(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"

%toMK^^3l5 




2 



Given By 



\ 

INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR^OR MANAGEMENT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



JUNE 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, JULY 16 AND 17, 1957 



PART 8 



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




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPBR AGTIVITIESiN THE 

LABOE OR MANMEMKNT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



JUNE 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, JULY 16 AND 17, 1&57 



PART 8 



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




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1957 



fl(«tr»n r\»WK lihturr 

Superintendent of IXxumetlts 

AUG 27 1957 



^Kl.KOT IX^MMITTKK OX IMVROrKU A^niVlTlF^ TX THE LABOR 01 
MANAOKMF.NT FIELD 

JOHN t. MOCI-KI.I.AX. Arkiu^ssss OfcMrirwvw 
IRVING M. IVKS. X>w \\>rk, Vhy r*««n»*« 
JOHN r KKNNKin". Msss!«<-hHS<>ttS KARl. K, MVXPT. So«th Dakv>t« 

^AM J, KUVIX, Jk,. Xv>rth OsTvxliii* KAKRY GOl.nWATKK. Ariron* 

TAT MoXAMARA, Mi<?hl3»n CARl. T, CVRTl^, Xefeni$k« 

Kv-rH Yorx* WatTj C*»</ Cl«r* 
XX 



CON 1^ E N T S 



BaKKRY and COXKIU'TIONKKY WoUKKltS I NTKHN .\TU)\' Ali liNUIN 

Pntre 

Appomiix --- 3121 

Tostiinonv of - 

HmitImv. AUvd - 272-t 

C arbonara, lVtor-_ -.. 2S1<1. ;U119 

C\H>por. Uonnan 2S;^(>, 2.^(U 

CVnIorti, Anthonv J 2riS2, 2(".0;?, 2l'.2r> 

Cross, Janus C." 278G, 2794, 2905, 2938, 2952, 29G0, 3014, 3032, 3078, 3001 

niilVv. l.aVorn J 2007 

Omio. Frank --- 2704 

Khrlioli. Mrs. Nathan 3030, 3034 

Fliolit, Aloxandcr .- 2074 

Kano, Josoph C. .-- 2705, 2814 

Klansok. John.. 3037 

Kopookv. (loorive M 2002, 2040, 2058, 2938, 2949, 3013, 3001 

Kralsioin. Max... - --- 2715 

Kranior. Josoph 2690 

l.oNvor. Klsio K-_- 2703 

Mann. C^.ilbort 2775, 2787 

Masoarolla. John .-. 2067 

Mnn.lio, Janios F.. 2057, 2903, 3090, 3117 

Nelson, John D 2735 

PiiKsak. John E 3024 

Sims, C'urtis R _ 2819 

Smart. (Joorire --. 2652, 2005 

Tonc'.'.ar, Ji>soph 2079 

EXHIBITS 

1. Reports fnrnisliod by (uxirjiv Stuart, spoeial trnstoo 

of loi-al 100, to Janu>s Cross, president of Inter- introduva .Vmvars 

national Tnion of Anieriea and rovers the period of oi>p';'> oupmo 

February lOaa through February lOof.. .., ^ 2003 * 

2. Bank .aeeount of B A- C Org.ani/ing Fund, bearing the 

signature of .\nthonv J. t'oi>forti, opened .\ugust 27, 

10:.r>, and elosed January lOfxi 2()0('. :5lLM, 3122 

3. Signaturt> eard with signatinv of .\nthony J. Conforti. 

o\\ the Hank of Islinwood Bark, HI., with series of 

eheeks sliowing witlulrawal dates ami anuivuUs 2007 3123-312S 

4. Series of eheeks and vouehers signed by .\nthony J. 

Conforti of loe:\l 300 showing eoutributions to B t'^- C 

Organizing Fvuul, whieh total $"),2r>0 2007 * 

4 A. Series of eheeks and vouehers signed by George Stuart 
as speei:il trustee of loi-al 100 showing eon(rib)itious 
to B A- C Organizing Fund, whieh total $."i,2">0 . 2007 * 

5. Wiueher for tlisbursement for r.ailroad expense - 

Portland- .•mil eheek No. 00313 in the amount of 
$5r>."i.0S. dated Oeeendvr II, 10r)3, payable to 
A. Conforti and signed by A. Conforti of loeal ;>00 200S ;U20-3I30 

6. Series of vouehers and eheeks written on loe.al 300 for 

gifts from May 1051 to Deeomber 10;") I. whieh total 

$2,501.48 - 2()1S * 



IV 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

7. Voucher for disbursement and check No. 1321 drawn 

on Aetna State Bank, Chicago, local 100, dated 
January 30, 1956, payable to L. London in the 
amount of $383.32 (conference expenses'* 2626 3131, 3132 

8. Itemized statement with purchase tickets charged to 

Tony Conforti from London Jewelers in the amount 

of $383.32 2628 3133-3136 

9. Schedule from the Midwest Hotel Catering Corp. with 

vouchers and checks on local 300 signed by Anthony 
Conforti in the amount of $3,439.73, covering period 
January 1955 through November 1955 2630 (*) 

10. Voucher and check No. 2231 on local 300 dated No- 

vember 25, 1955, payable to London Jewelers and 
signed by Anthony Conforti in the amount of $780 
(balance on Christmas merchandise) 2630 3137-3138 

11. Voucher and check No. 00916 on local 300 dated July 

15, 1954, payable to John B. Mascarella and signed 
by Anthony Conforti in the amount of $2,500 (re- 
tainer for services) 2631 3139-3140 

llA. Voucher and check No. 1894 on local 300 dated 
August 1, 1955, payable to J. B. Mascarella and 
signed by Anthonv Conforti in the amount of 
$2,500 (yearly retainer) 2631 3141-3142 

12. Voucher and check No. 2656 on local 300 dated April 

10, 1956, payable to Midwest Hotel Corp. and 
signed by Anthony Conforti in the amount of 
$3,500 (oflice rent; cancel lease) 2631 3143-3144 

13. Check No. 4506 on local 300 dated February 17, 1953, 

payable to Anthony J. Conforti signed by George 

Stuart in the amount of $3,000 2634 3145 

13A. Voucher for disbursement and check No. 00830 on 
local 300 dated June 23, 1954, payable to Larry 
Faul Oldsmobile Co. and signed by Anthony J. 
Conforti in the amount of $3,230 (difference in 
cost, new car for business manager; old car demol- 
ished) 2634 3146-3147 

14. Minutes of a meeting on October 5, 1953, at which it 

was decided to give George Stuart a gift as a token 

of appreciation 2642 3148 

15. Voucher for disbursement on local 100, dated Decem- 

ber 30, 1955, payable to Teamsters' Joint Council 

No. 43 in the amount of $13,100.18 (joint organ- 
ization expenses) 2649 3149 

15A. Check No. 1237 on Aetna State Bank dated December 

30, 1955, payable to Teamsters Joint Council No. 

43 in the amount of $13,100.18 and signed by Peter 

Carbonara 2649 3150 

15B. Day book page 2421 of the bakers union indicating 

check in the amount of $13,100.18 was charged to 

joint organization expense 2649 faces 3150 

15C. Invoice CR3504 from CadiUac Motor Car Division, 

dated December 28, 1955, sold to James G. Cross 

1956 Cadillac sedan, amount $6,550.09 2649 3151 

15D. Invoice CR3505 from CadiUac Motor Car Division, 

dated December 28, 1955, sold to George Stuart 

1956 Cadillac sedan, amount $6,550.09 2649 3152 

16. Voucher and check No. 1652, local 100, Aetna State 

Bank, dated April 10, 1956, payable to Cadillac 
Motor Car Division and signed bv Peter Carbonara 
in the amount of $2,143.67 (gift for James G. 

Cross) 2650 3153-3154 

16A. Voucher and check No. 2661, local 100, dated April 10, 
1956, payable to Cadillac Motor Car Division and 
signed by Anthony J. Conforti in the amount of 
$2,143.67 (gift for Cross) 2651 3155-3156 



CONTENTS V 

Introduced Appears 

oil page on page 

17. Voucher and check No. 14738, local 100, dated Au- 

gust 24, 19-55, payable to American National Bank 
& Trust Co. signed by George Stuart, in the amount 
of $3,000 (canceling 5-vear contract with attorney). 2655 3157, 3158 

18. Voucher and check No. 14G09, local 100, dated July 

12, 1955, payable to Kriel Office, Inc., and signed 
by George Stuart in the amount of $195.17 (bag- 
gage, engagement gift, Lois) 2660 3159, 3160 

19. Check No. 14G08, local No. 100, dated July 12, 1955, 

payable to Harlo Electrical Supply Co., Inc., and 
signed by George Stuart in the amount of $278.17 
(Mitchell air conditioner) 2660 3161 

20. Check No. 14756, local 100, dated September 2, 1955, 

payable to Harlo Electrical Supply Co., Inc., and 
signed by George Stuart in the amount of $188.58 
(2 dehumidifiers shipped to George Stuart) 2660 3162 

21. Check No. 14984, local 100, dated December 16, 1955, 

payable to L. R. Sohn & Co. and signed by George 
Stuart, in the amount of $780 (pearl necklace, ear- 
rings, and bracelet) 2660 3163 

22. Voucher and check No. 00806, local 300, dated June 

14, 1954, payable to L. R. Sohn & Co., and signed 
by Anthony J. Conforti in the amount of $470 (cock- 
tail set and cuff hnks, Intl. VP) 2661 3164-3165 

23. Check No. 14152, local 100, dated February 4, 1955, 

payable to M. Hyman & Son and signed by George 
Stuart in the amount of $450 (3 suits and an over- 
coat) 2661 3166 

24. Voucher and check No. 1320, local 100, dated January 

30, 1956, payable to Restano, Inc., and signed by 
Peter Carbonara, in the amount of $539.32 (furni- 
ture) 2662 3167-3168 

25. Airline ticket No. 126004, Los Angeles to Portland, 

October 3, 1955, in the amount of $61.82, signed 
by G. Stuart, but airlines office shows it as used by 
Kay Lower, and statement of expenses of George 
Stuart showing cash payment of $61.82 for airline 
ticket No. 126004 2662 3169-3170 

26. Document from Western Union office dated March 5, 

1956, indicating a Western Union money order was 
wired by George Stuart from Monte Carlo Hotel 
in Miami Beach to Mrs. E. K. Thorpe (Kay Lower), 

Los Angeles 2662 3171 

26A. Western Union money order No. EY39928, dated 
March 5, 1956, payable to Mrs. E. K. Thorpe in the 
amount of $200 and signed by Mrs. E. K. Thorpe, 2662 3172 

27. Check No. 4115, International Union, dated February 

24, 1954, payable to George Stuart, trustee, local 

149 in the amount of $500 (strike donation) 2663 3173 

28. Check No. 4815 dated March 10, 1955, payable to 

James L. Stuart in the amount of $1,500, billed to 
the local union for moving expenses for James 

Stuart 2664 3174 

28A. Check No. 13261 international union, dated May 13, 
1955, payable to George Stuart in the amount of 
$887.60, indicating balance of moving expenses, 
living expenses, and utility expenses for son James 
Stuart 2664 3175 

29. Check No. 52, dated April 19, 1956, payable to Max 

Kralstein dinner committee in the amount of $100, 

and signed by Joseph Kramer of Kramer's Pastries. 2697 3176 

30. Affidavits of Olaf Nyboe, Louis Sapirstein, Isidore 

Gelber, Jacob Schwartz, and Albert Zitzmann 2701 (**) 

31. Booklet entitled "Testimonial Dinner in Honor of 

Max Kralstein" 2701 (*) 



VI 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 



32. Bakery and Confectionery Workers International 

Union of America Local No. 3 financial statement 
on first anniversary celebration, covering the period 
January 1, 1956, to August 29, 1956, showing re- 
ceipts and disbursements of the testimonial dinner 
for Max Kralstein 

33. Check No. 28831, local 37, dated January 18, 1956, 

payable to John D. Nelson and signed by John D. 
Nelson in the amount of $500, part of the contribu- 
tion to the local from the international for organizing 
of Van de Kamp's 

34. Check No. 28657, local 37, dated December 19, 1955, 

payable to John D. Nelson and signed by John D. 
Nelson in the amount of $200 as a loan 

35. Affidavit of Stephen Knight 

36. Telegram dated January 21, 1956, to Gilbert Mann 

from James G. Cross informing Mr. Mann he had 
been relieved of his duties as an officer of local 100 _ 

37. Document signed by Gilbert Mann, dated February 

12, 1947, in vi^hich it states in case of death or re- 
moval from office, Chrysler automobile reverts to 
Factory Bakers' Union, local 100 

38. Letter dated November 19, 1956, from the office of the 

district attorney, San Francisco, to J. W. Ehrlich, 
attorney at law, relative to summary of Cross- 
Bakers convention difficulty 

39. Report from the San Francisco Police Department 

covering incident of the beating of Mr. and Mrs. 
Nathan Ehrlich, Joseph Kane, and Louis Gemuth_ 

40. Pictures of Nathan Ehrlich, Mrs. Ehrlich, Louis 

Gemuth, Joseph Kane, Arthur Markowitz, an at- 
torney, and Mrs. Lorber, relating to the beating 
incident in San Francisco 

41. San Francisco paper dated Monday, October 22, 1956, 

with caption "Union President Arrested Here on 
Slugging Charge" containing pictures of all parties 
involved 

42. Resolution suspending Curtis R. Sims from position of 

international secretary-treasurer 

43. Check No. 2077 drawn on Bankers Trust Co., New 

York, dated October 31, 1956, payable to Ashe & 
Pinney in the amount of $3,080 (lawyer for James 
Cross) 

44. Check No. 2078 drawn on Bankers Trust Co., New 

York, dated October 31, 1956, payable to Leslie C. 
Gillen in the amount of $3,050 (lawyer fee, Stuart, 
et al.) 

45. Check No. 2079 drawn on Bankers Trust Co., New 

York, dated October 31, 1956, payable to Sheraton 
Palace in the amount of $1,062.88 (payment for 
hotel bill for John B. Long) 

46. Check No. 2086 drawn on Bankers Trust Co., New 

York, dated October 31, 1956, payable to Fairmont 
Hotel in the amount of $1,489.78 (convention ex- 
penses) 

47. Telegram dated October 1, 1956, to James G. Cross 

from Anthony J. Conforti regarding strike permis- 
sion for Zion Industries 

48. jLetter dated October 5, 1956, to Anthony J. Conforti, 

president, local No. 1 , from James G. Cross regard- 
'ng strike permission for Zion Industries 

49. Contract agreement between Bakers and Confection- 

ery Workers' Local Union No. 1 and Zion Industries, 
Inc., bakery and candj^ division, January 1, 1957 — 
December 31, 1957, which was never signed 



2703 3177. 3178 



2757 



2760 
2760 



2783 
2789 

2809 

2816 

2818 

2818 
2821 

2842 

2843 

2843 



3179 



3180 



3181 



3182 



3183 



2843 


3184 


2851 


3185 


2853 


3186 



2856 (*) j 



CONTENTS Vn 

Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

50. Labor organization registration forms showing James 

G. Cross' salary as $17,500, as president, and state- 
ment of assets and liabilities as of May 31, 1956, of 
Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union 2911 (*) 

51. Voucher for disbursement dated September 26, 1955, ; 

payable to J. G. Cross, in the amount of $500 and 

1 dated October 10, 1955, payable to J. G. Cross, ^ 

in the amount of $129.12 (expenses in connection 1 

with regional conference in Portland, Oreg., October I 

4 and 5, 1955) 2913 3187,3188 

51A. American Airlines ticket No. 577845, dated September 

30, 1955, from Washington, D. C, to Denver, to < 

Portland, to Los Angeles, to Washington, D. C, for ! 

James G. Cross, in the amount of $333.41 2913 3189 j 

52; Log sheets of long-distance phone calls from October \ 

3, 1955, to March 1957, showing calls made by Cross j 

and Stuart 2923 (*) ] 

53A. Voucher for disbursement dated November 14, 1955, I 

payable to James G. Cross in the amount of $1,000 1 

(expense advance for AFL-CTO convention, Statler ] 

Hotel, New York, November 28, 1955) 2925 3190 '| 

53B. Voucher for disbursement dated December 2, 1955, , 

payable to James G. Cross in the amount of $1,000 

(advance for expenses AFL-CIO convention. New : 

York) 2925 3191 

53C. Voucher for disbursement dated December 12, 1955, :, 

payable to James G. Cross in the amount of i 

$1,827.55 (convention expenses in New York) 2925 3192 1 

53D.' Voucher for disbursement dated December 12, 1955, J 

payable to James G. Cross in the amount of $437.93 j 

(expenses) 2925 3193 ' 

53E. Voucher for disbursement dated December 12, 1955, 
payable to James G. Cross in the amount of $221.67 
(expenses, entertainment) 2925 3194 ' 

53F. Voucher for disbursement dated November 30, 1955, : 

payable to Big Ten Club of Southern California in ■: 

theamountof $214.50 (22 tickets Big Ten game) 2925 3195 i 

54. Vouchers, airlines tickets, car rental bill, and hotel bill ' 

for trip to Midwest Council Meeting, Ottumwa, 
Iowa, January 14-15, 1956, in the amount of $620_-_ 2929 (*) 

55.1Bill from Hotel Statler, New York, in the amount of 

$973.31 covering the period December 2, through . 

December 9, 1955 2930 3196-3198 

65A. Bill from Hotel Statler, New York, in the amount of ". 

$120.13 covering period December 9, 1955 2930 3199 

56. Vouchers, airline tickets, car rental bill, and hotel bill, 
payable to J. G. Cross, AFL-CIO executive board 
session in Miami Beach, February 5-11, 1956, in the 
amount of $1,872.29 2936 (*) ,: 

57A. Voucher for disbursement dated February 26, 1956, ' 

payable to James G. Cross in the amount of $530.95, , 

meeting of general executive board in Palm Beach, 
Fla 2937 3200 , 

57B. Voucher for disbursement dated March 14, 1956, pay- 
able to James G. Cross in the amount of $539.63, 
expenses in Palm Beach, Fla 2937 3201 i 

58. Vouchers, hotel bills, and rental auto slips for James j 

Cross, John Nelson, and G. Stuart in Miami Beach, 

period March 3 to March 24, 1956; also, airline ■ i 

for Kay Lower from Los Angeles to Miami and 

return 2939 (*) 

59. Statement of expenses of George Stuart dated March ' 

5, 1956, in the amount of $458.91, for general execu- i 

tive board meeting in Miami and approved by 

James Cross 2942 3202 I 



Vm CONTENTS 

Introduced lAppears ' 

on page on page • 

60. Voucher for disbursement dated June 27, 1956, pay- 1 

able to James G. Cross in the amount of $500 (ad- ^ 

vance expenses for Cleveland trip, June 29-30, '■' 

1956, testimonial dinner) 2948 3203 i 

60A. Voucher for disbursement dated July 3, 1956, payable i 

to James G. Cross in the amount of $142.39 (addi- i 

tional Cleveland expenses) 2948 3204 

61. Voucher for disbursement dated August 22, 1956, pay- 

able to James G. Cross in the amount of $2,000, ; 

airlines ticket and hotel bills, covering trip to », 

London and Paris for lUFD meeting September j 

6-12, 1956 2948 (*) * 

62. Voucher, airlines ticket and hotel bill in connection j 

with the testimonial dinner for Vice President ' 

Kralstein in New York, January 4-5, 1956, in the ' 

amount of $153.58 2950 (*) J 

63. Voucher for disbursement dated April 4, 1956, pay- j 

able to James G. Cross in the amount of $757.83; I 

expenses incurred for the birthday party for Frank j 

Hale in the Casablanca Hotel, Palm Beach, Fla 2950 3205 

64. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotel bills for expenses 

incurred for the Hoffa testimonial dinner in Detroit I 

and biscuit council convention in St. Louis, April d 

20-24, 1956, in the amount of $1,474.05 2950 (*) 

65. Voucher for disbursement, airlines ticket and hotel 

bills for a California trip. May 7 through May 10, 

1956, in the amount of $1,268.95 _" 2950 (*) | 

66. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotels bills, expenses to j 

Jamestown, N. Y. and Atlantic Citv, for the period ■ 

May 22-29, 1956, in the amount of $914.31 2950 (*) 

67. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotel bills for the period 

June 20-24, 1956, for a pension trustee meeting in 

New York in the amount of $1,133.21 2951 (*) 

68. Vouchers, airlines tickets and hotel bills for the period ; 

July 10-14, 1956, for a trip to Denver for the I 

industrial union division of the AFL-CIO in the I 

amount of $1,569.85 2951 (*) ; 

69. Voucher for the period Juh^ 15-21, 1956, for a birthday 

party for Past President Herman Winter and enter- 
tainment for the general executive board in the 
amount of $800.77 2951 (*) 

70. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotel bills for the period 

August 6-7, 1956, and for the period August 12-15, '■ 

1956, for a 2-dav stav in Los Angeles and 1 dav in 

Mexico City in the amount of $1,833.07 _"_.- 2951 (*) <. 

71. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotel bills for the period • 

September 12-14, 1956, for general board meeting \ 

of the AFL-CIO in Chicago in the amount of i 

$694.90 2951 (*) j 

72. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotel bills for the period ! 

October 14-November 5, 1956, for the annual con- j 

vention, San Francisco, in the amount of $10,185.79. 2951 (*) I 

73. Voucher for disbursement dated February 21, 1957, \ 

payable to James G. Cross in the amount of $500. 

Advance expenses for glass bottle blowers conven- 1 

tion, St. Louis, March 7-9, 1957 2952 3206 

74. Vouchers, airlines ticket and hotel bills for the period 

January 1957 through February 1957, for AFL-CIO 
executive committee meeting, Miami, Fla., and 
Palm Beach in the amount of $4,431.17 2952 (*) 

75. Letter dated November 9, 1956, to George Stuart 

from Martin M. Philipsborn regarding extension ! 

of contract of Zion Industries 3003 (**) ; 



CONTENTS 



IX 



3207-3209 

(*) 


3210-3212 


(*) 


(*) 


(*) 


(*) 


(*) 
(*) 
(*) 



Introduced Af 

on page oe 

76. Telephone toll tickets for the period October 16 

through October 31, 1956, representing calls from 
Martin Philipsborn to James G. Cross in San 
Francisco, and from James G. Cross to Martin 
Philipsborn 3014 (*) 

77. Letter dated April 23, 1952, to Gilbert Mann from 

J. G. Cross regarding keeping of records 3025 

78. Affidavit of John Klansek 3042 

79. Letter dated January 28, 1957, to Peter W. Carbonara, 

secretary-treasurer. Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers' Union, from Martin Phillipsborn, Jr., 
of Zion Industries 3054 

80. Series of letters on Zion Industries, Inc., letterhead, 

addressed to Peter W. Carbonara and signed by 
A. H. Pfeiffer, personnel manager, enclosing appli- 
cation cards from workers 3056 

81. Report of Survey on Wage Rates and Working Condi- 

tions in Union Biscuit plants as of April 1, 1957 3065 

82. Work sheet upon which comparison of other contracts 

were made 3065 

83. Affidavit prepared bv Mrs. Nelson, signed bv 30 em- 

ployees of Zion Industries, dated June 26, 1957 3068 

84. Affidavit prepared by Mrs. Bertana and signed by 35 

employees of Zion Industries, Inc., dated June 27, 

1957 3070 

85. Affidavit of Mrs. Beatrice Bertana 3071 

86. Affidavit of Mrs. Isabelle Nelson 3071 

87. Mimeographed copies of correspondence between 

Counsel Robert Kennedy and Abraham J. Harris 

(attorney for Mr. Cross) 3077 (*) 

88A. Check No. 4842, dated May 18, 1956, payable to 

James G. Cross in the amount of $1,500 3082 3213 

88B. Check No. 6997, dated August 8, 1956, payable to 

James G. Cross, in the amount of $1,500 3082 3214 

88C. Check No. 8728, dated October 12, 1956, payable to 

James G. Cross, in the amount of $1,500 3082 3215 

88D. Check No. 10313, dated December 11, 1956, payable 

to James G. Cross, in the amount of $1,500. 3082 3216 

88E. Check No. 10312, dated December 11, 1956, payable 

to James G. Cross, in the amount of $1,500 3082 3217 

89. Records of International Union breaking down biscuit 

and cracker contracts throughout the Nation, and 
breaking down the bread and cake local unions, 
submitted by Mr. Cross 3091 (*) 

90. Letter to fellow members, dated July 1, 1957, on 

Baker and Confectionery Workers' International 
Union of America, letterhead and signed by James 
G. Cross, international president 3099 3218-3219 

91. Analysis of the bank account maintained at National 

Bank of Washington, D. C, for the years 1956 and 
1957, for James G. Cross, and photostatic copies of 
the account, showing deposits and withdrawals 3118 (*) 

Proceedings of — ■ 

June 6, 1957 2581 

June 7, 1957 2679 

June 18, 1957 2773 

June 19, 1957 2861 

June 20, 1957 2963 

July 16, 1957 3029 

July 17, 1957 3061 

*May be found in the files of the select committee. 
**May be found in the printed record. 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Actrities, 

IN the Labor or Managesient Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Kesolu- 
tion 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; Sen- 
ator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Pat Mc- 
Namara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republi- 
can, Arizona; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; George M. Ko- 
pecky, assistant counsel ; James F. Mundie, investigator ; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk. 

(Members present at the convening of the session: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, McNamara, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

The Chair wishes to make this brief opening statement. In the 
continuation of the work of the committee, the staff has conducted 
investigations into the operations and activities of certain officials of 
the Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union of 
America and its various local unions. 

In the hearings beginning today, we expect to present evidence 
concerning three principal aspects of this union's operation which ap- 
pear to merit public hearings. 

They will touch upon : 

1. The misuse of union funds. The officials involved will be given 
ample opportunity to explain some transactions which appear to be 
irregular. 

2. The operation of certain local unions under trusteeship. This is 
a field which has given the committee grave concern. We have 
received a large number of complaints from dues-paying members 
about dictatorial and undemocratic practices which are claimed to 
exist in unions under receivership or trusteeship. 

3. Certain relationships between management and labor officials 
which, if not satisfactorily explained, must lead to the inference of 
impropriety and collusion between these individuals to the apparent 
disservice of members of the union. 

2581 



2582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

4. The extension of substantial favors by management to union 
officials calls for an explanation. 

In some cases of collusion, the improper action is often not clearly- 
defined. Whether it be extortion practiced by corrupt union officials 
or bribery practiced by corrupt management, or both, the result is 
the same. The working man or woman who is entitled to honest i 
representation by their leaders becomes the ultimate loser. 

This committee is determined to explore this problem and to ascer- 
tain insofar as we can what legislation may be needed, and should! 
be enacted, to protect union members. 

Mr. Counsel, call your first witness. ; 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conforti. _ I 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall ! 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. 

Mr. Conforti. I do. I 

TESTIMONY OP ANTHONY J. CONFOKTI, ACCOMPANIED BY j 
COUNSEL, SHERMAN CARMELL 

The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence and : 
your business or occupation. \ 

Mr. Conforti. Anthony J. Conforti, 7804 West Fulton Avenue,] 
Elwood Park, 111., and at the present time I am president of local ; 
union No. 1 of the bakery workers in Chicago. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel present to represent you? \ 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir ; in my capacity as president of the local 
union. 

The Chairman. Will counsel please identify himself? 

Mr. Carmell. Sherman Carmell, 318 West Randolph Street, Chi- \ 
cago. 111. 

The Chairman. I am sure counsel is familiar with the rules of the ' 
committee. 

Mr. Carmell. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Conforti, have you talked with members of | 
the staff regarding the information you may have to give to the i 
committee ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. Then you know generally the line of interroga- 
tion to expect ? 1 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. • 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. '; 

Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. '' 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conforti, you are now president of local 1 in 
Chicago of the bakery union ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes. ■-. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members are there in that ? 1 

Mr. Conforti. Now, approximately 7,000 or 8,000. ! 

Mr. Kennedy. Between seven and eight thousand? ■ 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what positions did you hold prior to the time | 
you became president ? 

When did you become president, first ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



2583 



Mr CoxFORTi. January 1 of this year; actually, in 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were elected president, were you ^ 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you liave any opposition m the election i 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir; I did not. 

Mr Kennedy. Prior to that time, what positions did you hold/ 

Mr' CoNFORTi. Well, prior to that time, I was appointed, you might 
say, or selected, by the groups of local unions that were merging to 
act as president. . , , i i i mn 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there were two unions that merged, local lUU 
and local 300; is that right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No ; there were about 7 or b. 

Mr. Kennedy. That made up local 1 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. i i -, , 

Mr. Kennedy. How many unions merged to make up local 1 « 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Seven or eight. . 

Mr. Kennedy. Were local 100 and local 200, two of those unions? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir; they were part of the merger. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did that merger take place? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was in April of last year; 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. April of 1956 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. . ■, i . . a -i iq^c f 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been operating local 1 from April 195b to 
January of 1957 when you were elected president? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Would you explain what you mean by operating J 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you in charge or were you managing the af- 
fairs ? You tell me what your position was then. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was agreed that I would act as president until 

the election. ., t ^ -.a^^ 

Mr. Kennedy. So that is from April 1956 until January 1, 1957, 

when you were elected president? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. ,. . n„ 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time, what positions did you hold ^ 
Mr. CoNFORTi. I was the business manager and secretary of the local 

300. .... 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, for what period of time were you business 

manager of that? ^ ^ , . ^^^r, 

Mr CoNFORTi. From about October 1953 or September of 1953 
until the merger. • • q 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected to that position ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, I was. . . 

Mr. Kennedy. And then did you hold any other position other 

than that in local 300? ' -, -r i ,. i u .. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, as recording secretary, and I don't know what 

all else. 

Mr. Kennedy. In any other unions ; did you have anything to do 
with any other unions? . 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, I was a member of another local union, while 
I was working nights in a factory, several years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy.^ Was local 300 under trusteeship at one time? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that under trusteeship ? 



2584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTT. From September of 1948 until 1953, in September, 

about 5 years, to the date, almost. 
Mr. Ejennedy. Who was the trustee ? 
Mr. CoNFORTi. The first trustee — he was trustee only for a period ' 

of 2 or 3 months — was International Vice President Friedman. He i 

was replaced, beginning January of 1949, by International Vice Pres- ] 

ident George Stuart. ■ 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And George Stuart was then trustee up until Sep- ■ 

tember of 1953 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. ; 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did George Stuart hold any other position other 

than trustee for local 300 ? j 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, I am not quite sure, but he was also vice I 

president for the sixth district where we were located, and he had \ 

the chairmanship of several divisions of the international union. I 
Mr. EJENNEDY. He was a vice president of the bakers union, then? ' 
Mr. CoNFORTi. International vice president ; yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have anything to do with your union after 

September of 1953? 
Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. He continued on in some capacity ? I 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He was still vice president for our district. He ! 

was not officially 

Mr. I^NNEDY. He was not officially connected with local 300? j 
Mr. CoNFORTi. Not as a trustee. j 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you i 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. j 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) I 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He continued to maintain an office in our office, of | 

local 300, and he continued performing duties and working in his j 

capacities as some of his other duties that he had to perform for the ! 

international union. ! 

Mr. I^nnedy. But he was not officially connected with local 300, i 

is that right ? | 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than as a vice president of the international ? , 
Mr. CoNFORTi. Vice president of the district. ' 

Mr. Kennedy. And he would be a vice president of the interna- I 

tional union in that district ? '■ 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the bakers union, Mr. ^ 

Conf orti ? 

Mr. CoNFORTT. Only since I returned from the Army, in 1946. 

Prior to that time, there was no union. I had begun to work in a i 

bakery m 1937, and I left in 1941. 

Mr. KJ3NNEDY. You went in the service at that time ? ] 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. ] 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went in the Navy ? l 

Mr. CoNFORTi. In the Army. 'i 

Mr. Kennedy. And you served during the war ? ' 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. I returned in 1946. 
Mr. Kennedy. And then you came out and you went back to the 

bakers trade, is that right? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2585 

Mr. CoJSTFOKTi. I went back to my old job. 

Mr. Kennedy. How old are you now, Mr. Conf orti ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Thirty-seven. 

Mr, Kennedy. I wanted to ask you about some of the transactions. 

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

Senator Goldwater, Mr. Conforti, when were you elected presi- 
dent of the union ? 

Mr. Conforti. Officially elected in January of 1957. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you the only candidate? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, I believe I was. There was no other nominees. 

Senator Goldwater. There was no opposition ? 

Mr. Conforti. Not for the office of president. 

Senator Goldwater. How are these elections conducted? Would 
you mind describing how the election was run by which you were 
elected president? 

Mr. Conforti. The best I can recall, as far as the nominations were 
concerned, there were meetings held of each local that had partici- 
pated in the merger of local unions, and each one of these local unions 
had the opportunity to nominate whoever they wished for president 
and secretary-treasurer, and in the balloting it was all by secret ballot 
vote. 

Senator Goldwater. Was that in the local itself? It was by secret 
ballot? 

Mr. Conforti. In the entire local, then, yes, sir, all of the balloting 
was by secret ballot. 

Senator Goldwater. Were there nominations made in open meet- 
ings? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Then when the time came to vote on you, you 
being the only candidate, those votes were cast in secret? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, no, I don't think that there was any ballot 
prepared, where there was no contest for an office, as I recall. 

Senator Goldwater. Did each individual member of the union 
have an opportunity to vote for you ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir, and to make doubly sure by conducting the 
election, by putting booths right in the various shops which we have, 
and we have quite a few shops. 

Senator Goldwater. Then, you do not use the delegate system in 
your union ? 

Mr. Conforti. I am not quite sure what you mean by that. 

Senator Goldwater. Where a locjil will elect somebody to attend 
the meeting, and then that delegate cast the vote tor the entire 
group. 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir, each individual member casts their own 
ballot. 

Senator Goldwater. How many ballots were cast, do you remem- 
ber? 

Mr. Conforti. Oh, God, I can't recall exactly, but they were by far 
the majority. 

Senator Goldwater. Could you get that information for the com- 
mittee, and find out how many ballots were cast in the election that 
caused you to be president ? 

Mr. Conforti. I think we still have them. 



2586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. It would be very valuable to us, as we study 
the existence or lack of existence of democratic processes, and that is 
what I am trying to get at in this questioning that I am directing at 
you. It is no criticism of you, nor necessarily of your union, unless 
they are deserving of criticism. We are going to ask these questions 
of every union official who comes before us, to find out where there 
are derelictions in the law that create an undemocratic process. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, that is what we wanted to assure, at this par- 
ticular time, and that is why we had the balloting right in the bake- 
shops where the people worked. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, I have just one more question. 

Getting back to your lack of any opposition to you, did you make 
any effort to see that there was no opposition to you ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Everybody was for you, and there was nobody 
else that they wanted to see run ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Apparently. I made no attempt to discourage any- 
body. 

Senator Goldwater. Was there any group of people in the union 
interested in your candidacy? Did they make any efforts towards 
intimidating the nominaiton of other candidates against you? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. As a matter of fact any rumors that there 
were, that there was another candidate, I said I was glad to hear it. 
That is rather than trying to discourage it. 

Senator Goldwater. How often are you elected ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I was elected first in local 300 for 3 years, and 
then in the merged local union the term of office now is 5 years because 
1 of the local unions did have 5-year terms and they were all made 
5-year terms. 

Senator McNamara. I just want to ask one question. 

You indicate that you were appointed president of this organization 
prior to the election, before you took office in January. Who were 
you appointed by ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. By the merger committee, the committee of each 
one of the local unions. 

Senator McNamara. There were how many local unions involved ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Seven or eight local unions. 

Senator McNamara. And each one of them appointed a committee 
to serve as a merging committee, or a merger committee ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Senator McNamara. And they, in turn, held a meeting and ap- 
pointed you as representative of all of these local unions, as president, 
is that right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The best I can recall it was that way, or else it was 
the executive board composed of representatives from the various local 
unions. 

Senator INIcNamara. Then did the executive committee of each 
local committee serve as the merger committee? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Each local union, it was left up to them, and they 
had the privilege of naming whoever they wished. 

Senator McNamara. They did it any way they wanted, and in some 
cases they selected their executive board memliers, and in other cases 
they selected a special committee, is that the situation? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2587 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Senator McNamar.\. To the best of your knowledge and belief, 
these people were elected by the rank and file for the purpose of 
formino- this merger connnittee in one way or another, is that right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is all I have. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. This local No. 300 was under a trusteeship for 
awhile ; was it not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; about 5 years. 

Senator Mundt. Which 5 years ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Beginning in 1948 to around sometime in Septem- 
ber, until 5 years later, in September of 1953. 

Senator Mundt. From 1948 to 1953? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Will you explain to the committee the circum- 
stances by w^iich it went under the trusteeship ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, to the best of my ability, I have some notes 
here, I believe, that may be able to help. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Conforti. I have these papers. 

Senator Mundt. Will you identify your own personal position in 
the union prior to the time that the trusteeship was formed ? Were 
you a baker or were you an officer ? 

Mr. Conforti. I was a baker and also a board member of local 300. 

Senator Mundt. You were a baker and a board member of local 
300 prior to 1948 ? 

Mr. Conforti. No; in 1948. 

Senator Mundt. In 1948? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Conforti. These are mimeographed copies of the minutes of 
the board meeting, the executive board meetings, of August 24, 1948, 
and this is the way m which we received copies of the executive board 
minutes. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Conforti. At this particular meeting I was absent. Along 
with another board member, there were two absent. But there was 
a disagreement at this meeting concerning the NLRB election, about 
the machinists, who were members of local 300, and there was an elec- 
tion where the machinists decided to become members of the machin- 
ists union. As I understand, there was quite a bit of disturbance at 
the meeting. So I guess there was also some discussion on the fi- 
nances of the local union, whether all of the moneys were being re- 
ceived by the local or not. 

Anyway, after tliat disturbance, then, as I understand, the inter- 
national union was requested 

Senator Mundt. Do your minutes reflect a motion asking the in- 
ternational to establish a trusteeship ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't believe they do. 

Senator Mundt. How would you make a request without a motion 
by the board of directors? Who else is authorized to request the 
trusteeship ? 

89330— 57— pt. 8 2 



2588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, any member or group of members, I guess, 
are privileged to request international union or make a complaint to 
them about conditions in the local union. 

Senator Mundt. Let us get this clear. Is your constitution such 
that any baker in town who wants to have a trusteeship, all he has to 
do is pick up the phone and say "Please set one up," and they set 
one up? You said any group of bakers could do it. It seems to 
me there must be some oiScial procedure by which you change from 
a self-operated union to a member of a union operated by trusteeship. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. The members, if they have a complaint to 
make, any member or group of members, would register a complaint 
with the international union, and they would send out a representa- 
tive, generally the international president, to investigate the cause 
of the complaint, and if it merits it, they generally hold a hearing 
and have members appear at the hearing to state their complaints and 
so on and so forth. Then the report of the hearing officer is made to 
the international president, I guess, and if they think it is necessary 
or advisable they then will appoint a special trustee. 

If I may, I might refer to that. 

Senator Mundt. May I inquire for my own information, is your 
attorney also the attorney for the bakers union, because he seems to 
be familiar with tlie procedure and so forth. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. What do you mean by the bakers union ? You mean 
the international union ? 

Senator Muxdt. T]ie international union, or whatever part. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He is attorney for tlie local union No. 1. 

Senator Mundt. He seems to know where the facts were, and I 
just wondered why he happened to know so much about it. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. What I was trying to explain in my own words on 
this trusteeship is that there was a request made, and I don't recall 
exactly who or how it was made. 

Senator Mundt. You do not know how many made it. You just 
know a request was made ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir; that is a good many years ago. 

Senator Mundt. Well, the request was made, and now go ahead. 

Mr, CoNFORTi. Also I have a copy of notes that were made or must 
have been made back in 1948, and it contains the information. 

On September 7, 1948, the trusteeship was established over local 300 
at a special meeting at international headquarters. Brother Schnitzler 
instructed the officers of the local to turn over all possessions per- 
taining to the local union, to Brother Harvey Friedman, special 
trustee. 

Senator Mundt. At that time, were you appointed assistant? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir ; I was not. 

Senator Mundt. What was your status during the 5-year period of 
the trusteeship ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. As near as I recall, I was employed in December, I 
thmk, of 1948. When the trusteeship was established, all of the 
officers and board members and sliop stewards ceased to function 
officially, and the trustee then appointed people to do the work in the 
office. I was appointed to do the work of the secretary in tlie office. 

Senator Mundt. You were appointed to serve as secretary? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2589 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I gave up my job at the National Biscuit Co. to 
take the job with thelocal union, full time. 

Senator Mundt. How did you get the full time job? You were 
appointed by the trustee ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. To serve as secretary ? 

Mr. CoxroKTi. Yes, sir; by Mr. Friedman at that time. I was 
called up. 

Senator Mundt. You served as secretary up until the time of the 
merger, when j^ou became president ; is that right I Is that the 
chronology ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. When I served, I was appointed. I served as an 
appointee until 1953 when the trusteeship was lifted, and I was 
elected then business manager and secretary ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during 1953 to 1956, you held what position 
in local 300 ? Was that business manager ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. While you held that position, did you have organ- 
izational drives? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. In 1953 to 1956, you mean? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any organizational drives? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes ; there were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically in 1955, did you appropriate some 
money from local 300 for an organizational drive ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join together with local 100 and appro- 
priate $250 a week for a period of 21 A\eeks, for an organizational 
drive ? 

Mr. Conforti. It was $250 a week ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be $500 a week from both locals, mak- 
ing a total during that period of time of $10,500; is that right? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, could you tell the committee how that or- 
ganizational drive began, and who suggested it and who recom- 
mended it ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, maybe I ought to start further back. There 
liad been many organizing attempts made at the Salerno Biscuit Co., 
of the city of Cliicago, and all had failed, although local 300 as far 
as I know had not made the attempt. Local 100 had, I believe, and 
the other locals. I cannot recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was going to be an attempt to organize the 
Salenio Biscuit Co. in Chicago ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, because the other attempts had failed due to 
the fact as I heard, or I was told, that whenever the organizers would 
appear outside the plant, any plant, as far as that goes, the employers 
would grant an increase in wages to the employees and discourage 
organizing attempts, and cause them to fail and' they never met any 
success. 

So in this particulur instance, I think at that time Mr. Stuart, the 
district organizer of the organization, thought it would be a feather 



2590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

in his cap and also ^ye would be doing ourselves a lot of good if we 
could organize this place because the biscuit companies that we do 
have organized object very much in the negotiations to granting any 
additional wage increases or benefits in working conditions because 
of the fact tliat there are unorganized plants in the city that are 
already paying much less in v/ages, or it costs them less in fringe 
benefits. Thereby they are able to sell their products cheaper. 

There was too much competition from the unorganized plants. As 
a matter of fact, I think I read a statistic someplace where this one 
particular biscuit company had about 43 percent of the cookie busi- 
ness in the Chicago area. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it was decided that you would have an organi- 
zational drive for the Salerno Biscuit Co. ; is that right ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Stuart who had been appointed director 
of organization felt that it would be a feather in his cap if he could 
get the Salerno Biscuit Co. organized? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That is part of it ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it was agreed to appropriate from each one of 
these local unions, local 100 and local 300, $500 a week, or $250 per 
union ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, that money was taken. Who received the $500 
a week, Mr. Conf orti ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I received it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took the money; is that right? 

Mr. CONFORTI. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. The money was given to you ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Through checks ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what did you do with that money ? Did you 
go out and do some organizational work ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I deposited it in an account, an organizing fund, the 
bakery and confectionery organizing fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the money remained in there. You received 
the $500 a week and did you ever withdraw any money for organiza- 
tional work then ? 

Mr. Conforti. I withdrew the money at the direction of Mr. 
Stuart. ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you both then go out and do some organiza- 
tional work at the Salerno Biscuit Co.? 

Mr. Conforti. I never did ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he did ? 

Mr. Conforti. I only know what he told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he ever did any work at the Salerno 
Biscuit Co. ? 

Mr, Conforti. I couldn't say. 

The Chairman. Did you say he told you? I didn't understand 
that. 

Mr, Conforti, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He told you what? 

Mr. Conforti. That he was doing; this work. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2591 

The Chaikman. He told you he was doing work ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi, Yes, sir, or having work done ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Which did he tell you ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, both, the best I can recall. 

The Chairman. He was doing it and having it done ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He was the director of organization. 

The Chairman. I understand, but you said you did no work. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I did not. 

The Chairman. And I think you were asked if you knew whether 
he did any or not. You said all you knew was he told you that he 
was working. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. I just wanted to get it clear. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the money was deposited in this bank ac- 
count for this organizational bank account, and then withdrawn, and 
you gave the money to Mr. Stuart; is that right? 

Mr. Conforti. Not all of the time, because sometimes he would not 
be in town to get the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. When Mr. Stuart was not in town, what would you 
do with the money then ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, I would take it to the office and put it in the 
safe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you bother, if Mr. Stuart was not in 
town to do the work? Why would you bother withdrawing the 
money ? 

Mr. Conforti. He was scheduled to be there, and he would tell me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Why did you not wait and leave it in the bank ac- 
count and when he got back withdraw the money ? 

Mr. Conforti. He told me to have it there at the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did he say it was necessary to withdraw the 
money, Mr. Conforti ? Why did you not leave it in the bank account 
instead of taking it out of the bank account and putting it in your 
safe ? 

Mr. Conforti. He told me to take it out, I guess so it would look 
like there was activity. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that was the reason he wanted you 
to take it out? 

Mr. Conforti. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you any reason he wanted you to take 
it out periodically out of the special bank account? 

Mr. Conforti. Well — excuse me 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Conforti. He would tell me to make these withdrawals, and he 
was scheduled to be in town and he was to pay the organizing ex- 
penses. 

The Chairman. He was your boss ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. As an international vice president, he was your 
boss? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, he was my boss. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not have any position particularly in local 
300, did he? 

Mr. Conforti. No ; he was trustee of local 100. 



2592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. This was after the trusteeship ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes ; local 300. 

Senator IMundt. The only reason he was your boss, he was a na- 
tional official, is that right? He did not belong to your union. 

Mr. CoNroRTi. Yes, actually he is international vice president for 
our district. 

Senator Mundt. Because he Avas international vice president, you 
considered him your boss ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Also the fact that he was the boss for 5 years while 
under trusteeship. 

Senator Mundt. TMiile you were under trusteeship, he was your 
boss? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He continued, after that also, and maintained his 
office there. 

Senator Mundt. In what respect was he your boss while you were 
under a trusteeship ? Was he the trustee ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. He was the trustee ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And he was the man who had appointed you to 
become secretary ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, he was not. It was the first trustee, Mr. Fried- 
man. 

Senator Mundt. Your attorney nodded his head and you shook 
your head. Do you want to go in the same direction ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was Mr. Friedman who was the first trustee for 
a matter of a couple of months. 

Senator Mundt. Then Mr. Stuart was made the trustee ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Then, Mr. Stuart appointed you or continued you 
as secretary, in that capacity he was your boss. Then when you got 
out of the trusteeship, he moved up to become international vice 
president and you became president of the consolidated miion. Do I 
have that straight ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He was always — not always, but he was vice presi- 
dent also while he was trustee. 

Senator Mundt. All right. He went back then to being just a vice 
president at that time ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And he lived in Chicago ? 

Mr. Conforti. Pardon me? 

Senator Mundt. He lived in Chicago ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir ; I think that he lived in Kansas City. 

Senator Mundt. He lived in Kansas City ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. But he was supposedly organizing the union in 
Chicago; Salerno? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes ; that was part of his district. 

Senator Mundt. I am curious to know how you got it in and out 
of the bank. You put it in the form of checks or cash, or both ? 

Mr. Conforti. It was put in the form of checks. 

Senator Mundt. How was it taken out; in the form of checks 
made out to Mr. Stuart ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2593 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was taken out in cash. 

Senator Mundt. Long green ? Just folding money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. All in cash. 

Senator Mundt. And never by check ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Would you not have a little better record if you 
had done it by check ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; I guess so. 

Senator Mundt. If you are going to pay a man money who lives in 
Kansas City, is it not easier to pay the money from Chicago to the 
fellow in Kansas City by check than it is by currency ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, tlie money was being used in the city of 
Chicago. 

Senator Mundt. Used by a man who lived in Kansas City. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I just did what he told me to do. 

Senator Mundt, All right, he told you to pay it in cash, is that 
right? 

Mr. Conforti. To take it out in cash ? 

Senator Mundt. To take it out in cash. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And to pay him in casli ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And to pay him in person when he was there and 
when not there to take it to his office and put it in his safe ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, our office. 

Senator Mundt. Whose office ? 

Mr. Conforti. Local 300 office. 

Senator Mundt. Local 300 ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes. 

Senator Mundt, He had the combination of the safe, and you had 
the combination of that safe, apparently. 

Mr. Conforti, Well, I can't say he had the combination of the 
safe. 

Senator INIundt. What good would it do him to have the money in 
a safe he could not get into ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, I would have to get it for him. 

Senator Mundt. If you had to get it for him, you could go down 
in the bank and get it and what is the use of switching it from the 
bank to your safe, if he could not get in the safe ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well he told me to take this money out, and 
periodically or weekly or whenever he would call on me to do it 
and I had it in our office. 

He did not appear to get any of it for a little period of time there, 
where it accumulated. 

Senator Mundt, What amounts did he take it out in ? 

Give us some idea of how he got it, if you have a record there. 

Mr, Conforti, The first check was deposited or the first check was 
for $760, out of of which $250 Avas given to him. 

Senator Mundt, That is to begin with. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, 

Senator Mundt, All right, go ahead. 

Mr. Conforti. Then we deposited $1,Y50 on September 8, and 
withdrew $500. On September 15, $500 withdrawn. On Septem- 
ber 22, $1,000 withdrawn. A total of $2,000. 



2594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Then, on October 6, $750. October 17, $1,000. October 24, 

Senator Mundt. What I wanted to know now, Mr. Conforti, and 
the details Avill be brought out by counsel, I want to know how these 
amounts happened to vary. Did he call you up each time and say 
make it $750 this week and $500 this week, or how would you know 
how much you should take out? Would he write you a letter? 

Mr. Conforti. He would call me and tell me he expected to be in 
town and to draw out so much money. 

Senator Mundt. He would specify how much he wanted each week 
when you delivered it? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator JMcNamara. I would like to ask the witness a couple of 
questions. Vice President Stuart you say was your boss because he 
was the international vice president. Was he elected to liis job? 

Mr. Conforti. As international vice president? I i-eally don't 
recall. He was elected in his most recent term ; yes. 

Senator McNamara. Are vice presidents generally elected or ap- 
pointed by the president of the international ? 

Mr. Conforti. They are elected. 

Senator McNamara. They are elected at the conventions according 
to your bylaws ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conforti. Yes ; I think the last convention, they were elected 
at the convention. 

Senator McNamara. And you are not sure ? 

Mr. Conforti. I am quite sure, I was at the convention. 

Senator McNamara. You are familiar with your national bylaws, 
are you not, and you operate under them too, and do they not specify 
how the vice presidents come into existence, and whether they are ap- 
pointed or elected? 

Mr. Conforti. The bylaws were just changed in 1956. 

Senator McNamara. You mean there was a change in the selection 
of vice presidents from being appointed to being elected ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, they were not appointed. They were elected by 
referendum in the old bylaws and at the last convention there was a 
change, where they were elected by the convention. That was in 
1956. 

Senator McNamara. Prior to that they were appointed in some 
other manner ? 

Mr. Conforti. They were elected by referendum. 

Senator McNamara. You mean by mail referendum? Do you 
mean each member of the organization was sent a ballot, and they 
voted in that kind of a referendum or what ? 

Mr. Conforti. Each local was sent a ballot, according to the number 
of members they had. 

Senator McNamara. And then the rank and file voted on the result 
and the result was sent into the international ? 

Mr. Conforti. That was the general idea. 

Senator McNamara. And the!>e ballots were sent out by the inter- 
national to each local union and then a vote was taken at a rank-and- 
file meeting ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2595 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, but not in all local unions, because, for 
instance, local 300 was a factory-local setup, where the executiv& board 
was acting as though it was a full membership meeting. 

Senator McNajiara. The executive board having been elected by 
the rank and file rather than appointed ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Now, this organizing fund, you were paying 
Mr. Stewart out of the organizing fund for what you assumed to be 
an attempt to organize this plant ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And you paid him various amounts, varying 
from $50 to $1,000 at various times ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't think there was any $50. 

Senator McNamara. I thought you had one for $50 and I did not 
hear you. What was the amount? 

Senator Mundt. It was $250. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes ; he was given $250. 

Senator McNamara. Now, did that amount to a certain payment 
for each week or each month or some specific time, or did it vary ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, the amounts as drawn varied, but I don't 
know exactly what they were applied for, or any specific weekly or 
monthly or what payment. 

Senator McNamara. Did you issue or, in your accounting for the 
fund, did you have a voucher for each one of these withdrawals ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. There was no accounting for it ? You issued 
it without a voucher, any amomit that he requested because this was 
a special fund ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. From this fund; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. But you were the secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara, And the money was put in the bank by you 
and, therefore, you were responsible for it, but it was subject to his 
demand, and your assumption was he was using it for attempting 
to organize the plant, and you did not inquire into what he was 
doing. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever ask him what he did with it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator indicates whether you had some 
responsibility, and I wonder if you ever asked him what he was 
doing with the money. 

Mr. CONFORTI. No. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever talk with him about what kind of 
organizational expenses he was involved in ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. This goes back to the start, sir. He told me it 
would be a quiet organizing attempt, and because of the fact that 
so many had failed when the employer had granted an increase of 
wages to discourage the employees from joining a union. 

Senator Mundt. Think about your answer to this question pretty 
carefully. Did he ever give you back any of this money to help with 
any of your expenses ? 



2596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Not a dime ? 

Mr. CoxFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You are positive ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. Now, you were going through some of these figures, 
and you got $500 a week from local 100 and local 300. You de- 
posited this in the special bank account and then you withdrew it 
periodically, and you withdrew it periodically even though Stuart 
did not want the money. Now, you accumulated some in the safe. 
Did you continue to accumulate it in the safe or did you receive 
further instructions from Stuart ? 

Mr. CoxFORTi. Well, as I recall, I asked him what to do with this, 
and I didn't want to keep it around in our local office, and he told 
me to open a savings account of my own and put this money in my 
own savings account. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. So, the money that was being appropriated, $500 
a week, by these 2 locals for an organizational drive, ultimately 
ended up in your own private bank account; is that right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not all of it; no. 

Mr. ICennedy. How much of it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. To begin with, it was about $2,750. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You put $2,750 in your own bank account at that 
time? 

]Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ejennedy. And then did you have any of your own funds in 
there? 

Mr. CoxFORTi. Yes, sir; I had approximately $1,500. 

Mr. I&xxEDY. So, you put $2,750 of the union funds in your own 
bank account and $1,500 of your own funds in your own bank ac- 
count ; is that right ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me; it was $1,750 of my own. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So, it is about $4,250 that you put in to start out? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. According to a note here, it is about $4,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. About $4",500? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep putting the organizational funds, or 
did you continue to deposit them, in your own personal account? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Some of them, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you deposit altogether, in your own 
personal bank account, of union funds? How much of union funds 
did you deposit in your own personal bank account ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Will you identify for the committee the gentle- 
men you are consulting with ? Are they a part of your attorney staff, 
or are they members of the union ? We would like to know. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. They are members of Mr. CarmelPs employees. 

Senator Mundt. Are they associate attorneys of yours? 

Mr. Carmell. They are certified public accountants employed by 
me, sir. 

