

McLaughlin. You— we realize that. That's a serious problem, we realize 
that. The football situation 

Maloney. Well, I wouldn't worry about it. [Indistinct.] 

Langley. Where's that [indistinct] made? Where's [name indistinct]. 

McLaughlin. I don't— he didn't leave me the address. He said, "Someplace 
upstairs." I said "Upstairs" 

Langley. Well 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. It looks to me like you're just wasting your time. You've got to 
knock him out of the box, that's all. You know, ah, it's what — I've said all 
along that you were never going to do any good being with him. That you've 
got to be away from him. 

Who is "him" there ? 
Mr. Elkins. That's me. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading). 

The — you have your own operation, but he's not going to let you have your own 
operation. Looks to me like. He won't let you have your own operation. That's 
what I say. But if— anything is agreeable with me. Ah, I don't— you decided 
what you want to do. If you want to keep trying to do business with him that's 
all right or put him out. It's all right. 

Maloney. I got some meat in there I want you to take home with you when 
you leave. Cuz I'm leaving tomorrow — be gone for 3 or 4 days so I vvanta 

Langley. Yeah— are you coming back before the weekend or after the week- 
end? 

Maloney. After the weekend. 

Langley. You'll be back next Monday, probably? 

Maloney. Yeah. You can come up here and lay down. 

Langley. Ah — I don't have time. 

Maloney. You won't have time? 

Langley. Ah, ea 

Maloney. Here's another key if you need it. 

Langley. No; I've got one. You're goin' back up tomorrow, Joe, huh? 

McLaughlin. Yeah. 

Langley. Oh, is he still going out there in Kenton? 

What does that mean ? 

Mr. Elkins. That means the bootleg joint in Kenton, is it still 
running. 



970 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy (reading). 

McLaughlin. Yeah. 

Langley. Well, if you fellows can take 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. Yeah 

McLaughlin. That poker game 

Langley. What? 

McLauglin. (Indistinct) that poker game. 

Maloney. The Big Seven. 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct) you know that Dahl and Penne guy. 

Dahl and Penne is another after-hours place ? 

Mr. Elkins. That was a legitimate cardroom, but he and I owned a 
half interest in the Explorei^' Club. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is that ? 

Mr. Ei.KiNS. The man who owned Dahl and Penne, George Andrews 
and I owned a half interest in the Explorers' Club which was a poker 
game. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Langley. Oh. The Greek you mean [pause]. Well, now he gave me some- 
thing for the two — he give me four bills — two of them for each one the China- 
men and 50 bucks for some — for the Big Seven or some damn thing. 

McLaughlin. For the Big Seven and a 

Langley. Two for the two Chinamen going? 

McLaughlin. Only supposed to be one. 

Langley. There's two China joints going, isn't there, Tom? Two China joints 
going? 

McLaughlin. [Indistinct.] 

Langley. Oh. 

McLaughlin. There's just one. 

Langley. Well, that's two — what's the other two for? 

McLaughlin. For the Big Seven and poker game in the outlying districts. 
I'll get the addresses off him in the morning so we'll know — ^so we'll know what's 
what. [Indistinct.] 

Langley. Well, what are you going to do with those two? Keep monkeying 
along with them? Is that what you're figuring on doing? 

McLaughlin. Not going to keep monkeying along with them. We're going 
ahead with the situation 

Langley. And a — well, he says he's not going to go along with us 

McLaughlin. Well, because the chief wouldn't stand for it. So with it, he 
wants to go on down to the sheriff's office. [Indistinct.] That is we can't do 
this thing along — this thing right, why a, we'll forget about it. [Indistinct.] 

The Chairman. Wliat does that refer to ? 

Mr. Elkins. That refers to a conversation they had with me. I said 
the city officials wouldn't stand for it and I heard them say that they 
had the sheriff. I made the proposition to them, before they could 
make it to me and I said, "Let's quit fooling with the city and go out 
in the county and operate." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the sheriff at the time? 

Mr. Elkins. Terry Schrunk. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they said that they had him? 

Mr. Elkins. That's correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, just on the two Chinamen, what is the colloquy 
about the two Chinamen ? 

Mr. Elkins. There were two Chinese really going, I guess. There 
was one in Chinatown and one in colored town. But the one in colored 
town had colored people and white people and everything running it 
and I knew it couldn't operate more than a week or two before they 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 971 

would knock it off. So actually, the Big: Seven, I told them there was 
money from the two Chinese and from the Greek. 

Actually, the money didn't come from any of those places. I was 
^ivmg them half of my 25 percent of the Greek's poker game. The 
Greek got 25 percent and I got 25 percent and I split mine with Tom 
and Joe, McLaughlin and Maloney. 

So I was just making up addresses to give them that the money was 
coming from and they were demanding, getting more positive in their 
demands for addresses as to where this money was coming from and 
what places that he was to protect. 

Mr. ICennedy. There was some question whether there were 2 or 1 
Chmese places? 

Mr. Elkixs. There were two, but one of them got in iail the next 
day or a few days after that. I told Joe 1 and I had told Tom 2, and 
I got caught m the shuffle there. 

Mr. Kexnedt. That is why they are having a discussion here as to 
whether there is 1 or 2 Chinamen. 

.i,^?' 5^^^^,^\ ^^®' ^^^^y ^^^ checking up on me to see if I told them 
the truth or didn't tell them the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told one of them one thing? 

Mr. Elkins. One of them one thing and the other one something 

Mr Kennedy. Will you go on. "What did Archer say when you 
talked to him?" Wlio was Archer? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Bob Archer, who owned the Kialto Billiard 
Parlor. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he run there ? 

Mr. Elkins. He run pan and billiards and he had a private club 
license and he could run poker. They wanted Archer to open up high 
dice, 21, and poker. r- i & 

Well, I am shadowboxing with them and I told them, "He can't 
open it all up and he can't have more than poker there and he couldn't 
have that until after the dogs were over." I knew the same situation 
existed in Seattle, that during the racing season they closed down 
everything else, not the book, but they closed down the gambling. 

I thought the same answer would work for Portland. Then I said, 
''Well, we could open up in the Elite, which Arthur's son owns," and' 
we did one night. We opened gambling down there one night. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened then ? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, it closed to keep, from getting arrested by the 
city. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where Langley is talking about getting somethino- 
from the Chinese, *^ 

He gave me 4 bills, 2 of them for each 1 and the Chinaman $50 for something 
for the Big Seven or some damned thing. ' 

What is he referring to there? 

Mr. Elkins. That is the poker. They had arrested the poker game 
and the Big Seven and so I said, "Well, am having to account for 
where the money came from and it is supposed to come from." I said, 
"There is $50 from the Big Seven and a couple of outlying other poker 
games in outlying districts." 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that money that the district attorney was getting 
for allowing these two Chinese places to operate? 



972 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Elkins. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was talking about the amount of money that 
he was getting for allowing these Chinese places to operate ? 
Mr. Elkins. That's right. 
Mr. Kennedy, (reading) : 

Langley. What did Archer say when you talked to him? 

McLaughlin. He a— well a — he wants to move — he wants to go. 

Langlet. And what did you say to him? 

McLaughlin. (Indistinct.) 

Langley. I mean, how does he take the explanation from you? Does he 

McLaughlin. Yeah, he says he can't go until Jim tells him to. 

Langley. Yeah, well, has he got confidence in that Jim or does he think he'ij 
horsing him around? 

McLaughlin. Well, I don't know, with it, I a — I think everything that he's 
been doing up there the last couple of months — years, why a, he's went along that 
line that 

Langley. Has he done much up there? 

McLaughlin. Well, as little that's been done in town, he's done. This Da hi 
and Peune guy 

Langley. Well, tell him I want my eighy-flve hundred when you talk to t Im 
some more. You can tell him that, too. The s — of b — , he — you guy can h.ive 
the eighty-five hundred. [Maloney laughs in the background.] 

I don't want it, but I don't want that dizzy bastard acting the way he's act- 
ing. [L. laughs.] J — , that's 

McLaughlin [indistinct]. You can't tell on the chief of police. 

Langley. Yeah. 

McLaughlin [indistinct]. When Tom tells him about [indistinct]. You 
know, anytime you're closed for fishing you can't go ahead and [indistinct]. 

Langley. He's just lying to you, that's all. He's just a — It's flus — it's frus- 
trating for you as well as Tom — it's frustrating for you to talk to a guy that don't 
know how to be honest and square, you know. It's a g — damned pity. 

The Chairman. Does any member want to ask Mr. Elkins any 
questions while he is still on the stand ? 

Senator Goldwater. Just as a matter of curiosity, that game you 
called "pan" is that Panguingui ? 

Mr. Elkins. That's right, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Mundt. Wliat does "the 85" refer to? 

Mr. Elkins. That is a business that Langley and I formerly owned 
down in Washington County. When we sold it, we retained half of 
the gambling. But the place hadn't got the gambling open when he 
was elected district attorney and all of a sudden he wanted me to buy 
his half interest in a dead place for $8,500. I think I finally gave him 
$5,000. 

Senator Mundt. Wiiat is the name of that place ? 

Mr. Elkins. The China Lantern. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the witness, Mr. Langley. You may 
just keep your seat for a few moments, Mr. Elkins, and we may desire 
to ask you further questions. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. LANGLEY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive any money from any of these 
Chinese places, Mr. District Attorney? 

Mr. Langley. I would decline to answer on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 973 

Mr. Langley. I don't understand you. You asked me a question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that if you gave a truthful answer to the 
question as to wliether you ever received any moneys from these Chi- 
nese places, that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Langley. JNIight tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that it might tend to incriminate you if 
you gave a truthful answer as to whether you ever received any 
moneys from these Chinese places. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. As I said this morning, in view of this setting and the 
Testimony and my circumstances, I do feel that if I answered the ques- 
tion it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I^et the Chair ask you something in view of "the 
setting.'' With these records being played in your presence and with 
the witness testif^dng under oath it is your voice, will you tell this 
committee whether you heard your voice on those records that have 
been played? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I decline to answer on the fifth amendment. 

The CHAIR3IAN. You mean you don't want to say before this com- 
mittee after listening to these records played, and the explanation 
made of them, you do not want to deny that you heard your voice? 

(The witness coiLsulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I don't want to affirm or deny it. I decline to answer 
on the ground of the fifth amendment because if I go into the prob- 
lem then I will have to go into all of the matters that are involved 
in my trial in Portland. 

The Chairman. Well, I think the Chair wants to be fair to you. 
I want to give you eveiy opportunity because the records were not 
played just for amusement. They were played to give you an oppor- 
tunity to know exactly what the sworn evidence was before this com- 
mittee regarding your activities as a public official and a law-enforce- 
ment officer. 

If you do not want to explain, and if you want to take the fifth 
amendment, that is yoiu- privilege. 

Now, Mr. Counsel, you can proceed to examine him on each point 
that is referred to in the record, if you desire to do so. The Chair 
may say foi- the information of the committer regarding the record- 
ings, and I M-ill liave this swoni to or we can call this witness if any- 
one desires, we have had Mr. Kobeirt Coar, Director, under the Ser- 
geant at Arms of the Senate, Recording Room Studio, examine these 
tapes that have been played here today. 

This letter, in effect, says that thevse tapes have not been changed 
or anything superimposed on them and that the noises that are heard 
are those noises of trucks oi- airplanes and other noises that might 
interfere in the coiii-se of taking a recording of that kind. 

1 shall pass the letter to members of the committee for examination 
and if the committee desires we will have this witness, the one who 
examined the tapes, brought over and placed under oath and let hun 
testif}' to wliat liis letter says. 

If not, if there is no question about it, then the letter may be printed 
in the record. A^Hiat is the pleasure of the connnittee ? 

Senator MuND-r. I suggest we print it in the record. 

Sejiator Ives. It is all riiiht. 



974 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiTArRMAN. All right, the letter will be printed in the record 
at this point. 

United States Senate, 

Sekgeant at Apms, 

" Recording Studio. 
Washington, D. C, March I4, 1957. 
Senator John McClellan, 

Chairman, Select Committee on the Improper Activities of Labor and 
Management, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : In response to the reqnest made to Mr. Joseph C. Duke, Sergeant at 
Arms, United States Senate, that I investigate certain tapes furnished by your 
committee, I wish to advise that this has been done. 

The object of this inspection was to, determine whether or not there was any 
possibility of these tapes having been altered, words superimposed, words taken 
out of context, or interruptions in the recording which might in any way alter 
the statements made on the tapes. 

The tapes I listened to and checked were tapes made, I was told, by means 
of a portable tape recorder of certain conversations in a hotel room. In all of 
these recordings there was not only a definite pattern of standing waves due 
to room noise, in addition to that there was street noise, such as trucks, aircraft 
passing overhead and other similar types of disturbances constantly in back of the 
conversations. 

From my examinations, it is my concerted belief that the tapes which I checked 
could not possibly have been altered in any fashion. In order to prove this 
matter, I attempted to take words out of context on these tapes and place them 
in different positions from which they occurred and found that in attempting 
to do so there was an immediate and abrupt change, not only in the voice fre- 
quencies but also in the attendant room noise. This change was so much in its 
characteristics that anyone listening to the tapes would immediately recognize 
that something had been done to the tapes. 

Trusting that this adequately meets your requirements as to the analysis 
of the tapes. 

Very truly yours, 

( Signed) Robert J. Coar, Director. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Langley, I want to quote to you from a news- 
paper interview which you handed out and which is printed in the 
Oregon Journal. You are quoted in that paper as follows : 

My view that Elkins has tried to use the grand jury as his beartrap for 
framing me is shared by at least one other public official, a man of unimpeach- 
able character. That man is Sheriff Terry D. Schrunk. He knows that one of 
Elkins hirelings has told the grand jury a vicious pack of lies about a payoff in 
connection with an afterhours joint in the Kenton district which is within 
the city. 

Because of this attempted frame, Schrunk has consented to a lie detector 
test to show this man to be the liar that he is. 

Now, since Mr. Schrunk flunked his lie detector test in Oregon and 
walked out of his lie detector test in Washington, I wonder if you 
would like to comment any further in supplementation of your news- 
paper interview. 

Mr. Langley. Would you tell me the date, please? 

Senator Mundt. Of your interview? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. July 25, 1956. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment for the reason 
it would open up the whole subject and constitute a waiver of my 
position. 

The Chairman. What is there about the whole subject that you do 
not want to talk about ? 

Mr. Langley. I have told you, Mr. Chairman, I am indicted on a 
conspiracy charge. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 975 

The Chairman. And you do not want to talk about anything re- 
lating to that, is that correct? 

Mr. Langley. Anything related to the alleged conspiracy which I 
am charged with. 

Senator Mundt. Did I understand you this morning to say that 
you were going to answer all of these questions before your trial and 
that we would be given a transcript of that hearing ? 

Mr. Langley, Well, I don't understand how you are using the word 
"before." Do you mean while I am a witness or before the trial 
starts ? 

Senator Mundt. I mean at your trial, during your trial. 

Mr. Langley. I expect to be a witness in my own behalf. 

Senator Mundt. You expect to answer all of these questions at that 
time ? I think that is what you told the committee this morning. 

Mr. Langley. I expect to answer the questions asked me. 

Senator Mundt. If you expect to answer them there, how could 
they incriminate you now any more than they would incriminate you 
there? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Could I have that question again, please? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, sir. If you expect to answer these questions 
there at your trial, how could they incriminate you here any more 
than they would there if you gave us honest answers ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Well, that is an argumentative question. I don't 
know whether it will incriminate me more here or there, but the 
position I have taken is that I am invoking the fifth amendment here, 
but I will testify in my own behalf at my trial. 

Senator Mundt. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? The chief 
counsel is occupied with a telephone call at the moment. 

Who is "the character" ?_ 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Who is "the spy"? 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You do not wish to say who Maloney is, either? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Or McLaughlin ? 

Mr. Langley. The same answer. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Frank Brewster ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Will you tell us about some of your contacts with 
him? 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Did you know the late Mr. Sweeney, John 
Sweeney? l 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Will you tell us about some of your contacts with 
him? ^ 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. During these tapes there were discussions that you 
participated in regarding certain afterhour joints that were going to 
be allowed to be operated. Did you participate in those conversations ? 



976 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any moneys for allowing those 
places to operate ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you allow gambling places to operate ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, for money being given to you. 

Was money being given to you in order to allow gambling joints to 
operate ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a column that appeared within the last 
2 weeks regarding an interview that a columnist had with you, Mr. 
District Attorney, and in it you stated — 

Langley says he accepted no money from the teamsters, but they did spend 
some money on his behalf and handed out literature for him. 

Did you accept any money from the teamsters ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell this columnist that you did not accept 
any money from the teamsters ? 

Mr. Langley. I will invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You will not tell us what your conversation was 
with him? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you have an interview within the last 2 weeks 
with a columnist regarding this matter ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Would you identify the columnist ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Drew Pearson. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Yes ; I talked to Mr. Drew Pearson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Pearson that you had accepted no 
money from the teamsters ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question. 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you accept any money from the teamst^i-s ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you accept any money from the teamsters? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says in this column, it says : 

Young Langley's opponent for district attorney, John McCourt, was a liberal 
Republican who had been strong for labor, had always received labor support 
Langley had not. But toward the end of his last election race in October 1954, 
the teamsters phoned his father to say they had discovered McCourt was backed 
by Big Jim Elkins, the leader of the gambling world, so they were coming out for 
Langley. They did. 

Now, did the teamsters call your father and tell him that they had 
received information this Elkins was backing McCourt? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refuse to tell the committee whether the team- 
sters called your father to give him that information? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 977 

All-. Langley. 1 ijiAoke the iifth aniendment. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Pearson that ? 
Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 
Mr. Kennedy, Was it tlie truth 'i 
Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 
Mr. Kennedy. Have you read the article that was written by you ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Langley. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The statements that you are alleged to have made; 
are those statements true^ 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the iif tli amendment. 

Ml-. Kennedy. You have in here also that Mr. Tom Maloney was 
working for you; is that true? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Eegaiding these tapes, you have made a statement in 
public 1 hat Mr. Elkins brought the tapes to your home and requested 
$10,000 for the sale of the tapes ; is that true ? 
All-. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Elkins come to vour house and demand 
$10,000? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke tlie Hfth amendment. 
Mr, Kennedy. Did you make that statement in public? 
Air. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVill ycni now make that statement under oath 
l)efore this committee? 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 
Mr. Langley. AVhat is the question ? 

Air. Kennedy. AYill you make the statement imder oath before this 
committee that Air. Elkins came to your home and asked for $10,000 
for the tajies? 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel.) 
Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Air. Kennedy. Have you heard tliese tapes before, before listen- 
ing — have you heard any tapes that were taken in the apartment of 
Mr. Tom Alaloney prior to hearing them here ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Air. Langley. I inv<^ke the fiftli amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tender wliat circumstances did you hear the tapes? 
Air. Langley. I invoke tlie hftli amendment. 

Air. Kennedy. Did tlie present nmyor, Air. Terry Schrunk, obtain 
the tapes for you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Lan(;ley. 1 invoke the fifth amendment. 

Air. Kennedy. Did you have an arrangement with the present 
mayor, AIi-. Terry Schrunk, to obtain those tapes ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Air. Kennp:dy. Did you obtain a search warrant to get those tapes? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Do you mean, did my office draw the ])apei-s for the 
search warrant? 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

89330 — 57— pt. 3 15 



978 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. My office did draw a search warrant for the judge 
who issued the warrant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who gave those instructions ? 

Mr. Langley. What instructions? 

Mr. Kennedy. Instructions to draw the papers for the seai'ch 
warrant. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I don't know what you mean. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, where did it originally come to the attention 
of your office? To whom in your office did it originally come that 
these papers should be drawn? Was that to you? You say that your 
office drew up some papers ; is that right ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Yes; that is right. My office drew some papers for 
the judge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give the instructions to draw the papers? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Your question is, did I give instructions? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us start right at the beginning. Explain how 
the search warrant for the tapes was issued and what part your office 
j)layed in it. You tell us everything about it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Well, it wasn't a search warrant for the tapes. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. It was a search warrant to search Mr. 
Ray Clark's home. Just tell us everything that you know about it, 
starting when you first got some information about it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, that this 
article that I read and tried to get Mr. District Attorney Langley to 
comment on is entitled "Senator McClellan Isn't Telling All." 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan is not telling; he is trying to 
get some witnesses to tell. I cannot be responsible for a headline. 

Proceed. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Would you state the question again, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us everything that you know about 
the search warrant being issued for the search of Mr. Ray Clark's 
home ? 

Mr. Langley. I will have to decline to answer that on the grounds 
of the fifth amendment, because it might be a possible link in 
this alleged conspiracy. 

The Chairman. Well, it may be, but the Chair wishes to ask you 
this: You said the papers were drafted in your office. Did you give 
instructions to anyone in your office to draft the papers for the judge 
to sign, upon which he based the search warrant ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Brad Williams, of the Oregon 
Journal ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Langley. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 979 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his relationship to the searchino- of Mr. 
Ray Clark's home ? What did he do ? What connection did he have 
with the searching of Mr. Ray Clark's home ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Mr. Brad Williams, of the Oregon 
Journal, about the searching of Mr. Ray Clark's home ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell the committee what conversations you 
had that preceded, with Mr. Brad Williams, that preceded the search 
of Mr. Ray Clark's home ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those tapes that were seized at ]Mr. Ray Clark's 
home, were they played in the presence of Mr. Brad Williams ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those tapes ever turned over to Mr. Clyde 
Crosby? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever obtain copies of the tapes ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you have copies of those tapes at the present time ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stated one time in an interview on July 24, 1956, 
that the only reason that the attorney general wasn't bringing Maloney 
back to Portland, and I quote : 

The only reason I can think of why he hasn't been brought back here is because 
his testimony supports me. 

Would you feel that Tom Maloney 's testimony supports you ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. He took the fifth amendment before this committee. 
Do you feel that that supports you ? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Langley. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, do you want to change it : 

The only reason that I can think of why he hasn't been brought here is because 
his testimony supports me. 

We gave him a chance to testify before the committee, and he took the 
fifth amendment. Do you feel that that statement is still true ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I don't know one way or another. Your question is 
argumentative. You will find out when I have my trial in Portland. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. State that question again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. District Attorney Langley stated 
on July 24, 1956, about Mr. Tom Maloney regarding his return to 
Portland. He had then left the State of Oregon and they couldn't 
get him back to Portland. He states — 

The only reason that I can think of why he hasn't been brought here is because 
his testimony supports me. 



980 IMPROPER activitip:s in the labor field 

The Chairman. If it is argumentative, it is a statement that is argu- 
mentative by the witness himself. You simply asked him, Does he 
feel that that is true now ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Ken NED V. Yes. ... , 

The CiiAiRMAX. If there is any argument u\ ]t, it is an argument 
that is in the statement made to the public. 

Do you answer or refuse to answer ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel) 

Mr. Langeey. I don't know whether it would hel]) or not. 

The Chairman. Proceed. , .. . , . ^ a 

Mr Kennedy. Do vou feel that Jiis taking the hfth amendment and 
you taking the fifth ^imendinent. do you feel that you support one 
another ? 

Mr. Langley. IdontMmow. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you feel about it ( (. ould you tell us that ( 

Mr. Langley. I haven't given it any consideration. 

The Chairman. All right. He is not feeling about it. 

Go ahead. 

Senator Goldwater? . 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Langley. are the teamsters paying for your 

counsel? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr Langley. Well, Senator, I would like very much to answer that 
question, but if I could, it will open up the whole subject of this alleged 
conspiracy. For that reason, I will ]la^•e to nivoke the fifth amend- 

^^The Chmrman. How would that affect your conspiracy? The 
Chair does not understand that. I think we want to try to be logical. 
How could that affect the conspiracy charge, if the teamsters are 
paying for your attorney ? ^ i ^ ^ 4. • 

Mr LANGLEY. Yesterday, Senator ISIundt made the statement in 
the investigation that the^liscovery of a check in the book was an 
important link in this alleged consinracy if it was true 

The Chairman. That is an important link m what this committee 
is seeking to find out. t , • xi n 

Mr. Langley. He said it was an important link m the overall con- 
spiracy. , , . 

The Chairman. The conspiracy of the teamsters union ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Langley. For that reason, I decline. „ , , ^ , 

The Chapman. I mean not of the union, but of the leaders to con- 
trol vice in the city. Do you feel that that link, if it is a link, would 

a ff ect vou ? 

Mr Langley. I will invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Langley, do you know of any work that 
your counsel has done for the Teamsters Council No. :W that would 
have a value of $5,000? 

Mr. Langley. I couldn't answer that. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. You could not answer that ? 

Mr. Langley. Xo. . ^i - d- nnn 

Senator Goldavater. Could you tell us whether or not that |;),000 
might have been paid as a retainer or for services to be extended to 
you in vour present situation ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 981 

Mr. Langley. Eeally, Senator, I would like to ansAver, but I don't 
know. I suggest you ask the attorney involved. Subpena him and 
ask him about it. 

Senator Goldwater. I was possibly in error. My attorney tells me 
that this is not :Mr. 'J'anner. I was under the impression that Mr. 
Tanner was your attorney. I will rephrase the question. 

The CiiAiKMAN. Mr. Tanner has not appeared here yet. 

Senator Goldavater. Do you have any knowledge of any work that 
Mr. Tanner did for councirXo. 37 that would require the payment of 
$5,000 on Aug-ust 21, 1 956 ? 

Mr. Langley. I am not familiar with the matter at all. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Was Mr. Tannei- paid this money for any 



work that would be done in connection with your case 



(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. That borders on the waiver again, Senator. I am 
sorry, I will have to decline to answer that. I am sure, however, 
that if you would subpena Mr. Tanner, he would be very pleased to 
answer your questions and clear up your concern. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Mundt, Mr. Langley, have you ever been in the King 
Tower Apartments ? 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Sheridan ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator INIundt. Tliat is Mr. Thomas Sheridan. 

Mr. Langley. Yes ; I do. 

Senator ]Mundt. Do you know him to be a member or a former 
member of the State liquor commission ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever meet with Mr. Sheridan in the apart- 
ment of Mr. Tom Maloney, in the King Towers Apartment? 

Mr. Langley. I would invoice the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a key to Mr. Tom Maloney's apart- 
ment in the King Towers Apartments ? 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amenchnent. 

Senator INIundt. Have you ever been in that apartment 'I 

Mr. Langley. I would invoke the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. We have sworn testimony from Mr. Sheridan 
that he met you to keep an ap{)ointment dealing witli tliese related 
subjects, and that you met him in the King Tower Apartment under 
lease to Mr. Tom Maloney. Do you want to deny that ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to these statements that you have made 
lately, and I guess back during the summer of 1956, that the team- 
sters never spent any money for yon, I would like you to examine 
this document. 

The Chairman. Tlie Chaii- dii-ects the clerk to liand to you for your 
examination and identification, what purports to be a photostatic 
co])y of a document entitled : 

Statement of expenditures, .sreneral election, November 2, ]0r»4, of Joint Oonn- 
cil of Teamsters, Maili Hobnos. secretary, in support of William M. Lani^ley, 
Democrat candidate for district attorney, Multnomali C'onnty, $.''>,I(;().88. 



982 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I ask you to examine this document and state if you will identify 
it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Well, I can't identify this, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't 
prepared by me. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen the document before or the 
original of it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I will invoke the fifth amendment. Your Honor, or 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Would you say that the report in that document 
is untrue? 

Mr. Langley. Pardon me? 

The Chairman. Do you say that the report in that document of 
those expenditures is untrue? 

Mr. Langley. I am invoking the jEifth amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I believe I miderstood you. 

All right. 

Mr, Kennedy. May I have the document back, please ? 

Mr. Chairman, did you read the total off? Total for Langley 
for district attorney was $3,160.88, of which the Joint Council of 
Team 

The Chairman. The document which I just showed you and which 
you declined to identify shows, under account of receipts, contribu- 
tions, and expenses, total, Langley for district attorney, $3,160.88, 
covering 7 different items of amounts listed. 

Do you want to make any comment about it, as to whether you re- 
ceived this aid or did not? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here is another docmnent. 

It shows the amount of money expended on behalf of William 
M. Langley, and included in there is the amount that the teamsters 
union spent for Mr. William Langley. 

The Chairman. The Chair will present to you another statement 
of expenditures of William Langley for district attorney committee, 
L. L. Langley, treasurer, in behalf of William M. Langley, Democrat 
candidate for district attorney, Multnomah County, showing a total 
of $3,227,61, and listing from the teamsters union in contributions 
the amomit of $2,188.40. 

Will you examine this document and state whether you identify it, 
and, if so, what is it? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Mr. Chairman, I can't identify this. My deceased 
father made this report and filed it, and I have no personal knowledge 
about it. 

The Chairman. Your deceased father made the report ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you find his signature on the document ? 

Mr. Langley. I recognize it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 983 

The Chairman. You recognize his signature making a report for 
you, for expenditures and contributions received in your campaign; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes. 

The Chairman. You would then assume it is accurate if your father 
signed it, would you not ? 

Mr. Langley. Well, I am sure my father wouldn't file one that he 
didn't think was accurate. 

The Chairman. That is what I mean. 

Thank you very much. 

That document where he identifies the signature as that of his 
father may be made exhibit 55 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 55" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1089 and 1090.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That was forwarded to us by the elections division, 
secretary of state, Salem, Oreg., with this letter. 

(Letter referred to may be found in the files of the select com- 
mittee.) 

Mr. IvENNEDY. In connection with the district attorney's answer as 
to whether it was accurate, this record shows the teamsters union 
contributed $2,188 to Mr. Langley for his campaign, and the teamsters 
union shows that they contributed $3,160, so there is a discrepancy of 
about $1,000 in these tAvo reports that were filed. 

Can you explain the discrepancy ? 

Mr. Langley. I am sorry, I can't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no idea ? 

Mr. Langley. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other moneys from the team- 
sters other than this, than these amounts ? 

Mr. Langley. I would decline to answer that on the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, did you receive any money from the 
Western Conference of Teamsters while you were running for district 
attorney, or any other time ? 

Mr. Langley. I decline on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a check paid to the order 
of William M. Langley, October 26, 1954, for $500, signed "Frank 
W. Brewster," and "John Sweeney, Secretary-Treasurer," and en- 
dorsed "William Langley" on the back. It doe's not appear anywhere 
in the reports that Mr. Langley or any of his committees filed as a 
campaign expenditure. 

The Chairman. The Chair will have this photostatic copy of a 
check presented to the witness for his examination and identification. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no place in the reports that were filed that 
shows that there was any money that came from the Western Con- 
ference of Teamsters to Mr. William Langley. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. The question, please? 

The Chairman. The question is : The Chair has submitted a docu- 
ment to you for your examination and identification. You have 
examined the document. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman. 



984 IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairmax. Is that jowv signature on the reverse side as an 
endorsement ? 

JNIr. Langlet. I am sorry, I invoke the fifth amendment. 
The Chairmax. As to your own signature ? 
Mr. Laxgley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 
The Chairmax. All right. 

Mr. Kexxedt. W[\j did the Western Conference of Teamsters pay 
you $500 ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you have some arrangement with Mr. Frank 
Brewster or Mr. John Sweeney for services that you were going to 
perform for the Western Conference of Teamsters that led them to pay 
you this $500? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Can you give any explanation to the committee of 
why the Western Conference of Teamsters in Seattle, Wash., would 
be paying you $500 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Tell me this: Was tliis a cami)aign expenditure of 
yours, Mr. District Attorney ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. If it Avas a campaign expenditure, can you give us 
any explanation as to why it was not put on your report to the State 
of Oregon as a donation that you received for your campaign? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kexxedy. Can you give the connnittee any explanation for 
that? 