Senator Mundt. By you? 

Mr. CARiiELL. Yes, sir. 



ESIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2597 

Senator Mundt. As an attorney for the union ? 

Mr. CAiarELL. At the present time, yes, sir. 

Senator ]\Iuxdt. Just so we get the record straight, these are really 
then, employees of the union, employed by you as an attorney for 
the union ? 

Mr. Carmell. No, sir; these are independent, certified public ac- 
countants, employed by me in my capacity as representing Mr. Con- 
forti in his capacity as president of the local union. At the present 
time, the status of the payment is undetermined pending the out- 
come of this hearing. 

Senator Mundt. You do not know for sure whether you are paid 
by Mr. Conf orti personally or by the union ? 

Mr. Carmell. Depending on what the outcome of this hearing is 
and the executive board's decision at the local union. 

Senator IMundt. All right. 

(At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kexxp:dy. Approximately how much of the union funds did you 
deposite in your own bank account, please? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. About $8,450. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the rest of the money, the rest of the $10,500, 
which is about $2,000 or $2,100, that was given directly to Mr. George 
Stuart? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. According to our notes, it was $1,550 that was given 
to Mr. Stuart. The rest was deposited. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that was about $9,000 that was deposited ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Roughly; yes. 

Mr. ICennedy. Approximately $9,000? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Approximately. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And the rest j^ou gave directly to Stuart. 

Did you withdraw any of the money from your own personal bank 
account during this period of time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVliat would you do with that money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi, I gave it to Mr. Stuart. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave it to Mr. Stuart ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. VVliat did^'Mr. Stuart do with it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I was told that it was used for the organizing 
expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it strike you that this was a rather strange way 
to handle union funds, to be putting them in your own private bank 
account ? 

(Tlie witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, yes. That is why I put my own money — I 
used my own money to open the account. 

Senator Mundt. I am interested in this opening of the account. 
Did you open tlie account with union funds, or Mr. Stuart's funds, or 
union funds and your funds at the same time, or did you have your 
own account in being first and you added this to it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was opened at the same time; yes, sir; with my 
funds. 

Senator Mundt. Wliere had your $1,750 been ? In the safe at that 
time? 



2598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. That probably was in the safe deposit box 
that I had at the bank ; my own. 

Senator Mundt. Would it not be a little better system instead of 
merging your own money in with Mr. Stuart's money or the union's 
money, whoever owned this other part of the money — I am not sure 
yet — would it not have been better if you wanted to have a separate 
savings account, to isolate that from your own funds entirely ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me you simply compound the confu- 
sion wdien you mix Stuart's money and your money into it, and then 
you say, "I will sweeten it up with $1,750 of my own." 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. I didn't want a separate account because 
it was in my own name. I didn't want an account with my name 
only with organizing funds. 

Senator Mundt. That is what you wound up with, with the accomit 
in your name, did you not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, but I also initiated the account with funds 
of my own. 

Senator Mundt. You initiated it with everybody's funds all at 
once. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, with my money included. 

Senator Mundt. How do you make a bad situation any better by 
mixing your money in with it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Because the account was in my name. I didn't 
want it to appear that it was an account in my name with union funds. 

Senator Mundt. It was with union funds, except for $1,750. 

Mr. CoNFOKTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Do you want to take another shot at it now? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I will try to explain again. I was told to put this 
money in a savings account, and to put my money in there with it. 
I am trying to explain the best I can, but maybe I don't use the 
right terminology. 

Senator Mundt. Talk with your attorney and try again. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(At this point. Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I will try the best I can. By putting it in an ac- 
count in my name, Mr. Stuart told me that it would appear then as 
though it were just my own funds. 

Senator Mundt. Did Stuart suggest that you sort of commingle 
your funds with the other funds? Is that what you are telling me 
now? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. If I can read from the minutes of the 1951 minute 
book of the local union : 

Brother Stuart informed the board that $10,000 had been placed in a savings 
account in the name of the local union. This was done so that there would not 
be so much redtape involved in withdrawing the money in time of need, such 
as strike, et cetera. 

Senator Mundt. Did it not ever occur to you when Stuart suggested 
that, that you would sort of get fraternal, like, with him, and say, 
"Well, Brother Stuart, if you want a separate savings account, we 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2599 

will put it in your name, Nvitli your money, instead of my name" ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He was the boss. I did what I was told. 

Senator INIundt. That is right. But you could have made a 
suggestion. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. You didn't make suggestions. 

Senator ISIundt. He told you to do it that way, but the idea of 
commingling it with your money was your idea ? 

]\Ir. CoxFouTi. Yes, sir. I thought I was doing the right thing so 
far as I am concerned. 

Senator Mundt. You were such an old hand in the baking busi- 
ness, so used to mixing dough, that you just mixed it all up? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am only a cookie baker and not a counsel or 
accountant, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You cooked up this idea, though ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir, I didn't cook it up. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, let counsel proceed to get the facts 
now. Then we can get into some interrogation. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You withdrew the money periodically and you 
turned it over to Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. CoNFOKTi. Some of it, yes ; sometimes. 

Mr, IvENNEDY. How much did you withdraw and give to Mr. 
Stuai-t? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. From which account ? 

Mr. Kennedy. From your own bank account. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. $5,200. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And the purpose of that was for the organizational 
drive at the Salerno Biscuit Co. ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of any work that Mr. Stuart did at the 
Salerno Biscuit Co. ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear of any work being done at the 
Salerno Biscuit Co. during that period of time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. None that I can recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of anybody else that was working, 
tiying to organize the Salerno Biscuit Co. at that time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit from Mr. Sa- 
lerno of the Salerno Biscuit Co. 

The Chairman. I have one question. 

This money that went into this fund that came from local 300 and — 
what is the other one? 

Mr. CONFORTI. 100. 

The Chairman. 100, that went into this fund, $250 each week from 
each local, would that $250 or the $500 come out of union dues ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, there was $250 a week from each 
of these locals turned over to you out of union dues, paid in by the 
members into those locals, for an organizing fund to organize this 
company, is that correct ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 



2600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You took that money and placed it into a personal 
account with your own funds? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, not at first. That money was first 

The Chairman. No, you first deposited it in a special organizing 
account. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Always. 

The Chairman. Always. Then you took it out and placed it into 
your own personal accounts ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Some of it. 

The Chairman. Some of it? Most of it? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, most of it. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that connection 

Senator Mundt. None of the money went direct into your savings 
account without first going through the bank account, is that right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. To the organizing fund. 

Senator Mundt. None of it ever went directly into your savings ac- 
count without first being routed through the other accomit ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. $5,200 was withdrawn from your own bank account 
and turned over to Mr. Stuart, is that right ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And how much did you give him directly? 

Mr. Conforti. $1,550. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So that is $6,700 that was given to Mr. Stuart for 
this organizational drive ? 

Mr. Conforti. $6,750. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then there was $250 initially, was there not ? 

Mr. Conforti. I believe that is included in tliat figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. So how much money did Mr. Stuart get in this 
organizational drive altogether? 

Mr. Conforti. $6,750. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What happened to the rest of the money ? 

Mr. Conforti. The rest of the money is in the vault of the local 
union. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. When was that put back in the vault of the local 
union? 

Mr. Conforti. It was either the end of March or maybe the first 
of April. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since this investigation began ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't believe that the investigation had begun. 

Mr. Kennedy. In February? 

Mr. Conforti. Was the investigation begun in February ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Conforti. Then it would be after February, yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You took it out of your own bank account and put 
it in the valut of the union ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not just leave it in your own bank 
account ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2601 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, I didn't know what he might want to get his 
hands on some money. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I was at a meeting in Miami of regional bargain- 
ing conferences, and while I was there I heard that Mr. Stuart 
was resigning and that he was turning back an automobile and 
moneys, and so forth. When I got back to Chicago, I took the 
money out of the account. I didn't know if he might want money or 
ask me for money, be desperate for money, I don't know. I was 
afraid and I took it out and put it in the vault at the local union 
office. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time when you had your own 
bank account, with this money in it, did you use any of the money 
out of that bank account for your own personal uses or needs ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not that I can recall, no, sir. To tlie best of my 
knowledge I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you withdraw $5,000 at one time? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I think I did, but I think tlie balance 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Didn't you withdraw $5,000 to loan to a friend? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, but I think the $5,000 was my own money. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could you tell which was your own money and 
wliat was the union's money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, the best that I can recall is just by the deposits 
or withdrawals, moneys that I had given him, and what had been 
started with and so on. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So you could never tell exactly how much money 
was to be returned to the union ? You didn't keep any books, your- 
self, of how much was your money and how much was the union's 
money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, just the passbook. 

Mr. Kennedy. What you did was try to identify when there was 
a deposit made, whether that was your deposit or whether it was a 
deposit by the union, is that right, of union money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Most of them matclied up in the bank records, and 
also I think the final deposit or withdrawal — deposit — was in Janu- 
ary, January -3 of 1956, I believe, so that after January 3, any moneys 
that were deposited were my own. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Stuart ever make a report to either local 
union as to how he was progressing with his organizational drive? 

(At this point. Senator McClellan withdrew from the liearing 
room.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I can't recall his reports to local unions, but I as- 
sume that reports are made in his capacity as trustee for 100, to the 
international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he never made any reports to either local union 
that had put up the money ? 

Mr. CoNFOR'n. I don't recall if any was mentioned or not. 

Mr. I05NNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have, as I stated, this affidavit 
from the Salerno Biscuit Co. I would like to read it into tlie record. 

Senator McNAistARA. Is there objection on the part of the committee 
to the placing of this affidavit into the record ? 

Hearing none, proceed. 



2602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. The affidavit reads as follows : 

State of Illinois, 

County of Cook,, ss: 

I, George F. Salerno, being duly sworn, deposes and says : I make this sworn 
deposition of my own free will without promise of favor or immunity. 

This is to state that I am the president of Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co., lo- 
cated at 4500 West Division Street, Chicago, 111. 

This aflSdavit is made up at the request of George M. Kopecky, known to me 
to be an investigator of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor or Management Field, and I am aware that this sworn 
deposition may be used at the hearing before the United States Senate Select 
Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 

During the latter part of the year 1955 — or from approximately August 1955 
through December 1955 — no information was brought to my attention to the 
effect that the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union was 
attempting to unionize any of the workers at the Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co. 

I further state that if a concentrated effort was made by this union over a 
continuing period from about August 1955 to about December 1955, that such 
activity would have been brought to my attention through various personnel 
and officials at the Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co. 

This is to further state that to my knowledge, no efforts were taken by the 
Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America during 
the latter part of the year 1955 to unionize the Salerno-Megowen Biscuit plant 
either from within the plant by paying workers presently employed, or from 
outside the plant by having pickets or other individuals distribute literature, 
or in any way contact the workers. 

(Signed) George F. Salerno, 
President, Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co., Chicago, III. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of May 1957. 

(Signed) Hubert Crane, Notary Public. 

Mr. Chairman, we also have the reports of Mr. Stuart during this 
period 1955 that he made to the international union, and there is no 
mention in any of these reports during the pertinent period of time 
of any organizational drive for the Salerno Biscuit Co. 

We have somebody who could identify them and have them make 
an exhibit for reference. 

Mr. Kopeclr^ could identify them. 

(At this point. Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

Senator McNamara. Will you be sworn — here is the chairman. 
We will let him do it. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, tlie whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. KOPECKY 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to identify the reports 
from the National Bakery and Confectionery Workers. 

The Chairman. Let the witness state his name and liis occujia- 
tion first. 

Mr. Kopecky. My name is George M. Kopecky, investigator with 
the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Man- 
agement Field. 

Tlie CnAnniAN. Proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2603 

Mr. KopECKY. These are photostats of reports furnished by the 
international trustee, George Stuart, to the international union. 
These were furnished by tlie international union and cover the period 
that Mr. Stuart was trustee of local 100 in Chicago. There is no 
information in these reports to indicate that there was an organizing 
campaign in Chicago or in the Salerno Biscuit Co. 

The Chairman. These reports may be made exhibit No. 1 for 
reference. I will make them for reference only at this time. Later, 
if it is indicated that any of them should be printed in the record, 
that will be ordered. 

The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 1" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. CONFORTI, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, SHERMAN CAEMELL— Resumed 

Mr. Carmell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request the Chair at 
this time to allow Mr. Conforti to read a letter which he wrote to Mr. 
Stuart on January 3, 1957. 

The Chairman. The letter will be presented to the chairman and 
the committee for inspection. 

Mr. Carmell. Mr. Cliairman, this is a copy of the letter. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Mundt. While the Chair is reading that, Mr. Conforti, I 
am a little bit curious to know how you operated this joint banking 
account. You must have had some kind of record kept someplace, 
for 3^ourself , at least, to know how much money allegedly belonged 
to Mr. Stuart and how much was yours. What kind of books, what 
kind of records, what kind of notations did you keep ? 

Mr. Conforti. Just the passbooks from the bank. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have the passbooks with you ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. We just have a record of tlie passbooks. 

Senator Mundt. AVhat kind of notation did you make in the pass- 
book to identify whose money was being deposited ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conforti. The books themselves showed any withdrawals that 
were deposited in my account, and those that were not deposited were 
given to them in cash. 

Senator Mundt. Say that again. 

Mr. Conforti. The passbooks show tlie withdrawals made from the 
special account that would be deposited in my own account, and the 
withdrawals in the special account that were not listed in my account 
were given to him in cash. 

Senator Mundt. How large did this accomit grow at its top figure, 
this joint deposit accomit? 

Mr. Conforti. Oflhand, I can't tell. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Let your attorney put those accountants back to 
work. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carmell. Sir, are you asking what the top figure is up until 
the time when the special acount was closed out ? 

Senator Mundt. And the money taken to the vault ? 

80330— 57— pt. 8 3 



2604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carmell. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The top figure when I closed my own savings 
account was $8,200, or thereabouts. 

Senator Mundt. $8,200? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Out of that $8,200, how much belonged to you and 
how much belonged to the imion ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. $3,750 belonged to the union organizing fund. 

Senator Mundt. And the difference between that belonged to you? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So $4,500 belonged to you, and $3,750 belonged to 
the imion ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That is about right. 

Senator Mundt. That was the largest amount that the account had 
ever attained, was it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe so. I am not positive. I don't think it 
was any higher than that. 

Senator Mundt. That was my question, and that was the answer I 

go*- 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Our notes show that the account reached $8,600 in 
September, September 14, 1956. 

Senator Mundt. At this time, did the account reflect that the $5,000 
note had been repaid to the account, or was it $8,200, plus $5,000 in 
the note ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't remember now. Do you mean I had $8,600 
plus paying back $5,000 ? 

Senator Mundt. You answered counsel as to a question, and he 
asked you whether you had loaned $5,000 to a friend from this ac- 
count. You said yes, you had, and, if I understood your answer cor- 
rectly, you said it was loaned from your personal funds rather than 
union funds. Am I right about that ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. I want to know whether this $8,200 or $8,600, 
whichever it is, reflects that the $5,000 had been repaid by that time, or 
should it be supplemented by $5,000 which was out on a note ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The $5,000 was paid after the balance had reached 
$8,600. So it reduced then to $3,600. 

Senator Mundt. Not if you had $8,600 in the bank, which is what 
you said you had in the bank. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, what happened was that I had borrowed the 
money from the bank without taking any money out of the bank. I 
don't think I had that much at the time the loan was made. 

Senator Mundt. You borrowed the money from the bank ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. And then I repaid it from that account with my own 
money, repaid to the bank. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, the money that you loaned to your 
friend never came out of this account at all ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, actually, no. I borrowed the money from the 
bank. 

Senator Mundt. You borrowed the money from the bank ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2605 

Senator Muxdt. And you loaned it to a friend ? 

Mr. CoNFOKTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So it does not show up in this account at all ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It shows where the bank was repaid the $5,000. 

Senator Mundt. It shows where the bank was repaid ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That was a $5,000 withdrawal in my own account. 

Senator Mundt. According to my figures, you never quite had 
$5,000 of your own money there. You had $4,500 at one time, of 
your own money there. You come out at $8,200, which you said 
$3,750 belonged to the union, and that would leave $4,500 for you. 
I don't see how you can pay a $5,000 note with $4,500. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. After January 3, 1956, any deposits made were my 
own deposits. There were no more moneys deposited after January 
3, 1956, from the organizing fund. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, but I asked the greatest stature that the 
account ever attained, the biggest amount you ever had in there, 
and you said it was $8,200. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, $8,600. 

Senator Mundt. All right, $8,600. At that time, $3,750 belonged 
to the union ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the amount which you finally took over 
and put in the vault, $3,750 ? 

Mr. Conforti. No. I took $3,550. I had figured myself that was 
the amount remaining in the f mid which belonged in this organizing 
fund. 

Senator Mundt. What happened to the other $200 ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, since that time I have been advised that it 
should have been $3,750. 

Senator Mundt. Actually, you owe the vault $200 from your own 
funds? 
• Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever use any of this money for your own 
personal benefit other than the loaning of the $5,000 ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you 

Mr. Conforti. Excuse me a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conforti. Are you asking about the $5,000 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than the $5,000. 

Mr. Conforti. Other than the $5,000 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. We have had a discussion and explanation 
of the $5,000. 

Mr. Conforti. The $5,000 didn't come out of the union funds, and 
I didn't use any of the union funds for my own. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, while we are talking about 
this $5,000, 1 have a question. 

You indicate that you show a $5,000 transfer to pay the note off 
at the banlv. It must hnve. cost more than $5,000. The bank had 
a charge of some sort. Who paid that ? 



2606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, I must have paid the charge from my own 
pocket. There was no moneys taken out of the account to pay the 
charge. 

Senator McNamara. Then your figure shows exactly $5,000, but 
the difference that was paid would be how much ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know if it was $30 or $40 that I may have 
paid myself. 

Senator McNamara. That apparently was paid out of your own 
funds? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And not taken out of the account at the same 
time? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Apparently it was cash out of your pocket 
or something like that ? 

Mr. CoxFORTi. Yes, sir, the best I can recall. 

The Chairman. All right. Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is the account for the special 
organizational drive. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
what purports to be the bank account of B & C Organizing Fund, 
bearing your signature, Anthony J. Conf orti. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe he could identify them all at once. They 
have all to do with this transaction. 

The Chairman. I hand that to you and ask you to identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. I also pass to you the original signature card 
opening the account, which shows the account was closed on Janu- 
ary 3, 1955, together with a series of photostatic 

Mr. Carmell. Mr. Chairman, I think that would be January 3, 
1956. 

The Chairman. This shows account closed January 3, 1955. All 
I know is what this shows on it here. It shows that it was opened 
on 8-26-55. Therefore, one of them is bound to be in error, I think. 
I will accept your correction, sir, that it was closed January 3, 1956. 

I will ask the witness to identify the opening account certificate, 
together with the series of checks attached to it that shows what 
action was taken in the process of the account until it was closed. 

( Documents were handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you identify the photostatic copy of the 
account ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 2. 

(The document referred to marked "Exhibit No. 2" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3121, 3122.) 

The Chairman. Do you identify the signature card in opening 
the account? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir 

The Chairman. Together with the series of checks on the fund 
that were drawn on it during the life of the account? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Those will be made exhibit No. 3. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2607 

(The documents referred to marked "Exhibit No. 3" for reference 
and will be fomid in the appendix on pp. 3123-3128.) 

The Chairman. What are these, Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the checks from the two local unions, 
local 300 and local 100, making a total of $10,500. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a series of checks from local 100 
and also a series of checks from local 300, a series of checks which 
purport to be the original checks drawn by locals 100 and 300 as 
contributions to this B & C Organizing Fund which you received. 
I ask you to examine those and state if you identify those checks as 
being the originals which you received from each union. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I do identify these from local 300. 

The Chairman. Thev will be made exhibit No. 4. 

(The documents referred to marked "Exhibit No. 4" for reference 
and mav be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. And the checks from local 100, yes, although I 
would not necessarily see these vouchers. 

The Chairman. I understand. The checks and the vouchers will 

be made exhibit 4A. , „^ , ., • ^t .*„_<. jt 

(The documents referred to marked "Exhibit No. 4A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The checks from local 300 were signed by you, is 
that right ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the checks from local 100 were signed by 
George Stuart ? Just look at them. 

The Chairman. We will not have these exhibits printed in the 
record as they are very voluminous. They will just be made exhibits 
for reference. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I think most of them were signed by Mr. Stuart as 
trustee, but tlien towards the end of 1955, he appointed myself and 
Mr. Carbonara, who was appointed secretary of 100, to si^n the 
vouchers for disbursements from local 100 under his direction, to 
sign the checks. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Conforti, you didn't receive any of this money 
for your own personal use ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive or take any of the moneys from the 
local for your own personal use ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have you identify this check. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
a check dated December 14, 1953, in the amount of $555.98, drawn on 
the xlmerican National Bank & Trust Co., of Chicago, made payable 
to A. Conforti, and signed by Anthony J. Conforti. 

Will you examine the check, the photostatic copy, and see if you 
identify it, please ? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is A. Conforti ? 



2608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am. 

The Chairman. Who is Anthony J. Conforti? That is you? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So you issued that check to yourself ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 5 and may 
be printed in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 5" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3129, 3130.) 

Mr. Carmell. Mr. Chairman, may we hold this for a moment? 

The Chahiman. Yes. 

Mr. Carmell. We would like at this time to show to the Chair a 
check for identification in connection with this check that has been 
shown for $555 payable to Anthony Conforti. 

The Chairman. Pass up the exhibit and also the check that counsel 
presents. 

(Documents were handed to the committee.) 

The Chairman. You have presented a check here for $618.83, 
drawn by you as secretary-treasurer of local No. 300, payable to Chi- 
caf!:o, Eock Island & Pacific Eailroad Co., dated November 17, 1953. 

Mr. Carmell. Would the Chair be kind enough to read on the 
back as to the endorsement as to the place where it was used? 

The Chairman. It says : 

Pay to the order of City National Bank & Trust Co., of Kansas City. Previous 
endorsement guaranteed — 

and so forth. 

Mr. Carmell. Yes, sir. We wanted it placed in the record, if the 
Chair pleases. 

The Chairman. The Chair will wait for some explanation on it 
before placing it in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to the clieck for $555.98 on December 
14, 1953, the voucher reads : 

For disbursement. Railroad expenses, Portland. 

Did you go to Portland ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir; not that particular time. I was only in 
Portland once, at another time. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the summertime ? 

Mr. Conforti. It was another time. 

Mr. EJENNEDY. Wlien was it? When were you in Portland? 

Mr. Conforti. Wlien I left for overseas during the Avar, or after 
the war. It was during the war. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain to the committee why a check for 
$555.98 was drawn to you from local 300 for railroad expense for a 
Portland trip if you did not go to Portland ? 

]Mr. Conforti. I don't recall that at all. The only reason that I 
requested you to look at the other check was that was approximately 
the same time, maybe a week or two difference in the dates, and that 
check was used by Mr. Stuart to take other union officials or an offi- 
cial, to the Tournament of Eoses, I believe, where the bakery and 
confectionery workers has a float in the parade. 

It may have been used for that reason, also. I have no other expla- 
nation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2609 

The Chairman. Do you say this voucher upon which the check 
was issued is true or false ? On this check, the voucher shows that it 
is issued for 

Mr. IvENKEDY. Mr. Carmell, he can tell the answer himself. 

The Chairman. This says : 
In payment for railroad expenses to Portland. 

I cannot make out the word following "Portland." Can you make 
out what it is ? You paid it and I suppose you know. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. What is that, "Portland" what ? 

Mr. CoNFOETi. The Portland meeting. It is an abbreviation for 
meeting. 

The Chairman. Did you attend that meeting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Was there any such meeting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. None that I can recall ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you paid that voucher notwithstanding there 
was no such meeting and you did not go to Portland ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Who made out the voucher for this trip to Port- 
land ? Did you make it out or was that made out by someone else ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I think I made that one out. It looks like I made 
it out. 

Senator Mundt. Now you are getting me pretty badly confused. 
Why should you make out a voucher and you are telling me now that 
you did, which was entirely false? Wliy would you pay yourself 
$500 on a voucher for which you say there was no basis in fact? I 
think you owe us some sort of explanation for that besides, "I don't 
know why I did it." 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I would not do that. I wouldn't make out a check 
deliberately myself for a nonexistent meeting. 

Senator Mundt. I would not expect you to do it. That is why you 
must certainly give us a better explanation. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The only explanation that I have or am trying to 
make is that it may have been in connection with this trip to the 
west coast on that other check there. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. That is a check to a railroad. It has nothing to do 
with it. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, no, sir, but there may have been expenses, too, 
taken for that trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make the trip ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No ; I did not. 

Senator Curtis. Then who got the benefit of this check made to 
yourself ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know. I just don't remember. I don't re- 
call. I never went to Portland for any meeting. 

Senator Curtis. Where was it cashed ? 

Mr. CoNTORTi. I don't recall where it was cashed. I don't re- 
member. 

Senator Curtis. Wliere was it cashed ? 



2610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this : Did you not keep any set of 
books that you could use to refresh your memory on a thing like this? 
You were what ; secretary, or treasurer, or what ? 

Mr. CoKFORTi. Secretary -treasurer. 

Senator Mundt. Did you not have any set of books of any kind that 
would indicate what was happening to this money that you could 
look to and find out, to help yourself and the committee, to find out 
what this Portland meeting was about or whether there was a Port- 
land meeting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't remember any Portland meeting. I was 
only there once in my life. 

Senator Mundt. The question was whether you keep books. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; we kept books and vouchers. 

Senator Mundt. "When you withdraw from the union the $500 
would that not justify a little spot in your daybook, a notation? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was listed in the daybook ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat did you list it in the daybook as ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It would be listed the same as the voucher. 

Senator Mundt. As the Portland meeting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And there was no Portland meeting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. None that I know of. I was not there. I don't 
know of any. 

Senator Mundt. Did you make the listing in the daybook ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you made out the voucher and wrote the 
check for a meeting which never existed ? Certainly, you must have 
some explanation for that. I do not want to believe that you gave 
this to yourself, that you stole the money. I want to believe you, but 
you have to give me something on which to hang my hat. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I can only think that it went to Mr. Stuart for 
expenses in connection with the transportation to the Tournament of 
Roses. I don't have any other explanation. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Was this other check which I have not seen, 
which you asked to be entered, is that your personal check or is that 
another union check, this $550 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The $550 was a union check and so is this one. 

Senator Mundt. Both are union checks ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So it would appear, then, that if Mr. Stuart got 
this money, he got the $550 plus this other check which was cashed 
in Kansas City ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. That is the only thing that I can think 
about it. I don't recall anything else about it? 

The Chairman. This check is dated November 17, 1953 ; the check 
you present here of $618.83. It is not made to Mr. Stuart; it is not 
endorsed by Mr. Stuart. It is made to the Chicago, Rock Island & 
Pacific Railroad Co. 

That was practically a month before the other check was written. 
If you already paid this one time, you would not write a check to 
pay it again. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know what date that was endorsed, but I 
know the Tournament of Roses is not until January 1, and it is quite 



IIiIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2611 

possible that he would have been back for expenses, too, to cover that 
trip. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Yes, Senator Curtis. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me, but the other check there was not for 
railroad expenses. That was for cash. 

Senator Curtis. This check that I asked about, where was it 
cashed, the check of December 14, 1953, for $555.98, payable to your- 
self. That was cashed at the bank upon which it was drawn, but it 
has an endorsement on here following "A. Conforti" of "Charles 
Rustano." Who is he ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He is a neighborhood storekeeper. 

Senator Curtis. A neighborhood storekeeper ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. "Whereabouts? 

Mr. Conforti. In Chicago, at Grand and Harlem. 

Senator Curtis. You took this check to that store and got it 
cashed ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir ; I cashed checks. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio was with you ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat did you do with the money ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't remember. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. But you do remember that you cashed it at his 
store ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, I have cashed — I have often cashed checks 
in his store ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you cash this one there ? 

Mr. Conforti. I must have if he has his endorsement on it or 
else he may have vouched for me at the bank. 

Senator Curtis. Is that a neighborhood store close to where you 
work? 

Mr. Conforti. It is close to where I live. 

Senator Curtis. It is not close to where you live ? 

Mr. Conforti. It is close to where I live. 

Senator Curtis. It is close to where you live ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you do not recall going into the store and 
cashing this check? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir; I don't recall anything about that. I just 
don't. 

Senator Curtis. You presented the other check, or your counsel 
has for you. What explanation do you have for it? Certainly, the 
last one was not to reimburse this expense because this expense was 
already paid. 

Mr. Conforti. The other one was cash, advance, not a reimburse- 
ment of anything. 

The Chairman. Well, that is cash advanced to attend the meeting. 
This one had already been issued and cashed where you bought the 
transportation out there, at a prior time. 

I see no connection. 

Mr, Conforti. This was not for me, this check here. I never 
bought any railroad tickets. 



2612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Cpiaermax. Tlie other one was for you and you did not attend 
a meeting. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What did you do with the money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Mundt. Who is Leroy Porter ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He is a business representative. 

Senator Mundt. Does he countersign checks? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did he countersign them in blank or did he counter- 
sign them at the time they are issued. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. At the time they are issued. 

Senator Mundt. Can Mr. Leroy Porter shed any light on what 
this $555.98 was for, before he countersigned it? When you cashed 
it in a neighborhood store, you said it was for a meeting which never 
existed. Did Mr. Porter know anything about that ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know that he would know that. 

Senator Mundt. ^Vlien he countersigns them, he would want to 
know what they are for, would he not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am awfully sorry you have not a better expla- 
nation. I am trying to believe you, but this is a great test of a man's 
credibility when you do not come up with a better explanation than 
that. 

Senator McNamara. Wlien you turned this money over to Mr. 
Stuart, did you ever get any receipt at all ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir; I never got any receipt. If I made out a 
check, I would make it out the way he told me and put down on the 
voucher what he told me. 

Senator McjSTamara. You are an elected secretan^^-treasurer of 
these organizations and you are supposed to keep books and records 
to the satisfaction of your local union, are you not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Did you have an auditing committee, a board 
of auditors ? What do you call them in your organization ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Local union trustees. 

Senator McNamara. Did you not have to account to them for han- 
dling of these funds and the special account ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, they would make their regular 

Senator McNamara. In spite of that, you got no receipt for any of 
the money at all ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. T^Hien you handled the rest of ^'our business, 
did you not have generally vouchers or receipts for all of your ex- 
penditures ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. We tried to get receipts. 

Senator McNamara. But you did not try in this case ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I just did what I was told, that's all. 

Senator McNamara. That is kind of a weak answer. As a matter 
of fact, you are elected not to represent the international, but you were 
representing these people in your local union. You are responsible in 
the first instance to the people who elected you. They paid your 
salary ; they elected 3^ou to office. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR llELD 2613 

You had a trust that they confided in you. You did this business 
in such a manner that you do not make a very good accounting of it 
I am certainly astonished that a secretary-treasurer of longstanding 
union experience has come out in this light. 

Mr. CoNTORTT. I was afraid of my job, that's all it was. 

Senator McNamara. But you were dependent upon the rank and 
file for your job, not the international. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, no, I would say I was depending on the vice 
president for our district, a former trustee, who continued to main- 
tain control over the local miion. If you went contrary to their 
wishes, you were removed from your job. 

I saw it happen myself more than once, when people lost their jobs 
because they objected to the trustee or disagreed. 

Senator McNamara. And you are relying on the statement that you 
are in fear of this man, that you are afraid of him ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. We have some correspondence here which shows 
what happens when somebody disagrees with the trustee. I saw peo- 
ple lose their jobs. 

Senator McNamara. But after the election you were out of trustee- 
ship. 

Mi , 

teeships or he could put us back in at any time. 

Senator McNamara. Of course, that is so in any of your local 
unions. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. But even in your previous connection wlien 
you were appointed by this joint conunittee representing all the local 
unions 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir ; that is just recent that I was appointed there. 
That was just last year. This is 1953. 

Senator McNamara. But in this period, you were working directly 
for the trustee, appointed by the general officials ? 

Mr. Conforti. From 1948 to 1953 ; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is the period that these checks were 
drawn? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You did not follow this procedure after you 
became elected by the local unions? You now have a thorough ac- 
counting for all your funds ? 

Mr. CoisTFORTi. We have now, but not at that time, even after trus- 
teeship was removed. We still did what he told us to do. 

Senator McNamara. He was the boss because he was in complete 
charge of the afi'airs of the local at that time ? You were appointed 
by him, you were his representative at that time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not after September 1953. 

Senator McNamara. No, but at the time tliese checks were drawn? 

Mr. CoxFORTi. The exact dates I don't recall. 

Senator Muxdt. The cliecks were drawn after September of 1953. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. They would be after. 

Senator McNamara. Now, you were not dependent on him for your 
job, but you had been elected by the local unions involved? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I was dependent, because he could have put it back 
in trusteeship at any time. As a matter of fact, the statement was 
made that there would be supervision of our local for quite some time. 



2614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES E^f THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. There was a probationary period, is that what 
you are trying to say ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. I don't know what they call it. I just know that 
I was afraid I would be removed from my job like happened to others. 

Senator McNamara, He did not have the authority to do it, but 
he would have to go to the international president, Dave Beck, would 
he not, to have it done ? 

The Chairman. Not Dave Beck. 

Senator McNamara. I mean the international president of your 
local union, Mr. Cross, 

Mr, CoNFORTi, It is Cross now, but at that time it was Schnitzler, 
He reported people and they were removed and the approval came 
back for the removal of these people from their jobs. 

Senator McNamara. Because he acted in the name of the inter- 
national president? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. He had authority of the president? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The president of the general executive board, but 
these people Avere removed from their jobs before any authority was 
coming from the international union. We have some accounts of 
these things. 

The Chairman. In other words, what you are testifying to, to sum 
it up, is that you were under dictatorship ?' 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes sir, to put it bluntly. 

The Chairman. That is blunt and factual, too, is it not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So you had to do what you were told to do or you 
lose your job? 

Mr. CoNFOR ri. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Local members had nothing to do with running 
the union and the officers, the local officers, who were presumably 
serving them, were actually serving their master and that is the na- 
tional organization. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, we were serving the trustee, definitely. 

Tlie Chairman. You were out of trusteeship ? 

]\Ir. CoNFORTi. After trusteeship was lifted, yes, sir, I was still 
subject. 

The Chairman. They were still your masters? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You were afraid not to do what they told vou 
to do? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Because you had seen them remove others and 
you were afraid they would put you back in trusteeship and you 
would lose your job. So instead of serving the members of the union, 
even after the trusteeship was lifted, what you were serving was a 
national dictatorship ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Mundt. You said you had seen them remove others. Are 
you just talking in theories now, or are you talking about actual 
things which have occurred ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2615 

Mr. CoNFORTi. They actually have occiii-red. 

Senator Mundt. Can you stipulate by name and case? That will 
sort of bolster your position a little bit. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Mv. Stuart Avas the international trustee and there 
was a hearing held on whether or not the trusteeship should be con- 
tinued. Mr. Stuart was named hearing oflicer. 

We have the telegram ordering the hearing, and the notice, and 
then the statements of the members on what their opinions or what 
their belief was as far as trusteeship was concerned. 

Senator Mundt. They were against it? They were against con- 
tinuing this, were they ? 

Mr. CoNFOR-n. No. These are the statements of all those that 
appeared at the hearing. There were 2 or 3 that were against. Of 
all the officers that were appointed at that particular time, there was 
only one who voiced an objection to trusteeship. His name is Peter 
Lombardi. I will quote him : 

I believe we should have our local back for the simple reason that the rank 
and file is not satisfied with not having elections and conducting their own 
stewards and oflScers of the union, and it is quite a bit of disturbance in the 
shop. 

The rank and file are not satisfied. 

That hearing was held August 29, 1 believe or 27, 1949. 

This then, is local No. 300, international trustee's report for the 
month of September 1949 to the international union. Here is part 
of his report. 

On September 14, 1949, I sent official notification to Peter Lombardi informing 
him of his removal from the office of trustee for Biscuit, Cracker, and Candy 
Workers Local No. 300 as well as a delegate to the Chicago bakers joint execu- 
tive board of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of 
America. 

The Chairman. At this point, what you are establishing is the 
fact that if they did not take orders from the international, the 
international simply removed them from office ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairivian. That is a fact, is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, that is correct and as I stated before, he re- 
moved them before getting any prior approval for removing anybody 
from their job in the local union. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to get to this: Who removed Peter 
Lombari ? Who assigned that ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Mr. Stuart, the international trustee. 

Senator Mundt. He kicked him out because he objected to con- 
tinuing the trusteeship ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Two weeks later. On October 19, 1949. There is 
a letter to Mr. Stuart, special trustee, by Mr, William F. Schnitzler, 
submitted for the president, Herman Winter : 

This is to advise the general executive board has acted favorably upon the 
change you have made in the official family of local 300 and approval is hereby 
given for the removal of Peter Lombardi from his office of trustee. 



2616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. What you are establishing there is that for the 
then president of the union, Stuart was his official bouncer and he 
bounced him out on that occasion, bounced Lombardi out? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know what he considered them. I don't 
know what happened. 

Senator Mundt. He bounced Lombardi out ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Among others. 

Senator Mundt. Have you some more? Go ahead. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. We have some other correspondence on the same 
kind of situation. 

Then, previous to this, also, when I was appointed in the beginning 
in 1948, in December, or the beginning of 1949, I was appointed 
secretary-treasurer. The former business agent was reappointed also 
for a matter of 3 or 4 months. It was about 3 or 4 months later 
when he also objected to the trusteeship being continued. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat was his name ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Ralph Ricci. 

Senator Mundt. Ricci? 

Mr. Conforti. R-i-c-c-i. 

He was the president and the business agent. He was reappointed, 
as I said, for about 3 or 4 months, until he had got some of the mem- 
bers to submit a petition to the international union requesting the re- 
moval of Mr. Stuart as trustee. A week or two later he was forced to 
resign. 

Senator Mundt. By Stuart? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

He went back to work at the National Biscuit Co. I don't know 
what happened. I had a copy of the termination list, where a year 
later he quit National Biscuit Co. He didn't like the idea of work- 
ing in a bakery any more, I guess, or I don't know what. But he 
left there, anyway. 

"When I was appointed, I was given a 1-year leave of absence. That 
was in December, I believe, of 1948. Therefore, in December of 1949, 
my leave of absence had expired, and it was not renewed. I had no 
more leave of absence, I had no more job. I had been with the com- 
pany at that time about 12 years. I had forfeited my job and security, 
and pension rights and so on, to work for the local union, and I ha^, 
therefore, no more security, no nothing. 

Senator Mundt. So if you got kicked out of your job with the 
union, you would have been out of work ? 

Mr. Conforti. I would have been out of work, period. 

Senator Mundt. Stuart kicked Ricci out of his job, is that correct ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And kicked Lombardi out of his job ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you say there are others that you know about? 

Mr. Conforti. I think there are more, the office employees 

Senator Mundt. Tn all of this, it is pretty clear from your testi- 
mony that even after you had established so-called local option of your 
union in 1953, you were still operating under the fear of Stuart? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir, the fear of losing my job. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2617 

I would like to also point out that I was told when I was appointed 
on this job in 1948, that I would receive the same wao;es as the former 
secretary-treasurer and business agent, the same conditions and so on. 
They were receiving a total of $160 a week, I believe. I was paid 
$85 a week instead of the $160. I never did receive the $160 in the 5 
years. 

Also, the former business agent was supplied with an automobile by 
the local union, which I didn't receive. Like I say, I never did receive 
the wages. I received $75 a week for the first year and the next 3 years 
I think it was $85 a week. The highest wage I received under the 
trusteeship was, I think, $109. 

Senator Mundt. And what do you receive now as an elected official ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Since May of last year, $275 a week because of the 
merged local unions, where the membership has grown and where the 
work increased duties and so on. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of this so-called domination by your mas- 
ter, were any of the union funds used to purchase personal gifts or 
pay the bills of any of these people ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know this was going on during this period 
of time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTT. Yes, I believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you felt that you couldn't object to it; is that 
right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. You are right. I felt I could not object. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You did not object? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir ; I had no authority to question them. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1954, Mr. Conforti, we find from your records, 
a review of your records, one item, that there were $2,591.48 worth of 
camera equipment purchased and charged to the local union. What 
was that camera equipment for ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, he told me they were for gifts 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is "he"? 

Mr. Conforti. Mr. Stuart. He told me they were for gifts for other 
union officials, or labor leaders. In one instance, I think he said it was 
for gifts to be distributed at the Illinois State Fair, gifts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who received those gifts ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

Well, I got a camera. He gave me a camera. 

Mr. I^nnedy. So you were one of the ones that got one ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to receive a camera ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, he told me to go down and buy these various 
items for gifts, and when I brought them back, he gave me one. 

Mr. Kennedy. He gave you one of the cameras ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he taking a trip at that time, that he needed 
these cameras himself ? 

Mr. Conforti. That was the year, I think, yes, when he was going to 
Europe. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was going to Europe ? 

Mr. Conforti. I believe so. I am not positive. I think that was 
to Europe. 



2618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And he needed some of the equipment to go to 
Europe, some camera equipment ? 
Mr. Carmell. Is that 1954 you are talking about ? 
Mr. Kennedy. It might be true of the first part of 1955. 
Wait a minute. I have the checks. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't recall that he said he needed any of that to 
go to Europe. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is a clieck on June 14, 1954, for $107.49 ; Aug- 
ust 12, 1954, $776.10; August 12, 1954, $300.78; September 17, 1954, 
$123.15; October 11, 1954, $727.05; December 8, 1954, $17.07. 
So it is all in the last 6 months of 1954. 
Do you have anything further on that ? 

(At this point. Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Mr. CoNFORTi. Not that I can recall right now ; no, sir. 
Mt. Kennedy. This trip to Europe, do you know whether that was 
paid by the union or not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. By our local union ? 
Mr. Kennedy. No, by the bakers union. 
Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe it was. I just heard. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you the series of six checks 
that counsel has interrogated you about, and I ask you to identify 
them, examine them, and identify them, so that they may be made 
exhibits. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Kennedy. That is $2,591.48. 
The Chairman. Those checks aggi'egate $2,591.48. 
AVill you examine them and identify them, please ? 
Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. I identify the checks as having been written 
on the local union. 

The Chairman. They may be made Exhibit No. 6. 
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 6" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. $539.84, dated May 24, 1954, is another one of the 
checks, Mr. Chairman. I omitted that one. 

The Chairman. Will you examine this check, which should have 
been included with the others to make that total ( 
(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. This one specifically states it was for bon 
voyage presentation for him. 

The Chairman. Specifically states what? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Bon voyage presentation to Mr. Stuart. It doesn't 

state Mr. Stuart, but it is 

The Chairman. A going-av\'ay gift when he started overseas? 
Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That will be made part of exhibit No. 6. 
Those may be printed in the record. I think they have some 
significance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did tlie local union give approval to the purchase 
of $2,5()0 worth of camera equi])ment I 
Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were the members informed that the $2,500 worth 
of their dues were being used to buy camera equipment for Mr. 
Stuart i 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2619 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. Did you inform tlieni? 

Mr. CoxroRTi. Did I 'i 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir, I don't believe I did. 

The Chairman. Who else knew about this transaction, except 3^ou 
and Stuart ? 

]Mr. CoNFORTi. I guess Mr. Porter did. I don't know. Mr. Porter. 

The Chairman. Do you think the board knew about it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Our executive board, the local executive board ? 

The Chairman. Y(>s. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know if they knew about that one when he 
was going over to Europe. They may have known about that. The 
others, I doubt that they did. 

The Chairman. Tlie others you doubt? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I doubt that they knew ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So it is just a transaction between you and Stuart, 
where lie ordered you to do it and you did it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What kind of annual reports do you make to your 
union, monthly reports or semiannual reports ? Do the members have 
any way of finding out what happens to their money 'I 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, they do now. At that particular time, they 
were just financial reports — excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. In other words, at that time, you just said in the 
course of the year so many thousands of dollars had been collected 
and it had been spent, and you did not tell them where? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Also, every detailed expenditure is listed on our 
financial daybook pages. 

Senator Mundt. Listed where ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Listed on our cashbook, each one. 

Senator Mundt. But how does a baker in the plant ever see the 
cashbook ? 

Mr. Conforti. We make a financial report. It was condensed at 
that time. From the beginning of 1948 it was made that way. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you never made a detailed account- 
ing of how the money was spent ? 

Mr. Conforti. We did to the international union; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. To the international union i 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about the people who paid the bills, 
who paid the money. They are the ones who shoidd have the report. 
It is their money that is going to the international union, where they 
are dipping into it to take trips to Europe, buy Cadillac cars, and so 
forth. The guy who pays the dues, where does he come out on it? 
Where does he get his information? Let's stick with him. "Wliat 
does he find out ? 

Mr. Conforti. Our local board of trustees comes in and they are 
given all the books and all the expenditures and everything else. 

Senator Mundt. What about Joe Bloke in the bakery ; what does he 
find out? Where does he find out what happens to his money ? John 
Q. Baker, does he have any right in this at all ? 

89330— 57— pt. 8 4 



2620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The membership themselves elect the local trustees. 

Senator Mundt. That does not answer the question. How does the 
membership who pay the dues find out what happened to their money ? 

You used to be a union baker, did you not, some place along the 
line? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I still consider myself so. 

Senator Mundt. I mean before you were an officer, you earned your 
living as a baker ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you paid dues. As a dues-paying member, do 
you think you have a right to know what happens to your money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. At the end of each year, we prepare yearly financial 
reports on all the disbursements and receipts. 

Senator Mundt. Condensed? You can put it on the back of a 
playing card ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, I mean the report made each month at the 
executive meeting, at that time it is condensed, but for the year it is 
more explicit and lists the items. 

Senator Mundt. Do they list all the items ? Do they list the camera 
equipment ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not individually as camera equipment in the yearly 
report. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. We couldn't list each individual transaction. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, there just is no way in your system 
of reporting to the members, for the union member finding out 
whether or not his money is being appropriately spent or not? 

Mr. CoNFORTi, There is and there has been now for the past year 
or more. 

Senator Mundt. Up until the last year, we will put it that way, 
there was no way under your procedure of reporting to the fellow 
who pays the dues to support the union whether his money was being 
properly spent or improperly spent, is that correct ? 

Mr. Conforti. There are also financial reports made at membership 
meetings; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. How much would they tell them there, that there 
was so much collected and so much spent, and move that it be ap- 
proved ? 

Mr. Conforti. That was about the size of it. 

Senator Mundt. Do you not think that it is about time that the 
dues-paying members of American unions be^an asserting their 
American rights to know something about what is going on in their 
own outfit? I think the membership themselves are subject to some 
criticism that they do not stand up like Americans and holler about 
it, and say, "We want to know. We are Americans. We don't want 
to be taxed without representation. We want to know what is 
happening." 

Certainly the officers have some obligation to tell the people the 
facts. The whole idea of developing a labor movement based on 
fear, coercion, intimidation, dictatorship and secrecy is incompatible 
with American traditions, in my opinion. 

Mr. Conforti. Here is a statement that we prepared for 1956. It 
lists the automobile expenses, building maintenance, negotiation p.t- 
penses, executive board, and so forth. 



mPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2621 

Senator Mundt. Under what heading does it list the cameras ? 

Mr. CoNFoRTi. This is 1956. 

Senator Mundt. This is the new system ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You are learning. I am glad you are doing better. 

But I am talking about prior to that. 

You recognized, certaiiily, that prior to that time, the dues-paying 
member and his family was not getting a square shake as far as getting 
a clear-cut, fully detailed report was concerned ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. We prepared those before, too. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Did I understand you to say that on some occasion 
the international officers lemoved the local officers and tried them 
under the union rules later ? 

Mr. CoNTORTi. No. I said if you objected to the international 
trustee, whoever would be in charge, that you would be removed from 
your job. There wouldn't be any charges. 

Senator Ekvin. There would not be any kind of trial or hearing 
on it? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the international officers had the 
right or the power to remove officers from the local unions without 
any kind of a notice or hearing ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Under the trusteeship ; yes. 

As I state in that letter, they just sent a letter to him notifying him 
of his removal. That is aU. 

Senator Ervin. And the international officers could order a local 
union into a trusteeship ? 

Mr. Conforti. They would first conduct the hearing on the trustee- 
ship. 

Senator Ervin. But they were the ones who conducted the hearings 
and made the rulings ? 

Mr. Conforti. Pardon ? 

Senator Ervin. They were the ones 

Mr. Conforti. That conducted the hearing ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. After they conducted the hearing, they had the 
power to make the decision, which gave them practically dictatorial 
power over the local union, by ordering it into the trusteeship ? 

Mr. Conforti. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. They had the trial, and then they appointed among 
themselves the trusteeship. 

Mr. Conforti. Mr. Stuart was the trustee. He conducted the hear- 
ing. 

Senator Ervin. He was the judge, the jury, and also the beneficiary 
of his own decision ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman, about this wit- 
ness. There is something in the Scriptures that says, "Blessed is he 
who sweareth to his own hui-t and changeth not." 

I think this particular witness deserves the thanks of the commit- 
tee, the thanks of Congress, the thanks of labor, and the thanks of the 
American people for coming here and telling the truth without in- 



2622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

yoking the fifth amendment. It certainly is a refreshing experience 
to undergo, as a member of this committee, to see a witness of this 
character before ns. 

The Chairman. Are there any fiirtlier questions? Senator 
McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. I have a few brief questions. 

I believe we all understand that when a local union is in trusteeship, 
it is subject to the whims and caprice of the man who is placed in 
charge of the local union by the international. But you started out 
earlier today by saying that to get a local union into trusteeship, they 
would have a trial, a trial officer would be appointed, charges would be 
filed, and they would be given an opportunity to face those charges. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. In order to establish trusteeship ? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No; there would be no trial, no charges. There 
would be a hearing. 

Senator McNamara. Well, you can call it a hearing, but it amounts 
to the same thing. Go ahead. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Then the hearing officer, who is appointed by the 
International Union, makes his report on the hearing, with his recom- 
mendation, and so on and so forth. 

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

Senator McNamara. Makes the report to whom ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. To the International Union. 

Senator McNamara. The international executive committee or the 
international president? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I think it goes to the president and then I think it 
is taken up with the general executive board. 

Senator McNamara. Subject to approval by the board in the final 
analysis ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe so. 

Senator McNamara. This is all in accordance with your constitu- 
tion? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. I do not understand after you get out of trus- 
teeship, why you still have this fear of the vice president in charge of 
the district. I think your fear is slightly unfounded. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Because he could put us back into trusteeship. 

Senator McNamara. He could only do it by somebody in your local 
union or somebody in the international filing charges. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That is the easiest thing in the world to do. 

Senator McNamara. Of course it is easy to do. Under your con- 
stitution, it is easy to do. I understand. But it is not easy to make 
it stick ; if the charges are unfounded, if there are not grounds for it, 
why should you be afraid ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. They don't make charges. They don't try to dis- 
prove. They just call the hearing, and the hearing officer makes a 
report. There is no chance for proving or disproving anything. 

Senator McNamara. That is what your testimony says up to now. 
It says two things. It says that there are charges preferred, there is 
a hearing, you do have an opportunity to face up to it. You say this 
on the one hand. On the other hand, you say this is not so. Which 
is the fact ? What do you want the record to reflect ? 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2623 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't think I said that any charges would be made, 
or that there were hearings on charges. 

Senator McNamailv. You said a hearmg officer would be appointed, 
rhat he was appointed to go into the charges that were made by some- 
body. Or was he? 

ylv. CoNFORTi. He was appointed to hear the members of the local 
uition. 

Senator McNamara. That is right. And they had charges pre- 
ferred against the officis'.ls of the local ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir, not charges. They had complaints. They 
would make complaints. 

Senator McNamara. Let us call them complaints. It means the 
same thing. 

Mr. CoNFORTi, Then the trusteeship would be established and then 
cliarges might be preferred against individuals and then they would 
be removed^ That is exactly what happened to us. Then charges 
were preferred for 

Senator McNamara. Now you are getting back to the first instance, 
wlien you first went into trusteeship, is that right? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. What were the charges ? 

Mr. Conforti. There was this commotion on the board meeting 
about the representation elections for the machinists who were part 
of our union. One or two or three of these machinists were officers 
in our local union. It seemed that there was a movement there, by 
having them pull out of the bakers union into the machinists union. 
Then the officers of the bakers union that were in conflict with the 
officers who were macliinists would be rid of them, and they wouldn't 
be in our union anymore. Because of that, they requested the inter- 
national union to step in and see if they couldn't do something about 
it. or settle the argument or commotion. 

Senator McNamara. Who made the request, the machinists or the 
bakery workers? 

Mr. Conforti. I think— It was the bakers, the bakery workers, I 
thi)ik. 

Senator McNamara. The machinists did not have any question? 
They just wanted to withdraw from the bakery workers and become 
members of the machinists union? 

Mr. Conforti. All those, I think, except those that were officers 
of local 300. They didn't want to. They would have to give up tlieir 
jobs as officers of the local union. 

Senator McNamara. These officers of the local union filed charges 
or complaints, if you will, with the international? Is that your 
interpretation ? 

Mr. Conforti. No ; there was a petition sent in to the international 
union. I may liave been one of them that was approached by the 
president at that time. I don't recall. 

Senator McNamara. Were there hundreds of signatures on this 
petition, or just a few ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't recall how many were on there. Or it was 
to write a letter. That was the whole idea. The president of the local 
union approached I don't know how many people, and asked them or 
myself — I may have been one of them, I don't remember — to send a 



2624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

letter to the international union, requesting them to step into the 
picture in the local union. There couldn't have been too much lapse 
of time, because we still had a board meeting on August 24 — wasn't 
it — of 1948, according to the mimeographed sheets we have. And on 
September 7, trusteeship was established already. 

(At this point Senators Erwin and Mundt withdrew from the hear- 
ing room. ) 

Senator McNamara.. I do not think the time element is important. 
The rank-and-file members, a certain portion of them, a large or small 
group, petitioned the international office to appoint a trustee? 

Mr. CoNroKTi. Not to appoint a trustee, but to send a representa- 
tive to the local union to investigate, to see what the trouble was, 
and see if he couldn't straighten it out. Then from there, the trustee- 
ship was established after his recommendation. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Senator JSIcNamara. Then jou requested that they take the first 
step that resulted in the appointing of a trustee ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Then the rank and file asked for this action 
that resulted in the trusteeship, all in accordance with your con- 
stitution ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't know about the rank and file. 

Senator McNamara. You said you were one of the people who 
might have signed the petition ? 

Mr. CoNTORTi. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. The other people who signed it were members 
of the union, I take it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. From 3'our description, that is. Then these 
are the rank and file, are they not ? Is that not what you refer to as 
rank and file? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, but I thought you meant the majority of 
the rank and file. 

Senator McNamara. I didn't mean majority. "We don't know 
whether there are a few or many, because you don't know, and you 
are giving the testimony. But if this is the procedure, why do you 
have such fear? Are you afraid that the rank and file would turn 
on you after they elected you to office? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. We were always hopeful that the trusteeship would 
be lifted and the trustee would remove himself from the local union, 
but it just didn't happen that way. After 5 years of jumping and 
doing what you are told 

Senator McNamara. But you asked for it in the first place; you, 
as one who might have signed a petition, asked for it. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, but I only signed or wrote the letter at the 
request of the president of the local union at that time. 

Senator McNamara. What motivated you is not the question, but 
you did it, nevertheless. 

Mr. CoKFORTi. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

The Ch.virmax. Mr. Conforti, you will return at 2 o'clock. 

The committee will stand in recess until that time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2625 

(Thereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess were Senators Mc- 
Clellan,McNamara, and Goldwater.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(Members present at the convening of the afternon session, Sena- 
tors McClellan and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The conunittee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. CONFORTI, ACCOMPANIED BY 

COUNSEL, SHERMAN CARMELL— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. This morning we were discussing the use of union 
funds and the purchase of some cameras, which you obtained, one of 
them I understand from Mr. Stuart. Were there any other gifts 
that were purchased for the union officials with union money which 
was not authorized by the union membership ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Offhand, I can't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive anything besides a camera, your- 
self? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes ; a fishing rod and fishing tackle. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some fishing tackle ? 

]Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that with union funds, that you received the 
fishing tackle? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you receive anything else ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I had a projector and screen for still pictures, which 
he later took back. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wiat does that mean? You were given the projec- 
tor and screen which was purchased for you out of imion funds, 
initially? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then Mr. Stuart came along and took it back? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir; that is rig-ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Viij did you give it to him, if it was yours? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. He wanted them and so he took them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive anything else ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. A pair of binoculars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that also purchased by Mr. Stuart out of union 
funds for you ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or did you get that yourself? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Xo; that was also purchased in the same manner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anvthing else that vou received, your- 
self? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, there were various gifts at Christmastime, 
and it has been a procedure for many years, and I did get a cutlery 
set, the same gift that the executive board members received, all of 
our board members. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much would that amount to ? 



2626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I think in the neighborhood of $30 or so. 

]Sh'. Kenxedy. Did you ever receive some silverware and steak 
knives ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Steak knives ; yes, the cutlery. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was only $30 worth ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Each one, each set was about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many sets did you receive ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I received one. 

]Mr. Kennedy. So you only received $30 worth ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes ; at that particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that approved by the membership that you 
should all receive steak knife sets ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was approved in the beginning by the executive 
board, and it had been a procedure, as I say, for many years, going 
back to 1949 or 1950, or thereabouts. 

ISIr. Kennedy. Since the union was under trusteeship ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes; I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the membership know you were buying your- 
selves these gifts ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, it was for the entire executive board, and I 
imagine they knew, and they must have discussed it in the plants, the 
shop steward and board members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive anything else other than that gift 
at Christmas? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Offhand I don't recall any. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember receiving any other silverware 
or steak knives sets ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not that I can recall right now. 

There was one year, there was a picnic basket. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received a picnic basket ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was that worth? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Around the same amount of money, I think, I don't 
recall definitely. I don't remember what year it was. Through the 
years. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a store by the name of L. London ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does L. London sell ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Jewelry, and so on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify this check ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a check on the Etna 
State Bank, dated January 30, 1956, drawn to L. London, in the 
amount of $383.32. I will ask you to examine it and state if you 
can identify it and also state whether it is in payment of the attached 
voucher. 

These are photostatic copies. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir ; I identify this as a check. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 7. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7," for 
reference, and will be found in the Appendix on pp. 3131, 3132.) 

The Chairman. State what it is and what it is for. 

Mr. Conforti. It is a check in the amount of $383.32 drawn on 
local 100. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2627 

The Chairman. On local 100 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, and made out to L. London, and the voucher 
states "conference expenses." 

The Chairman. States what? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Conference expenses. 

The Chairman. What conference did he attend ? 

Mr. Conforti. I wouldn't know of any conference, sir. It was 
made out under the instructions of Mr. Stuart. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conforti. I was not a member of that particular local union. 
I was appointed to cosign these checks by Mr. Stuart. 

The Chairman. You had some responsibility, if you were not a 
member you were acting as an agent, an employee, of the trustee of it, 
were you not, by appointment? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't know. He had myself and Mr. Carpenter 
appointed. The local union was still under trusteeship. 

The Chairman. Is L. London a member of the union ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What kind of conference would you be having with 
a man like that, and paying him $383 ? 

Mr. Conforti. None that I know of. 

The Chairman. In other words, that was a coverup, was it not, 
for purchases ? 

Mr. Conforti. That is what he told us to put on the voucher. 

The Chairman. What did he purchase at that time? Did you 
not know about it ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say Mr. Stuart did at that time, also, is that 
right? 

Mr. Conforti. Did what, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You say this is Mr. Stuart, again ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. We would put down on the voucher what 
he would say to put down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conforti, according to the records, we checked 
with L. London, and these were purchases for you, $383.32, with pur- 
chases for you. There was a knife service, a camping set, a set of 
silverware, and another service, and different kinds of services, 
making a total of $383.32, which was put on the account of Tony 
Conforti, and your name appears on the check. 

Mr. Conforti. May I see those, please ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you an itemized statement 
of the accounting together with each purchase ticket, photostatic 
copies of them, and apparently this check went to pay for them. 
They total the same amount as the check. This is from L. London. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we had an investigator check with 
that store, and they have stated that that $383 check was used to pay 
for these items. 

The Chairman. All right. 

At least they agree in total. Let us see what the answer is. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Conforti. These camping sets and steak knives, yes, they were 
what we had given to all of our executive board, but there is one here 
for a set of silverware, which I have never seen. 



2628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is $200. 

Mr. CoNEORTi. Yes, sir, that is a $200 item. 

The Chairman. Did you buy it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Why was it charged to you ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You never heard of it before ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who wrote the check for it ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, I signed the check, and I was told to make 
the check out, but I have never seen any set of silverware. 

The Chairman. Somebody else got that one ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir, they certainly did, and I never saw it. 

The Chairman. That has been identified and it may be made ex- 
hibit No. 8. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for refer- 
ence and will be fomid in the appendix on pp. 3133-3136.) 

Mr. Kennedy. These have your name on them, of course, these 
bills, each one of these. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir, I saw my name on them. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You do not have any explanation for it? 

Mr. Conforti. I may have picked up part of that merchandise, 
or all of it, and I don't recall, and that would put my name on the 
bill. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conforti. The silverware I have never seen, I have never seen 
any silverware. I have never seen it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say Mr. Stuart is responsible for this, too, 
then? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, yes, any checks that were written were writ- 
ten at his direction. 

Mr. KJENNEDY, Were there any checks written so that he could cash 
them, and use the moneys, other than matters that we discussed this 
morning ? 

Mr. Conforti. I am not sure that I know what you mean. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do you know of any time that any of the money 
from the local went to Mr. Stuart ? 

Mr. Conforti. Which local? 

Mr. Kennedy. From your local 300. 

Mr. Conforti. From local 300, 1 think there was one instance when 
the check was made out directly to him. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. How much was that for ? 

Mr. Conforti. I think that was $175 check. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason was that ? 

Mr. Conforti. I don't recall right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have an arrangement with the Midwest 
Hotel Catering Service, or Catering Corp., of the Midwest Hotel ? 

Mr. Conforti. We had an office there. 

Mr. EJENNEDY. Were there any checks cashed there ? 

Mr. Conforti. None that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never cashed any checks. Did you have any 
bills there? 

Mr. Conforti. We had bills there, for different meetings, and hall 
rentals, and so on, for ourselves. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2629 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you always verify that there was actually a 
meeting when there was a check made out to the Midwest Hotel? 
Did you always verify there was a meeting there ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, any meetings that we had, I would have 
known about it. But there were other meetings there that Mr. 
Stuart had held, or entertainment, and so on, and I wouldn't know 
about except that he would say to pay so much or make out a check 
for so much. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. Do you know whether he actually used that money 
to pay a bill, or whether he put the money in his pocket? 

Mr. CoNFOKTi. I can't say. I know that he has had meetings 
there. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you ever check to find out if the meeting took 
place, Mr. Conforti? You were in charge of the money. Did you 
ever check that ? 

Mr. Conforti. I never checked it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever get a voucher for it ? 

Mr. Conforti. I think sometimes we did, and I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the records of the hotel show, for instance 
in 1955, that there were checks amounting to $3,439.73 cashed there, 
of which the hotel received only $2,200.68, making an excess in 1955 
of $1,239.05. 

Do you have any explanation for what happened to that money, 
$1,239.05 ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, that possibly could be what he said when he 
had entertaining expenses there in connection with these meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all contained in the receipts of the hotel, 
which is $2,200.68, which is to pay for the bills at the hotel, for the 
rooms, and for the entertainment and whatever it might be at the 
hotel. 

But beyond that, the checks were cashed at the hotel for $3,000 or 
made payable and cashed at the hotel, $3,439.73, and the excess in 
cash was turned over, amounting to $1,239.05. 

Can you sive the committee any explanation as to what happened 
to the $1,239.05 ? 

Mr. Conforti. Only what he told me, that the money was spent 
there in the building there, in the restaurant or in the cocktail lounge 
in connection with these meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever suspect that he might be taking this 
money and using it for his own personal benefit ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never thought that ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. There had been times when either the 
employees of the restaurant or the bar would say to me that they had 
seen him there the previous night, or the previous afternoon, or 
something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in 1956, the excess was $397 and in 1957, so 
far, it has been $86.71 making a total of $1,722.76. 

Do you know what happened to that money ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, that you understand that the other moneys 
that were used to pay the bills, we can understand that, and we account 
for those, but this is excess and checks made payable to the Midwest 
Hotel, which were not used to pay bills. 



2630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Only what he said the money was used for. 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is a schedule from the Mid- 
West Hotel Catering Corp., and is signed by their auditors, which 
gives in detail the figures that I gave in summary. He wouldn't be 
able to identify that. 

The Chairman. Have you interrogated him fully regarding the 
totals and discrepancies? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; and these are the checks made payable to the 
hotel. 

The Chairman. He can identify the checks, I think. 

Mr, Kennedy. He can. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a series of checks, some 
originals and some photostatic copies, paid to the Mid-West Hotel 
Catering Corp. I ask you to examine them and see if you identify 
them. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. They all appear to be the checks. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 9 for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 9" for lef- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that other matter that I showed 
you earlier, of the check made payable to L. London, Jewelers, Janu- 
ary 30, we have another check made payable to London Jewelers on 
November 25, 1955, for $780. 

Mr. Carmell. Would you give me the number ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 7321. That is listed in your books as "Xmas pres- 
ents." Who were the Christmas presents given to? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Those are for our executive board and shop stewards. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the $383.32 for ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. There may have been 1 or 2 more sets on these steak 
knives or carving sets. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many do you have on your executive board ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. At that time there was about 40. 

Mr. Kennedy. Everybody got a little gift ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a canceled check, dated 
November 25, 1955, in the amount of $780, payable to London Jewelers, 
and ask you to examine it and identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; I can identify this. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 10. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 10" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3137-3138.) 

The Chairman. That will be for reference along with the other 
check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in the books and records of the local, Mr. Coii- 
forti, you have a sum made payable to a Mr. John Mascarella, $2,500 
retainer fees. That was in 1955, 1 believe, and 1956 and 1954. 

Could you tell the committee what Mr. Mascarella was doing for 
the union ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. He was performing services for our mem- 
bership, mainly helping them to find places to live and we had prob- 
lems with the real-estate problems, real-estate taxes, and things of 
that nature. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2631 

He had been doing that and I don't recall for how long a period 
of time prior to that, but in 1954 then he was paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss this with the board, that you 
were going to pay this money out to Mr. Mascarella ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am quite sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not appear in the minutes of your board 
meetings of local 300. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that it was discussed 
with the board. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you were paying this money out to him ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was helping your membership find places to 
live; you say? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Places to live, or helping with problems of their real 
estate, or real estate taxes, or any problems that they had that he 
might be able to help. 

Mr, Kennedy. Is he an attorney ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. I don't believe he is. 

The Chairman. What does he do besides draw money from the 
union ? 

Mr. Conforti. He has a real-estate office and insurance. 

The Chairman. Do you give him your insurance ? 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did notice go out to your membership that they 
should get in touch with Mr. Mascarella when they had troubles? 

Mr. Conforti. Our executive board, shop stewards, in discussions 
at our meetings, said if any members had any particular problems 
along those lines, they would. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you have another item for $3,500 for local 
union 300 to the Mid-West Hotel. 

The Chapman. Let the Chair put these checks in the record. The 
Chair presents 2 checks, one, July 15, 1954 to Mr. Mascarella, and an- 
other one August 1, 1955, and each of them in the amount of $2,500. I 
will ask you to examine them and identify them. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir ; I identify them. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits Nos. 11 and 11-A 
for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 11 and 
11-A'' for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3139- 
3142.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I present to you another check for $3,500. That is 
to Mid- West Hotel Corp. What was the reason for that payment ? 

Mr. Conforti. That was to pay the balance of rent that was due on 
our lease, when we moved from that office to our present location. 

The Chairman. This check is dated April 10, 1956, in the amount 
of $3,500 and made payable to Mid-West Hotel Corp., and will you 
identify it ? Will you tell us what it was for ? 
(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir ; this $3,500 check was to pay the balance of 
the rent that we owed on our lease for our office space. 
The Chairman. That will be exhibit No. 12 for reference. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3143-3144.) 



2632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a cancellation of the lease at that time, 
that you paid the $3,500 ? 

Mr. CoNEORTi. I don't recall that we did; no, sir. The reason was 
that we had the privilege of subletting it or if it was rented before 
the lease expired, part of that money would be returned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you pay the $3,500 and not have any 
docmnent for it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yv^ell, it was to pay what our obligation was, before 
we merged into the other local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are paying the lease for another year and a half 
and you did not have any document at all ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. None that I could recall. 

The Chalrman. Do I understand this was paying a year and a half 
in advance ; you were moving out and you were canceling your lease ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The lease had approximately a year and a half to 
run. 

The Chairman. So you just paid it all at one time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You previously had been paying it by the month ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; while we were occupying the quarters. 

The Chairman. When you moved out, you paid it all ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was the building ever rented during that period 
of time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir; although it had been advertised for rent, 
it was not rented. 

The Chairman. It was not rented for a year and a half ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. As far as I know, today it is not rented. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The lease says it was canceled in February 5, 1957, 
and why was it canceled in February of 1957 when you paid the money 
and canceled the lease back in 1956 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. There still was the restoring of the office space to 
the condition it was in before they remodeled it for us and the lease 
was not canceled until the whole thing had been settled and that came 
about then, later in February. I think that is about it, when we paid 
them $750, I believe, plus leaving a room conditioner in, which we 
had installed, and cut holes in the wall and so on. 

That $750 plus those room conditioners was accepted for restoring 
the place. 

Mr. Kennedy. On January 2, this document reading January 2, 
1957, says "in consideration of $750 and other good and valuable con- 
siderations we are canceling lease dated July 1, 1955, between the 
Mid-West Hotel Corp. and the Biscuit, Cracker and Candy Workers 
Union, Local 300," signed "Conforti," and "Alexander Fleck." 

Wliy would you sign a document like that in 1957 and you would 
not have done that or taken that step back in 1956 when you paid the 
$3,500? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, we didn't know what would have to be paid for 
restoring the building back to its original condition. Also, we thought 
the place would be rented. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2633 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Fleck ever entered this in the 
books, the $3,500 ? Did he ever enter that in the books of the Mid- 
West Hotel Corp. ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I wouldn't know that. 

Mr, Kennedy. You have no idea ? 

Mr. CONFORTI. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any understanding with him about 
that $3,500 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The understanding was that it would be kept and 
any money that was left over would be returned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you to receive personally any of that money ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any of it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, Idid not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive $3,000 in November of 1953 from the 
local union, local 300 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I received a check for $3,000, and I am not sure of 
the date. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of that check ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That was to pay me for automobile expenses or de- 
preciation and repairs and so on, for the years when I started the work 
for the local union, which I did not receive. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, had you been taking depreciation and ex- 
penses on your income-tax return prior to that time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I deducted automobile depreciation in 1952. How- 
ever, there was none in 1949 or 1950 or 1951, as I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you did take it in 1952 and 1953 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you declare the $3,000 that you had received in 
your income tax in 1953 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, I don't think that I did, the reason being that it 
would have been for the past years and not the current year, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand your testimony, you had taken de- 
preciation and expenses in 1952 and 1953, and then you received $3,000 
in November of 1953. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am not sure of the date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me. It is in February of 1953. You did not 
declare that $3,000 on your income-tax return ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. As I stated, the reason 

Mr. Kennedy. You received another $3,200 in 1954— $3,230 in 1954, 
did you not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, I didn't receive that in cash. I think you have 
reference to the local union. I traded in my automobile and they paid 
the difference between my used car and the price of the new car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you declare that on your income tax ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir, I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel now that you should have declared those 
matters on your income tax ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



2634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. The $3,000 should have been filed in the amended 
return and then offset b}^ expenses that I would have incurred or did 
incur from December 1948 to the time involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the other $3,200. Should you have 
declared that? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir, I did not declare it. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do jou recoguize now tliat you should have declared 
it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I should have declared it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period of time, you had been 
taking your insurance and for your automobile, and it was being 
paid for, was it not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't recall when it was paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. The records show that the union was paying for 
the insurance of your automobile, Mr. Conforti. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir, but I don't recall when they started to 
pay it. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time that the union was paying for your 
automobile, you were taking a deduction in your income-tax return 
for insurance on your automobile. 

Do you recognize that you should not have done that, Mr. Conforti? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

(At this point. Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Carmell. Could he explain why he did continue in that 
practice ? 

The Chairman. He may. 

Mr. Conforti. At the beginning I was paying my own automobile 
insurance, I am quite sure, and in future returns it was copied from 
the previous year's onto the following year and subsequent return. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to present to you these two 
checks, one for $3,000, dated February 17, 1953 and the other of 
June 23, 1954 in the amount of $3,230, and I will ask you to identify 
them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir, I identify them. 

The Chairman. The $3,000 check will be made exhibit 13, and the 
$3,200 check will be made exhibit No. 13-A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit Nos. 13 and 
13-A" for reference and v/ill be found in the appendix on pp. 3145- 
3147.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during 1953 you took as expenses on your 
income-tax return $361 ; and in 1954, $778 ; and in 1955, $820 ; and in 
1956, $655.55, During that period of time you were being reimbursed 
by the union, were you not, for your expenses ? 

Mr. Conforti. Not for automobile expenses, except for gas and 
oil. Those were only expenses not reported. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your arrangement as far as your ex- 
penses with the union, Mr. Conforti? Did you receive a flat amount 
each year or each week ? 

Mr. CoNFORiT. I received a flat amount each week, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you also have expenses that they paid for, 
your daily expenses if you took trips ? 

Mr. Conforti. If I took trips out of town, yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2635 

Mr. Kennedy. Well now, the records show that for your weekly 
expenses, you received in flat sums, of which there is no verification 
for, in 1953 you received $1,953, and on top of that received $1,947 
additional for your other expenses. In 1954, it was $2',120 you re- 
ceived in flat sums, and on top of that you received $5,455.78 addi- 
tional expenses. 

In 1955, it was $2,080 as a flat sum, and you received on top of that 
$5,235.09. 

In 1956, $2,905 as a flat sum, and you received on top of that, 
$6,2'^9.75, making a total of your expenses during that 4-year period 
of $28,038.37. 

Did you declare any of those expenses in your income tax ? 

Mr. Carmell. I would like to ask a question here if I may. What 
is the point of this inquiry, as to this point on his expenses? As to the 
relation to his declaring it on his income tax ? 

The Chairman. Well, I think we w^ant to find out whether this 
money was simply being taken without authority or for purposes not 
related to the union, and if they were actual expenses they should have 
been declared. 

Mr. Carmell. Sir, I certainly appreciate that fact, but as yet I have 
not heard any question of the fact that none of these expenses were 
either approved or authorized. As a matter of fact, sir, he has stated 
that he received a flat sum, which was his authorized expense account 
per week. 

The Chairman. I would assume that is correct. 

Mr. Carmell. I cannot see the relevancy at this point of asking 
whether he declared it on his income tax, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, the extra expense is a question of whether he 
declared it or not. If it was actual expense it should be counted for. 
If it is simply a way of getting additional income and no expenditures 
were actually made, then it is income. 

Would you agree ? 

Mr. Carmell. I agree wholeheartedly, and if the line of question- 
ing w^ould be, with all respect to the Chair, as to whether he incurred 
any expenses or as to whether they were authorized expenses, I can 
certainly see the pertinency. But to use the basis of the income-tax 
records, we are here to make a voluntary disclosure, and Mr. Conforti 
will talk about everything. 

The Chairman. You have been helpful and we appreciate it. 

Mr. Carmell. I am at a loss to understand the basis of the question- 
ing about the income-tax records, find why there is not the question of 
the authorization or legitimacy of the expenses. 

The Chairman. What is the question 'i Ask tlie question again. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question is, whether he received certain expenses 
for this 3- or 4-year period in lump sums. Beyond that he received 
expenses for whatever bills he had weekly, whether he traveled or 
wliatever they might be. The question was whether he declared any 
of these expenses or any of these matters that I am now discussing on 
his income tax return. I think that goes to his reliability or his 
veracity as a head of the biggest local union of the bakers in the 
United States. 

The Chairman. The question I wanted to determine is this: Are 
there any vouchers for this extraordinary expense ? 

89330— 57— pt. 8 5 



2636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. There are some vouchers for the second figures I 
read, Mr. Chairman, and there are no vouchers for the total of $9,020. 

Mr. Carmell. Is that part of the expense allowance he got per 
week, the $9,040? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Carmell. Has counsel examined the minutes to show the au- 
thorization of $65 a week in 1956 ? 

Mr. Kennedy, Yes, but there are no vouchers for those expenses. 

Mr. Carmell. You have found in the minutes the authorization to 
give him $65 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Tlie Chairman. You may liave an authorization to give him $65 a 
week for expenses, and he draws the $65. All right, if he doesn't 
expend it for union purposes, it is income. 

Mr. Carmell. Is the point whether he declared it on his income tax, 
or whether he used it for the purposes that were given him? 

The Chairman. That is what we want to find out, and we want to 
find out w^hat he did spend it for. 

Mr. Carmell. That is all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did you spend the $9,000 for? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Does that include hotels and transportation? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; that is the amount of the $28,000. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That would be my weekly flat sum, the $65. 

The Chairman. That is the amount that is authorized ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; he received authorized $9,020, and beyond that 
he had a total of $28,038.37 in expenses. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That would include transportation expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, and your hotel, and you put in a 
voucher for $300 to take a trip or any of those type of things. I am 
dismissing that. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. They were for meetings and conventions or con- 
ferences, or business meetings, of all kinds, that I would be required 
to attend. In the city and out of the city, I don't have a 100 percent 
up-to-date itinerai-y here. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are some vouchers for $19,018.37. How- 
ever, it is not complete. But there are some vouchers for that amount 
of money. There are no vouchers for the $9,020. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. What I meant was, I don't have a diary of every 
place I went to. 

Mr. Carmell. The $9,020, that is the amount that he was getting 
per week, a flat sum. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Carmell. Am I correct, that your question is, where did this 
money go? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he did not declare it as income, and so there- 
fore it must have ])een some kind of expenses, and there are no vouchers 
in the union on tliose expenses. 

Mr. Carmell. You are now asking for him to say where this money 
went ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, as it was not declared on the income tax. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, that was used locally in the city, at our meet- 
ings. We have membership meetings and any money that miglit be 
expended at membership meetings would come out of that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2637. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of money would that be^ I still don't 
understand. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. My flat $65 a week, you mean? 

Mr. Kennedy. What would you be spendinj^ it for? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. For lunches, or drinks at the bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were charging all of that, and that is part 
of the $19,018.37. Every time you parked your car, you were charging 
the union for it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Not always. 

Mr, Kennedy. I will show you these vouchers, Mr. Conforti, and 
every time you did anything with your automobile, you stored your 
car, and you charged the union for that, and none of these things I 
am objecting to, and I am just raising the question that on this other 
figure, you have no vouchers at all for it. Any time you submitted 
a voucher, it was taken out of this larger figure. 

Mr. Conforti. Any vouchers that were submitted for entertainment 
like that, in the city of Chicago, where I had received additional re- 
imbursement would be when we liad visitors from out of town, from 
our international union, or from other local unions, and things like 
that. 

But any moneys that were spent picking up a tab for members after 
meetings, and things like that, there was no voucher or request sub- 
mitted for reimbursement. That money came out of that weekly 
expense allowance, where there are no vouchers, and also for enter- 
tainment at home. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice that you also received $550 from local 100 
while you were working for local 300. Did you declare that on your 
income tax ? 

Mr. Conforti, No, sir ; I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1955, and 1956 you received another 
$550. That was from local 100 while you were working for local 300. 
Did you discuss that on your income tax ? 

Mr. Conforti. It was twice, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; a total of $1,100. 

Mr. Conforti. No, sir ; I didn't. 

The Chairman. Was that income or expenses ? 

Mr. Conforti. That was given to me as expenses, for work and 
expenses that I incurred for working or doing work for local 100 while 
they were under trusteeship, and work that was in addition to my 
own, and expenses incurred. 

The Chairman, Did you submit vouchers for the expense that you 
incurred to that union ? 

Mr. Conforti. No; it w^as just a flat amount, that is all. I didn't 
submit a voucher. That was for tlie whole time. 

The Chairman. Would that be income or expensas ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, I thought it was expenses. 

The Chairman. You thought it was expenses, and did you spend it 
for the union's purpose ? 

Mr. Conforti. I guess I spent some of it, and I don't know, and I 
don't have the records of how much was spent. 

The Chairman. You just accepted lump sums for your work and 
expenses ? 

Mr, Conforti. Yes, sir. There was never at any time any willful 
attenipt to avoid payment of taxes. 



2638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. There was never what ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Any willful attemj^t on my part to avoid payment of 
taxes. 

The Chairman. I am not challenging that, and we do have a very 
poor, and inadequate and complicated and confusing unexplainable 
system in this union of finances, and you agree with that, do you 
not? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, it appears anyway, Mr. Conforti, that in 1953 
there was a $3,000 item that you should have declared though you 
could have taken perhaps some expenses regarding that, and there 
was an item of $3,200.30 in 1954 that should have been declared; an 
item of $550 in 1955 ; an item of $550 in 1956 ; and also during that 
period of time you had expenses amounting to $9,020 which you have 
no verification for at all. 

In addition to that, you were taking as expenses insurance pay- 
ments on your income tax, while the union was paying for it. 

Mr. Conforti. May I just point out that, on our legistration forms 
that we have to subinit to the United States Department of Labor, 
our expense allowances were reported on the forms for all of the 
years. 

Mr, Kennedy. We have an affidavit from your accountant, Mr. 
John Barles, and it states in there that you told him that you were 
paying for this automobile back in 1951, and that you had paid for 
the full amount of this automobile. That is why it was listed in your 
income tax return as it was. 

Mr. Conforti. I may have, and I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also have in your union — take some steps 
toward having Mr. Stuart or getting Mr. Stuart a car, an automobile ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee about that? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. That was at the termination of the trustee- 
ship in 1953, when we purchased an automobile for Mr. Stuart. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of an automobile did you purchase at 
that time ? 

Mr. Conforti. It was a Cadillac automobile. 

Mr. Ivennedy. In 1953 ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that approved ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir ; it was. 

Mr. Ivennedy. That was approved ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes. It was a 1954 Cadillac automobile, but it was 
ordered in 1953. 

Mr, Kennedy. What about Mr. Cross? Did you take any steps 
toward getting Mr. Cross an automobile ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes; we did. 

Mv. Kennedy. Wliat did you do on that ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, we had discussed an automobile for Mr. Cross 
in 1955, 1 believe. 

Mv. Kennedy. Just on that, had it been discussed with the executive 
board or the membership that you were buying Mr. Stuart a Cadil- 
lac ? I am not questioning wliether he should have gotten a Cadillac 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2639 

or not, but just on the question of whether the executive board knew 
about it. Had it actually been discussed that you were buying him 
an automobile ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am quite sure it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think perhaps you just discussed the fact 
you were going- to get him a gift ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't think so, because the best recollection I had 
was that we had a meeting, one of these dinner meetings that we 
have at Christmastime, where the executive board has a dinner meet- 
ing and they are given these Christmas gifts we talked about before; 
and, if I am not mistaken, I made a token presentation of the auto- 
mobile keys to Mr. Stuart at that time. That is the best I can recall, 
although the car had not been delivered as yet. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. We have an affidavit from Charles Bell. Do you 
know Charles Bell ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he on tlie executive board, local 300 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the union that gave the car ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first Cadillac ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. May I read this affidavit ? 

The Chairman. I will read this affidavit for the purpose of asking 
you the question if the information contained in it is true, or what 
part of it is within your knowledge and true, or what part of it is 
untrue. 

Charles Bell, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I make this sworn deposition of my own free will without promise of favor 
or immunity. This affidavit is made at the request of George M. Kopecky, 
known to me to be an investigator of the United States Senate Select Committee 
on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 

I am aware that this sworn deposition is to be used at a hearing before the 
United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor 
or Management Field. 

I, Charles Bell, 6614 Kenwood, Chicago, 111., furnish the following voluntary 
statement to George M. Kopecky, of the United States Senate Select Committee : 

I have been a member in good standing of the Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers Union Local 300 and Local 1 since about November 1947. For the 
period from approximately August 1953 through December 1955 I was a member 
of the executive board of local union 300. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe so ; yes.^ 

The Chairman (reading) : 

I have examined the minutes of local 300 for the meeting dated October 5, 
1953, and reviewed that part which indicates that arrangements were to be 
made for presenting a suitable gift to George L. Stuart from local 300 for his 
efforts during the period he was trustee of local .300. To the best of my knowl- 
edge, it was agreed a small personal gift was to be given to him, and I am able 
to recall that at a later meeting, which was close to the Christmas meeting in 
1953, the gift was passed around, and this was either a clip of some sort or small 
piece of wearing apparal. 

Is there any truth in that statement ? 
Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. 
The Chairman. Were you at those meetings ? 



2640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairmaist. You state that is not true ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No, sir. He mi<^ht be confused with other meetings. 
I wouldn't say that he deliberately would certify to that, but he may 
be confused. 

The Chairman. He said : 

At the October 5, 1953, meeting, the minutes for the meeting dated October 
5, 1953, and reviewed — 

he said he examined the minutes — 

and reviewed that part which indicates that arrangements were to be made for 
presenting a suitable gift to George L. Stuart from local union 300 for his efforts 
during the period he was trustee of local 300. 

Do you remember that meeting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. October 5, 1953 ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, I don't remember the date, but I remember 
the meeting. 

The Chairman. Do you think you attended that meeting^ 

Mr. CoNFORTi. 1 am quite sure I did. 

The Chairman. At that time, it was discussed that it wouhl be 
proper to give him an appropriate gift 'i 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do recall that ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am quite sure. 

The Chairman. He goes further and says : 

To the best of my knowledge, it was agreed a small personal gift was to be 
given to him. 

Do you recall that ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. A small personal gift? 

The Chairman. That is what he says here. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir, I understand, but that is not what it was. 

The Chairman. You say that is not correct ? 

]VIr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What did you discuss at that meeting that you 
would give him ^ 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe it was discussed to get him a suitable gift 
in occasions or situations similar to that, and what has been a normal 
practice. It was left to the officers to decide what a normal occurrence 
would be. 

The Chairman. That is your recollection of it ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then he states further : 

And I am able to recall — 

that is his sworn statement — 

and I am able to recall that at a later meeting, which was close to the Christmas 
meeting in 1953, the gift was passed around, and this was either a clip of some 
sort or some small piece of wearing apparel. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. That is not so. 

The Chairman. That is not true. Could it be at that meeting you 
passed around the keys to a Cadillac and said, "We are giving him a 
Cadillac. These are the keys to it" ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2641 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I can't recall, Senator. It was an envelope that I 
presented to him, a token presentation because the car had not 3 et 
been delivered. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, trying to get the facts, this ques- 
tion : At that time, when you gave him the keys as a token represent- 
ing the car that he was to get, did you discuss then that he was getting 
a Cadillac automobile before all of the members ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. Yes, sir; I am quite sure it was discussed. 

The Chairman. How can you imagine, then, that Mr. Bell — I 
don't know who is being truthful now— how can you imagine tlint he 
thought it was a little gift of some kind ^ 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Because there were 1 or 2 meetings where there were 
gifts such as he mentioned, that were passed around to the executive 
board to see. 

The Chairman. Did you pass around the keys or anything on a 
clip that night, and say, "This is wliat we are going to give him" ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't recall. 

The Chairman. You don't recall. The question is : Factually, did 
the members that pay the dues know that you were giving a Cadillac 
automobile to this trustee 'i 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am sure they did. 

The Chairman. You are sure they did '? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I am quite positive. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator McNamara. May I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes, Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. You indicate this gift was presented at a 
dinner meeting around Christmas time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara, About how many people were present? 

Mr, CoNFORTi, About 40 people or thereabouts, our executive board 
meeting. 

Senator McNamara. It was a small dinner? It wasn't an ordi- 
nary annual banquet ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was the annual dinner for the executive board. 

Senator McNamara, For the executive board and other officers, I 
presume ; the wives, and such ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. No, no wives. 

Senator McNamara. It was not a public aifair, but sort of a pri- 
vate dinner ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi, Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is what I wanted to determine. Thank 
you. 

The Chairman, We have another affidavit. 

Do you know Roy DeFrank ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, We have an affidavit from him, stating in part as 
follows, and I will omit the part not pertinent : 

I have been a member of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Interna- 
tional Union, Local Union 300 and Local Union 1 since about 1946. From about 
1951 to December 1955 I was a member of the executive board of local union 
300. 



2642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Do you remember him as such; as a member of the Board? 
Mr. CoNFORTi. The exact dates I couldn't recall, but he was a mem- 
ber of the board ; yes, sir. 
The Chairman (reading) : 

For the past 27 years I have been an employee of the National Biscuit Co. 
I have examined the minutes of the meeting of local union 300 for the date 
October 5, 1953, and have reviewed that part which says that a suitable gift 
was to be given to George Stuart who had been the trustee of local 300 for 
5 years, as a token of appreciation for the work he has done for the local. 
I am not able to recall exactly what was decided upon as a gift, but it was not 
the intention to give him a gift of an automobile nor anything as expensive as 
that. 

Could you make any comment on that ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Sir, the only thing I can say is that it may have 
been his own personal thinking or his own personal opinion. 

The Chairman. Have you examined the minutes of that meeting ? 

Mr. CoNroRTi. Well, I haven't seen them in quite some time. I 
may have looked at them. I don't recall them. 

The Chairman. Are you the secretary? You were the Secretary 
at that time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Kecording secretary, too ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You would have recorded what transpired at the 
meeting, would you not ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; I believe so. 

The Chairman. Would you recognize your handvv'riting ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I think so. 

The Chairman. I hand you here the minutes of the meeting, what 
purports to be the minutes of the meeting of October 5, 1953, about 
which we have been talking, possibly in your own handwriting. I 
wish you would examine it and state whether you identify it and if 
the minutes are in your own handwriting. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. That is my handwriting. 

The Chairman. Are those the minutes of the meeting of Octo- 
ber 5 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir ; I believe they are. 

The Chairman. Would you read them for us ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi (reading) : 

Also upon motion duly made and seconded it was decided that the local union 
honor the former trustee, George Stuart, and present him with a suitable gift 
as our token of appreciation for the magnificent job he performed in raising 
the local union to the position it now maintains. Brother Stuart devoted many 
long hours during the 5 years' trusteeship to our membership and made a great 
many personal sacrifices. In addition, his home life suffered, and no reward 
would be too great. 

I don't understand how some of those people who give you those 
affidavits would think this would be a trinket, or some personal thing. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 14. 

(The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 14 for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 3148.) 

The Chairman. From that, you got the impression that he was to 
be given a Cadillac automobile? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2643 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes. Also for another reason, that generally in a 
situation like that, when they are lionoring an international vice 
president from a district, they generally have a testimonial dhmer, 
a public dinner, which involves a lot of expense, and a lot of work 
and effort to make a big alfair. There is the expense of the dinner 
and so on and so forth. 

We felt, to eliminate all of that, and the other expenses, just to 
purchase the automobile and present it to him. 

The Chairman. All right, Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were talking about an automobile for Mr. 
Stuart. Was there also a discussion about getting an automobile for 
Mr. Cross? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. That was later in 1955, 1 believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in December 1955 ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I believe that is correct ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you discuss about that? Why were you 
going to get an automobile for Mr. Cross at that time ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Well, there never had been a testimonial dinner 
from our district for President Cross. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what happened ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. It was pretty much the same thing. Instead of ar- 
ranging for a testimonial dinner, just to purchase him an automobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it decided at the meeting to purchase him an 
automobile ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I thought it was, but it could have been just the same 
discussion on a suitable gift. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stated in the minutes of that meeting on Decem- 
ber 8, 1955, that it was decided that the testimonial dinner would be 
too involved and something complicated to arrange, and there would 
be much expense. Instead of a testimonial dinner, local 300 would 
consult with local 100 and arrange for a suitable gift to the inter- 
national president. It was suggested that an automobile be purchased, 
inasmuch as it seemed that that was the type of gift that most ought 
to be given in honoring an individual among organizations. Then 
it goes on to say that local 100 will share equally in the cost. 

This was never attested to. 

Can you tell the committee why it wasn't attested to ? It was signed 
by "A. Conforti, Secretary," but it was not attested to. "\Yliat was the 
reason for that ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. I don't recall, unless the following meeting was the 
meeting we had, a dinner, and it was just overlooked. The minutes 
weren't written the same day of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, but would you tell the committee 
why this was not attested to? Did you go to the president and ask 
him to attest to it, and didn't he refuse ? 

Mr. Conforti. I believe I did, the following meeting, 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he refuse to attest to it ? 

Mr. Conforti. I believe he did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the reason ; is it not ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, yes, I guess, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it not the reason that he refused to attest to 
it because there was no discussion, or he remembered no discussion of 
an automobile, getting an automobile, for Mr. Cross at that meeting ? 

Mr. Conforti. I belive, yes ; that is what he said. 



2644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say now that these minutes are accurate and 
true? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I was sure that the automobile was actually men- 
tioned at the meeting. I could have been confused, because it was 
discussed with Mr. Stuart, both prior to the meeting and after the 
meeting. I thought when the minutes were written up the following 
month, I was sure that it had been mentioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some similar affidavits that we can put 
into the record, again, on that, to say that this was never discussed at 
this meeting either, that an automobile was never discussed. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't doubt that you have. 

Mr. Carmell. Counsel, we will stipulate that these affidavits would 
come in. However, do any of these affidavits state that there was 
no discussion of a suitable gift at that time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I do not believe so. There just was never a 
discussion of getting an automobile for Mr. Cross. But you have that 
written in the minutes. Can you tell the committee why you put it 
in the minutes if it was not discussed, Mr. Conf orti ? 

Mr. Conforti. I was quite sure that they specifically had men- 
tioned automobile at the meeting. I could have been confused. 
There was a discussion with Mr. Stuart about it before the meeting 
and after the meeting, about the automobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. That automobile w^as ultimately purchased, was it 
not? Purchased for Mr. Cross? Do you know who ended up own- 
ing that automobile? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, only from, I guess, what I read in the papers, 
or the charges that have been made by certain international officers. 
At the time the checks were written, they were written expressly for 
the purpose of purchasing a car for President Cross. 

The ChairMx\n. Senator Goldwater? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Conforti, I have a few questions along a 
different line. 

Senator McNamara. Will you yield on the same line before you go 
into that. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. I will be glad to. 

Senator McNamara. In your judgment now, would a suitable gift 
be an automobile, under the circumstances ? 

Mr. Conforti. Well, do you mean on the same situation, for inter- 
national vice president or president ? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, I think so. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Conforti, I have a check here, signed by 
you, made out to the AFL Labor Committee for Daley dated Janu- 
ary 7, 1955, for $2,500. Who decided to give the AFL Labor Com- 
mittee for Daley that check ? 

Mr. Conforti. Our executive board, I am quite sure. 

Senator Goldwater. Pardon? 

Mr. Conforti. Our executive board, our local executive board. 

Senator Goldwater. Would the decision be confined to the execu- 
tive board? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And not to the membership ? 

Mr. Conforti. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2645 

Senator Goldwater. Was this $2,500 from the general fund ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Yes, sir. We only have one fund. 

Senator Goldwater, You only have one fund ? 

I realize that the law does not prohibit this, so it is not illegal in 
the sense that the law would prohibit it, but do you feel that it is 
morally right for a labor union to take money out of the general 
fund, that is contributed by Kepublicans and Democrats alike, and 
give it only to one party, whetlier it be the Democrat or the Republi- 
can candidate ? Is it morally right ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. I don't know, I really am not 

Senator Goldwater, Are you a Democrat or a Republican ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi, I am a Democrat. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, I assumed that you were, and that is no 
reflection on tlie Democrat Party or you. 

Mr. CoNFORTi, Thank you. 

Senator Goldwater, Would you feel right if the dues that you paid 
your union as a Democrat were used to try to defeat a candidate that 
you were going out and back yourself ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. Putting it that way, I wouldn't feel right. 

Senator Goldwater, That is the whole basis of this argument that 
some of us have with union spending in politics. You, yourself, might 
go out and work your head off to get Mayor Daley elected, which you 
certainly have a right to do. You might even give of your own money 
to him. But you would not like to see your own union go out and try 
to defeat your Democrat candidate for mayor, would you ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi, Well, no, sir. 

Senator Goldwater, That is, using your own money. 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I would like to point out that it was a drive on be- 
half of all of labor in the city of Chicago, and we just participated as 
the bakers union. 

Senator Goldwater. I realize that. 

Mind you, I am only critical of the moral aspects of this thing be- 
cause, unfortunately, as of now the law only prevents union activity 
at the Federal level, and this is at the local level, and there is nothing 
mentioned in the law about it. 

Let me ask you this question : Do you contribute to the international 
union for political purposes ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. No ; I don't believe we do ; no, sir. We just pay our 
monthly per capita tax and moneys for new members and supplies, 
and so on. 

Senator Goldwater, The international never comes to you and asks 
for money for a political campaign ? 

Mr, CoNFORTi. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. To your recollection, have you, since you have 
been in the capacity that you are in now, made any other contributions 
to other political campaigns ? 

Mr. CoNFORTi. I don't recall any at all. 

Senator Goldwater. I am very thankful to you for the testimony 
that you have given. 

I remember when Mr, Brewster was here from the teamsters, when 
he stopped to think about the moral aspects of using dues money for 
politics, he, himself, said he thought he had never looked at it in that 
light and would have to think about it. 



2646 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I intend to interrogate all executives of labor unions who come here 
on that point and find out their feelings. 

I am happy to see that you, as the head of a large union, have that 
basic feeling against immorality of this practice. I thank you for 
your testimony. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, Mr. Conf orti, you may stand aside for the present. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a summary put 
in about the purchase of certain automobiles. We have a member of 
the staff, Mr. Kopecky, who will testify on that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kopecky has already been sworn. 

You may interrogate him about it. 

Mr. Carmell. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this question at the 
present moment : This summary of testimony, if there is anything that 
involves Mr. Conforti, will you give us the opportunity to come 
back on? 

The Chairman. I certainly shall, sir. We have a rule in this com- 
mittee that if anyone is reflected upon, or thinks he is, he has the 
opportunity to testify. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. KOPECKY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the car transaction is a 
little complicated and there are a number of different automobiles 
involved. Through Mr. Kopecky's testimony, we can clarify the 
record. 

The first automobile that was purchased was purchased for Mr. 
Stuart ; is that correct ; back in 1954 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

The Chairman. You have examined all of those records ; have you, 
Mr. Kopecky ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a Cadillac automobile purchased in 1954 
for Mr. Stuart; is that correct? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are interested mainly in the question of whether 
it was an authorized purchase or whether it was done through subter- 
fuge, not on the question of whether Mr. Stuart should have a Cadillac, 
but just on the question of wliether these ])urchases were authorized. 

In 1954, there was a Cadillac purchased, and that was a Cadillac 
purchased for Mr. George Stuart; is that correct? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records and according to the testi- 
mony of Mr. Conforti, although a suitable gift was authorized, there 
was no mention of an automobile ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1955, there was another automobile purchased. 
What was the total for the Cadillac? 

Mr. Kopecky. The total was $6,515.15. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1955, what automobiles were purchased at that 
time? 

Mr. Kopecky. In 1955 there was a 1955 Buick automobile which 
Avas purchased for $2,396.80, for which the union was reimbursed 
many months later a total of $1,250, resulting in a net loss of $1,146.80. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2647 

Mr. Kexxedy. Would you state the figures slower _^ 

Just give us the total loss to the union on the Buick, 

Mr. KorECKY. On May 24, 1955, a 1955 Buick was purchased for a 
net loss to the union of $1,146.80. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going through the records of the union— which 
union is this that we are talking about? 

Mr. Kopecky. Local 100 at the time Mr. Stuart was trustee. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Going through the records of local 100, was that 
pa vnient authorized ? 

Mr. KorECKY. He had complete control so he could authorize any- 
thing he wanted to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it in the minutes of the executive board? 

]Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the Buick was authorized, the purchase of it t 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1956, were there any automobiles purchased ? 

]Mr. Kopecky. There were two automobiles which were entered on 
the records on December 28. 

Mr. Kennedy. What union are we talking about? 

Mr. Kopecky. We are talking about local union 100. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that period of time, December 1956, was local 
100 in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Kopecky. 1955? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1955. 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 100 was in trusteeship ? 

]Mr. Kopecky. That is right. And at that particular time a check 
was drawn in the amount of $13,100.18, wdiich w\as charged in the 
records to the Joint Teamsters Council, and was listed under the 
heading of "Joint organizing expenses." Whether that check ulti- 
mately wound up to be a purchase of two Cadillac automobiles for 
Stuart and for the ])resident of the union. Cross 

Mr. Kennedy. The date of that check was December 30, 1955 ? 

]Mr. Kopecky. December 30, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Cadillacs were actually purchased in 1955, 
or 1956, these two? 

Mr. Kopecky. These tw^o cars were both purchased on December 28, 
1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any explanation as to why this was charged 
to a joint organizational drive with the teamsters, as expenses? 

Mr. Kopecky. The only obvious explanation is a subterfuge. 

^Ir. Kennedy, What do the records show ? 

]Mr. Kopecky. The records show that it was charged to joint organi- 
zation expenses. A further review of the record indicates that the 
Joint Teamsters Council, to whom this check from the union was made 
payable, purchased two Cadillac automobiles in the individual names 
of George Stuart and James Cross. 

The CnAiR:\rAN. Let me see if I understand that. 

The check for $13,100.18, that was made payable to whom? 

]Mr. Kopecky. To the Teamsters Joint Council No. 43, Detroit, 
Mich. 

Tlie Chairman. It was made payable to auother labor organiza- 
tion? 

]Mr. Kopecky, Yes, sir. 



2648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. And is charo;ed as what ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Joint organization expenses. 

The Chairman. Joint organization expenses? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Then how did the companies that sold 
the automobiles get the money for the cars ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. I didn't follow yon on that, sir. 

The Chairman. As I understand from this union's records, the 
money, the $13,100.18 was paid to another labor organization, the 
council. 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it was charged to joint organization expenses ? 

Mr. KopECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. How did the money get to the automobile company 
to get the car? 

Mr. KopECKY. The Teamstei-s Joint Council made their checks 
payable to the Cadillac motor car division. 

The Chairman. So, so far as the records of this union, the bakers 
union, so far as its records show, this money was paid out for organi- 
zational expenses and not for two automobiles? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Goldwater. Could I get something straight in my mind. 
You say the check was made out to the Cadillac division? 

Mr. KoPECKY. No, the check from the bakers union 

Senator Goldwater. I am talking about the check from the team- 
sters council in Detroit. 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes; that is correct. They acted as intermediary. 

Senator Goldwater. It was made out to the Cadillac division of 
General Motors ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. They bought the cars directly from 

Mr. KoPECKY. From Cadillac motor division. 

Senator Goldwater. At $6,500 apiece ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. $6,550.09. 

Senator Goldwater. They did not go through a regular dealer? 

Mr. KoPECKY. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And there was no discount given at the 
factory ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No. The General Motors people indicate that this 
was a list price. 

Senator Goldwater. General Motors are dealing around both ends 
of the corner. 

Senator McNamara. On tliat point, do you find by your investiga- 
tion that the teamsters council in Detroit had a fleet agreement, to buy 
cars at fleet price ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I thought perhaps that existed, and for that reason I 
contacted the General Motors people and they indicated that there 
was no discount involved in this particular transaction, that it was 
a list price. 

Senator McNa:mara. Then you do not find that the fleet price was 
involved in it at all, that this was just the price that anybody could 
go in oft' the street, and buy one ? 
Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2649 

Senator McNamara. When you say it was bought from Cadillac 
Motor Car Co., does that indicate it was bought from the factory 
branch, which is the ordinary outlet? Is the address on Cass Avenue, 
in Detroit ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. 6001 Cass Avenue. 

Senator McNamara. Apparently this is quite legitimate, then. 

Senator Goldwater. It is legitimate, but I am surprised to see a 
corporation beating its dealers out of a little profit. 

Senator McNajvlara. They have a factory branch where anybody 
can walk in and buy a car. It is not unusual at all. I think that is 
what the investigation discloses. They have a factory branch that 
sells cars to anybody who walks in. It is not an unusual transaction, 
as I see it. 

Senator Goldwater. I am glad I am not in the automobile business. 

Senator McNamara. Well, I am sorry I am not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify the documents for the purchase 
of the automobile ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. In the first instance, we have a supporting 
voucher for a disbursement drawn on Factory Bakers Union Local 
No. 100, dated December 30, 1955, in the amount of $13,100.18, pay- 
able to the Teamsters Joint Council No. 43 in payment of joint organi- 
zation expenses. 

The check to cover this voucher is check No. 1237, dated Decem- 
ber 30, 1955, payable to the Teamsters Joint Council No. 43, in the 
amount of $13,100.18. 

The Chairman. The voucher may be made exhibit 15 and the check 
in payment of it may be made exhibit 15-A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 15 and 
15-A," for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3149- 
3150.) 

Mr. KoPECKY. In addition a photostat of the daybook page 2421 of 
the bakers union, under this same date, indicates that this was charged 
to joint organization expenses in the amomit of $13,100.18. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit 15-B. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 15-B" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix facing p. 3150.) 

Mr. KoPECKY. In addition, we have a photostat of a car invoice, 
3504, from the Cadillac motor car division, indicating that a vehicle, 
a 1956 Cadillac, was sold to James G. Gross for $6,550.09. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 15-C. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 15-C," for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 3151.) 

Mr. KoPECKY. Here is also a photostat of a car invoice from the 
Cadillac motor car division, dated December 28, 1955, in the amount 
of $6,550.09, indicating a sale to George Stuart. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 15-D. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 15-D," for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 3152.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further documents ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. No, sir. That summarizes this particular trans- 
action. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. After that, the two Cadillacs, one that ended up 
with Mr. Cross and the other ended up with Mr- Stuart, after that 
was there the purchase of another automobile ? 



2650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. A few months later there was a purchase 
of a second Cadillac. 

The Chairman. For whom was that? 

Mr. KoPECKY. For Mr. Stuart. 

The Chairman. A few months later ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. According to the car invoice number from 
the Cadillac motorcar division, dated April 30, 1956, No. 1221, it was 
indicated that the first Cadillac just previously mentioned was traded 
in for another Cadillac, and in order to effect that sale, 2 checks, both 
in the amount of $2,143.67, -were drawn, both from the local union 100 
of the bakers and from local union 300 of the bakers. 

The Chairman. That was for whom ^ 

Mr. KoPECKY. It is indicated in the records that this was to be a 
gift to the president of the international union, James Cross. How- 
ever, tlie car ultimately winds up being sold to George Stuart. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Kopecky, if that transaction took place so soon 
after the other Cadillac was purchased, and there was this $4,200, 
there must have been some money that was returned. 

Mr. Kopecky. That is true. It indicated, according to the Cadillac 
motorcar division invoice, that the net cost of the second Cadillac on 
April 30, 1956, was only $712.34. Consequently, the balance was re- 
funded to Mr. Stuart by a refund check in the amount of $3,575. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we know what Mr. Stuart did with the $3,575? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. This check is endorsed by George Stuart and 
then endorsed a second time by Hanley Dawson, Chevrolet, Inc. The 
letter from that particular Chevrolet company indicates that a 1956 
Corvette was purchased in the full amount of the refund check. 

The Chairman. Let us get that transaction on the record. Let 
us start again. 

You are trading cars too fast. We will start with this trade-in 
deal. 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat is your first document ? 

Mr. Kopecky. We will have to go back a little farther than that, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Let us get it in the record. 

Mr. Kopecky. In the first instance, we have two checks. The first 
one is No. 1652, dated April 10, 1956, drawn against local union 100 
to the Cadillac motorcar division in the amount of $2,143.67. 

The Chair3ian. Who is that check payable to ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Cadillac motorcar division. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Let that check be made exhibit No. 16. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 16" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3153-3154.) 

The Chairman. Who is the check signed by ? 

Mr. Kopecky. The check is signed by Peter Carbonera and An- 
thony J. Conforti. 

The Chairman. ^V}\o is it endorsed by ? 

Mr. Kopecky. It is endorsed by the General Motors Corp., Cadillac 
motorcar division. 

The Chairman. That is exhibit No. 16. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2651 

Mr. KoPECKY. On the same date, the Bakers Union, Local 300, by 
check 2661, on April 10, 1956, drew a check in the amount of 
$2,143.67 payable to the Cadillac motorcar division. This check was 
signed by Anthony J. Conforti and Leroy Porter. 

It is endorsed by the General Motors Corp., Cadillac motorcar 
division. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 16-A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 16-A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3155-3156.) 

Mr, KoppXKY. Both of these checks are entered in the daybook 
records of the two local unions as a gift to James Cross. 

The Chairman. Listed how ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. As a gift to James Cross. 

The Chairman. That is the president of the international? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed now with the car deals. 

Mr. KoPECKY. The total is $4,287.34. These two cliecks were 
turned over to the General Motors Corp., in the payment of a 1956 
Cadillac. 

The Chairman. Was that on a trade-in ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, we ai'e trading in here the same 
Cadillac that was bought a few months before ? 

Mr. KopECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. KoPECKY. As a result of tlie trade-in, this new Cadillac actually 
cost only $712.34. That is offset against these two checks totaling 
$4,287.34, leaving a refund of $3,575. 

The Chairman. Wliat was the figure ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. $3,575. In this instance, the Cadillac motor division 
issued a refund check to George Stuart on May 11, 1956. 

In turn, Mr. Stuart negotiates this check with the Hanley-Dawson 
Chevrolet Co. and at that time when he negotiates the refund check, 
he purcliases a 1956 Corvette. 

The Chairman. For what price ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. For the full arount of the refund, $3,575. 

The Chairman. In other w^ords, he took the refund of $3,575 and 
bought another car ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What had the original car cost that he traded in ? 

Mr. KopECKY, $6,550.09. 

The Chairman. Then he got a total of $4,287.34 ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. There was $700 paid out of that, was there not ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So he got a total then, of — plus $3,575 even ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. His total to him is tlie total of the 3 checks, the 
$6,550.09, and the 2 checks going to make up the total of $4,287.34. 

The Chairman. In other words, the union was out a total of $10,- 
837.43, am I right? 

]\Ir. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So within less than 6 months' time the union put 
up $10,837.43 for automobiles for whom ? 

89330— 57— pt. 8- 6 



2652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoPECKY. In 4 months time, approximately, for George Stuart. 

The Chairman. For George Stuart in 4 months time ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the other figure for Cross? 

Mr. KopECKY. The other figure of $6,550.09 represents a 1956 Cadil- 
lac going to James Cross. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the $2,100 that we mentioned earlier and that 
Mr. Conforti mentioned in his testimony, approximately $2,100, that 
each union was to put up, local 100 and local 300, to buy a suitable 
gift for Mr. Cross, actually went to pay for the cars for Mr. Stuart, is 
that right? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid the $712 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That came as a result of the trade-in. That is what 
the car would have cost had one car been traded in for another car 
and a cash outlay made. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was deducted. Senator, from the $4,287.34. 