(The w^itness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Can you tell the committee why they would pay 
you — Frank Brewster and John Sweeney would be paying a district 
attorney $500, or a possible district attorney $500 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. LTnion dues were used to pay that $500. Do you 
ha,ve any explanation for it ? 

Mr. Laxgley. I invoke the fifth amendment. Counsel. 

The Chairiviax. Did Tom Maloney manage your campaign ? 

Mr. Laxgley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you pay him any money for managing your 
campaign ? 

yir. Laxgley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did he make any contribution to your campaign ? 

(The witness conferred with his coimsel.) 

Mr. Laxgley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairmax. Tom Maloney was not a citizen of Oregon, was he ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Laxgley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairmax. He was brought down from Seattle, Wash., to man- 
age your campaign ; was he not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 985 

Mr. Lan<;lky. I invoke the fifth nnieiKhiieut. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Do you not know tlnit he was brought down, sent 
down tliere, rather by Brewster and by Sweeney to take chargv of your 
(•ariipai<>:n, lielp elect you, and that lie did actually perform? 

Mr. Laxgley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator JNIrxoT. j\Ir. Lanj^ley, I have been lookino- at the arithmetic 
of your reports here. The teamsters report spending $3,160 in your 
cami)io-n, and all the other contributions total only $1,040. So out of 
the $5,200 you received, $8,160 was reported by the teamsters them- 
selves as havino; been spent in your campaign. Can you exphiin why 
the teamsters union Avould be so much interested in your election that 
3 out of every 5 dollai-s spent in your campaign would l)e spent by 
them ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Senator Muxdt. That is 42 instead of 52. Three out of that. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Langley. Under the laws of the State of 
Oreg'on, does the candidate himself have to file an expense account of 
his receipts and expenditures when he runs for office ? 

(The witness conferi-ed with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Laxgley. Well, Senator, I am not clear on that. My offhand 
opinion is that only the campaign committee files the report. 

Senator Muxdt. Let me put it to you this way : Did you, as a matter 
of fact, yourself, file witli any public office of record a statement of the 
receipts and expenditures, as a candidate, that you engaged in? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mi'xdt. You would know whether you filed one or not. 

Mr. Lax-^gley. As far as I know, there is none. 

Senator Mttxdt. As fax- as you know, you never filed individually 
any statement of expenses and receipts? 

Mr. Laxgley. It is my oft'hand opinion that there is no require- 
ment, and I have no recollection of filing one. 

Senator Mltx'dt. If you have filed one, I would presume as a district 
attorney you would know in which office it would have to be filed, 
would you not ? 

Mr. Lax'gley. Yes. It would be filed with the secretary of state. 

Senator Muxdt. It would have to be filed with the secretary of 
state, even though you are running for a county office? 

Mr. Lax'^gley. Well, Mr. Chairman — I mean Senator — in Oregon, 
the district attorney is a State officer, but it is held in districts, and 
each county is a district. So you are elected to a State office in a 
county district. 

Senator jNIux'^dt. So that if such a statement were filed, we would 
find it in the secretary of state's office in Salem ? 

Mr. Laxgley. In the elections bureau of the secretary of state's 
office, yes. 

Senator Ml^xdt. Thank you. 

The Chairmax. This witness may suspend his testimony for the 
present. We will present another witness for a moment to identify 
some documents. 

Mr. Calabrese, would you come forward, please ? 

(Members present at this point: The chairman, Senatoi-s Ives, 
Mundt, and Goldwater.) 



986 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF ALPHONSE F. CALABRESE— Resumed 

The Chairmax. Mr. Calabrese, you have been previously sworn as 
a witness during these hearings ? 

Mr. Calabrese. I have. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Calabrese, when we were out in Portland, Oreg., 
we had an interview with Mr. Elkins ; is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Elkins at that time told us that after the 
district attorney's race was finished, that he was told by Mr. Tom 
Maloney that they brought Mr. William Langley down into Califor- 
nia to introduce him to some of the bigwigs down there and to give him 
a little vacation ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Elkins then told us, and as he has told 
this committee, that he asked who was going to pay for that trip of 
Mr. Langley, is that right ? 

Mr. Calabrese, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he said that Mr. Maloney said that the team- 
sters would take care of his bill ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did we, after hearing that information, check in 
San Francisco at the Olympic Hotel to find out whether Mr. William 
Langley had registered there ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. Mr. Adlerman and myself, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that Mr. William Langley and family 
was registered at the Olympic Hotel from November 6 to November 
11,1954? 

Mr, Calabrese. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that the bill there for Mr. William Langley 
and family was $75.95? 

Mr. Calabrese- That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you determine by whom the bill was paid ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, we did, 

]\Ir, Kennedy. And by whom was the bill paid ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The bill was paid by the Western Conference of 
Teamsters, by check No. 7974, dated "December — the day is oblit- 
erated— 1954. It is signed F. W. Brewster and John J. Sweeney. 

The Chairman. The Chair will ask you, do you have a photostatic 
copy of the check, a photostatic copy of the hotel records, and a 
photostatic copy of anything else ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, A photostatic copy of the Olympic Hotel 
registration card ; a photostatic copy of the statement to the Western 
Conference of Teamsters by the Olympic Hotel, in the amount of 
$75.95, for William Langley, and the Western Conference of Team- 
sters' check which I previously identified, payable to the order of the 
Olympic Hotel, signed by ^Ir. Brewster and Mr. Sweeney. 

The Chairman. Those documents may be made exhibit No. 56A, 
B, and C, for reference, 

(The documents referred to were marked 'Exhibit 56A, 56B, and 
56C" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1091- 
1093.) 

Mr. Kennedy. After the election was over, did you also check in 
Seattle to find out if Mr. William Langley had gone there ? 



I]\IPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 987 

Mr. Calabrese. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you check at the Olympic Hotel, Seattle, 
Wash. ? 

Mr. Calabrese. A siibpena was served on that hotel. 

Mr. Kenedy. Going back to the Olympic Hotel in San Francisco, 
at the same time that Mr. William Langley and family were at the 
Olympic Hotel in San Francisco, was Mr. Tom Maloney there? 

Mr. Calabrese. Mr. Tom Maloney was registered there from No- 
vember 5 through 9, 1954. His bill was paid by the Western Con- 
ference of Teamsters. Those documents have already been intro- 
duced into the record. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 20 A, 20B, and 
20C, and will be found in the appnedix to pt. 1 on pp. 373-375.) 

Mr. Kennedy. He was there at the same hotel at the same time, and 
his bills were also paid by the Western Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is true. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Now goiug up to Seattle, Wash., from November 26 
to 30, 1954, at the Olympic Hotel, did you find that Mr. William 
Langley registered at that hotel? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes, both Mr. Langley and, apparently, his wife. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And was that bill paid by the Western Confer- 
ence of Teamsters? 

Mr. Calabrese. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the bill amounted to $39.27? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you describe that check ? 

Mr. Calabrese. The check is drawn on the Western Conference of 
Teamsters, made payable to the Olympic Hotel, in the amount of 
$227.20. It is dated* December 15, 1954, and the number is 7994. It 
is rather obscure. The check is signed by F. W. Brewster and Jolin 
J. Sweeney. 

The Chairman. Wliat is the date of it ? 

Mr. Calabrese. December 15, 1954. 

The Chairman. That was after the election? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is after the election, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Included in that $200-odd dollars, is there an item 
for $39.27? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. That is for Mr. Langley and 
family, and also an item of $35.86, the bill for Thomas Maloney, who 
was also at the hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. So at the same time that William Langley was up 
at Seattle, Wash., staying at the Olympic Hotel, and having his bills 
paid by the Western Conference of Teamsters, Mr. Tom Maloney 
was also at the same hotel and also had his bills paid for by the West- 
ern Conference of Teamsters, is that correct? 

Mr. Calabrese. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Have those documents yet been made exhibits? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 57, the three of 
them. 

Are there three of them ? 

Mr. Calabrese. Yes. 

The Chairman. That will be 57-A, B, and C, for reference. 



988 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The flociiments referred to were marked ''Exlii})it No. 57A, 57B, 
and 57C'' for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1094- 
1099.) 

Mr. Kkxxedy. Did you lind Det-eniber 10 and IT, at the Benjamin 
Franklin Hotel in Seattle, Wash., 1955? 

Mr. Calabkesp:. Mr. Kennedy, we found from a review of the 
records at the joint council, Xo. 37, turned over to us last week, an 
item under the cash expenditures for the month of December 1955, 
wherein a bill was paid to the Benjamin Franklin Hotel, and after 
tliat dash "'Lan^Tlev'', December 16 to December 17 in the amount of — 
the check was for $15.10. 

Mr. Kexnedv. How much >vas that ? 

Mr. Caeabrese. $15.10. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Was that for whom? 

Mr. Caeabkese. That was for, apparently, ^Mr. Langley's hotel bill 
at the Benjamin Franklin Hotel. 

Mr. Kexneoy. Did you also find whether Mr. Tom Maloney was 
at the Benjamin Fraidclin Hotel in Seattle at the same time? 

Mr. Caeabkese. Yes, he was theie at the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was his bill paid for by the teamsters at that time? 

Mr. Caeabpjise. By joint council No. 37. 

j\Ir. Kexx'edy. His bill was paid by joint council 37? 

Mr. Caeabkese. That is right. 

(The information referred to appears in exhibit 51. in the appendix, 
foldin facing p. 1080.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the first time that ]Mr. Calabrese testi- 
fied, there was a question raised — this last item is not in the record yet. 

The CiiAi R:\rAN. That will be made exhibit No. 58. 

(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 58"' for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix, foldin facing blank p. 1100.) 

JVIr. Kennedy. There was some question raised about the authen- 
ticity of a department of motor vehicles letter that had not been 
signed. We have had that signed since the last time Mr. Calabrese 
appeared. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Calabrese tastify to this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He testified that this car was registered in the name 
of Tom Maloney, A. F. of L., Teamsters Building, Northeast Third 
and Holiday, Portland, Oreg. 

The Chairman. This document mnj be made exhibit No. 59, for 
reference. 

(The docmnent referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 59" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 1101-1103.) 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I have been examining the hotel 
registi'ation card of the Olympic Hotel, where Mr. William Langley 
registered in for himself and family. Looking at tlie signature on the 
back of the $500 check given him by Mr. Brewster and Mr. Sweeney, 
it is quite obvious it is the same signature, with the same peculiarities 
in handwriting on the back of the check as we find on the hotel regis- 
tration card. 

I think it Avould be interesting to have the check included in our 
exhibits so that a comparison can be made. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought it had been made an exhibit. 

(At this point, the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. I suggest it be made the next exhibit and be in- 
cluded in the record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 989 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be exhibit No. 60. 

(The docnment referred to was marked "Exhibit No. (>()" I'or refer- 
ence and will be fonnd in the appendix on p. 1104.) 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. LANGLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, RICHARD R. CARNEY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give the committee an explanation as to 
why the "Western Conference of Teamsters was paying your bill'^ 

Mr. Langley. Would you repeat the question, please { 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give the committee an explanation as to 
why the Western Conference of Teamsters were paying certain of 
your bills ? 

Mr. Langley. I dichi't hear your first word, whether you said did or 
could. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could. 

Mr. Langley. You said could ( I invoke the fifth amendment, 

Mr. Kenni:dy. Will you give the conmiittee an explanation^ 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kenntdy. Did you have any conferences with Mr. John 
Sweeney when you were in Seattle ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. I invoke tlie fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did 3'ou have any conferences with Mr. Frank 
Brewster ? 

Mr. Langley. I invoke tlie fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elkins has testified tliat he met you up in 
Seattle, shortly after the election, and you and Tom Maloney discussed 
certain houses, certain afterhours joints that could be operated in 
Portland, and also the question of whether call girl houses could be 
opened. Did you have such a c(mference with Mr. Elkins^ 

Mr. Langley. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You, as district attorne}', refuse to tell the committee 
as to whether jou discussed the o})ening of call houses with Mr. Tom 
^Maloney and Jim Elkins in Seattle, Wash. ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lan(;ley. Mi-. Counsel, that is my })Osition, and I ha\e stated 
my reasons several times, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. You will not tell the committe anything about that? 

Mr. Langley. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the gi-ounds that a truthful answer might tend 
to incriminate you? 

(The witness confei-red with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Well, I don't care to play on words, Mr. Counsel, 
liut it is in view of my situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. I^et me ask you this: Do you feel that truthful 
answers to the questions that you refuse to answer might tend to 
incriminate you? 

Mr. Langley. For the reasons stated, that is my position. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do feel that? 

]N[r. Langley. I have stated my ])osition. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, do you feel that truthful answers to the ques- 
tions that you refuse to answer might tend to incriminate you? 

(The witness confei'red witli his counsel.) 



990 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kexnedy. For a proper use of the fifth amendment, Mr. Dis- 
trict Attorney, you have to feel that a truthful answer might tend 
to incriminate you. Do you feel that? 

Mr. Langley. Well, I don't want to be smart with you, but I have 
my own counsel here, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. O. K. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Langley. Would you please start again, Mr. Kennedy, and I 
will try to answer the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that truthful answers to the questions 
that you have refused to answer before this committee, that truthful 
answers to those questions might tend to incriminate you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. I^angley. I have answered that question several times, Mr. 
Kennedy, and I will say again that it might tend to incrimhiate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your attorney and I agree. 

Mr. Langley. I Avant to say this, that you are both good attorneys. 

The CHAHiMAN. Are there any other questions? 

Are there any further questions. Senator Mundt? 

Senator INIundt. Xo. 

The Chairman. The Chair is very happy to make this announce- 
ment : ^yith the exception of one more witness, Mr. Frank Brewster, 
so far as we knoAv now this particular series of scheduled public hear- 
ings will close. 

In view of the hour, we will not undertake to start with Mr. Brew- 
ster today. As far as we know now, he will be the first witness 
tomorrow, and we hope to conclude this series of hearings tomorrow. 

All other witnesses are excused, and the present witness is included. 

Thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: The chairman, Sen- 
ators Ives, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

(Whereupon, at 3 :40 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
10 a. m., Friday, March 15, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FBIDAY, MARCH 15, 1957 

Unitp:d States Senate, 
Sei^ect 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 the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irvmg M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Pat McXamara, 
Democrat, Michigan; 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, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. As the Chair announced yesterday, when we hear 
the witness scheduled for today and maybe 1 or 2 others, this series 
of hearings will come to a close. 

The Portland aspects of it that have engaged the attention of the 
committee over the past several days since these hearings began, are 
l^ractically concluded, subject, of course, to some time in the future. 

Maybe in the near future or maybe later, some other testimony 
will appear and it will be desirable to produce it in public hearings. 
The public may not realize this, but before public hearings of this 
nature can take place, and particulavly hearings so involved as is this 
inquiry and the one that has been related to the Portland situation, 
there is far more work which has to be done in securing the informa- 
tion and screening it and preparing it for public hearings. 

We have two men on the staff of the committee who did the major 
part of that work, Mr. Alphonse Calabrese and Mr. Jerome Adlerman. 
The Chair wishes to thank them on behalf of the committee and I am 
sure on behalf of the citizens of this country for the hard work that 
they have put into this project. 

There are others of the staff assigned to other areas now who are 
doing the same work, preparatory to hearings in those areas, similar 
to that work which Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Adlerman did in procur- 
ing the witnesses and screening the testimony and making ready for 
•the public hearings that we have held. 

991 



992 IiMPHOPKR ACTIMTIKS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The next "witness, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kknnei>y. JNlr. Frank AV. Brewster. 

Mr. Mackk. Mr. Chaii-nian, can I address the Chaii-. 

Tlie CuATK-MAN. Just a moment. The Chair received a letter fioin 
Mr. Bi-ewster's counsel in which he requested during the time he is 
on the stand — 

I recjuest that the photographers, newsmen, and television technicians be in- 
structed not to take pictures or enj^afxe in (conduct that might otherwise distract 
or liiirass Mr. Urewster. 

(lentlemen, the committee will oi-der that to be done. There will be 
no pictui-es made. 1 understand tliat inchides television and movies 
and it means, of course, ])ictui;es of the witness. 

W'v iiave been observino- that rule Avhei-e a vvitnej^s requested it on 
the oi-()uiid that he might be distracted "while testifying and so the 
(^hair gives instructions now that the rule be observed and the order 
of the (/hail- be observed with res})ect to Mr. Brewster while he is 
testifying. That applies to all cameras. 

Mr. Ma(;i:k. Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to ask this: During 
the course of Mr. Crosby's testimon3% the Chair ruled that he would 
be ])ermitted to ])ut befoi'e the committee the documents that he had 
in his ]K)ssession Avhich wei-e being copied. 1 got the impression last 
night, however, when the ciiairnnin made his annoimcement that 
Mr. Crosby Avas not going to be called back, and we do wnsh that 
o])portunity and also T want to tendei- Mr. Crosby as a witness who 
can fully explain the 2 checks of $5,000 and $;^,000 which the commit- 
tee discussed yesterday. 

The (hiAiRMAN. All right. The C^hair will take that into account. 
I want to proceed with this Avitness. If he is here, just let him 
i-emaiti here. We Avill get to him. 

Mr. MA(iKi:. Thank you. 

The CuAiRiNiAN. 1 am advised that Mr. Ci'osby has not furnished 
the material that yon desired. 

Mr. Kknxkuv. ^'ou have not furnished the material. 

Mr. Ma(u<:k. It has lieen copied, and we have it, and Ave AA'ould like 
to submit it as exhibits. 

The Cttaiumax. You cannot submit it as exhibits imtil the connnit- 
tee has had an ()pi)ort unity to examine it. That Avas the purpose of 
luiving it cojued and providing us Avith a copy. Are yon ready to 
delivei- the material to us? 

Mr. ]\Ta(!KE. 1 can give it to you now% sir. 

The ( -riAiRisFAN. All right. Bring it and ])resent it. 

Will you announce Avhat documents you are noAv submitting to 
the committee? 

Mr. Ma(;ke. AYe are submitting to you the 10 copies of the indict- 
ments against Mr. Elkins, one of Avhich is a prostitution indictment, 
Avhich Ave think the committee should consider. We are submitting 
six affidavits, all of Avhich put Mr. Elkins directly in the prostitution 
racket in the city of Portland, and Ave ask the committee to consider 
those. 

'I'hey are all SAvorn to and undei- oath, and the parties are all Avilling 
to appear before the committee. 

The Chairman. They may be submitted for the committee's exami- 
nation. Thank you A'ery nnich. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 993 

Coine aioinicl, Mr. Brewster. Will you l)e sworn ? 

You do solemuly swear that the evidence you shall ^ive before this 
Senate select connnittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
injrbut the trutli, so help you (rod ? 

Mr. Brews TEH. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK W. BREWSTER. ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL. JERRY N. GRIFFIN AND JOHN K. PICKENS 

I'lie Chairman. Mr. Brewster, state your name and your place of 
residence and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Brewstei{. j\Iy name is P'l-ank AV. Brewster, my residence is 
1 901 86th Avenue West, Seattle, Wash. I am chairman of the Western 
Conference of IVamsters and fifth vice president of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Mr. Brewster, have you conferred with members 
of the stall' and kriow oenerally the line of interro<yation expected? 

Mr. Brewster. Will you repeat that question, please? I didn't un- 
derstand it. 

The CiiAiR]MAN. Ila^e you conferred with members of the staff 
regarding- the testimony that you are expected to give ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. You have been present during the course of these 
hearings ? 

Mr. Brewster. I have not. 

Senator Mundt. You have been a Avitness before part of this com- 
mittee on a previous occasion ? 

Mr. I^REAVSTER. I was here on January 15, Senator. 

The Chairman. Have you lefused to talk to the staff about flie 
testimony you are expected to give ? 

Mr. (triffin. Mr. (^hairman, F am a])j)earing as counsel and my 
name is Jerry X. Griffin. 

The Chairman. I am trying to i-each that. If yon will jnst l)e 
patient, I will get to it. 

Mr. GRTrriN. I think I could explain Avhv he hasn't talked to the 
staff. 

The Chairman. I will ask yon first, have yon elected to have counsel 
of your choosing present ? 

All'. Brewster, ^"es, sir. 

Tlie Chairman, (^ounsel may now identify himself for the i-ecord. 

Mr. (rRiFFiN. Mr. Chairman, as T said, my name is Jerry X. Criftin. 
and this is Jolni K. Pickens, and we are lawyers here in the District 
f)f Columbia. T am a member of tlie Oklahoma bar and Mr. Pickens is 
of the Xew York bar. 

Tlie reason Mr. Brewster has not talked — 

Senator Mi'nut. You are covering u]) the niiciophoiie so we caiinof 
liearyou. 

The Chairman. Jnst one moment. I wanted to get the counsel 
identitied. Xow, have ])oth counsel been cleai'ly idcntilied for tlie 
record ? It is hard for me to hear you. 

Mr. Griffin. My name is -leiiy X. (Jrillin, T))! ^^'asllillgton Build- 
ing, and the other counsel is John K. Pickens, who is a nieuib(M- of mi\- 
firm. AVe have offices at 7:^)1 Washiufxton ]iuildin<r. 



994 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, sir. Thank you very much. Now, 1 
asked Mr. Brewster if he had talked to the staff or if he knew the gen- 
eral line of evidence that he was expected to give. Now, you may 
answer "yes'" or "no" or whatever you want to say. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. I talked to Kennedy and another gentleman prior 
to this committee being formed. 

The Chairman. Prior to the time this committee was established? 

Mr. Brewster. This special committee, yes. Since that time, I 
have not. 

The Chairman. All right. You have been given an opportunity 
to talk with them, I believe? You have been invited to talk with 
them and discuss the matters they wanted to interrogate you about? 

Mr. Brewster. May I ask my counsel, please? 

The Chairman. Yes. you may. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. On advice of counsel, I did not talk to them. 

The Chairman. But you were invited to and on the advice of coun- 
sel you did not talk to them, is that correct ? 

Mr. Brew^ster. I believe that is correct. 

The Chairman. We will accept it as being correct then, unless you 
object. 

Mr. Brewster. O. K. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Griffin. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the letter I submitted 
to you on March 11 on behalf of the witness, I requested that Mr. 
Brewster be allowed to read a prepared statement. 

The Chairman. Counsel is correct, and I have it before me. Mr. 
Brewster, you have asked permission to read a prepared statement, 
have you? 

Mr.*^ Brew\ster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That permission will be granted. The statement 
was filed within the rules of the committee and I believe has been 
examined by the staff ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Brewster, you will be permitted 
to read it. At some parts of it, members of the committee or counsel 
may desire to interrupt or ask you questions for clarification or 
explanation. 

All right, you may proceed with your statement. 

Mr. Brewster. My name is Frank W. Brewster. I was born in 
1897 at Seattle, Wash. I attended Queen Ann High School there for 
two and a half years and then took a 6 months course in Acme Busi- 
ness College. 

I became a teamster in 1913 at the age of 16 and started out driving 
a dray. During World War I, I served in the United States Army 
from April 1918 to March 1919. 

Upon being released from the Army, I went to work on a furniture 
truck. In early 1920 I was elected recording secretary of local union 
No. 174. Later, in December of that year, 1920, 1 was elected business 
agent of the same local. 

Senator Mundt. Is that a Seattle union? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 995 

I continuecl as business ag:ent until 1029 when I was elected secre- 
taiy -treasurer of local 174. I served in this capacity until 1953. 

From 1935 to 1952, I was also secretary and treasurer of Teamsters 
Joint Council No. 28. This council includes all of the local teamsters 
unions in the State of ^^'ashin^ton, with two minor exceptions. 

In 1953, upon assuming the chairmanship of the western confer- 
ence, I relinquished the position of secretary-treasurer of local 174. 
However, at that time I was elected to sei've as president of local 174 
(which position is a far less active one than that of secretary- 
treasurer). 

The western conference encompasses the 11 Western States, xVlaska 
and Hawaii, and 3 of the western provinces of Canada. It was or- 
ganized in 1937 on a voluntary basis and was recognized by constitu- 
tion of the Teamsters International as an organic body in 1947. 

It has a chairman, which office I hold, and a secretary, with a 
governing body of 33 members, sometimes called the policy committee, 
who are representatives from the various locals and trade councils in 
these 11 States. 

It is a true labor organization and was formed to coordinate the 
work of the locals and trade councils, as well as the membership of 
the teamsters in some 14 different divisions, including automotive, 
bakery, bevarage, building construction, cannery, chauffeurs, dairy, 
general hauling, laundry, dry cleaning, log hauling, over-the-road, 
sugar, and wareliouse, among others. 

(At this point in the proceedings, Senator McNamara entered the 
caucus room. ) 

Mr. Brewster. Its purpose is to protect the interests of the work- 
ingman in these industries and others, to stabilize the trucking indus- 
try, and to protect the interests of employers who negotiate with the 
teamsters in good faith. 

There are 8 joint councils and 246 local unions in the conference. 
The conference is the governing body of the teamsters and it meets 
annually. The policy committee meets every 2 months or 6 times a 
year. 

The principal acfivities of the conference are to aid and assist in 
furthering organization in all of the branches of its jurisdiction, to 
carry on a constructive program of education for the benefit of our 
officers and members, to promote sound public relations, to supply 
research, statistical, legal, and financial aid to the locals and the 
joint councils, to aid in the establishment, administration, and super- 
vision of adequite pension and healtli and welfare programs. 

I might add parenthetically that while our pension and welfare 
programs are the finest in the country, the cost of operation and the 
brokerage fees in connection therewith, are among the lowest in the 
country. The total membership in these 11 Western States is approxi- 
mately 375,000. 

The conference does not concern itself with local campaigns such 
as is involved here in connection with the 1954 elections in Portland. 
Each joint council has a legislative committee. The joint council is 
composed of the executive boards of the various local unions within 
its jurisdiction. The councils determine what local and State candi- 
date will be supported. 

As far as I am concerned, I have never concerned myself with local 
politics. There are 246 locals under my supervision, which include 



996 IIMPROPER ACT1\ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

11 States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the western half of Canada. It should 
seem obvious to anyone that if every member of the western confer- 
ence spent '24: hours a day doinof nothing: else, he could not even acquaint 
himself with each local situation in this <rreat area. 

My own policy as to political candidates has always been the same. 
I believe in g:iving support to any candidate of good reputation who 
favors the interests of labor whether he be a Democrat or Republican. 
But, as I said, this decision is made at the local level, and I have never 
attempted to influence their choice. 

The only time the western conference participates in a local political 
campaign is when one of our joint councils requests assistance. We 
^^'ill then lend our aid, including financial support, if possible. We, 
of course, can only contribute to State campaign funds. The western 
conference has never contributed any funds to a Feclei'al campaign. 

The we.stern conference is absolutely opposed to communism in any 
shape or form. I am personally 100 percent opposed to communism 
and in my opinion there is not one Communist or communistic sym- 
pathizer serving as an officer in the western conference or any affiliate 
thereof. As an example of our strong convictions in this regard, I 
refer to the following example : 

The teamsters have many members who are employed in operating 
trucks and heavy equipment in uranium mines, in strip mines, and 
in other mines. There w^as good reason to explore the opportunities 
with the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union to see if we could 
not meet on some common ground so that the jurisdiction in this area 
could be resolved to our mutual satisfaction. 

We sat down with representatives of that union and entered into 
a mutual jurisdictional agreement. Such agreement was conditioned 
on the fact that the union officials of Smelter Workers Union who were 
Communists, or communistic sympathizers, would be cleaned out or 
it would be abrogated. We eventually became convinced they had 
no intention of cleaning out the Communists and the agreement was 
abrogated. 

The larger part of my duties and responsibilities as chairman of 
the w-estern conference has been the actual bargaining and negotiating 
of master contracts and individual collective-bargaining agreements 
with the owners and operators of the pnncipal trucking lines and 
other corporations owning truck fleets. 

It has always been my ])osition to entertain these people as I have 
found a friendly relationship avoids unnecessary bickering and other 
jietty conduct on both sides, all of which leads to needless misunder- 
standings. 

I have taken employers and employers' re])resentatives to dinner 
and otherwise entertained them, including furnishing them with box 
seats at clubhouses in various racetracks for the principal meets. All 
of these expenses I have charged off against the western conference 
or other union funds as I was advised by counsel that these were legit- 
imate business deductions. 

I have tried to make it a practice to entertain employers rather 
than be the reci])ient of their entertainment. T sincerely believed in 
that way our management relationship would be better and there 
would not be any feeling afterward that T owed them any special 
favors at the bargaining table, if indeed, it had ever existed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 997 

Since this smear campaign by Mr. Elkins and others began with the 
resulting publicity, I haAe had some of the owners of the largest truck- 
ing and transportation companies in this country call me and tell 
me that if tliej' were given the opportunity they would like to come 
to Washington and testify as to their relationship with me and the 
manner in which I have conducted the affairs of the western conference 
insofar as the employers are concerned. 

I will give the committee a list of these individuals. I do not wish 
to give it publicly because the connnittee, for one reason or another, 
may not call them. I do not wish them to be embarrassed or maligned 
in the newspapers as I have been. 

The CiiAiioiAx. Mr. Brewster, you may submit the list to the chief 
counsel for the committee's inspection at your convenience. 

Mr. Brewster. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Brewster. Like anyone else, I have made mistakes, but these 
have been honest mistakes of the type made by officers of corporations 
and other unions in the ordinary course of business. 

The budget of the western conference is met by a per capita tax of 
20 cents per month per member. These funds are deposited in two 
bank accounts, one of which is a general account. The constitution 
of the western conference provides that the chairman shall counter- 
sign all checks drawn on conference funds and approve all bills for 
services rendered to the confeience. 

On the average I spend not more than 20 percent of my time in the 
Seattle headquarters. The rest of the time I am in San Francisco, 
Los Angeles, Denver, or any other place in the conference area cover- 
ing 11 States, Alaska, Hawaii, and British Columbia, where my 
presence is required. 

Throughout the period I have been chairman it has been almost 
physically impossible for me to be present and countersign each check 
at the time it was drawn. For many years it has been the custom 
and practice — and it is not a good practice — of signing checks in blank 
whenever I or the other officer required to sign cliecks Avas leaving 
Seattle for several days in order that the operations of the conference 
did not come to a standstill. 

Senator Muxdt. Do you mean by that, that you have an officer who 
is authorized to sign your name, or are 3^ou tallying about somebody 
else? 

Mr, Brewster. I do not. 

Senator Muxdt. You are talking about the nr.in who countersigns 
the checks? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sii'. 

Senator Goldwater. Might I ask a question there? Does your 
office employ a checkwriting machine ? 

Mr. Breavster. A checkwriting machine? 

Senator Goldavater. .V check-signing machine. 

Mr. Breavster. For signatures, we do at the present time. I think 
we instituted that in the last 6 or 8 months. 

Senator Goldwater. And the western conference uses that? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Does the international office here in Wash- 
ington use a checkwriting machine, or a check-signing machine? 

Mr. Breaa^ster. I believe they do. 



998 IMPROPER ACTR-ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Who in your case would have access to that 
macliine ? 

Mr. Brewster. My secretary. 

Senator Goldwater. And who, would you know, would have access 
to it in Mr. Beck's office ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe the secretary -treasurer, Jolin English. 

Senator Goldwater. Would any of the secretarial staff have access 
to either of those machines ? 