Senator Goldwater. That is where I got lost. 

Mr. Kennedy. And leaving approximately $3,500 that was then 
used to buy the Corvette. 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. Is that about the going price of a Corvette ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I don't have that information. 

Senator McNamara. It seems to me that a Corvette costs more 
money, just on the face of it. 

The Chairman. That is a total of $17,407.52 the union was out for 
cars for Mr. Stuart and Mr. Cross within 4 months' time? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right, Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have finished with Mr. Kopecky. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kopecky, you may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. George Stuart. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stuart, you do solemnly swear that the evi- 
dence 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. Stuart. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE STUART, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
GEORGE CARROLL 

The Chairman. Please state your name, your place of residence and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Stuart. George Stuart, 6850 Oregon Avenue, District, un- 
employed. 

The Chairman. What is your former occupation, please, sir ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer that question because 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stuart, do you have counsel present to repre- 
sent you ? 

Mr. Stuart. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2653 

Mr. Carroll. My name is Attorney George Carroll and I am from 
Norwalk, Conn. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Stuart, just before your attorney identified himself for the 
record, the Chair had asked you what was your occupation and you 
said you were unemployed. 

The Chair then asked you what your former occupation was and 
jou declined to answer. I ask you the question again, Mr. Stuart. 
Since you are now unemployed, will you state what was your most 
recent former occupation or employment ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer on the same grounds 
previously. 

The Chairman. On what grounds ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. On the grounds that the answer may tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Stuart, do you honestly believe that 
if you gave a truthful answer to the question as to what was your 
most recent occupation or employment that a truthful answer thereto 
might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have some transactions that I would 
like to ask Mr. Stuart about, indicating a misuse of union funds 
personally by him to the amount of approximately $40,000 in various 
transactions. 

Starting with the automobiles, you heard Mr. Kopecky's testimony 
and Mr. Conforti's testimony. Can you tell us anything about the 
automobiles, the purchase of these automobiles, Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer because the answer I 
give may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman, Let the Chair ask you first : Have you been present 
in the hearing room during the course of the testimony of Mr. Con- 
f orti ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then you heard his testimony ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I did. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. I just wanted to get the 
record clear. If you heard it, it will not be necessary to repeat all 
of it in detail as we interrogate you. Thank you. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Stuart, local 100 appropriated $13,100.18 for a 
joint organizational drive with Teamster Joint Council 43. Could 
you tell the committee about that? 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer, because the answer I 
may give may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That $13,100.18 was actually used to purchase 2 
automobiles, 2 Cadillacs. Could you tell the committee why it was 
handled in that manner ? 

Mr. Stuart. I have to give the same answer as previously. The 
answer may have a tendency to incriminate me. 



2654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question with a truthful answer to it, it might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there was $2,143.67, which w^as appro])riated 
from 2 local unions, local 300 in Chicago and local 100 in Chicago, 
making a total of $4,287.34. From the testimony that we have had, 
that was used to buy you a Corvette and also to get a new Cadillac for 
you when you traded in your old Cadillac, your old Cadillac being 4 
months old. 

Could you tell the committee anything about that? 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer because it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a check here 

The Chairman. Is there anything peculiar about an automobile 
transaction, buying and trading in automobiles, that, in your opinion, 
might tend to incriminate you, if you answ^ered a question about it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Would you repeat the question. Senator? 

The Chairman. I saidj is there anything peculiar about the buying 
and trading of automobdes, in your judgment, that would tend to 
incriminate one who engages in such transactions ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. It may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that the ordinary transaction of that 
kind might tend to incriminate one ; do you mean to imply that ? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

The Chairman. A lot of people are exposing themselves to incrimi- 
nation, then, on that basis. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. There w^as a Cadillac purchased for you back in 
1954 for a total— another Cadillac— for a total of $6,515.15, which 
does not appear to have been authorized, although a suitable gift was 
authorized. 

Can you tell the committee about the purchase of that Cadillac back 
in 1954? It is different from the Cadillacs we have just been 
discussing. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer because the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time you held no position in that local, did 
you, local 300 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully have to decline to answer on the same 
reasons. 

^Ir. Kennedy. Adding to those automobiles then, we have a check 
dated 8-24-55, a check payable to the amount of $3,600, made to the 
order of the American National Bank & Trust Co., $3,600, dated Au- 
gust 24, 1955, signed by George Stuart. 

The Chairman. It is drawn on Factory Bakers Union, Local No. 
100, Chicago, 111. This purports to be a photostatic copy of such a 
check, drawn by you on behalf of that union and that local, and en- 
dorsed by you to the bank. 

Will you examine that photostatic copy and state wlietber you 
identify it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2655 

(The document was lianded to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer because the ansAver I 
give maj' tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You decline, do you, Mr. Stuart, to identify it or 
state whether or not you do identify the photostatic copy of the 
check ? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. You decline to state what the check was given for, 
what the purpose was, and what it was used for ? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On the ground that it might incriminate you if 
the truth were known ? 

Mr. Stuart. It may have a tendency to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairiman. That check may be made exhibit No. 17 for the rec- 
ord, as a check which the witness refused to identify, by taking the 
fifth amendment, believing it might incriminate him in some way. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 17" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3157-3158.) 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, the voucher for that check reads: 

In payment of canceling 5-year contract with attorney, January 1, 1955, to 
12-31-59. Contract called for $300 per year. 

What was the name of the attorney, Mr. Stuart? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it was a legitimate check to an attorney or any- 
one else, wh}^ did you make it payable to American National Bank & 
Trust Co. ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I will have to decline on the same reasons. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stuart, this check shows you to be secretary 
and treasurer of this Factory Bakers Union Local No. 100, is that 
correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer, because it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We are finding a great many people associated 
with unions, organized labor, in official capacities, that can't talk 
about their relationship with it without feeling tliey might incrim- 
inate themselves. Is there somethiaig unusual about such an associa- 
titon? You do not want to leave the impression, do you, that any- 
one associated with or who is an officer of a union, if it becomes 
known, or if he testifies about it, there might be something incrim- 
inating in it ? Or is it because of some unusual circumstances con- 
nected with it that you feel that you might be incriminated ? 

(At this point. Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. It is something, I believe, that may tend to incrim- 
inate me. 

The Chairman. That would be of the unusual order, not common 
to that relationship, would you say ? 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. Mr. Senator, I can only speak for myself. 



2656 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; I am asking you to speak for yourself. 
In this instance, is it something uncommon and not the usual thing 
that might tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. Well, I will have to respectfully decline to answer. 

The Chairman. I see. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have an affidavit from the presi- 
dent of local 100, president during this period of time, and in the 
affidavit he states that there was no contract with an attoiTiey in 
that period of time. I would like to point out to you, also, that this 
check made payable to the American National Bank & Trust Co. for 
$3,600 was endorsed by Mr. George Stuart. 

The Chairman. It has already been made an exhibit as a docu- 
ment which he refuses to identify, but whicli bears his signature. 

Mr. Stuart, I wonder, would you extend the committee this cour- 
tesy, to sign your name there on that pad before you, so that we 
may observe your signature ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I might decline to, Mr. Chairman, because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Your own signature might tend to incriminate 
you? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, let me see that affidavit. This affidavit is 
from Mr. Gilbert Mann. Do you know Mr. Gilbert Mann? 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer, because it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It is dated the 1st day of June 11957, some 5 or 6 
days ago. Among other things, he states': 

From 19.37 until January 19.^>5. I was president of local 100 of the Bakery and 
Confectionery Workers International Union. In January 1955, local union 100 
was placed under trusteeship of George Stuart. 

Have you ever served in that capacity, Mr. Stuart ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer because the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Thank you sir. He states further : 

I would like to state that, when I terminated my position with local 100, in 
January 1955, there was only 1 outstanding long-term contract, which I had 
entered into on behalf of the local union, and this involved a 5-year lease with 
the People's National Bank and covered the rental of the local union's oflBce. 

There were no other outstanding contracts which the local union had to honor. 
"Specifically, I did not enter into any long-range contracts with any attorneys 
or other parties in my capacity as a union oflBcer. I did not enter into any 
other contract to pay a monthly retainer fee to any party. 

Would you state that that affidavit in that respect is true or false ? 

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

Mr. Stuart. I decline to answer, because it may tend to incriminate 
me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2657 

The Cpiaieman. If his affidavit is true, then this voucher is untrue, 
is it not, the voucher for which you gave the check for $3,600 on August 
24, 1955, to cancel a 5-year contract with an attorney ? This voucher 
is false if that affidavit is true; is that not correct? 

Mr. Stuart. I respectfully decline to answer, because it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Don't you think the answer is self -obvious? Did 
the union have a 5-year contract with any attorney ? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I decline to answer on the same previous reason. 

The Chairman. You think it might incriminate you to give a 
truthful answer to that question ? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that it would? 

Mr. Stuart. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may be correct. Is there any explanation you 
can give why the president would make a false affidavit — Mr. Gilbert 
Mann — with respect to these contracts or lack of contracts? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I decline to answer on the same reasons; that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Counsel, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I think it might expedite matters if 
we put a member of the staff on to put in the information that we 
have and then have Mr. Stuart make any comment. 

The Chairman. Would you remove yourselves to the seats adjoin- 
ing, where you can hear ? 

Call the member of the staff forward, please. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wish to call Mr. James Mundie, and also have Mr- 
George Kopecky return to the stand. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kopecky, you may return to the stand. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, McNamara, 
andMundt.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Mundie, will you be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Mundie. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. MUNDIE 

The Chairman. Please state your name, your residence, and your 
business or occupation, Mr. Mundie. 

Mr. Mundie. My name is James F. Mundie. I have been a member 
of this staff since March. I live in the State of Maryland. 

The Chairman. Where is your regular employment, Mr. Mundie ? 

Mr. Mundie. United States Treasury Department, Internal Rev- 
enue, Intelligence Division. 

The Chairman. Plow long have you been in that Division ? 

Mr. Mundie. Since August 8, 1948. 

The Chairman. Some 9 years ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 



2658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. In the course of your services with this committee, 
this select committee, have you examined certain records of the unions 
involved, union local 100, local 300, and local 1 ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. I liave, sir. 

The Chairman. And also certain bank accounts and other docu- 
ments that the committee has secured under subpena ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kopecky, you have been previously sworn, of 
course. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. KOPECKY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. We discussed the $3,600. I would like to move to 
another item amounting to $1,450, for the alleged payment for a local 
union official's mortgage. 

Mr. Kopecky, what did we find was the situation regarding that 
payment ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Mr. Counsel, in that instance, we find that from 
local union 100 of the Factory Bakers Union a check dated July 12, 
1955, was made payable to a Howard A. McKee, in the amount of 
$1,450, and it was signed by George Stuart as special trustee. The 
check is endorsed by Howard A. McKee. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a check by the union to pay for the mort- 
gage of the former ]Dresident ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. It was used to pay a mortgage of 
$1,254 of Mr. Mann, and then the difference was in costs and legal 
fee. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it made a total of $1,450 of union money ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That union official was to repay the union; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did he repay? Has he been repaying the money 
that he was loaned ? 

Mr. Kopecky. The note in question was placed with a bank, the 
American National Bank & Trust Co., during the course of a normal 
note transaction, for collection, and each and every month the former 
president makes a clieck payable in the amount of $50 to the bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that $50 payment end up in the bank account 
of Mr. George Stuart or does it end up in the bank account of the 
. local union ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That sum winds up in the personal savings account 
of George Stuart at the American National Bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the money that the union loaned to the former 
president, and which the former president is now repaying, the money 
from that loan is being repaid into Mr. George Stuart's pereonal bank 
account. 

Mr. Kopecky. That is a true statement. 

(At this point tlie cliairman withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we find that on July 12, 1955, there was an 
expenditure of $195.17 ? 

Mr. Mundie, can you give us that ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2659 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the $195.17 for ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. It says, "Supplies, baggage, engagement gift for 
Lois," and the voucher, dated July 12, 1955, covered by check No. 
14609, in the amount of $195.17. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was for luggage? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we check w^hetlier there was anybody in the 
office by the name of Lois ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. We did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you an affidavit from Lois ? 

Mr. Mundie. I do, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, can this be 
read? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Mundie. It reads as follows : 

State of Illinois, 

County of Cook, ss: 

Lois Dominski (nee Bianchini), being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

I malve this sworn deposition of my own free will, without promise of favor 
or immunity. 

This affidavit is made at the request of George M. Kopecky, known to me to 
be an investigator of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor or Management Field, and I am aware that this sworn 
deposition is to be used at a hearing before the United States Senate Select 
Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 

I was employed with local union 100 of the Bakery and Confectionery Work- 
ers' International Union of America, in Chicago, 111., continuously from June 
1954 until October 1955, at which time my position was terminated. 

During the course of my employment with this local union, I received only 
my weekly wages, vacation wages, and a Christmas check in the amount of 
approximately $25. At no time did I ever receive any gift of money, merchan- 
dise, or other item of value as a result of my engagement to my fiance, marriage, 
or other occasion. Specifically, I never received any baggage, or other merchan- 
dise from the local union, or any of its representatives, in July 1955. 

Further, I became engaged to my fiance on December 24, 1954, and was mar- 
ried on February 2, 1957. At no time did George Stuart, or any other union 
representative, discuss giving me a gift. I would also like to state there was 
no other employee named Lois at the union ofl^ces. 

I have examined a "voucher for disbursement" of the local union 100 of this 
union, dated July 12. 1955, covering check No. 14609, payable to Kril Oflice, Inc., 
and marked "Supplies — baggage (engagement gift, Lois)" and would like to 
state this merchandise covered by this voucher was not livcn to me. 

I have examined a "Voucher for Disbursement" of the local union 100 of this 
Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International I'nion of America, in Chicago, 
111., during the year 1955, until I left my position, there was no female employee 
at this local union who was married, or who became engaged to be married. 

(Signed) Lois Dominski. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of May 1957. 

(Signed) Peter P. Aezri, 

[seal] Notanj Public. 

(At this point the chairman returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So according to the affidavit she did not receive the 
luggage? 

Mr. Mundie. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is $195.17? 

Mr. Mundie. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find, Mr. Kopecliy, on July 12, 1955, that 
there was a check for $278.17 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is coiTect. 



2660 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And did we learn what that check was used for? 

Mr. KopECKY. This check dated July 12, 1955, was made payable to 
the Harlow Electrical Supply Co., Inc., in the amount of $278.17 for 
1 Mitchell air conditioner installed in local union 100 office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we find out where that air conditioner was 
delivered ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Photostats of the records from Harlow Electrical 
Supply Co., Inc., at 4941 West Chicago Avenue, Chicago, 111., indicate 
that this particular item in the amount of $278.17 was shipped to 
George Stuart at 10906 East 43d Street, Kansas City, Mo. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The gift for Lois, allegedly to Lois, was $195.17. 

The Chairman. Let us make those checks exhibits as we go along. 
Identify the first check testified to. 

Mr. Mundie. July 12, 1955. Is that the $1,450, or the $195.17? 

Mr. Kennedy. $195.17. 

The Chairman. The $195.17 check will be made exhibit No. 18, 
and the second check testified to for $278.17 will be made exhibit 
No. 19. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 18 and 19'' 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3159-3161.) 

Mr, Kennedy, Did you also have on September 2, 1955, two de- 
humidifiers for $188.58 that came out of local 100 for Mr. George 
Stuart? 

Mr. MuNDiE. On September 12, 1955, local union 100 issued check 
No. 14756 in the amount of $188.58 for dehumidifiers which were 
shipped to George Stuart. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 20. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 20'' for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 3162.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a total of $188.58 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Mundie. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then did we find out of local union 100 on the 
date December 16, 1955 — are there some other documents there ? 

Mr. Mundie. On this other one, do you want to have where it was 
shipped, the dehumidifiers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Mundie. That was shipped to 1145 19th Street NW., by way 
of Railway Express, the dehumidifiers. 

Mr. Kennedy. What address is that here in Washington ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is the International Bakers and Confectioners. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you checked to see wliether the dehumidfiers 
are needed or used in the international headquarters ? 

Mr. Mundie. According to the auditor, he said it is not there. 

Mr, Kennedy. According to the auditor who is there, they don't 
have those things in there ? 

Mr. Mundie. That is right, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Then on December 16, 1955, did you find that $780 
of local union 100 funds were used to buy a pearl necklace and ear- 
rings ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, check 14984, for $780. 

The Chairman. That cheek may be made exhibit No. 21. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 21" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 3163.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2661 

Mr. Kexnedy. Have you checked with the store where that piir- 
cliase was made ? 

JVIr, KoPECKY. Yes. I caused to have a check made and it indicated 
that the pearl neckhxce, bracelet, and earrings were purchased by 
Mr. George Stuart. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this $780 union check was used to make that 
purchase? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know how those can be used to further 
unionism? 

Mr. Kopeck Y. I haven't the slightest idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. On June 14, 1954, did you find $470 taken from 
local union 300 and used to buy a cocktail set and 2 pairs of cufflinks 
for Mr. George Stuart ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. On July 14, 1954, the Biscuit, Cracker, and Candy 
Workers Union No. 300 issued a check in the amount of $470, and 
on the voucher noted "present for international president." 

The Chairman. Was he international vice president of the union 
at that time? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes, sir ; he was. 

The Chairman. "Wliat was that for ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. A cocktail set and set of cuff buttons. 

The Chairman. What is the price of each ? Does it show ? 

Mr. MuNDiE. Yes. The cocktail set was $375 and the cuff buttons 
was $95. 

The Chairman. Well, it is a little bit cheap, but 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you find, Mr. Kopecky, on February 4, 1955, 
that $450 of local union 100 funds were used to buy Mr. George Stuart 
3 suits and an overcoat ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. This check you just testified to 
will be made Exhibit No. 22. 

(Tlie document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22" for refer- 
ence and will he. found in the appendix on pp. 3164-3165.) 

Mr. Kopegky. That is correct. The check is made payable for $450 
to M. Hyman & Son, and the supporting voucher indicates it was 
supposed to be used for Christmas gift certificates ordered by Gilbert 
Mann on September 20, 1954. At the merchant, it was indicated that 
suits and an overcoat were purchased for this amount of money for 
the account of Mr. George Stuart. 

The Chairman. What is the amount of it? 

Mr. KoPECKT. $450. 

The Chairman, For a suit and overcoat ? 

Mr. KopECKY. There were three suits and an overcoat. 

The Chairman, Three suits and an overcoat. 

That will be made exhibit No, 23. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 23" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p, 3166,) 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr, Mundie, on January 3, 1956, did you find 
$539,32 of local 100 funds used to buy Mr. George Stuart a bed and 
a high-fidelity phonograph? 

Mr. Mundie. I did. On January 30, 1956, local 100 issued their 
check No. 1320 in the amount of $539.32, on a check to the Restano 
Furniture Co., and they furnished a photostatic copy of a bill for 



2662 IMPROPER ACTivrni:s in the labor field 

a 2-piece bed for $387.82 and a high-fidelity phonograph for $151.50, 
and shipped to George Stuart, 6850 Oregon Avenue NW., the home 
of Mr. George Stuart. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 24. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 24" for reference 
and will be found in the ap])endix on i)p. 3167-3168.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find from the international funds that there 
was a plane ticket purchased for $61.82 for a woman who was not 
on the payroll of the union ? 

Mr. KopECKY. According to a statement of expenses submitted by 
Mr, Stuart for the period from October 2 through October 8, 1955, 
there is indicated thereon a cash payment for air ticket 126004, Los 
Angeles to Portland, $61.82. The supporting document mdicates 
this particular ticket number for a flight on October 3, 1955, and the 
name of the passenger at the union offices as Mr. G. Stuart. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Mr. G. Stuart. 

The Chairman. Mr. G. Stuart? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. However, the original document on file 
with the Western Airlines indicates that the actual name of the 
passenger was K. Lower. 

The Chairman. I am sure Mr. Stuart will want to explain that. 

That may be made Exhibit No. 25. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 25," for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3169-3170.) 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that, did you determine whether 
there had been some money sent to K. Lower by Mr. Stuart ? 

Mr. KopECKY. In that regard, Mr. Counsel, there is a statement of 
expenses submitted by George Stuart on March 5, 1956, which indi- 
cates thereon "Wire to Los Angeles, Strike Donation, $200, Cost of 
Wire $4.02." Bracketing these two lines is a bracket "O.K. J.G.C." 

A document produced by the Western Union office dated March 5, 
1956, which is the same date, indicates tliat a Western Union money 
order was wired by George Stuart from the Monte Carlo Hotel in 
Miami Beach, Fla.J to Mrs. E. K. Thorpe, 5020 Rodeo Road, Apart- 
ment 32. 

Further, this Western Union money order, which is No. 39928, in 
the amomit of $200, w^as made payable to Mrs. E. K. Thorpe, and 
endoi^sed by that party. 

I might indicate that Mrs. E. K. Thorpe is also known as K. Lower. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this O.K.'d, did you say ? Was this approved, 
this $200 outlay of international union funds? Was that approved? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes ; it was, according to this photostat. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was approved by James Cross ? 

Mr. Kopecky. The initials are J.G.C. and Mr. Cross' name is James 
G. Cross. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibits Nos. 26 and 26-A, the 
documents regarding that transaction. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 26 and 
26-A" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3171, 
3172.) 

Mr. Kennedy. It would appear from the records that you have 
reviewed that whatever Mr. Stuart did, so far as K. Lower or Mi-s. 
Thorpe, was done at the request of Mr. Cross rather than on his own ; 
is that correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2663 

Mr. KoPECKY. Tliat is correct. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cross approved it? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was tliere also from the international fund in addi- 
tion to other expenses, a snni of $500 listed as a strike donation? 

Mr. KopECKY. That is rig-ht. Check No. 4115F international union, 
dated February 24, 1954, in the amount of $500 was drawn to George 
Stuart as a strike donation. At this particular time, he was the 
trustee of local union No. 149 in Memphis. The records of local union 
No. 149 do not reflect any receipt of this $500. The particular check 
was endorsed by George Stuart. 

The Chairman. The check was made to George Stuart? Is that 
from the international union? 

Mr. KopECKY. It was drawn on the acccount of the international 
union ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A check on the account of the international union 
in the amount of $500, to George Stuart and endorsed by George 
Stuart, cashed by him? 

Mr. KopECKY. Yes. 

The Chairman. And the union for which it was intended, you say, 
you checked their records? 

Mr. KoPECKY. We examined the records ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And there is no record of it having been received? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chz^irman. What unon is that? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Local union 149. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 27, 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 27" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 3173.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we also find tliat ]\Ir. Stuart had his son on 
the payrolls of some of these local unions under trusteeship? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And occassionally, did Mr. Stuart himself receive 
the expenses that his son allegedly incurred? Did he receive the 
expense money from the international? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dated May 13, 1955, did he receive a check for 
$887.60? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes; that was a check drawn on the international 
union, dated May 13, 1955, check No. 13261. It was $887.60, payable 
to George Stuart. It indicated that this was the balance of moving 
expenses, living expenses and various and sundry utility expenses, 
plus a daily per diem allowance which was to be used for the benefit 
of his son, James Stuart, during the time that George Stuart was the 
trustee of local union 149 in Memphis, Tenn., and during which same 
period he had caused to be placed on the payroll of this local union, 
his son. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was his son, during this period of time receiving 
his rent for his home and utilities? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. It is indicated that he received 
payment for rent of a furnished home, the rent for an unfurnished 
house, the utilities of telephone, gas, electric and water, daily expense 



2664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of $2 a clay for 301 days, moving expenses from ^Memphis back to 
Kansas City. 

Mr. Kenxedy. What was the total amount? 

Mr. KoPECKY. The total amount was $2,387.60, of which the local 
union Avas billed $1,500 for a check made payable to James Stuart, 
and cashed by James Stuart, the son, and the balance was drawn on 
a check to George Stuart and the supporting voucher also indicating 
to George Stuart. 

The Chairman. Are there 2 checks there or just 1. 

Mr. KopECKY. There are 2 checks. 

The Chairman. Those checks may be made exhibits 28 and 28-A.. 
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 28 and 
28-A" for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3174, 
3175.) 

The Chairman. Tlie supporting documents may be included with 
them and may be found in the files of the select committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. While Mr. Stuart was associated with local union 
100, he was receiving his expenses from the international union, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Kopeck y. Thas is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1954, his expenses were $14,000. In 1955 they 
were $19,153.78, and in 1956 they were $12,969.04, making a total 
for his expenses during those years of $46,912.78 that he received in 
expenses; is that rights 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is corect. 

The Chairman. Are there vouchers to cover all of those expenses ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that, did he receive $100 a week in 
miscellaneous expenses from local 100? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the total for that $100 a week for 48 weeks 
would be $4,800. Were there any vouchers submitted for that? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Just a supporting voucher indicating that a check 
was to be drawn. There is no information to indicate what the 
money was to be used for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Together with the Cadillac and these other matters 
that we have discussed, plus the $10,500 of organizational expenses 
and evidently $3,000 of that was returned to the local union, discussed 
this morning, that makes a total of approximately $40,000 that we 
have traced through Mr. Stuart's hands. 

Mr. KoPECKY. In excess of $40,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which is unauthorized ; is that correct ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what he has personally benefited ? 

Mr. Kopeck Y. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there are other funds, which other individuals 
have benefited ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Other individuals received the benefit from these 
proceeds, and the local union did not receive any benefits. 

The Chapman. Are there any further questions ? 

If not, gentlemen, you may stand aside. 

Mr. Stuart, would 3'ou resume the stand, please ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2665 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE STUART, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
GEORGE CARROLL— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Stuart, could you tell the committee, or give 
them any explanation about the use of union funds to purchase your- 
self some luggaoe for $195.17 ^ 

Mr. Stdart. I regi-et I must decline to answer, that the answer 
I may give may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have the money for the air conditioner and 
the dehumidi tiers, the pearl necklace, the bracelets, the earrings, the 
cocktail set, the cuft' links, the suits and the overcoat, the bed and the 
high fidelity phonograph, and the plane ticket for K. Lower. 

Then we' have a couple of expenses here of $478.31, and another 
expense of $250 that you received from local 100, which there are 
no vouchers for. 

Can you give us any explanation of any of those things? 

Mr. Stuart. I regret that I must decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The total of misuse of union funds together with 
the automobiles and these other matters, for wdiich there are no 
vouchers, would appear to be over $40,000 that you personally misused 
of union funds. Would you make any comment on that? 

Mr. Stuart. I must decline to answer, because it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to read to you a section from the Crim- 
inal Code of Illinois, section 218, embezzlement of property of fra- 
ternal society is larceny, that — 

any person who is a member and oliicer of any fraternal beneficiary society, 
corporation, or association, or subordinate lodge thereof, who shall embezzle 
or fraudulently convert to his own use or take and secret with intent so to do 
without the consent of the beneficiary society, corporation, association, or sub- 
ordinate lodge thereof, as the case may be, any funds or property of such 
beneficiary society, coi'poration, association, or subordinate lodge thereof, which 
has come to his possession, or is under his care by virtue of such office, shall 
be deemed guilty of larceny, the same as if he had not been" or was not a member 
of such fraternal beneficiary society, corporation, association, or subordinate 
lodge thereof, or one of the beneficial owners of such funds or property, and 
it shall be sufficient in any indictment for embezzlement of funds or property 
of any beneficiary society, corporation, association, or subordinate lodge thereof, 
and it shall not be a defense under such indictment that any ofticer has a per- 
sonal interest in the funds or property. 

Do you have any comment on that, on the embezzlement statute 
in the State of Illinois, so far as your own actions are concerned? 

Mr. Carroll. Is counsel asking for a legal opinion of the witness ? 
Could he refine the question ? 

The Chairman. Kepeat your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wondered if he had any comment on that as far as 
his own actions were concerned. 

The Chairman. That is the question, if he had any comment on it, 
the law having been read and the evidence having been adduced here, 
which he has heard. 

After hearing the evidence and the laAv read, do you have any com- 
ment on it, Mr. Stuart ? 

Mr. Stuart. No. 



2666 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I think I perhaps liave a clearer section where it 
says embezzlement is larceny. 

Whoever embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use or secrets with 
intent to embezzle or fraudulently converts to his own use, money, goods, or 
property delivered to him, which may be the subject of larceny or any part 
thereof, shall be deemed guilty of larceny. 

Would you have any comment on that in connection with your own 
activity ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Does this law that you are quoting apply 
equally to all nonprofit organizations, regardless of whether or not 
they are incorporated, or is this for nonprofit organizations operating 
under a corporate franchise? 

Mr, Kennedy. Either one. 

Senator McNamara. Either one or both ? That is interesting. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is in the State of Illinois, where most of the 
money came from, local 100 and local 300. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stuart, would you mind telling us how many 
members there are in the Bakers and Confestionery International? 
Do you know ? 

(Ihe witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I regret that I must decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is 165,000. 

The Chairman. I am sorry, Mr. Stuart, you could not give us that 
information. But if the information we have is correct, some 165,000 
or whatever number it is — and certainly I am assuming you know, 
and more accurately than anyone else here, possibly, the number of 
members — if the 165,000 that I mentioned is considerably inaccurate, 
then you may apply your answer to such number as you think is more 
accurate. 

I just wanted to ask you if you feel that you have any obligation 
to the union members, to those 165,000, or whatever number it is, that 
you serve as an officer in a position of trust, to account to them for 
the use you made of their money. 

Do you feel under any obligation to do that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. I regret that I must decline to answer that question 
because it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You do recognize that, notwithstanding the legal 
obligations, there are such concepts that some of us entertain, and 
there are moral obligations as well, to account for our trusteeship. 
Do you recognize that, and is that your concept? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. Yes, sir. Senator; I recognize that there are moral 

The Ciiair:man. You do recognize it. 

Do you wisli to discharge it here today and meet your responsibility 
in that respect, or do you still continue to insist upon taking the fifth 
amendment ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2667 

Mr. Stuart. I personally feel that I must take and decline to answer 
because the questions may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRMA?^'. Do you recognize, then, that you are placing your 
right under the fifth amendment, placing that right, or the privilege 
rather, of doing so, placing that above, and causing it in your conduct 
here and in your testimony to transcend in importance the obligation 
and duty you have to make an accounting for funds that were en- 
trusted to you by the laboring men in this union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuakt. I have no comment, Senator. 

The Chairman, You would not like to comment on that? 

Mr. Stuart. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You will just leave it to the union members, the 
public, and the committee, and the Congress, to draw its own con- 
clusions ? You would like to leave it that way ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stuart. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Are there any more questions ? 

You may stand aside for the present, subject to being recalled. You 
are not excused from your subpena. You may be recalled before the 
hearings are concluded. 

You may stand aside. That will be all for you for this afternoon, 
at least. 

Mr. Kennedy. "We have two witnesses, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You might like to hear these other witnesses, if 
you like. 

You may remain if you wish. 

Mr. IVENNEDT. We have two witnesses that should not be very long. 
They came in from Chicago. 

The Chairman. Call them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mascarella. 

The Chairman. 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 by the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Mascarella. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MASCAEELLA 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and busi- 
ness or occupation ? 

Mr. Mascarella. John Mascarella, 2211 North Harlem Avenue, 
Chicago, 111. 

I have a real estate and insurance office. 

The Chairman. How long liave you had that operation, Mr. Mas- 
carella ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Fourteen years. 

The Chairman. Fourteen years ? • 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes, approximately. 

The Chairman. Have you talked to members of the staff regarding 
your testimony ? 

Mr. Mascarella. I spoke to Mr. Kopecky at one time. 

89330— 57— pt. 8 7 



2668 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You have talked to him ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You know under the rules you are entitled to have 
counsel, if you desire, to be present and advise you of your legal 
rights while you testify ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Counsel? I though I was here as sort of a co- 
operating witness. 

The Chairman. Sir, we are not insisting that you have counsel, but 
the Chair feels it is his duty to advise any witness who appears 

Mr. Mascarella. I don't feel I have any reason for counsel. 

The Chairman. Thank you. I am confident you do not have to, but 
I have to admonish witnesses that they have that privilege, under the 
rules of the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are in the real estate business ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Chicago. 

Mr. Mascarella. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received on July 15, 1954, $2,500 in a check 
from local 3300, signed by Anthony J. Conforti. Will you tell the 
committee what that was for ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Well, prior to receiving that check, I met Mr. 
Conforti, I believe, at one of our chamber of commerce affairs. I was 
president of the chamber of commerce at that time. If I recall cor- 
rectly, he asked me if I knew of any rentals, or something similar 
to that, for some friends of his, which I did, and I took care of it at 
that time. 

Wlienever we had a rental, we sent someone over and we rented it 
to them. 

But then the following year he came into my office — incidentally, 
not only that, but at that time I was a director of the bank, and he 
sent some of the people over for small loans, automobile loans, and 
so on and so forth, which I took care of. 

Then he came into the office, I believe, in the summer of 1954, and 
he brought a check for $2,500 and told me that he wanted to keep me 
on the basis of whenever any of his — I don't know if they were em- 
ployees — members of the local, I should say, needed advice on insur- 
ance, real estate, or tax or anything, he would send them in to me, 
and I would, naturally, take care of them for nothing. I mean, there 
would be no charge. 

And then, I believe, the following year, he gave me another check. 
I think that was the last one. 

Yes. That was 1955. At that time I went into the building busi- 
ness with a partner. As a matter of fact, I told him I didn't think 
I would have much ime. I only had a one-man office. That is the 
reason I never repeated that work for the local. 

The Chairman. Let us see. 

Did you only accept one check ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No. Two checks. 

The Chairman. You accepted two checks for $2,500 ? 

Mr. Mascraella. That is right. The first one he brought in he 
said was in payment for what I had already done, and what they 
expected of me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that your services were worth $2,500 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2689 

Mr. Mascarella. Well, the first check I would say yes, because 
prior to that I had been helping him out, but after the second check 
I don't think so. I don't think I did enough work to warrant it, but 
on the basis of what we had rented. At that time, in 1953, 1954, and 
1955 rentals in Chicago, apartments were hard to get, and, naturally, 
the broker finding the apartment always charged the prospective 
tenant, not the lessor. We also charged the lessee a fee for finding 
an apartment. The fee varied from $25 to the first month's rent. So 
it was pretty good business. 

On the basis of what I felt I had done for him the 2 years previous, 
I felt that I earned the money because I lost a lot of commissions by 
not giving these to customers coming into the office. 

The Chairman. At least, you certainly earned some part of it on 
the basis of practices that prevailed at that time ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes. 

The Chairman. You felt it was a legitimate fee and you took it? 

Mr. IVIascarella. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you were talking to Mr. Kopecky, I believe 
you stated that some $600 of this was used to pay off city officials in 
Chicago ? 

Mr. IVIascarella. That is not true. Mr. Kopecky misunderstood, 
if anything. I told him that the loss to me would be approximately — 
approximately what it would cost me out of my pocket would be six 
or seven hundred dollars. 

I don't know where "city officials" come into this at all. They are 
not in my office. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. There is no mention of that at all ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was there a mention of $600 ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes. He asked me how rnuch of that money that 
I received would it cost me. In other words, finding apartments or 
anything. Naturally, if I give you an apartment free, there is a 
month's rent that I could have gotten from someone else, so I figured 
around six or seven hundred dollars is what it would cost me out of 
my pocket if I gave those apartments or advice to members of the 
local. That is what I said. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no mention of the other ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The cost, then, to you, to perform the services that 
you performed for the local was about six or seven hundred dollars ? 

Mr. Mascarella, It was just a matter of conversation when he 
asked me about it. We just estimated it that way. It might have 
been less and it might have been more. I don't know. 

The Chairman. What you are saying is that you would have been 
out of pocket expense that much ? 

Mr. Mascarella. I would say six or seven hundred dollars at least. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought we should clarify it. 

Mr. Mascarella. I don't know where he got the idea that I was 
taking care of city officials in my office. I am sure they are not in- 
terested in my one-man office. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what disturbed us, Mr. Mascarella. We did 
not understand, and we thought we would give you a chance to ex- 
plain it. 



2670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mascarella. Good Lord, I couldn't do that if I wanted to. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator I^IcNamara. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like 
to ask. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have a broker's license ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. And j^ou did this same service for the general 
public? This was not an exceptional service? 

Mr. Mascarella. No. At a matter of fact, for the bank it was the 
same way. I believe I placed at least the 10 employees of the bank 
that I was a director of at that time into apartments. I managed a 
24-apartment building and a 6, and naturally, being well known in 
the neighborhood a lot of people called me when they had a vacant 
apartment because I have been living in that neighborhood for 22 
years. 

I was one of the first men to start the chamber of commerce. I was 
the charter president of the Lions Club out there. I was the man 
who started the drive for an iron lung for the fire department, be- 
cause they had none there. I have been chairman nine different times 
for every fund you can name in that particular area — Red Cross, 
infantile paralysis, TCP, the community fund. 

So I think with all that work in the neighborhood I should be well 
known or at least known enough to get some business from the people 
in the neighborhood. 

Senator McNamara. I think you established that you are well 
known. These other people, these people from the bank, did you 
charge them a fee ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not customarily charge a fee? 

Mr. Mascarella. Well, I did except if they were people that I knew 
personally. I was a director of that bank. I could hardly charge 
one of the employees there a fee for finding him a place to live. 

But if a person came in — we have lists of prospects that come into 
the office practically every day looking for an apartment. We take 
their name and address, were we can reach them, and when something 
comes in we call them. That is where we charge our fee, but not on 
anyone that I know in my neighborhood. 

Senator McNamara. Were you acting as the landlord on some of 
these properties, in some of these cases ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No. I do not own any of the properties. I don't 
even own my own home. 

Senator McNamara. You acted for the landlord, as an agent ? 

Mr. Mascarella. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. Are these under lease or are they month-to- 
month payments? 

Mr. Mascarella. They were usually yearly leases. I believe in the 
24-apartment building, she left 6 open without leases. They always 
do that, but why, I don't know. The rest of the time they insist on 



Senator McNamara. That is the general practice ? 
Mr. Mascarella. Yes, not to tie up the whole building. 
Senator McNamara. You indicated you were the president of the 
ciiamber of commerce. That is an unpaid office ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2671 

Mr. IMascaeella. Yes. I was elected three times, 1953, 1954, and 
1955. 

Senator McNamara. You were a member of the chamber of com- 
merce because of your broker's license and being in the real-estate 
business ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Yes. Well, I was one of the original six people 
who started the chamber of commerce. 

Senator McNamaili. How much do you pay in annual dues ? 

Mr. Mascarella. $30 a year. 

Senator MgNamara. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people did you do work for in the union 
to earn the $5,000? 

Mr. Mascarella. I couldn't actually say, Mr. Kennedy, because 
unless I charge a fee, I don't take any names. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how many people you did any work 
for? 

Mr. Mascarella. No ; I really don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you name anybody that you did any work for ? 

Mr. Mascarella. It is hard to say. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is hard to say ? 

Mr. Mascarella. I mean it is hard to remember. The last time I 
did that was 1955, I think it was. They come in the office and would 
say Mr. Conforti sent them. Usually, I would take their name and 
address and see what they wanted. 

When something comes up, I call them and that is it. I don't keep 
any record of it because I don't charge them any commission. The 
only time I keep a record of anything is when there is a profit or some 
money made on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never mentioned to Mr. Kopecky that you 
could not mention certain people's names because it would jeopardize 
your business ? 

Mr. Mascarella. I never told him that. I never said that. I 
have nothing to hide. I don't see why I shouldn't mention names. 
I just don't understand it at all. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You don't have any records of anybody that you 
did any work for ? 

Mr. JVIascarella. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None at all ? 

Mr. JVIascarella. As I say, Mr, Kennedy, I don't keep a record of 
anything I don't make money on. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought maybe you had written letters or some- 
thing. 

Mr. INIascarella. Well, wait a minute. I take that back. There 
was a fellow. The last one I remember. He happened to be a col- 
ored fellow. That I remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You remember what ? 

Mr. Mascarella. That was the last one. 

Mr. ICennedy. For $5,000 you can remember one person? 

Mr. Mascarella. Noav, you are not putting that thing right. You 
are making it appear like I took care of one item for $5,000. You 
must remember this is a period of 3 years, not 2 years, and I have 
done my work for at least the first 2 years and 1 year I did not get 
paid for anything and never charged them anything. 



2672 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Have you anything further ? 

Senator McNamara. What is your accounting in your own mind 
for why he paid you this $2,500 the second year ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Well, at that time, as I said, I was director of 
the bank, and I was on the loan committee, helping ex-Governor 
Green, and he had sent in — like I say, I don't take their names. 
When they come in to see me at the bank or at the office, they intro- 
duce themselves and "Mr, Conf orti sent me." 

They give me their problem. It is not very large and I take care 
of it. That is about all I can remember of it. There might be 50 
for all I know in the last 3 years. 

Senator McNamara. I did not ask you about that. You made the 
statement that the first $2,500 which was paid to you, you thought was 
legitimate and you thought you had it coming. 

Mr. Mascarella. I think so. 

Senator McNamara. You said immediately after the second $2,500 
you do not think you had it coming ? 

Mr. ^Mascarella. No. 

Senator McNamara. Wliy do you think he paid it to you ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Well, now you have me. I think maybe because 
I was so active in the community and he figured sooner or later I 
might be able to do some good for his friends or his members of the 
union or something. 

I have a statement to make. I tried to tell that to Mr. Kopecky. 
T have never been at Mr. Conforti's home. I was only on a speaking 
acquaintance with him when I met him on the street, 

Mr. Kopecky asked me if I knew Mr. Conforti's brother. I never 
knew Mr. Conforti had a brother, I never had anything to do with 
him. He was introduced to me at the chamber of commerce in 1953 
when I was elected president of the chamber. That is the first recol- 
lection of a formal introduction. I have seen him on the street, nat- 
urally, because I am up and down the street continuously. 

I have seen him in the furniture store or wherever it was, and I 
always say hello to him. But I don't recall stopping him and engag- 
ing him in conversation, where it was a friendship with him. That 
is, until 1953, and that is when he started asking me if I could help him 
out in the real estate or insurance. I didn't even want the insurance 
business from him, from his membership. I didn't want it. I have 
neighborhood business. 

Senator McNamara. You still do not understand why he paid you 
the second $2,500 ? 

Mr. Mascarella. I assume that he thought I could do him some 
more good, or something. I don't know. If someone comes in your 
office and wants to give you $2,500, 1 don't think you would refuse it, 
unless it was stolen. So I didn't refuse it. 

Senator McNamara. If you are a licensed broker and someone 
comes in and wants to give you $2,500, 1 think you would take a second 
look at it. 

Mr. Mascarella. No, sir ; I will give you a specific mstance where 
I received $1,000 for not doing a thing. The man's name is Morris 
Deslowski. He gave me his apartment to sell in the latter part of 
1954 or 1955. He works in a haberdashery. He says to me, "Johnny, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2673 

I want you to sell this apartment building for me." I took the build- 
ing. I asked him what he wanted for it and he said $42,000. I said, 
"Morrie, your property is worth more than $42,000. I think you can 
get $48,000 for it." To make a long story short, I did not sell the 
building. Within 10 days or 2 weeks he sold it himself and he mailed 
me a check for $1,000 and I did nothing for it. 

Senator McNamara. You made an appraisal. 

Mr. Mascarella. $1,000 for an appraisal is pretty high. I usually 
charge $25. 

Senator McNamara. You raised the price of the sale from $42,000 
to $48,000. 

Mr. Mascarella. That is right. But, technically speaking, I didn't 
earn the $1,000. He had no right to send it to me, but he did. 

Senator McNamara. But you did something for him. 

Mr. Mascarella. Well, I suppose you could say that. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you handle any police tickets or anything like 
that for the union ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No, sir. I subscribe to all the police on my 
own 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer my question. When any of the union 
members or union officials get in 

Mr. Mascarella. I don't know any of the union officials. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know Mr. Conf orti ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No. I Imow Pete Lombardi because I grew up 
with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you handle any police tickets ? 

Mr. Mascarella. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kopecky must have been dreaming. 

Mr. Mascarella. Mr. Kopecky — it reminds me of the time that I 
bought a used car when I was a kid. They talk fast to you for a half 
hour and then they want you to sign something. I remember that 
Dodge I bought, that 1927 Dodge. I can never forget it. That taught 
me one thing. Listen, but don't sign anything until you read it over 
for a few days. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one more 
question. 

This business of paying for finding apartments ; is that something 
that developed during the rent-control period ? 

Mr. Mascarella. Definitely. 

Senator McNamara. This was part of the thing that was brought 
about by Government regulation ? 

Mr. Mascarella. I have been offered as high as $200 for a $100 
rental. 

Senator McNamara. A what ? 

Mr. Mascarella. For a $100 apartment, I have had people say, "I 
will give you more than a month's rent." 

Senator McNamara. I was rent director in Detroit, so I understand 
some of these things. 

Mr. Mascarella. It is hard in Chicago today. Mr. Senator, I 
would like to get back home. Am I excused ? 



2674 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, Yes ; you are excused. 

Mr. Mascarella. For good? I want to go back home. I have a 
13-year-old boy staying alone. My wife is down here. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. Take the next plane. 

Mr. Mascarella. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Flicht. 

(Present at this point: Senators McClellan and McNamara.) 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Flight. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER FLICHT 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
present business or occupation. 

Mr. Flight. Alexander Flicht, 6 North Hamlin, manager of the 
Midwest Buildings. 

The Chairman. Midwest Buildings ? Does that include the Mid- 
west Hotel Corp. ? 

Mr. Flight. It does. 

The Chairman. How long have you been manager of those prop- 
erties ? 

Mr. Flight. Ten years. 

The Chairman. Ten years? 

Mr. Flight. Since August 1947. 

The Chairman. You have heard the Chair state to other witnesses, 
or advise them, rather, of their rights to have counsel present if they 
desired ? 

Mr. Flight. I did. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Flight. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Flicht, there is one transaction I want to ask you 
about, and that was brought up tiiis morning, about the $3,500 paid to 
the hotel, the Midwest Hotel Corp. for the cancellation of the lease. 
You are familiar with that ? 

Mr. Flight. I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was paid in April 1956 to cancel the lease for 
the remaining months, some 16 months, as I understand it. When the 
check was forwarded to you, you had some conversations with Mr. 
Conf orti preceding that ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Arid you received this check for $3,500 ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the check once you received it ? 

Mr. Flight. I cashed it and paid some rent with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it go through the regular books and records of 
the Midwest Hotel Corp. ? 

Mr. Flight. It did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody in the Midwest Hotel Corp. know that 
you had received the $3,500, other than yourself ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2675 

Mr. Flight. I don't know whether they know or not. The imme- 
diate bookkeeping man didn't know, or the girl in the office didn't 
know. 

The Chairman. Didn't know, or did ? 

Mr. Flight. Did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon just took the check out and cashed it, did you ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And no one knew you had the money, except your- 
self ; is that right ? 

Mr. Flight. That, I couldn't say. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean, you didn't tell anyone? 

Mr. Flight. When Mr. Conforti, or the bakery workers, biscuit 
workers, started to move out of the premises, and they started to give 
us notice, I consulted my people and they told me to make a deal with 
them, a settlement with them. I come in and I asked them for the 
money. It was 14 months that were due on the lease. And the next 
thing I knew, I had the check for the full amount for 14 months. The 
understanding that I had was that it was to be more or less of an 
escrow account, with permission for them to sublet, or we to rent it, 
if we found a suitable tenant that would meet the approval of the 
building. The money would be refimded or they could pay to them 
if it was sublet. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, did you sign a contract with them so 
it would be clearly understood by all parties ? 

Mr. Flight. No, but at a future date there was a contract signed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What was the future date ? 

Mr. Flight. It was a few months later; several months or a few 
months later. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. How many months later ? 

Mr. Flight. About 4 or 5 months ; 6 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, the contract was canceled even though the 
$3,500 was paid in April 1956; the contract was cancelled, it reads, 
February 5, 1957. You had that cash all that period of time? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me. Do you ordinarily proceed in that 
fashion when someone sends money in ? 

Mr. Flight. We had hopes of renting it, and we tried to rent it by 
advertising in the Chicago Tribune. We weren't able to rent it. 
There were other conditions in the lease after they moved in, 2 
months or so, where they put some air conditioners into the window, 
and by doing so they damaged the window and it had to be either 
replaced or a settlement. We also remodeled the place at the ex- 
pense of $3,700. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. I am not talking quite about that. I am talking 
about the fact that you got a check for $3,500. 

Mr. Flight. I am trying to tell you why the check was there. It 
was because of the initial cost. It cost us $3,700 to remodel the place 
on a $6,000 lease. The gross was $6,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. But nobody knew about the $3,500 other than you, 
as I understand it ; you and Mr. Conforti ? 

_Mr. Flight. I think other people — they knew about it, but they 
didn't know how I kept it or what exactly transpired. But they 



2676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

had a general idea that they weren't going to be released without 
paying. They knew. 

The Chairman. I don't understand about this check. When you 
got it, I assume it belonged to the company. I do not know why 
you did not enter tliat or put it into the records of the company. 

Mr. Flight. We had hopes of renting it. It should have been 
entered. It was not entered. There were four payments, but there 
should have been this, more or less. 

The Chairman. Wliat did you do with the money when you cashed 
the check ? 

Mr. Flight. It was cashed. It was put into the safe. It was put 
in, more or less, in an envelope, in an escrow account, and as the 
months came due there were payments made; there were four pay- 
ments, I believe, made. 

The Chairman. In other words, you kept that envelope with the 
money in it and, as payments came to you each month, you recorded 
the payments as if made by the lessee ? 

Mr. Flight. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And those payments were made for 4 months? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And what happened to the rest of the money ? 

Mr. Flight. It just stayed there in the envelope. 

The Chairman. Is it still there ? 

Mr. Flight. It is still there. 

The Chairman. I guess it ought to be accounted for someday. 

Mr. Flight. It will be. This is the end of the month. 

The Chairman. This is the end of the month ? 

Mr. Flight. This is the end of their lease. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any of this money go back to Mr. Conf orti ? 

Mr. Flight. No, sir. It was always in the safe. 

Mr. Kennedt. You never gave any money to Mr. Conf orti ? 

Mr. Flight. No, sir. 

Senator MgNamara. You made a statement about $3,700 being 
spent. Was this at the time they moved in ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Senator MgNamara. This is what we normally refer to as for tenant 
changes ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir ; we remodeled to suit them. 

Senator MgNamara. To suit the tenant ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Senator MgNamara. And you figure that this money that was 
made in payment was justified in view of this expenditure of $6,000 
for the lease? 

Mr. Flight. It was $3,000 a year for 2 years ; $250 a month. 

Senator MgNamara. As a representative of the management com- 
pany, the Midwest Co., you thought this was proper, to get the addi- 
tional payments because of the general changes involved; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

Senator JNIgNamara. And you think at this point that the money 
should go to the Midwest Co, because of that expense ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. ' 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2o77 

Senator McNamariV. As far as this company is concerned, it will 
so go ; is that it ? 

Mr. Flight. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If there are no other questions, thank you very 
much. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Thereupon, the committee recessed at 5 : 05 p. m., with the follow- 
ing members present : Senators McClellan and McNamara ; to recon- 
vene at 10 a. m., Friday, June 7, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1957 

United States Senate, 

Select Committee 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, Senate Office Build- 
ing, Senator Jolm L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) 
presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat Mc- 
Namara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, 
Arizona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; George M. Ko- 
pecky, assistant counsel ; James F. Mundie, investigator ; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk, 

(Members present at the convening of the session: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, McNamara, and Goldwater. ) 

The Chairman. The committee vs^ill come to order . 

Mr. Counsel, call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first witness will be a relatively short witness, 
Mr. Joseph Tenczar. 

The Chairman. You do solemnl^r 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. Tenczar, I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH TENCZAR 

The Chairman. Please state your name, your place of residence 
and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Tenczar. My name is Joseph Tenczar, 654 Rogers Avenue, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. I am a baker. 

The Chairman. You are a baker by trade ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you talked to members of the staff, Mr. 
Tenczar, regarding the information you have that you may be able to 
give to the committee ? 

Mr, Tenczar, I have. 

The Chairman. Have you been advised that under the rules of the 
committee, if you desire, you are permitted to have counsel present 
to advise you of your legal rights while you are testifying ? 

2679 



25S0 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Tenczar. I have so been advised, Mr. Cliairman, and I don't 
need any legal advice. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a member of the bakers union ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You were a business agent ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. A business agent for what local ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Bakers Union Local No. 3. 

Mr. Kennedy. In New York City ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were suspended? 

Mr. Tenczar. I was suspended from my job ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that your official penalty of being suspended or 
were you ousted from the union ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I was not suspended, sir. I was removed from my 
job. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were removed from your job? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that ostensibly for taking $125 ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. "^'V^ien did you take the $125 ? 

Mr. Tenczar. In September or October of 1954, which I declared 
in my 1954 income tax and State tax. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did you receive the $125 for, what services 
did you perform ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I performed this service: In 1954, a bakery was 
closed, located at 420 Avenue P, Brooklyn, N. Y. I approached a Mr. 
Louis Kalmis, whom I knew very well, and I happened to have been 
working with him before I was a business agent. Knowing that he 
was a good baker I told him : 

Mr. Kalmis, why don't you open this bakery, it wiU do very well, and I am 
quite sure that you could make a good thing of this bakery. 

Mr. Kalmis at that time told me : 

Joe, in the event I should open this bakery, I will make sure that you get 
something out of it. 

I told Mr. Kalmis I had no intentions whatsoever of receiving any 
gratitude. My sole purpose was to have this place opened, and there 
was money owed to the employees of this place, amounting to roughly 
about $2,500, and that was my sole interest. 

That bakery was eventually opened in August of 1954. 

At that time, I had already the men set up to go to work in this 
place, and I had gone on vacation. When I came back from my 
vacation, the bakery was already open. 

The Chairman. Wliat did he pay you the $125 for ? It is not quite 
clear. 

Mr. Tenczar. This $125, Senator McClellan, was given to me as a 
part commission. I was not the broker. The broker there was a man 
by the name of, I believe his name was Sam, and his last name is 
Lustoff, since deceased. 

The Chairman. Where is there a brokerage fee in opening up a 
place of business ? I do not quite understand that. 

Mr. Tenczar. Mr. Sam Lustoff was the broker. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2681 

The Chairman. "\^^iere does a broker come into play when a fellow 
wants to open up a business ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Well, sir, I don't know the legal technicalities of this. 
That the deal was consummated somewhere up in New York, and I 
was not present and I had no knowledge of it until it was brought up 
at my trial. 

The Chairman. Was the broker ostensibly securing goods or serv- 
ices or something for the proprietor of the business ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I understand that the mortgagee 

The Chairman. He probably secured a loan so the man could open 
up the business? 

Mr. Tenczar. I wouldn't know anything about that. 

The Chairman. But you got a part of the broker's fee ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. AVithout knowing what services the broker per- 
formed ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I knew nothing of what he had done, sir. 

The Chairman. And that fee or that part of the broker's commis- 
sion was given to you gratuitously without your requesting it or de- 
manding it? 

Mr. Tenczar. I demanded nothing, and I requested nothing. I 
was called to an attorney's office, an attorney by the name of Sam 
Goldswat. 

The Chairman. I believe you had kind of lined up some employees, 
had you, so if he opened he would have personnel and employees to 
operate the business. 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. You had done that ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And those employees did go to work for him ? 

Mr. Tenczar. They did not, sir. 

The Chairman. They did not ? 