Mr. Brewster. I do not believe so, because Mr. English is closer to 
a full-time job present in the office in Washington and I would say 
90 some percent of the time. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

The Chairman. You did not name your secretary who has that 
authority. 

Mr. Brewster. Ann Nielsen. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Brewster. The only way that I know that it can be improved 
is to require, on checks up to a limited amount, only the signature of 
the secretary-treasurer or other official who is normally in the office 
5 days a week, and to have such official bonded for a very large sum. 

Thereafter, a higher official of the union or myself could go over the 
checks once a month and reconcile them with his accounts. 

Contraiy to what Elkins and others would have you think, the 
teamsters, to my knowledge, have never attempted to organize or 
engage in vice or rackets of any kind. Actually, our endeavors have 
been in the opposite direction. For example, since 1953 the following 
are some of the things that the western conference and joint council 
have done : 

The conference has pledged itself to contribute one-half of 1 percent 
of the 2-percent brokerage fee paid in connection with its welfare 
fund to the City of Hope Hospital in Los Angeles. In 1953 the 
organization cooperated with employers in providing trucks and taxi- 
cabs and donated the services of its officers and members, estimated at 
a value of $50,000 toward moving the Children's Orthopedic Hospital 
from its old quarters to its new location. 

For the past several years, as an organization, it has made the larg- 
est contribution toward building the King County Washington Blood 
Bank. Separate and apart from our individual membersliip con- 
tributions, we have contributed manpower and money for the March 
of Dimes and the American Ked Cross. Our average yearly con- 
tribution to United Good Neighbors has amounted to $12,500. 

Scholarships to colleges of the choice of the outstanding high-school 
students are made to children of members of the teamsters union. Dur- 
ing 1956 we sponsored baseball on TV and gave away 500 1-minute spot 
announcements to 105 service and charity organizations at a cost of 
$105 a spot. 

We sponsored the televising of the first 3 days of the session of the 
Legislature of the State of Washington. We donated $12,000 for spot 
announcements to the March of Dimes. We support the Boy Scouts 
and tlie Girl Scouts and the Green Cross Safety Organization. 

I could name countless other civic activities and programs for good 
government which the Western Conference of Teamsters and the joint 
council have promoted. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 999 

As I stated earlier, I started out as a teamster driving a dray. I have 
always been very fond of horses and they have been my active hobby 
for many years. I have owned and bred horses all my adult life. 

1 have had the pleasure of serving as a member, and during 1 period 
as chairman, of the Washington State Horse Racing Commission under 

2 different governors. 

Every sport in this country attracts gamblers as well as fans. The 
racetrack is not an exception, but rather a specific illustration. During 
my time around the track as an owner, breeder, and commissioner, 
I have become acquainted with a lot of individuals who I suspected 
of being gamblers then or who I later found out were. 

It was a fact that I just had to accept. A one-man crusade on my 
part would not have gotten very far. I do not think we have adopted 
in this country the doctrine of guilt by slight acquaintance. For, if we 
have, I may be guilty of many things of which I have no personal 
knowledge. 

There have appeared before this select committee a number of wit- 
nesses who have attempted to create the impression that certain officials 
or employees of the teamsters have conspired with certain members 
of the underworld and with public officials to control and operate 
rackets in Portland, Oreg. 

I welcome the opportunity to answer these charges because, to my 
knowledge, they are absolutely fantastic and completely untrue. I wel- 
come the opportunity to deny these charges under oath and focus atten- 
tion upon the character of the testimony given. 

First, I want to say this and I say it as sincerely as a man can speak. 
I have never conspired with anyone at any time or place to engage in 
any way or control in any manner any racket in the city of Portland, 
or anywhere else. Nor do I know any official or employee of the 
teamsters union who has. You will note from my background above 
that I have long been associated with the teamsters. It has been my 
life. 

The type of testimony presented before this select committee in 
derogation of the teamsters has been most incredible. It consists 
mainly of hearsay, rumor, and insidious innuendo. With few excep- 
tions, it has mainly been derived from gangsters and gamblers and 
various other underworld characters. Yet, unfortunately, this type of 
testimony can be and has been used to create the impression that the 
teamsters have engaged in illegal practices in Portland. 

As far as I know, nothing could be more untrue, and as an official of 
the teamsers I welcome the opportunity to appear before the select 
committee and say so. I might add that I will not invoke the fifth 
amendment on any question. I will answer all questions fully and 
fairly as to any matter of which I have personal knowledge. I am 
proud of my union and my record in it. 

The chief witness against the teamsters presented so far seems to be 
one James B. Elkins. His testimony shows : At the age of 19 or 20 he 
was convicted of assault with intent to kill and sentenced to 10 or 20 
years' imprisonment. 

Later in 1938, he was charged and convicted of engaging in the nar- 
cotics racket, the lowest of them all. He then told of being in a 
shooting scrape of some kind. It is common knowledge that he is or 
has been a racketeer in Portland for a number of years. Further, 



1000 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Elkiiis is presently under numerous indictments in Fedei-al and State 
courts. The credibility of sucli a man is obviously open to the most 
serious question. 

I think it is most signficant that the day Elkins walked into my 
office, which was the first day I ever saw him and the only time I have 
ever spoken to him, that I immediately threw him out after telling him 
wliat I thouiclit about him. 

The recoj'd shows this. It is liardly evidence of any conspiracy or 
collaboration on my part to get in any racket in Portland in which 
Elkins might have been involved. 

I have read the transcript of most all of the testimony before this 
committee. Practically all of the testimony of this Elkins, insofar 
as it relates to me, is based upon alleged conversations he says he had 
with one Thomas E. Maloney and one Joseph P. McLaughlin. I 
believe he also said he heard Maloney and perhaps McLaughin also 
talk to me on the telephone about racketeering activities in Portland. 

Elkins is simply not telling the truth. He has either manufactured 
his fantastic story himself, or someone else has done it for him. Of 
these three men, Elkins, Maloney, and McLaughlin, I have never 
spoken to any one of them a})out political activities or racketeering 
activities in Portland. 

Maloney came to Seattle fi'om San Francisco, as I recall, al)Out 19H5 
and was a fight manager. Apparently he had known some of the 
teamsters in San Francisco and when he got to Seattle, he made himself 
known to Seattle teamsters and that is how I met him. 

As I remember, he wasn't making a living in the fight business and 
about 1939 he came around to me for help — and I want to say this right 
now — I always have been a soft touch and I've never been able to say 
"No" to someone in need. Perhaps I can be criticized for this. 

Anyway, I got him a job at the Longacres Racetrack and the Play- 
fair Racetrack, both, as they operate at diffei'ent times. Later, I got 
him a job as inspector of mutuals in Seattle. I think he held these at 
one time or another up to 1948 or 1949. Since then, I have seen liim on 
several occasions and only by chance. 

One of the characteristics of INIaloney is that he will use the name 
of some influential and responsible person to promote some scheme of 
his own. The person involved, of course, does not know a thing 
about it. 

As to McLaughlin, I think his own testimony shows that he never 
was close to me in any way and that I was only a casual acquaintance 
of his at most. As to his background, I personally know very little. 
I have never been engaged in any transaction of any kind or character 
with him at any time or place and I never talked to him about the 
political situation or racketeering or other activities in Portland. 

As to the alleged conspiracy on the part of the teamsters or any 
official or employee thereof to engage in any racket in Portland in 
connivance with any public official in that city, I will make the follow- 
ing categorical statements under oath : 

1. I know of no conspiracy or plan or effort on the part of the 
teamsters or any official or employee thereof to engage in any racket 
in the city of Portland, or elsewdiere, in collaboration with any public 
official or anyone else. 

2. I know of no conspiracy or plan or effort on the ])art of the 
teamsters or any official or employee thereof to gain control of the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1001 

law-enforcement agencies of the city of Portland, the State of Ore- 
gon, or of an}^ official of said cit}^ or State. Onr sole interest there 
is the same as in every State, that is, to elect officials who are not anti- 
labor and who will o])pose so-called right-to- work laws. 

3. I have never authorized Elkins, Maloney, or McLaughlin, di- 
rectly or indirectly, to represent the teamsters or myself in Portland 
or anywhere else on any matter. 

4. I have never authorized anyone, directly or indirectly, to engage 
in any racket on behalf of the teamsters or myself in Portland or any- 
where else. 

5. I know of no conspiracy or plan or effort on the part of the 
teamsters or any official or employee thereof to place anyone on the 
State Liquor Commission of Oregon for any purpose. 

Prior to the time tliese fantastic and ridiculous stories were brought 
to my attention as a result of these jjroceedings and pi'oceedings in 
Oregon, I had never even heard or thought of these incredible things. 

I think my reputation for honesty and fair dealings is well known 
in the western conference. Why have not some of the reputable peo- 
ple in that region with whom 1 have always done business with for 
yeai's been brought here to tell what they know about me? 

One of the things that has disturbed me as much as anything about 
these hearings has been the implication that John J. Sweeney was in 
an}^ way involved in anything illegal in Portland. Sweeney is dead. 
He is not here to defend himself. So any hoodlum who chooses can 
get up and say John J. Sweeney did this and Jolm J. Sweeney did that, 
without fear of successful contradiction. 

John J. Sweeney was an honest, loyal, hardworking man who de- 
voted his life to better the lot of the workingman and anyone who 
knew him knows that. 

There has been testimony before this select committee about a num- 
ber of trivial events which, when linked together with the perjury 
testimony of Elkins, can and have been used to create the impres- 
sion that I have been involved in alleged illegal activities in Portland. 

This is a false and unfortunate impression and I welcome this op- 
portunity to appear here and correct it under oath. One of these 
events concerns Hy Goldbaum and one Stanley G. Terry, of Portland, 
Oreg. 

My long interest in horses as a stable owner and as an official of 
the Wasliington State Plorse Kacing Commission, has been outlined 
above. It was in this connection, and only this that I met Hy Gold- 
baum. Incidentally, Hy has neA^er done any great favor for which 
1 would be obligated to him. 

Stanley G. Terry I do not know. To my knowledge I have never 
even seen him anywhere. I have never spoken to him. My only 
knowledge of him, except for this one incident I am about to relate, 
has been gathered from these various proceedings. 

With this background, I believe it was some time in January of 
1954 I ran into Hy Goldbaum and he asked me if I would speak to 
an acquaintance or friend of his who was having troubles in Port- 
land. I believe he mentioned Terry's name at the time. 

In any event, I vaguely recall telling Goldbaum to have the fellow 
give me a call. I believe I spoke to Crosby about TeiTy and told him 
if Terry would live up to a union contract, I did not know of any 



1002 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

reason why lie should not have one. I told Crosby to get in touch 
with Terry. 

In other words, I put this matter back into regular organizational 
channels where it belonged in the first place. As I pointed out above, 
there are 246 locals under my general supervision. I could not pos- 
sibly devote my attention to the details of their day-to-day operations. 

In any event, Terry never called me nor gave me a call. I have never 
talked to him. I have never seen him anywhere to the best of my 
knowdedge. I want to say this as emphatically as I can. I have never 
asked for or received $10,000 or any other sum of money in my life 
from Terry or anyone else to use my influence to get Terry or anyone 
else a union contract. 

Anyone who says I have is simply not telling the truth. That is all 
there is to this matter as far as I know. 

I have already stated what happened to Elkins when he came to my 
office at the time he referred to in his testimony before this select com- 
mittee. I would like to go into it in a little more detail because I want 
this select committee to know why I threw him out of my office. 

Prior to the time tliat Elkins and Goldbaum came to my office, 
Crosby told me that Elkins had faked tape recordings down in Port- 
land and that he was using them to blackmail Crosby. Crosby told 
me that Elkins told him if he would not give him $10,000, he — Elkins — 
was going to take the records to Seattle to Brewster to see what Brew- 
ster would do about it. 

At the time Hy Goldbaum called me and made an appointment to 
bring Elkins to see me, I didn't realize exactly who the man was he 
was bringing to my office. When Elkins walked in and was intro- 
duced, I realized who he was. 

I told him that he was a crook and that I heard he had used faked 
records and recordings to blackmail Crosby. I think he gained the 
impression rather quickly that I wanted no business of any kind with 
him or with any character like him. 

At this point I would like to refer to any part Maloney may have 
played in the 1954 political campaigns in Portland. My only knowl- 
edge thereof at the time involved John Sweeney. 

Around the early part of 1953, Sweeney went to Portland as an 
international representative of the teamsters union. He also l^ecame 
chairman of the legislative committee of the joint council, which 
included all of the local unions in the Portland area. 

In the latter position, I assume he was thoroughly familiar with 
whom the teamsters union was supporting in that area during the 1954 
elections. I am sure he was, because Sweeney was always intensely 
intersted in politics all of his life. 

Due to the unfortunate death of Gordon Lindsay on July 1, 1954, 
our then secretary and treasurer of the Western Conference, Sweeney 
came up to Seattle during August of 1954 as acting secretary-treasurer 
of the Western Conference. 

Sweeney was always talking about politics and I suppose because he 
had recently participated in the Portland primaries he happened to 
mention casually to me one day that Maloney was engaged in some 
political activity in Portland. He did not tell me Avhat Maloney was 
doing, as he knew I never became invol^ved in local politics. 

The only thing I recall about this conversation with Sweeney is that 
I warned him most emphatically to beware of Maloney, as he was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 1003 

irresponsible. I recalled that Sweeney made some remark to the 
effect that Malone}^ was just as harmless as a big- Newfoundland dog. 
I replied in substance — I w-on't use the actual words — that a dog like 
that could give him a good big bite. 

To my knowledge, he has never received any salary from the team- 
sters union or been on its payroll. I never authorized Maloney to do 
anything in Portland. I never spoke to ISIaloney, directly or indi- 
rectly, either in person or over the telephone or communicated with 
him in any way, about any political activity or activity of any kind 
he may have been doing in Portland. The whole thing is utterly pre- 
posterous. 

As to ^McLaughlin, I do not know of any activity on his part in 
Portland on behalf of the teamsters during the period in question or 
any other time. I never authorized McLaughlin to engage in any 
activity either directly or indirectly. 

I never spoke to him personally or over the telephone or communi- 
cated with him in any way about engaging in any activity. I have 
never authorized McLaughlin to do anything anywhere on behalf of 
the teamsters or myself. 

I hope the foregoing is of assistance to this select committee in its 
evaluation of the untrue charges made before it to the effect that the 
Western Conference or any affiliate thereof, or any official or officer 
thereof, or myself, may in any way engage in any alleged illegal politi- 
cal activity or rackets in Portland or the State of Oregon. 

I hope it also serves to place in true perspective the purposes and 
programs of the Western Conference and its affiliates. I wish to thank 
this select committee for allowing me to present this statement. I 
wish to assure this committee that the Western Conference and that 
I personally will continue to cooperate fully in every way possible to 
aid it in pursuing its legitimate objectives. 

Mr. Chairman, can I ask for about a 10-minute recess? I caught 
a cold and I am kind of getting over it and I am perspiring quite a bit 
and I would like to go out and get some air. 

The Chaikmax. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. 
Brewster, and we will take a 10-minute recess. 

(Brief recess.) 

(Members present after the taking of the recess: The Chairman, 
Senators Ives, McNamara, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. We wall have 
order, please. 

All right, Mr. Brewster. 

Mr. Brewster. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you 
for letting me read the statement, and also to thank you for letting 
me take the recess. It helped me. 

The Chairman. We are very glad to do it. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brewster, the records of the Western Confer- 
ence of Teamsters, are those records all intact ? 

Mr. Brewster. They are from, I believe, 1954. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What happened to the records prior to 1954 ? 

Mr. Brewster. The records in 1954, I understand by hearsay 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are the records of the Western Conference 
of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brew^ster. Yes, sir. 



1004 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are chairman of the Western Conference 
of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you would know about what happened to them. 

Mr. Brewster. By hearsay. 

Mr. Kennedy. Someone told you? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. From whom did you hear it ? 

Mr. Brewster. I heard it from Buddy Graham. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. "\^Tiat was Mr. Buddy Graham's position? 

Mr. Brewster. He was secretary-treasurer of the Western Confer- 
ence. • p 1 • 

The Chairman. May the Chair interrupt to inquire of the witness. 
Some members of the television force have advised the Chair that 
during the recess they spoke to you, Mr. Brewster, and you said you 
had no objection to television, but just to the snapped pictures. 

Mr. Brewster. I do not want to bar them. It isn't that. But I do 
not want to be in a position where they detract my thinking, and so 
forth. I have no objection. The lights are just as rough with them 
on, I guess, as they are off. 

The Chairman. Do you want the lights on or off ? We have turned 
them off where the witnesses objected. I will leave it to you entirely, 
but I want to settle this, so it will not be coming up. 

Mr. Brewster. I don't want to bar them. I haven't anything to 
hide. Only I just don't want to be in a position where some of these 
things might detract my attention. 

The Chairman. All right. The television may take pictures, 
then — wait a minute. 

I^t us get this settled. We want to pi-oceed here. Someone sug- 
gested to me that Mr. Brewster said he did not care for the movie 
cameras. I simply wanted to try to get it in order again without any 
further interruption. 

Do you object 

Mr. Brewster. I->et us try it this morning, anyway. 

The Chairman. With them on or oft' ? 

Mr. Brewster. With them on. 

The Chairman. With them on this morning. 

All right, let us proceed. 

Do not snap these flashlights in his face. He does not want that, I 
understand. Is that right ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now maybe we understand. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Buddy Graham was secretary-treasurer of the 
Western Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he told you what ? 

Mr. Brewster. He told me somewhere in January, I believe it was, 
1954, that he had sent the records out to put them someplace and they 
were mislaid or they were taken out with some things that were taken 
out of the basement on a request that we got from the fire department 
to remove some of the things that we had that were a fire hazard. He 
told me about it, and I tolcl him then to get every bit of papers, work- 
ing sheets, that he had, and try and draw up new records and start 
in from there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1005 

]Mr. Kexxkdy. So he told you this in Jamiary 19r>4^ 

Mv. Brewster. 1 believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What books and records had been taken out of the 
basement ? 

Mr. Brewster. He didn't go into detail. I said, "Well, Buddy, 
check on everything, and get everything- in order, and start in again 
as much as you can.*' 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever try to find out what books and i-ecords 
had been destroyed ^ 

Mr. Brewster. I found out afterward that there are certain books 
and so forth. 1 am not positive now, because that is about 3 years ago, 
or a little more. I don't recall at the present time just what they were. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. How did they happen to be taken out and destroyed ? 
AVhat were the circumstances? 

Mr. Brewster. Well, that was what the secretary-treasurer was 
doing with them, to put them in a place that he thought was secure. 
That was his function at that tune. 

Mr. Kennedy. He ]3ut them someplace which he thought was secure, 
and then what happened? 

Mr. Brewster. Then I believe what happened — 1 am just surmis- 
ing, I don't know what happened- 

Mr. Kennedy. You never asked? 

Mr. Brewster. I never found out altogether, no. 

]VIr. Kennedy. Were you not interested in finding out? 

Mr. Brewster. Sure I was interested, but I never did find out. 

Wait a minute. Take it a little easy, will you, Bob? 

Mr. Kennp:dy. O. K. P'ine. 

Mr. Brewstp:r, Yon have been ])utting in woids and testifying too 
long. 

Ml". Kennedy. You tell, then. 

Mr. Brewster. Certainly, at that time, I was satisfied with the state- 
ment that was made and from then on 1 have let it drop. 1 don't 
know just exactly what it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am trying to foul out. 

Mr. Brewster. I was satisfied at the time that it was all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What statement was made? 

Mr. Brewstp:r. The statement was made that cei-tain records were 
missing through going out through a cleaning up of our basement by 
an order of the Fire Dei)artment.^ AVe had to get those things out, and 
I believe that they were taken out by. somebody in the building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know by whom they were taken ont ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think it would be the janitor. 

Mr. Kennedy. He took the records out ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think he took them out. I think tliat he 
delivered them to the people that pick nj) the ivfuse. ^Yv liave a 
tinck that comes around and picks u]) ]>apei'. 

Mr. Kennedy. I miderstand. 

Mr. Brewster. And it was jmt, I believe, in that tiiick. 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, I am not — — 

Mr. Brewster. They don't know a lecoid. piobahly, whetlier it is 
a Sunday newsi)aper or a ledger. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I do not quite undei-stand, Mr. lirewster, is 
tlie fact that Mr. (Irahani took these books and recoi-ds and decided 



1006 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to put them in a safe place, and he put them in a place where the 
janitor then threw them out, as I understand it. I am not trying to 
testify, but is that what your testimony is ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, that is my testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever ask Mr. Graham why he put them in 
a place where the janitor would feel that they should be thrown out 
as refuse? 

Mr. Brewster. Oh, no. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry. 

Mr. Brewster. That is where most of the records, what probably 
the newspaper might call the morgue, that is where most of the 
records are put in that area. 

Mr. Kennedy, Most of the records are put there ? 

Mr. Brewster. That we are not using daily. At this time 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, why would the janitor come in and take 
the records, the books and records, that you were using and throw 
them out, if he would be used to the fact that they were in there? 

Mr. Brewster. He had orders to get that place cleaned out. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he would take all your books and records, being 
used to the fact 

Mr. Brewster. He took all that was in that room, I understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. And threw them out ? 

Mr. Brewster. And put them in the setup. Maybe you better 

Mr. Kennedy. No, he is not. 

Mr. Brewster. Isn't he testifying? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Brewster. Go ahead what? Wliat is it? 

Mr. Kennedy. What I am trying to understand is what the 
janitor 

Mr. Brewster. I do not know. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. The janitor, evidently, was used to the fact that these 
books and records were in this basement. What I am trying to un- 
derstand is why he would then pick them all up and throw them out 
or give them out or give them to the man that comes and picks up 
refuse. Why would he do that ? Did you ever find out ? 

Mr. Brewster. I found out through Buddy, and Buddy said that 
he just had them there, he didn't know why he did it but he just did 
it. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the Internal Kevenue Department at that time 
interested in those books and records ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible that they were at that 
time beginning an investigation of Mr. Dave Beck and were interested 
in those records ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am not sure on that matter. I know that they 
have been interested in me since 1939. 

Mr. Kennedy. I stand corrected. They were interested in both you 
and Dave Beck. 

Now, did they make a request in 1953 for those books and records 
of the Western Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. Did they ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1007 

Mr. Breavster. Serve a snbpena on who ? 

Mr. Kexnedy. No. Did they ever make a request for the books 
and records of the Western Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Brewster. Not at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they make it in 1954 ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And as a resuh you liad to tell them that all those 
books and records liad been destroyed or had been taken out by the 
janitor? 

]Mr. Brewster. I believe they were notified. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. 

Now, about this arrangement that you have of two people sioning 
checks. Is it possible for 1 of the 2 people who signs checks to em- 
bezzle thousands of dollars under that arrangement? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brew-ster. In my opinion, the people involved were bonded 
to the extent that would cover anything that anybody would 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not think that is answering the question. 

Mr. Brewster. You answer it for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Brewster. What ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it possible under the arrangement that you 
have there in the Western Conference of Teamsters for 1 of the 2 indi- 
viduals who was signing checks to embezzle thousands of dollars of 
money of the Western Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe I have already stated that I didn't think 
it was a good system. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it possible? Could you answer the question? 

Mr. Brewster. I think it might be possible, but not probable. 

The Chairman. Under that system, could officers of the company 
misappropriate fimds and pay for bills and expenditures that were 
not legitimate union business ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. I think they possibly could. 

The Chairman. In other words, it was a convenient way, if they 
desn;ed to do it. The system you had permitted it, enabled them to do 
it without detection? 

Mr. Brewster. That wasn't why the system was put in. 

The Chairman. I did not understand you. 

Mr. Brewster. That isn't why we had the system. 

The Chairman. I did not say that. I am talking about the system, 
though, not why you put it in. 

Mr. Brewster. ' Possibly could, yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask von, in that connection, I would 
like to ask you about this check of the Western Conference of Team- 
sters dated February 28, 1952, paid to the order of the special account, 
public relations division, for $5,000, Seattle First National Bank, and 
signed by Dave Beck and Frank W. Brewster. 

Mr. Griffin. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Just one moment. 

The Chair presents to the witness a photostatic copv of a check dated 
February 28, 1952, in the amount of $5,000, signed by Dave Beck and 
Frank W. Brewster, on the Seattle First National Bank. 



1008 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I ;'.skl)u' witness to exiiiiiine tlu> clieck and tlieii idtMitii'y it iis to what 
it is, 

( I>()Ci!inent handed to witness.) 
(The witJiess conferred with his connsel.) 
.Mr. Brews'ikk. Will you ask tlie ([uestion, again, please? 
The Chaikman. Yes, sir. The ('hair has presented to you a docu- 
ment wliich pur))orts to be a photostatic copy of a check in the amount 
of $5,000 signed by you and ^fr. JJave Beck. I do not recall the date 
of it. It i-e(lects the date. It is before you. I asked you to examine 
it and identify it as to wliat it is. 
Is it a photostatic copy of a check? 

Mr. BuEwsTER. At the present time, the only thing that I can iden- 
tify is my signature to the check. 

The Chairman. Well, can you not identify a photostatic copy of a 
clieck ? 

Mr. Brewster. I identify that, but I did not make the check out. 
The Chairman. All right. It is a photostatic copy of a check? 
Mr. Brewster. It is a [)liotostatic copy. 

The CHAiR^tAN. Draw n on what bank, signed by whom, and pay- 
able to whom? 

Mr. I^REWSTER. Special account, jjublic relations division, $5,000, 
signed by, I presume it is, Dave r)eck, it resembles his signature, and 
it resembles mine. It looks like — I would say it i> mine. 
The Chairmax. That is youi' signatured 
Mr. J^REWSTER. Yes, sii'. 
The Chairman. Who endorsed the checks 
Ml-. Brewster. It is on the Seattle First National. 1 don"t !<i\ow 

who endorsed the check. I don't even know what 

The Chairman. Does it show an endorsement? 
Mr. Brewster. Yes, it does. 

The Chairman. Will you identify the endorsement? 
.Mr. Brewster. I cannot. 

The Chairman. You cannot identify tiie endorsement ^ 
Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That check will be made exhibit \o. Gl, for refer- 
ence. 

(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibu NO. 01, for refer- 
ence, and will l>e found in the appendix on p. 1105.) 
Tlie Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have three other checks that I 
would like to get into the record at this time, all to the public rela- 
tions division, and I would like to ask Mr. r>rewster some questions 
al)out them. 

The Chairman. All right. 

'i lie ( 'hair presents to von a second check of the Western Conference 
of Teamsters dated Febiuary 15, li)51. It is No. 3173, payable to 
the public i-elations division, $(),0{)0. drawn on the Seattle First 
Xatioiuil Bank, signed by Dave Beck and F. W. Brewster. I present 
to vou the phostatic copy and ask yo\i to examine it and see if j^ou 
ran identify it. 

( document handed to witness.) 

(The witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. liREWSTER. May I confer again with counsel ? 



impropp:r activities in the labor field 10U9 

The Chaikman. Yes, sir, you may confer. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chaikman. Do you recognize that as a photostatic copy of the 
check, as the Chair has indicated in his question, and that it bears 
your signature and the signature of Mr. Beck? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, I do, and it was made out, I presume, by the 
bookkeeper at that time, in 1951. 

The C'ji AIRMAN, Tlie bookkeeper did not sign it, though? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It is signed by you and Mr. Beck, is it not? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, Who is your bookkeeper? 

Mr. Brewster. Don MacDonald. 

The Chairman. At that time, Don MacDonald? 

Mr. Brewster. I am pretty sure he was. 

The Chairman. At that time ? 

Mr. Brewster. This looks like his printing, anyway. 

The Chairman. All right. That check will be made exhibit No. 
()2, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 62," for ref- 
erence, and will be found in the aj)pendix on p. HOC) 

The Chairman. May I ask you to examine it again and see what 
endorsement appears on the check? 

(The witness conferred with his coinisel.) 

Mr, Brewster, 1 can hardly make it out. It says, "Special account," 
and then there is a stamp, I think it says ''Public relations di- 
vision, joint counsel of teamsters, Los Angeles, Calif." 

The Chairman, AVliat is that check payable for? What is the 
purpose of it ? 

Mr, Brewster. I really don't know. 

The Chairman, You do not know ? 

Mr, Brewster, No, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

I have made that exhibit No. 62, 1 believe, 

Mr, Kennedy, What was that organization doing for vou at that 
time? 

Mr, Brewster. I don't know, other than what the name implies, 
public relations. Probably television time, maybe a green cross drive, 
or something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you— — 

Mr. Brews'ji^r. Wait a minute. 

The name infers that it is public relations. 1 know that we had 
different organizations in the 11 Western States that were set up for 
public relations, and I believe that that was done in that same manner 
as we have done in the past, of setting u]) ))nblic i-elations in different 
areas. 

The Chairman. Where are the records of this public relations 
transaction ? 

Mr. Brewster. That would have to be in Los Angeles. 

The CiFAiRAEAN. Wlicve are the records of the teamsters, of tlie 
Western Conference of Teamsters, with respect to these checks? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't know. 

S03S0- .-,7— pt. .•? 17 



1010 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You know they are destroyed, do you not ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say destroyed. I know that they are 
not around. 

The Chairman. Well, if they were put in a trash can for that pur- 
pose, I would assume they were destroyed. 

The Chair presents to you another check dated August 2, 1951, of 
the Western Conference of Teamsters, check No. 3667, special account, 
public relations division, $5,000, drawn on the same bank, Seattle 
First National Bank, signed by Dave Beck and F. W. Brewster. 

Will you examine this check, Mr. Brewster, and identify it for us, 
please, this photostatic copy ? 

( Document handed to witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Brewster. What was your question, again, please ? 

The Chairman. Can you identify that check? Is that your 
signature ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Beck's signature? 

Mr. Brewster. I can identify my signature, and it looks like Dave 
Beck's. 

The Chairman. Then that is a check that was a part of a transac- 
tion of the Western Conference of Teamsters, is that correct ? 

Mr. Brewster. It looks like it is the same account. 

The Chairman. All right. Can you tell anything about the en- 
dorsement on the back of that check ? 

Mr. Brewster. The endorsement on the back of the check ? _ It says, 
"For deposit only" and it went into the public relations division ac- 
count in Los Angeles, Calif. 

The Chairman. In Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have the Western Conference of Teamsters 
records, vouchers, and so forth, supporting that check ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The Chairman. They probably went along with the others, I 
suppose ? 

Mr. Brewster. They possibly did. 

The Chairman. That check will be made exhibit No. 63. 

(The document referred to was market "Exhibit No. 63" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 1107.) 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you another check similar 
to those, a photostatic copy of a check, of the Western Conference of 
Teamsters, November 21, 1951, check No. 4039, public relations divi- 
sion, $7,000, drawn on the Seattle First National Bank, signed for 
the Western Conference of Teamsters by Dave Beck and F. W. 
Brewster. 

Will you examine this photostatic document and identify it for the 
committee, please, sir? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. Mr. Chairman, what was it again ? 

Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Brewsi'er. What was your question, again ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1011 

The Chairman. Do you identify that photostatic copy of a check? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

The Chairman. It is a photostatic copy of a check representing a 
transaction of the Western Conference Teamsters, is it? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. Can you identify the endorsement on 
the back of it or give us any information about it ? 

Mr. Brewster. The endorsement ? It looks like it is the same type 
of endorsement, going into a fund in Los Angeles, public relations 
division, written out by someone, I don't know who. I couldn't 
identify the writing. It is stamped by the stamp that probably 
was 

The Chairman. All right. That check may be made exhibit No. 64. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 64" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 1108.) 