Mr. Tenczar. No, they did not. When I came back, I found an 
entirely different crew, and in fact I found men that did not belong 
to local 3 in the shop. That is from my vacation. 

The Chairman. Did you accept the $125 before or after vour vaca- 
tion ? 

Mr. Tenczar. After the shop was opened, which was after my 
vacation. The shop opened in August of 1954, and I received this 
$125 in September or October of 1954, which I stated before I re- 
ported it in my 1954 State and Fedei*al taxes. 

The Chairman. You were business agent for the local at that time ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, did you make any promise or was there any 
agreement or uiiderstanding that vou would not try to unionize the 
plant? 

Mr. Tenczar. The shop was a union shop, and I made no promises 
whatsoever. 

The Chairman. It was a union shop ? 

Mr. Tenczar. It was a union shop. 

The Chairman, Was there any consideration about wages or work- 
ing conditions that entered into the transaction in which you received 
$125.? 



2682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Tenczar. No, sir. According to the records I reported every- 
thing to my executive board of local No. 3, and I had always com- 
plaints about this same Mr. Louis Kalmis. 

The Chairman. You had what ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I had always been complaining about this same Mr. 
Louis Kalmis. 

The Chairman. About it not being unionized ? 

Mr. Tenczar. About not getting the proper men in the shop, and 
the men are complaining about the employer. 

The Chairman. Not having enough personnel, did you think, to 
operate it? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you report the $125 to your superiors in con- 
nection with your reports on your activities ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I did not report it to my superiors, sir, but at one 
time in 1954 I was walking to a restaurant with a Mr. David Gefter 
who is an international representative, and I at that time told him, 
"Dave, I received $125 for this." Mr. David Gefter told me, "Joe, 
don't say anything about it." 

The Chairman. Was he your superior ? 

Mr. Tenczar. No; he was an international representative at that 
time, and he still is. 

I told him, "Dave, did I do something wrong?" And he said, "No, 
but you know you shouldn't spread that around." 

I want to state here, sir, that I told it to everybody, and I never held 
it back a secret from anybody, but I belive the stand I have taken in 
local 3 is that I have been prosecuted for that. 

The Chairman. The Chair was only trying to get the whole picture 
and get it clearly before us. 

Mr. Counsel, you m.ay proceed with the interrogation. 

I did not quite understand the circumstances, and I wanted to make 
the record clear. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Tenczar, you were suspended on what 
day? 

Mr. Tenczar. On February 6, 1957. 

I was not suspended, sir. I was relieved of my duties. 

Mr. Kennedy. On that date ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date again ? 

Mr. Mr. Tenczar. February 6, 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. February 6, 1957 ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you understand was the reason that you 
were removed from your duties on that day ? 

Mr. Tenczar. My opinion, sir, is this : Since the merger of local 
3 into one big local, in June of 1955, 1 believe — I believe that is correct, 
we merged into one union, namely, local 1, local 3, and local 17 and 
local 288, and local 64 and 579; these locals combined into one local 
in the city of New York — since the merger of these locals, I haven't 
liked a lot of things that have been going on, and I have been out- 
spoken in my criticism of different things; that is, such as dinners 
and collections. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Specifically, was there one dinner and one collection 
that you were particularly critical of ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2683 

Mr. Tenczar. I was very critical of the Max Kralstein dinner. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Of what dinner ? 

Mr. Tenczar. The Max Kralstein. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Who is he ? 

Mr. Te>7Czar. An international vice president. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. When did that dinner take place ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That dinner took place, I believe, in Jmie of 1956. 
I did not attend. 

Mr. Kenndey. How was it arranged, and how was that dinner 
handled ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That dinner was brought before the executive board — 
I am sorry, a recommendation was brought to local 3, of the execu- 
tive board, I would saj-, in March or April of 1956j claiming that a 
dimier would be held for Max Kralstein in appreciation for his efforts 
for merging these 6 locals into 1 great local in the city of New 
York. 

ivlr. Kennedy. To attend the dinner, was it going to be m.embers 
of the bakers union, or were there going to be outsiders? 

Mr. Tenczar. There was everybody in the city, whoever you could 
catch. 

Mr. Kennedy. How" did you go about catching them ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Going around to the shops that I have, which were 
about, I should say, 60 or 61 shops, and approaching each individual 
employer, and asking him to either buy a ticket, which was costing 
$25, an ad for the journal, and the least for that would be $50. Also 
to go along to the members that are working in the shop, and making 
collections among them — say, if a place had 10 employees working, 
each one would give $1.50 or $2, until it came to $25 — to put the names 
in a hat and one member would attend the dinner. 

Mr. ICennedy. Did you feel that this was pressure on the em- 
ployers and employees ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I most certainly did. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you voice your objection to the dinner? 

Mr. Tenczar. I did at all times in the shops that I went to. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did you feel that the employers thought that they 
had to give to this dimier or otherwise they would have difficulty with 
the union ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I most certainly did. Max Kralstein is called a little 
dictator in New York. 

The Chairman. Let me imderstand now. 

You went to the employer where you had union people working, 
and operating a bakery, and you went to the employer and the 
proprietor of the business, and you required him as a minimum to buy 
one ticket for $25 and to take an ad on the program ? 

Mr. Tenczar. You had your name for $50 on the program or an 
ad would cost up to $50. 

The Chairman. You could get your name on for $50, and that 
was the minimum ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. If you wanted an ad, you had to pay more than 
the $50? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

-57— pt. 8 8 



2684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. So the minimum to any employer was $75, as a 



minimum 



Mr. Tenczar. I wouldn't say that, sir. I would saj^ a minimum of 
$25. If an employer took a ticket, he didn't necessarily have to take 
an ad. I know I never forced them. 

The Chairman. I wanted to clear it up. If he took a ticket, then 
he did not have to take an ad ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Not necessarily, sir. 

The Chairman. So the minimum was $25 and not $Y5 ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. But, if he took an ad to get his name on the pro- 
gram, or whatever advertising it was, the minimum was $50 for that ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

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

The CiiAiR3iAN. Xow, in addition to that, the employer was ex- 
pected, was he, to go out and sell at least one ticket among the member- 
ship? 

Mr. Tenczar. Not the employer. That was the business agent's 
duty. 

The Chair3Ian. That was the business agent's duty, and the em- 
ployer was not required to sell to his employees? 

Mr. Tenczar. No. sir. 

The Chairman. But the business agent in whose jurisdiction that 
place of business was — he was supposed to go to the employees and urge 
them to take up a collection until it amounted to at least enough to 
purchase one ticket ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the way the dinner was set up ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you tell us. Do you know how many bakeries 
there were, different places of business, in New York, at that time, that 
were contacted for that purpose? If you do not know the exact 
number, would you give us as near an estimate as you can ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Sir, I couldn't give you a near estimate, but I can 
make this statement, that I don't think that there was one that was 
overlooked. 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Tenczar. I don't think that there was one that was overlooked. 

The Chairman. That was overlooked ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That may be true, and I was asking what was the 
total number of places that may have been contacted. 

Mr. Tenczar. I couldn't state that, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no idea about that ? 

Mr. Tenczar. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Goldwater. Could I ask one question ? 

Suppose that an employee or union member refused to buy a ticket, 
■ or refused to chip in $1.50 or $2. What would happen to that person ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Sir, I state here at this time that I did not force it in 
the shops that I was assigned to. 

Senator Goldwater. What would the otlier stewards have done ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I don't know, sir. I don't know. I know in the 
shops that I represented, I think that I only sold two tickets. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2685 

Senator Goldwater. But you know of no instances of retaliation? 

Mr. Tenczak. I do not ; no, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Senator McNamara. On the same subject, you were asked to go out 
and sell the tickets. Who asked you to go out to sell the tickets? 

Mr. Tenczar. The executive board of local union Xo. 3. 

Senator McNamara. Were you a member ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I am. I was an officer at that time. 

Senator McNamara. Then you and the other officers decided that 
all of the officers should go out and try to sell tickets to make the din- 
ner a success ? Was that it ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Sir, we are run by the executive board in local 3, 
and still the same way, and when we are given orders by local 3 we 
must do them. 

Senator McXamara. Then you say yes to my question? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. What if an employer did not buy a ticket? 
X)id all employers buy a ticket ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Not necessarily. I know one thing; that, if the 
employer didn't buy, we were given strict orders on the executive 
board of local 3 that, if we could not get an employer to buy any- 
thing, give it over to a team, and a team was set up especially for this 
reason in the event I went to an employer and he refused me. I could 
report t£) this team, and this team would go out and see what they 
could do. 

Senator McNamara. Did the team do any different than what you 
did? 

Mr. Tenczar. I suppose they went in and said, "Listen, Max 
Kralstein is an international vice president, you know, and he negoti- 
ates the contracts in the city of New York, and he has been doing it 
for the last 4 or 5 years, and maybe he will give you a break, I don't 
know." It could be one of those things. 

Senator McNamara. You don't know ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I couldn't say, definitely. 

Senator McNamara. You didn't sell a ticket to every employer? 

Mr. Tenczar. No. 

Senator McNamara. But you did report in every instance to the 
so-called team. 

Mr. Tenczar. Not necessarily, sir. I did, but not all of them. 

Senator McNamara. Now you have it both ways ; you did and you 
didn't. 

Mr. Tenczar. I did some, and some I didn't. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Mr. Kj:nnedt. You had contracts in these bakeries; tlie union had 
contracts in these bakeries that you went to ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. And you, yourself, were in charge of negotiating 
contracts ? 

Mr. Tenczar. No, sir ; not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you have any authority to determine wages 
or conditions or hours or complaints or whatever they might be in 
a particular plant where you went ; a bakery ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Under contract, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



2686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Tenczar. Under contract, it was my duty to enforce the con- 
tract in the shop under my jurisdiction. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So you had a position of power in that bakery, did 
you not? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And if you felt that somebody was not contribut- 
ing sufficiently, it was in your power to make it difficult for them. 

Mr. Tenczar. I could if I wanted to, I suppose. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that this was a form of extortion, this 
type of practice; is that why you objected to it, or why did you ob- 
ject to it? 

Mr. Tenczar. I wouldn't say it was extortion. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would you call it, and why did you object 
to it? 

Mr. Tenczar. I objected strenuously to the different dinners going 
on, and I couldn't see how in the world I could go along to a shop and 
enforce the conditions in the shops, and every 5 or 6 months coming 
with something different to sell. I didn't like that. I was objecting 
to it at all times at the executive board of local 3. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you think that the employers might feel that 
they had to contribute or otherwise they might have some difficulty 
with the union ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I know, if I was an employer, I would. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Tenczar. Well, I figure a business agent, if he wanted to, he 
could cause a lot of trouble for the employer. 

The Chairman. How? 

Mr. Tenczar. By taking out men, certain men. At the present 
time, bakers in the city of New York are scarce, and a skilled worker 
is hard to get. You take them out and replace them with another man. 
I have never done it. 

The Chairman. Has it been done ? 

Mr, Tenczar, I am quite sure it has, 

Mr, Kennedy. Is there anything else on this dinner that you would 
want to add ? 

Mr, Tenczar, Well, I know it has come to my attention that at this 
dinner there was approximately $100,000 raised, and I know that Mr. 
Kralstein has bragged quite a few times in the presence of employers, 
and it has come to my ears, that he had received $56,000 of this money. 

The Chairman. You mean all of the surplus that is collected above 
the expenses for the dinner, he got as a gratuity or a gift ? 

Mr. Tenczar, I understand that $56,000— he had made that state- 
ment during negotiations. 

The Chairman. You mean you have heard him make such a 
statement ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I have not heard him mention it, but it has come to 
my attention. 

The Chairman, Then you can't swear that you heard him say it ? 

Mr, Tenczar. No, sir ; I cannot. 

The Chairman. Approximately, are you reasonably certain about 
the total amount raised, approximately $100,000 ? 

Mr, Tenczar, I would be quite sure'$100,000, sir. 

The Chairman. And they gave a dinner, and do you know how 
many attended ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2687 

Mr. Tenczar. The place was filled up. 

The Chairman. What place? 

Mr. Tenczar. It was the Waldorf-Astoria, I believe. 

The Chairman. Do you know what the plates cost ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I understand the plate would cost about $19. 

The Chairman. You mean $19 actual cost ? 

Mr. Tenczar. That would be everything included; tips included, 
and all. 

The Chairman. Tips and eveiything else ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It was a pretty fancy dinner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually $85,470 was raised. That is just a correc- 
tion. We have these records, and we will put them in with the next 
witness. 

Senator McNamara. Do I understand the statement of the attor- 
ney that that was the profit on the dinner or the total amount raised? 

ikr. Kennedy. The total amount raised was $85,470. The sale 
of tickets was $33,825. The income from the souvenir journal was 
$51,G45, making- a total of $85,470; and the disbursements were print- 
ing and stationery, $31,034; banquet expense, $17,965.26; postage was 
$30; portrait for guest of honor, $1,447.21; gift to guest of honor, 
$57,000; gift to guest of honor's wife, $1,650; printing of journal, 
$6,250; bank charge, 25 cents; total disbursements, $84,651.06. Bal- 
ance of cash in bank as of August 29, 1956, $818.94. 

Out of that, paid out September 4 to Max Kralstein, $250, and 
paid out September 13, 1956, to Max Kralstein, $618.94. So that $818 
went to him, also. 

That is $57,000 to the guest of honor, plus the gift to the guest 
of honor's wife, $1,650, plus the $818.94. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
this question : You referred to the raising of this money from em- 
ployers and it was to their advantage to pay it. What would be 
said to these employers when they would be asked to buy tickets 
for this testimonial dinner ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Do you want to know what I said ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes; or just an illustration of what type of con- 
versation would be carried on when an employer was put on the 
spot to buy these tickets. 

Mr. Tenczar. I can only speak for myself, sir. 

This I can say: I went to each employer, and as I said before, 
I had 60 or 62 employers under my jurisdiction. I went to them and 
I approached each and every one individually. I told them, "This 
is for Max Kralstein. It is supposed to buy a home for him, and I 
think it would be a good idea to contribute something to it." 

As I stated before, and as I repeat myself, Max Kralstein has been 
negotiating contracts in the city of New York, to my knowledge, since 
I have been a business agent. I have not had to go ahead and negotiate 
myself, although I am quite sure I am as capable as Brother Kralstein 
is. 

Senator Curtis. Of those sixty-some employers that you dealt with, 
how many employees would the smallest one have ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I beg pardon ? 



2688 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Of those sixty-some employers that you dealt 
with, when you were business agent, one of the smallest companies, 
how many employees would it have ? 

Mr. Tkxczar. One. 

Senator Curtis. Just one? 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. And how much would such an employer be asked 
for? 

Mr. Tenzar. The least he could give was either $25 for a ticket 
or $50 for his name in the journal. 

Senator Curtis. And most of them responded ? 

Mr. Texczar. In my jurisdiction it was very poor showing, be- 
cause I didn't use too much influence on it. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't have your heart in it. 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You were removed from your job for receiving $125 
from an emploj^er ; is that riglit ? 

Mr. Tenczar. The way I received it, that the international was pros- 
ecuting me for this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if the majority of the money raised 
for this dinner, if the majority of tJie $85,000 came from employers? 

Mr. Tenczar. I am positive of tliat, sir. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a question. 
How do you get your job as business agent in the first place? 

Mr. Tenczar. I was appointed first and I will haA^e to consult my 
records, but I believe I was appointed 

Senator McNamara. I am not asking how. Was the local under 
receivership ? 

Mr. Tenczar. The local was under trusteeship. 

Senator McN.vmara. You were appointed by whom? > '■ 

Mr. Tenczar. I was appointed by Mr. David Gefter. 

Senator McNamara. He was vice president in charge of that ? 

Mr. Tenczar. He was trustee. 

Senator McNamara. He was the trustee appointed by the inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes; and at that time, sir, it was an old local o 
located at 94 Willowby Avenue, in Brooklyn, and not this local at 
the present time. 

Senator McNamara. Wlio was the international president at that 
time? 

Mr. Tenczar. At that time the international president I believe 
was Schnitzler. 

Senator McNamara. And he appointed the trustee and tlie local 
was in trusteeship and you were appointed as a business agent by the 
man in charge of the affairs ? 

Mr. Tenczar. About a year after the trusteeship came in. 

Senator McNAMARiV. Were you business agent previously, or were 
you a baker previously ? 

Mr. Tenczar. I was a baker and a member of the local joint execu- 
tive board. 

Senator McNamara. Is the local still, the new local 3, the combi- 
nation of all of these others, still under trusteeship ? 



LMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2689 

Mr. Tenczak. No, sir; it hasn't been under trusteeship for more 
than 5 years. 

Senator McNamara. Now, they elect their own officer and run 
their own affairs? 

Mr. Tenczar. Yes, sir, and I was elected the last four times. 

Senator McNamara. Was the local under trusteeship, or was it not 
in this case? 

Mr. Tenczar. It was not. 

Senator McNamara. This originated in the executive board, the 
recommendation ? 

Mr. Tenczar. It came from what we call the planning committee 
and the planning committee recommended it to the executive board. 

Senator McNamara. And it was approved by the rank and file at 
the next meeting, the following meeting ? 

Mr. Tenczar. The executive board is the governing body of local 
No. 3. 

Senator McNamara. And at the following meeting do they report 
their activities between meetings ? 

Mr. Tenczar. They do, but the general membership hasn't any- 
thing to say because they can't go ahead and overrule anything that 
the executive board does, unless it is a referendum vote. 

Senator McNamara. So they accepted the report of the executive 
board at the following meeting and as far as you can see, this was all 
legitimate. 

Mr. Tenczar. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Thank yovi very much, then, Mr. Tenczar. 

Mr. Tenczar. Senator, may I make a statement, please ? 

Senator, I would like to make this statement because I don't know, 
there may be some repercussions from my testifying here. I want 
it to be known that I did not come here voluntarily, and I came here 
under subpena. How Mr. Kopecky got in touch with me, I don't know. 
But I know he called me at my place of employment and I will say 
about 4 or 5 weeks ago, and I would have to look into my records to 
tell, and he spoke to me on the phone at my place of employment about 
11 o'clock at night. 

He asked me different questions. I told Mr. Kopecky at that time 
I didn't want to speak to him on the telephone because I didn't know 
who he was. Then, I received a subpena to appear here, which I did, 
last Sunday. I am here again. 

The Chairman. You are here under subpena. 

Mr. Tenczar. I am still under subpena. 

The Chairman. It is immaterial how the committee or the staff 
may have found out that you had information that the committee 
desired. That is immaterial. I would say this for you, sir. I hope 
there are no repercussions, and if you have told the truth, and I 
assume that you have, and I think that you are to be commended for 
coming here and not voluntarily but in response to a subpena from 
a duly constituted agency and authority of your Government, re- 
sponding to it and coming and telling the truth and not hiding behind 
the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tenczar. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Your testimony is appreciated, and thank you 
very much. 



2690 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Ten-czar. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Joseph Kramer. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kramer, Avill you be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kramer. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KRAMEE 

The Chairman. Will you state your name, and your place of resi- 
dence and your business or occupation, Mr. Kramer ? 

Mr. Kramer. My name is Joseph Kramer, and I have a bakery busi- 
ness at 1643 Second Avenue. 

The Chairman. If you will speak just a little louder; pull the 
microphone up a little closer to you. 

Is that in New York City ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the bakery business? 

Mr. Kramer. I have been in the bakery business about 38 years. 

The Chairman. About 38 years ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kramer, have you talked to members of the 
staff of the committee regarding the information that you have? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

The Chairman. You are advised, I assume, or you know that you 
have a right, if you desire to have counsel present to advise you of 
your legal rights during the course of your testimony. 

Mr. Kramer. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you waive that right ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kramer, you have a small bakery in New York 
City? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many employees do you have? 

Mr. Kramer. I have about 6 or 7, according to how the season is. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. How loiig liavc you had your bakery shop ? 

Mr. Kramer. I have had my bakery shop about 2% years, and I used 
to be on 87th Street before, and I opened my new place 2% years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many years ago? 

Mr. Kramer. Two and a half years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you please speak up and that will make it 
easier. 

Mr. Kramer. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the employees in your shop, are they members 
of a union ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What union are they members of? 

Mr. Kramer. Local 3. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 3 of tlie bakers union? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2691 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached within the past year or so, 
Mr. Kramer, to contribute to a dinner for Max Kralstein ? 

Mr. KRAaiER. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about that? 

Mr. Kr^vmer. Yes, a business agent by the name of Hart. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up, please? 

Mr. Kr^vmer. He approached me in the shop and he was very nice, 
and he did not threaten me, and he said, "We have a dinner for Mr. 
Kralstein." and I said, "T\nio is Mr. Kralstein, I never heard of the 
man. I don't know him." 

"Well," he said, "he has done a wonderful job and Ave are giving 
him a dinner." 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry to interrupt, but can you just let your 
voice go out a little bit ? 

(At tliis point, Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. For one minutes when you said something very 
clearly we could hear you, and if you could get your voice down like 
that again. 

Mr, Kr^vmer. Mr. Hart approached me in the bakery shop and he 
was very nice, and he did not threaten me in any way, and he said, 
"We are having a dinner, and we are going to have a dinner for Mr. 
Kralstein." I said, "Who is Mr. Kralstein ; I never heard of Mr. Kral- 
stein." He said, "Well, he is with us and he did a good job by merg- 
ing the union, and we want to give him a dinner." 

"Well," I said, "that is all right, but I am not interested in that." 
He said, "Well, look, do you want to give us an ad, about $50?" And 
I said, "I will give you $25," and he said, "Well, no, $50 is the min- 
imum." 

I said, "I have to think that over." I said, "I don't know whether 
I am interested in that." Well, about 4 weeks later, he came back and 
he asked me and I said, "Well, I have been thinking it over. I will 
give you $100." 

Mr. Kjennedy. You said you have been thinking it over, and you 
are going to give him $100 ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, and I gave him a check of $100. I said, "The 
reason I give you $100 is that I feel if I don't give you anything, I 
am afraid something would happen again or so," and he said, "Oh, 
no, whether you give anything or not, that doesn't make any difference. 
We will not do anything or nothing will happen to you." 

But I personally was afraid that it might happen because I had a 
rough time with the union, with disagreements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat sort of rough time did you have before ? 

Mr. Kramer. Well, they had a picket line when I opened the new 
shop. I had a picket line for 7 months. I figured, "Well, that is not 
going to happen to me any more ; I will give $100." 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat happened when you had that picket line ; was 
that ditfcult for you? 

Mr. Kr.\mer. Yes. It was very dijBScult for me. I had to get my 
own deliveries and the people, there were some pickets that knocked 
cakes out of their hands. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is that? 

Mr. Kramer. Knocked the cakeboxes out of their hands. 

The Chairman. That is your customers, when they would purchase 
things ? 



2692 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, the customers, and they followed them around 
the block and scared them and also followed them to the bus and scared 
the people and people came in and said, "We are afraid to come in 
here. There is too much trouble." I don't want that to happen any 
more. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not want that to happen any more. 

Mr. Kramer. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some trouble with your eggs, too, your 
egg man ? 

Mr. Kramer. I had a farmer who used to deliver the eggs from 
Pennsylvania and one morning he came in on a Saturday and he said, 
"I am sorry, I cannot supply you eggs no more. There were three 
fellows up to my farm and threatened me; if you bring more eggs 
to Kramer's we will burn your farm down." So he did not bring any 
more eggs and he said, "I am sorry, I can't do that." 

I said, "Why don't you call the police?" "Well," he said, "I did 
call the police and the police also went there but we couldn't find any- 
body any more and nobody was there." 

Mr. Kennedy. For the reason of your past experience, you were 
afraid not to give money. 

Mr. Kramer. I was afraid, yes, and otherwise the union did not 
bother me whatsoever during the time and everything went smooth 
from there on, when it was straightened out. 

The Chairman. ^Vhat did you do to straighten it out? 

Mr. Ivramer. I signed a contract. I signed a contract and I even 
asked for a privilege and it was granted to me, and I didn't have no 
more trouble from then on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kramer, we have been interviewing some of the 
owners of bakeries up in New York City over a period of time and 
we have found that quite a number of them were reluctant to come down 
to testify such as you have done today. 

Could you tell the committee why you have agreed to come and 
testify? 

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

Mr. Kramer. Well, I don't know how many. I couldn't give you 
any exact figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Yliy is it that you are willing to come and testify? 

Mr. Kramer. I went away from the boat in 1926 

Mr. Kennedy. From the boat? Where did you come from orig- 
inally ? 

Mr. Kramer. From Germany. I went back in 1937. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were on a boat in 1926 ? 

Mr. Kramer. I went across. My father was very ill. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first time, you jumped sliip in the United 
States? 

Mr. Kramer. In 1926. 

Mr. Kennedy. You came here into the United States and started 
to work here ? 

Mr. KRA]\rER. I lived in the United States. I thought it was a great 
country and I worked hard. I accomplished my own business. I went 
back in 1927 and 

Mr. Kennedy. "VYliy did you go back ? I want you to tell the whole 
story. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2693 

Mr. Kramer. My father was very ill. I <rot a telegram, "Come 
home, please; father is very ill. He is dying." So I come back. It 
took me 13 months to come back to the United States legal. I did not 
want to be illegal here any more. I wanted to become a citizen. 

I became a citizen and I enjoy the United States. I enjoy breathing 
the air here. I love to be here. I can accomplish my own business, 
and I am really thankful. But since we straightened out with the 
union my business improved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any experiences in your background? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. The experiences I had in Germany 

Mr. Kennedy. You will have to start again. I wondered whether 
you had any experiences similar to this. You were going to tell about 
what happened to you in Germany. 

Mr. Ivjjamf:r. Yes. They approached me, and I did not submit. 
People were scared and afraid that something would happen, that 
they would lose their job. That is what made me afraid. When I was 
giving a check for a hundred dollars I had the same feeling. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a fear, even though they didn't say any- 
thing, you had a fear of their power ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. I had a fear something would happen, but it did 
not, I hope nothing happens now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You enjoy a very good relationship with your em- 
ployees now ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been in favor of unions ; is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes ; we have a union shop and we do have no diffi- 
culties. We work like a happy family, but the reason I was in fear 
about that check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known Max Kralstein ? 

Mr. Kramer. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice in the ad that you got in the book, you put 
here, "Best wishes to Max, whom we love and respect." Did you send 
that in? 

Mr. Kramer. No, no ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was not made up by you ? 

Mr. Kramer. No. 

Mr. Kennedys It says, "Kramer's Pastries." 

Mr. Kramer. No ; I did not. I never seen that. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a testimonial dinner in honor of Max Kral- 
stein. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Kramer, when you lived in Germany, 
were you a baker? 

Mr. Kramer, Cologne, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. In Cologne ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you belong to the bakei-s union in 
Cologne ? 

Mr. Kramer. No. We don't have no bakers union, not at the time 
when I was there, before 1926. We had private organizations. I 
mean social clubs, like the bakers' club. 

Senator Goldwater. When you opened your bakery shop in New 
York, did you go to the union to get employees ? 

Mr. Kramer. No. 



2694 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR riELD< 

Senator Goldwater. You collected bakers ? 

Mr, Kramer. No ; I didn't go to the union. 

Senator Goldwater. How long did you run your shop before you 
had to bargain with the union ? 

Mr. Kramer. Seven months. 

Senator Goldwater. They picketed your shop for 7 months? 

Mr. Kramer. For 7 months. 

Senator Goldwai'er. They kept business away from you ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. They destroyed cakes ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. You had a hard time getting eggs ? 

Mr. Kramer. I had a hard time to get everything. 

Senator Goldwater. And did you say that they reminded you of 
what went on in Germany during the days of Hitler ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know whether or not there is such a 
thing as compulsory unionism in any form in Germany ? 

Mr. Kramer. Well, there they don't call it unions. They usually 
call it — I don't remember the name exactly. 

Senator Goldwater. Or organizations of any kind ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes ; a state organization. 

Senator Goldwater. Let us say that you had this bakeiy shop in 
Germany. You would not have had to hire union help miless you 
wanted to? 

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

Mr. Kramer. That I couldn't tell you. I didn't have a shop in 
Germany when I was there. I am talking about the bakers union. I 
am talking about the fear I had, so that I bought the ticket. 

Senator Goldwater. You had the same fear in Germany, but you 
did not have it necessarily from labor organizations or unions or 
clubs, whatever you want to call it, but it came more from police? 

Mr. Kramer. Well, yes. The state ; it was the state. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Kramer, I just wanted to get that from 
you because you are the first witness we have had who could testify 
to that from another country. 

It is a very interesting thing. I am reading from page 17 from 
Information Bulletin Document No. 55-57, July 6, 1955, an inquiry 
on compulsory unionism from the International Association of Em- 
ployers : 

In Germany compulsory unionism does not exist as the constitution of the 
Federal Republic protects freedom of association in both senses. While it recog- 
nizes the right of a worker to become a union member, it also recognizes his 
right to abstain from such membership. 

Consequently, no worker can be forced into membership with a trade union. 
Trade unions in Germany do not organize a shop, but the individual worker. 
Union closed-shop clauses in the limited sense of the word cannot, therefore, be 
negotiated within the Federal Repviblic of Germany. 

You moved from Germany to the freest country in tlie world, the 
United States. 

Mr. Kramer. That is right ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. And where freedom is our chief aim in life. 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. And where the freedom and dignity of the 
individual stands above everything. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2695 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Yet the United States of America is the only 
country in the world 

Mr. KR.VMER. It is the best country. 

Senator Goldwater. That has written compulsory unionism into 
its laws. Do you not think that is rather strange ; that, in this great, 
free country, Ave do things that the rest of the world will not do, 
and yet we claim to be the citadel of freedom ? I just wanted to bring 
that out, because you are the first witness that we have had who has 
given me the opportunity to point that out. I am glad to hear obser- 
vations on the way compulsion works. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

Tiie Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Ctjrtis. Were you through, Senator Goldwater? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you buying these eggs that you had 
difficulty with, with the eggman ? 

;Mr. Kramer. Pennsylvania. 

Senator Curtis. The farmer lived in Pennsjdvania and he brought 
them into New York City ? 

]Mr. Kramer. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. They came from one Stat«, crossed the State line, 
and brought these eggs to your bakery ? 

Mr. Kraivier. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And these three men, representing the union, inter- 
fered with the delivery of them ? 

I\Ir. Kramer. Those three men went to the farm. 

Senator Curtis. They went out to the farm ? 

Mr. Kramer. They went out to Pennsylvania to the farmer, and 
scared the farmer. The farmer said to me, "I can't bring you no 
eggs. My wife got hysteria. I can't bring you no more eggs. I am 
sorry. I can't do it." 

Senator Curtis. Did he tell you what they said to him ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes ; he told me. 

Senator Curtis. What was that ? 

Mr. Kramer. Three men drove up to the farm and said to him, 
"Listen, if you don't stop selling eggs to Kramer in New York, we 
are going to come here and burn your farm down." 

Senator Curtis. And burn his farm down ? 

Mr. Kramer. I never been in the farm. 

Senator Curtis. No; I asked you if they threatened to burn the 
buildings on his farm. 

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I have one other thing. During the months that 
you did have a bad time with the union, were your own employees 
the ones that were promoting that bad time ? 

Mr. Kramer. No. 

Senator Curtis. You got along with them all right ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes ; very good. 

Senator Curtis. And they did not threaten your eggman? 

Mr. Kramer. No. 

Senator Curtis. And they did not molest the customers when they 
were comino- in ? 



2696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kraivier. No. 

Senator Curtis. These were outsiders ? 

Mr. Kramer. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
a few questions. 

Mr. Kramer, <('[ting back to the instance where the business agent 
came around and asked you to make a donation to the testimonial din- 
ner; he asked you to give $50, and you said you had to think it over,, 
that you were not much interested at the time? 

Mr. Kramer. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. After you thought it over for a while, he 
came back and you said, "I want to give $100" ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. He did not ask for $100, but he asked for $50 ? 

Mr. Kramer. That is right. He asked for $50. 

Sejiator McNamara. You must have really been afraid. Did you 
live in German}^ before Hitler ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Did they have unions then ? 

Mr. Kramer. No. 

Senator McNamara. You are sure they did not have any labor 
organizations at all ? 

Mr. Kramer. They did have, but not in our trade. 

Senator McNamara. But they had unions? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. They had associations of workers, whether 
they called them unions or anything else ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. Was it not one of the first things that Hitler 
did ; he put the leaders in jail ? 

Mr. Kramer. I wasn't there at that time. I was in the United 
States at that time. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know whether or not he did ? You had 
people in Germany ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. They put labor leaders in jail, did they not, 
when Hitler first came into power ? 

Mr. Kramer. All right ; thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kramer, the chairman wishes to thank you. I think it is very 
commendable of you to come and give us your testimony. Is there 
anything else you want to say ? 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be the 
original check for $100 that you gave to the dinner for Mr. Kralstein. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kramer. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that the check? 

Mr. Kramer. That is right. 

The Chairjian. That may be made exhibit No. 29. 



EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2697 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 29" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 3176.) 

The Chairj[ax. Thank you very much. I hope you do not en- 
counter any difficulty. If you do, let us know. 

Mr. Kramer. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Who is the next witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. LaVern Duffy, of the committee staff. 

The Chairman. Mr. Duffy, come forward, please. 

Mr. Duffy, you have not been previously sworn in this series of 
hearings, have you ? 

Mr. Duffy. No, Senator. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. DtiFFY. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LaVERN J. DUITY 

The Chairman. State your name, place of residence, and present 
employment. 

Mr. Duffy. My name is LaVern Joseph Duffy. I reside here in 
Washington, D. C. I am a staff member of the Permanent Investi- 
gating Committee of the United States Senate on temporary loan to 
this special select committee. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

(At this point. Senator McClellan withdrew fi'om the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Duffy, you have been making an investigation 
or study of the Max Kralstein dinner ? 

Mr. Duffy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have interviewed a large number of the bakery 
owners in New York City ? 

Mr. Duffy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Max Kralstein was a vice president of the bakers 
union ? 

Mr. Duffy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is in the New York area, is that right ? 

Mr. Duffy. Local No. 3, New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the course of that interrogation in this area 
of the bakery owners, did you receive some affidavits from some of 
these individuals ? 

Mr. Duffy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the affidavits with you ? 

Mr. Duffy. I have them before me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Duffy read into the record 
some of the affidavits ? 

Senator Goldwater. Go right ahead. 

Mr. Duffy. I have an affidavit from Mr. Olaf Myboe, He is owner 
and manager of the Roslyn Bakery, located at 1520 Fifth Avenue, 
New York City. 

Shall I read this affidavit in full, Mr. Kennedy, the first one ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Yes. 



2698 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Duffy. It reads as follows : 

AFFIDAVIT 

I, Olaf Nyboe, owner and manager of the Roslyn Bakery, located at 1520 First 
Avenue, Nevp York City, do freely and voluntarily make the following statement 
to Laverne J. Duffy, who has identified himself to me as a member of the staff 
of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field. No threats, force, or duress has been used to in- 
duce me to make this statement, nor have I received any promise of immunity 
from any consequences which may result from submission of this statement to 
the aforementioned Senate select committee. 

On April 11, 1956, Mr. Ben Tiedeman, a representative from the Bakery and 
Confectionary Workers Union of America, Local No. 3, here in New York, visited 
my bakery. He wanted me to purchase space in the souvenir journal for the 
Max Kralsteiu testimonial dinner to be held in .Tune of 1956. Incidentally, at 
the time the imion delegate visited me I had never heard the name Max Kral- 
stein before. I advised Mr. Tiedeman that I did not care to contribute to the 
dinner or purchase space in the journal. He would not take "no" for an answer 
and finally I compromised and said I would give $25. He would not accept this 
amount and insisted that I give $50. During our discussion no mention was 
made as to what the money was going to be used for. He kept pressuring me 
and I finally gave in. He made out a $50 check to the Max Kralstein Committee 
and I signed it. I reiterate, I did not give the $50 voluntarily, and gave it be- 
cause I did not want to irritate the union and cause friction and possible trouble 
to myself. I do not know, nor have I ever met, Mas Kralstein. 

I have read the foregoing statement, and to the best of my knowledge it is 
true and correct. 

(Signed) Olaf Ntboe. 

Witness : Laverne ,T. Duffy. 

Witness: Francis C. Llotd. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me at New York, N. Y., this 5th day of June 
1957. 

(Signed) S. Henry Schmerz, 
S. Heney Schmerz, 

'Notary Public. 

State of New York. No. 31-3507300, qualified in New York County, commission 
expires March 30, 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. He lias a bakery up there, lias lie ? 

Mr, Duffy. He runs a retail bakery shop in New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat is his name? 

Mr. Duffy. Roslyn. 

Mr. Kennedy. I notice from the testimonial dinner in honor of 
Max Kralstein that he has an ad in here which states, "Congratulations 
or your many great achievements, Max Kralstein." 

Do you have any other affidavits ? 

Mr. Duffy. I have a number of them, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, could we read 
just the pertinent part and leave out the introductory part, which fol- 
lows the regular form, and have the whole thing printed in the record ? 

Senator Goldwater. You can leave the parts out as indicated by 
counsel. 

The entire affidavit will be placed in the record. 

Mr. Duffy. The next is from Louis Sapirstein, owner and operator 
of the Sapirstein Bakery, located at 676 Allerton Avenue, New York 
City. 

It reads as follows : 

affidavit 

I, Louis Sapirstein, owner and operator of the Sapirstein Bakery located at 
676 Allerton Avenue, New York City, freely and voluntarily make the foUovirlng 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2G99 

statement to Laverne J. Duffy who has identified himself to me as a member of 
the staff of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities 
in the Labor or Management Field. No threats, force, or duress has been used 
to induce me to make this statement, nor have I received any promise of im- 
munity from any consequences which may result from submission of this state- 
ment to the aforementioned Senate select committee. 

On March 30, 1956, a number of delegates from the Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers Union in New York visited my bakery. They asked me if I would 
purchase a $200 ad in the souvenir journal for the Max Kralstein testimonial 
dinner which was to be held in June 1956. The union delegates stated that 
other bakers of comparable size were giving $200. I then made out a check to 
the Max Kralstein Committee for $200 and handed it to one of the delegates. 
I gave the $200 because I wanted to maintain a friendly relationship with the 
union. I did not ask, nor was I told what the money was going to be used for. 
I have never met, nor do I know, Mr. Max Kralstein personally. 

I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge it is 
true and correct. 

(Signed) Louis Sapirstein. 
Witness : 

La Verne J. Dufft. 
Witness : 

Francis C. Lloyd. 
Sworn to before me this 5th day of May 1957 [sic]. 

(Signed) Samuel Streisf eld, 
Samuel Steeisfeld, 

Notary Public. 

State of New York, qualified in Bronx County, No. 03-9220400, commission 
expires March 30, 1958. 

Mr. Kennedy. He states in there that he did not know Max Kral- 
stein. 

Mr. DuTEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Again, in the Max Kralstein booklet, there is a whole 
page taken by Mr. Sapirstein, and it says "In recognition of the esteem 
in which he is held by all who know him, we welcome this opportmiity 
to convey to ^lax Kralstein our sincere expression of admiration for 
his many great contributions to the baking industry." 

Senator Goldwater. Does the counsel know the ghostwriter's name ? 

]Mr. Kennedy. No, he does not. 

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

Mr. Duffy. I have another affidavit here from Isidore Gelber. He 
is the owner and operator of the Excellent Bakery at 762 Allerton 
Avenue, New York City. 

It reads as follows : 

affidavit 

I, Isidore Gelber, owner and operator of the Excellent Bakery at 762 Allerton 
Avenue, New York City, freely and voluntarily make the following statement to 
Laverne J. Duffy who has identified himself to me as a member of the staff of 
the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor 
or Management Field. No threats, force, or duress has been used to induce me 
to make this statement, nor have I received any promise of inmiunity from any 
consequences which may result from submission of this statement to the afore- 
mentioned Senate Select Committee. 

On April 4, 1956, 2 or 3 delegates from the Bakery and Confectionery Workers 
here in New York visited my bakery and advised that the union was planning a 
testimonial dinner for Max Kralstein, international vice president of the Bakery 
and Confectionery Workers Union. The union delegates, their names I do not 
know, asked me if I would purchase space in the souvenir journal that was being 
made up for the Kralstein dinner. Following their suggestion I purchased a 
$200 ad in the journal and the union delegates told me that this money was to 
be used for the testimonial dinner. The reason that I gave the union delegates 

89.330—57 — pt. 8 9 



2700 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

$200 was to maintain a friendly relationship with the union. I do not know, nor 
have I ever met Max Kralstein. 

I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge, it is true 
and correct. 

Isidore Gelbeu. 
Witnesses : 

LaVern J. Duffy, 
Francis C. Floyd. 
State of New York, County of Bronx, ss: 
Sworn to before me this 4th day of June 1957. 

Benjamin J. Perlman, 
Notary PuMic, State of New York. 
Certificate filed in New York County. Commission expires March 30, 1958. 
Mr. Kennedy. What is your next one ? 

Mr. Duffy. I have another affidavit from Jacob Schwartz. He is 
owner and operator of the Slama's Bakery, located at 1161 Madison 
Avenue, New York City. 
It reads as follows : 

AFFIDAVIT 

I, Jacob Schwartz, owner and operator of the Slama's Bakery, located at 
1161 Madison Avenue, New York City, freely and voluntarily make the follow- 
ing statement to LaVerne J. Duffy who has identified himself to me as a member 
of the staff of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Ac- 
tivities in the Labor or Management Field. 

No threats, force or duress has been used to induce me to make this state- 
ment, nor have I received any promise of immunity from any consequences 
which may result from submission of this statement to the aforementioned 
Senate Select Committee. 

On May 25, 1956, Mr. Ben Tiedeman, a delegate from the Bakery and Con- 
fectionery Workers of America, Local No. 3, here in New York, visited my 
bakery. He asked me to purchase space in the souvenir journal for the Max 
Kralstein testimonial dinner. 

I did not want to purchase an ad. Finally, I agreed to buy a $50 ad. I did 
not inquire as to what the money was going to be used for. I have never met, 
nor do I personall.v know Mr. Max Kralstein. I gave the $50 to the union 
delegate because I wanted to maintain labor peace and to avoid any threats and 
intimidations from the union. 

I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge it is true 
and correct. 

Witnesses : Jacob Schwartz. 

LaVern J. Duffy. 
Francis C. Lloyd. 
State op New York, County of New York: 
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of June 1957. 

Sam Neustadt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you another one ? 

Mr. Duffy. I might say parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. 
Schwartz has had lengthy trouble with the union over the past 2 
years. I think that is why he made this statement in his affidavit, 
that he didn't want any threats or intimidation from the union in the 
future. 

The last affidavit I have is from Albert Zitzmann. He is the man- 
ager of the Munzenmaier Bakery, located at 3145 Downing, Flushing, 
Long Island, N. Y. 

It reads as follows : 

AFFIDAVIT 

I. Albert Zitzmann, manager of the Munzenmaier Bakery located at 31-45 
Downing, Flushing, Long Island, N. Y., freely and voluntarily make the follow- 
ing statement to LaVern J. Duffy who has identified himself to me as a member 



ESIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2701 

of the staff of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Ac- 
tivities in the Labor or Management Field. 

No threats, force or duress has been used to induce me to make this state- 
ment, nor have I received any promise of immunity from any consequences 
which may result from submission of this statement to the aforementioned 
Senate Select Committee. 

On March 21, 1956, A union delegate from the Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers Union visited my bakery and requested that I purchase space in the 
souvenir jom-nal that was being made up for the Max Kralstein testimonal din- 
ner which was to be held sometime in June of 1956. 

The union delegate, whose name I cannot recall, stated that he was being 
pressed by his superiors to sell a certain (juota of space in the souvenir journal. 
In order to help him out I gave him a check for a $200 ad in the journal. 

I did not know the money was going to be used to purchase a home for Mr. 
Kralstein. In fact, tlie union delegate stated to me that the money was going 
to be used for the payment of the testimonial dinner. If I had known the 
money was going to be used to purchase a home I would not have given the 
union a cent. I have never met, nor do I kuow Mr. Max Kralstein. 

I have read the foregoing statement and to the best of my knowledge it is 
true and correct. 

Albert Zitzmann. 

Witnesses : LaYern J. Duffy 
Francis C. Lloyd. 

Sworn and subscribed before me this 4th day of .Tune 1957. 

AXTirOXY J. VlilUY. 

Tlie Chairmax. You have read tlie pertinent parts of those affi- 
davits. 

How many affidavits are there ? 

Mr. Duffy. Five, Senator. 

The Chairman. The hve affidavits will be made exhibit Xo. 30, for 
reference only. The pertinent parts of them have been read into 
the record. It will not be necessary for them to be printed again in 
the record, but they can be filed with the committee. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 30'' for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

ISlr. Duffy. I have interviewed a number of other baker}^ owners in 
New York City, and they were reluctant to submit affidavits or appear- 
before this committee and tell their story. Off the record they did 
state to me and the individual who accompanied me on the interviews, 
Mr, Lloyd, of the General Accounting Office, that they were in fear 
and gave this money reluctantly. 

The Chairman, Do you recognize this booklet that I hold in my 
hand entitled "Testimonial Dinner in Honor of Max Kralstein'" ? 

Mr, Duffy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you secure it ? 

Mr. Duffy. I secured it from the secretary-treasurer of the conunit- 
tee. Senator, from the Max Kralstein committee, Xew York City. 

The Chairman. This is from their file ? 

]SIr, Duffy. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman, This may be made exhibit Xo. 31, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit Xo. 31" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committtee.) 

Senator Curtis. These men that did give you affidavits, and those 
that you interviewed who preferred not to, were they small operators? 

Mr. DuTFY, Relatively small operators. Senator, "^ 

Senator Curtis. About how many employees? 

Mi-. Duffy, They varied from 25 to 50 employees, and sometimes 
as low as 10 or 12, 



2702 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Cuetis. They were in no sense big business? 

Mr. DuFFT. No, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Some of them that 3^011 did not get affidavits from, 
did you gather information orally that they had been treated in the 
manner tiiat these men Avho were williiig to give affidavits have 
stated ? 

Mr. Duffy. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, tliese five affidavits and the men 
who testified here are but a part of the whole picture of the way 
they operated for that dinner ? 

Mr. Duffy. I think they show a pattern, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator ^IcNamara. Even these five, apparently, were somewhat 
reluctant. You wrote the affidavit up and they signed it, or you had 
it written and they signed it ? 

Mr. Duffy. We worked over the language quite extensively. 
Senator. 

Senator IMcNamara. You talked to them, got their feeling about 
it, and you put it in words, and went back to them and they signed it? 

Mr. Duffy. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator McNamaea. Apparently even those that signed it were 
reluctant, too, because they did not voluntarily come up with an 
affidavit, but signed the one you prepared. 

jSIr. Dotty. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many bakerv owners do you think you visited, 
Mr. Duffy? 

Mr. Duffy. I didn't visit very many, ]Mr. Kennedy. I visited 
approximately 12 to 15. Time did not permit me to visit more. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say that you found that these affidavits 
established the general pattern that you found? 

Mr. Duffy. Definitely. I feel tliat way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the some $85,470 that was collected, did you find 
that a majority or most of this money came from employers? 

Mr. Duffy. A great amount of the money came from the em- 
ployers. 

r might add that the employees also gave, but I don't have any 
affidavits from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you interview, also, some employees? 

Mr. Duffy. I did interview some employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that the employees also gave because 
they felt tliey were being pressured into giving it? 

Mr. Duffy. They were pressured and pressured and as a result 
they did give. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were they also in fear of giving affidavits? 

Mr. Duffy. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find anyone wlio knew tliis man that was 
supposed to be honored and who willingly gave tlieir money? 

Mr. Duffy. In fairness to Mr. Kralstein, I did find one who knew 
of him. 

Senator Curtis. Was he an employer ? 

Mr. Duffy. He was an employer of a very large bakery in ^STew 
York City. I think he had personal dealings with Mr. Kralstein 
and that is why we knew him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2703 

Senator Curtis. Did you get the impression that he voluntarily 

^^Mr. Duffy. This is one individual that voluntarily gave because 
he knew Mr. Kralstein. ^ ^ .• ttt i 

Mv IvExxKDY. We have the Bakery and Confectionery Workers 
financial statement on this celebration, August 29, 1956, which shows 
the figures on the money tliat was raised for Max Kralstein. 

Mr. Duffy secured it and can identify it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Duffy, the Chair presents to you a document 
purportino- to be a tabulation or record of the moneys collected tor 
this dinner, and also showing the expenditure or disbursements ot 
the funds collected. -^ .-^ 

Will you examine this document and state whether you luentity 
it and what it is ? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. DuTFY. This document is a financial statement of the receipts 
and disbursements of the testimonial dinner for Max Kralstein. 
It was submitted by Sidney Gersey Co., of New York City. It is an 
audit of the accounts and secured from the files of the local m ISIew 

The Chairman. You secured that from the files of the local as 
prepared by their audit? 

Mr. Duffy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 32, and the perti- 
nent parts of it may be printed in the record. 

I think the figures have already gone into the record. 

It may be kept as an exhibit for the record, and the Chair will 
state that he believes the figures have already been put into the 
record. ^ , . , 

In accordance with the Chair's calculation, Mr. Max Kralstem and 
his wife received $57,818.94 in cash, and also a portrait that cost 
$1,447.21, and a gift to Mrs. Kralstein which cost $1,650, making a 
total that Mr. Kralstein and his wife received out of this affair of 
$61,016.15. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No.^32" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3177, 3178.) 

Mr. Duffy. Senator, if you will look at the bottom, the state- 
ment in longhand, I think you will find additional funds were given 
to Mr. Kralstein. 

The Cpi airman. I included those. 

Mr. ICennedy. Mr. Duffy, what was the money used for, the money 
that went to Mr. Kralstein ? 

Mr. Duffy. This money was used to secure a home for Mr. Kral- 
stein. I understand he purchased it in the last 3 months. It is a 
$40,000 home. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Duffy. $40,000. 

The Chairman. So he has some $21,000 after purchasing the home ? 

Mr. Duffy. I understand he was going to use that for furnishings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is the home ? 

Mr. Du f fy. In New York City. I think Mr. Kralstein will be 
able to me more explicit on that point. 



2704 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it understood prior to this dinner being given, 
that the money that was being raised was being raised so that Mr. 
Max Kralstein could buy a home? 

Mr. Duffy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have one otlier question. 

Wim was chiefly responsible, the person who sort of organized the 
dinner ? 

Mr. Duffy. Mr. Dutto was the chairman of the committee that 
raised the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his position; do you know? 

Mr. Duffy. Otfhand, I can't tell you. 

The Chairman. Is he here as a witness? 

Mr, Duffy. I think he is, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He is director of organization, I believe, in Xew 
York City. 

Mr. Duffy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

If not, step aside, Mr. DuiTy. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dutto. 

The Chairman. Mr. Dutto, 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 wliole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Dutto. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FEANK DUTTO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
ARTHUR KAMELL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, your 
l)usiness, or occupation. 

Mr. Dutto. My name is Frank Dutto. I live at 3290 Tierney Place, 
the Bronx, N. Y. I am the director of organization for bakers union 
local No. 3, at 2928 41st Avenue, Long Island City. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position, Mr. Dutto ? 

Mr. Dutto. Since June 25, 195.5. 

The Chairman. June 25, 1955 ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel present with you? 

Mr. Dutto. I have. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, identify yourself for the record, 
please. 

Mr. Kamell. My name is Arthur Kamell, 655 Madison Avenue, 
New York. 

The Chairman. You are familiar with the rules of the connnitree; 
are you ? 

Mr. Kamell. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What position did you have previously willi tlie 
un ion, if any, before June 25, 1 955 ? 

Mr. Dutto. Well, that is when this union was merged. That was 
the beginning of this new local No. 3. 

The Chairman. Did von have any position with any union prior 
to that? 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2705 

Mr. DuTTO. I did. I avus the president of local Xo. 1 prior to the 
merger. 

The Chairman-. That is one of those that merged ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. How long had yon been presidejit of that local 
before the merger ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Since about lO-iS. 

The Chair:\[Ax. Since about 1942 '? 

]\lr. DuTTO. And then I was in the service for almost 2 years — 19 
months. 

Tlie Chairman. Almost 2 years ? 

Mr. DuTTo. Two. 19 months. 

The Chairman. Then yon were president of local Xo. 1 — was it 
local 1 ? 

Mr. DuTTO. That is correct. 

The Chairman. From 1942 until 1955, except for the time you were 
in the service ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. And that was approximately 19 months? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. And since 1955 you have occupied your present 
position, since June 1955, as organizational director; is that correct? 

Mr. DuTTO. That is right. 

The (^HAiRMAN. Proceed Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that capacity, did you work on this dinner for 
Mr. Kralstein? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the idea of giving the dinner originate with you ? 
Would you tell us a little bit about that ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Well, myself and a number of other fellow officers, we 
had been talking about honoring our vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. ;Mr. Dutto, how was it arranged that the money was 
to be collected for the dinner ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Well, that we would solicit greetings from the industry, 
everyone that we knew in the local union or even outside, other local 
unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, you had some teams set up? 
How numy people did you have soliciting money for you? 

Mr. Dutto. Well, I would say approximately 20. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Twenty ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean 20 that were full time ? 

Mr. Dutto. That were actually going around soliciting. We had 
a committee of about 60 people. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people ? 

Mr. Dutto. Sixty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sixteen? 

Mr. DuTi^o. Sixty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sixty. And this connnittee of 20 would actually go 
around and solicit money, is that right, this group of 20 ? 

Mr. Dutto. It happened that this committee of 20, by and large 
they are the officers of the union who service the shops or meet peo- 
ple in the industry, and in the main were the ones that solicited for 
this thing. 



2706 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien they were around servicing the shop did they 
also ask the employer to contribute to this dinner ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it occur to anyone that an employer might 
feel when the representative of the miion came around who was 
servicing the contract, and then requested a contribution, that this 
amounted to perhaps a threat to him that he should contribute or 
otherwise there might be some difficulty for him ? 

Mr. DuTTO. I don't believe so. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You didn't think to feel that you set up that kind 
of a situation by having people who were servicing the contract also 
raising money ? 

Mr. DuTTO. No ; because we, ourselves, as a local union, have many 
times been solicited to participate in the employers association din- 
ners, which they run at least once a year. There are quite a number 
of these associations. We do purchase a table or two tables, and we 
attend these affairs of the employers as well. It is not something- 
new. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. I understand that, but does it occur at all to you 
that perhaps a business agent that goes around, who has the power 
to make it difficult or easy for an employer who at the same time is 
asking for a contribution, might put the employer in fear of not 
contributing ? 

Mr. DuTTo. Well, we have a union agreement with our employers, 
and I would say by average standards a very good agreement, pro- 
viding for good conditions. I don't see why an employer should 
be afraid. I, myself, personally, or any of the officers that I know 
of, have enough members in the union that will service and work 
for any employers that they want. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why should the employers that do not even know 
Max Kralstein be requested to contribute to the Max Kralstein 
dinner ? 

Mr. DuTTo. There may be — to me it seems almost impossible for 
anyone not to know Max Kralstein in the baking industry in the 
city of New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Evidently some bakers did not know him. 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. TYliy should tliey be requested to contribute to the 
Max Kralstein dinner ? 

Mr. DuTTO. I don't know. We are running an affair honoring one 
of our representatives, and we asked everyone to participate. If he 
didn't know him, we would try to explain who the man was. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You say that other dinners similar to this have 
taken place. Has there ever been a dinner that you know of that 
raised the amount of money for the individual, approximately $60,- 
000, or more than $60,000 for the individual ? 

^ Mr. DuTTO. No ; I don't know. I know there have been dinners, 
big dinners, which I, myself, have attended, at the Waldorf Astoria, 
or the Commodore Hotel, the New Yorker. But I don't know what 
the proceeds were there. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Dutto, I was looking over the New York State 
Federation of Labor June 25 meeting 

The Chairman. Before you get in1:o that, let me ask a question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2707 

Mr. Dutto, this was a proo^ram for a dinner honoring the vice presi- 
dent of your union ; is that correct ? 

Mv. Dutto. Of our international union ; yes. 
Tlie Chairzmax. Of tlie international union ; yes. 

When you first originated tliis idea, or discussed it and agreed to it, 
to carry "out the program, did you have in mind then to raise enough 
money to buy IVIr. Kralstein a home? Is that what you started out to 
do? 

Mr. DtiTTO. I will say this : I know that I, myself, had the oppor- 
tunity to be at a homecoming party for a son of Mr. Kralstein from 
Korea. I, myself, who had known Mr. Kralstein for many years, was 
surprised that he should be living in such a modest home. There is 
nothing wrong with it. 

The Chairman. What was his salary at that time ? 

Mr. Dutto. His salary ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Dutto, I don't know. 

The Chairman. You would have some idea about his salary, would 
you not, the international vice president? 

Mr. Dutto. I honestly don't know. Probably in the neighborhood 
of $130 or $140 a week. 

The Chair^ean. Don't you know it is more than that ? 

jNIr. Dutto. I know they received a raise as a result of the last 
convention we had. 

The Chairman. All right. Go ahead. He is living in a humble 
liome. So what did you do ? 

Mr. Dutto. So when we were talking of honoring Max, we didn't 
want to give him any money, and we figured if we can get enough 
money together, that we would purchase a home for him. 

The Chair3Han. Purchase a home for him ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

The CiiAiR:\rAN. Was that a part of the original scheme and original 
plan when you started this drive to raise the money? 

Mr. Dutto. Well, that was the idea. 

The Chairman. That was part of the original idea? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

The Chairman. Not only to give him a dinner but to raise money 
to buy him or build him a home ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

The Chairman. So that was known before you started the campaign 
to raise the money. 

Mr. Dutto. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is, among the group, at least, that originated 
the plan. 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

The CiiAiR^iAN. Was that information given to those from whom 
the money was solicited or were they just told it was a dimier to 
honor him ? 

Mr. Dutto. To the best of my knowledge, that was done. 

The Chairman. Were they instnicted to tell them that they were 
raising money to buy liim a home ? 

]Mr. Dutto. Tliat is wliat the entire committee was talking about, 
what was beina; aimed for. 



2708 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. No; I am talking about the people that you so- 
licited. I am not talking- about what you agreed on among your- 
selves. As you presented the requests to those from whom you 
solicited advertisements or the purchase of tickets, were they informed 
and were they advised that this was to raise money not only for a 
dinner to honor him, but also to buy him a home ? 

Mr. DuTTO. I believe so. 

The Chairmax. You believe so ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know ? 

Mr. DuTTO. As far as I am concerned, I am sure. 

The Chairman. As far as you are concerned, you are sure. So no 
one then, you think, made any contribution or made any donation 
except with the knowledge that they were donating to buy this man 
a home? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. DuTTO. That is what I 

The Chairman. That is what you knew. 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. But I am talking about the people who gave the 
money. 

Mr. DuTTO. Well, I couldn't speak for them. 

The Chairman. You couldn't speak for them. You don't know 
whether they were apprised of that fact or not, at the time they were 
soliciting ? 

Mr. DuTTO. No. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Duffy might be able to throw some light on 
that, Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairman. This witness here is one of those who originated 
the idea and the plan for it, and I wanted to find out if, in fairness to 
those whom they solicited, they instructed and saw that that instruc- 
tion was carried out ; in other words, so that those who gave the money 
knew for what purpose it was going. 

You do not know whether your business agents who went out and 
raised the money apprised the donors of the fact that the money was 
to be used not only for a dinner but also to purchase a home for him? 

Mr. DuTTO. Well, that is what I explained to all the members of 
the committee. As to whether they explained it to each person that 
was solicited, I don't know. 

The Chairman. So you say they all knew in advance; those who 
did the soliciting, at least, knew in advance ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. You do not know, because you are not present, at 
least in every instance, whether they also apprised the person they 
solicited the funds from that it was to be used for that purpose? 
You don't know that personally? 

Mr. DuTTO. No. 

The Chairman. But you do know that those who were, I guess, 
the business agents — is that right, the ones who were servicing the 
places ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. That they were apprised of it before they went 
out to solicit the funds? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2709 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is correct, is it? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairjvian. All right. 

Senator McXamara. In that connection, did you sell any tickets? 

Mr. DuTTo. I think — Yes, I do. 

Senator McNamara. Did you tell the people that you sold the 
tickets to that the money was to be used in the manner you knew it 
Mas to be used, for the dinner and the purchase of the home ? 

Mr. DuTTo. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. On this question, I would like to ask Mr. Duffy of 
tlie people lie interviewed, how many of them were aware of tlie 
fact that the money was going to be used to buy Max Kralstein a 
liome. 

Mr. Duffy. I didn't interview one employer in New York City who 
knew where this money was going. I might add that the president 
of the Nome Bakery in New York City — whom I understand you 
know, Mr. Dutto, you, yourself solicited funds from this bakery — I 
interviewed the president of the bakery and the president told me 
that you did not tell him what this money was going, to be used for. 

The Chairman. He can be made available as a witness very easily. 

"^Vliat is his name? 

Mr. DcFFY. Do you know the name of the president of the Nome 
Bakery ? 

Mr. Dutto. Mr. Frank Fernitis. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Kennedy. Frank Fernitis, 

The Chairman. I do not know whether we want to pursue it or not, 
but there is a vray to make the record and set the premise for it, at 
least. 

A'\nien 3-0U solicited him, did you inform him that the money was 
to be used to purchase a home for Mr. Kralstein ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You did? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You state that under oath ? 

Ml-. Dutto. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. That makes the record complete. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going back, Mr. Dutto, in the New York State Fed- 
eration of Labor Convention in June 1956, in their final report of the 
committee on credentials it states : 

This will complete our i-eport, Mr. Chairman. The credential of Frank 
Dutto, i-epresentiug the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union, Local 3, was 
submitted to your committee for approval. We desire to state that several 
years ago the credentials committee received a credential for this delegate to 
represent local 1 of the same international union. 

At that time the credentials committee refused to recommend the seating of 
this individual because of his activities within Communist-front organizations. 
Subsequent conventions failed to reveal any further credentials that were sub- 
mitted for him. 

A credential for Dutto was submitted at this convention. Your committee 
met on Tuesday, June 26, 1956, at which time we interviewed him. After a 
thorough discussion with the individual, the final statement made by him to 
your committee was that he had severed his connections with Communist 
fellow-ti-aveling organizations during the year 1947 and has not cooperated with 
the Communist-front organizations since that year. 



2710 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Your committee indicated to him that there may be a question of the time 
element. However, he assured the committee that the year 1947 was correct. 
Your committee proposed that he sign a statement condemning communism as 
a theory and practice, condemning the activities of tlie Communists and Com- 
munist-front organizations, as detrimental to freedom-loving people everywhere, 
and condemning the Communist Party, United States of America, and its kin- 
dred organizations. He said that he would be willing to sign such a statement. 

Upon further investigation and a checkup of news articles appearing in the 
Daily Worker, your committee has found that Dutto — in the committee's esti- 
mation — did not sever his connections with the fellow-traveling organizations. 

Then it gives the various organizations that they allege you vrere 
a member of from 1949 to 1953. 

Because of the above information, your committee has withdrawn the oppor- 
tunities of having Dutto sign such statement, especially in view of the fact 
that he attempted to impress your committee that he had severed his connec- 
tions with tlie aforementioned group since 1947 and, therefore, recommends 
that the credential submitted for Frank Dutto be not accepted by this conven- 
tion and the local union be so notified. 

I moved the adoption of this part of the report, Mr. Chairman. The motion 
was seconded by several delegates, was put to a vote and carried. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Dutto, have you been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I am not now a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been a member of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. In May 1950, I signed a non-Communist affidavit. I 
have signed one ever since then. It was true then and it is true now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer my question? Have you been a 
member of the Connnunist Party ? 

Mr. Kamell. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Let me ask the question this way: You say since 
1950 you have not been? You are willing to testify to that? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

The Chairman. That since that time you have not been. The ques- 
tion is, had you been prior to that time? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Kamell. If you will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, and members 
of the committee, I would like to suggest to you at this time that the 
scope of this inquiry is directed to corrupt practices in the labor or 
management field, and I don't think this committee is interested in 
any past participation of anj^ citizen called before this committee in 
regard to his political activities. 

The Chairman. I do not know whether you consider it political 
activity or not. It might be political and it might go beyond politi- 
cal activity. The witness can answer the question. If he does not 
want to answer it, he can take the privilege. 

Mr. Kamell. Would you repeat the question, please ? 

The Chairman. Prior to 1950, were you a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer and invoke my privilege under the 
Constitution. 

The Chairman. You wish to invoke your privilege on that? Do 
you mean the fifth amendment ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes, that is right. 



IIMPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2711 

The Chairmax. And you also mean that if you gave a truthful 
answer, a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. I am trying to be helpful to you. Let your lawyer 
tell you what to say. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Your answer is yes? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

The Chairman. You honestly think that a truthful answer might 
tend to incriminate ^ou ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldw^ater. Mr. Dutto, were you a member of the United 
May Day Committee in 1937 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you a sponsor in 1951 in connection with 
the American Peace Mobilization held on April 4 and 6 of that year in 
New York City? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer on my constitutional gi'ound. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask is that both of 
these organization have been designated by the Attorney General to 
be Communist-front organizations. 

I would like to ask Mr. Dutto a further question. Did you, in 1942, 
sign the election petition for the Communist Party in New York 
State, in 1942 for the candidate named Israel Amter? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer, and invoke my constitutional privi- 
lege, the fifth amendment. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Dutto, is it true that the report — let me 
put it this way : Was your wife once known as Lena Dutte ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. My wife is known as Lena Dutto ; she is my wife. 

Senator Goldwater. Was she ever known as Lena Dutte ? 

Mr. Dutto. Not that I know of. 

Senator Goldwater. Was your wife chairman of the Williams 
Bridge Club, the sixth assembly district, Bronx branch of the Com- 
munist Party in 1944? 

Mr. Dutto. I don't think that I have to answer on the relationship 
between myself and my wife. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if she was? You can say yes 
or no. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer and invoke the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. I do not want to belabor this, but I assume, Mr. 
Dutto, that any questions asked you about those past associations prior 
to 1950 would be answered the same way, that you would invoke the 
fifth amendments 

Mr. Dutto. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I believe Senator Goldwater has one question to 
ask subsequent to 1950. 



2712 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Dutto, the Daily Worker, issued January 
15, 1953, contained an article reflecting the name of Frank Dutto. 
president of Local 1, Bakers Union, New York, among the names of 
labor leaders or unions that have directed an appeal to save the lives 
of Julius and Ethel Kosenberg. 

You will remember that these two w^ere convicted of conspiring 
to commit espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, and they were 
sentenced to death and executed on June 19, 1953. Is that report of 
the Daily Worker correct? 

(The witness conferred with his coimsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. Well, I don't know if the report is correct, but I will 
say this : I wouldn't deny tliat I made a statement in making an appeal 
for clemency for the Eosenbergs. 

I, myself, have grown up an orphan, and I am strictly against cap- 
ital punishment, whoever it may be. I do not believe that. 

The Chairman-. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. When did you cease to be a member in the Com- 
munist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. Would you repeat the question ? 

Mr. Kamell. Would you repeat the question, please, sir? 

Senator Curtis. When did you end your membership in the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Dutto. Well, as I have stated, in the spring of 1950, 1 did sign 
a non-Communist oath. I have signed it every year since. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that, but when did you end your 
membership in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer that question and invoke my privi- 
leges under the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Were every one of those non-Communist affidavits 
true and correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Then when you signed it in 1950, you were not a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you sign one in 1949 ? 

Mr. Dutto. I don't think so. 

Senator Curtis. Could you have truthfully and accurately signed 
one stating you were not a Communist in 1949 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kamelt.. Would you repeat the question, please, Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. Could you have truthfully and accurately signed 
an affidavit in the year 1949 stating that you were not a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer that question and invoke my privi- 
lege under the Constitution, the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Then somewhere in 1949 to 1950 is when you say 
that you ceased to be a Communist ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]SIr. Dutto. I decline to answer that question. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2713 

Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. l^NNEDY. Mr. Dutto, on this New York State Federation of 
Labor, it states that you were prepared to sign a statement that you 
liad severed your connection with all Communist fellow-traveler or- 
ganizations since the year 1947 and had not cooperated with Com- 
munist-front organizations since that year. 

Would that statement that you w^ere prepared to give to the AFL- 
CIO have been accurate ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer that question and invoke my fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So you were prepared to make a statement then? 
Let me ask you this : Have you been a member of any Communist- 
front organizations since 1947 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dutto. Would you repeat the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been a member of any Communist-front 
organizations since 1947? 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer and invoke my privilege under the 
Constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy, You refuse to say here under oath what you were 
prepared to say to the AFL-CIO at that time not under oath? 

Mr. Dutto. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. Do you know Mr. Kramer, who testified here? 

Mr. Dutto. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know where his balcery is located ? 

Mr. Dutto. I do. 

Senator Curtis. What position did you hold at the time he was 
having that strike ? 

Mr. Dutto. I was president of local No. 1. 

Senator Curtis. And was that the striking organization? 

Mr. Dutto. What is it ? 

Senator Curtis. Was that the union that was conducting the strike ? 

Mr. Dutto. Yes ; that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. What do you know about the molesting of the cus- 
tomers and knocking packages of cookies and cakes out of their hands 
if they went into the store ? 

Mr. Dutto. Well, if I may, we organized the workers of Mr. 
Kramer, and we asked them to meet and bargain with the union. His 
answer was that he fired all those who liad joined the union and as a 
result of that, we had a strike. 

I heard here that some three people went to a farm in Pennsyl- 
vania and tried to burn dow^n the farm if they delivered eggs. To 
me, it is a very fantastic story, to make such a statement. We con- 
ducted a picket line at Kramer's, and we solicited every people that 
we could talk to not to patronize the shop. 

We had the people who had been working for Mr. Kramei- on the 
picket line, and other members of the union. If any incident of that 
sort happened, it was strictly an accident because our union does not 
practice those kinds of policies. 

Senator Curtis. Do you deny that it did happen ? 



2714 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DuTTO. I certainly would. 

Senator Curtis. On what basis do you make your denial of the 
story that three men appearing at the farm of the egg supplier threat- 
ened to burn down the buildings ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Because I happened to be the president of the union at 
the time and that is not the practices that our union uses. 

Senator Curtis. Now, how do you know that is not true ? 

Mr. DuTTo. I don't know that it is not true, but I can say as the 
president of that organization, I can say to you that no such practices 
were used by our organization. 

Senator Curtis. But you did contact the suppliers of materials that 
Mr. Kramer's bakery used ; did you not ? 

Mr. Dutto. Well, we did, when they came to deliver, of course, and 
if we found out whatever the address was, we contacted the houses 
there. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you contacted them if they came 
to make a delivery, or if you Imew where the business was located that 
was making the delivery, you saw them there sometimes; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Dutto. We would tell them that we organized the firm, had a 
contract with them, and had a strike. 

Senator Curtis. Did your organization contact the supplier of 
eggs? 

Mr. Dutto. I don t know. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know ? 

Mr. Dutto. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. So you do not know whether or not they made the 
threat to burn the buildings down ? 

Mr. Dutto. No ; but I would say it is certainly in complete contra- 
diction to the practices of our organization. 

Senator Curtis. But you do not know whether it happened ? 

Mr. Dutto. No. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether any of the customers of the 
bakery were molested ? 

Mr. Dutto. No, I don't. We did talk to the customers as they went 
in to buy. Many of the customers we knew because our office — we 
owned a home a block away from the business, and we were part of 
the community. 

Senator Curtis. Were any of them touched in any way ? 

Mr. Dutto. Not that I know of — not that was made known to our 
union. 

Senator Curtis. Were any packages or parcels in their hands 
touched ? 

Mr. Dutto. I would not know. Senator. I happened to be on that 
picket line myself. 

Senator Curtis. Did it ever happen while you were there? 

]Mr. Dutto. Never. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McNamara. When you were president of local 3 in New 
York City, was that a paid job ? 

Mr. Dutto. I am not president of local No. 3. 

Senator McNamara. When you were. Were you not president ? 

Mr. Dutto. Not local 3 ; local No. 1. 

Senator McNamara. In local No. 1, was that a paid job ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2715 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. You now are director of organization — is that 
the title? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator McNamara. How are you selected for this job? Are you 
elected ? 

Mr. DuTTO. "We had an election. 

Senator McNamaka. You had an election in the local union ? 

Mr. DuTTO. In the local union, local No. 3 ; yes. 

Senator McNamara. So you are really a representative of the local 
by vote of the rank and file ? 

Mr. DuTTo. Yes. We had 5,000 members, approximately, short 60 
votes, voting in Manhattan Center, in an election conducted by the 
Honest Ballot Association. No member had anything to do with the 
voting at all. 

Senator McNamara. Has local 1 ever been in trusteeship ? 

Mr. DuTTo. No. 

Senator McNamara. Local 3 is out of trusteeship if it ever was in ? 

Mr. DuTTo. It never was in. 

Senator McNamara. It never was? 

Mr. DuTTO. No. 

Senator McNamara. So you hold your job not by any appointment 
from the international, but by the election of the rank and file members 
of your organization ? 

Mr. DuTTO. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. How long is your term of office? 

Mr. DuTTo. For 2 years. It expires next June 15. 

Senator McNamara. Were you elected the year previous to your 
present term ? This is your first term of 2 years ? 

Mr. DuTTO. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio determines your salary, Mr. Dutto ? 

Mr. DuTTO. The executive board of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the constitution now, isn't it the president or 
is it still the executive board ? 

Mr. DuTTo. Well, in our union, the executive board approves that. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kralstein. 

The Chairman. You do soleimily. 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. KJRALSTEiN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAX KRALSTEIN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JACOB P. LEEKOWITZ 

The Chairman. State your name, your residence, and business or 
occupation. 

Mr. Kralstein. Max Kralstein, residing at 1440 41st Street, Brook- 
lyn, N. Y., international vice president. 

The Chairman. Of what union? 

89330— 57— pt. 8 10 



2716 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

j\Ir. Kralstein. Of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Interna- 
tional Union of America, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kralstein, you have counsel with you to advise 
you while you testify regarding your legal rights? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Mv name is Jacob P. Lefkowitz, from New York 
City. 

If it may please the committee, I respectfully ask to be permitted to 
make a very brief statement at the request of my client. 

May I do so? 

The Chairman. Your statement should be submitted in writing be- 
forehand, but the Chair is going to indulge you briefly, unless there 
is objection on the part of other members of the committee. 

You may make a brief statement. 

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

Mr. Lefkowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kralstein is appearing here this morning voluntarily. He has 
submitted to the members of your staff whatever documentation, evi- 
dence, records, including tax returns for the past 7 years, and he also 
has been ready at all times to submit any other records that this com- 
mittee might request, 

I respectfully submit that he is here this morning to answer any 
and all questions that this committee, through the chairman or any 
member thereof, or the counsel thereof, may see or deem fit to put to 
him. 

I urge upon the committee, if I may, that in view of that fact that 
I, as counsel, though I sit here beside "him, cannot, under the rules, in- 
terrogate or cross question any of the witnesses that are called, I know 
that in the interest of justice and fair play to this witness, and in 
the best traditions of American justice, the committee will put to him 
any and all questions, which he stands ready to answer, so that any 
facts or inferences from facts that have been produced here may be 
clarified and drawn to light by the testimony under oath of Mr. 
Kralstein. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Any question that you feel the 
committee overlooks asking your client that should be asked, if you 
will submit it to the Chair the committee will determine wliether the 
question is proper and whether it should be asked. 

I imagine, however, we will substantially cover the area. 

All right. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that it was in fairness to 
Mr. Kralstein that he was invited to appear before the committee. 
The information that we had related to him, but did not directly con- 
cern him. He was the recipient but he did not take part, am I lo un- 
derstand it, in raising the money for his dinner. 

I thought probably he might have some statement that he wanted 
to make as his name was going to come out at the hearing this morn- 
ing. 

The Chairman. In other words, he has been invited to appear here 
if he desired to do so, and was not subpenaed? 



LVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2717 

Mr. Kexnedy. That is correct. 

I knew your name would come up and I thought you probably would 
want to have a chance to testify. 

The Chairman. On that basis, Mr. Kralstein, you are at liberty to 
make any statement at the moment that you desire to make, so long as 
it is pertinent to this investigation. 

We usually require statements submitted in advance, but since your 
name was brought into the proceedings, and you have not been sub- 
penaed but just invited, the Chair now gives you the opportunity — 
you have heard the testimony here this morning — to make any com- 
ment tliat 3"ou desire. 

Mr. Kralstein. Mr. Senator, Senators, and Mr. Kennedy. I have 
listened to some of the testimony of a witness pertaining to a dis- 
missfil on his part doing with local 3. The business agent's name is 
Joseph Tenczar. 

I must testify and say that the evidence that he had stated is not 
accurate, because we were involved — and when I say "we," I say the 
international was involved — in the matter of presenting not the evi- 
dence but the evidence that was submitted to us. 

He quoted a tigure of $1'25. The evidence, the letter that we got, 
signed by him, stated of a sum of $175. The evidence also contained 
an affidavit of a former employer in that shop, that he was the one 
that wanted to buy or reopen that bakery, and he was pushed out of it 
through the actions of the business agent. 

We asked Mr. Tenczar to explain it. He was unable to explain it. 
and we, as international men, submitted it to the local union, for the 
local union to take any action that they see tit. We do not try them 
in the international. The local union must act upon it, and the evi- 
dence that was submitted. They acted upon it, and I must say now 
that the appeal is up before the international, and I cannot discuss the 
case any further. 

The Chairman. He has taken an appeal from the action? 

Mr. Kralstein. From the action of the local union to the general 
executive board. Being a general executive board member, it would 
he very unfair of me at this time to render my opinion on the indi- 
vidualV case itself. 

The Chairman. The committee will not attempt to require you to 
do that. 

Mr. Kralstein. Thank you. Senator. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further you wish to state? 

Mr. Kralstein. No. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I have said that the Chair would permit you or 
your counsel to submit questions if we overlook anything. I am try- 
ing to get that out of the way right now, if you have anything else 
you want to say. 

Mr. Kralstein. Xo. I don't know of any of the gentlemen that 
said they did not know me. By that, I want to explain that at the 
dinner, almost everyone came over to congratulate me. 1 am not 
aware of any. 

The Chairman. Do you know them ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I believe I do know Mr. Gelber. 



2718 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CriAiRMAX. What they were pointing out Avas that these people 
that were solicited said they did not know yon. Tliere is quite a list 
in this book that did contribute. 

Do you know all that contributed ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Almost everyone. 

The Chairman. Almost everyone ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Almost everyone. 

The Chairmax. Do you know them personally? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes. I have dealt with them for the last 20 years. 

The Chairman. You have been the one representing the union in 
its negotiations ; have you ? 

Mr. Kralstein. If you will permit me to explain that 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kralstein. We don't go into negotiations until the local union 
requests from the international, strike permission. Then we are sent 
in to make every effort that we can in order to reach a settlement 
which then is submitted to the membership for ratification. We do 
not accept it or reject it. 

The Chairman. In many instances, contracts are negotiated by the 
local union where you are not called in to play a part in it ? 

Mr. Kralstein, In a great many instances, the local unions, and 
we are grateful to them because of the time element in itself. 

The Chairman. So you are only called in when there is a deadlock 
in negotiations ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And when it reaches a point of threatening a 
strike? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Is there anything else that you think of ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I don't at the present. 

The Chairman. All right. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it correct that you received the first check for 
$56,000 ? How much monej^ did you receive altogether ? 

Mr. Kralstein. ^^Hiatever you got there, Mr. Counselor, is ac- 
curate. 

Mr. Kennedy. You got a portrait ; is that right ? 

Mr, Kralstein. Yes ; I haven't hung it yet, 

Mr, Kennedy, It is a portrait of you ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For $1,447 

Mr. Kralstein. I don't know the price of it, 

Mr, Kennedy, Did your wife receive a fur coat ? 

Mr. Kralstein, Yes ; she bought a fur piece, 

Mr, Kennedy, Do you know the price of that ? That was a gift to 
your wife, $1,650 ? 

Mr. Kralstein, Right, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you think that it is a proper practice and pro- 
cedure for the business agents of your union to go around to employers 
wlio do not know you and ask for contributions to buy you a house? 

]Mr. Kralstein. I did not know that, Mr. Counselor, to begin with. 

Mr, Kennedy, Do you think it is proper ? 

]Mr. Kralstein, I would like to answer that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2719 

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

Mr. Kralstein. To me, it is not the amount, if it is $10 or $100,000. 
It is the principle of the thing. 

I have participated in many, many dinners, including some of our 
highest officers of the American Federation of Labor-CIO. We have 
an excellent relationship, where I have the privilege and the honor of 
serving the members. We definitely work with each other, not only 
for these dinners. There have been so many dinners that we work for 
for worthy, worthy institutions: The City of Hope, the State of 
Israel, the federation, the UGA, any number of many, many more. 

I have worked a great deal in even dinners for management, ab- 
solutely, strictly for management, and it was a decent, nice dinner. 
Whatever they gave him, I was not aware of and I did not know. 
But the turnout was by the union and by management. 
It is a practice that has existed even before I was born, and I am 
going to be 58 years old. It is nothing new. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio else have received dinners ? 

You were going to make a list. 

]Mr. Kralstein. I have a list, and this is only a part list, because we 

spoke today. I say we have dimiers here to Nathan Ehrlich 

Mr. KJEXNEDY. Who is he? 
Mr. Kralstein. The manager of local 51. 
Mr. Kennedy. Employees were invited to that ? 
]Mr. Kralstein. Employees. 
Mr. Kennedy. And employers? 

jMr. Kralstein. And employers. At no time has there been any 
dimier where we had a different attendance. 
Mr. Kennedy. How much money did he get ? 
Mr. Kralstein. I don't know. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did he receive any money ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I Avouldn't be able to testify. I believe the records 
may be able to show for itself. 

We have had for William F. Schnitzler, a dinner on September 9, 
1950, in the Hotel Essex, NeAvark, N. J., given by local 84, where every- 
one participated. I know a little gift was presented to Mr. William 
F. Schnitzler, and also a gift to his wife. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did that amount to ? 
Mr. Kralstein. I don't know that amount. I don't know the value 
of the gift. 

Senator Curtis. What was the gift ? 

Mr. Kralstein. One was a gold watch. The other was a chest of 
silverware. 

(At this point the chairman returned to the hearing room.) 
Mr. KJiALSTEiN. We had a dinner in the Hotel St. George, on 
April 7, 1951, for the same party, Mr. William F. Schnitzler, and 
we did give him a Caddie car for $4,052. We did give him a clock. 
We gave his wife a little token, a little ring for $398. I know we had 
a dinner for Mr. Herman Winter, president emeritus of our B & C, in 
February 1946, where we did give to him a car, and to his lovely 
daughter a bracelet. 

I know we had a dinner for Mr. Cross in the St. George Hotel, where 
they did give a Buick car, and an appropriate gift for his wife. 



2720 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(At tliis point Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kralsteix. We had another dinner in either 1953 or 1954 at 
the Commodore Hotel in March, when Mr. Cross became the president 
of onr international, and I believe it was 1953, where we gave him 
enough monej^, about $10,000 or $11,000, in order to cover a mortgage 
of his home. I know that we gave a dinner, even 

The Chairman. May I interrupt with just one question to get this 
clear. When you say "we gave," do you mean the union gave it? 

Mr. Kralstein. Friends, the same as was given for me. 

The Chairman. The same kind of a progi-am of going out and 
soliciting from the employers as well as the employees ? 

Mr. iSiALSTEiN. Yes, Your Honor. 

The Chairman. I just want the record to be straight on this. 

Mr. Kralstein. I know of dinners that were given to. even, our 
secretary-treasurer, Curtis Sims, in Atlanta. Ga., in 1954, where a 
diamond ring was given to him. I know of dinners to the assistant 
now to Secretary-Treasurer William Schnitzler, Wesley Reedy, in 
Philadelphia, where enough money, and I don't know the sum, was 
going to be raised or was raised in order to help him purchase a home 
in Chicago. I know dinners were given for the business manager 
of local 150 in 1951 and another dinner in 1957, on January 20, to 
help him purchase a home. 

I Imow there was a dinner given for Israel Hovitz, on his 70th 
birthday and 50th wedding anniversary which I had the privilege 
of attending, and I think it is well worth it. A man giving 50 years of 
his life, the least we can do is give him a little compliment. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he get ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I don't know. I don't think it was much. I know 
of a dinner given in 1954 at the Hotel St. George to Manager Oscar 
Schindler of local 79 and Secretary-Treasurer Harry Burakoff. 

I know of a dinner given to the secretaiy of local 452, John Alaio, 
in February 1957. 

I know of a dinner given to ]\Ir. Alter Bogel, a retired employee, 
where his friends had committed ourselves where he was lying on a 
deathbed, if God would be good enough to him. and we would be 
around, we would give him a little dinner, and we did, at the Belmont 
Plaza. There we presented to Mr. Bogel an oil painting of himself 
and to his wife some cultured pearls. 

I participated recently in a dinner of Histadruth in honor of an 
employer, where we did raise the sum of about $30,000. 

I participated in a dinner given to "Pop" Darnitz and Dave Durst 
for the State of Israel, where we sold the equivalent of about $300,000. 

I also participated in a dinner for an employer, Louis Fields, on 
April 27, 1957, where I know we had given him a picture, an oil paint- 
ing or whatever little trinket he did receive. 

This has been going oi^ for T don't knovr how many years. I would 
like to say, in all sincerity, in all humbleness, that no matter what 
diimer we give, and if it is given on a Saturday or a Sunday, and if 
we sit the next day across the table negotiating our contract, that 
bears no favoritism. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have any other dinners been given for you ? 

Mr. Kr^\LSTEiN. For me ? Yes. I think in 1952, local 164 had given 
me a dinner, not alone to me, but to international representative 
Dave Gefter and myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2721 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive anything? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you get ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I got a Chrysler car, plus a few thousand dollars 
Avhich I in turn invested in Consolidated stock. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ha^e you received any other dinners besides the 
one in 1952 and the one in 1956 ? 

Mr. Kralstein. In 1944 when I was made an international repre- 
sentative, 579 gave me a dinner, I think, on October 9, in Brooklyn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of any other individual who ever 
received — according to our figures, and I think it is a correction over 
the figures earlier — $60,916.15 '( Do vou know anvone else that got 
$60,000? 

Mr. Kralstein. Mr. Kennedy 

Mr. Kennedy. And plus the dinner? 

Mr. Kralstein. I liope it Avas a good thing. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kralstein. You see, Mr. Kennedy, you are stressing the amount 
again. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know it is wrong of me, but I can't help it. 

Mr. Kralstein. It is exactly wrong. I say it is the principle and 
nothing else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer mj^ question? 

Mr. Kralstein. I wouldn't know. I know certain people had a 
number of dinners. It may have equaled that total and may not have 
equaled that total. 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked you a question earlier, and you have been 
giving an explanation, but I don't thiiik you answered it absolutely, 
and that is the question of whether you think this is proper or im- 
j)roper, to go to employers who do not know you ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I don't know of any. I wouldn't permit it for any- 
one to be there 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, who do not know you but who are asked for 
a contribution for your home ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Mr. Kennedy, as given to me, it was only for friends 
of mine. I wouldn't want anyone there 

Mr. Kennedy. If this happened, and according to the sworn testi- 
mony before this committee, it did happen, do you feel that is proper 
or improper ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I wouldn't want anj^one there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer whether you think it is proper or 
improper ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I want to answer it this way, if I may : We have 
solicited, as I have explained, and I personally have also taken part 
in it, solicited for the various institutions or for the various indi- 
viduals, and we never went in there to tell them, "Do you know him ? 
How much do you like him?" or anything like it. We told them we 
were running a dinner for an individual for that purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. You think it is all right to go to an employer who 
does not know the employer and ask him for money ? 

Mr. Kralstein. For myself, I wouldn't want it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have done it in the past, you said. 



2722 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kralstein. When we solicited for the dinners, the purpose of 
the dinner and the individual was mentioned. We never bothered to 
ask if you know him. We took it for granted that you knew him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think, then, there is anything improper 
about asking an employer who doesn't know the individual to con- 
tribute money ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Mr. Kennedy, I don't know of anybody that doesn't 
know me in New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer the question ? 

Mr. Kralstein. No, I "wouldn't like it. I don't think it is like 

The Chairman. That answers it. Are there any other questions? 

Senator McNamara. You are still the international vice president? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Were you originally appointed to the job of 
international vice president? 

Mr. ICralstein. I was appointed in November 1947. 

Senator McNamara. By whom ? 

Mr. Kralstein. By President Herman Winter, with the approval 
of the general executive board. 

Senator McNamara. Herman Winter ? 

Mr. KJRALSTEiN. Yes, sir. He was the president at that time. 

Senator McNamara. And you were appointed by the executive 
board action, and he made the appointment for the board; is that it? 

Mr. Kralstein. It was his recommendation to the general executive 
board, and I was appointed. 

Senator McNam^\ra. And they approved it ? 

Mr. Kralstein. And I have been reelected in 1951 and reelected in 
1956. 

Senator McNamara. Not reappointed but reelected at your national 
convention ? Is that the way you do ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Prior to i956, we had our elections by referendum 
by the entire membership of our international. In 1956 we changed 
it by delegates at the convention. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have any local unions in your district 
now under trusteeship? 

Mr. Kralstein. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Have you had ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. But at the present time, there are none in the 
New York area? 

Mr. Kralstein. None at all. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have one more question. 

Was any of the money that you received given or loaned to Mr. 
Cross? 

Mr. KJtALSTEiN. No — the money that I received ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Kralstein. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you loaned or given any money to Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you do that? 

Mr. Kralstein. I don't know the date. About 4 or 5 weeks ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you loan to him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2723 

Mr. Kralstein. I ^ave the stock that I had for him to obtain a 
$15,000 loan, where I received the interest from it. I gave it as 
collateral. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was that? 

Mr. Kralstein. Approximately $15,000. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. I just Want to finish up. 

You receive only your expenses from the international? Do you 
receive expenses from anywhere else ? 

Mr. Kkalstein. I have no other income. I have no other interest 
but the job that I have with the international. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you receive expenses other than from the inter- 
national ? Do you receive any expenses from the locals ? 

Mr. Kralstein. No, sir ; emphatically not. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the international, there were some questions 
raised before about your salary and expenses. From the international 
in 1956, you received $8,507.40 as salary, and expenses of $8,609.97, a 
total of about $17,000— $17,200. 

Mr. Kralstein. No, that is not the right sum. The section that I 
serve is the only one that has an office maintained by the international 
where the expenses of rent, for the girl, telephone, lights, office, mis- 
cellaneous, are charged to me. A small item of even $206 is rent. Our 
telephone bills there do run from $75 to $100. Western Union may 
run another $25 to $30. The complete office stationery, including 
stamps, may run about $25 to $30. 

That is all charged to me, what you have just now read. It makes 
good reading, but I have nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you will remember, Mr. Kralstein, I asked you 
downstairs what your expenses were, and I asked you to submit them. 

Mr. Kralstein. You remember what I told you. I said I couldn't 
give it to you ; I don't know it. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the figures you gave us. 

Mr. Kralstein. But I want to include the statement that tliese 
are not my expenses, chargeable to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. In view of your statement that you did not feel that 
perhaps this was right of going to these employers that did not know 
you, to contribute to this dinner, would you refund the money to 
them — the ones that did not know you ? 

Mr. Kralstein. I don't know of any, but I would be happy if any- 
one came over to me to give him his money. I know there were hun- 
dreds of people there, and I have listened to 5 to 12, surely there 
must have been someone that did say something all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to observe that if these are 
your expenses and they go for that purpose, it is quite a contrast be- 
tween the way your expenses are accounted for and some of the other 
unions that we have had up here before us. Those expenses, the $8,000, 
going for office rent and those things, it indicates to the Chair that 
your office, at least, in that respect, is being run economically and in 
the interest of your members. 

Mr. Kralstein. That is all I say. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about this 
loan to Mr. Cross. 



2724 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Has it been repaid ? 

Mr. Kralstkin. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. No ? 

Mr. Kralstein. No. 

Senator McNamara, You are receiving the interest on it right 
along ? 

Mr. IvRALSTEiN. It just took place about 4 or 5 weeks ago. "When 
tlie interest is due, I will get it. 

Senator McNamara. This is very recent, 4 or 5 weeks ago? 

Mr. Kralstein. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know Nathan Shefferman ? 

Mr. Kralstein. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You never heard of him ? 

Mr. Kralstein. Never heard, never seen him. 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

Tlie Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan 
and McNamara.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(Members present at the convening of the afternoon session: Sena- 
tors McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The connnittee will come to order. 

^Ir. Barclay, Avill you come forward ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Barclay. I do. 

TESTIMONY OE ALBERT BARCLAY 

The Chairman. We have been delayed a little because there was 
some indication or some developments that indicated we would prob- 
ably have to hold a very brief executive session before we could re- 
sume tliis afternoon, but the situation changed and it was not neces- 
sary to do so. 

We can now proceed and I am sorry we could not apprise you of 
that fact when we recessed at noon. 

State your name, your place of residence, and your business or 
occupation, please. 

Mr. Barclay. My name is Albert Barclay, and I live at 2115 Gra- 
ham Avenue, Redondo Beach, and I am business manager in a food 
and cocktail bar. 

The Chairman. Wliat city ? 

Mr. Barclay. In Torrence, Calif. 

The Chairman. Have you talked with members of the statf, Mr. 
Barclay, and do you know generally the line of interrogation to 
expect ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir, I do. 

The Chairman. ITnder the rules of the committee, as you know, 
you are entitled, if you desire to have counsel present to advise you 
of your rights while you testify. Do you desire to waive counsel ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 2725 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir, I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy, will you proceed ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barclay, you were formerly with the bakers 
union? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir, I w^as. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what period of time ? 

Mr. Barclay. For approximately 7 months, sir. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. What period of time was that ? 

Mr, Barclay. From June 19, 1055, until January 1956. 

Mr, Kennedy. Wliy did you leave the bakers' union ? 

Mr. Barclay. I Avas released by the assistant trustee upon orders 
of the international president. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position with the bakers' union? 

Mr. Barclay. Office manager there, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you released ^ 

Mr. Barclay. The reason for release was that tliey had appointed 
a new financial secretary, and that too many in the office would make 
some sort of confusion, and I would no longer be needed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was thei-e any reason, any other reason, that you 
thought you were released for? 

Mr. Barc^lay. Other than I was not wholly 100 percent going along 
with what they were doing; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What appeared to you to be any financial transac- 
tions. W^hat local was this ? 

Mr. Barclay. Local 47, in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Kennedy. In trusteeship at the time ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it out of trusteeship now ? 

Mr. Barclay. Xo, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. How lona" has it been in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Barclay. Since July 8, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you faiow why it was put into trusteeship ? 

Mr. Barclay. Basically, the reason for trusteeship, they had been 
trying to get in tliere for years, but basically it was so that they could 
arrange for their B&C health and welfare prcjposal or proposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean so the international could put their own 
system in? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, under trusteeship whatever they say 
goes, and there is no autonomy, and the members don't have any 
say-so whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliile you were office manager in that local, did 
you observe any transactions that appeared to you to be irregidar, 
financial transactions? 

Mr. Barclay, Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you relate that to the committee ? 

Mr. Barclay. Tliere was a weekly transaction of $35 that involved 
me turning over an expense account made out to myself, to one Jolm 
D. Nelson. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was John Nelson's position. 

Mr. Barclay. Assistant trustee. It was to be used for purposes 
that could not be accounted for in case the district attorney came to 
examine the books and this was a legitimate expense. 



2726 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. EJENNEDY. The expense was paid to you, $35 a week, and you, 
in turn, signed the check ? 

Mr. Barclay. And put the money in an envelope and turned it over 
to John D. Nelson, for his disposal. 

The Chairivian. Did you not have any expenses ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Although the check was made out to you ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. The reason for that was that they 
had relieved the financial secretary and there was nobody acting only 
the trustee in there and myself. 

So that is salaiy I was getting, $151.50 per week and $35 weekly 
expense. 

Now, seeing that I was carrying on both duties, under Mr. Nelson's 
supervision, so to speak, then it would appear to be a logical expense. 
I could take over the $35. 

The Chairman. But you were having no expense ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And the $35 being paid to you that way was a 
false entry in the books so far as the truthfulness of it and the actual 
expense was concerned ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you were required to cash the check and turn 
the money over to whom? 

Mr. Barclay. John D. Nelson. 

The Chairman. Wlio is that'^ 

Mr. Barclay. John D. Nelson, the assistant trustee. 

The Chairman. He was the assistant trustee ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat did he do with the money ? 

Mr. Barclay. He used it for various reasons, to take care of any 
unethical practices such as beating up of a boy, or burning of a car, 
or beating up of a colored gentleman, or something like that, moneys 
that couldn't be actually entered and accounted for. 

The Chairman. It was to be used for improper purposes ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you loiow that was going on ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean the three instances that you have related, 
you know took place? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Nelson describe to you the reason why it 
was being handled in this fashion ? 

Mr. Barclay. Other than that it couldn't shoAv on the books. I 
was there when the child got beaten up, and so forth, and I later 
reported it to the FBI. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask something there? 

The money was used to pay the person who did the beating? 

Mr. Barcl^^y. This $35, he would keep in his pocket and keep add- 
ing and then whatever the fee was, it was used for that ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. "V\nio would he hire to commit these acts of vio- 
lence ? 



LVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2727 

Mr. Barclay. Different individuals, from the union, or one speci- 
fically was a Frank Gardon, an international organizer from Phil- 
adelphia. 

Senator Cuetis. Frank Gardon? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He was international organizer for the bakers' 
union ? 

Mr. B^vjtcLAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is he still occupying that job? 

Mr. Barclay. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were there an^/ others that were within the union ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, there was one Vince Kinney, and when he was 
fighting was a pugilist by the name of Eddie Cool, and he was used 
for some means. 

Senator Curtis. His name was Kinney? 

Mr. Barclay. Vince Kinney. 

Senator Curtis, "^^lat was he hired to do ? 

JVIr. Barclay. He was hired to stool and watch, and in other words, 
if there was somebody to be hired, seeing that he was in the pugilist 
field, he was to get them for Mr. Nelson. 

Senator Curtis. Now, the first man that you mentioned that was 
from Philadelphia— — 

Mr. Barclay. That is Frank Gordon. 

Senator Cuktls. Wiuit was he hired to do? 

Mr. Barclay. Well, actually he belongs to what they call the goon 
squad where if they are needed for any pugilistic or any beatings up, 
he is fiown in for that purpose. 

Senator Curtis. How big a goon squad do they have? 

Mr. Barclay. According to them they have a Chinese army. • 

Senator Curtis. What does that mean ? 

Mr. Barclay. I would imagine it would be in the multitudes, and 
I couldn't exactly name the number, sir. 

Senator Curtis. '\A^io were some of the people they beat up? 

Mr. Barclay. Well, they beat up this 14 year old boy, a son of one 
of the owners, that was sending baked goods over to one of the plants 
that we had under strike. Then there was a beating up in San Fran- 
cisco. 

Senator Curtis. AYhat was that boy's name? 

Mr. Barclay. Newsome, and I don't know the first name. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who beat him up? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who did? 

Mr. Barclay. Mr. Frank Gardon and one John D. Nelson. 

Senator Curtis. It took two of them to beat up a 14-year-old boj'? 

Mr. Barclay. The first party was Frank Gardon, and he went up 
and started to box. I liad orders to take the picket down to the other 
end of the building, and then Mr. Frank Gardon went up to the boy 
and started pummeling him, and Mr. Nelson ran over to the car and 
grabbed the blackjack and went over and hit him on the head. They 
did not quite finish the boy, and he jumped up and saw the first three 
numbers of the 1954 Buick which was an international car, bearing 
Cliieago plates, before they moved to Washington, and he recalled 
177, the first three numbers of the car, wliich was Jolni Nelson's car. 



2728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And you were asked to take the picketline down 
so the rest of the pickets wouldn't see this ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Xow, wdio else was beaten up ? 

Mr. Barclay, lliere was a colored gentleman, and I don't know 
liis name, and he was back at this same place, and then there was Mr. 
Joe Cane, and a man and woman, I have forgotten the names, up in 
Frisco. 

Senator Curtis. Who would order these beatings up? 

Mr. Barclay. Who would order tliem ? Well, to be truthful, I do 
not believe it was George Stuart. George Stuart seems to be taking 
a lot of the blame, but all I can recall was that Mr. Nelson called daily 
to Washington, D. C. and took his orders from James Cross, the inter- 
national president. 

Senator Cltrtis. What was Nelson's position? 

Mr. Barclay. Nelson is assistant, assistant trustee. 

Senator Curtis. He was the man that you turned the money over 
to? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all for now. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did the $23 a week, for how long a period 
of time did that continue ? 

Mr. Barclay. Until I was released. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. How loug a period of time was that ? 

Mr. Barclay. Three months, approximately. 

Mr. Kennedy. You yourself were released, and wasn't there a trial 
that you had and the accusation was against you that you were going 
to beat John Nelson up ? 

Mr. Barclay. At a later date ; yes, sir ; there was a trial in April, 
and then one in June, a retrial, the following year. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that you w^ere going to beat John Nelson 
up? 

Mr. Barclay. That is what the charges were. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Were you f omid guilty ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were discharged ? 

Mr. Barclay. Expelled for life ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Expelled from the bakers union for life ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That w^as a union charge ; it was not a civil court ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any other financial irregularities or 
what appeared to you to be financial irregularities? 

Mr. Barclay. There was another irregularity that I did not care 
for. There was a weekly expense going on for a strike being con- 
ducted at Golden Crust Bakery, where the employees Avere to sign a 
small green book for their money. Then there was mileage and other 
expenses, and they would turn in these stipulated amounts of mone}', 
and no vouchers or receipts to back it up. I do believe that the $1,500 
a week totaling 7 months, some forty-tliousajid-odd dollars spent in 
the organization, did not all go for organization ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Over what period of months ? 

Mr. Barclay. Seven months. 



II^IPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2729 

The Chairman. Over 7 months, $40,000 was expended or charged 
to organizational expense ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you say it didn't all go for that? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know wliat it went for? 

Mr. Barclay. Well,'l believe, sir, that the signatures, some of them 
are fictitious. However, they have burned up or lost the expenses, 
so that you cannot verify that. 

The Chairman. When did this occur ? 

Mr. Barclay. It started on October 22, at 8 p. m., in 1955, and 
it was carried on to Maj' of 1956. 

The Chairman. It went on to May of 1956 ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. What did you say about their records ? 

Mr. Barclay. The records have been destroyed, sir. 

The Chairman. The records have been destroyed ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Accidentally ? 

Mr. Barclay. Well, we might put it that way. For tlie benefit of 
some ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I am interested in tlie statement that you just 
made about the books. What books were you referring to ? Not the 
ones that were destroyed, the little book. 

^Ir. Barclay. Sir, they had evidently a picket captain, who would 
keep the time of the pickets, and then a small green book would be 
signed and it would be determined how much would be paid a weekly 
maximum of $55. 

Senator Golda^-ater. Was that book an individual book? 

Mr. Barclay. An individual book, for each week ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldavater. And did tlie individual iniion member keep 
that book? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. It was kept by the office ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Of the union. 

JSIr. Barclay, Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you. Did every transaction of the 
union in relationship to the member— was that noted in the book ? 

Mr. Barclay. No; just their signatures. No amount was specified. 
However, it was turned in for the amount of $55. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, let me ask you this: Let us say an as- 
sessment was made for political purposes, let us say, and did that 
book have to have a stamp put in it, attesting to the fact that the 
assessment had been made ? 

Mr. Barclay. Supposedly all members' books are to have assess- 
ments made and stamped in. 

Senator Goldwater. And they are stamped in? 

]Mr. BarcIjAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And each time he paid his dues, that was re- 
corded in that book ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Senator Goldavater. Each time he made any payment to the union 
it Avas recoi-ded in tliat book? 



2730 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Barclay. That is right; all moneys coming in would have to 
be accounted for, and a stamp issued, and on the day-book page that 
transaction should be noted. That money was then deposited. 

Senator Goldwater. The union member did not keep this book? 

Mr. Barclay. Oh yes; they kept their own books, but we are re- 
ferring again to a book that was used weekly for strike beneht. 

Senator Goldwater. Then the individual record book was kept by 
the union member but the strike record book was kept by the strike 
steward ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have one of those books? 

Mr. Barclay. I do, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I wonder if we could take a look at it? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

(A document was handed to Senator Goldwater by the witness.) 

Senator Goldwater. Let us suppose that a union member applied 
for a welfare payment or an overtime payment, any payments that 
would come out of the union treasury. If he had been assigned to the 
picket line, and had j)layed hooky, let us say, could the steward make 
it a little hard for him in collecting that money that was due him 
if he did not have a notation in here ? 

Mr. Barclay. The O. K. was made up by Mr. Meyers and Mr. Nel- 
son, and they were the ones who determined the amount, what was to 
be paid each individual. 

Senator Goldwater. I think we missed the point. If John Smith 
applied for any payment that the union handled, whether it be a 
welfare or sick payment, or overtime payment or whatever it might 
be, and he didn't liave anj^ signed tickets in this book, and he had 
been asl-red to be on the picket line, would his chances be good of 
getting that money that was due him ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes; there was another record kept, you under- 
stand, and it could be granted as a favor ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. This book was then kept by the office or the 
picket line steward ? 

Mr. Barclay. In the office of the local. You see, it worked this 
way : The pickets would come up and sign their name at the begin- 
ning of the strike, for a certain amount of money was entered there. 
At a later date, Mr. Meyers or Mr. Brian would take the money in 
cash and sign the people's names themselves. 

Senator Goldwater. The reason I was interested in that, Mr. Chair- 
man, is that in one of the better known unions in New York, the indi- 
vidual boolv with the stamps are kept by the union and the member 
has nothing to do with it, and I was anxious to know if your union did 
that. I think it is a bad practice and one we ought to get into. 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, this book that you presented 
to the committee is a special strike book, and that is not the membership 
book that the member has to keep. 

Mr. Barclay. That is right ; that is the special strike book. 

The CiiAiRMAX. This is used only and was being used in this strike 
that you are talking about. 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

The Chairman. Where $40,000 was paid out in 7 months' time ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2731 

The Chairman. And it is your opinion that many of the entries in 
that book were falsified so that somebody could profit that wasn't en- 
titled to it? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I notice in this book that it is already signed. 
Does that mean that the receipts are signed in blank ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the basic problem, as you see it, because any 
figure could be put in here that they wished to put in ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that it would appear that these people were 
getting any amount of money that they wanted to have appear ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And actually they could give them only a part of the 
$55 and keep the rest ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say that went on ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Were there any other financial irregularities that 
you feel would be financial irregularities ? 

Mr. Barclay. There was the $75 a week that was mentioned. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What was that $75 a week ? 

Mr. Barclay. The $75 a week was an expense that came in. The 
international union sent in a check of $75 weekly to cover a check that 
was drawn out of our local for $75. This was to be given to an indi- 
vidual, and it was released to the membership that there was a lady 
organizer working in the crowd. First it was an organizer and it 
was not known to be a lady or a man, but at a later date it was given 
out that it was a lady. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that you understood or heard that there was a 
lady organizer ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Active out there that was doing some work and the 
international was sending her checks of $75 a week ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever learn who the lady organizer was? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, I believe. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Only if you know who it was. 

Mr. Barclay. I do, sir. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Wlio was it ? 

Mr. Barclay. It was Mr. Cross' girl friend, so to speak, Elsie K. 
Lower. 

The Chairman. Whose girl friend ? 

Mr. Barclay. The president, the international president's. 

The Chairman. You mean Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what work she was doing ? 

Mr. Barclay. Supposedly she was supposed to be — she was put at, 
I believe, organizing and getting names for Van Kamps or something 
like that, and she was given the weekly amount of money, plus the 
use of the international car, in which it was involved in an accident. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever know of any work that she did for 
the union ? 

89330— 57— pt. 8 11 



2732 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir ; I did not. 

The Chairman. Did she make any report to your local ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir ; I never did see her but a few times. 

The Chairman. You were managing the office ? 

Mr. Barclay. I know, but this was a transaction between Mr. 
Nelson, privately, for Mr. Cross. 

The Chairman. Are you not the manager, or is the manager not 
taken into confidences in arrangements like that ? 

Mr. Barclay. Only what I was told to be let known, in other 
words. 

The Chairman. Even what you were told, you were supposed to 
forget ? 

Mr. Barclay. That's right, or else. 

The Chairman. Or else ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not feel this was a proper use of union 
fuQds? 

Mr. Barclay. It most certainly was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

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

The Chairman. I understand that you no longer are connected 
with the union. You are suspended for life ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. 

The Chairman. Because you protested these matters that you have 
testified to? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right, sir; because of that and then a plan 
was drawn up where this stooge of Mr. Nelson's, this Vince Kinney, 
supposedly was at a meeting one night with one business agent, and 
the recording secretary, and I dropped in at their home and there was 
a party going on and I was uninvited and there was discussion of the 
union. 

Now, we discussed about the beating up of the 14-year-old boy, and, 
of course, they had been drinking in the party and it became appar- 
ent that they were upset and they said, ''We would like to beat the 
hell out of that damn Nelson." 

Mr. Nelson's cohort came up with the idea that Mr. Nelson was at 
the Anglo Hotel at Olympic and Figaro with one of my oiRce girls 
at the hotel, and that if we went down there we could beat the hell 
out of him. 

So I didn't like the idea of that, because it would be too apparent, 
and so I said we better not do that and he jumped in again, and he 
said, "I will take care of it. I have access to all of the pugilists," 
and so he took care of it, he said. 

Mr. Nelson was never beat up and he went out of town for a week 
and he came back after supposedly being beat up with a false bandage 
over his eye and we were brought to trial for that and we were ex- 
pelled for life. 

The Chairman. You were not present ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

The Chairman, if ou had nothing to do with beating liim up ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

The Chairman. If he was ever was beaten up. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2733 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir ; he was never beaten up. He testified to that. 
The Chairman. It was just a false charge ? 
Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. You state that under oath ? 
Mr. Barclay. I certainly do, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. What was tlie charge, Mr. Barclay, that they 
brought against you ? 
Mr. Barclay. It says : 

For failure to comply with the international union's constitution and bylaws 
and by your failure to abide by the oath of membership, that you are guilty 
of violations of subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 15, and 17 of section 7 of article 
XXIII, by your course of conduct in conspiring to cause a physical assault on 
John Nelson, assistant trustee, and other duly designated oflBcials of the local, 
and for that you are hereby permanently ineligible for membership in any other 
local of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America. 

Senator Goldwater. Did those various paragraphs of section 7 that 
you mentioned specifically prevent you from venting your wrath upon 
any member of the union ? 