The Chairman. May the Chair have that check, too, please ? 

Do you know what these four checks total ? They were issued from 
February 15, 1951, to February 28, 1952, 2 in the amount of $5,000, 1 
in the amount of $6,000, and 1 in the amount of $7,000. Therefore, it 
would appear from these checks which you identified that some $23,000 
in that period of time, 1 year and 13 days' time, went out of the 
Western Conference of Teamsters account mto this public relations 
account, or some public relations division, whatever it is. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Brewster. Did you say 13 days ? 

The Chairman. I said 1 year and 13 days. I believe that is accurate. 

Mr. Brewster. One year and 13 days? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Brewster. I am sorry. I didn't hear the year. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

The Chairman. That would be correct? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you have any documents, any files, any records 
anywhere supporting these expenditures ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. Those expenditures would be done in Los 
Angeles, not in Seattle. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. But the teamsters would have some record 
of why this money was being paid out, would it not? That is the 
Avestern conference's money. You do not issue checks like that without 
some records, some documents, voucher, bill, or something upon which 
to base the expenditure, do you ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe that there was an account of that type in 
Los Angeles at that time. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about Los Angeles. I am talking 
about in the Avestern conference that was paying out the money. 

Mr. Brewster. Mr. Senator, that went to Los Angeles to set up 
an account for public relations in Los Angeles. 

The Chairman. I understand. But it went out of the Seattle office, 
the headquarters of the Western Conference of Teamstei-s, did it not? 

Mr. Brewsi-er. That is right. 

The Chairman. Would not that office have some record of it? 
Would it not keep 



1012 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brewster. They would, probably, if they had all of their 
books. 

The Chairman. That is right. Would you perhaps have a record 
iu the minutes of the western conference showing why these expendi- 
tures were made? 

Mr. Brewster. I have taken notes, and I will do my best to go 
through the minutes. 

The Chairman. Do you have the minutes of the western conference 
during that period of time? 

Mr. Brewster. I am not positive. 

The Chairman. If you have them, will you supply them to the 
committee ? 

Mr. Brewster. I certainly will. 

The Chairman. All right. You make every effort to get them, 
because I think it may be of interest. We want to trace some of these 
items. Since the other records are not available, any record, any 
document, you can find, any minutes of meetings or anything else 
that will help to explain and make this committee understand and the 
members of the teamsters union understand the validity of these ex- 
penditures will be indeed welcome. 

Mr. Brewster. I will do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that connection, I do not believe you have the 
minutes available of the Western Conference of Teamsters for that 
period of time. 

Mr. Brewster. You spent more time in the last 2 weeks than I 
have there. You probably know more. But I will still look where 
probably you didn't. 

The Chairman. Just a moment now. 

I think Mr. Kennedy has been spending the last 2 weeks here, not 
out there. 

Mr. Brewster. I spent the last 2 weeks here. 

The Chairman. Let us get on the track now, and answer the ques- 
tions. 

If you have any explanation 

Mr. Brewster. No, I don't know what he said to be a true state- 
nip^^^. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether it is true or not ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. 

The Chairman. As chairman or president of the Western Confer- 
ence of Teamsters, you do not know whether those records are avail- 
able? 

Mr. Brewster. I do not. 

The Chairman. You will make certain you will endeavor to find 
them, and endeavor to supply them to the committee ? 

Mr. Brewster. I will. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Brewster, I notice that 2 of these checks are 
drawn to the "Special Account, Public Relations Division," and 2 
of them to the "Public Relations Division." Are there two different 
offices up in Los Angeles, or did these all go to the same office ? 

Mr. Brewster. I would believe that they went to the same office in 
the same account. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1013 

Senator Mundt. The word "Special," then, has no significance? 
You just put that in sometimes, and sometimes not ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe so. I think that that is possible. I don't 
believe there are two different accounts. 

Senator Mundt. To the best of your knowledge, there is just 1 
office in Los Angeles that received all 4 of these checks? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is tliat office a subsidiary of the Western Team- 
sters ? Is it a Western Teamster office ? 

Mr. Brewster. No ; it would not be. 

Senator Mundt. What would it be ? 

Mr. Brewster. It would be an office that would be set up by the joint 
council in that division, and they would have the full authority to 
issue checks of that kind. 

Senator Mundt. What I am getting at is whether the public-rela- 
tions division is a teamsters' oiSice. It is not an outside firm, like 
B. B. D. & O., or some outside public-relations concern. This is a 
teamsters' office in Los Angeles. Is that not right? It is a transfer 
of money from one teamster account to another teamster account ? 

Mr. Brew^ster. It would not be the Western Conference of Team- 
sters account in Los Angeles. Is that what you mean ? 

Senator Mindt. No. I am just asking at this time whether this is 
another teamster office, whether it is under your jurisdiction or not. 

Mr. Brewster. It is not under my jurisdiction 

Sen ator Mundt. It is not under your jurisdiction ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. 

Senator Mundt. Is it another teamster office ? 

Mr. Brewster. It would be. 

Senator Mundt. Under which jurisdiction would that be ? 

Mr. Brewster. Under the joint council 42, in Los Angeles. 

Senator Mundt. Is that a superior organization to the one that you 
head, or is your organization over that ? 

Mr. Brewster. You know, it is going to take a long time to explain 
just how we o])erate. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I am just trying to find out. 

Mr. Brewster. There is no real superiority insofar as certain func- 
tions or certain setups in our makeup from the international down. 

Senator Mundt. But there has to be a head to everything. 

Mr. Brewster. Let me say this, please 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead. 

Mr. Brewsit:r. The joint council of Los Angeles is chartered by the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. They have full autonomy, 
and only ai-e answerable to the international. They are not answer- 
able to the Western Conference of Teamsters ; no, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do they have the same jurisdiction, the same 11 
States that the western conference has ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. They embody the area in Los Angeles and 
vicinity. Roughly speaking, it is south of the Tehapachis. 

Do you know geography out there ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Brewster. It is south of the Tehapachis. It don't include 
Bakersfield. South of that. It embodies the — Los Angeles County 
is just about as large as the State of Texas. 



1014 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. It is like saying that the Los Angeles office does not 
have jurisdiction beyond California ? 

jMr. Brewster. That is right. 

Senator Munut. That is right ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. There has to be a head to all of these things, and 
I thought from your statement here that you were the head of the 
whole western conference, that you were the top officer as the first 
vice president. 

Mr. Brewsi'er. I would have to have too many heads to be the head. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. But there is nobody over you in 
that area of teamster operation except Mr. Beck? 

Mr. Brewster. Wait a minute. Mr. Beck is the head of me there, 
and I am not a head of the joint council in any manner. I tried to 
explain that the joint council in every locality has its own autonomy, 
and I work with those bodies, and they do not work for, in any way 
for, the "Western Conference of Teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. Let us put it this way : Mr. Beck, then, certainly 
has jurisdiction over that office as the national president of the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. I would say that he would. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Where is this office housed, the public relations division, in Los 
Angeles'? Can you give us a street address ? 

Mr. Brewster. 040 I'^nion, I believe it is. 

Senator Mundt. Union Street? 

Mr. Brewster. South Union Street. 

Senator Mundt. 946 ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Senator JMundt. That is a teamsters building ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is our joint council headquarters in Los 
Angeles; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Owned by tlie teamsters or rented ? 

Mr. Brewster. Owned by a building association of the teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. Also under the general supervision of Mr. Beck 
as president, not directly but indirectly he would be over that build- 
ing? 

Mr. Brewster. If vou got right up to the top, ves, sir, that would 
be it. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know who is tlie head of that division, the 
man? 

Mr. Breavster. I don't know wlio is the head of that division. 

Senator Mundt. Who was at that time, in 1951, and early 1952? 

Mr. Brewster. Let me think. 

I don't Mant any more pictures here. It makes a guy look like he is 
a freak. I am not good looking, but I don't want to look like a freak. 

Mr. Griffin. Tliis is off the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Senator ]\Iii not. The witness has a legitimate complaint, Mr. Chair- 
man, on that last picture, and I suggest that it not be used. 

The Chairman. It will not be used. The Chair will suggest one 
more time. There has been a little confusion about the status of this 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1015 

witness, but I do not want any more pictures made of him while he is 
testifying, period. 

Proceed. 

Senator Mundt. You are talking about flash pictures. The witness 
does not object to the television or movies. They do not flash in his 
face. 

Mr. Breavster. It would probably be the same. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot tell whether they are on or not. At 
least, I cannot tell. 

The Chairmax. The movie may have the very thing and broadcast 
it all over the country. I do not know. Make up your mind whether 
you want them or do not want them. 

Mr. Brew^ster. Eventually the films will wear out. 

The Chairman. All right. The films can run until they wear out. 

Proceed. 

Senator ISIundt. The question, Mr. Brewster — may I have your 
attention, Mr. Brewster? 

Mr. Brewster. What was the question, again, please ? 

I am sorry. 

Senator Mundt. The question was who was in charge of this public 
relations division in your Los Angeles office back in 1951 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. I believe it was Kay Leheney. 

Senator Mundt. What could be his signature appears to be on one 
of his checks. It could be something else, too, because it is not very 
clear. 

Mr. Brewsitsr. Yes. I believe that is it. 

Senator Mundt. What position does he have or did he have at that 
time with the teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewsi^er. At that time he was head of public relations in Los 
Angeles. 

Senator Mundt. His title would be head of the 

Mr. Brewster. Director, I believe, of public relations. 

Senator Mundt. Director of public relations in the Los Angeles 
office? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Would you be able to tell us, Mr. Brewster, whether 
or not the records of the public relations office of the city of Los 
Angeles are intnct or did that "Keep our office clean" crusade get 
down to Los Angeles, too ? 

Mr. Brewster. Senator Mundt, I haven't any idea. 

Senator Mundt. You would not know? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't know. You know. I have some pretty 
good duties to do without going down and asking "How are the records 
today?" 

Senator Mundt. I understand that, but these checks are very im- 
portant to our committee and very important to you. We are simply 
trying to find out the facts. It would seem to me that since the records 
in the Seattle office have been destroyed or lost or you do not have 
them any more, the next logical place to look would be in the office of 
the public relations division in Los Angeles. As I say, unless they 
had this same unusual difficulty of not having room for the records 
so that they were destroved. 



1016 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

As far as you know, those records have not been destroyed or lost, 
under the Los Angeles Office ? 

Mr. Brewster, xls far as I know, I don't know anything. 

Senator Mundt. Verv good. 

You want to qualify that by saying "about that' ? 

May I ask the counsel whether we have tried to subpena the records 
from the Los Angeles office ? -,,11 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator Mundt, we understand also that those rec- 
ords are also not intact, are unavailable. 

Senator Mundt. If you will accept a friendly suggestion, Mr. Brew- 
ster, from a country boy out in South Dakota, where we do not have 
many teamsters or many unions, I would think that with all of this big 
treasury that you have charge of, it would be wise to hire a little 
more storage room. This is the third time now where we have found 
that there was not room to keep the records, so they are lost. 

Mr. Brewster. For your information, Senator Mundt, I am con- 
templating building a new building in Seattle, and I am going to put 
microfilm down there. 

Senator Mundt. I wish we could make that m retrospect. 

We have tried to find, Mr. Counsel, the records in Los Angeles, and 
they are gone, too ? 

Now, on this public relations account, were they performing some 
service for you, of the Western Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Brewster. They were performing a service for the area m Los 
Angeles, yes. • <• nr 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get some kind of an accounting from Mr. 

Leheney? _ i • .i • 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't— in other words, we do it this way: 
If we allow a certain amount of money into an area, then it is up to 
that area to keep those accounts of how they spend their money. It 
isn't up tons. . , ^ ,. . 

Mr. Kennedy. This is $23,000 m a period of a little over a year. 
You do not know how that $23,000 was used? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : Did you approve of the sending of 
the $23,000 to this public relations special account? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did. You gave your full approval. You knew 
at the time what is was being used for ? 

Mr, Brewster. I did. 

Wait a minute. Wliat was that last ? 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you know at the time that you gave your ap- 
proval, what the money was going to be used f or ? ^ 

Mr. Brewster. I knew, at that time it was explained to me, that 
it was going to be for public relations in the southern California area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who explained that to you ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe it was explained at the policy committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. And by whom was it explained ? 

Mr. Brewster. By ISIr, Beck, 

Mr. Kennedy. By Mr. Dave Beck ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. He was president and chairman at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one, then, that made the decision that this 
money should go down to this special account? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES O THE LABOR FIELD 1017 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say he would be the one that made the 
decision. 

Mr. Kexxedv. He is the one that requested that this money be sent 
down ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say what he said. 

Mr. Brewster. All right. 1 would like to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Mr. Brewster. He took it up, 1 believe, as close as my memory serves 
me, with the policy committee, and they ordered him to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they what ? 

Mr. Brewster. They ordered him to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean they ordered him to do it? 

Mr. Brewster. Well, told him to do it, any way that you want to 
put it. They gave him tlie permission to do it. Any way you want. 

Senator Mundt. xVuthorized him? 

Mr. Brewster. Authorized, yes. Anyway. 

Mr. Kennedy. He raised the question in the first instance, had he, 
Mr. Dave Beck? 

Mr. Brewster. Most of those things are brought in by the chairman ; 
yes. 

I am not positive — wait a minute — excuse me a minute, please — I 
am not just exactly positive. It sounds reasonable. We have these 
requests coming in from localities, where they are badly in need of 
fimds to carry on public relations, organizing, and so forth, and a 
request could come in, and it is just as possible that it did that as any 
other way, from the area, asking that they get some financial assistance 
in the vicinity for public relations. Those requests come from dele- 
gates on the policy committee of the 11 Western States conference. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did vou ever receive an accounting as to how this 
$23,000 was spent? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no idea at all how the $23,000 was spent ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could it be possible that the $23,000, or a large 
part of it, was used to pay personal bills of Mr. Leheney or of other 
teamster officials ? 

Mr. Brewster. In my own belief, it never was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not believe it was ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it possible that it was ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't believe it is possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not believe it was possible ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would be surprised if that was developed; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Brewster. Most shocked. 

Senator Mundt'. Mr. Brewster, at this point, may I ask whether 
the constitution under which you operate, and I think you mentioned 
that you have a constitution, you certainly have 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt (continuing). Does it set up any kind of restric- 
tions or gl^idelines at all on the manner in which the money of the 



1018 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

union members can be used, or do the officers have unrestricted right 
to spend it for anything they want to ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say the officers. I would say the dele- 
gates have. 

Senator Mundt. By that do you mean the policy committee ? 

Mr. Brewster. And also the membership of the western conference 
and the delegates to the western conference ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. "Wlio do you mean by the delegates? Are you 
talking about a convention, now ? 

Mr. Brewster, About a conference. We cannot call it a conven- 
tion, because we only have the one convention, and that is in the con- 
stitution. It is a conference. 

Senator Mundt. Is it the conference that meets six times a year ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. It is the policy committee. 

Senator Mundt. The policy committee ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this : Does the policy committee, 
under your constitution, have unrestricted authority to spend the 
money of the men who pay the dues to the Teamsters Union for any- 
thing in the world th|it they want to spend it, or are there some guide- 
lines, some restraints, some restrictions somewhere, protecting the 
fellow who pays the dues ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. You have not lost all the constitutions of the 
union, I am sure. 

Mr. Brewster. But I think we have some amendments that you 
haven't got, that haven't been put in. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. I would like to explain a little further into the 
workings of the western conference. 

Senator Mundt. Will you answer that particular question and then 
you may explain it. 

Mr. Brewster. I can't answer it in the way that you want the 
answer. 

Senator Mundt. I do not care how you answer it. I am just trying 
to find out. Maybe you cannot answer it in the way that the dues- 
paying members want it, but I am not concerned. 

Mr. Brewster. Well, I am willing to take my chances with that 
fellow. 

Senator Mundt. All right. You have done ]:>retty well. Just tell 
me the answer. 

Mr. Brewster. I don't fear him. 

Senator Mundt. You just tell me the answer. 

Mr. Brewster, A policy committee functions — say it was probably 
a board of directors, on any big corporation, and I do not believe that 
the stockholders always have the right to say how they are going 
to spend their money to make their busines profitable 

Senator Mundt. I think the stockholders in most corporations that 
I know anything about would certainly have some kind of protection 
in the corporate structure as to the general areas in which the money 
of the stockholders could be spent. 

Mr. Brewster. We have a general outline. 

Senator Mundt. Is that in the constitution? Is there something 
in the constitution to safeguard? I am not alleging that this has 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1019 

been done. I am simply asking a general question about your organi- 
zation. Is there anything in the constitution to safeguard the dues- 
paying member against the misuse of his funds for purposes not 
connected with the union in the event somebody wanted to do that 
at the policy level ? I am not charging that it has been done. I am 
asking you a question. 

Mr. Brewster. I think that there is. 

Senator Mundt. Will j'ou read it to me? Or have your attorney 
read it. I do not care. 

Mr. Brewster, may I ask you whether either of these attorneys are 
connected with the teamsters, so tliat they might knoAV something 
about the constitution, or are they just employed from the outside? 

Mr. Brewster. They are just employed from Washington. 

Senator Mundt. Well, you would know more about the constitution, 
I suppose, than they do. 

All right, you read it, then. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster, The only provision is the countersigning of the 
checks and so forth, and approval for service of bills rendered, and 
so forth, but there isn't any control about how we can spend our 
money. 

In other words, if we feel that we would like to take $50,000 and — 
what State are you from? 

Senator Muxdt. South Dakota. Do not spend it there. 

Mr. Brewster. And organize South Dakota, we would probably 
transfer $50,000 to North Dakota to organize it. 

Senator Muxdt. I am glad you switched it to North Dakota. 

Mr. Brewster. South Dakota. 

Senator ISIi'xdt. Then we agree that the policy committee of your 
organization has unrestricted control over the funds paid in by dues- 
paying members, that there is nothing in the constitution that sets up 
the specific areas in which their money can be spent. That is what 
1 am trying to find out. I take it we agree on that. 

Mr. Brewst-er. Well, I am not too sure about it. 

Let me take — — 

Senator Muxdt. No. Take anotlier look at the constitution. I 
want to get it from the constitution. 

Mr. Brewster. '\^'liich one are you speaking of, the Western Con- 
ference or the international ? 

Senator Muxdt. You can give me .both. 

j\Ir. Brew^ster. You see, these constitutions work together. 

Senator Muxdt. I imagine they ai'e pretty much the same. 

Mr. Brewster, We cannot supersede the international. What is 
not in here would be in there. That question has never been asked me, 
and it would take some time before I could probably fuid it. 

Senator Muxdt. Would you instruct one of your attorneys to con- 
tinue looking, and then when he finds it, we will come back to you 
for an answer. 

Mr. Brewster. I will hold my hand up. 

Senator Muxdt, Very good. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Senator Goldwater, 

Senator Goldwater. j\Ir. Brewster, do you make occasional contri- 
butions to the councils that make up your Western Conference? 

Mr, Brewster. Yes, sir. 



1020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. AVliat are those contributions for ? 

Mr. Brkwster. They are for mostly organizing. 

Senator Goldater. Mostly for organizing purposes. 

The other day, yesterday, or the day before, here, the secretary- 
treasurer of .Toint Council of Teamsters No. 37, in Portland, testified 
to the effect that the Western Conference transferred $5,000 into their 
books with the specific request that it be transferred in the form of a 
check to Mr. K. C. Tanner, of Portland, an attorney. What knowledge 
can you give us of that transaction? 

Mr. Brewster. The only knowledge that I have of that transaction 
was we were being sued down there. We had three court cases, I 
think. That was back in August — '■ — 

Senator Goldwater. 1956. 

Mr. Brewster. 1956. Just prior to that, we had cases in court 
that were of a criminal nature. So it was necessary for us to hire an 
attorney, otlier than a labor attorney, to assist the attorney that we 
had at that time. 

I am positive that tliat did not have anything to do with what the 
committee is trying to expose at the present time. 

Senator Goldwater, Did it have anything to do with Mr. Crosby 
and his trouble involving an indictment for carrying a gun ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. If Crosby was indicted in this charge of pick- 
eting, and et cetera, then it included him in that. 

Senator Goldwater, Did it have anything to do with attorney fees 
that might be paid for the expunging of a record in Arizona? 

Mr. Brewster. No; not to my knowledge.. Nothing like that. 

Senator Goldwater. You testifj', then, that this $5,000 was paid 
to the joint council for the purpose of, in turn, paying a lawyer to 
help them with current court cases ? 

Mr, Brewster. That is my information, and that is all that I know 
about it. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you make other such deposits or trans- 
fers to the joint council for that purpose ? 

Mr, Brewster, I am not positive. The only reason that I know 
this one so particularlv is because vou have been talking about it for 
2 days. 

Senator Goldwater. Their records went to Asia, along with other 
members of the firm, so we have trouble finding out, too. But in 
the 2 years' records that we liave, I do not find any other transfers of 
that nature, that were immediately Avritten out in the form of checks 
to another attorney. Did you not have any trouble other than the 
case you are talking of ? 

Mr. Brewster, Well, we could have had, and it could have been 
probably written out a little bit difrerent. IVe have had several 
secretaries tliat probably handled it a little bit different. 

Senator Goldwater. You have secretaries that travel rather ex- 
tensively ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, getting into another field just for a 
moment, and I want to get back to this later, in youi' testimony, you 
said, and I quote : 

I believe in giving support to any candidate of good reputation who favors 
the interests of labor, vphether he be Democrat or Republican. But, as I said, 
this decision is made at the local level and I have never attempted to influence 
their choice. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1021 

Did the western conference in tlie last campaign of 1956 make 
any contributions to candidates for national office? 

Mr. Breavster. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Senator Goldwater. Not to your knowledge. Did you publish a 
pamphlet for one of the senatorial campaigns over the signature of 
the Western Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. We did. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you not consider that political? 

Mr. Brewstep.. I thought it was education for our membership. 
I thought it was a wonderful speech. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not print any speeches of the oppo- 
sition candidate, did you ? 

Mr. Brewster. Our membership wouldn't have liked it. 

Senator Goldwater. Would not have liked it. All the member- 
ship would not have liked it? 

Mr. Brewster. The largest percentage. 

Senator Goldwater. How much did this pamphlet cost? 

Mr. Brew^ster. I don't know. I haven't any idea. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you take a gTiess ? 

Mr. Brewster. No; I wouldn't. 

Senator Goldwater. You say it is educational. In here it states : 

You cannot separate your economic interests from your political interests. 

Mr. Brewster. I think that is educational. 

Senator Goldwater. You tliink that is educational. 

Well, we might argiie about that, so let us look at something else. 

You teamsters have felt the pinch of the injunctive abuses of the Taft-Hart- 
ley law. 

Is that educational or political ? 

Mr. Brewster. I certainly think anything to our membership de- 
rogatory to the Taft-Hartley is educational. 

Senator Goldwater. But if it were a political statement to your 
membership about the Taft-Hartley, it would not be educational, would 
it, in your opinion ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think so. 

Senator Goldwater. Then you say : 

You are not going to get anything out of this administration. 
Is that educational or political ? 

Mr. Brewster. No; I think it is educational. It is telling them of 
this situation that they are confronted with. I think giving our people 
news is education. 

Senator Goldwai^er. Mr. Beck disagreed with you. 

Mr. Brewster. Well, I have disagreed with Mr. Beck many times. 

Senator Goldwater (reading) : 

I know of no group in American labor that has suffered more from the present 
administration than the teamsters. 

Is that educational or is it political ? 

Mr. Brewster. It is a statement of fact. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, ]Mr. Meany said that you ne\i'.r had it 
so good. 

Mr. Brewster. You could probably — I am not answering Mr. 
Meany, but I could probably answer Mr. IVIeany. He is my veiy 
good friend. 



1022 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. You do not think you have had it so good. 
You think, then, that this is an educational pamphlet put on behalf 
of a candidate for a national office '( 

Mr. Brewster. Yes ; I think so. 

Senator Goldwater. And you could justify the expenditure of any 
sum of money that you cared to for so-called educational purposes ? 

Mr. Brewster. Well, I think that we would make a study of it. 

Senator Goijjwater. Did you ask the local level if they wanted to 
have this published, or did you publish it just on your own whim^ 

Mr. Brewster. I am not positive whether it was taken before the 
local unions or not. I don't get into that phase of it. But I will say 
this, that that certainly was adopted by the local unions and the 
rank-and-file membership in Portland and vicinity. 

Senator Goldwater. How many of those do you think you printed? 

Mr. Brewster. Twenty-tive or thirty thousand. 

Senator Goldwater. To cover Oregon ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. They have more people 

Mr. Brewster. No, I think we have something like 27,000 organized 
in Portland. 

Senator Goldwater. And you do not think this is a political ex- 
penditure ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, I don't. 

Senator Goldwater. You do not. Just to close this, and I will get 
back to this later, during 1954 you made some — when I say you, I 
refer to the western conference 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You made some contributions to give candi- 
dates for governor. I noticed that you supported a Republican can- 
didate in 1954 in Oregon. 

Mr. Brewster. You bet I will. 

Senator Goldwater. That was $1,000. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think everything they said about him 
up to now is true ? 

Mr. Brewster. ^Ylio said what about who ? 

Senator Goldwater. We have had some witnesses that cast some 
pretty bad reflections on former Governor Patterson. 

Mr. Brewster. In my own personal opinion, I don't think any of 
those witnesses are telling the truth. 

Senator Goldwater. You made a contribution here for a McFar- 
land for Governor. Was there a McFarland rumiing in Oregon for 
Governor in 1954 ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. That is in Arizona. 

Senator Goldwater. Arizona ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. You are from Arizona. 

It is across from New Mexico. 

Senator Goldwater. I wanted to clear up. I did not know whether 
or not you had a McFarland running up there and we had one 
running down there, too, 

Mr. Brewster. No. It is the one you mean. It is your friend. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not support any other governor candi- 
dates in the western part of the United States ? 

Mr. Brewster. Oh, yes, we did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1023 

Senator Goldwater. You did ? 

Mr. Brewster. You bet. 

Senator Goldwater. If you did, I do not see their names on here. 

Mr. Griffin. I didn't hear the last question. 

Senator Goldwater. I said did he support other candidates for 
governors in Western States, other than the Governor of Oregon and 
the Governor for the State of Arizona. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. If you did, they are not on this record. 

Mr. Brewster. Their names might not have appeared. It may 
liave gone right to the joint council. 

Senator Goldwaiter. How did you make those contributions ? Were 
they requested ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. The request came from your locals in the 
States involved ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. And you sent the check, then, directly to the 
committees, not to the locals ? 

Mr. Brewster. To the joint councils we usually send. It wasn't to 
the locals, no. It was to the joint councils. 

Senator Goldwater. You say you did not send them directly to the 
campaign committees of these people involved? 

Mr. Brewster. In some instance we probably did. 

Senator Goldwater. In this particular case, there was a check for 
$4,000 paid out for the McFarland Governor Committee. I was 
naturally interested in that. I wondered how far you went in sup- 
porting gubernatorial candidates across the West. 

Mr. Brewster. We go quite a ways. 

Senator Goldwater. You do ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Even in States where you do not have much 
of a representation of teamsters ? 

■ Mr. Brewster. Sure. That is where they pick on us the most. 
' Senator Goldwater. In Oregan, you gave $1,000 to Patterson. That 
is the stronghold of the teamsters. In Arizona, you gave $4,000, and 
you do not have a big membership down there. 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think the membership makes the difference. 

Senator Goldwater. You do not? 

Mr. Brewster. No. I don't. I do not. I am very interested in, 
and probably a lot of people are interested the other way, in the right- 
to-work clause. 

Senator Goldwater. That is it ? Any State that has a right-to-work 
law, you feel that you should go in and try to change it ? 

Mr. Brewsi'er. Change it. Yes, I think so. 

Senator Goldwater. xVgainst the wishes of the people? 

Mr. Brewster. No, not against the wishes of the people so much. 
I think we should educate the people to make their own decisions, but 
we should probably do that so that the people could be educated to that 
point. That is what public relations is, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. I like to think that the people of my State 
are quite well educated. 

Mr, Brewster. I think they are on the average for the western part 
of tlie country. 



1024 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Well, we have a right-to-work law. 

If they are on the average, then they are on a pretty high plane, I 
would say. 

Mr. Brewster. I thmk so. 

Senator Goldwater. I am glad to hear yon say that. 

Now, when you go to a gubernatorial candidate who is in a right- 
to- work State, do you ask him to be against the right to work ? 

Mr. Brewster. Well, we ask him his views on the right to work; 
ves. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you give him money if he said, "I am 
all for the right to work." ? 

Mr. Brewster. I should say I wouldn t. 

Senator Goldwater. You would not. So when you go to a candi- 
date and you have money in your pocket to give him, you are not 
going to give it to him unless he makes a statement to you to the 
effect that he is against the right to work ? 

Mr. Brewster. That isn't the only qualification. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, that would be a major qualification ? 

Mr. Brewster. That would be an important qualification. But 
there are a lot of other qualifications. We have trucking laws, we 
have roads, we have everything else. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you satisfied that you had those com- 
mitments out of both of those gubernatorial candidates, Paul Patter- 
son and McFarland ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. That they were against the right-to-work ? 

Mr. Breavester- Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. It would seem to me, if that is the policy 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to recess as soon as we can. 

Senator Mundt. This will take but a moment— that that is the 
policy of the teamsters as far as politics are concerned, you must also 
contribute to the legislative candidates in these States; would you 
not? They are the ones that pass the work laws. Do you apply the 
same general patterns to legislators as you do to governors? 

Mr. Brewster. Kepeat that again. , ^, - 

Senator Mundt. Do you applv that same general formula that you 
just enunciated about governors to legislators, candidates for the legis- 
lature ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think it would be that. 

Senator Mundt. Even though your teamsters may be ]ust a minor- 
ity group in that particular State? 

Mr Brewster. Well, to me they are a majority group. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, but not in every State. They may be m 
Multnomah County, but not in every State. ,^ ^. • wr, 

Mr. Brewster. I haven't been in your State, yet. I don't thmk they 
amount to much there. . , 

Senator Mundt. Do not hurry. Take your tune. But we will be 
there to meet you when you come. i t i ^^f 

You made this statement in your prepared statement, and i do not 
think Senator Goldwater read it : You said, 

We of course, can only contribute to State cainpaiKn funds. The Western 
Conference has never ontriDuted any funds to a I^ederal campaign. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1025 

He read from a political folder supporting- a (?andidate for the Senate 
in Ore<>on in 1956. Would that not be a Federal campaign? That 
was published over the prefecture of the teamsters union and had 
your name under it. 

Mr. BiiEAvsTER. I think it was just for education purposes. 

Senator Mundt, You do not consider that. In other words, when 
you say 

The Western Couference has never contributed any funds to a Federal cam- 
paign, 

you leave a loophole for publications of that kind, because you call 
them education ? 

Mr. Bkewstee. Well, I think we have a right to tell our member- 
ship. I think we have that perfect right to tell our membership 
about candidates, for or against. 

Senator Mundt. I am not questioning it. I am simply trying to 
interpret your statement, when you say categorically — 

The Western Conference has never contributed any funds to a Federal cam- 
paign — 

you obviously did to the candidacy of a Senator in Oregon in 1956; is 
that right? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. But I still didn't contribute. 

Senator Mundt. All right. I just wanted to straighten that out. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to make this announcement be- 
fore we recess for the lunch hour. As has been published in the press, 
there has been some correspondence and contacts from time to time 
between Mr. Dave Beck and this committee. 