Mr. Barclay. They are not explicit in any viewpoint, sir. Tliose 
particular articles would mean that some morning if I ran out of 
bread and saw a man coming along and I bought a loaf of Hell- 
mann's bread, I would be suspended for that, or if I smoked a Camel 
cigarette, something of that sort. There is nothing explicit and 
nothing pinpointed. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there anything in the union's constitution 
that prevents you, if you have a violent political argiunent with one 
of your brethren, from trying to impress him with the merits of your 
viewpoint by your fists? 

Mr. Barclay. Well, I don't believe that there is explicity pin- 
pointed that way ; no, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. If you had intended to inflict bodily harm on 
Mr. Nelson, would it have been because of actions in the union or 
because of personal feelings? 

Mr. Barclay. Had I wished to, I could have taken care of him 
in another manner, but I had no wish to do the same. An eye for 
an eye or a tooth for a tooth wouldn't do me a damn bit of good. 

Senator Goldwater. It very rarely does, to tell you the truth. You 
will wind up losing everything. 

Do you have any recourse from this decision ? 

(Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

Mr, Barclay. Recourse? 

Senator Goldwater. Is there any higher court in the union that 
you can go to ? 

Mr. Barclay. The only way, sir, is that I hope to God that some- 
day another president may come in and we may appeal the decision, 
and hope for the best from there on. 

Senator Goldavater. Are you trained in any other trade than the 
bakery trade? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir; I am. I have been in the baking game 
since 1935 and I graduated from three institutes and I hold a master's, 
as a decorator in sugar work and candy and fine decorating, and I 
graduated and majored in business administration, so that I can go 
to other fields. 



2734 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. You have had other employment, then? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask a question. Was anyone else 
tried by the union besides you ? 

Mr. Barclay. There were seven people tried. 

Senator Curtis. How many were expelled ? 

Mr. Barclay. Three. 

Senator Curtis. 'Wlio were the other two ? 

Mr. Barclay. The other two were Mr. Robert Moultrie and Mr. 
James Hennigan, the recording secretary. 

Senator Curtis. "Who presided over that trial ? 

Mr. Barclay. A Mr. Dave Gefter from New York, I believe. He 
was the hearing officer appointed by Mr. Cross. 

Senator Curtis. Did witnesses appear before that trial and testify 
that they were eye witnesses to the assault on Mr. Nelson ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir; there were no eye witnesses to any assault 
on Mr. Nelson. 

Seuc^'.tor Curtis. But they did not testify to that? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you testify ? 

Mr. Barclay. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were you permitted to cross-examine their wit- 
nesses ? 

Mr. Barclay. Limited to what questioning you could do ; yes, sir. 

Senator Cltitis. Did you have an attorney? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir ; we were not allowed an attorney. In union 
activities if you go to an attorney, they are just out anyway. 

Senator Curtis. This man that presided, he made the decision ? 

Mr. Barclay. That is right. He supposedly submitted a report in 
August after the hearing. First, there was a hearing in April and 
they found that it was in error and so they had a rehearing. At that 
trial in April the 7 of them, 3 were suspended for 3 months and 
another was suspended for 5 years and the 3 that I have mentioned 
were expelled for 15 years. 

Then, they found that they were in error over a recording that was 
taken and they had a retrial in June, on June 12, 13, and 14. The 
decision of that was the outcome that the other 4 were reinstated to 
full membership and the 3 of us were expelled for life. 

Senator Curtis. Did Nelson appear and testify ? 

Mr. Barclay. That's right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he testify that you beat him up ? 

Mr. Barclay. I believe he did, that he was beaten up and not that 
I did it, but that he was beaten up and I don't know who did it. 

Senator Curtis. But he did not identify you ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, only by the fact that through his Vince Kinney, 
that we had discussed some violence of some sort, at this party. That 
is all. That is all it was based on. 

The Chairman. I have just one concluding question. Do you know 
whether any disciplinary action was ever taken against those two 
that beat up the boy, by the union ? 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir, there was no disciplinary action, because as 
Mr. Nelson so stated before, I believe, downstairs, the boy got up and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2735 

saw the first three numbers and he knew it was John Nelson's car. 
The only sight and the person that he would have seen would have 
been Frank Gardon, a darker fellow. 

The Chairman. I am asking if the union ever took any disciplinary 
action against any of them. 

Mr. Barclay. No, sir. 

The Chairman. That is all I want to know. Thank you very much. 
You may stand aside for the present. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Nelson. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Goldwater and 
Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn ? You do solemnly swear that 
the evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall 
be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Nelson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. NELSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
GEORGE E. BODLE 

The Chairman. Please state your name and your place of residence 
and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Nelson. John D. Nelson, I live at 4-202 Maple Street, Omaha, 
Nebr. 

The Chairman. What is your present business or occupation? 

Mr. Nelson. I work for the Bakery and Confectionery AYorkers 
International Union. At the present time on assignment in Los 
Angeles, Calif., as assistant international trustee, over baker's local 
47. 

The Chairman. I note you have counsel with you. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record? 

Mr. Bodle. George Bodle, 458 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, 
Calif. Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word ? 

In view of the accusations which have been made and in view of 
the fact that my client intends to testify freely and without resort 
to any device that might be had, if it should appear that some of these 
allegations that have been made are not fully answered in the course 
of his testimony, I would like leave of the committee to submit addi- 
tional questions which will give him an opportunity to answer the 
accusations which have been made. 

The Chairman. In the course of the interroo-ation of the witness, 
counsel feels that some other particular question should be asked, 
counsel may submit it to the committee for its discretion. 

In the meantime, of course, the witness is free to testify and if 
tliere is any statement which has been made that he wishes to i-efute, 
he is at liberty to do so, Avhether he is interrogated about that particu- 
lar circumstance or not. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nelson, l' asked Mr. Barclay about what ap- 
peared to him to be any financial irregularities. He started out in 
the first matter of $35 a week in expenses that he received. He just 
stated that he turned it over to you for a period of approximately 
several months. 



2736 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Did you receive any of that money ? I know that I asked you this 
-question just before we came in here and you said you had received 
none of it. I will ask you again under oath whether you ever received 
any of that money. 

Mr. Nelson. I have received none of the money that he has stated, 
where he said that it came from $35 per week on his weekly expense. 

However, I did receive money from Barclay. I told him pre- 
viously that it was costing me approximately $35 out on the picket- 
line, out of my own money. My personal expenses, the international 
union would not reimburse me for because of the fact that they would 
not bear the full cost of the strike. 

I did receive $35 a week for approximately — I don't know. Prob- 
ably 7 or 8 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was $35 that was paid to Mr. Barclay as 
expenses ? 

Mr. Kelson. I do not Imow for sure whether it was or not. 
However 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not Mr. Barclay's own personal money, 
was it ? 

Mr. Nelson. Let me say this : At the time Barclay was released, 
there was suspicion in my mind that he was dipping into the till of 
the local union. I will say this very frankly and honestly. 

At the time the Golden Crust strike started on October 22, I had 
no time whatsoever to spend in the office of the bakers union. For 
2 straight weeks I spent day and night on the picketline. 

I worked nights on the picketline, days on other assignments that 
required immediate attention. In the middle of December, when it 
became quite apparent, the political activities of certain individuals 
in the local union, I became suspicious of Al Barclay. 

For one reason, in the interim he had bought himself a new car. 
He had that car, I believe, approximately a month. He turned around 
and bought another one. I was told by other people of his journeys 
to Las Vegas and the money that he was spending. 

I could not prove it. The bookkeeping was done by Al Barclay 
up to the time that I released him. He made out the checks. I 
believe he made out every check. I cannot state, without seeing all 
the checks, whether or not I made any of them out. If I did, they 
were very few, probably not over 3 or 4. There is an item in Novem- 
ber of $500 that just does not jibe with the records of the strike 
benefits. 

Also, it became aware to me that he was getting a weekly expense. 
He also, at one time, gave an office girl a wage increase without my 
knowledge. I might say this : Being busy on the strike, I was handed 
the checkbook and I signed the checks. 

I did not bother to check the propriety of all of those checks. 
However, I do have some supporting documents with me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Let us see if we can go back to the question. We 
are interested in whatever information you have on his financial 
irregularities. We can go through what he stated about you. 

You said that it came to your attention that he was getting a 
weekly expense. You did not know that he was getting a weekly 
expense ? 

Mr. Nelson. I did not know that at the time. I Imew it prior to 
the letting of him go, right around the New Years. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2737 

Mr, Kennedy. You were receiving from him, as I understand it — • 
or were you receiving from him — the $35 a week ? 

Mr. Nelson. I said that I was receiving from him $35 per week. I 
told him that that is what it was costing me, approximately, on the 
picketline out of my personal moneys. 

Mr. Ivennedy. That came from him personally, did it not? You 
understood that came from him personally ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. I figured that it was coming out of the miscellaneous 
organizing expense. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But you understood that the money was coming to 
him personally, that it was his money and that he was, in turn, giving 
it to you ? 

Mr. Nelson. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You thought it was coming directly from the union 
to you and was being charged to you ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. No, I thought it was being charged to 
the miscellaneous organizing expense. 

Mr. Ivennedy. If this was funds that you were spending, why did 
you not arrange just to have a check made out to you of $35 a week? 

Mr. Nelson. Because of the question involved, I was questioned by 
the international union on the check that was written previously to 
me on the organizing expense. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I did not understand that. 

Mr. Nelson. I had a clieck written to me prior to that time, of 
$150, which I had spent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back to the question. Why did you not 
just receive the $35 a week by check from the union ? 

Mr. Nelson. I figured that it was included in the organizing 
checks that were drawn up previously. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. To go back to the original question, did you receive 
$35 a week for 8 weeks, or approximately 8 to 12 weeks, from 
Barclay ? 

Mr. Nelson. From who? 

Mr. Kennedy. From Barclay. 

Mr. Nelson. He turned over $35 a week to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. In cash? 

Mr. Nelson. In cash ; yes. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you understand that that was money that came 
from a clieck that was made out to him ? 

Mr. Nelson. No, I did not. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You did not ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was never any discussion about that ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

The Chairman. Where did you think it came from ? 

Mr. Nelson. I thought it came from the organizing checks that 
were drawn up in sum total, from the slips and vouchers and ex- 
penses that everybody else had turned in on the strike — on the expenses 
that they had incurred. 

The Chairman. Where did you think the money came from ? You 
got it in cash. 



2738 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr. Nelson. From those — maybe I better explain it this way. 

The Chairman. You maybe better some way. 

Mr. Nelson. The expenses that the various peoples, members and 
business agents, used and spent on the picket line regarding organiz- 
ing, sometimes they were paid out of petty cash, sometimes they were 
paid by — well, I don't know just exactly how they were paid, because 
Barclay took care of that. 

Now, the situation was this : When we came to a sum total, a check 
was drawn up, made out to cash, which was an organizing expense and 
that is where I figured that my $35 was coming from. 

The Chairman. You were assistant trustee, were you not? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. I was busy on the picket line. 

The Chaikman. I do not care where you were busy. You are sup- 
posed to know where it is coming from. 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. That is where I figured it was coming 
from. That is why I relieved Barclay 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Would you not be interested in 
knowing where your money was coming from, in that position ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, yes. I figured that it was coming out of those 
checks that were drawn. 

The Chairman. How about this $40,000 ? Was it all spent in cash, 
organizing expenses ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. All spent in cash ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that a good system of business management? 

Mr. Nelson. I do not know whether it is a good system of business 
management. I do know this : It was convenient for the pickets. We 
paid those pickets on the picket line, or we either paid them at the 
meeting. Prior to the first of the year of 1956, they were paid at 
meetings and they were paid by Al Barclay. After that they were 
paid on the picket line and I never paid one of them myself. 

The Chairman. You do agree that that system of paying in cash 
and taking receipts, and in the manner in which you did it, does per- 
mit anyone who may desire and who was in a position such as you 
occupied and others at the head of it, to pad the thing and take cash 
for themselves, rather than to spend it for the purposes that it is 
recorded. You know that, do you not ? 

Mr. Nelson. I say this, that those members 

The Chairman. I am not talking about those members. I am talk- 
ing about you and the management now, you officers. 

Mr. Nelson. I did not make the payofis to the members. 

The Chairman. I did not ask you who you made payoffs to. I 
said that system does permit you to do it, does it not ? 

Mr. Nelson. It wouldn't permit me to do it, because I didn't do it. 

The Chairman. You did not do it, you say, but tne opportunity is 
there when you handle that much cash in that fashion, is it not % It is 
not good business management and it is not a good way to take care 
of the $40,000 trustee fund, is it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2739 

Mr. Nelsox. I might say this: First of all, the moneys was paid 
out on a Friday. 

The Chairman. On a what? 

Mr. Nelson. On a Friday of each week. We obtained the list from 
the picket line on Friday morning. 

The Chairman. How many would be on the picket line? Give me 
some estimate of it. 

Mr. Nelson. AVe run a picket line 24: hours a day, and the piclvet 
line Avoulcl vary. 

The Chairman. All right, how many ? 

Mr. Nelson. At the hrst we had approximately TO people on the 
picket line. The first week of the strike, we paicl each one of them 
$25, I believe. Starting the second week, we gave every picket $55 
a week, but there wasn't as many the second week because we started 
providing jobs for those people that we could obtain jobs for. 

We paid the pickets in accordance to how many days they were on 
the picket line. Sometimes we v, ould get them a job and maybe the 
job would not last. 

At first, we were giving them $55 a week for 7 days' picketing. Then 
we give them a day olf. But we paid the pickets on Friday and on 
sometimes we paid them on Saturday if we held a meeting. 

The Chairman. I do not see any difference in whether you paid 
them on Friday or Monday at noon, insofar as it affects the system 
3'ou used. 

Mr. Nelson. Because we would draw a check on Friday at the 
bank, for cash, and we would then put the money in envelopes and 
then we would have somebody pay the pickets. That was after 
January 1. 

The Chairman. Actually, and you know it to be a fact, you could 
have written a check quicker than you could have done all of that, 
for each one of them, could you not ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

The Chairman. Of course you could, and kept a record of it. 

Senator Curtis. You say that this $35, you thought, was coming out 
of the miscellaneous organizational funds; is that right? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Could anyone draw funds out of there without 
submitting a voucher ? 

Mr. Nelson. Vouchers or slips were submitted at all times. 

Senator Curtis. But von diet not submit anv voucher or slip for 
this $35 ? 

Mr. Nelson. I told Al Barclay that that is what it was costing 
me, and he did give me the $35. I did not give him a voucher every 
week. 

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

Senator Curtis. And you knew he put in vouchers? 

Mr. Nelson. For what? 

Senator Curtis. For this $35. 

Mr. Nelson. No, I don't. First, I might explain we do not have, or 
the local union never did before I was there, or it still don't have a 
voucher system. 

Senator Curtis. But as assistant trustee, you were in charge of all 
of it, were you not ? 



2740 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Responsible for all the assets ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. I might point out that since I have 
been there we have put back into the treasury more than $35,000 than 
what we started with. 

Senator Curtis. But the fact remains, $35 a week was coming out 
of the fund to you and no proper entry shown that it was coming to 
you, is that correct ? 

Mr. Nelson. To my recollection, and what I thought, it was that it 
was going to be — it was an organizing expense, and I figured that that 
is where it was coming out of. I did not knoAv it was coming from 
Barclay. 

Senator Cltetis. But you arranged to have it done once on the $150 
item and that was objected to, did you not? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. I told- — 

Senator Curtis. So this was to meet that objection? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

I told some of the international officers that I had done it, and they 
said that it didn't look right. I don't recall who I talked to. They 
told me that if I was spending money on the picket line, that it should 
be a local union expense, and it should come out of the miscellaneous 
account. That is where I thouglit it was coming. 

Mr. Kennedy. You thought it was coming from the miscellaneous 
account, is that right ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. ICJENNEDY. And you never knew that it was a check made out to 
Barclay ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to read you your testimony. You are 
not telling the truth now, or you were not telling the truth when you 
testified or made statements before your board. 

I will read you the testimony on page 506. A question by Mr. 
Nelson : 

You will recall the $35 you mentioned was a check made out to you and it 
was cashed. 

The answer by Mr. Barclay : "Yes." 

By you : 

And the money was given to me in an envelope? 
Answer. Right, sir. 

Question. That was voluntary on your part, is that right? 
Answer : That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio is asking the questions ? 
Mr. KJENNEDY. The questioning is by Mr. Nelson. 
He starts v\dth a statement : 

You will recall the .$35 that you mentioned was a check made out to you and 
it was cashed. 

And the answer was "Yes, sir." 
Then you go on to say : 

Isn't it true that the reasons for that was that there were some expenses,^ 
miscellaneous expenses, that couldn't be accounted for, that that money was 
used for that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2741 

Those are statements by you, Mr. Nelson. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. The answer to that is this : I told you earlier that I 
had found out that prior to the release of Barclay, that he was doing 
that, and I told you that it happened around the holidays. I believe 
that is my statement, if you will check back on the record. 

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

Mr. Nelson. He did hand me an envelope. He handed me an en- 
velope in the presence of two people. I did not know what was m 
the envelope at the time he handed it to me. I was in the business 
agent's room, talking to the business agents. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Let us not go through all that again. 

Mr. Nelson. He went in there, handed me an envelope ; I stuck it 
in my pocket. 

He had two people standing there and watched me stick the envel- 
ope in my pocket. 

Mr. Ivennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Nelson. I looked at it later, and it was the $35, 

Mr. I^nnedy. Yes? 

Mr. Nelson. It was the $35. And he made it appear to other peo- 
ple that it was a hush-hush situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question. You stated under oath 
before the commitee that this was an organizing expense. 

"I did not know it was coming from Barclay," and you also stated 
that you did not know 

Mr. Nelson. I did not know" it was coming from his personal ac- 
count. I did not know it was coming from his weekly expenses. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You State here, "You will recall the $35 that you 
mentioned was a check made out to you and it was cashed," speaking 
to Barclay. That it was a check made out to. him, it was cashed and 
then turned over to you for miscellaneous expenses. 

Mr. Nelson. If that says that in the transcript, it is not true. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That is what you said. I didn't say it. 

Mr. Nelson. I said if it says that. 

Mr. Kennedy. At least, it is different 

Mr. Nelson. What hearing is that ? 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Page 506, volume 2, June 13, 1956. 

One of the two is true. You are not truthful now or you were not 
truthful in June of 1956. 

I can hand you this. 

Mr. Nelson. I have it. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. It starts on the bottom of page 506. 

(The witness conferred xAth his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Shall we proceed ? 

Mr. Nelson. You will have to repeat that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't have a question. 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I can explain this. I told you before that I 
received $35 per week for approximately — I don't know — 7 or 8 
weeks. At the time that I found out about where the money was 
coming from, which I said was some time around the holiday season, 
that was the time we were talking about, or I was talking about, in 
the transcript. No mention was made of the holiday season, but I 
was bringing out a point in the transcript or during that hearing 



2742 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

that, yes, I knew that that $35 came from that check, and then I was 
pointing out to him that it was voluntary on his part, and he said 
"Yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. So now your testimony before the committee is that 
you knew that the money was in a check made out to liim, and that he, 
in turn, was giving it to you ? 

Mr. Nelson. I "knew it prior to the time, I think about 2 weeks 
before, he was released from the local union. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Well, you continued to do that. 

Mr. Nelson. It was continued for another week. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. It was continued 

Mr. Nelson. To the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. Certainly there is no such message here in your 
testimony. 

It is just "You will recall the $35 that you mentioned was a check 
made out to you and it was cashed and the money was given to me 
in an envelope." 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That seems to be the procedure that was followed. 

Anyway, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Barclay also testified about a $75 pay- 
ment that was paid to a woman "organizer," and I will quote or- 
ganizer. He states that this money was delivered to Kay Lower. 
Can you tell us anything about that ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I can. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. Is that testimony of Mr. Barclay accurate? 

Mr. Nelson. No, it is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. The money did not go to Kay Lower ? 

Mr. Nelson. Let me explain it in this manner 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did any of the money 

Mr. Nelson. Part of the money went to Kay Lower. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Kay Lower ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And what arrangements were made for her to re- 
ceive this money ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. I first met Kay Lower sometime in October when I 
was in Portland, Oreg., attending the Pacific coast conference of the 
bakery and confectionery workers. I was sitting in the cocktail 
lounge of a hotel having a drink with James Cross and George Stuart. 

The woman walked in and she was introduced to me. She sat 
down and had a drink, and we continued our discussions. 

We were at that time discussing the organizing situation in south- 
ern California regarding Van de Kamp's. 

The Chairman. Eegarding what ? 

Mr. Nelson. Van de Kamp's Bakery. We were discussing the 
organizing staff working for the international union. I was told 
then that the organizing staff working in southern California for the 
international union was going to be eliminated. We held quite 
a discussion on this. 

I told Cross and Stuart that in the time that I had been down 
there that I did not think that Al Bryan and Al Meyer were to blame 
for the organizing drive being bogged down, that it was Virge 
Bryan's fault. 



Improper actwities in the labor field 2743 

While Kay Lower was there she did not participate in any of the 
discussions. I do not eve^i remember whether she was introduced to 
me as Kay Lower. 

The Chairman. As what? 

Mr. Nelson. As Kay Lower. That was her name. 

The Chairman. What name was it ? 

Mr. Xelsox. 1 do not recail. It could liave been Kay Lower. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were havin<y a number of your organizers 
taken from you for the Van de Kamp organization, to organize their 
shop ? 

Mr. ISTelsox. To organize that plant. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So then it was suggested at that time that you take 
on Kay Lower? 

Mr. Nelson. No. That is the last time I saw Kay Lower 

Mr. Kennedy. You saw her up in Portland. Are you still talking 
about that ? 

Mr. Nelson. I am still talking about Portland. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Nelson. When we left Portland, I immediately met George 
Stuart, upon my arrival; I met him at the union office. He arrived 
aiiead of me in Los Angeles. He called into the office Virg Bryan 
and fired him ; he called in Al Meyer and iired him, and he called in 
Al Bryan, and he was also fired. 

I then talked to Bryan and Meyer later on — I believe it was the next 
day or so — and had them start working for the local union as organ- 
izers, and we were going to take on Van de Kamp on the local level. 
Li other Avords, the international union was not going to become 
involved at that particular time. 

That was our discussions. 

During the time that George Stuart was in Los Angeles at that 
time, they had also had — the organizers had been working on Golden 
Crust Bakery. This is a bakery that the local union liad spent, prior 
to my time, some over $60,000 on and had had them on strike at one 
time for a period of approximately 21 months, to the best of my 
recollection of what has beeii told to me by the other officials and the 
international vice president in that area. 

I was told by George Stuart to call a meeting of those people, take 
a strike vote. And, if they wanted to strike, go ahead and strike them. 
If they didn't, forget about it and go to work on Van de Kamp's. ' 

I called a meeting of the workers— — 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nelson, I do not want to have every detail of 
everything that happened during this period of time. We asked 
about the $75. 

Mr. Nelson. It leads up to the point of the question you were ask- 
ing me about Kay Lower. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, just give a summary statement that you 
had trouble with such-and-such a bakery and you needed help. 

Mr. Nelson. Golden Crust figures into this investigation also. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Nelson. Golden Crust figures into thii? investigation also, and 
I thought you would give me the reasons and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want you to give every pertinent fact, but I do 
not tliink we have to have everv detail. 



2744 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. I called a meeting of the people on Saturday after- 
noon, October 22. They voted to strike, and we struck the plant that 
night. 

The strike was very successful for the first 2 weeks. However, we 
were all busy. 

After that, I had the two organizers that I had originally wanted 
to use on Van de Kamp busy with Golden Crust. We did want to 
maintain a contact or compile a list of names with the Van de Kamp 
people. 

Sometime early in November, George Stuart was in town. We dis- 
cussed the situation and he suggested to me the use of Kay Lower to 
obtain names, and so forth, on Van de Kamp. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. How was she going to obtain names ? 

Mr. Nelson. I do not know. I miagine the same way any other 
organizer of the union would obtain names and addresses of people 
working in plants that are not organized. 

After that particular time, I was also told, then, to put in a request 
to the international union for assistance in the organizing of Van de 
Kamp's Bakery. I sent a letter to the international union. 

I received an answer on it some time in December, stating that the 
payments of the money would be retroactive to November 22. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money were you requesting ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't recall whether I requested a specific amount. 
I could have. I don't have the copies of the letters, but I did get a 
communication back, and it would be $75 per week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this request in order to pay this woman 
organizer ? 

Mr. Nelson. It was not determined at that time whether we would 
pay the salary or whether we would pay it in the form of expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean the local or the international? The 
international to pay it by salary or expenses ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't believe the international was concerned as to 
how — I mean, the money had to be entered into the local union books 
as being received. Any moneys received by a local union 

Mr. Kennedy. From the international ? 

Mr. Nelson. From any source. Has to be entered on the day sheets. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were asking for the appropriation ? 

Mr. Nelson. I asked for the appropriation. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And that was so that the local could then disburse 
it to her either by expenses or salary? That had not been deter- 
mined ? 

Mr. Nelson. It had not been determined whether or not she would 
get the full $75 or what. 

Mr. ICennedy. Who was the one that determined that she should 
get paid $75 ? 

Mr. Nelson. There was no determination what she would get. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you ask for that amount? How did you 
arrive at that figure ? 

Mr. Nelson. Like I said before, I don't recall requesting for a spe- 
cific amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. 

Mr. Nelson. If the proposition to the board, to the executive board, 
was for $75, then that is how the figure of $75 came up. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2745 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a discussion with Cross or Stuart or 
both about how she would be paid ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom ? 

Mr. Nelson. I discussed the matter with Cross and Stuart both, 
either in person or by telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the question was whether she was to receive 
just expenses or whether she would receive salary? Was that the 
question ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. The question in my mind arose as to the paying 
of $75 per week for the obtaining: of names and addresses. I did not 
known, or I did not think that $75 per week would be the right kind 
of sum for the providing of names and addresses. 

Mr, Ivennedy. How much did you think should be spent for that 
type of work? 

Mr. Nelson. I had no figure in my mind. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money 

The Chairman. Did you think it was too much or too little ? You 
had something in mind. 

Mr, Nelson. I figured it was too much to pay for names and ad- 
dresses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have many women organizers working for 
you? 

Mr. Nelson. Now? 

Mr. Ivennedy, Have you had women organizers ? 

Mr. Nelson, Do you mean previous to this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. Not for me; no. I have never had that experience 
before. 

Senator Curtis, I want to ask you something about these names 
and addresses. These were workers who did not belong to the union 
as of that time ? 

Mr, Nelson, That is right. 

Senator Curtis, About how many workers were there in the 
Golden Crust Bakery ? 

Mr, Nelson, We are talking about the Van de Kamp Bakery, 

Senator Curtis. All right. How many were in there ? 

Mr, Nelson, We have since organized the plant, and I believe 
there are between 800 and 900, We haven't got the total figure as 
yet. 

Senator Curtis, Did you have a strike at Van de Kamp's? 

Mr, Nelson, On this drive, we did not have a strike at Van de 
Kamp, but I understand that previously there was a strike at Van de 
Kamp, in 1947, for a period of, I believe, 28 months, 27 or 28 months. 
There was a strike at Van de Kamp, 

Senator Curtis. They weren't organized ? 

Mr, Nelson. They are now, but they weren't up until just recently. 

Senator Curtis. Who conducted the strike ? 

Mr. Nelson. Previously? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. Archie Goodman. 

Senator Curtis. I mean what union. 

Mr. Nelson. It is a combination of the bakery and confectionery 
workers, I believe the teamsters, and the retail clerks. 



2746 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ctjrtis. I want to ask you something about this Golden 
Crust activity. 

During all the time the pickets were out there, did you have a ma- 
jority of the workers signed up in your miion ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. But you were not recognized as a bargaining 
agent ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Senator Curtis. Did you seek an election ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Senator Curtis. You threw the pickets around over these months 
and did not seek an election to be recognized as a bargaining agent ? 

Mr. Nelson. I might say this, that in the history of the bakers 
local 37 in Los Angeles, Calif., I do not know of any election that 
has ever been held for the representation election up until just re- 
cently. Eecently we held an election at Nixon's Bakery, in Whittier, 
Calif., and we won that election. It was a State conducted — no. 
We held an election a year ago and lost the election. This year we 
won the plant by the Nixon family recognizing the union. 

Senator Curtis. These where you win without an election, how 
do you bring it about ? 

Mr. Nelson. By the signing up of the members in the plant and 
going to the employer and showing them that we have the people in 
the union. 

Senator Curtis. What are the pickets for, if that is the procedure ? 

Mr. Nelson. The employer refused to recognize the union as the 
bargaining agent for the workers. I might point out that this com- 
pany was very 

Senator Curtis. Which company ? 

Mr. Nelson. Was very antiunion. 

Senator Curtis. Which company ? 

Mr. Nelson. Golden Crust. The local union previously had con- 
ducted a strike there for some 21 months, I believe, and had spent in 
the neighborhood of $60,000 to $85,000 on that. 

Senator Curtis. How many members did they have while they 
were doing all that ? 

Mr. Nelson. I was not even in the area at the time, so I could not 
tell you. 

Senator Curtis. They did not have a majority ? 

Mr. Nelson. At that time? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. I do not know. 

Senator Curtis. You do not think so ? 

Mr. Nelson. I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Finally, what arrangements were made as far as 
the payment of Kay Lower ? 

Mr. Nelson. What is this? 

Mr. Kennedy. What I am asking you is what arrangements were 
ultimately made as far as the payment of Kay Lower ? 

Mr. Nelson. In my discussions with Cross and Stuart, after we 
finally arrived that there would not be a salary, that it would be 
expenses, I was told to pay her on the basis of what she had done. 

Mr. K^ENNEDY. So did you do that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2747 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay her ? 

Mr. Nelson. Do you mean the sum total ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. I camiot actually say what the sum total is. 

I can say this — any figure that I would give you would be purely 
a guess. The money that I gave to her came out of the $1,500 that was 
sent to me, or sent to the local, by the international. I can't say how 
much she did get. Any figure that I would give would be a guess, 
purely a guess. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. In what sums did you give it to her ? 

Mr. Nelson. I gave it to her in sums of $50. I gave her hers in 
sums of $100, and I think $75. There was no set sum. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. During this period of time, she was doing work for 
the miion? 

Mr. Nelson. I did not check on her, whether or not she was doing 
any work for the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you were paying her. 

Mr. Nelson. She called in and would give me names and addresses, 
and I figured that she was working. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many names and addresses did she finally give 
you? 

Mr. Nelson. That is another figure. That is over a year ago, or 
just about a year ago. At the begimiing it would be over a year and 
a half ago. Well, it would be since around the first of the year of 
1956. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. How mau}^ names did she give you ? 

Mr. Nelson. Again, it would be a guess, but I would say around — ■ 
you asked me earlier, before we came in. I said 50. I said not over 
50. I don't know. These names, however, . I did turn over to Al 
Meyer; he started out to be an organizer and I later appointed him 
as financial secretary. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The $1,500, how much do you think you gave her ? 

(The witness conferred with Kis counsel.) 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you keep some records on it, Mr. Nelson? 

(The Mdtness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. Did I keep records on this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. We kept records on everything. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to those records ? 

Mr. Nelson. Last summer, 1956 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You know what we could do, Mr. Nelson, answer 
the question, and then if you want to go on, give any speech or talk 
you want to give. 

Have you got those records ? 

Mr. Nelson. Are you asking me of records of the payments that 
I made to her ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. No ; I don't have the records of those payments I made 
to her. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep records on the payments that you 
made to her? 

89330—57— r.t. 8 12 



2748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. No; I did not keep records of payments that I made 
to her. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. But you 

Mr. Nelson. I thought you were talking in regards to the organiz- 
ing of Golden Crust and, subsequently, Van de Kamp's. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you determine at all how much money you gave 
to her ? You received $1,500 from the International Union to give to 
her. How much of that did you actually give to her ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. I might say this : In my discussions with Stuart and 
Cross, I was told that the balance of the $75 to use on the picket lines. 

Mr. liJENNEDY. How mucli money did you give to her ? 

Mr. Nelson. Any figure that I would give would be purely a guess. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Right. How much do you guess that you gave her? 
Is your guess just the same as my guess? I mean, is it based on 
anything ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. It would be anywhere from $900 to 
$1,100, 1 would imagine. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question or two. 

What is the number of this local ? No. 37 ? 

Mr. Nelson. Local No. 37. 

The Chairman. Was it during that time in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is it still in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were you the assistant trustee at that time ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who was the trustee ? 

Mr. Nelson. Lester Crawford. 

The Chairman. Was he there at the time, or was he away and you 
managed it? 

Mr. Nelson. He was in Washington, D. C, I believe. 

The Chairman. He wasn't around there to look after anything? 
You were completely in charge so far as the trusteeship is concerned ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Nelson. I was in charge, and I had discussions 

The Chairman. Did he ever come out there while you were there ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. How many times ? 

Mr. Nelson. He has been out there quite a few times. I don't 
know the exact 

The Chairman. For all practical purposes, you were the trustee 
for all local affairs, were you not, except for such orders as you 
would receive from him in Washington ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. For all practical purposes, you were the resident 
trustee ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you still are ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. You say you kept records ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. But you kept no record of your transactions with 
this Kay Lower? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2749 

Mr. Nelson. I kept no records of that with her. I kept records 
of the Golden Crust strike. 

The Chairjian. Why did you not keep records of what you paid 
her for expenses ? 

Mr. Nelson. That money was kept separate, and I had spent 
some of that money myself on the picket line at Golden Crust. 

The Chairman. Have you got a record to show how much you 
spent on yourself on the picket line and how much you spent on her? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

The Chairman. Why didn't you keep such a record ? 

Mr. Nelson. I didn't think it was necessary. 

The Chairman. Don't you think the men who pay the dues into 
the union are entitled to know ? 

Mr. Nelson. I kept a record of the Golden Crust strike as it per- 
tained to the local funds. 

Tlie Chairman. Did you keep a record of what you paid each man 
on the picket line ? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Why didn't you keep a record of what you paid 
her for work or for expenses? Why would that not be just a legiti- 
mate record and just as proper to keep and just as necessary to keep 
as it would be to pay somebody to walk a picket line ? Exactly what 
kind of finagling was going on? 

Mr. Nelson. To my knowledge, there was no finagling going on. 

The Chairman. Well, the funds were finagled. We cannot get any 
sense out of them. You do not know what you gave her, or what you 
gave yourself, or what you spent. You made no record of it. 

Mr. Nelson. I did not keep any for myself. 

The Chairman. Where are the records for this local ? 

Mr. Nelson. Mr. Kopecky has taken some. We have the ledgers and 
so forth. 

The Chairman. Does that show what you spent in the strike and 
whom you paid it to ? 

Mr. Nelson. In general ; yes. 

The Chairman. Where are the records that you kept of that $40,000 
which you spent in the strike, or more ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. We do not — we have the checks and the canceled 
checks. 

The Chairman. You have a ch6ck 

Mr. Nelson. But we do not have the receipts. 

The Chairman. All right. The point I am making is this. You 
got a check where, at the end of the week, you went out and cashed 
a check for $2,000 or $1,500 or something, you have that canceled 
check showing that you cashed it? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. But you have no accounting of the cash that you 
paid out ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. I might say this 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. We have some supporting documents here with us. 

The CHAiR:vrAN. Where are the rest of them ? You say you have 
some. Where are tlie rest? 



2750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Nelson. We don't have — in the supporting documents that v/e 
have with us, they are not receipts. They are worlvsheets. I might 
say this again 

The Chairman. There is a whole lot of difference between a work- 
sheet and a receipt. 

Mr, Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. A receipt gives the identity of the person who re- 
ceived the money and usually their signature acknowledging receipt 
of it, but a worksheet can be made up in any form that the party 
making it up wants to make it up, is that not correct ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is correct. But you haven't given me the oppor- 
tunity to explain what happened to the receipts. 

The Chairman. All riglit. Tell us what happened to them. 

Mr. Nelson. In the summer of 1956, last year, we were in process 
of cleaning up our building, building new offices for our health and 
welfare and pension. 

We started in the back of the building first. That is tlie old, old 
records that dated back to 1890 some of them. We were also being- 
pressed by our office girls for a lunchroom. That room was com- 
pletely cleared out and everything in there was thrown out. 

The Chairman. Your records went back how far ? 

Mr. Nelson. Back to 1890, That was in the sunmier montlis we 
started that. When we got to the front part of the building, in the 
process of clearing up the old records, the more recent ones, back, I 
would say, 15 or 20 years, the hnancial secretary, Albert jMeyer, talked 
to the international vice president, Archie Goodman, and asked him 
just what we had to save. He was told to save the minutes from the 
very beginning of the local up to the present time. 

He was told to save the daybook records for 7 years. That shows 
the receipts and the itemized disbursements. He was also told to 
save the financial reports to the international union dated back 4 
years. 

He was told to save bank statements and canceled checks back i 
years ; that everything else could go. 

The Chairman. Do you know he was told that or is that hearsay ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is what was told to me by Meyer. 

The Chairman, By whom? 

Mr, Nelson. By Al Meyer. 

The Chairman. Were you in charge? 

Mr, Nelson, I was in charge. Let me go a little further. 

The Chairman. Would j'ou not naturally get the orders about that 
instead of him ? 

Mr, Nelson, Let me go a little further. 

The Chairman, All right, 

Mr, Nelson, We were housecleaning from the summer through the 
fall. On, I believe, it was November 17, Meyer and I were working- 
late in the afternoon in this one particular closet, throwing out tlie 
old records. Archie Goodman and Dan Conway came into the build- 
ing. Archie Goodman went back to use the telephone in the business 
agent's room and Dan stood there and was watching us. 

At that time — and Dan Conway is the administrative director of the 
international union. At that time, I told him what we were doing, . 
that we were saving the day sheets for 7 years, financial reports and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2751 

canceled checks and bank statements for 4 years, and he said, "That's 
fine." He said, "You are saving also the minutes back to the be- 
ginning ? " And I said, "Yes, naturally." 

The Chairman. Who was it that told you that ? 

Mr. Nelson. Daniel Conway. 

The Chairman. Who is he ? 

Mr. Nelson. Administrative director of the international union. 

The Chairman. I believe you said something about Mr. Goodman 
being there. 

Mr. Nelson. I said Archie Goodman was in using the telephone. 

The Chairman. He was in using the telephone while you were 
talking to this other fellow ? 

Mr. Nelson. That's right. That is why the records were — that is 
why the receipts and all of the old records were thrown away and that 
included the records on the Golden Crust strike. The strike was 
over, the contract had been signed, the people are members of the 
union, and we saw no need to keep them. 

The Chairman. I thought you said that Archie Goodman first gave 
you instructions. 

Mr. Nelson. He gave those instructions to Al Meyer. In fact, he 
even told Al Meyer at the time he would help him. 

The Chairman. He would actually help him do it; is that correct? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will you listen while I read a letter ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. It is on Bakers and Confectionery Workers Inter- 
national Union of America stationery. It is dated June 2, 1957, and 
is addressed, "Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field, United States Senate Office Building, 
Koom 160, Washington, D. C." 

I am furnishing this statement to you as Senate Select Committee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor or Management Field at the request of Mr. George 
Kopecky, to be used in any manner they see fit. 

I have no authority as international vice president and representative to in- 
struct, order, or advise any local officers to destroy any books, records of bills, 
receipts, and documents supporting cash or check disbursements from local 37 
funds, nor have I ever given any such instructions, advice, or orders to any 
official of local 37 to do so. 

I did not give any instructions to any official of local 37 to destroy any 
records of bills, receipts, or any documents supporting any cash or check dis- 
bursements from local 37 funds for the Golden Crust Bakery strike during 
October 1955 to May 26, 1956." 

This is signed, "Archie Goodman, international vice president." 
"What do you want to say about that ? 

Mr. Nelson. All I can say is that, relying upon my secretary, whose 
word I believe more than Archie Goodman's word — and I might say 
this: I am a little suspicious of the intent that he had at the time 
that he told our secretary, because it is now reflecting back on us. 

The Chairman. So you challenge the vice president of the inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Nelson. I challenge his statement. 

The Chairman. That is a matter you folks can settle between you 
very well. 

Proceed. 



2752 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ICennedy. We have one other witness that I would like to get 
finished with this afternoon. 

Mr. Nelson, you paid Kay Lower approximately $20 for each name 
that she was able to furnish to you ; is that right ? 

Mr. Nelson. I couldn't say on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. She furnished you approximately 50 names and 
there was approximately $1,000 that you paid her ? 

Mr. Nelson. If that is the way you want to figure it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the going price in your union ? 

Mr. Nelson. We have never paid anybody so much per name. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have never done that in the past. Now, let 
me ask you one other thing: In addition to that money, she was 
also furnished an automobile, was she, for her use ? 

Mr. Nelson. We had two extra automobiles 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question and then you can go on. 

Mr. Nelson. We had two extra automobiles for any use for the 
business agents and she was given use of a car. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Were there union funds used on any accasion to 
purchase a gift for Mr. George Stuart — to purchase any gifts for 
George Stuart ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Were there union funds used on any occasion to 
purchase a gift or a present for Mr. James Cross ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there union funds used on any occasion to 
purchase a gift for Kay Lower ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. Who purchased the gasoline and paid the other 
expenses of that car of Kay Lower's ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether any union funds paid any 
of it? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. How did they pay the expenses of the other car? 

Mr. Nelson. With our business agents ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. With business agents on the local payroll, they are 
paid 7 cents a mile. My gas is furnished to me and oil is furnished 
to me, by the international union. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know Mr. Frank Gardone? 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I know Frank Gardone. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you first meet him ? 

Mr. Nelson. I believe that aa as in Seattle. 

Senator Curtis. What year ? 

Mr. Nelson. I believe it would be in 1953. 

Senator Curtis. Have you seen him a number of times since then ? 

Mr. Nelson, Yes. 

Senator Curtis. What other cities have you seen him in ? 

Mr Nelson. In Washington, D. C, Chicago — yes, Chicago, Los 
Anj^eles. I believe that is all. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2753 

Senator Curtis. How old a man is he ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Have you any idea ? Is he Y5 or 35 ? 

Mr. Nelson. I would say he is in his thirties. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. How big a man is he ? 

Mr. Nelson. He is a little taller than I am. 

Senator Curtis. How tall are you ? 

Mr. Nelson. Five feet, eleven. 

Senator Curtis. How much does he weigh ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Does he have any job in the international union? 

Mr. Nelson. He is a special organizer. 

Senator CuRiTs. What are his duties ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know what his duties are. I don't give him 
the assignments. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever pay him ? 

Mr. Nelson. Did I ever pay him '? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. He receives his pay from the international union. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever give it to him ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever given him any money ? 

Mr. Nelson. I have loaned him money out of my pocket. 

Senator Curtis. Have you paid him any expenses ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. How was he paid by the international union, do you 
know ? 

Mr. Nelson, The same as I am, by the week. 

Senator Curtis. By check ? 

Mr. Nelson. By check. 

Senator Curtis. What do you know about this beating up of this 
14-year-old boy ? 

Mr. Nelson. I was called, two detectives called on my office, I be- 
lieve it was on a Monday morning. I was in a hearing with the 
NLEB. I called the office at noon recess and asked if I had any 
calls. 

They told me that a Lieutenant or a Sergeant Tzarsky and Ser- 
geant Baker had called and wanted to talk to me and they give me a 
phone call to call them. 

I called them and they told me about a beating or a fight. 

Senator Curtis. Let me ask you this : Did you get any information 
that there was a beating of this 14-year-old boy from anybody other 
than the police ? 

Mr. Nelson, I was called at the hotel 

Senator Curtis, Just say whether or not you got any information 
from anybody besides the police that there was a beating of a 14-year- 
old boy. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. From whom? 

Mr. Nelson. A1 Meyer. 

Senator Curtis. Who else ? 

Mr. Nelson. I can't recall. 

Senator Curtis. "Who did Al Meyer tell you did the beating ? 



2754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



Mr. Nelson. A1 Meyer called me on the phone 

Senator Curtis. No. "Wlio did he say did the beating ? 

Mr. Nelson. He did not know. 

Senator Curtis. Was Frank Gardone in Los Angeles at the time? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. You would have to check his weekly 
reports whether or not he was there at that time. He was in and out 
of town quite frequently. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know this man Kinney ? 

Mr. Nelson. Vince Kinney that Barclay talked about ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Nelson. He is a member of the local 37 and he works for the 
Langendorf Bakery. I did not know him personally until sometime 
in March 1956. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever hear of the names of Kinney and 
Gardone mixed up with this beating of this 14-year-old boy until 
you heard it today ? 

Mr. Nelson. There has been lots of talk about that. 

Senator Curtis. You heard their names linked with it ? 

Mr. Nelson. I have heard their names and mine also, linked with it. 

Senator Curtis. Were you linked with it ? 

Mr. Nelson. I have heard it linked with it. 

Senator Curtis. I asked you if you were linked with it. 

Mr. Nelson. I might say this': You didn't let me finish when you 
asked me when I first heard about it. You didn't let me finish what 
happened when the police called. 

Senator Curtis. I did not ask you what happened. 

Mr. Nelson. I have been on the picket line several times when there 
were fracases on the picket line. I, myself, have never laid a hand 
on anybody on the picket line. 

Senator Curtis. But you knew a 14-year-old boy had been beaten 
up, did you not '? 

Mr. Nelson. I heard that there was a 14-year-old boy that got into 
a fracas. , 

Senator Curtis. And j^ou took no steps to find out what happened, 
did you ? 

Mr. Nelson. I wouldn't say that. 

Senator Curtis. Well, what did you do ? 

Mr. Nelson. It wasn't my job in the first place to do that. That 
was for the police department. It was told to the police department 
and reported. It doesn't come within my realm as trustee to find out 
who got in what fight. 

Senator Curtis. All right. It does come in the realm of every 
able-bodied citizen and every other good citizen when 2 big bullies 
pick on a 14-year-old boy. 

You knew about it and you did not do anything about it. That is 
all. 

Senator Erven. IVliat amount of money did you disburse in this 
Golden Crust Bakery strike in 1955 and 1956, altogther ? 

Mr. Nelson. I did not have the sum total as to all expenses. I think 
we have got a fairly close total of what has been expended regarding 
strike benefits. I believe there was something like 42 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2755 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. Right around $40,000 in strike benefits to the people. 
There is an added cost where you figure in the strike of moneys paid 
to other members of the union who came down and used their car and 
we paid them on their slips that they turned in. There is moneys 
paid for an attorney's fees that should be added to that total. 

There are numerous items that come under the organizing of Golden 
Crust. 

Senator Ervin. Can you give me the sum total of the amounts that 
you withdrew in connection with this strike ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. The only total that we have made is $40,000 or approxi- 
mately that. 

Senator Ervin. And that was all paid in 1955 and 1956 ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And it was paid through you, was it not, under 
your supervision ? 

Mr. Nelson. It was made under my supervision, but I did not pay 
out 1 cent of that myself to the people. 

Senator Ervin. And you destroyed all of the records showing the 
disbursements of those sums in cash, did you not ? 

Mr. Nelson. We destroyed — we threw them out. We didn't de- 
liberately destroy them. There was nothing to hide. We did that 
upon the advice of Archie Goodman and at the time that we were in 
the front closet there, Dan Conway was standing there when I was 
doing it. 

Senator Ervin. Let us get a short answer to a short question. Re- 
gardless of whose advice was concerned, you sanctioned and permitted 
the destruction of all of the actual records showing how that amount 
of cash was disbursed. 

Mr. Nelson. Not only those records, but other receipts that have 
been already paid. 

Senator Ervin. So as a result of that, you are not now in a position 
to show an}^ receipt for any amount of over $40,000 disbursed under 
3^our supervision ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not in a position to show any receipt. We think we 
do have some supporting documents. 

Senator Ervin. Where did you keep your records ? 

Mr. Nelson. We kept them in our office for quite some time and 
tlien we put our records in tlie storeroom. I might say this, that up 
until the time that I let Al Barclay go, he was the one who handled 
the disbursements. 

Senator Ervin. What closet? You said you had a storeroom for 
the records. 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. What storeroom? 

Mr. Nelson. The room that these records were in is a room of about 
5 feet wide, possibly 6 or 8 feet long and it is a pretty high ceiling, 
I would say 18 feet high, with shelves around it. 

Senator Ervin. Are you attempting to tell this committee that 
there was no room available in that storeroom for these receipts ? 

Mr. Nelson. No ; I didn't say that. I said that upon instructions 
from the vice president, who told the secretary, that we threw away 
all records that dated bej^ond 7 years on day sheets. 



2756 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Tliat shows the receipts and the disbursements in detail. We threw 
away everything back from over 4 years regarding bank statements, 
canceled checks, and also everything over 4 years on financial reports 
to the international union. 

Every other receipt was thrown out. 

Senator Ervtn. In other words, you threw away all the records that 
showed the disbursements made in cash ? 

Mr. Nelson. Also, disbursements for telephones 

Senator Erviist. Answer the question first, please. 

Mr. Nelson. We threw aw^ay every receipt that we had up to that 
time, and we continued to throw away the receipts after our auditor 
came in, once a month. When he got through with our books, we 
threw away those receipts. We don't throw them away as soon as we 
get them. 

We wait until after the auditor goes through the books. 

Senator En'saN. And some of these receipts were as recent as the 
earlier part of 1956 ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. From November on, we kept the re- 
ceipts until the auditor came in and then we threw the reecipts out. 

Senator Erven, Despite any instructions j^ou received, why did you 
not take the position that you ought to retain those records so that 
you could give an accounting of tlie money you disbursed in cash if 
you were ever called upon to do so ? 
_ Mr. Nelson. The Golden Crust strike was over, the contract was 
signed, the members are all in the union, and this is 6 months later. 
We saw no need to keep those records. There was no argument about 
it. Nobod}^ had ever brought the argument up to us. 

Senator Ervin. By throwing them away, you fixed it so nobody 
could sustain an argument about them, too ; did you not ? 

Mr. Nelson. Not intentionally. 

The Chairman. Do you still throw them away once each month 
now? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. But since Mr. Kopecky has been in, 
we have given instructions to keep the receipts from now on. 

The Chairman. Let me give you instructions now, as chairman of 
this committee. You keep every record there from now on. Every 
record. Until this committee is through with its work. That is an 
order from this committee. 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Did you lay hands on this 14-year-old boy at all ? 

Mr. Nelson. No ; I didn't. 

Senator Curtis. Did you hit him with a blackjack ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. I was just going to say I have never owned a 
blackjack. Wliere anybody would ever get the idea that I owned a 
blackjack, they must be crazy. I will say this, I have never been in a 
fight in my life, not even as a schoolchild. 

Senator Curtis. I wouldn't call this a fight. You never hit the boy 
with anything ? 

Mr. Nelson. I never hit him with anything. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat was your answer ? 

Mr. Nelson. I never hit him with anything. 

Senator Curtis. Were j^ou present when anyone else did ? 



IMPROPER ACTrVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2757 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. I was there on several occasions on the 

picket line. t ^^ j. j ^■ 

Senator Curtis. You were there when that boy made that delivery ; 

were you not ? 

Mr, Nelson. Wlien I made what? 

Senator Curtis. When that boy made that attempted delivery, you 
were there ; were you not ? 

Mr. Nelson. An attempt to deliver what ? 

Senator Curtis. Bake goods, or whatever it was, or supplies. 

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

Mr. Nelson. The only time I remember when there was a fracas be- 
tween a delivery person was at the Golden Crust Bakery, when a 
truckdriver came down the alley, a Golden Crust driver, and another 
car came in the alley from the other direction. He was not connected 
with us, but the truckdriver thought that he was one of our people, 
and there was a little fracas there. But we had no connection with 

that. . , , . 

The Chairman. Just one moment. I have been indulging this wit- 
ness for long answers that are unresponsive. Ask him direct ques- 
tions and the Chair will order him to answer. 

Senator Curtis. What do you mean by your answer that you do 
not know whether you were there when this boy was struck ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Senator Curtis. A bit ago you said you didn't know whether you 
were present. What do you mean by that ? ^ 

Mr. Nelson. You are talking about a person who is a delivery 

person. t i i. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the 14-year-old boy. 1 do not 
know what he was. 

Mr. Nelson. I was not present when a 14:-year-old boy was in a 
fight or beat up or whatever you say. 

The Chairman. Do you have anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Iwish to ask you about these two checks. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a check dated January 
18. The year is not given. It is payable to John D. Nelson in the 
amount of $500, drawn on Bakers Union Local, No. 37, signed by 
John D. Nelson, secretary, and L. R. Ivey, treasurer. This is not 
dated, but it was canceled in 195G. It was canceled January 19, 1956, 
the next day. I will present that check to you and ask you to iden- 
tify it. 
(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, I do. 

Tlie Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 33. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 33" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 3179.) 

Mr. Kennedy. 'VVliat was that check for? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nelson, what was that check for ? 

Mr. Nelson. Wliat was that question again ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that check for ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is part of a group of checks that was drawn on 
the local union, was part of the contribution to the local from the 
international of the $1,500. 



2758 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat happened to that money ? Wlio is it endorsed 
by on the back ? 

Mr. Nelson. I endorsed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who else? 

Mr. Nelson. Do you mean on the front part or the back ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Endorsed. 

Mr. Nelson. Steven Knight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Steven Knight ? 

Mr. Nelson. I can't recall right now, right off hand. I would 
imagine that he probably owns a bar or something. Ordinarily we 
cash these checks in the union office, and if there wasn't money there 
to cash it, I probably cashed it in a bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with that money ? 

Mr. Nelson. That was put in along with the rest of the checks, 
which I have here, which are part of the $1,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean the $1,500 ? 

Mr. Nelson. That the international union had sent to the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason? For what purpose? 

Mr. Nelson. For the organizing of Van de Kamp's. That is part 
of the $75 a week that was sent to the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean you took it all out? $500 of it in one 
lump sum? 

Mr. Nelson. I believe you will find that there was a period between 
the first 10-week period and the second 10-week period, but when 
the checks were eventually sent to me, I believe you will find that 
the $500 — they were sent in a group. I am not positive on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with that money? You got the 
cash and what did you do with it ? 

(The witness coiifered with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. Part of this money went to Lower, part of it went 
for expenses on the picket Ime. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no question in your mind about that? 

Mr. Nelson. To the best of my recollection, that is what it would 
be, because that is where they all went. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not give that check over to Kay Lower? 

Mr. Nelson. Not to the best of my recollection, 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is another item, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents you another check dated De- 
cember 19, 1955, in the amount of $200, payable to yourself, John D. 
Nelson, signed by you, John D. Nelson, and also signed L. E. Ivey, as 
treasurer. 

I wish you would examine this check and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Nelson. Yes, that is right. 

The Chairman. How long was that given before the $500 check ? 

Mr. Nelson. This is December 19, 1955. 

The Chairman. What is the date of the other ? 

Mr. Nelson. January, I believe. 

The Chaerman. January 19, 1956 ? 

Mr. Nelson. January 18, 1956. 

The Chairman. January 18, 1956 ? 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is within a month's time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2759 

Mr. Nelson. That is right. 

The Chairman. Look ut that check and see who endorsed it. 

Mr. Nelson. Steven Knight. 

The Chairman. Who endorsed the other one ? 

Mr. Nelson. Steven Knight. 

The Chairman. Who is Steven Knight ? 

Mr. Nelson. I said I don't recall. To the best of my recollection, 
it probably would be a bar. I might say this, this December 19 check 
is a loan to me. 

The Chairman. A what ? 

Mr. Nelson. A loan. 

The Chairman. Who authorized that loan to you? John D. 
Nelson? 

Mr. Nelson. I informed the trustee that I was going to take a loan. 

The Chairman. Have you got any receipt where you paid it back? 

Mr. Nelson. No, I haven't. 

The Chairman. You haven't paid it back ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't believe I have. 