Last Monday, when he returned to tliis country, he sent a message 
to the chairman of the committee that he wanted to have a little physi- 
cal checkup with his doctor, a routine checkup, I believe he said, and 
then confer with his attorneys who were handling a tax case for him, 
a tax matter for him. Then he would let me know what records he 
might be able to make available. 

(At this point. Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Prior thereto, the Chair, more than a month ago, 
advised Mr. Beck when he said he would like to cooperate with the 
committee, that we would be glad to have him do so, and that he could 
begin by making available to us his personal financial records. 

(At this point. Senator McNamara withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

The Chairman. I have heard nothing further since Monday. 

This matter now is progressing to the point where the committee 
would like to begin giving some attention to his problems, and to the 
matters that the committee is interested in with which he is associated. 
I have today sent Mr. Beck this wire : 

You are requested to furnish to this oomniittee all your personal tinaucial books 
maintained by you and by others on your behalf for the years 1949 through 1955 
pertaining to any loans or advances from the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters or any unit thereof, and all your personal financial books and records 
maintained by you and by others on your behalf for the years 1949 through 1955, 
pertaining to any financial transactions that you have had with companies, cor- 
porations, or individuals having contracts or financial dealings with the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters or any unit thereof. Please advise today by 
return wire wlien these records will be forthcoming. 

89330— 57— pt. 8 1 8 



1026 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chair is going to undertake to ascertain whether the records 
will be made available in the spirit of cooperation, as the Chair was 
assured by letter from Mr. Beck that he wanted to do. If they are not 
made available upon request, as in accordance with this telegram, then 
the committee will conclude that it will be necessary for it to issue the 
proper processes to get those records before it. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brewster, we will have about 2 hours off for lunch. Will you 
have your 2 attorneys make a study of those 2 constitutions during 
that period of time, so that when we resume you can answer my ques- 
tion about whether or not there is anything in there about this money 
matter ? 

Mr. Brewstek. Yes, we will try and do that. We will be glad to do 
that. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The CiiAiRMAX. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 : 30 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: The Chairman, Sena- 
tors Mundt and Goldwater.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The hearing resumed at 2:30 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, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The Chair has been advised that Senator Neu- 
berger, who yesterday or earlier requested an opportunity to testify 
before this committee, may have to leave town this afternoon or tomor- 
row and will not be available at the close of this witness' testimony. 

Therefore, we are going to interrupt the testimony of Mr. Brewster 
to accord to our colleague. Senator Neuberger, of Oregon, an oppor- 
tunity to testify at this time. 

Senator, will you come around, please, sir ? 

Senator, 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 ? 

Senator jSTeuberger. I do, sir. 

The CiiAiRMAN. I may say we ordinarily do not place a Senator 
under oath when he testifies before a committee, but the nature of this 
inquiry is such that we felt that the testimony should be sworn to. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHAED L. NEUBEEGER, A UNITED STATES 
SENATOR PROM THE STATE OE OREGON 

The Chairman. We usually ask this question : Please state your 
name, place of residence, and state your occupation. 

Senator Neuberger. My name is Richard L. Neuberger. I am 
junior United States Senator from the State of Oregon, temporarily 
living in Washington, D. C. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1027 

I appreciate very much tlie opportunity to come here today, Mr. 
Chairman. I have been thinking for the past few weeks that I should 
come here and give you some very brief testimony, and my feeling 
was heightened in this resolve by a remark made during the hearing 
yesterday when one of the members of the committee said that, "If 
I lived there,-' meaning Portland, Oreg., "I would be flying the flag 
at half-mast." 

I have asked my wife, Maureen, to come with me today because she 
participated in some of the political events which I would like to 
describe to you and place in the record in this rather brief testimony 
whicli I now will read. 

I think there are copies available and I hope they will be made avail- 
able to members of the committee. iV member of my staff has copies 
of my written testimony. 

The Chairmak. I will ask the members of the staff, has the state- 
ment been made available for staff's inspection ? 

Senator Mundt. The press seems to have them, but the committee 
does not have them. I wonder if we could borrow one from one of 
the newspapermen ? 

Senator Neuberger. I regret the distribution was not made cor- 
rectly. Senator Mundt. 

The Chairman. Under the rules of the committee, a statement to 
be read is supposed to be submitted 24 hours in advance. The Chair 
will say as far as he is concerned, however, certainly in appreciation 
of the workload of the United States Senators, and the Senator not 
having anticipated he would appear until later, the Chair is willing 
to waive the I'equirement under tlie rule in this instance, unless there 
is objection on the part of any member of the committee. 

The Chair hears none and the I'ule is waived. 

Proceed, Senator. 

Senator Neuberger. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to 
testify at the conclusion of your hearings involving Portland, Oreg. 

For the past several weeks, your investigation has centered around 
my hometown. I was born and raised in Portland — went to school 
there — and have my home there now. My family still lives in Port- 
land. I entered politics by representing Multnomah County, which 
is largely Portland, in the Oregon State Legislature. 

So did Mrs. Xeulierger. Portland is also the largest community in 
the State which I now help to represent in the United States Senate. 
I have been concerned about the unflattering and damaging impression 
in which my community must ap]3ear to the Nation in the light of the 
rather limited aspects of Poi'tland brought out in these hearings. 

I have come here to defend the reputation of my hometown, but not 
in any criticism of those who have exposed certainevents in Portland's 
recent past. I believe in full disclosure of wrongdoing, regardless of 
where it occurs or who perpetrates it. 

I think it was Horace Greeley who said : 

What the good Lord lets happen, I'll put in the paper. 
That is a good motto for newspapers and for congressional investiga- 
tions. However, I fear that the emphasis in the news of the past few 
weeks on alleged racketeering in Portland has given an unfortunate 
and distorted impression as to what kind of community Portland 
actuallv is. 



1028 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Thus, my objective today is to make three points toward a wider 
perspective on the sitiiation in Portland, when the committee comes to 
issue its report on these liea rings. 

First, jNIi". Chairman. I want the record to show some of the more 
representative aspects of Portland as a community. A few facts will 
demonstrate that Portland is, in reality, a city of ethical, responsible, 
and law-abiding inhabitants. Portland has long been justly known 
as a good resident i jil city. 

Portland has 129 public or ])rivate elementary schools and high 
schools, 12 colleges, 4 theological schools, and numerous business col- 
leges and trade schools. A large portion of the city's income is di- 
verted to education and Portland is justly proud of its new academic 
buildings, and the fact that teachers' salaries are well above the 
national average. I regard the Portland Public Library as superior 
to the Library of Congress in its informative services. 

Portland contains over oOO churches, cathedrals, synagogues, 
temples, and religious organizations of all faiths. 

Li the 1956 general election, approximately 85 percent of Portland's 
registered voters visited the polls. Perhaps Portland's high sense of 
civic responsibility is due to the fact that its citizens have an important 
stake in the community. Sixty-four percent of Portland's homes are 
owned by the residents, as contrasted with only 55 j^ercent nationally. 

High standards of public healtli are maintained by the city. 
Twenty hospitals provide modern inedical cai-e. The venereal-disease 
rate for the city of Portland is today considerably lower than the 
national average. 

Portland supports a symphony orchestra, a junior symphony or- 
chestra and a symphonic choir. The Portland Art Museum houses 
an outstanding collection of paintings, sculpture and regional arti- 
facts. The Portland Civic Theater annually produces the best of 
Broadway performed by talented local actore and singers. 

Fifty-five parks covering 1,600 acres are located within the city. 
Portland residents are now undertaking the construction of a new 
zoological i)ark which will be among the finest in the entire world; 
the new buildings are being erected at far below normal costs because 
both labor and industrj^ are offering their services and materials 
either for nothing, or at less than going rates. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that before you 
can have unscrupulous labor officials — or unscrupulous businessmen, 
or anybody else participating in rackets and vice — you must fii*st have 
rackets and vice to participate in. 

Racketeering by labor officials shocks us all, because we expect from 
the leaders of labor an altruism which we associate with the memories 
of early trade union pioneers and martyrs who unselfishly devoted 
their lives to fighting for the rights of working men and women. Your 
committee will pei-form a service if it assists labor in eliminating from 
its ranks any criminal elements which may lurk there. 

Yet, I doubt if racketeering in labor organizations can be se]iarated 
from the condition of law and order as a whole, in a community and 
in the Nation. There would be no criminal element in labor unions 
unless opportunity for crime existed in the Nation. There would have 
l>een no racketeering by teamster officials in Portland, had not rack- 
eteering already gained a foothold in that city. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1029 

We all have reason to be concerned about the standards of law en- 
forcement in this country, as compared with more favorable records 
in several other modern democratic nations, and it is against this 
background that we must view Portland's record. 

I condemn racketeering by teamsters. I condemn racketeering by 
the enemies of teamsters. I condemn lawlessness by teamsters. I 
condemn lawlessness by the enemies of teamsters. These things admit 
of no division or compromise. There cannot be good racketeering and 
bad racketeering. All are bad. 

The conditions which hamper control of crime and vice include the 
familiar shortcomings of overlapping county and city jurisdictions 
in metropoHtan areas, underpaid police personnel and prosecutors, 
diffusion of responsibility among too many elected officials, and the 
public's tendency toward inattention as long as conditions remain 
tolerable. 

I believe that I can comment on some of these needs for reform from 
experience. As members of the State legislature, ISIrs. Neuberger and 
I fought to bring our State police system under civil service and to 
rid it of a disturbing spoils system. We fought to bring about con- 
solidation of county and cit}' law-enforcement agencies, in order that 
crime miglit be prevented more efficiently and more economically in 
Multnomah County. 

From the testimony before you, Mr. Chairman, illegal gambling has 
been said to play a prominent role in the racketeering about which you 
are concerned. Oregon is one of only a few States which permits pari- 
mutuel dogracing. Some of the people most alarmed about racketeer- 
ing over some pinball machines have been strong defenders of this 
legalized system of dog-race gambling, on which some $14,526,878 
were wagered in Portland in 1955. One can only wonder if a strong 
urge to gamble, legally or illegally, is not encpuratred by this huge 
State-authorized gambling operation. 

Under Oregon law, millions of dollars may legally be gambled at 
the dog races, but not 10 cents on a pinball machine. This double 
standard has been defended by some the State's leading political figures 
for many years, and it has been a corroding force. 

Mrs. Neuberger and I fought against parimutuel dog-race gam- 
bling, as we did for police reform and for streamlining of local govern- 
ment, but, alas, these efforts failed to win the support of a majority 
of our colleagues in the legislature. 

Reform in this area is a local responsibility, not that of the Senate, 
yet it deserves recognition in any realistic appraisal of ties between 
rackets and any particular segment of society. 

And this leads me to my third point. 

Third, Mr. Chairman,! want to fill in some gaps in the recent his- 
toi-y of crime and law enforcement in Portland as it has appeared 
from the testimony before this committee. No discussion of this his- 
tory would be complete unless some attention were devoted to the 
period of 1918-52. 

The record of that period shows that, even with those built-in short- 
comings of our traditional local governments, a basically good com- 
munity, and Portland is a basically good community, can overcome 
crime and vice so that there is nothing to attract racketeers from within 
labor or from anywhere else. 



1030 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

From 1948 to 1952 Portland had a courageous and honest mayor, 
Mrs. Dorotliy McCullough T^ee, who is now the Chairman of the Fed- 
eral Subversive Activities Control Board. And I might add, paren- 
thetically, that I think the Senate just last week confirmed without 
opposition tlie nomination of jNIrs. I^e by President Eisenhower, who 
transferred her from Federal Parole Board to be Chairman of the 
Subversive Activities Control Board. 

It was my i^rivilege to speak very briefly in support of her nomina- 
tion on the Senate floor. Mrs. Lee is a person of conviction and of 
integrity. She had run for office on a platform pledged to uphold 
and enforce the law. She enforced the law. She drove gamblers 
and vice out of the city. She even closed down the slot machines in fhe 
press club, which resulted, if I am not mistaken, in the bankruptcy of 
that organization. 

In some quarters, INIayor Lee was ridiculed for her efforts. She was 
derisively nicknamed "Dotty-Do-Good." A campaign of abuse was 
set in motion against her, based on the notion that a town wholly closed 
to vice and gambling was somehow bad for business. This baseless 
charge became an issue in the municipal campaign of 1952 in Portland. 

Mre. Neuberger and I felt so strongly about Mayor Lee's effective 
stand against rackets that, although Mrs. I^e was not of our political 
party, we supported her actively for another nonpartisan term in 
office in the city hall. 

You will find the story of Portland's woman mayor, who successfully 
licked vice and crime in Portland, told in an article I wrote for Coronet 
magazine for June 1952, at the time of Mrs. Lee's campaign for 
reelection. 

I might add that Mrs. Lee did not have the support of everyone 
who has now pointed with indignation at this or that element in the 
picture of local vice which has been painted before your committee. 
Yet, the record should show that the process which has culminated in 
some of the disturbing events aired before your committee began with 
the defeat of Dorothy McCullough Lee for reelection as mayor in 
1952. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe I am-safe in telling you, categorically, that 
if Mrs. Lee had been reelected mayor of Portland in 1952, our city 
would never have figured in these hearings, for there then would 
have been no rackets for teamsters or anyone else to fight over, or to 
"muscle in on," as the vernacular goes. 

The fateful decision was taken by Portland's voters in November 
of 1952. Alas, they decided wrong, with respect to this aspect of life 
in our community. 

As a result, the chain of events was set in motion which has finally 
developed into these hearings in "Washington. I do not believe that 
your committee would want to close the record on the Oregon phase of 
your hearings, without having the record contain this reference to 
the good standards of law-enforcement and control of vice and crime 
maintained by Portland from 1948 to 1952. 

That is why I have come here to pay tribute to former jVIayor 
Dorothy McCullough Lee today. Let me make two other brief com- 
ments in concluding my remarks on the subject of these hearings, Mr. 
Chairman. 

I fear that many persons have gained the impression that lawless- 
ness and collusion were rampant in the State of Oregon wuthout 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1031 

couiitermeasures by local officials. I would like to point out that many 
of the charges aired before this committee have been the subject of 
the scrutiny by a grand jury in the State of Oregon for many months. 
To date, 34 indictments have been returned. 

The grand jury is again in session, and it is likely that further local 
action to discourage law violators will ensue. 

Furthermore, I hope that the committee will make it possible to add 
to the record any testimony which may be presented from sources in 
Oregon for the purpose of balancing the impressions which have been 
created so far, and of repairing any damage which may have been 
done to the good reputation of my State and city and of some of past 
and present public officials. 

For example, immediately after this committee heard some of the 
testimony involving actions of the late Governor of Oregon, a number 
of men closely associated with the action in question disputed, in 
statements to Oregon newspapers, the implications of this testimony. 

These men include a leading attorney and the executive secretary 
of the Oregon State Civil Service Commission. To my knowledge, 
their comments are not, hoAvever, a part of the record of this com- 
mittee. 

The Governor in question, who is now dead, was a Republican. 
He and I often debated vigorously in the State senate, when we both 
served there. Yet if charges are made against him, I believe his family 
and his friends deserve the opportunity to have this record include 
such evidence as may be offeree! to refute them or their implications. 

Similarly, I have been informed that evidence exists to contradict 
the charges of alleged bribe taking against the mayor of Portland. 
I cannot comment on this evidence, not having seen or examined it 
personally. But with a public official's entire future reputation at 
stake, can the committee do any less than hear every possible aspect 
of the case ? 

It is my hope that if there are reliable and responsible persons in 
Oregon who have such information to present to this committee which 
will shed light on the reputations of the late Gov. Paul Patterson 
or of Portland's Mayor Terry Schrunk, these people will have full 
opportunity to appear to give this evidence to your committee. 

I pass no judgment on testimony already given. I merely urge tliat 
both sides be heard fully. 

I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before this com- 
mittee. I think all of us share the goal of exposing and eliminating 
crime and wrongdoing wherever they may appear. I thank you very 
much. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Xeuberger. I wish 
to compliment you and commend you for having come before the 
committee to make that statement. I had no idea what you were 
going to say and just exactly what aspects of the hearing you were 
interested in. 

I can appreciate, however, your concern about your hometown and 
your State when some evidence such as has been presented here miglit 
cause those who do not reflect upon it in its proper perspective to fail 
to evaluate it in the light of what this committee is seeking to do. I 
am sure that Portland, Oreg., the citizenship there, compares favor- 
ably with the citizenship in any other comnninity in this Nation. 



1032 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I want to say to you and to the people of Portland and to the State 
of Oregon that this committee is in no way trying to cast any reflec- 
tions upon the fine citizenship of that community. 

We have a duty to perform here and unfortunately it does appear 
from some of the evidence that some of these elements to which you 
have referied in your statement and with whom this committee is 
charged with the duty to look into, have seized upon possibly an 
opportunity^ or sought to make an opportunity in that community to 
engage in racketeering. 

Now, this committee is not going to undertake to clean up all crime 
in every city in this country. It cannot do that. That is not its func- 
tion. It is only as racketeering, crime, and improper practices are 
related to the labor-management field, that this committee has juris- 
diction or ability. 

Just as you pointed out in your statement, however, there can be 
no racketeering unless there are rackets. You cannot invest in vice 
and neither can you racketeer in vice unless vice exists. In the city 
of Portland in most respects in connection with this hearing, this 
happens to be incidental. It was not the committee that sought out 
this community to begin with. Disclosures had already been made 
there that attracted attention by reason of the number of indictments 
that had been found and by reason of the effort that obviously was 
being made by the good citizens of the community to take your law 
enforcement status back to that which you spoke of that obtained 
under the mayorship or administration of Ma^^or Lee. 

So the committee does not want to injure Portland. If the commit- 
tee's efforts, however, contribute toward l)reaking up anv racketeering 
that may have developed and begun to thrive since Mayor Lee, the 
committee hopes that in doing so if it succeeds, it will be doing a 
favor and a service to Portland. 

Now, we have had suggestions that we go back several years to 
find out Avhat the conditions were that prevailed there. According to 
your statement during her administration from 1918 to 1952, you did 
have law enforcement and you did have good order. If something 
has gone wrong, since, the people cannot always anticipate. 

They vote the people for office believing in their integrity and 
sometimes the people are betrayed. If there has been a betrayal on 
the part of some officials possibly, and if there has been a betrayal 
of the union members who belong to the teamsters union, if there has 
been a betrayal of them by their officials, then this committee is 
interested in exposing it with a view, if necessary, and if it is indicated 
that it is reouired for the Congress to enact such legislation as may 
correct or help at least to improve conditions. 

Personally, I wish to congratulate you for your appearance. I 
would do the same thing for my fine city in my State. At the same 
time, I would do as you suggest, to support an investigation that 
will possibly contribute something to correcting any unsatisfactory 
condition that may now prevail. 

Are there any ({uestions by any member ? 

Senator I\tes. I would like to commend Senator Neuberger on his 
statement. I want to point out, however, that I for one, never had 
any doubt whatever about the type of people that live in Portland, 
Oreg. I happen to have some friends in that part of the country 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1033 

and I luive a vast respect for the people of Portland and for the people 
of Ore<ron, and nothing has occurred in this investigation that has 
caused me in any way, shape, or manner to lose that respect. 

Senator Xeubergek. Thank yon, Senator Ives, and I want to thank 
you, jMr. Chairman, for your very characteristically fair statement. 

Senator Goldwater. Senator Nenberger, in the course of your 
statement before the committee, you raise the suggestion that some- 
body might be allowed to come here and speak in defense of Governor 
Patterson who is now dead. 

I was rather shocked to heai" some of the so-called disclosures that 
were made against a man that I had always held in rather high regard. 
Would you seriously recommend to this committee that such a defense 
be allowed either in writing or by personal appearances of somebody 
who could do it? 

Senator Xeuberger. I think you understand. Senator Goldwater, 
it is not Avithin my prerogative to advise the committee what to do. 
However, I was impressed by this one fact : 

Shortly after some rather damaging testimony concerning the repu- 
tation of the late Governor Patterson was given before the committee, 
stories appeared in the press out in Oregon in which some aspects of 
these allegations were denied by prominent attorney and by an official 
of the State civil service commission. 

It just seemed to me in fairness to his memory and to his family, 
who still live in Oregon, that at the very least depositions or state- 
ments from those people, if they have contrary evidence — and I must 
again emphasize I cannot pass upon that — should be, at least, a part 
of the record. 

Senator Goldwater. I am glad to hear you say that, because I have 
seen, I think, 2 editorials of 2 different Oregon papers defending 
the record of Governor Patterson and defending his memory. 

I am glad to see that you made that suggestion in your comments 
and I am hopeful that during the course of these hearings some 
place, such a refutation might be made. 

Senator Neuberger. Thank you very much. Senator. 

The Chairman. x\re there any other questions? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I, too, 
congratulate Senator Neuberger in coming to the defense of his home- 
towai and home State. That is a senatorial impulse we all have, and 
I am sure every Senator would feel inclined to do the same when 
he feels that the people of his State or his city have been unfairly 
criticized. 

Certainly, this committee has no desire to attribute to the people 
of Oregon anything but the best of good governmental intentions. 

You indirectly referred to a statement that I made yesterday and 
I want to ask you a few questions in that connection. I had a pro- 
viso in my statement. I said : 

If I lived in a city in which the mayor had been accused by eyewitnesses of 
certain nefarious crimes, and the mayor had flunl^ed a lie detector test delivered 
by the authorities of his own State and then came to the Federal Government 
where he had requested that a lie detector test be given by the Secret Service 
and walked out midway in that test, and that if I lived in a county where the 
district attorney took the fifth amendment 100 times in questions related to 
problems on which he had direct information, then I would indeed feel ashamed 
and urge that the Hags be hung at half mast because somebody had not meas- 
ured ui) to tJiis public duty. 



1034 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That was, in substance, my statement. So I would like to ask you 
now. Senator Neuberger, whether you are here to defend Mayor 
Schrunk and the position he took in connection with this committee 
and whether you feel with me that he acted something less than the 
way a mayor should when he comes to represent the great city of Port- 
land with its wonderful association of high-minded citizens and its 
fine churches and schools and libraries. 

Senator Neubekger. I said in my testimony. Senator Mundt, that I 
pass no judgment on tlie testimony already given. All that I know 
of these hearings is what I have read in the newspapers. It is quite 
obvious that I am not in a position to pass any judgment either on 
the testimony already given before your committee, either as to its 
veracity or as to its reliability more than I am qualified to answer 
categorically the statement just put to me by Senator Goldwater about 
certain contrary evidence alleged to be in the possession of people 
who defended the late Governor Patterson. 

I would like to explain why I took some exception to your state- 
ment, if I may, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You surely may. 

Senator Neuberger. I am certainly glad to have you submit the 
qualifying references which you made. Plowever, with the exception 
of religious symbols, the proudest manifestation that any community 
has is the American flag. 

There have been corrupt officials in the past, in many communities. 
All we have to do is go back and read Lincoln Stevens and Brad 
Whitlock and Woodrow Wilson and many others to know this has 
occurred tliroughout the entire modern history of our country as an 
industrial nation. 

You and I regret that, but it has occurred. There have even been 
IVIembers of the Congress of the United States who have not only 
been indicted but been convicted of certain crimes. But I doubt if 
the statement has been made that the flag should be flown at half- 
mast in those cities or those congressional districts. 

Naturally, being a lifeloug resident of Oregon and having been 
born there and having been born in Portland and having lived there, 
I was a little distressed about the statement. 

Senator jNIuxdt. I am not so sure but what it might be a good 
precedent to establisli. When honor dies it might be just as well 
to have tlie flag at lialf-mast in designation of that as when the body 
dies. If honor has died in a public official and been exposed, perhaps 
it might be a way to awake even the public conscience of the people 
if flags were at half-mast. I will not debate the propriety of that. I 
simply wanted you to know why I had done that. 

Senator Neuberger. I appreciate your explanation of the state- 
ment, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. Our committee, I think, has been a little bit more 
diligent than you have given us credit for. You said: 

Further, I hope that the committee will make it possible to add to the record 
any testimony which may be presented from sources in Oregon for the purpose 
of balancing the impressions which have been created so far. 

When tlie mayor of your city spoke before us, I said that I was 
reluctant to accept the testimony against him, that I was predisposed 
to accept the testimony of a mayor of a fine city like Portland as 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1035 

against the testimony of some of the people who had leveled the 
criticism and j^rodnced the evidence against him. 

So I asked him, after he had indicated that the lie-detector test he 
had taken in Oregon had been fixed or framed whether he might 
want us to arrange a fair lie-detector test to give him an honest 
break. 

He said, "Yes," and in a spirit of helpfulness we tried to arrange 
that test. We went to considerable pains and difficulties to set it 
up. And then he walked out during it. So that we have done our 
best, sir, to give the mayor of your city of Portland, every oppor- 
tunity^ available to us to produce evidence in his own defense. And 
when he did not have evidence in his own defense against members 
of his own city patrol who had testified that they had seen him 
picking up a package with bribe money in it, we did the only thing- 
left tons at that time which was to say if he wanted to take a lie- 
detector test we would set it up. 

Can you think of anything further we could do to be fair to the 
mayor of the city of Portland ? 

Senator Xiujherger. I cannot pass upon the details of the so-called 
lie-detector test, Senator. I do remember reading in the press, where 
I say I have obtained my information about the hearings thus far, 
because the record has not been available to a wide number of Senators. 
I thinli I do remember reading in the press that a distinguished mem- 
ber of your committee, who is a former judge in his State, if I am not 
mistaken, had make the remarks that a so-called lie-detector test was 
not admissible in courts. 

I myself am not a lawyer but if I am not mistaken, just from 
memory, 1 think the Senator of North Carolina did say that. 

Senator Muxdt. Your memory is much better than your respon- 
siveness to my questions. My question was, can you think of anything 
else that this committee could do to be helpful to the mayor of the city 
of Portland to enable him to present his position before the committee? 

Senator Neuberger. All I can say is what I said in my statement, 
that if there is any evidence to the contrary of the allegations made 
against him, which is available in our community, that I just hope 
it will be made part of the record. 

I said that both with respect to the mayor and with respect to the 
late Governor Patterson. It seems to me those are both reasonable 
statements. 

Senator jNIundt. We tried to do that and we even let him submit 
affidavits. When the affidavits were examined, they Avere counter- 
manded by the people who said that the affidavit was' wrong. 

I do not want you to think we are trying to malign the mayor of the 
city of Portland. If you could suggest anything that this committee 
can do, any Avitness with material evidence, any better device than a 
lie-detector test for whatever it is worth, I would like to have you 
suggest it. 

Senator Neuberger. You are putting words in my mouth. I did not 
say that the committee was maligning anybody. I just said that I 
hoped that the connnittee would permit all possible aspects of this, 
whether it concerns the late Governor Patterson or the present mayor 
in our State, to be presented. 

Senator Mundt. I was as distressed as you were. Senator Neuber- 
ger, when the Democratic State chairman of the State of Oreiron, 



1036 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Howard Moroan, came in and made these attacks on the late 
Governor of the State of Oregon, a Governor whom I have never met 
and about whom I know nothing. 

He came in and said he was the State chairman and he had been of 
the Democratic Party of the State of Oregon. He made some pretty 
direct accusations against the honesty and integrity of the Governor, 

If you can think of any witnesses who could offset that, we would 
be glad to have them. 

Senator Neuberger. It is my impression, again from reading the 
press, that Mr. Morgan was not the only witness before your commit- 
tee who made allegations that might have been damaging to the late 
Governor Patterson. 

I believe there were 1 or 2 others. In answer to Senator Goldwater's 
question, I mentioned that with respect to one episode that came 
before your committee, I do not recall who mentioned it, there was a 
rather prominent lawyer in our State and an official of the State civil 
service commission who did give interviews to the press in Portland 
which would tend to contradict and refute some of that testimony. 

I merely suggest at the very least their statements should be a part 
of the record, in all fairness. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure the committee would be happj^ to have 
him appear or have him make an affidavit. We do not get all of the 
news appearing in the Portland press. But as far as I can recall, 
Mr. Howard Morgan is the witness who appeared to be of the best 
reputation for honesty and responsibility who made any accusations 
against tlie former Governor here. 

We have had some accusations made against him by witnesses of a 
different character. Mr. Howard Morgan impressed me as a man 
of responsibility. 

Senator Neuberger. He is a very fine man and a ver^^ honest man 
from my knowledge of him. 

Senatoi' Mttxdt. He was the man who made that cliarge, as far as it 
registered with me. There might have been some made by some of 
these other witnesses. 

Now, then, in pursuance of what you suggested we do, hoping the 
committee will make it possible to add to the record any testimony 
which may be presented from sources in Oregon, may I say that we 
not only gave the mayor every opportunity to call in witnesses to 
present affidavits and to take a lie-detector test. But in simple justice 
and fairness we called in the district attorn e}'- of ]Nfultnomah County 
who took the fifth amendment 100 times. 

Would you. Senator, believe that that adds to the fair reputation 
of the people of Multnomali County and the city of Portland when 
its district attorney presently holding office takes recourse to the fifth 
amendment that many times ? 

Senator Neuberger. Of course not. I share your distress about 
some of the things that have occurred. I have said so in my state- 
ment, I think, a good many times. HoAvever, I still believe that the 
general reputation of the community deserves some defense and there 
should be a general overall i)icture of the type of community it is. 

I think the record should contain some substantial reference to the 
outstanding record for law enforcement which was made by Mrs. Lee, 
and I think many good people in our community today regret the 
decision thev made in 1952 when Mrs. Lee was voted out of office. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1037 

One reason I wanted Mrs. Neuberger here with me was this : She 
was virtually one of the principal campaigners for Mrs. Lee. We 
both remember wIilmi she was cami)aigning for Mrs. Lee, how many- 
people in our community refused to support Mrs. Lee because they 
said that a town that was shut down with regard to crime and racket- 
eering Avas bad for business, and to open up a little would be good 
for business. 

That is one reason that I think the record of this major hearing 
conducted by the United States Senate should show the type of influ- 
ences which induced our people in 1952 to take what I regard, and I 
think many other people do noAV, as a wrong decision in the civic 
history of Portland. 

Senator Mujstdt. By whom was she defeated ? 

Senator Neuber(;i:k. She was defeated by Mr. Fred L. Peterson, who 
became mayor and served as mayor until his death last November. 
He served for 4 years. 

Senator Mundt. Do you recall whether Mr. Peterson was supported 
by the teamsters union ? 

Senator Neuberger. I do not know. I am frank to say I do not 
know in that campaign whether Mr. Peterson was supported by the 
teamsters union or not. I am trying now to speak fi'om memory, and 
I hope you understand that. That is 5 years ago. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel tells me, Senator, that he was. 

Senator Neuberger. What did you say ? 

Senator Mundt. Counsel Kennedy tells me he understands Mr, 
Peterson was supported by the teamsters union. 

Senator Neuberger. I did not know, I would like to complete my 
statement. 

As I remember, there was a very bitter fight in the Portland central 
labor council where all trade unions in the area are represented. My 
recollection tells me that a decision to endorse Mrs. Lee by the united 
labor was turned down by a very narrow margin. Labor, as a whole, 
made no endorsement in that campaign. That is my memory again, 
and it may not be correct. 

Senator Mundt. One of the bits of evidence we have had before our 
committee would confirm what you have in mind, in connection with 
your city contests, that on occasion the teamsters union had broken 
away from the general labor council and that the evidence leads us 
to believe that when they have broken away, they have broken away 
in the direction of supporting the lawless element that you and Mrs. 
Neuberger tried to prevent getting in to control of the city. 

This other question has not too much pertinence, but I am just 
curious about something you said here about dog racing. Do you 
classify parimutuel horse racing and dog racing at different levels, 
and is there something that makes one of them vicious and the other 
one good ? I am a little curious about that. We have both in South 
Dakota and I just wanted to know. 

Senator Neuberger. Let me say that I think that there is a differ- 
ence. There is a difference in degree in my opinion between dog racing 
and horse racing, to this extent : 

Dog racing to me is just a great big roulette wheel. Horse racing 
is at least a spectacle which can afford persons some thrill and excite- 
ment of the sport involved. Furthermore, in the city of Portland, the 



1038 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

dog racing was held for a good many years right in the heart of the 
city in the civic stadium. ,. ■ -, -, 

It was where working people, people of very hmited means, and 
people who perhaps could not pay all of their bills, could get at it 
very easily. I think that Portland had one of the biggest dog race 
handles for many years in respect to the size of the city, of ahnost any 
place in the United States. • p o 

If you have this dog racing in the center of the city for 2 or d 
months that is legal, inevitably you stimulate a desire and frenzy m 
some people to gamble. , -, x. 

Then, "bang" the dog races which are legal are closed. It seems 
to me inevitably that a problem is created for the officials m charge 
of law enforcement, then, to prevent so-called illegal gambling on some 
little pinball machine or punchboard in the corner grocery store, after 
you have had dog racing in the civic stadium. 

Now, this is not the fault of the people of the city of Portland. 
It has been the fault of the legislature of the State of Oregon that 
has authorized this dog racing, but which has only existed m the 
city of Portland. 

But, in my opinion, it has made a major law-enforcement problem 
for any mayor or other law-enforcement officials who wanted to shut 
off illegal gambling. 

Senator Mundt. Is it legalized only for Portland ? 

Sentor Neuberger. It is legalized in this way, that it is up to the 
city council, if I am not mistaken to then authorize it under the 
State Enabling Act. 

Senator Mundt. Sort of a local option ? 

Senator Neuberger. I believe that is true and, again that is from 

memory. , t j. 

Senator Mundt. Strictly from the standpoint of the gambling fea^- 
ture, it would seem to me that the opportunities for gambling in horse 
racing and dog racing under pari-mutuel racing must be about the 
same. 

Senator Neuberger. There is no question about that. However, the 
horse racing we have had in our State and in the city of Portland, be- 
cause of the size of the area necessarily involved for horse racing, has 
been a long way from the city. A far smaller total handle has been 
involved. 

Senator Mundt. I think that you make a very good point, when you 
say dog racing is right in the internal part of the city and in your 
local stadium where people perhaps of very modest means might be 
able to go to a dog race and squander their money and they could not 
go out to a horse racetrack. 

Senator Neuberger. People in collection agencies and people who 
run stores that sell on the installment plan have told me in Portland 
that when the dog races are in operation, their collections on install- 
ments become much more difficult and many people just go through 
default and the property is replevined. 

Senator Mundt. Would you agree that the opportunities for gam- 
blers to muscle into a situation would be equally good with pari-mutuel 
dog racing or pari-mutuel horse racing? 

Senator Neuberger. I would agree on that. 

Senator Mundt. I hope you will leave the committee room, Senator, 
feeling assured that the Senator from South Dakota, and I am sure 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1039 

his collecioues, liave only the highest regard for the people of the city 
of Portland. 

I have frequently talked to your good citizens in the wonderful, fine 
banquet hall i]i Multnomah Hotel, while giving something less than 
what you would qualify as a Democratic speech. I have found the 
people to be wonderful folks. 

Senator Neuberger. I appreciate your saying that. 

Senator Goldwater. There is just something I had forgotten. We 
have had one witness who has spoken out on behalf of Mr. Patterson 
and his reputation and that is the witness who is currently before us, 
Mr. Brewster. 

NoAv, some might not consider that a pat on the back, but neverthe- 
less, jMr. Brewster did in answer to a question of mine speak for the 
honesty and^ character of the former Governor Patterson. 

Senator Neuberger. Thank you very much. I had not known about 
that. 

The Chadiman. Thank you very much, Senator Neuberger. We 
are glad to have Mrs. Neuberger visit with you. 

Senator Neuberger. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Before you go, the Chair is going to make one 
statement, however, and I do not know whether you care to comment 
on it. 

Now, it is impossible for this committee to issue subpenas — I say 
"impossible"; it is impracticable and in my judgment it would be 
improper to issue a subpena for a witness every time someone says, 
"So and so is something and you can get him if you will." 

AYhat this staff is doing under the direction of the committee is this : 
Whenever these things occur and a name is suggested or someone knows 
this or knows that, we are undertaking to check with that party as 
quickly and promptly as we can in most instances. 

We are working day and night as you know. We are checking on 
some affidavits that have just been presented here this morning for our 
consideration. It is one of the strangest things that occurs to me, when 
a witness complains we do not put affidavits in the record or get these 
witnesses. 

The folks who are complaining these things are the very ones who 
are saying that Elkins is not worthy of belief because of his character 
and because of the business he has been engaged in. 

But when they come up here and want us to take an affidavit from 
somebody that they acknowledge is a^ prostitute or a crook or some- 
thing, to offset some other testimony, it does not have a very strong 
appeal to this chairman unless those witnesses will actually verify it 
under oath. 

We have that problem and I give you 3 illustrations: I recalled 
these 3 since you have been testifying. JMr. Crosby testified in 2 
instances, he mentioned 2 other people and denied something, that 
It could not have happened and they did not do it. As far as f know 
they were reputable people. 

Mr. Sheridan was one of them and a Mr. Givens another one. We 
immediately got them on the telephone and brought them here the 
next day from out there and they completely repudiated what Mr. 
Crosby had said. 

Another one was Mayor Schrunk, who testified that a Mr. Sutter 
would refute the testimony of three eyewitnesses who were present 



1040 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and claimed they saw him pick up the envelope that contained the 
money. We finally secured Mr. Sutter's affidavit and I believe it was 
provided by the mayor through his efforts and I let it go in the record. 

When we had received this affidavit we found that Mr. Sutter had 
previously testified before the grand jury in line with what the other 
three had said, directly that he saw the sheriff' pick up the envelope. 

Now, in the affidavit he says that he saw the envelope picked up 
but he could not say the sheriff was the one that picked it up. 

Well, now, I do not feel like spending the taxpayer's money on 
extravagant expenditures to go out and get in testimony that has no 
more probative force than that. I want to be fair to him. I am the 
last one who wants to see anybody innocent suffer. But I do know 
sometimes when you are dealing with certain elements you have to 
have the courage and the convictions and the discretion to weigh 
their evidence and evaluate it on the basis of the corroborating circum- 
stances that are available. 

Senator Neuberger. I appreciate the difficulties under which you 
are working. 

The Chairman. We are laboring under difficulties, Mr. Senator. 
This committee does not want anything but the truth. But do you 
know how we are getting it? In most instances we are just having 
to bring it out in a struggle and about the only thing I can think of that 
is comparable is trying to pull the wisdom tooth out of the jawbone 
of an ass. 

That is the way we are having to do it. I am going to continue and 
this committee is going to continue to try to get the truth and also try 
to keep from being imposed upon by certain elements that I do not 
think deserve much credit for their conduct. 

Senator Neuberger. I appreciate your willingness and kindness to 
let me put a few of these things in the record today, just to show that 
there may be a brief historical background of some of the recent events 
in our community. 

I am grateful to you and your colleagues for allowing me to impose 
on your good time. 

The Chairman. You have not been an imposition. You have bsen 
welcome and appreciated and I think you have done exactly what I 
think you should do and you are to be commended for it. 

Senator Mitndt. In line with the statement you made while Sen- 
ator Neuberger is still in the chair, I have been greatly concerned 
about one thing that you mentioned in your testimony. 

Up until the State Democratic chairman, Mr. Howard Morgan, 
whom I had never seen before, made these rather vicious, derogatory 
statements, about the late Governor Patterson, I had always thought 
that Governor Patterson, whom I have never seen or met, was a 
highly respected citizen and a good governor. 

I had made some notes and I did not question Mr. Morgan about 
that at the time because it was sort of put in inferentially at first and 
that was not the direct reason he testified. But I do feel, Mr. Chair- 
man, that since his name has been slandered and the man is deceased, 
he probably has a family out in Oregon, and especially in view of the 
tribute that Senator Neuberger has paid to his memory, that to the 
best of his knowledge at least, his record has been good, and right, 
and proper, I think we should have our staff member in tlie State 
of Oregon go to Mr. Howard Morgan and seek an affidavit from him 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1041 

in whicJi lie would either produce the evidence derogatory to Mr. 
Patterson, or else make a retraction so that the good name of the 
former Governor can \ye cleared. 

I think that our committee is a little bit guilty in letting a dead 
man's memory be smeared without trying to investigate it further. 
But it came indirectly and I am very happy that you did bring this 
thing into focus and either Mr. Morgan has some information which 
may throw some further light on this \\'hole charge of corrupt influ- 
ences in the State of Oregon, or mayl>e he will decide on reflection 
that he spoke hastily and thoughtlessly. 

I can say this, Mr. Chairman : That I have had several calls and 
letters from friends of mine in the citv of Portland who have been 
veiy incensed about Mr. Morgan's statement. They have called it 
pure political propaganda and political bunkham, and they have been 
a little bit critical of our committee for letting it stand. 

Certainly, it ^yas clearly outside the information of anything we 
had, but since it is back in focus, I think the least we can do is to ask 
our representative of this stall' in Oregon to go to Mr. Mora'an and in 
tenns of a South Dakota cow-boy, ask him to "put up or shut up." 

Senator Neuberger. Senator, I think in all f ainiess, however, that 
the record should sliow, and again I speak only from having read 
about it in the press, that Mr. Morgan was not the only person w^ho 
appeared before your committee and made certain allegations con- 
cerning the late Governor Patterson. 

Senator Muxdt. I think that is true, but I think he would be the 
only one whose reputation is unchallenged and who we would assume 
would be speaking accurately, and honestly, and impartially. 

Senator Neuberger. Well,*^I would say this, however, in fairness 
to Mr. Morgan, that some of the statements made by the other wit- 
ness with respect to matters that had no relation to Governor Patter- 
son, the committee has accepted. 

So, I think in fairness to Mr. jNIorgan, you should not single him out. 
Senator Mundt. If you would care to stipulate any of those, we will 
give them the same treatment. 

Senator Neuberger. What do you mean ? 
Senator Mundt. Whatever you mean. 

Senator Neuberger. It is my recollection.' and again I am just try- 
ing to remember what I read in the papers, that among the persoi'is 
who made certain references which wei-e critical of the late Governor 
Pattei'son, was Mr. Elkins. 
Am I right or wrong in that respect? 

Senator Mundt. You are right, but I said, and I think that you will 
not deny, that I place him in a little different category from the State 
Democratic chairman of the State of Oregon, Mr. Morgan. 

Senator Neuberger. Well, however, it would seem to me that if you 
are going to question Mr. Morgan's statements, that perhaps the state- 
ments made by Mr. Elkins concerning Governor Patterson might like- 
wise be questioned by yon. They were both put in the record. 

Senator Mundt. We have cross-examined Mr. Elkins at great length 
on that. If you do not agree with me that there is a difference in the 
backgromid of the two, you could assume their reliability. 

Senator Neuberger. There is a difference, of course, and my knowl- 
edge of Mr. Morgan is that he is a very reputable and reliable citizen 
of integrity. 

89330— 57— pt. 3 19 



1042 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Would you agree with me that a statement deroga- 
tory to the late Governor Patterson from Mr. Morgan would carry 
a great deal more weight in the city of Portland and in the State of 
Oregon than the same remarks out of the mouth of Mr. Elkins ? 

Senator Neuberger. I would say this, that I do not see how you as a 
member of the committee can pick and choose with respect to Mr. 
Elkins' remarks. 

Senator Mundt. We have not. We have challenged him, and we 
have questioned him, and we have had him before us for many, many 
days to ask him a great many questions about that background and 
that connection and all of his'connections with all of the officials, and 
the gangsters and the union members and everytliing else. If you can 
think of any questions that we have not asked' Mr. Elkins, I will give 
you my assurance now as one Senator to another, we will be mighty 
happyto ask him. 

Senator Neuberger. Let me read again the paragraph in which I 
referred to thi s, so that we get down to the specific example. 

I read in the press that Mr. Elkins testified before the committee 
concerning an episode which involved Governor Patterson and Mr, 
Sheridan, I believe a suspended employee of the State liquor commis- 
sion. This had absolutely no relation, as I understand it, to any testi- 
money by Mr. Howard Morgan. Then a few days after that, I may 
be mistaken, I read in the press in the city of Portland a statement 
questioning Mr. Elkins' charges concerning Mr. Sheridan of the liquor 
commission, a statement questioning that from a leading attorney in 
Portland. I think it is Phil Joss, who had been a member of the civil 
service commission, and from the executive secretary of the Oregon 
State Civil Service Commission. 

That ^as the specific episode which I had reference to in the third 
or fourth paragraph on page 5 of my testimony. 

Senator Mundt. This is the paragraph that attracted my attention. 
You said : 

For example, immediately after this committee heard some of the testimony 
involving actions of the late Governor of Oregon. 

It was that phrase which brought to my mind a question as to where I 
lieard about it. I remember the testimony of Mr. Howard Morgan. 

You have refreshed my memory, and I also remember now that Mr. 
Elkins mentioned it. But he had been before us for many, many days. 

Mr. Morgan was before us for just 1 day, and it came from what I 
considered to be a responsible source, and a present public official 
in the State of Oregon, and it made a greater impression with me, as I 
am sure it would have with you, than had I heard it from Mr. Elkins. 

Senator Goldwater. Just to get this on a little better level, it is my 
recollection, as I try to recall Mr. Morgan's testimony, that he was 
the first one who came in here and categorically described actions of 
the former Goverenor Patterson, and if my memory serves me correct, 
it had to do with the teamsters apparent control of the Governor in 
relationship to the liquor control board, or whatever you call it. It 
is true that Mr. Elkins had made and has made reference to the 
reputation of Governor Patterson, but he has not done it as specifically 
and as categorically as Mr. Morgan sat in the witness chair and did. 

I felt, and I did not want to inject this into it, that it was a rather 
vicious statement. In fact, I thought it was entirely uncalled for, in 



Ii\ [PROPER ACTIVITIP]S IN THE LABOR FIELD 1043 

view of tlie fact that its only ultimate interpretation could be one 
involving politics, I did want to make it clear that while Mr. Elkins 
has mentioned the supposed unreliability of the former Governor, 
Mr. Morgan was the first one to come here and make a specific issue 
out of it in which he left doubts in my mind, and I believe I discussed 
it with you earlier this week. 

I hacl always regarded the Governor in a very high light, from what 
I have heard of him. 

Senator Neuberger. All I can say, again, is that the specific para- 
graph on that page, in w^hich I refer to the disputed statements made 
by this attorne}^ and the secretary of the State civil service commis- 
sion, applied to the so-called Sheridan episode. I am not clear in my 
mind, not having read the transcript, or having beeen here, whether 
that Sheridan episode was brought before your committee by Mr. 
Morgan or whether it was by Mr. Elkins. I just do not know. 

Senator Mi^xdt. Mr. Sheridan, I believe, was a member of the State 
liquor commission ? 

Senator Neuberger. I wish the counsel who has followed this closely 
could advise me, because I do not know who mentioned this episode. 
I really do not. 

The Chairman. That is correct, and Mr. Sheridan has testified. 

I mentioned a while ago he w^as brought here on the issue between 
Mr. Clyde Crosby and Mr. Elkins as to whether Mr. Elkins introduced 
Mr. Sheridan to Clyde Crosby in connection with assisting him in 
getting reinstated on the liquor commission. Mr. Crosby denied Mr. 
Elkins had introduced them, or that Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Elkins had 
met with him in his office. Also, in his testimony, Mr. Crosby referred 
to Mr. Givens on another point at issue in conflict with the testimony. 

We were able to get in touch with the two immediately by telephone 
and get them here, and both of them supported Mr. Elkins, the testi- 
mony Mr. Elkins had given, and refuted what Mr. Crosby said about it. 

As to Governor Patterson, there is some question raised here about 
getting other witnesses. Let the Chair say now that it has been his 
purpose all the time, as soon as we can get through with the witnesses 
vve have here, to have a meeting of the committee and evaluate the 
situation as to Avhere we stand as of now, and let any member of the 
committee make suggestions, and the committee decide what other 
festimony then it needed. 

I said there would probably be some loose ends to pick up when we 
got through at some future date. But on all of these matters, the 
(Jhair may assure members of the committee, and all of those inter- 
ested, that they will all be weighed as soon as we can get through 
with this series of hearings, and undertake to bring in those witnesses 
i hat the committee feels are necessary to make it a proper and correct 
record of these proceedings. 

Senator Neuberger. Mr. Chairman, just so the record will be accu- 
rate, can I ask the counsel a question for information purposes? 

The Chairman. Yes, indeed. 

Senator Neuberger. The incident I had reference to was wluit I 
r-ead in the press about the so-called Sheridan episode regarding, I 
ihink, his reinstatement, and it was questioned in public statements 
I i I ade in Oregon by Mr. Phil Joss, I bel ie ve, and by Mr. Terry. I think 
I hat those are the names, 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that is true. 



1044 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Neubp^rger. Was that episode related to your committee and 
brought before your committee by Mr. Morgan or Mr. Elkins ? That 
is what I am not clear on. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Mr. Elkins testitied that he had brought Mr. Sheri- 
dan to see Mr. Crosby, and that ultimately Governor Patterson put 
Mr. Sheridan back into the employ of the liquor commission after he 
had had a civil service hearing. After he made that statement, I un- 
derstand it was refuted in the papei-s, that Mr. Elkins had arranged 
for Mr. Sheridan to meet Mr. Crosby and that that was the way that 
Mr. Sheridan got back as an employee. 

Mr. Crosby, when he testified before the committee, denied it 
emphatically, and said that was untrue. We then brought Mr. Sheri- 
dan back from the west coast, and he appeared before tlie committee, 
and he testified this was true. 

So I think that if there was anybody that would know about the 
incident, it would have been Mr. Sheridan. 

I think that that part was clarified. 

I think Mr. Morgan said that the investigation by Langley and 
Patterson of the liquor commission in 1954 was not a genuine investi- 
gation, and I think that there has been evidence that has come before 
the grand jury in Portland, Greg., in 1956, to show that that was true. 

Senator Neuberger. In fairness to Mr. Morgan, I think the record 
should show that it was not Mr. Morgan who brought the matter 
before your committee which was disputed by the secretary of the 
civil service commission. That is the only thing 1 felt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, since we are into this, let us get 
all the way into it. I think I still have the notes in my office that I 
took at the time Mr. Morgan testified, when he brought into the dis- 
cussion the name of Governor Patterson in connection with the liquor 
control commission and, in fact, he gave quite a story about an attor- 
ney general by the name of Thornton whom he said he was trying to 
urge to do something about the liquor commission activities in the 
State of Oregon, and that Governor Patterson was stopping him, was 
impeding him, and declining to appoint the attorneys necessary to 
do the job in that connection. 

Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, renew my request that we ask our rep- 
resentative in Oregon to talk to Mr. Morgan and ask him for an affi- 
davit detailing this information, which our committee did not elicit 
from him at the time, or, if he chooses to put some other light on it 
in the nature of retraction, he should be permitted to do that. I think 
when a Member of the Senate comes to us, and complains, and he cer- 
tainly did properly, about the implications which have been attached 
to the deceased Governor of the State of Oregon out of the testimony 
of Mr. Elkins and Mr. Morgan, we should do everything we can to 
clarify the record. 

We have done that insofar as Mr. Elkins is concerned by questioning 
him at great length. 

But we did not question Mr. Morgan. Consequently, so we can get 
something before us in executive session to weigh, I suggest we seek 
that kind of affidavit. 

Senator Neuberger. I would just like to say, inasmuch as you 
brought in the name of two people whom I know, we have a very fine 
attorney general in the State of Oregon, whose record for law enforce- 
ment is excellent, whose reputation for integrity is excellent, and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1045 

Mr. HoAvard Morgan's reputation for integrity and honesty is likewise 
excellent. 

The Chairman. The Chair will instruct the staff to get in touch 
with ]\[r. Morgan and see if they can get an affidavit which will clarify 
the record in any way. After it is received, if it is received, it will 
be weighed in executive session, and the committee will determine 
whether to place it in the record, or whether to recall Mr. Morgan 
for interrogation. 

Thank you again, sir. 

Senator Xeuberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr, Brewster. 

(Members present at this point: The chairman, Senators Ives, 
Mundt, and Gold water.) 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK W. BREWSTER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JERRY N. GRIFFIN AND JOHN K. PICKENS— Resumed 

The Chairman. I believe everyone remembers the orders of the 
Chair. The witness does not Avant pictures snapping in his face while 
he is testifying. 

Senator GoTdwater, you may proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Brewster, I have just a few quick ques- 
tions I Avould like to ask regarding your income in 1955. AVliat was 
vour salarv from the western conference? 

Mr. Brewster. $25,000. 

Senator Goldwater. And did you have an additional amount for 
expenses ? 

Mr. Brewstj:r. Wliatever expenses I incurred. 

Senator Goldwater. The total would be about $32,500? Some 
$6,000? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't know. I couldn't, answer that question. 

Senator Goldwater. From the partnership of Beck & Brewster, 
how much did you receive in that year ; do you know ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am just guessing. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask this. I have the figures 

Mr. Brewster. Around $4,000. 

Senator Goldwater. Around $3,100 ? 

Mr. Brewster. Probably that is it. 

Senator Goldwater. That partnership is a gas station? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir, it is. We have had it for 

Senator Goldwater. And from yom- stables, the Needham Stables ? 

Mr. Breavstp:r. Needmore Stables. 

Senator Goldwater. You do ? 

Mr, Brewster. Of everything. 

Senator Goldwater. About $790, roughly, income from that ? 

Mr. Brewster. If you have the figures, I presume they are right. I 
haven't them. 

Senator GoldWxVter. And then from stock dividends, would you 
say that your income was around $875 ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think possibly that is right. If you have it, I 
wouldn't 

Senator Goldwater. It is pretty hard for a man to remember de- 
tails of his income. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir, I haven't any of the data. 



1046 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. I merely want to get this established so that 
when I go into further questioning, I will not have to trouble you with 
minute details. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Your income from interest in that year was 
around $2,000, that is, from bonds and other investments that would 
produce interest income ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think you have interest that you paid out confused 
with interest that I got in. 

Senator Goldwater. No, that is not that. 

Mr. Brewster. I can't give you any information. 

Senator Goldwater. Then sales of miscellaneous stocks and bonds, 
and income of about $500 ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think that is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Your total income, before deductions, was 
about $39,000, or maybe $40,000, around $39,000 or $40,000 ? 

Mr. Brewster. That could possibly be. 

Senator Goldwater. Then you reported a loss on your stable that 
year of a little in excess of $1,000 ? 

Mr. Brewster. You are asking me questions that I do not know 
anything about. 

Senator Goldwai-er. Stables are costly things. 

Mr. Brewster. Sometimes they are more costly than others. 

Senator Goldwater. You get on pretty good if it was just $1,000. 

Then your other deductions, which would include some alimony, 
would total around $17,000 ? I do not have the details of those. 

Let me go further. I believe your total deductions that year would 
be around $18,000, leaving you a net income of around $22,000. Would 
that be approximately correct ? 

Mr. Brewster. I haven't the least idea, Senator. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster.. I am trying to follow you, and I wish I could, 
but I don't really know. If you have the figures, I wouldn't refute 
them. I would think they are right, if you got them fi'om the income- 
tax department. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not far wrong, am I, in assuming that 
your net income on which you reported was about $22,000 in 1955 ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir, that is possible. I am not sure. 

Senator Goldw^ater, You would not want to argue with those? 

Mr. Brewsi-er. No, sir, either way. 

Senator Goldwati:r. You cannot argue with the Federal income tax. 

Mr. Brewster. I am not trying to. I am not trying to argue with 
you. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. I just wanted to establish that, Mr. Counsel. 
That is all I have. 

(At this point, the chaiiman withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Ives. Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. I wonder if we can conclude the business of the 
morning, Mr. Brewster, as to whether your attorney could find any- 
thing in the constitution. 

Mr. Brewster. It is not of too much help, I think. 

Senator Mundt. Do the best you can. 

Mr. Brewster. I will do the best I can with tlie tools that I have. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1047 

(At this point, the chairman entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. When you do it, Mr. Brewster, you said you had 
two constitutions. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. I am referring fii-st to the constitution of the 
conference. 

Senator Mundt. Of the conference. That is the 

Mr. Brewster. The western conference. 

Senator Mundt. The one that you head. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead. 

Mr. Brewster. Section 4, 

The secretary-treasurer shall prepare a financial statement for the meeting of 
the conference. The secretary-treasurer shaU send the credentials of the 
organization not less than 60 days — 

That is just in holding a meeting — 

The executive board and duties and powers. Such powers, duties and authority 
as iire not otherwise delegated to the officers of the conference, shall be exercised, 
acted upon, and determined by the executive board. 

Tlie executive board, may I explain, is what we term as our policy 
committee. We have changed the wording of the executive board. 

The chairman shall have the power to call an executive board meeting when- 
ever he deems it necessary. A majority of the members of the executive board 
may call a board meeting upon written request to the chairman. Should any 
urgent matter arise that requires approval of the executive board, the chairman 
may poll the members of the board by telegram or telephone. Such action taken 
by the board shall have the same effect as if the board was in formal session. 

Senator Mundt. Now are you going to switch organizations? 

Mr. Brewsiter. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave that, is that all there is there now 
to safeguard the dues-paying member against the misuse of his funds, 
assuming — and I am not making any allegations — assuming that the 
top level should fall into improper hands ? That is the only protection 
he has ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is about it. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Now would you read the other constitution ? 

Mr. Brewster. Now from the international, which refers to con- 
ferences : 

Experience has demonstrated that conferences are beneficial to the inter- 
national union and its affiliates and should, therefore, be recognized as organic 
bodies within the international union. Therefore, conferences shall be organized 
on such geographical areas or trade divisions as the general executive board may 
direct ; that they shall be at all times subject to the supervision and control of 
the international union ; they shall function under the rules and bylaws laid 
down by the general executive board. The international union constitution shall 
supersede bylaws in the event of conflict. 

That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Is that all you can find there ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Senator ]\Iundt. That is all you can find to safeguard the indi- 
vidual union member ? 

Mr. Brewster. Of the local union ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think it might be well to have in the union 
constitutions, generally, a little more specific delineation of the safe- 
guards that a union member could expect for his money ? 



1048 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brewster. Can I consult my attorney ? 

Senator MuNDT. Yes. 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. At the present time, we have to stay within the 
objects of our so-called constitution of the western conference. But 
long before this committee was in session — in fact, Senator Goldwater 
asked me the question about the signature of checks, and I tried to 
offset some by the type or the way the checks are signed today. I have 
had our attorney already start. I have appointed a constitution com- 
mittee. It is meeting monthly. By June I would like to send you 
a copy of the revised constitution. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. That is encouraging. 

My questions are more or less impersonal at the time. But you 
will recall you said this morning that you were planning on coming 
out to South Dakota. I was afraid that if you had your way, there 
might be a lot of Republican Senators out oi a job and I might take 
up teamstering. If I take up teamstering, I imagine, to be much, 
of a success, I would have to belong to the union, and I would wonder 
what kind of safeguards I would have. 

Mr. Brewster. Senator Mundt, I personally vote for Republicans, 
and I recommend to my people to vote for Republicans. I introduced 
at a rally just before the election Congressman Pelly and that was 
the first time that I ever met him in my life. But 1 recommended 
to the group, and over the air to the people that were listening, that 
in my opinion he was the best man suited for the job in that district. 
I was one of few of labor that went that way. 

Senator Mundt. I was basing my observations on the critical pam- 
phlet we had before us this morning. 

Mr. Brewster. I think you and I could get along in your territory. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness a few questions about, 
first, the constitution he has been discussing. 

Is that constitution from which you have been quoting the ordinary 
type of constitution which unions have? Is it a regular union con- 
stitution, such as generall}' used or em]3loyed by organized labor and 
unions in organized labor ? Can you tell me that ? 

Mr. Brewster. Senator Ives, I cannot tell you that. Do you mean 
other unions 

Senator Ives. Unions generally. That is what I am talking about. 

Mr. Brewster. Unions generally ? I wouldn't know. 

Senator Ives. There are certain parts of it that sound rather fa- 
miliar to me. That is why I am Avondering. 

Mr. Brewster. I think in the first place it calls for a lot of revisions 
from the national down to tlie local group. 

Senator Ives. I think you are i-ight — I think it does, definitely. But 
I think, on the other hand, you will fuid, generally speaking, that tlie 
language you have there is similar to that now being used by most 
unions. 

Mr. Brewster. You are possibly right. I know, even in contracts, 
they copy one contract over to another that they present to the em- 
ployer. 



IMPROPER ACTRITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1049 

Senator Ives. In other words, the rank and file of union members 
are trusting their officials. They do not try to hold you down, or 
do not try to bind you ; they trust you. 

Mr. Brewster. That is true. 

Senator Ives. So it is up to you to live up to that trust, is it not? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

Senator Ives. One of the things you are supposed to do under that 
trust is to make annual reports to the Labor Department, the Secretary 
of Labor. Do you do that ? That is under Taft-Hartley. 

Mr. Brewster. In western conference, I don't think I have. 

Senator Ives. Why do you not ? I think every segment, every layer, 
has to. . fc J J J ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't believe that is so. 

Senator Ives. Are you sure about that ? 

Mr. Brewster. I have been advised by counsel that tliat isn't man- 
datory. I don't think it is spelled out there. 

Senator Ives. Only your international is the one that is supposed 
to file it; is that right? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

Senator Imes. ^V\\o is ? 

Mr. Brewster. Internationals and local unions. 

Senator Ives. Just locals and internationals ? 

Mr. Brewster. International, local unions, and joint councils. 

Senator Ives. I am advised by counsel, and I know something about 
It myself, that every segment has to report. I think you have had 
poor advice on that. 

Mr. Brewster. Can I ask you a question? Anybody, regardless of 
their affiliations and functions, Avhether they use Taft-Hartley or not? 

Senator Imiis. Where you are using union dues, in any way, shape, 
or manner, I think you have to make a report under the Taft-Hartley. 
That was the intent of Taft-Hartley. And I assume that is the way 
It is being administered. The whole idea was so that there would 
not be any misappropriation of funds, if it is possible to stop it that 
way, and I do not think it is. 

I think what is occurring here in this testimony we are getting shows 
that we are going to have to tighten things up. I think you will agree 
on that, if you listened to all of it, or have read any of it. You cer- 
tainly have no objection to tightening things up, have you? 

Mr. Brewster. You bet I have not. 

Senator Ives. I am gla.d to hear that. 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that tightening things up, I 
would like to ask you a question about this public relations fund, going 
back to that. You say that you have no idea of how that money was 
used, IS that correct ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They made no accounting to vou about the use of 
that money ? 

Mr. Brewster. They did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had a check here for $7,000, dated November 21, 
]9ol^ that went to the public relations division, which was signed 
lay Dave Back and Frank W. Brewster. The records of the public 
relations division of the bank show that that money was deposited 



1050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

on the 28th of November of 1951, and that the money was withdrawn 
on the 30th of November 1951. 

Can you give any explanation, if you sent that money down there 
to the public relations division, any explanation why it was withdrawn 
within 2 days? 

Mr. Brewster. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how that money, that $7,000, was used? 

Mr. Brewster. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear how that money was used? 

Mr. Brew^ster. Never have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever had any discussion about how that 
money was used? 

Mr". Brewster. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never made any inquiry to find out how any of 
that money was used ? 

Mr. Brewster. This is the first time I heard of it. How can I 
inquire ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You never heard about it before? 

Mr. Brewster. I never heard about it before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear about the fact that the moneys 
going to that public rela.tions division were being misused ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nathan W. Shefferaian of 433 Briar Place, was he 
doing any work for the Western Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't know whether he was or not. I have heard 
that he was at different intervals, and I also heard that he bought 
the furnishings a.nd so forth for a building. It is all hearsay. 

Wait a minute. Will you let me finish it, please? 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, Mr. Brewster. 

Mr. Brewster. I don't know where I even heard it, and I don't 
know who told me. but I just heard that he did furnish our building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, your building was not built in 1951, was it? 

Mr. Brewster. That building was not; no. The building that I 
refer to here w^as not. But that is 

Mr. Kennedy. During 1951, Mr. Nathan W. Sheft'erman was the 
public relations man for the Sears & Roebuck, was he not? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe that is what he called himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. The records show that that $7,000 check was de- 
posited on the 28th of November 1951, was withdrawn on the 30th 
of November 1951, and then was deposited in Mr. Nathan W. Sheffer- 
man's account, $7,000. It was deposited on November 29, 1951. 

Can you give any explanation as to why the Western Conference 
of Teamsters' $7,000 came down to the public relations account, went 
into the public relations account, stayed 2 days there and then was 
withdrawn and deposited in Nathan W. Shefferman's account ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think I explained this morning that I had nO' 
knowledge of the account in Los Angeles whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is $7,000. You signed the check. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes; but it — wait a minute. I know what I did, 
signing the check, but I didn't have anything to do with drawing the 
check out. My name is not on that check. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I am trying to find out is when you deposited 
$7,000 of union members' dues, and sent it down to the public relations 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1051 

division, I would think that you would have an interest as to how that 
money was being used. 

Mr. Brewster. I trusted the people in Los Angeles. 
Mr. Kennedy. Now we have this $5,000 check, August 2, 1951. It 
is a $5,000 check, August 2, 1951, signed by Dave Beck and Frank W. 
Brewster, paid to the order of the special account, public relations 
di\asion. It was deposited in that public relations division special ac- 
count on the 9th of August, $5,000 deposited on the 9th of August. 
On the 10th of August that money was withdrawn. Can you give 
any explanation as to why that money was withdrawn ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir; I cannot, because I wasn't down there. I 
wasn't a party to withdrawing the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. This check w^ent into the account of Nathan W. 
Shefferman on the 8th of August, and was charged out on the 10th 
of August. It was charged out on the public relations account on 
the 10th of August. Do you have any explanation for that? 
( Tlie witness conferred winth his counsel. ) 

Mr. Brewster. I didn't have anything to do with making the check 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why Mr. Nathan W. Shefferman woidd 
receive those moneys ? 
Mr. Brewster. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what work he was doing for the pub- 
lic relations division at that time in Los Angeles ? 
Mr. Brewster. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any money come out of the Western Confer- 
ence of Teamsters to Mr. Shefferman ? 

Mr. Brewster. There might have been some. I know since 1952 
there has not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any moneys prior to 1952 ? 
Mr. Brewster. 1952? There could have been some. 
Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Shefferman doing any work for the team- 
sters at that time ? 

Mr. Brewster. He would come out to the conference as a labor- 
management authority and make a speech at our conference, up until 
I became chairman. I had heard all of his speeches so many times 
that when I became chairman, I didn't see any need of having another. 
And he could have been paid for his expenses and probably some 
salary for attending those conferences that we held annually. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was responsible for inviting him to the con- 
ferences ? 

Mr. Brewster. The chairman, tlie same as I was responsible for 
not inviting him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the chairman at the time ? 
Mr. Brewster. Dave Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a close friend of Dave Beck ? 
Mr. Brewster. That I would not be a judge of. 
Mr. Kennedy. You never learned that or were told that? 
Mr. Breavster. I don't know what is a close friend. I don't know 
how you weigh those. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is a check of November 20, 1952, for $2,068.27, 
sioned by Dave Beck and Frank W. Brewster, paid to the order of 
Nathan Shefferman. What were you doing paying him $2,068.27? 



1052 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grifp^ix. Mr. Chairman, before Ave go any further, we would 
like to look at those. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The Chair presents to you what appears to be a photostatic copy 
of a check dated November 20, 1952, Western Conference of Teamsters, 
signed Dave Beck and F. W. Brewster, on the Seattle Firet National 
Bank, check No. 5321. Tlie Chair presents the check to you and asks 
you to examine it and see if you identify it, recognize it, and explain it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. Is this microfilm ^ 

The CiiAiRMAX. Sir, I do not know. Can von identifv it, wnat 
itis? 

Mr. Kenxedy. Microfilm. 

The Chairman. Microfilm, the counsel says. 

Mr. Brew^ster. The only way that I can answer this 

The Chairman. Does that appear to be your signature ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is my signature. 

The Chair3ian. You recognize, too, the signature of Mr. Beck? 

Mr. Brewster. It looks like Mr. Beck's signature. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 65, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 65" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 1109.) 

Mr. Brewster. As I explained before, when I leave town I sign 
checks, and to my knowledge, to the best of my knowledge, that name 
Nathan Shefferman was not on there when I signed the check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean you signed the checks in blank ? 

Mr. Brewster. I do. I have already said that many times. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Dave Beck then could fill the name in to 
anybody he wished, and you would not know about it? 

Mr. Brewster. He could sign the name in ; yes. 

Senator Mux^dt. Let me ask you, Mr. Brewster. Do you and Dave 
Beck both sign checks in blank so that there will be checks signed by 
both of you without the name of the individual who is to receive the 
money being written in, or does just one of you sign it in blank? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir, Senator, either one or the other. 

Senator Mundt. You do not sign both at once ? 

Mr. Brewster. Not both sign at once ; no, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So either one or the other of you know that man's 
name before his signature was attached? 

Mr. Brew^ster. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And you say in this case it was not you ? 

Mr. Brewster. It was not me to the best of my knowledge. 

The Chairman. You signed most of the checks in blank, did you ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say that I would sign most of the checks 
in blank, but I signed a lot of checks in blank, if I would be gone for 
a week to 10 days, so that we could continue on doing business, mak- 
ing payrolls and so forth. 

Tlie Chairman. Mr. Brewster, these cliecks are union dues; are 
they not? They are derived from the source of union dues? 

Mr. Brewster. The source comes from union dues; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you, at the head of this western conference, 
covering 11 States, now are unable to account for these checks, Avhat 
theA' were for ; is that correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1053 

Mr. Brewster. That is correct, on this particular period. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, on this $7,000 check which was also 
made an exhibit this morning, it went into the public relations divi- 
sion special account on November 28, and the same amount was 
withdrawn on November 30, 1951. 

I presume that you do not know what happened to that money 
either ? 

(Tlie check referred to was marked "Exhibit 64'' and will be found 
in the appendix on p. 1108.) 

Mr. Brewster. I have already explained that, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. John Sweeney — was he signing checks in 
blank also, so that you could use them as you saw fit? 

Mr. Brewster. That would be done when Mr. Sweeney went out 
of town, and when I would go out of town I would sign them in blank 
so that he could make them out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has any of the money of the western conference 
been used to pay any of your personal bills, Mr. Brewster ? 

Mr. Brewster. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could it have been done without your knowledge? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that your answer is no money 

Mr. Brewster. No; my answer is not that I remember, and not to 
my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you would have to sign the checks, would you 
not? 

Mr. Brewster. I would have to sign the checks, and they could have 
been made out, even by Mr. Sweeney telling the bookkeeper to make 
out a certain check. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean it would be Mr. Sweeney's fault if your 
personal bills were paid with western conference funds, is that right? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't know whose fault it would be. It would 
probably be 

The Chairman. Who has the responsibility, Mr. Brewster? 

Mr. Brewster. I think the most of the responsibility is vested in 
the chairman, myself. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these are all union members' dues that you were 
using ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is the same question that you asked. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever pay for the transportation of Mr. Mel 
Eisen, a race horse jockey, or a race horse trainer? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason was that, western conference 
moneys used to pay for the transportation of Mel Eisen ? 

Mr. Brewster. He could not get the reservation out and I told my 
secretary to get those two reservations and I intended to see that I 
would pay for them later. 

Mr. Kennedy. During what period of time was that, that you did 
that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. I do not recall how long ago it was. 



1054 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it happen on more than one occasion? 

Mr. Brewster. It might have happened on more than one. 

Mr. Kennedy. That the Western Conference of Teamsters was 
paying for the transportation of Mel Eisen ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what about Mr. Richard Cavallero, a race- 
horse jockey ? Did the Western Conference of Teamsters pay for his 
transportation ? 

Mr. Brewster. At one time. They were together, and that is the 
one that I referred to at first. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could that have happened on more than one oc- 
casion ? 

Mr. Brewster. It might possibly have happened, but not any more 
than one more, or something like that. I don't remember that it 
ever happened before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that that is a proper use for union 
funds, for union dues to be used to pay 

Mr. Brewster. I felt 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you wait until I finish — transportation of a 
racehorse trainer and a jockey? 

Mr. Brewster. With the intent to pay it back; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay it back ? 

Mr. Brewster. I haven't as to date. 

The Chairman. What was that? 

Mr. Brewster. I have not paid it back yet. 

The Chairman. Have you any record in the teamsters conference 
showing that you owe the teamsters conference that money ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir: but I am making an audit to see. 

The Chairman. You are making what? 

Mr. Brewsteij. An audit to see. 

The Chairman. An audit? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How can you audit when the records are gone ? 

Mr. Brewster. This happened, Mr. Senator, when the records 
were not gone. 

The Chairman. You have the records? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long ago has it been ? 

Mr. Brewster. It has been in the last — well, since I was chairman, 
which was 1953. 

The Chairman. It has been since 1953 some time ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Can you fix the date any nearer than that? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir; I cannot. 

The Chairman. You have never troubled to pay it back ? 

Mr. Brewster. No; but I intend to. 

The Chairman. Do you think you will now ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. I have already made arrangements 

The Chairman. To pay it back? 

Mr. Brewster. Wait a minute, please — to have a man come in, and 
I hired him last October, and his job finishes up the 1st of April, and 
I intend to have him check every detailed report of any expenditures 
that there is of every record that we have to see if there has been any 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1055 

money that lias been expended in that manner, either carelessly or 
otherwise. I will make a full account of it, and I will so turn it 
over to the committee. 

The Chairman. This is a little strange. It has taken from last 
October until now to check up to find out how much you owe the 
teamsters conference ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir; it hasn't, because I haven't been able to hire 
the man that I wanted to put on the job to make a thorough audit. 

Mr. Kennedy. We would be glad to do it for you. 

Mr. Brewster. If you will give us the records back, we will be 
glad to do it ourselves. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this, Mr. Brewster. You occupy 
a pretty high position of trust 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In the labor union movement, and certainly for 
the teamsters union. 

Do you think that sort of conduct on your part is such as to recom- 
mend you to the esteem and confidence of the men who work, who pay 
the dues ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say it was too good. 

The Chairman. I would not think so, either. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than for transportation of the trainer and 
the jockey, did you pay for any of their hotel bills ? 

First, let me ask you: On how many occasions do you think that 
you paid for the transportation of Mr. Eisen? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think that there is over that one, and I don't 
know of an other, offhand. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your Rita Marie Prasch says : 
During the time I woi'ked for the Western Conference of Teamsters— 
and this is in an affidavit that was put into the record — 

I was Instructed on a few occasions to arrange for transportation for Mel 

iiiisen. 

Will you assist us by telling us on how many occasions Mel Eisen 
was transported at union expense ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't recall any others. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just recall one? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for Richard Caivallero 

Mr. Brewster. At the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. A racehorse jockey, you can only remember one time 
for that, too ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How is the auditor going to be able to tell about how 
many times Mel Eisen was transported at union expense, if it was on 
your travel card ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe auditors probably can tell, if they have the 
records. I will say this, that since 1952 all the records are intact. 
That is for certain. Or, rather, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. This happened back in 1953, as I understood what 
you said. 

Mr. Brewster. I said it was in 1953 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is what you said. 



1056 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brewster. No; I didn't say that. I said — wait a minute, 
I think I said that since I have been on, since I went on in 1953, 
I think I made that statement. I didn't make a statement that this was 
back in there. Rita Prasch did not work in 1953 for the union at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of the girl before Rita Prasch ? 

Mr. Brewster. Rita Prasch ? It was Ann Nielson. 

Mr. Kennedy. >Vnn Nielson ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVas she ever ordered to buy any tickets ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't remember any. 

Mr. Kennedy, You do not remember any ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it possible that she was ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wouldn't say that it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about hotel bills ? Have you ever used western 
conference funds to pay the hotel bills of any racehorse jockeys or 
trainers ? 

Mr. Brewster. I do not recollect any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it is possible that you would have ? 

Mr. Brewster. It is possible, with the same understanding that I 
would pick the check up later. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would pick the check up. Did you ever pay 
back to the Western Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Brewster. I haven't ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How is the auditor going to lind these things ? 

Mr. Brewster. Probably the same way you did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What if you have it listed under "Organizational 
expenses," for instance ? 

Mr. Brewster. If I had that, it would have been listed under there, 
I wouldn't put the name down. 

The Chairman. Who is going to pay for this auditor ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am. 

The Chairman. Not the teamsters union ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The ChairjMAn. I think that will be refreshing news. 

All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that you are looking for an auditor ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. I have already hired an auditor. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is just getting ready to go to work ? 

Mv. Brewster. Yes, as soon as I can get the re<?ords back. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his name ? 

Mr. Brewster. I wish to witlihold it, because he has a job now of 
importance, and his job isn't up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you submit it to us in executive session or 
submit it to us 

Mr. Brewster. I will submit it to you when he goes to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not hired him yet? 

Mr. Brewster. I would rather not submit it in executive session. 
I don't think that is 

The Chairman. Let the Chair get straight on this a moment. 
You have the name of someone who is connected with this in what way ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was the name of the auditor. It is not that im- 
portant. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1057 

The Chair^iax. The name of the auditor that lie was iroinjr to 
employ. *" ^ 

And you have not yet employed him ? 
Mr. Brewster. That is ri^ht. 
The Chair:max. All ri^ht. 

Mr. Brewster. Can I say further on this auditor, for this particular 
work 1 am ^omcr to pay for, but he is joiner on the payroll of the 
western conference to make thorough audits in the entire 11 Western 
states and we are goin^ to amend that by the constitution so that 
he will have the authority to do that from the constitution in June. 

Ihe Chairman. I may have misunderstood you. I thought vou 
ordered this audit or arranjtred for it last October ^ 
Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

The Chairman. About 6 months later, nearly, is it not ? 
Mr- Brewster. His job did not expire until then. 
The Chairman. I do not quite understand. I thought you told me 
that you arranged for this audit last October. 

Mr. Brewster. I arranged for an auditor to come to work on April 1, 
oenator. ^ ' 

The Chairman. You arranged last October for an auditor to start 
work April 1 ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is all I asked. I am trying to understand. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, that is right. 

The Chairman. He is going to do the general audits of all of the 
conference, of the Western Teamsters Conference books, covering the 
11 States? ^ 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. He is going to see that they are audited. 
He can t do it all himself, no, sir. But he is going to be head of a 
division that I am going to create and develop in our constitution in 
the 11 Western States. 

The Chairman. He is going to do that later. 

AVell, let me see. How are we going to determine what part of that 
audit you should pay for and find out how much you owe, and how 
much the teamsters will pay for? 

Mr. Brewster. By the actual time he will put in looking for what 
he IS looking for for me. 

The Chairman. You may have some formula by which you could 
determine it, but it still seems a little strange to me that you have to 
have an audit made to find out how much you owe the teamsters 
conference for bills dating back some years. If that is the way the 
record is, and you want to leave it that wav, of course, the Chair will 
not pursue it any further. 

Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Brewster, this is just an observation, and 
you might consider it a suggestion from an interested bystander. 
When you are having this audit made, would it be improper to de- 
termine what the individual union members dues would be if the 
money went to purely union functions and not to personal notes, 
turf clubs, jockeys, public relation firms, Cadillacs, and political con- 
tributions? In other words, instead of $5 a quarter, approximately, 
or $68 a year, being assessed from these workers who are members 

80330 O— 57— pt. 3 20 



1058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of the teamsters union, what could you run that union for if the 
money just went for purely union functions? 

Mr. Brewster. "Well, when you break it down and take the political 
situation involved, it would probably be pretty hard to estimate. I 
don't think it would cut it down too much. I don't think that local 
unions — or, I mean, an organization of this type — could function with 
the control that they couldn't do hardly anything. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not talking about that. I am talking 
about the fact — well, not the fact. I would like to know what por- 
tion of $5.25 goes to things that are not in any way at all related to 
the operation of a union, like horse tracks and jockeys, Cadillacs, 
public relations firms, political contributions that are a little bit on 
the high side. In other words, what can these teamsters of your 
expect to pay in dues after this audit is made and they know honestly 
what is going to get them better wages and better working conditions, 
which is the basic function of a union ? 

Mr. Brewster. I do not believe that they would be cut any, but that 
money would be diverted for, probably, radio time, television, and 
public welfare, or in some other way. I do not believe that the dues 
are too high. 

Senator Goldwater. You will have to admit, though, that there is 
some reason for having the existence in the minds of your members the 
idea that maybe their dues are too high, that they are buying an aAvful 
lot of frosting for the cake they are getting? 

Mr. Brewster. All of the dues have been increased by the member- 
ship voting on them. 

Senator Goldwater. I know that. I know that the membership as 
a whole is not too pleased about it. But just as a suggestion, in the 
course of making your audit, I think your members would be vei-y 
interested in knowing what goes for pure labor union ])urposes, and 
Avhat goes for the extraneous purposes that we have been disclosing and 
will disclose in the course of these hearings. 

Mr. Brewster. Senator Goldwater, I think if we just cut organiz- 
tions down to where some people would like to have them cut down, we 
wouldn't amount to too much. I have never, myself, at least in my 
thoughts and in my mind, tried to connive and contribute anything for 
myself. I wind up, and I will give you a financial statement when this 
is finished, and show you that I am not anywhere near a wealthy man. 
I believe that the wages, working conditions, health and welfare that 
we have built up in the 11 Western States, has been a bargain for what 
dues the membership ])aid for tliose results. 

Senator Goldwater. I think that the membership Avill agree with 
you. I think that the general public would agree with you, if these 
disclosures had not been made. The records show, which you do not 
deny, that there are personal notes that are not paid, that some of this 
money has gone to jockey clubs, to horse clubs, and to horse breeder 
associations. I cannot relate tliat, for instance, to higher wages and 
better working conditions. 

I recognize in your statement tlie indictment that is being returned 
against some of the members of this committee and others who are 
interested primarily in what the working man gets for his union dues, 
not what the union officials get out of those dues. "We are not trying to 
destroy unions, or weaken unions. "We are trying to make them strong- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1059 

er by eliimnating these kinds of malpractices that are goiii^ on in 




Sen- 
^ood 

jockey clubs, and so forth. People that I kiiow 'like* to^Jro^them and 
they know that I own horses and thev ask for tickets and a seat The 
( adillac cars that you refer to, I have let employers use them as much 
or more than I have. 

Senator GoLDWATEK. We are not here to criticize or defend or con- 
denm employers. We are here to find out what has been iroincr on in 
your unions. •" 

The profit from some of these horse ventures, for instance, would 
that take care of the tickets that these people seem to have to have in 
Drder for you to «:et higher wages and better working conditions for 
your men ? ^ 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think that it will be— I think that what you 
are talking about is infinitestimal. I think it is very, very small 

Senator Goldwater. The figures I have seen this morning, and I 
do not think we have begun to stick our nose under the carpet, thev 
are not small in my judgment of big and small. In fact, thev are 
pretty doggone big. 

I would be interested in finding out if an organization that I be- 
longed to, for the pure purposes of bettering the lot of the merchant, 
3ud(lenly produced records that showed that the president, the vice 
president, and the officials, are in the horse business, and they are 
5pending money for extraneous subjects not related to the betterment 
)f the merchants of this country. I think that is exactly what you 
lave been doing. 

My suggestion is not to come to some conclusion regarding union 
lues that will weaken your position at the bargaining table, but to 
;oine to some conclusion for the benefit of your workers that w^ill 
ndicate that you can do the same job for them you have been doing, 
md still live without incurring the good will of horses and jockeys 
md other characters that live in the Western States. 

That is my whole interest in this. 

I suggest to you that in the course of your audit you come up with 
<ome figure that represents what you have been doing with this money 
)n tlie one side that is over and above and outside the bounds of 
3roi)er actions m relationship to labor management, and what you 
lave actually applied to the bargaining table. T think your members 
ire entitled to know. 

Senator Imss. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman^ Senator Ives. 

Senator Iatss. I would like to point out to Mr. Brewster, since talk- 
ng to him about the Taft-Hartley Act and the requirements for filing 
expenditure accounts, I have checked the act, and I find that you do 
lave to file that account, not only for the locals, but for all the inter- 
nediate organizations, including your western conference and all 
he rest, because the money comes from dues. 

I refer you to the Supreme Court decision on that, NLRB v. High- 
and Park ManufactuAng Coinpany in 1951. 

I think your people might want ito look it up. 



1060 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going to get 
this information that you are going to need for filing purposes. 

Mr. Bkewstkk. Will yon give me that case number, again, please? 

Senator Ives. Pardon? 

Mr, Brewster. Would you give me the case number again ? 

Senator Ives. NLRB v. Highland Park Manufacturing Company 
( (1951) 19 Labor Cases 6,827, H41, U. S. 322). 

How in the blazes name are you going to get this information ? 

Presumably, your records, from what you told us previously today, 
have been destroyed, or at least some of the most necessary ones have 
disappeared. i .^ ^ j 

Mr. Brewster. I am going to make a very good attempt, as good 
as I possiblv can. 

Senator Ives. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what instructions you are going 
to give your auditor, what he is sup])osed to be looking for? 

Mr. Brewster. No; I can't. He will probably ask me some. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are you getting the auditor for? 

Mr. Brewster. If he does, maybe I can help him. I don't know. 
He is an auditor, and I am not. , . <• > ^tti • -x 

Mr. Kennedy. What is it that you are looking torf What is if 
that you want to retain him 

Mr. Brewster. I am looking to see if in manner, shape, or form, 
there has been any of this money that has been diverted to me that 
should not have been diverted to me, '^'if^ it ^oxM go back where it 
belongs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why have you l)een diverting money i 

Mr. Brewster. It hasn't been— don't put it in the Avay I have been 
diverting it. It has been mishaifidled in the way that it was charged 
to the wrong account. 

The Chairman. Just one moment now. 

Mr. Brewster. Well, I had ^ 

The Chairman. Just one moutient now. I thought you were going 
to have a aeneral audit of all of tlie records of the conference for the 
benefit of the conference itself, f\nd then you were only going to pay 
such part as you just now referred to, to look up and see how much 
you owe. 

Mr. Brewster. That is what I stated. 

The Chairman. Is that the only purpose of this audit, to hnd out 
how much you owe the teamsters union ? 

Mr. P)REWS'raR. Oh, no. 

The Chairman. What is the other ])urpose? 

Mr. I^reavster. The other pur])()^e is just general, and that will have 
to be— before tliey could do this. Senator, 1 don't think you are 
following 

The Chairman. I have not been able to, exactly. 

(to ahead. . 

Mr. Brewstor. I am recommending, through rec<)mmendations ot 
our constitution, to have them changed, and then I will have informa- 
tion that I can ])resent to see that this individual that I have hire, 
will continue on setting up a form of keeping track of moneys in all 
areas in the 11 Western States. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1061 

The Chairman. Let me understand you {igain. 1 am trying: to fol- 
low yoM. Do you mean that you are ^oin<; to luive to have the con- 
stitution clian^ed before you can do that? 

Mr. Breavstek. Yes; I am. 

The Chairman. Well, I am asking. 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. I said that. I have no ri<rht, and I will 
also have to jro a little further, to chang^e the international consti- 
tution to ^et that authority in the 11 Western States. 

The (^HAiRMAN. You do not expect to oet that chanjie made by 
April 1 : do you ( 

Mr. Brewster. Not that part of it: no, sir. But it isn't lon<r ])e- 
tween April and June. 

That isn't funny. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was not laughing at you. It was just the state- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Let me see if I understand it. You cannot get 
this audit started until after the constitution is changed; is that true? 

Mr. Brewster. I cannot get it started, as far as the rest of the 
areas are concerned, until the constitution is changed; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, where can you start without the constitution 
being changed ? 

Mr. Brewster. At the western conference of teamsters. 

The Chairman. Well, the western conference of teamsters covers 
some 1 1 States ; does it not ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. It is just one fund. It is just one activity. 

The Chairman. I understood that the western conference of team- 
sters covers or embraces some 11 States. 

Mr. Brewster. It embraces some, but tlie financial part of it has 
nothing to do 

The Chairman. The financial part of it is all under your control 
right there in your office ; is it not ? 

Mr. Brewster. It is under control of the western conference of 
teamsters itself. 

The Chairman. It is all there in your office, is it not; your head- 
quarters? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have the authority to hire an auditor now; 
have you not ? 

Mr. Br?:wster. I am talking about two ditl'erent things. 

The Chairman. You must be. Here you have been owing some 
money here, and apparently it came oul: of the dues of union members, 
diverted to your use, to pay your jockeys" travel, and pay the hotel 
bills of your jockeys, and others. I do not think the union gets any 
money out of your ])rofits or horse racing. Does it ? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, they are helping to pay the expenses of it ; 
they have been. 

I am trying to get at when are you going to get an audit to deter- 
mine about how much vou owe the union. When are you going to get 
that started? 

Mr. Brewster. The 1st of April. 

The Chairman. You are going to get that one started the 1st of 
April? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 



1062 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. What is the other thing you are talking about you 
are going to get started ? 

Mr. Brewster. Xext following that, the western conference books 
generally are going to be audited. 

The Chairman. If you ^et the constitution changed? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You are going ahead in that without a change 
in the constitution? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

The Chairman. What is the change in the constitution? How is 
that going to have any impact upon these audits ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brewster. There are local unions and joint councils. 

The Chairman. You want the authority to go audit the local 
unions, too ? 

Mr. Brewster. And joint councils; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And joint councils? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Brewster. 1 think that that would be at least an improvement 
on what we have today. 

The Chairman. I am of the opinion that it would be, and heartily 
agree with you. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Senator Mundt. Could I understand, Mr. Brewster, that up until 
now there have been no audits taken of these funds under your juris- 
diction, and in the local unions that auditing is looked at with a jaun- 
diced eye, so you would need a constitutional amendment to make it 
possible ? 

Mr. Brewster. There have been internal audits by trustees of local 
unions and joint councils. 

Senator MrNDT. You are proposing now some kind of an inde- 
pendent audit agency; is that it? 

Mr. Brewster. In some instances, yes, and in some instances, no. 
There have been in some areas that they do it and some areas that they 
do not do it. They take the international audit, and they take the audit 
of their trustees, and present it to the membership. I do not believe 
it is sufficient. 

The Chairman. AVill you yield to me a moment ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

The Chairman. I would like to read from the constitution of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, 
and Helpers of America, section 9 : 

The freneral president shall employ an expert public accountant to audit the 
books of the general secretary-treasurer on the 1st of April. .July. October, and 
January. 

That is the international. 

This is also the international ; this is as of August 15, 1957. What 
is the date of the first one? 

Mr. Griffin. Mr. Chairman, what article and what page are you 
reading from, please, sir ? 

The Chairman. I was reading from page 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any extra copies of the constitution? 

Mr. Griffin. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1063 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do you know wliere we can ^et them? 

Mr. Grieein. 1 do not. 

The Chairman. I read from pa^e 21, section 9. 

Mr. Grieein. Thank yon, Senator. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : Do you maintain 
that you do not have authority now, the international does not have 
authority, to audit the books of any local or any conference or any 
joint council ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

^fr. Brewster. Can I explain it a little bit? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brewster. I was secretary-treasurer of a local union for many 
3^ears. I felt that up until 1958 that the audit of the international 
was a complete audit of the books and records. I think you will find 
since 1958 that the auditor since has audited the books for per capita 
tax, initiation fee, et/etera, of what the international is owed, period. 

The Chairman. He does not audit the expenditures? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not have that authority now under the in- 
ternational constitution to audit the expenditures? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe they have the authority, but I am just tell- 
ing you of what has been done. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Brewster. Not the western conference. The international. 

The Chairman. All right. They do have the authority to audit, 
the international does, but you are saying that it has not been the 
practice to do it? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. The western conference does not 
have that authority. 

The Chairman. What does the western conference constitution say 
about audits? 

Mr. Brewster. The books of the local unions ? 

The Chairman. No; to have an audit made of its own books? 

Mr. Brewster. It says that tliere shall be an audit. 

The Chairman. You can hire public-relations people to promote the 
good of the organization. Under the same constitution, can you not 
hire an independent auditor to check and see if your funds are being 
properly expended and your records properly kept ? 

Mr. Brewster. I believe so. 

The Chairman. I think you could. So you do not need a change in 
the constitution to do it : do you ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am broadening the thing, to not only confine it to 
the western conference. That seems to be the only thing that is prob- 
ably on the agenda today. But tliis is going further than that. It is 
going into joint councils, local unions, et cetera. If I can be of some 
assistance, I would like to do it. If the committee does not want me to, 
that it all right, too. 

The Chairman. The international can do it now, 

Mr. Brewster, The international has not done it and the interna- 
tional has — I do not know what protection or what legal advice they 
got, but I know this— that in the last 4 years the only way that an 
auditor signs is that the books have been audited for per capita tax, 
initiation fee, and any other money that the international has coming. 



1064 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You are leaving the impression here tliat they only 
audit to see if they got all of the money out of the union's paying 
members that they should have gotten out of them. 

Mr. Brewster. Out of the local unions. 

The Chairman. Yes. But you are not auditing to see what is being 
done with the money ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Brewster. I think it could be construed that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. So I understand what this auditor is going to do to 
you personally ; what are you going to tell him ? Are you going to tell 
iiim — 

I want you to find out every time I diverted union funds — 

or what ? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't like the word 

Mr. Kennedy. You used it, Mr. Brewster. 

Mr. Brewster. Well, will you refrain from doing it? On every 
slip that I make, are you going to keep it up ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, slip back. 

Mr. Brewster. You know I am not an attorney. I am a layman. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did you do 

Mr. Brewster. I was a truckdriver by birth. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you want to describe what you did with 
union funds ? 

Mr. Brew^ster. I am going to ask the auditor to go into every phase 
of anything, as far as he is concerned, that he believes would not be 
an expense of the western conference. That probably wouldn't just 
include Frank Brewster. 

Mr. Kennedy. How is he ^oing to determine that ? 

Mr. Brewster. AYell, auditors, I believe, know how to do that. I 
know that you have got auditors around and doing these things. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, what if you have $500 listed on your 
books as organizational expenses, and actually somebody has stuck 
that in their pocket, and it was 3 years ago ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am certainly going to be able to explain that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How can you explain? What is this auditor going 
to be looking for ? 

Mr. Brewster. The auditor and I will come out that that will be 
explained. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to go sit down with him and explain 
every item ? 

Mr. Brewster. I am going to have him audit the books, and then he 
is going to ask me all of the questions, probably as many or more 
than you are asking me today, and I am going to work with him. I 
will have the books in front of me, and refresh my memory, and so 
forth, and see if I cannot get somewhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wouldn't be able to have an audit for prior to 
1954. 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. "^^Hiat are you going to do to repay the union for the 
money that you — whatever words you want to use — prior to 1954? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think that there is any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you just start in 1954 ? 

Mr. Brewster. Did I just start? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1065 

Mr, Kennedy. Did yon just start using the money to pay your own 
personal bills or pay your jockey or your trainer; did you just start 
that in 1954? 

Mr. Brewster. That is a very, very small amount, and I don't even 
know what you are talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money is involved ? 

Mr. Brewster. I really don't know. I don't think it is very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you know it is small ? 

Mr. Brewster. Because I don't think that it has been abused too 
much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to have him check back, for instance, 
into tliese transactions in 1951 where this money went down into the 
public-relations account and then came out of it? 

Mr. Brewster. No, sir; I am not, because I don't think that I had 
anything to do with that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed the check that sent the money down 
there ? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that was 

Mr. Brewster. Wait a minute again. That went into another fund, 
and, absolutely, I had no control, no conception, of that fund, and it 
hasn't been the practice, and I don't think it will be, to keep on check- 
ing to see just exactly what they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: Was it possible, and is it pos- 
sible, for a high union official to set up a fictitious organization and 
keep sending money down to this fictitious teamster organization and 
then take the money out of there and use it for liis own personal 
benefit ? 

Mr. Brewster. I have never heard of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what happened ? Dave Beck sug- 
gested this organization be set up, the public-relations council. 

Mr. Brewster. I didn't say that Dave Beck did. I said it was pos- 
sible that he could have, or possible that the Los Angeles area could 
have asked for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said he appeared at the meeting and made a 
suggestion that this public-relations council be set up. That is what 
you said, and you saicl that you went along with him. 

Mr. Brewster. I said, to my recollection, or it could have been — 
let me finish it — it could have been that the request came in from the 
Los Angeles area that they needed some publicity down there and 
to ask the western conference for money to carry it on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dave Beck was the one that proposed this at the 
meeting. That is what you stated this morning. 

Mr. Brewster. I said to the best of my knowledge, I remembered 
that pai-t of it, but it could have been the other way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me see if this is what happens : A public-rela- 
tions account is set up, and money is then sent to that public-relations 
account, on checks signed by you and Dave Beck, and within 2 or 3 
days that money is witlidrawn and sent to Nate Shefferman, who is 
a friend of Dave Beck's. You give us any explanation of that that 
you can. That is thousands and thousands of dollars of union mem- 
bers" dues. 

Are you going to have your auditor look that over? 

Mr. Brewster. Haven't I already testified on that ? 



1066 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you jjoin^ to have your auditor look that over? 

Mr. Brewster. Am I going to testify on that over again? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me this: Are you going to have your 
auditor look that over? 

Mr. Brewster. Please, I don't want to argue. I think I testified 
how that happened. 

The Chairman. Mr. Brewster, you have been asked a question : Are 
you going to have your auditor look into these checks that went to 
that public-relations fund totaling thousands of dollars? You can 
{inswer whether you are going to or not going to. That is all he 
asked. 

Mr. Brewster. T said "No." I said that that would probably come 
under the category of the organizing in that area there. 

Mr. Kennedy. The answer to the question is that you are not going 
to have the auditor look into that matter? 

Mr. Brewster. No. I have answered it already. No, 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not ? 

Mr. Brewster. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you think it would be of interest to the mem- 
bers of the teamsters union who have paid moneys into the Western 
Conference of Teamsters to find out if that was a proper use of money ? 

Mr. Brewster. I told you that we did not have the authority. 

Mr. Kennedy. But get the authority. You don't want to get the 
authority ? 

Mr. Brewster. When we get the authority — let me say this: Some 
people might think that this is a one-man organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Brewster. Possibly you do. But I have a board of 3;^ people 
and they will judge what is going to be done, and they will also 
appoint themselves and ballot themselves, and elect, a finance com- 
mittee; that is what I am going to set up. If they feel in their own 
judgment that that is one of the things they should look into, they 
absolutely will, and I think they probably will look into everything, 

Mr. Kennedy. So you think it is possible they will look into that ? 

Mr. Brewster, It is possible. 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. If that money was used to pay any teamster official's 
bills, will you try to get that money returned from him ? 

Mr. Brewsi-er. I most certainly will. 

Mr. Kennedy, And you will take action against him? 

Mr. Brewster. Absolutely. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it is brought out at this hearing that that money 
Avas used to pay any teamster official's bills, you will take action 
against that teamster official ? 

Mr. Brewster. To get the money back ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You will. Now, just in connection with Mr. Shef- 
ferman. do you know why they would send money to Chicago to a 
public-relations man working for Sears, Roebuck, in Chicago, a 
})ub]ic-relations counsel in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Brewster. You are askin"- me to speculate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't it interest you? 

Mr. Brewster. Yes, it does, but not from the point of s])eculation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1067 

Ml-. Kexxedy. Tell me this : Doesn't it interest you so much that you 
are ^oin<r to try to find out about that in the next few days, to find 
out if that money was misused ( 

Mr. l^KEWSTER. I don't think that is possible in the next few days. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Breavstek. I don't think — I have some of my own stuff to fix up 
in the next 2 or o days. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Brewster a few questions in 
line with the previous question we had over reporting. 

Does the Western Conference negotiate any contracts or do any 
collective bargaining of any kind? 

Mr. Brewster. Senator Ives, not in the category of absolutely nego- 
tiating. They assist. 

Senator Ives. They are in kind of a twilight zone; are they not? 

Mr. Brewster. I don't think so. I think they are quite a bright spot. 

Senator Ives. What I mean is that their role is sort of a neither here 
nor there. You say they assist, but they do not. 

Mr. Brewster. Let me put it this way : If we are called in by local 
unions, which we are, all the time, to aid and assist — in other words, 
we might have some employers that I know personally, and if I can 
come down and talk to them and get a couj^le of them off to one side, 
and if the}' are not very far apart, I can bring them together. 

That is what I term as ''aiding and assisting." We do that very, 
very often, I believe we have a minimum 

Senator Ives. They do participate, then, in collective bargaining? 

Mr. Brewster. Well, from the standpoint of getting people to- 
gether. 

Well, possibly you have a point there. Both sides, even if I sug- 
gested something, could tell me that it wasn't any of my business, and 
1 couldn't make it my business. 

Senator Ives. I understand. I wanted to find out what their role 
was in that field. 

The next question is what is the role with respect to that particular 
field where the joint council is concerned ? 

Mr. Brewster. The joint council over a local union ? 

Senator Ives. Do they do any bargaining of any kind? Do they 
have anything to do with contracts of any kind ? 

Mr. Brewster. They are practically in the same thing. 

Senator Ives. They sit in and advise and help them ; is that right ? 

Mr. Brewster. That is right. 

Senator Ives. In other words, they are a party to it? 

Mr. Brewster. Well, they are, in some degree, I imagine. 

Senator Ives. The reason I am saying this is because I was not satis- 
fied with the ruling I found here on this legal question which I gave 
you. I checked with the Labor Department in the meantime to find 
out how they have been construing it. They have reached the conclu- 
sion temporarily, I understand, that you are not required, that is, your 
conference is not required, nor is the joint council, as I understand it, 
to make financial accountings to the Labor Department, but it is in a 
twilight zone that they are not sure about. 

They do not know where they are. That is why I am asking you 
about this negotiating. If you are negotiating contracts, if you are in 



1068 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

that field of collective bargaining, presumably you should be reporting 
for any part of it. But I think you probably are m the clear on that. 

I do not want to leave any false impression around here. Your 
statement itself says that you negotiate, and you admit that. 

Mr. Brewster. 1 thought somebody was going to ask me that. 

In fact, I have no authority to say that this would be it or anything 
like that. It is on a local level, and all I do is aid and assist, and I 
believe that we have stopped strikes after strikes by that. 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater returned to the hearing.) 

Senator Ives. But you do act in the field of collective bargaining. 
That is what I am trying to bring out. 

Mr. Brewster. I think to a degree. 

Senator Ives. You are a party to it ? 

Mr. Brew^ster. I think so. 

Senator Ives. And as such, you should be reporting, whether the 
Labor Department construes it that way or not ? 

Mr. Brewster. That would probably be the safest. 

Senator Ives. I think you should. I say, from the records, I do 
not see how you can get out of making a report. But that is neither 
here nor there. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a suggestion for the committee to 
consider. We have hit a field here which is something which has to 
do with the finances of labor organizations, from local unions on up, 
and the dues that are paid. It is a question of policy itself. 

I think before we come to any conclusion ourselves with regard to 
this matter, we ought to have somebody up here representing the 
Labor Department to find out what the policy is and what they 
propose. I understand 6 or 7 confei'ences do file reports already. 

There is some question as to whether you should or not. In my 
judgment, because you are a part pf collective bargaining, you should, 
but tha^ does not mean that you have violated anything because you 
have not, a])parently. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to have the Secretary of Labor 
himself, and anybody else he wants; to bring with him, up here with 
us to find out exactly what the law ^requires. I think the Chairman 
of the NLRB also should be here. 

I think again and again we are going to run into this matter as 
our hearings progress, not only with this labor organization, but with 
others that may come before us. I think we should find out where 
we are. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives, the Chair will certainly, at any time 
the committee wants to, hear from the Secretary of Labor and from 
the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. 

We will have a meeting and have them testify before the committee. 
The Chair mav say, however — and I am not detracting from the 
authority of this committee: I think this committee definitely has 
the authority — that comes primarily, under the regular rules of the 
Senate, within the jurisdiction of the Government Operations] 
Committee. 

It was on that basis that the Government Operations Committee 
undertook to interrogate this witness and other witnesses quite some 
time ago, at which time this witness challenged the jurisdiction of | 
the committee and we were not able to go into it as fully as we hoped. 
But we did ask the Secretarv of Labor and the Chairman of the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1069 

National Labor Relations Board for reports, at which time they 
pointed out some of these difficulties to us. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I speak on that points I think 
it also applies to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, too. 
That is Avhy we are a combined jri'oup here in the select committee 
dealing with this subject. I think that is why properly it might 
come before us. 

The Chairman. It can. There is no question about it. It can come 
before us. Are there further questions i 

Mr. Kenntoy. Mr. (^hairman, I couldn't possibly finish. We have 
too many things to discuss. 

The Chairman. It is impossible to finish with this witness' testi- 
mony this afternoon, and I am advised that it would be impossible to 
finish by noon tomorrow. We have been working pretty hard this 
week, if we cannot finish by noon tomorrow, I see no reason in coming 
back here tomorrow. So when the committee recesses we will recess 
until 2 o'clock Monday afternoon. The present witness will be back 
at that time. 

Counsel Kennedy has a statement he wants to make. 

We are not in recess yet, so let us have order, please. The Chair was 
just announcing what the plans are when we do recess. 

Senator Mundt. I simply want to read into the record at this point 
section 3 of the authority of the select committee in line with the 
discussions we have had with Senator Ives : 

The select committee shall report to the Senate by January 21, 1958, inclusive, 
and shall, if deemed appropriate, include in its report specific legislative 
recommendations. 

So, in a way, the Senate did give us a mandate to make legislative 
recommendations. 

Mr. Griffin. Mr. Chairman, you have been very kind and consid- 
erate. Mr. Brewster needs to go to the west coast on business. He 
has been here for some period df time. Couldn't we put this hearing 
over until Tuesday morning ? 

The Chairman. All right, if it is an accommodation to the witness, 
and you request it. 

Mr. Brewster. I would appreciate it very much. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, then. Shall we have a meeting on 
Monday or should we go over to Tuesday ? 

All right ; the Chair will change his announcement, since the witness 
requested it, and it is an accommodation to him. We will resume with 
this witness next Tuesday at 10 o'clock. Before we recess Counsel 
Kennedv has a statement to make. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crosby's attorney had some 
affidavits that he wished to place in the record. That question is still 
before the committee. 

During the noon hour we examined the affidavits. I made one tele- 
])hone call to a Government employee and found that in one of the 
affidavits it was completely false and untrue, the statement that was 
made there. The affidavits in many cases, in several cases, are made 
by prostitutes. The affidavits refer to other prostitutes or statements 
or hearsay statements f i-om other prostitutes. 

In a number of cases, those prostitutes that are supposed to have 
made the statements are dead. 



1070 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chairman, we would like to have the opportunity of talking 
to the people, the individuals, who have made these affidavits, and 
interview them, as we have done in the past on any affidavits that are 
submitted. 

Our first study and perusal of them shows, at least in one case, they 
are absolutely false and untrue. We have asked Mr. Crosby for the 
addresses of these people that filled out the affidavits. 

The first one I notice here is listed as Kathleen Weeks, in care of 
the custody of the Portland police. I would like to point out that 
Kathleen Weeks, a prostitute, appeared on television the other night. 

I would like to say also on this question that these affidavits are 
supposed to be regarding Mr. Elkins being interested in prostitution. 
We had Helen Hardy, who appeared before this committee, and who 
had a house of prostitution in Portland for many years, who said 
that she never heard of Mr. Elkins being interested in prostitution. 
Ann Thompson, who is another madam from Seattle, and who is well 
known in the trade, also testified that she never heard of Mr. Elkins 
being interested in prostitution. 

The Chairman. The Chair might make this observation. 

I want the staff to pursue further the veracity and validity of these 
affidavits by making contacts with the affiants themselves, if possible 
to do so, and interrogate them. The matter of whether they will be 
admitted in the record will still be pending before the committee. 

The Chair would like to point out that it is not all important in 
this hearing whether Mr. Elkins ever engaged in the vice racket or 
prostitution. He has admitted about everything else in the book, so 
I do not see that even if he did, it is going to detract very much from 
the testimony that he has given, where it is actually corroborated by 
other witnesses. 

I am not goinc: to waste a lot of Government money running down a 
bunch of trash like that to any great extent. Wherever we can quickly 
ascertain about it, we will take some action to do it, in order to deter- 
mine whetlier these affidavits, any of them, or any part of them, should 
go into the record. 

I am not going to let this committee, and I know my colleagues on 
the committee acrree with me, be deterred and sidetracked and run- 
ning off into every little question about whether a man did this some- 
time or did that sometime. We are going to keep it on the track and 
drive toward our goal of finding out the truth in the charge of respon- 
sibility that the resolution establishing the committee has authorized 
and directed the committee to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could 1 also say on that that in the 
study we have made, we have found no evidence in the 3 or 4 months 
we have been on this case to show that Mr. Elkins has engaged in 
l^rostitution or that he is now presently or has been in the last few 
years in narcotics. 

The Chairman. Mr. Elkins has admitted his character, everything 
but those two things, and even if j^ou add those to them, I do not think 
it would be very devastating. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning. 

(Present at time of adjournment: The chairman and Senators Ives, 
Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m.. the select committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m., Tuesday, March 19, 1957.) 



APPENDIX 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit No. 46A 




^ 



\.i ,' John Sweeney, Jecr«tary- ii rector 
Western 'onference of Teajaatirs 
Seattle, Washin:tcn 

Jear Sir and rrothtr: 

The following a«o>ants have r>-er paic- 
No. 27 to Western "onference .•••ti' s-r 
at Saloa, Oregon. 

PIJKLTS (4) at >S0 a ■ 
'l'o» Maloney Phone 

h«l Abel sen Sxpens • 

fJeorqo Purvis i.xpens<» 



Walter W. Jn-.it; 



^^^':^rj: 



1071 



1072 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 46B 



WESTHtH CONnOUNCk OF ^lAMSTEXS 

"'he sum of $5 M ?. ^?; aaa : cts 

Aisn^N ^.FctfNCt or ts^msteks 
Seattle-First National Bank "^ ^ .-*:,.-*. ..- ^ . ■ ■ A- ^ . 



llATTU. WAJHIMCri 



-"-^- ^#- 






%Mf 6, 1955 



Mr. K. I. Itlk*»«ll, S«orBtu7 

J . T. Oo.neil of ?»«Bst«r» io. 37 
1C.?0 I. K. 3r^ Tunu* 

Portlwr. d 1?, Orsirca 

rwAr Sir iixi Bruth«ri 

l/:«l34i*<1 pl*«.»« find W««t«nn C<mf«r«ne« 3f ?MK«t«r* 
: ..-.■ i< . -^l Ln th« «aount of $3,ii26.57, r*vr«««ntiJ« 
r» lar L.r»«»<»n' tor •aoant* p*id by Joint Coi;r»oli 37 to 
«««ti>rrt Confarittw* r*p r «» T t%tiy« and ploksta at SaIcb. 



DONAU. MC iJOMiiiJ) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1073 

Exhibit No. 47 



o I « 



V.W eo 
t. O i 



ooa: 



1020 A', ssntrd Ave 
Par-tland 



Ui ST ^ 



V 



i -^ 






9330 O— 57— pt. 3- 



"^ ' .'■ '■ Branch 

^ NATfONAl p. 



Il/v ">"■ j l^,QOC.CO 



nNT JOUi.pXL OF T^ zrr ^ i^^< 7 



V. I -^ "^ fit 



if 



1074 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ExHiiUT No. 48 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1075 

Exhibit No. 48 — Continued 



>r cara in coapany 



;reem«nt at 
^^id Velfaj 



any r^- 



r conth 
-vided 



-3 -ire 1 



.lally agre«G zr.'iz. -rv .ss.^' i i ■. . -: i. - i."? Union 
'r»e operation ot only those aacnines duly lio«n8»d 
tiand and the State of Ongor. . 



1076 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 48 — Continued 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1077 

Exhibit No. 50 











OLYMPIC HOTEL 


Nj//W539 Y 

HpfOUNT NUHBER 

^ 67996 _' _' 

[).p.rtur.' 


TVIMST 


<^ 


^ 
^ 


5-]//- t.j^ %^i^ 


' 


(/ 






Uunlort b«r«b 
(ilrmplc Hot«l wi 
•ibl* for Viluablri 
Clithlag. «tr , uDi 
O.vo.ltm In ib» »ii 


na(m«d t 

1 not b« - 

MoDfj.^,:. 







3 6 ^ 1 

2 7^0 



1078 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 50 — Continued 



.<%Mf t.«r«i 






%%Wl'^m. ( 


""^^X -*^ ^ 


TJil'o 


4e'^\ 




. f- ---» «£l \ 


.M/CIYWINC I^Oltl 




^Jic sfArruE.Ki, 


■«<«<«. 


.■ .,»7*7* 


C"«»<if< C»fDfTJ 


BAU.DUE 


...uVf\toi 


* zm 


* l£5 


y.-' -^ »?« •«•* 


-«a * cm 






• an 


• 9J6 




* IS 


• llJl 




• 13 


• lL5b 




D* 414 


* r.3o 




• IM 






ia • olh 




-„,i • -- 


* iKl 


♦ ia.ll 


r.;-.5 mm 


• iXll 


• 25^ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1079 

ExHTiuT Xo. 5<) — ( 'ontimied 




KtTCW 000 TUMtTCDS 

wu QCNNT mr 

KATTU Wi*i 





\77» 


lli>JVi 


■ t. 


*^603 


ii'i 5 4, 


W 74 


? 9 ) 7 


t« '♦•i* 


•> «. 


♦ 7. V ♦ 4 


i:« ti 


4» »? 




.... - 


# 







^^7J^• ♦ 

3U 74 • 



341 42 

I « 4 4? 



1080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 50 — Coatinuecl 









' DtC17-S5 L'OISI 


• 2JD5 




. ^iCC17 55 icon ••«• 


• IJDC 




. ^.«t:i7^5 use •••• i« 


• 021 




. '* MC1755 MOtf •'•« 


. 060 




' Wtl$-55 -.'BUT 


• LI5 




. ^ ctcie55 :"tisT 


• L25 




^ KCiess f:r» 


D* 174 




. ** DCC:8 55 fvm ••'• 


. 7D0 




^ MCI 8 55 UiC •••• 1« 


• 021 




. '°,KC18 55 HM «•• 


• 420 




" KC1955 ««W 


• aj5 


A^ 


•vY-yg*^ 8tC1955 OiU. 




t*A 


-■' ,pVT*, 3 




/■7?1'?- 





N 



c n ^^ 



< n i 



2iJ5 «^1«5 LL -5'J 



* zaa^ 



9.86 
llJl 
1236 

njo 



28.71 
2836 

ooo 



• 1236 LL 

»" nJD iL 

AA 

AA 

* Wl AA 



■5C8 

-5:8 

-5C8 



- • 

-5:8 

-5C8 







'^.^^.. ^^^Sd^" 



'V 



CASH EXPENDITURES FOR MONTH C 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1081 

Ex HI HIT No. ~>2 





""' 








. - .~.. 






:'-J-<l*6A9 


9R 


% 


2 1 '3l^»4 


•Ok 


( 


i 7 ^.0 8 ^ 


•A 


1 


fc2*7»l 


au 


s 


9 9 «.0 fc J 


WffNCX«C 


\ 


2 7 2.fcf^. " 


ain 


"i 




«v 


\0 


2 £ 10 1 3 


"tr 


\? 


3 7 4,0 9 -^ 


T- 


IS 


'?7"..^4'» 


r. 


s 


1 i\4'iu 


• nt- 






ti 


, 


22&47i 


c 


\ i 


2 J. 79'. 


■»v. 


vS 


2^aot ^ 


tf 


*- 


? 1 -' ' « J 



? J 4 

v.. ■> 5 
:■< 390 

•'♦fcO 8 
543 
1.1 



^ M**JX» IH^, 



1082 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 52 — Continued 



%mm wrf Eftffgi or ti 



laiio 



I i M 



i« on* »o Rj«vis 

IS trv LAX UILTOM 
IT L« SrO IKCliTtK 
|« TVt YTT 3O0TT 

ic ocN >»tw pufwrt 

17 L« PtW STIVtM«eN 
It AM SCA yALONCY 

IT KA BOA iRcvrrcK 

IT rm »fA FKRVIS 

i« L«A »ro wrnTM 

Id ^w ■[« RJUVIi 

ift rat ocM pwvis 

IT tcA LAX tAisrrr 
i» yv« rtjc «©«rr 

14 YXt YVt ••MNRO. 
IT KA LAX IRCVaaK 
IT CKK SCA MmiS 

ta IXN ojrr hmmam 
IT arc L« •vviTCR 

|« PCDC SrO LOMMM 

16 KA sre svcwY 
IT UA sro vci 



<c\o 


2£32. 


0E£ % 


25a22 1 


mc ^ 


7a976 


m t 


1 «,705 


m \o 


64S 


«f v\ 


295, 524 


otc «• 


5 7 7.16 


•«» 1^ 


271.583 


1^1^ 


5 


l«f l\ 


1 5.726 


1*» tT 


224.81 ! 


1«»1» 


2 4.4 9 6 


l«« T» 


i'.SJ 


••V » 


t 4.422 


#»n 


293i,(»99 


«» tV 


t a664 


lOv \» 


22&t 46 


** s-« 


2^^o^5 


«c \ 


2> ^2 9 4 


«« \( 


2 1 6.0 7 7 


»c \ 


2 7 3.872 


MDv » 


2 2 7.90 2 


<» » 


2 2 7.90 3 



? ! 4J 3 

4 6j0 9 

4 6j0 9 

1 4A5 

4i} a 

24 15 I 

? 1 J a, 

65 03 4 
I 95 8 

53W9 
7 2j6e 

1 3 4J7 

6 6.1 
3430 

I 5 45 7 

15 5^3 

3 23 4 

7 5*0 
5-.4J5 

9 05 7 
9 05 7 



7.0 I 6.7 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1083 

Exhibit Xo. 53 



.COUNTING STUB 

Mor 26, 1933 



TO* MN.0liC7 0^92 

» rnstwrtM m.*o ass* 



rot ■•L'jiti 



TCAiSTtft BLO* ABSa 
)Z-.> N t 3RI- *irt 12 AT 



Ap, 26. 1953 






T0» t*LO»tT ft>^2 

1 fJ-ABSTES 9U&C ASSH 

rr 

1 6 k*) 

) 29 "Si. 



U At ^ 

TOM HAUONCT 

1020 N t 3RD *«e 






d 






Ton ■•Lnirr «5! 

» Tr.*«»Tei» BUBO *8«»l 

lOtO » t, SflD AVL it AT 



1084 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 53 — Continued 



ACCOUNTING STU> 



0» ••LOt'^T 4i^l 

ozy K t 5fU) A»t 12 At 

M 



■" i °" i 



---i 









1 



S«pt I-' ■,9.«.5 



k 


6 "49 


T 


39 K 




s 


5 00 

69 CU 
1?0 



■to* ■«U«>t>T 1707 

« TCAHSreO BL»<I ASS* 

1010 N fc 3R0 *»t 12 C» e 

"59 t 6 M9 
I 

T 71 06 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1085 

Exhibit No. r>3 — Continued 



■•» J7 t 9^ m 



1086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 54 



-TT18'-55 ' 

te. PORTIAND, 

'■i .'1,-:vy 


OR£ 


T ^ C 


■^ 


^ - 








"^/.^ . Ua 


i-i 




a 


'-^ 


. 









^ j|eCTlQ-5b ! 



'TC ' j (tc.i PORTLAND, ORE. 



T"- 






DC7CI.55 











' V '■' 


/'r'- 








I . 





..y / /r^7 



K£- 7// 6 



7*^ 



I 














r'^'/f 


.^^J7 i 


b/v. 






'T ' 




































IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1087 

Exhibit No. 54 — Continued 



£±55 _ 6 'OCT 25-55 ■ r -——-; 'Cr 25-55 T' i 

S.PORTLAND. OF. ,J„ 6 i ^J^ Q j 

^-^'1/7^ 7 Pp^f"-*!*-"!-^ ORE tc FOPTLOND* ORE. ! 









.2Ji_.„ 




1 






28-55 

PO; •: .-N 


: 61. 

D ORE 


r,. 



bLJ^/:^.1V,l/ .£3^ 



.^^ 



0CT3O-55 



0CT31-55 I 



(te; PORTLAND O't 



F'T 



L_._I. 



1088 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 54 — Coiitimied 



° 




. .n 


^^^^« 


';> ff- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1089 

Exhibit No. 55 




ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSE 



UOBFIa AKU COW-miBUTtOlli 






KXPKNSU 




vnmci i 


AMOCMT 


"ir.!- 


»0» WHAT PO-HPOST fMO 1 


1 AMooar 


. /Ota toenilli 
.¥. •'. Conina 

Ch«ri»» PtHMil 

R. M. Coiwell 
-Lio SBlth 

Ttaaatar'a Union 

D. Milton 


to 

40 

iO 

21SB 


, oa 1 

40 


1 
z 

.- z 
4 
5 
6 

7 


. B«a?or JBn«r»Tln« 

, Yot«r'i jBbtapl»t ^ 

. Il»itocr*t P«rt7 oiraaljLr j 

Cmpii^n literator* 

2arl Haima ani Aaaoaiataa 
Advertising 

Adv. Oregon jouxa*! 


1* iA-lw 

2£3^76 
££Q£.: 9fi 

109., 07 



•»»rovftl ttr tttwrtimm •! i 



: k> pniMMr noM • 






89330 O— 57— pt. 3 22 



1090 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 55 — Continued 



STATJt or ORBCON 



, «■ L»ngl»y Co«. for 
Leto* Im. l*n«ley, Tr***ttr«r of 

^wlo'cr BiBtrlot. Attorn«jr of MultaoiMix Couflty 



Muitnoman Covuit/, 



Lot-.' -. ---..-ley I ■ '■ '■: 






^ 



.1 fi 






II li 



,|;-.^«=.-' I ...5.p|«..j^ *'**"'''M';iii[^ i 






,, I 



, iti 



n:w;iii;i'! ••• •■ "■"'.•" ' ";. : '•;l!!!!;i; j 



;: i; = '.■>• 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1091 

Exhibit No. 'SX 










tiKivm WITHOUT lAeeAftt am moussreo to my in abvanci 




1092 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 56B 



e>-\ 



'?^'- /8; ^^-9 



STATEMENT 




OLYMPIC HOTEL 




2J0 EDDY STREET 




SaN PRa^,. 




2-. 




DATE . . ^ ..-^ 


"Z,^ 


BAT- 


mtM 


«Ji(lOUNT 




• Dy ♦<) D#t^ 







■; 




"'t'epHont 


- i- -m. 




ilt«ne# ____ 


- - 1 Zu. 



"3<?»1« 



H 



A 



STATRMKNT PATABLK ,' f 
WHKN BENOntKO 






It 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1093 

Exhibit No. r»6C 






Seattle-First National 




CO««NC| Of TlAAilSntS 







1094 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 57A 






1 



OLVNiriL ilOlL 






10 M 



N -ir 




^ ^ OLYMPIC HOTEL 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1095 

Exhibit No. 576 




1096 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



Exhibit No. 57B — Continued 



h'.':i(i(i 




I Out AN* PATAat« ' 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1097 

Exhibit No. 57B —Continued 






RAl nijF 



8.CC 
024 





• 8.l\ 




» 


* 0.Z4- 






• 0.30 


• 16.18 


■» 


• 8.c: 






* 0.24 


* 25.U2 


l*?V54 «* -•• 


• 8X0 




im29S4 use — ^ ' 


• 024 




imi^^u *w« •••• 


• flL15 


• SiAX 


■Ot30M ttol 


* U5 





mio^u mm • L20 • 35jB6 



W« mppfdmtm roar patronAg* and trgtt 
thMt o«r acrric* wilt oscrit tcf conrinuanc*. 



1098 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 57B — Continued 



1 4 ' 7 *rvy> ^^ 



. /' 



( 



-«. ? ^0 1 '• ■ R (^ 



9 5 8 5 ♦ 
47 92 • 



93 85 f->?07 



1^ 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1099 

Exhibit No. 570 









StATTLt-FiiMST National Bank - -ff^^^ST^i^^^-w,. 









-r-r/t --""^, A--fc';: 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1101 

Exhibit No. 59 






INIliM niE MO. 



1102 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 59 — Continued 



\ 



illL^l 



ms-n 



1'nlt.ed jl»t«- 



In lomj. 
thi» offur i>i pir 

mrnt'- ■ 



Ortifiialf of I'itlr 



Kftnarks: Ir 
this vehicle 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1103 

Exhibit No. 59 —Continued 



4 
•..-ill ■ 



1104 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 60 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1105 

Exhibit No. 61 



JSSO'O— 57— pt. 3 23 



f^Siffi; 



1106 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 62 



% l.«Tt.EV « J ►Sfl.'WL.^l * or Tf.A» 

.# - . «... Tea ir . *' ^ i"- 

The suaof S€ttOD»rlOQCt$ 



»k 



01; ^-ii^'-nT . 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1107 

Exhibit No. 63 



1 




'^.**i-v 1* r» \mntkks »_ 






<».Mt MATTlX IWMIIW TO I II 







1108 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 64 






4. 



.p^ 



^f»tS700C 



t *-»,•»,. < 






,5^,..^..., 
.^^ ^ 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1109 

Exhibit No. 65 



>• ^t 1 « ««*«*. 






•« - • 'V ■ F«wi Hatwmml 







BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05445 6676