The Chairman. Do you want to give us a check now to your union 
for it ? We will be glad to transmit it. 

Mr. Nelson. That will be taken care of. I will have to check the 
records and see if any money was paid back on that. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Is it not a strange thing you union people come 
up here, trustees responsible for the money, the dues which have been 
paid, you borrow money from the union and you never thmk of it, you 
don't even know whether you paid it back or not. Don't you think it 
is a little strange way of operating, for honest men ? 

Do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. Nelson. I did not think it was strange on a loan of $200. 

The Chairman. Don't you think it strange that you have not paid 
it back, or still do not know now whether you have paid it back 
or not ? There is nothing strange about that ? 

Mr. Nelson. I might say this: I have paid back other expenses, 
and certainly there is no intention upon my part to take anything 
from the local union that I don't have entitled to me. 

The Chairman. That sounds good but it does not conform to your 
actions. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nelson, did you give them a note for that $200 ?. 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know whether I did or not. Al Barclay was 
there at the time. He might have. wrote a note and I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is charged on your books as organizing. Why 
wouldn't it be charged under a receivable ? 

Mr. Nelson. It is charged on my books as organizing ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Let me ask you another question. 

You got this cashed also at Steven Knight. Is that the same bar ? 
Do you always go to Steven Knight to get your checks cashed ? 

Mr. Nelson. I go in several bars. I don't know the people at the 
bars I go into. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give this money or did this money go into 
the hands of Kay Lower ? 

Mr. Nelson. 1 don't know whether it did or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no idea ? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't have any recollection of it at this time. 



2760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. If it was a loan, you were not borrowing money 
to give to her, are you ? 

Mr. Nelson. Are you talking about 

The Chairman. I am talking about the $200 check. 

Mr. Nelson. That $200 check went to me personally. 

The Chairman. You did not give it to her ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we were able to locate Mr. Steven 
Ivnight ; he doesn't run a bar. 

Mr. Nelson. Well, I don't know what he runs. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit from Mr, Steven Knight, Mr. 
Chairman, which is of some interest. It is of some interest in view of 
his earlier testimony. 

The Chairman. This document reads as follows : 

Steven Knight, 2519 Beachwood Drive, Los Angeles 28, Calif., Tel. HO. 
2-4646, being duly sworn, deposes and says, I make this sworn statement of my 
own free will, without favor or immunity. 

This afadavit [sic] is made at the request of Mr. George Kopecky, known to 
me as an investigator for the U. S. Senate, Select Committee on improper activi- 
ties in labor or management, and I am aware this sworn statement is to be used 
before a hearing of this committee. 

I am in the jewelery [sic] business and have been since 1948, in Los Angele.s 
Calif. 

On or about Dec. 1, 1955, a party known to me as Kay Lower purchased from 
me a geutlemans diamond ring. As I recall the stone was approx. 1 K. The 
ring was paid partially in cash and partially by check. I received final pay- 
ment with a $500.00 check from the Bakers Union, of Los Angeles. This final 
payment was on approx. Jan. 1956. I received this check from Kay Lower 
durring [sic] an evening in the latter part of January. Both of us, Kay Lower 
and myself, went to the Hub Furniture Store on Washington near Vermont, to 
cash the check, since only a portion of the $500.00 was needed to pay the balance 
owing on the ring. I gave her the rest of the money in cash. As nearly as I 
can recall, I got $200 or $300 and gave the rest of the cash to Lower. Although 
I am not sure, there may have been another check given as part payment for 
this same ring, and this check may have been given to me in the later [sic] 
part of December 1955. 

(Signed) Steven Knight. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me the 5th day of June 1957. 
[seal] (Signed) L. A. Bloom, 

Notary Public, in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 

The Chairman. Let me see the checks a moment. I will be very 
glad now for you to examine this affidavit by Steven Knight, exam- 
ine his signature on the affidavit, and also examine his endorsement 
on these checks and state whether, in your opinion, it is the same 
Steven Knight that signed all of tliem, 

(Documents handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Tliat $200 check may be made exhibit No. 34. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 34" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 3180.) 

The Chairman. The affidavit may be made exhibit No. 35. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 35" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(At this point Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Does it look like the same signatures to you ^ 

Mr. Nelson, Yes. 

The Chairman. You have not been to that jewelry store ? 

Mr. Nelson. No. Where is the jewelry store located ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2761 

The Chairmaa^ He says where it is located, does he not ? It gives 
his address. 

Mr. Nelson. I don't even know where Beachwood Drive is. 

The Chairman. That is probably his residential address. 

Mr. Xelson. I still say 

The Chairman. Say what? 

Mr. Nelson. On the $200 check it is a loan, a personal loan, to ine. 
It is carried that way on the check stubs w^hich are in the possession 
of George Kopecky. 

The Chairman. Do we have those check stubs ? 

It is carried as a loan ? 

Mr. Nelson. Tliat is right; to me personally. 

The Chairman. And on the books it is carried as organizing 
expense ? 

Mr. Nelson. On the books, like I said before, Barclay was in 
charge of the books. On our day sheets listing the disbursements, in 
checking through here I notice that it does not say anything. It 
does not say organizing expense, it does not say it is a loan. But on 
the check stub it does say it is a loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the records that Al Meyer gave to us, who, I 
understand, keep your books and records, it is listed by him or he 
has indicated to us that this is one of the checks that was under 
organizing. 

Mr. Nelson. The checks, prior to February 1, Meyer would not 
know too much about them because he did not take charge of the 
bookkeeping. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the $500, Mr. Nelson, you said you took that 
money, cashed it, spent some of it to give to some organizers, and 
gave some of it to Kay Lower. 

Mr. Nelson. I said to the best of my recollection. 

The Chairman. What do you want to say about it now, in view of 
that affidavit and the signatures being the same ? 

Mr. Nelson. In view of the affidavit, if — I still don't know. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. I^NNEDY. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I will tell you what I think. We should find 
out about it. With the permission of the committee, I am going to 
direct that a transcript of his testimony of today be sent to the Jus- 
tice Department. I think we can, find out who is telling the truth 
about it that way. 

That is, unless you want to change your testimony. 

Mr. Nelson. On the $500 check, based on the affidavit, if that is 
what he says, that he received that, and that he went to the Hub 
furniture store and cashed it, maybe it is true. I don't know. But 
I noticed on the back of the check the check does not have the Hub 
furniture store's endorsement. I don't know. 

Now, I may have given it to her. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the $200? Did you give her that? 

Mr. Nelson. I don't know. It is marked down as a loan to me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What did you do with the $200 ? 

Mr. Nelson. Wliy would I borrow $200 and turn it over to her? 



2762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJBNNEDY. I don't know why you would, Mr. Nelson. I don't 
know ; you tell me. 

Mr. Nelson. Not when I am going to be charged for it personally. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Nelson, how did you handle the withholding 
tax and social-security tax on these employees in the picket line that 
were paid in cash ? 

Mr. Nelson. There was no deductions made for tax or any other 
purpose. They were paid in cash, and it was a benefit, and it was 
not a salary. 

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

Senator Curtis. Was the employer's part of the social-security 
taxes paid? 

Mr. Nelson. No. I was not aware that it had to be. A strike 
benefit — I have never heard of a strike benefit before, with anybody 
paying tax. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the people who worked in the 
picket line. 

Mr. Nelson. I will say this 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nelson. Prior to this strike, and prior to trusteeship, the local 
did have on its active payroll professional pickets, and there was 
taxes and so forth deducted from them. 

The Chairman. This witness may stand aside. This transcript, as 
quickly as it can be received, will go to the Justice Department. The 
Chair is going to specifically ask the Justice Department to pursue 
this. It is a little bit irksome to have this sort of testimony up here 
and imder oath, of records being destroyed and other actions taken 
loosely, as I see it, with union members' money. We have heard con- 
tradictory testimony about how this money was spent and the records 
destroyed. I think we ought to find out. I think those who are guilty 
of perjury or misappropriation of these funds should be given judicial 
attention. You may stand aside for the present. 

Who is your next witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is a woman whom 
we attempted to contact and obtain some information from. We had 
tried to locate her for a period of several months. When we finally did 
locate her, we told her that we wished some information from her, 
that it was needed for the committee, either informally or by affidavit. 
She has not been willing to cooperate with the committee to that ex- 
tent, and for that reason she is being called as a witness today. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, she is. 

The Chairman. Is she present ? 

The Chairman. What is her name ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Kay Lower. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Kay Lower. 

Will you be swoiti, please ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Miss Lower. I do. 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2763 

TESTIMONY OF ELSIE K. LOWEH, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOHN H. MARSHALL 

The Chairman. Please state your name, your place of residence, and 
your business, occupation, or employment please. 

Miss Lower. Elsie K. Lower, 934 South Curson, and I am unem- 
ployed. 

The Chairjvian. Unemployed ? 

Miss Lo^\t:r. Yes. 

The Chairman. You have counsel with you ? 

]\Iiss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Counsel, please identify yourself for the record, 

Mr. Marshall. John H. Marshall, 139 North Broadway, Los An- 
geles, Calif. 

The Chairman. INIr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Lower, we had some testimony and information 
regarding your connection with the bakers union. As you know, we 
have been trying to have that verified, and the amounts of money 
that you received from the bakers union. 

Could you tell the committee whether you have been employed by 
the bakers union and in what capacity ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Lo'\\^R. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you honestly believe and are you willing to state 
under oath, that you so believe, that a truthful answer to that question 
of whether you were emjjloyed by the bakers union miglit tend to 
incriminate you? Do you honestly believe that? 

( The witness conferred with her counsel. ) 

Miss Lower. Yes ; I do. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not fooled by what is going on. The 
counsel has a right to advise his client with respect to her legal rights, 
but he is not to tell her to say yes or no. He raaj advise her that slie 
has a right to invoke the fifth amendment. 

But I believe a question of fact, and particularly one as to whether 
slie honestly believes a truthful answer might tend to incriminate her, 
addresses itself to her more so than the attorney. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some testimony that you were connected 
with tlie bakers union. Would you tell the committee how you hap- 
pened to become connected with the bakers union ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

You said what ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse — what do I say ? 

1 forget what you are supposed to say. 

The Chairman. Ask him again what you are supposed to say. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
intimidate me. 

The Chairman. Might what ? 

Miss Lower. May tend to incriminate me. 

89330— 57— pt. S 13 



2764 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You better get that memorized, because there are 
other questions to come. 

Miss Lower. I will try. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you first become connected with the bakers 
union % 

Miss LoAVER. That is the same question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, then, do you know Mr. James Cross ? 

Miss Lower. I i-efuse to answer on the grounds my answer may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you known him for a long- time ? 

Miss IvOWER. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my testimony 
may incriminate me. 

Ml-. Kennedy. When you traveled. ]SIiss Lower, did you have your 
bills paid for by the international union ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my testimony 
may incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. Have you ever done any oi'ganization -work f^r the 
teamsters union or anj^ of its locals ? 

Miss Lower. For the teamsters union '. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Miss Ix)WER. No, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Not for the teamsters? 

Have you for the bakers union ? 

Miss Lower. I 

(Tlie witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Lower. Would you say that again? 

The Chairman. I first asked you have you ever done any oi'ganizing 
for tlie teamsters union and you said ''No." 

Is that correct? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Tiie Chairman. Now, have you done any organizing for tlie bakers 
union? 

Miss Lower. Well, I don't know what you would call organizing. 

The Chairman. I do not either. Do you know what organizing is? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Well, you know what you call it. 

Have you done what you call organizing for the bakers union \ 

Miss Lower. Well, I helped them, yes. 

The Chairman. Where ? 

Miss Lower. In Los Angeles. 

The Chairman. Did you receive pay for it? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed to interrogate. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you paid? 

Miss Lower. I wasn't paid salary or a definite amount and I have 
kept no records. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were you paid, approximately? 

Miss Lower. I couldn't tell you that either. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of work did you do. Miss Lower \ 

Mis? Ix)WER. With Van de Kamp's I^akery, I went to Van de Karap's 
to apply for a job and they wouldn't liire me, so I talked to a few of 
their employees. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2765 

Mr. Kennedy. And did what? 

Miss Lower. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What would you talk to them about ? 

Miss Lower. About did they" want to join the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whether they wanted to join the union. 

How often did you go ? Did you used to go up there and talk to 
them, or what I 

Miss Lower. Go up where? 

Mr. Kennedy. To the Van de Kamp's Bakery. 

Miss Lower. I have been to Van de Kamp's Bakery. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been there ? 

Miss Lower. I can't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once? 

Miss Lower. Perhaps. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think you were there more than once ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Twice? 

Miss Lower. Maybe. 

Mr. Kennedy. You think you were there twice ? Do you think yo\i 
were there more than twice, Miss Lower? 

Miss Lower. The head baker from Van de Kamp's is a very good 
friend of mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his name? 

Miss Lower. I can't even remember right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You talked to the head baker up there. What were 
you tal king to him about ? About the bakers union ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were trying to interest him in the bakers union ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that your job? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. To interest the head baker in the bakers" union? 

Miss TjOWEr. Well, he wms in a ]iositioii where he could tnlk to the 
otlier ])eo})1e in the plant. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Wei-e you saying wliat a good idea it was to be a 
nieinbei- of the bakers' union ? 

A[iss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to any of the other employees there? 

Miss I^owER. Xo, I did not, 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us his name ? 

Miss Lower. I can't even remember. He is a jSfexican fellow. He 
is uian-ied to a woman named Magie. That is all. 

y\v. Kf.xxedy. You do not remember his name ? 

Miss IjOWer. No. 

^^]■. IvEX'NEDY. Did you get names of people from him or did you 
•ici Ihom in some other w^ay? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Lower. Yes, I got names from him. 

Afr. Kennedy. What sort of names, Miss Lower? 

Miss Tx)WER. People that were working in his plant. He Avas a 
liiirlit baker there and he knew all of the employees. 

Ml-. Kennedy. And what would you do with the names? 

Miss IvOWER. I gave them to Mr. Nelson. 



2766 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a list of the names ? 

Miss Lower. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not. 

Is that what you were being paid for ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. To get these lists of names, is that it, from the head 
baker ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they know you weie doing it through the head 
baker? 

Miss Lower. I don't know if they knew it or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did all your work take place in that area there ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answei- on the grounds that my answer 
may intimidate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what ? 

Miss Lower. Don't make me say it again. I refuse to answer on 
the grounds that my answer may intimidate me. Incriminate. 

Mr. Kennedy. We find from a review of the records, and that is 
why I asked the question, in the bakers' conventions, that you at- 
tended quite a number of the bakers' conventions. What were you 
doing there ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my testimony 
may incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. For ijistance, on March 5, 1956, you were with tlie 
bakers down in jNIiami Beach. What were you doing down there? 

Miss Lower. In what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. March of 1956. 

Miss Lower. I was there once with a girl friend on vacation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you there any other time ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might — ^}^ou 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were there the other time, when you 
weren't there with your girl friend, when you were there the other 
time, were your bills paid for by the bakers' union? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were your expenses paid for by the bankers union ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you paid anytliing besides your expenses by 
the bakers union ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mv. Kennedy. Have you ever been to Denver, Colo. ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there something in Denver, Colo., that is in- 
criminating ? 

Miss Lower. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Was there at that time ? 

Miss Lower. I don't know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2767 

The Chairman. You do not know. 

All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some information that you were there at the 
same time some of the bakers were there, in Denver, Colo. 

Were you bills paid or expenses paid for in Denver, Colo., by tlie 
bakers ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you doing any work for the bakers union there ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we find you in Portland, Oreg., in October 
1955. Were you doing work for the bakers union there? 

]\Iiss Lower. I refuse to answer on the gTOunds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were your bills or expenses being paid for by the 
bakers union ? 

Miss Louver. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we find you in January 1956, in Ottumwa, 
Iowa. Have you ever been in Ottumwa ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were vou doing any work for the bakers at that 
time? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
intimidate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wei'e your bills and expenses paid for by the bakers 
union ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Were you in New York in December 1955 ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you doing work for the bakers union in New 
York in December 1955 ( 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer maj^ 
tend to intimidate me. 

The Chairman. When did you begin your employment for the 
bakers union? 

Miss Lower. I don't know how jou could really call it employ- 
ment. 

The Chairman. You got money for it, did you not ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. When did you begin ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer may 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. You already testified that you had 
employment, did you not? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then when did your employment start with the 
union ? 

Miss Lower. I don't remember. 

The Chairman. Was it about the time you were out in Los Angeles 
and the strike was going on and you were talking about the head 
baker or the night baker or something? Is that right? 



2768 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Whatever date that is, is tliat about when it 
started? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. When did it end ? 

Miss Lower, I don't remember that either. 

The Chairman. It ended about the time you cashed the $500 check 
or a little after that? 

Miss Lower, I don't remember. 

The Chairman. You remember goinjj- down there and buyinj? the 
ring, do you not ? 

Miss Lower, Yes. 

The Chairman. You remember that ? 

Miss Lower. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Did you pay for that ring or pay part of it with 
that $500 check that we have been talking about here ? 

Miss Lower. I might have paid for pai't of it. 

The Chairman. Let us see that check. 

Here is the $500 check. You have already talked about it this 
afternoon. It is dated January 18, and it was cashed January 19, 
195G, in the amount of $500, made to John D. Nelson. Did he" give 
you that check? I am talking about this check, exhibit 33 in the 
testimony. 

Miss Lower. I don't really remember. 

Steven Knight says he cashed it for me. 

The Chairman. Take a look at it and see if you did not take it to 
that jeweler and cash it by paying for a diamond ring. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

]Miss Lower. I don't remember whether that was tlie clieek or not. 

The Chairman. One like it, for $500, about that time ? 

Miss Lower. It could have been. 

The Chairman. Well, you did get 

Miss Lower. Well, I clon't remember. 

The Chairman. Try to remember just once. 

Did you take a $500 check down there that had been made out to 
Mr. Nelson to pay on that ring or to pay the balance on the ring, and 
get the difference in cash ? Do you remember that ? 

Miss Lower. No, I don't remember. T don't remember tlie amount 
of the check. I don't. 

The Chairman. Well, did you take a check down tliere from 
Nelson ? 

Miss Lower. Yes, I did. 

The Chairman. You do not remember tlie amount of it ? 

Miss Lower. No. I don't. 

Tlie Chairman. So Mr. Nelson gave you that check, is that correct? 

Miss Lower. Well, I guess if I took it clown there, he did. 

The Chairman. You ought to know. 

Do you get ahold of $500 checks without knowing who gives them 
to you or where they come from? You are not accustomed to doing 
that, are you ? 

]Miss Lower. No. I am not. 

The Chairman. You remember. 

Did he give you that check ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2769 

Tlie CiiAiKMAX. The Chair is going to order you to aiis\yer that. 

Miss Lower. Xow, I don't remember the check in question. I re- 
member I did buy a diamond ring. Mr. Nelson owed me some 
money. He did give me a check. Whether or not this is the same 
check, whether or not this is the same one Steve Knight is talking 
about, I don't know. 

The CiiAiRMAX. So whether it is that check or not, you did get a 
clieck from Mr. Xelson. he gave you a check ? 

]Miss LoAVER. Yes. 

The Chairmax. And you took it down there to pay on a ring? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Tlie Chairmax. That is correct, is it ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairmax. Proceed. 

Mr. Kex'xedy. Could you tell us what you did with the ring? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may intimidate 
me — incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Were you supposed to give the ring to Mr. Cross? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the ground my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Do you have a friend by the name of Joe Arringer? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you give that ring to Joe Arringer ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds my answer may 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexxedy. I want to understand whether you told a story to a 
police officer in Los Angeles, that this ring was supposed to have 
been purchased for James Cross, that instead of giving it to James 
Cross, you gave it to Mr. Joe Arringer, and Mr. Cross came and beat 
you up in your room. 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer 
may incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexx'edy. Did you tell that to a police officer ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Kexx'edy. And at the time Mr. Cross came to your room and 
beat you up, was Mr. Nelson with you ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Has Mr. Cross ever beaten you up ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. Are you afraid of him? 

Miss Lower. No, I am not. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other moneys from the Bakers 
ITnion ? 

Miss Lr»wER. I refuse to answer on the grounds my answer may in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair will order you to answer that. 

You admitted you worked there and that you received money. 
Whether it is this check or not, the Chair will order and direct you 
to answer that question, with the permission of the committee. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion whether you received any other moneys from the Bakers Union. 



2770 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Miss Lower. I can't say that I received — not from the Bakej ; 
Union, no. 

Mr, Kennedy. Yon received some money from Mr. Cross ? 

Miss Lower. I • 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Lower. Would you repeat the question, please ? 

The Chairman. Did you receive any other money from the Bakers 
Union ? 

Miss Lower. No, not from the Bakers Union. 

The Chairman. Plave you ever received any other money from Mr. 
Nelson ? 

Miss Lower. From Mr. Nelson ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you received any other money from Mr. 
Cross? 

Miss Lower. I imagine so. 

The Chairman. You imagine so? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Can you not be a little more certain than imagin- 
ing? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

The Chairman. Did you or did you not ? You know whether you 
did or not. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

The Chairiman. Either answer it or refuse to answer. 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Oh, I refuse to answer. I am sorry. I thought you were ordering 
me to answer. 

The Chairman. Now the Chair is ordering you to answer. Did 
you receive any other money from Mr. Cross ? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us approximately how much you re- 
ceived from the union altogether? 

Miss Lower. I never kept any record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us hoAV much you received from Mr. 
Cross? 

Miss Lower. I never kept any recorcL 

Mr. Kennedy. You received a $200 Western Union money order, 
as I remember. Are you familiar with that? They sent $200, tele- 
graphed to Miami Beach, Fla., March 5, 1956, to Mrs. E. K. Thorpe. 
Don't you also go by that name? 

Miss Lower. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember receiving that ? 

Miss Lower. No, I clon't. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is an exhibit, I believe. 

( Document handed to witness. ) 

The Chairman. The record shows there that you received $200 by 
Western Union in the name of 

Mr. Kennedy. It is in the name of Mrs. E. K. Thorpe. 

The Chairman. In the name of Mrs. E. K. Thorpe. That shows 
the date. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2771 

Did you receive that money ? 

Miss Lower. My sioiiature is on tlie })ack. I guess I did. I don't 
remember. 

The Chairman. Is it a fact that you were just receiving so nnich 
money that you cannot account for it ? 

Miss Lower. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You cannot remember any particuhir item? 

Miss Lower. Well, sir, you are talking about things, dates, back 
where I — yes, I imagine I received it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you receive that money for ? 

Miss Lower. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you doing any work for the Bakers Union in 
Miami ? 

( Tlie witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion. 

You are receiving money there from the union, in Miami. You 
admitted that. The question is were you doing work for the union 
down there at that time ? 

Miss Lower. I could have been. I don't remember the date here. 

The Chairman. Did you ever do any work for the union down 
there? 

Miss Lower. Yes, I did. 

The Chairiman. When? 

Miss Lower. I don't remember. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What sort of work ? 

Miss Lower. In regard to the Van de Kamp plant ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In Miami, Fla., what were you doing down there? 

Miss Lower. Well, tliat was this check 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do any work for them in Florida ? 

Miss Lower. I don'l remember. I was there 3 weeks with a girl 
friend. It was lier vacation and we went to Florida. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I am not talking about tliat trip. I am talking 
about another trip. Did you ever do any work for the bakers in 
Florida? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Cross paying you for ? 

Miss Lower. I don't remember what the check was for. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Not that check ; . just generally. What was Mr. 
Cross paying you for ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I have just one last matter. 

In the Cosmopolitan Hotel, the bill of Elsie Thorpe shows that it is 
charged to Cross' room. Were you sending your bills at these hotels 
to Mr. Cross ? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you doing any work out there for the Bakers 
Union, in Denver? 

Miss Lower. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 



2772 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

The committee cannot finish by tomorrow. We had hoped to get 
far enough along to finish by noon. It is not convenient for the 
members to be here the full day. The Chair had to be absent from 
Washington on official business and Monday the chairman, as a mem- 
ber of another committee, feels it necessary to be at that committee 
meeting. 

Therefore, this series of hearings will have to be continued over 
until 10 O'clock next Thursday morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 :15 o'clock, the committee was recessed to recon- 
vene at 10 a. m., Thursday, June 13, 1957.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess were Senators 
McClellan and Curtis.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washin0on, D. C. 

The select conmiittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 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 ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat 
McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator Barry Gokhvater, Repub- 
lican, Arizona; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Kepublican, South Dakota; 
Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the select com- 
mittee: George ]\L Kopecky, assistant counsel: James F. Mundie, 
investigator: Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

Tlie ( "hairman. The committee ^yill be in order. 

(Memliers of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The C'hairman. We resume hearings this morning previously be- 
gun, looking into the activities of the Bakers and Confectionery In- 
ternational Union. Since we last held a public hearing in this matter, 
the staff has learned that the witness John D. Nelson, who testified 
I believe on the closing day of the last session of hearings and whose 
testimony the Chair ordered sent to the Department of Justice for its 
attention, paid no income tax and made no income tax return for the 
years 1952 and 1053, and that he only filed an income tax return for 
the years 1954, 1955, and 1956 since he was served by a subpena from 
this committee. 

The staff' has also made inquiry regarding the money that was 
raised for Mr. Max Kralstein, vice president of the Bakers and 
Confectionery Workers Union and we develo])("d the testimony, as 
you recall, that he had received something like $^»0.000 profit from a 
dinner and some $60,000 went, purportedly to buy him a liome. That 
was in 1956. 

A check by the staff indicates that those who contributed to this 
fund charged it off' as a deduction, many of them as a business ex- 
pense. Therefore, Uncle Sam was bearing a large percent of the cost 
of that dinner and that gift, since Mr. Kralstein himself did not file 

2773 



2774 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

any income tax return to account for the money that he received and 
paid no taxes on it. 

These matters are tilings that ali'ect the economy and efficiency of 
Government considerably and as a result of these hearinfjs we are 
bringing- these instances to the attention of the proper authorities of 
the executive branch of the Government with the hope that they will 
pursue them and possibly recoup considerable revenues that the Gov- 
ernment today is losing by these practices. 

If existing law is not sufficient or not adeqiuite to compelling the 
accounting for such funds and the payment of taxes on them, it may 
be of interest to the Congress to look into that and even enact legisla- 
tion that will prevent taxpayers of this country from having to make 
involuntary contributions along these lines to such activities. 

It is our feeling that these matters are of considerable public inter- 
est and should be of interest to the Government, and that the Govern- 
ment should undertake appropriate action not only to recoup the losses 
it has already sustained, but prevent similar losses in the future. 

Mr, Arthur Kamell. Excuse me. May I uiake a short statement? 
My name is Kamell. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Counsel, who is the next witness ? 

Maybe the Chair should make one correction. I did not quite un- 
derstand counsel. Mr. Kralsetin did mention the fact that he had re- 
ceived this money, but paid no tax on it and in all fairness I wanted 
to make that correction. 

What is your name ? 

Mr. Kamell. My name is Kamell, sir, and I am here as a repicsenta- 
tive of Mr, Kralstein and if I may I would like to make a short state- 
ment about Mr. Kralstein's tax return. 

The Chairman. x\11 right, briefly. The Chair will hear you. Are 
you an attorney that appeared here representing Mr. Kralstein ? 

Mr. Ka3iell. I did not appear here personally to represent him, 
but I am here as his representative. 

The Chairman. Do you want to be a witness ? 

Ml". Kamell, In this respect, sir 

The Chairman, Just a moment. Do you want to be a witness before 
this committee ? 

Mr. Kamell. I think I am in a position, sir 

The Chairman, I did not ask you that. Do you ^vant to be a wit- 
ness? 

Mr, Kamell, I can be a witness as to this portion of the testimony 
that I would like to give you. 

The Chairman. Will yon stand aside and wlien we get time we will 
try to hear you. 

Mr. Kamell. Thank you. 

The Chairman. All right, call your next witness. Mr. Mauji, come 
around, please. 

All right, Mr. Mann, will you be sworn? You do solemnly swear 
that the evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee 
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help 
you God? 

Mr. Mann. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2775 

TESTIMONY OF GILBERT MANN 

The Chairman. Will you state your name and your place of resi- 
dence and your business or occupation, please? 

Mr. ]\L\NN. My name is Gilbert jMann, and I liA'e at 7oQ West Toma- 
liawk Trail, Round Lake, 111. My business was president and corres- 
ponding secretary of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Interna- 
tional Union, Local 100 of Chicago. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Have you conferred with 
members of the stafi' regaixling what your testimony may be ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you understand that you are privileged, if you 
desire, to have counsel present to advise you of your legal rights while 
you testify ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, on what I have to say, I don't think that I need 
counsel. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, then? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy, will you proceed ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You are how old now, Mr. Mann ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, I am 71. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are 71 years of age ? 

Mr. Mann. Seventy-two this year. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long w^ere you a baker ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, I have been in the baking business for 57 years, 
but I was actually working in the shops about 35 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were an officer in local 100 in Chicago ? 

Mr. ]\L^NN. Since March 10, 1936. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the first time you went into the union ? 

Mr. ]Mann. No, I was very active in assisting to organize the retail 
bakers in the South Side branch of local No. 2, and 62 prior to that. 
I rejoined the union in 1930. I have been a miion member from 1917 
to 1921. Then I went into business. I did not take out a withdrawal 
card, but I went back into the union in 1930. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you an organizer in 1930 ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, I assisted on the South Side branch, without any 
pay. I was working in a shop. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Were there many members of the bakers union at 
that time? 

Mr. Mann. Just in the retail industry. We only had one when we 
started on the South Side that carried the union label. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You only had one member ? 

]Mr. Mann. One shop that was organized, on the South Side of 
Chicago. 

Mr. Ejennedy. And you did some work in organization after that? 

]Mr. Mann. In the retail trade, I assisted to help organize the re- 
tail trade from 1930 to 1936. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. In 1936 what did you do ? 

Mr. Mann. I went to work with the international union in Febru- 
ary of 1936 to reorganize the large or major shops in the baking in- 
dustry in the city of Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy, You became an officer in that union ? 



2776 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mann. I became president and financial secretary-treasurer at 
that time, and resigned my job as an organizer for the international 
and took up or went to work for the local 100 union we had just 
formed. 

Mr. Kennedy. As secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Mann. Secretary -treasurer and president. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you remained president until when ? 

Mr. Mann. Until the 21st of January 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you resign at that time ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, under pressure. 

Mr. Kenni:dy. Under what conditions did you resign or did you 
resign in 1955 ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, conditions were that I came into my office on 
January 21, 1955, and one of the vice presidents, George Stuart was 
there with an auditor, who told me he would like to ask me a few 
questions. 

He asked me a few questions and I tried to answer them to the best 
of my ability, but I told him that I would like — I have some notes 
made of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me first, you came into your office and did 
you expect him to be there ? 

Mr. Mann, l^o ; I did not expect him. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just came in one morning? 

Mr. Mann. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was he ? 

Mr. Mann. He was sittnig behind my desk with a gun. It was my 
gun, he had taken it out of the drawer, left there by my brother while 
he was in the hospital. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\^'liat did he say to you at that time ? 

Mr. Mann. He told me then that I must resign and he showed me 
a telegram from the president of the Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers International Union where he had been placed in trustee- 
ship. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVTio was the president at that time ? 

Mr. Mann. James Cross. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a telegram from Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you have that telegram ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have it with you? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we see it? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. May I ask you, Mr. ]\Iann, whether previous to 
that time you had had any warning or any notice to indicate that such 
action was imminent or about to be taken ? 

Mr. Mann. I don't think that I got your question correct!}^, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. Prior to the time you went into your office that 
morning, on January 21, and found Mr. Stuart there, had you re- 
ceived any message or any warning or anything to notify you or 
hidicate to you that such action was going to be taken ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2777 

Mr. Mann. None, not that there was going to be any action taken 
against me. The international had somebody working over the books 
and I had turned all of tlie books over to them and they took every- 
thing I had and they were going over the books. 

The Chairman. That was just an audit? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But you had previously had no notice ? 

Mr. Mann. Xo, sii-. 

The Chairman. Xo lequest for additional information, or anything 
else ? 

Mr. ]\1ann. X'o. sir. 

The Chairman. X"o complaint ? 

Mr. Mann. Xo complaints. 

The Chairman. Tliat Avas a pretty rude way of handling the matter; 
was it not ? Is that the custom in the bakers union ? 

Mr. jVLvnn. Well no, I think my executive board met the next day 
and I wanted to appear before the executive board and resign before 
our executive board. But I was told by Mr. Stuart that I could not 
come before the executive board and resign. 

He just told me that I was through. He promised me 15 weeks 
of pay and I told him that I had no money and that I owed on my 
home, $1,400 and some dollars and I said that I would like — or I 
think that I gave the union service and I have organized every one 
of these shops and I have been here for I8I/2 years and I should have 
some kind of compensation. 

But he said he would give me 1.") weeks" pay and give me an insur- 
ance policy for the rest of my life, health, and welfare. Well, I felt 
that was that and so he took the keys out of my overcoat and took 
my car and sent someone home with me and that was that. 

I had no right to trial, and I had no right to nothing and I was 
broke and I had to live. I applied for my social security which 
was $98.50 and he came out to my home on Sunday and he said that 
he would take a mortgage on my home and reduce my payments and 
I could not meet them on $78 a month and he said the union would 
probably take care of it. 

But he drew up a mortgage I have with me, and so out of my 
$98.50 I had to pay to the American National Bank $50 which left 
me $48.50 for a livelihood. I have the checks here that I sent to 
the American Xational Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago and there is 
$454 yet remaining to be paid, but since this investigation has started 
I haven't been bothered, which I was notified before, and I don't 
know where the money goes. 

Mr. Kexnedv. So that we get the fact a little clearer, at the time 
that you left tlie union you were promised by Mr. Stuart that you 
would receive 15 Aveeks' salary ; is that right ? 

Mr. JVIann. Yes, sir 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive that ? 

Mr. Mann. I never received it. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You never received that money ? 

Mr. Mann. No, sir. 

Mr. E[ennedy. Did you receive any of the pension and welfare 
money ? 

Mr. Mann. No, sir. 



2778 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not receive that either ? 

Mr. Mann. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did not appear before your executive 
board ? 

Mr, Mann. I was not permitted to and I was told I couldn't by 
Mr. Stuart. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did you ever have any kind of a trial ? 

Mr. Mann. No trial whatsoever 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you ever receive a letter informing you of the 
charges against you ? 

Mr. Mann. No. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You uever knew of the charges against you? 

Mr. Mann. They questioned me on a few charges there. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What were the charges that they questioned you 
about ? 

Mr. Mann. The charges that they questioned me about that my exe- 
cutive board authorized me to spend $500 at the Illinois State" Fair. 
When I got to the Illinois State Fair, I had one of the employees, fe- 
male employees, took sick and had to have a doctor's care, and so I 
spent a little more than the $500, and then tliere was a bill for $175 
from one of the locals there in Springfield that had not been paid for 
tlie previous year. 

So I paid that $175 in December of 1954 after I got the bill from 
George Selman, who was the secretary of the Illinois State Council. 
I was criticized for that. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. What about your automobile ? 

Mr. Mann. The automobile was bought for 10 years ; the committee 
bouglit the automobile first 10 years, and it was bought in my name and 
I liad tlie title of the automobile. Of course, it said in the minutes 
that this union should buy an automobile every year. 

Of course, I had broken up my own car first. The union kept up my 
automobile up to that time. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Was there criticism because it was the automobile of 
the union and you kept the automobile in j^our own name? 

Mr. Mann. Yes ; there was some criticism. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the executive board know that you had kept the 
automobile in your own name ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. You were also talking about the fact that the pay- 
ments at the time you left the union or the time you were asked to resign 
by ]Mr. Stuart, the payments were $78 a month on your home. 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Stuart arranged to have them lower to $50 
a month ; is that right ? 

Mr. IMann. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he change banks ? 

^Ir. Mann. Yes ; the mortgage is here and he is the trustee of the 
mortgage. 

Mr. Kennedy. So now you pay $50 a month on your home ? 

jMr. jNIann. Yes. 

jMr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have already had testimony 
on that $50 that you pay a month goes into the personal bank account, 
or $49 out of that $50 goes into the personal bank account of George 
Stuart. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2779 

Mr. Mann. It goes into the personal account, you sa}' ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of that ? 

Mr. Mann. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask somethino- at that point 't Wliat is the 
status of the mortgage tliat was on your house then? Is that being 
paid off? 

Mr. Mann. The mortgage on my house ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Mann. This $50 goes to this mortgage here. 

Senator Curtis. How about the other mortgage that was on there ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, I didn't liave a mortgage. I had a contract with 
the Home Federal & Loan Association in Chicago. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether that has been paid ? 

JNIr. Mann. That was paid off by the union, I understood. It was 
paid oft' and then I got a mortgage. You see, I was going to have that 
done at the bank. Stuart said for me to cancel it with the bank and 
he would handle it. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know the name of tlie auditor that appeared 
with Mr. Stuart ? ' 

Mr. Mann. I think his name was Geft'nei-. I don't know whether 
he came out of Philadelphia or New York, and I can't recall. 

Senator Curtis. But he was not a local auditor? 

Mr. Mann. No. 

Senator Ci'Rtis. He was brought in thei-e by Mi'. Stuart? 

Mr. Mann. He was brought in — I don't know Avho brought him 
in — you see, he was with Mr. Stuart and he audited the books. 

Senator Ct^rtis. Now, you testified that they criticized certain 
tiansactions that were made. At any time did they ever accuse you 
of misappropriation of funds to your own benefit ? 

Mr. Mann. No: they told me that there was nothing against me at 
all, as far as that is concerned or my honesty. He said that he had 
orders to take me oft' and that is what he was there to do. 

I would like to say, too, that he fired all of the 4 girls that were 
working for me, one of them worked for 11 years and one 12 years 
and another one 8 years and the other one 2 years. 

After going over the books of the business agents, there was no 
discrepancy, the 2 boys were honest, and he fired those 2 business 
agents, too, and one had been with the union for 18 years and the 
other one 14 years. 

Senator Curtis. To the best of your knowledge, your own books 
and accounts were accurate? 

Mr. Mann. As far as the books and accounts were concerned, they 
were accurate, I know that because every month we checked them. 

Senator Curtis. You made reference to a gun. Was he just merely 
casually handling this gun that happened to be in the desk, or was 
the gun used in any menacing manner? 

Mr. Mann. Well, he had the gun and he had a box of shells and 
it was a stainless-steel gun and I guess he still has it yet today, and 
he never returned it to me. 

Senator Curtis. Whom did it belong to ? 

iNIi'. Mann. It belonged to a brother of mine that had left his clothes 
tliere. He was a bachelor and I sent the two business agents out to 
pick him up and take him to the veterans' hospital at the time, and 

89330— 57— pt. 8 14 



2780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

1 hey brought his belongings and left them in the office until he could 
i:et out of the hospital. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, 

^Ir. Kennedy. Just so we get cleared up about the mortgage in 
your home, you were paying $78 a month, is that right? 

Mr. Mann. Yes ; I couldn't meet that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the union put up the money and took it 
from that bank and put it in another bank, is that right, so that you 
only had to pay $50 a month? 

Mr. Mann. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was the union money that was put up at that 
time. 

Mr. Mann. Well, I was under the impression that that is what it 
was, that is what he told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had the check here, at the hearings, and it was 
a union check and then as you paid your monthly $50, the bank took 
$1 for collection and the other $49 was put into Mr. Stuart's personal 
bank account. 

You were not aw^are of that ? 

Mr. Mann. I was not aware of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you want to see some of these checks '? 
The Chairman. You may pass them up and we will look at them 
later. 

(At tliis point. Senators McNamara and Ervin entered the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. How much do you receive a month now ? 

^Ir. ]Mann. I receive $98.50 a month and $50 out of that goes to the 
bank. It leaves me $48.50, to live on. That doesn't hardly run and I 
am in debt now and I haven't been able to pay my taxes for 1956. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Do you receive anything from the bakers union ? 

^Ir. Mann. Yes; there was a collection taken up for me by the 
members in the bakers union here about 2 weeks ago, and they gave 
me $250 and then they gave me another $126. That is $376 that I re- 
ceived from the officers of the union there in various locals there in 
the city of Chicago which has been very helpful to me, because I didn't 
have one penny. I couldn't even make a telephone call. 

]Mr. Kennedy. How long were you with the bakers union ? 

Mr. ]Mann. I was with the bakers union from the last time, from 
1930 until January 21, 1955, and then I was told to take a withdrawal 
card. I was told to take this withdrawal card and I would receive the 
benefits. 

^Iv. Kennedy. So you were with them about 25 years ? 

Mr. Mann. Twenty-five years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you here when the committee heard the 
discussion of the dinner for Max Kralstein ? 

Mr. Mann. No; I was not present and I don't know anything much 
about it. 

^Iv. Kennedy. He received a gift of $16,000. were you aware of 
that ? 

Mr. Mann. No ; I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And after 25 years the bakers union gave you how 
much? 

Mr. Mann. Not one penny. 



IMPROPER ACTrV^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2781 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a collection taken up in the last 2 weeks 
for you which amounted to about $376? 

]\ir. Mann. Yes, sir, which I appreciated, and I want to thank those 
fellows that made that gift to me, and it was really very helpful. 

Senator JSIcNamara. 1 would like to ask the witness a couple of 
questions. You state you were told to take the withdrawal card. That 
is an unusual way to get a withdrawal card. Ordinarily the individual 
makes a request for v.'ithdrawal cards. Did you make a request on 
instruction of somebody ? 

Mr. Mann. No; I was told because I had paid my dues, but Mr. 
Stuart told me that I should take a withdrawal card, and I would pay 
$2 a month instead of the $3.85 I was paying, and I would receive all 
of tlie benefits. 

Xaturally, I felt this way about it : Honestly, I felt that I know our 
international had lots of powder and I didn't think that I had any 
chance to appeal or anything, of any kind, and I didn't know how to 
do it, and I felt he M'anted me on a retirement card, so I never could 
come back into the union and run as an officer, and I felt they just 
wanted to get rid of me. 

Senator IMcNamara. There is no question from what you state they 
wanted to get rid of you, but you were there for 25 years. 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then there is a procedure for getting a with- 
drawal card, under the constitution. Do you know the procedure? 

Mr. Mann. Yes; you apply for the withdrawal card. 

Senator McNamara. Did you apply ? 

Mr. Mann. No. I didn't apply. They just told me to take it out, 
and they told the secretary to fill out a withdrawal card for me and 
that was it. 

Then, I would like to state further that I was very much interested, 
and I thought maybe I would like to have a checkup in the hospital 
at my age, but I thought I liad better question tlie union regarding it. 

I hadn't received any policy. So I asked the officers of local 100 
now, after they have merged, about my policy and they told me that 
the union had paid for my policy up until April and that they got a 
letter from the international union that they shouldn't have paid for 
that because I would have to work 24 hours a week in a shop and they 
said I have no insurance whatsoever now. 

HoAvever, they said to me, they returned $8 of my money that I 
had been paying on the withdrawal card and told me to take out a 
retirement card and that I would receive $500 at death. I was talk- 
ing to one of the other officers yesterday here, and he said if I don't 
hurry up and die, I won't get that $500 either. 

Senator Ervin If you die you would not get it either. You lose 
both ways. 

Mr. Mann. That is right. 

Senator McNa^lara. I am interested in the withdrawal card. There 
is certain authority to issue withdrawal cards, and can it be done at 
the discretion of the secretary, without any action by anybody else 
under your constitution and bylaws? 

]Mr. ^Iann. Well, when one is going out of the industry for a while, 
or he is promoted to a salaried job, he can come in and apply for a 
withdrawal card. He is granted that withdrawal card, and if he 
ever returns back as a working man and comes under the jurisdiction 



2782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of the union, he phices his withdrawal card back into the union and 
he doesn't have to pay any initiation fee whatsoever, but on the with- 
drawal card he receives all of the benefits as before. 

Senator McNamara. You are trying to say to me that anybody that 
walks up to the secretary and says, "I want a withdrawal card," has 
it handed to him without any question and he does not have to pay 
any dues any more ? 

Mr. Mann. He has to pay whatever the local charges for that. 

Senator McNamara. About $2 a year or something like that? 

Mr. Mann. On withdrawal cards he pays more than that. 

Senator McNamara. How much ? 

Mr. Mann. He would pay at least the international per capita and 
probably have to pay whatever the costs of handling the withdrawal 
card are. 

Senator McNamara. You are saying now, under oath, I take it, 
that all a member of your organization has to do is walk up to the 
secretary and tell him he wants a withdrawal card, and he makes 
it out, and then he pays the reduced amount of dues from then on; 
is that right? 

Mr. MaNxV. Yes, and lie can get that withdrawal card provided he 
is not going to be working under the jurisdiction of our local. 

Senator McNaimara. Who decides that he is entitled to the with- 
drawal card? Is it just the secretary or is it the function of the 
executive committee or is it the rank and file? Who decides that? 

Mr. Mann. The secretary would really know and he would not 
have to take that up with any board, whether he would be entitled to 
a withdrawal card or not. The secretary would know that he has 
probably been promoted to a salaried job, probably a foreman or 
something, and he was not going to do any work. 

Senator McNamara. It was up to the judgment of the secretary? 

Mr. Mann. I would say so. 

Senator McNamara. That is according to your bylaws? 

Mr. Mann. I think that would be it. 

Senator McNamara. I do not think it is. You have been a member 
25 years and you ought to know moi'e about your bylaws. That is all, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is all. 

The Chairman. I wanted to ask you one other question. 

Were any charges ever preferred against you whatsoever? 

Mr. Mann. No. 

The Chairman. Have you drawn any benefits from the union on 
either pension or welfare funds since j^ou were discharged? 

Mr. Mann. Since I was discharged, no. I haven't drawn anything. 

The Chairman. Do you have anything coming now? Do you have 
any evidence from tlie union in any way that you have any rights to 
participate in welfare funds? 

Mv. Mann. According to the international constitution the way it 
is written, I don't have any rights to anything anymore. 

The Chairman. In other words, after serving for 25 years, a quarter 
of a century, they fired you Avithout charges and now you have no 
rights and no funds accumulated and no benefits coming to you. Is 
that wliat you are testifying to? 

Mr. ]\Iann. Tliat is what I testified to. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2783 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions^ 

Senator ]McNamar.v. Mr. Chairman, it is a little confnsino- to me. 
U'as he fired, or did he go to the secretary and ask for a \vitlKlra^yal 
card ? Which was it ? Yon have both ways in the record. 

Mr. JNIanx. I was asked to resi^-n. 

Senator McNamaka. And yon went to the secretary and asked for 
a withdrawal card? 

Mr. Mann. I was told to resign. 

Senator McNA:\rARA. Yon were told to resign. Are you now trying 
to say that you were afraid not to resign, and it was through fear that 
you resigned ? Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Mann. I was told to resign and I had to. Pressure was on. 

Senator McNamara. If you did not resign, what happens? 

Mr. Mann. If I did not resign, Avell, I ]:)robably might have got 
shot. 

Senator McNa:mara. That is what you are saying, through fear, 
you were forced to I'esign, but you were not fired. You resigned. 

Mr. Mann. They drew up my resignation themselves, and they 
wrote it. 

Senator McNamara. And you signed it ? 

Mr. Mann. I was told to sign it. 

Senator McNamara. And you did sign it ? 

Mr. Mann. I did sign it. 

Senator McNamara. Then you were not fired ; you re-signed. 

Mr. Mann. Well, put it any way you want to. 

Senator McNamara. I want to put it the way it is, and you are under 
oath and you are supposed to put it the way it is. 

Mr. Mann. I resigned under pressure. 

Senator ]McNamar.\. That is the way to leave it then. 

The CiiAiRMAN. Is this the telegram that was presented to you when 
you were told to resign ? 

Mr. Mann. That is the one. 

The Chairman, Will you identify it please, and make this ex- 
hibit 36. 

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

Did you have any desire to resign? 

Mr. Mann. No, sir. 

(The telegram referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 36" and is as 
follows:) 

GiLUERT Man A, 
Preshlcnt. 

8 North Of/den Avenue: 
Pursuant to article XXIII, section 5 (A), international constitution, vice 
president George Stuart has been appointed special trustee over local 100 by 
the general executive board, effective immediately. 

Your functions as officers of the local have terminated and are vested in the 
trustee. A hearing will be held by the general executive board on the subject 
of retaining the trusteeship on February 1, 195o, at 8 North Ogden Avenue, 
Chicago. 

All interested parties will be heard at that time. Pursuant to article XXIIT, 
section 5 (B) international representative John Warwick has been designated 
as hearing officer. You are directed to cooperate with the trustee in the enforce- 
ment of article XXIII, section 5 (C) and (D). 

General Executive Board, Bakery & Confectionery 
Workers International Union of America, 
By .Iames G. Cross, International President. 



2784 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You said something about you were afraid. When 
you got your orders to resign, did this man Stuart have the gun in his 
hand at that time ? 

jNlr. Mann. He had it and I don't know where he had it. He had his 
hand in his pocket and I saw the gun and he showed it to me, and he 
said, "I have got your gun out of your desk," and he had my shells, too. 
It was a .25 automatic that shot nine times, and it shoots straight, too. 

Senator McNamara. I wonder if the gun was legally there. Did 
you have a permit? 

Mr. Mann. I thinly that I explained it, it was left by my brother who 
went into a veterans" hospital. 

Senator McNamara. You explained it was left by your brother, but 
was it a registered gun, one that had a permit issued for it? 

Mr. Mann. I didn't have any permit for it. 

Senator McNamara. You do not know wliether vour brother had or 
not? 

]Mr. Mann. I could say that it was his gun and it was brought in 
there by the business agents and left there, and his clothes were put in 
the back room and tlie gun and shells and a few other things were put 
in my desk. 

Senator McNamara. Certainly it was convenient for tlie people who 
wanted to use it to intimidate you witli. 

The Chairman. Are there any furtlier statements that you wish to 
make about this? 

Mr. Mann. That is about all of the statements I have. I think I 
have told about everything the way it happened. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You may stand aside, Mr. Mann. 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, before the witness is excused, I am aris- 
ing pursuant to rule 11 of the rules of the committee. 

The Chairman. Will you identify yourself? 

Mr. Harris. My name is Abraham J. Harris and I am appearing 
here as counsel for Mr. James G. Cross, wlio is ]:»resident of the inter- 
national union, and who is a person who is the subject of an investiga- 
tion in these hearings. 

Rule 11, Mr. Chairman, as you know, provides that any person who 
is the subject of an investigation in public hearings may submit to the 
chairman of the committee questions in writing for tlie cross-examina- 
tion of otlier witnesses called by the committee. 

The Chairman. You may do so and you may submit your questions. 

]Mr. Harris. I would like at this time^ — — 

The Chairman. Will you submit your questions? 

Mr. Harris. I would like to submit four questions that I have writ- 
ten down for that purpose. 

The Chairman. All right. 

jMr. Harris. May T make one other request, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Let us see your questions first. 

Tlie Chair would like to ask counsel a question, please, sir. 

]Mr. Harris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, before the Chair asks the committee to pass 
upon these questions, as you understand under the rule it is in the dis- 
cretion of the committee as to whether it will ask tlie questions. You 
appreciate that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2785 

Mr. Harris. I appreciate that that is wliat tlie rule says and what- 
ever the committee does is within its descretion. I appreciate also 
the fact that the reason the committee put this rule in its rules is 
that it wanted to be fair to persons who are the subject of investiga- 
tion before this committee. 

The Chairman. That is right, and the Chair only wants to ask you 
1 or 2 questions. As counsel for JSIr. Cross, will you now assure this 
committee that when he appears on the witness stand, he will appear 
and answer pertinent questions this committee propounds to him re- 
garding his own conduct ? 

Mr. Harris. I think that is a rather broad question. 

The Chairman. Very broad and very inclusive. 

Mr. Harris. In relation to the very questions I have asked w^hich 
go to the local 100 in Chicago and its trusteeship. However, if the 
Chair puts that question, I will say yes. Cross, so far as I now know. 

The Chairman. Will you check with him? Is he present? 

Mr. Harris. We will answer all pertinent questions. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Cross present? 

]\Ir. Harris. Yes, he is. 

The Chairman. Will you check w ith him and ask him to authorize 
you to make that statement ? 

Mr. Harris. Yes, I will. 

(Mr. Harris conferred with Mr. Cross.) 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cross will answer all questions put 
to him which are pertinent within the scope of the inquiry as author- 
ized bj' the resolution setting u]) this committee. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, the committee decides what is 
pertinent and you understand that, do you not? If there is any ques- 
tion raised, it is submitted to the committee. 

Mr. Harris. The committee can decide that for itself, and Mr. Cross 
I believe, with the advice of counsel, can decide that for himself. 

The Chairman. Tliat is true, but you know, now, I want to tell you 
this very frankly : I am not going to let Mr. Cross or anyone else use 
this committee and then not cooperate with it. 

Mr. Harris. Nobody is using this committee, sir. and we have been, 
as you know, as the conmiittee staff knows — Mr. Cross has been very 
cooperative throughout this investigation. Everything the commit- 
tee staff has asked for has been turned over to this committee witli- 
out any question. 

The committee has more documents, I believe, than Mr. Cross does 
relating to this subject. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, the one 
other request I wanted to make in connection with Mr. Mann's testi- 
mo!\y is that there is an audit report which has been furnished to the 
committee and it is Gefter report, dated January 18, 1955, addressed 
to Curtis R. Sims, general secretary-treasurer of the international 
union, relating to the conduct of local 100. 

The Chairman. We have the document. 

Mr. Harris. I trust that w'ill be made a part of the record of this 
morning's hearings ? 

The Chairman. We will get to that and let Mr. Cross testify to ir. 

Has this document or this audit report, a cop}- of it. been provided 
Mr. Mann ? 



2786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Harris. That I don't know, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you check and find out? Mr. Cross should 
know. You want us to ask him questions and let us see if he is 
equipped with the documents. 

JMr. PIarris. I will find out, sir. 

(Mr. Harris conferred with Mr. Cross.) 

Mr. Harris. As I understand it, sir, Mr. Mann was not given a 
copy of this report, but was orally told of the findings of Mr. Gefter. 

The Chairman. You see. The Chair will resolve this with the ap- 
proval of the committee very quickly. 

Mr. Mann, you may stand aside and remain subject to recall and 
when Mr. Cross testifies, if he cooperates with this committee, the 
Chair then will, with the permission of the committee, direct these 
questions to you in his presence. 

Mr. Mann. All right. 

Tlie Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Harris. May I ask one thing more, Mr. Chairman ? 

You have been quite indulgent and I ask you to indulge me in one 
thing more. Under rule 11 

The Chairman. In the meantime, I am goi]ig to direct you to sup- 
ply a copy of tliat report to Mr. Mann. 

Mr. PIarris. We will give Mr. Mann a copy. 

Under rule 11 permitting cross-examination, as I understand it, the 
only effective v/ay a witness can be cross-examined is to be cross- 
examined promptly while he is on the stand, immediately after his 
direct examination rather than as a rebuttal witness. We all know 
it is a truism that defenses never catch up with accusations, and what 
goes out of here now is Mr. Mann's testimony not subject to any cross- 
examination, and Mr. Cross comes on, I don't know when, either lat«r 
today or tomorrow, and whatever he testifies about, and Mr. Mann's 
cross-examination thereafter will be anticlimax. The headlines will 
already have gone out, and therefore, I would think that in the spirit 
of rule 11 which this committee has made a part of its rules, Mr. 
Mann should be cross-examined now. 

The Chairiman. All right. Bring Mr. Cross around. 

Will you be sworn, please. Do you solemnly swear tliat the evidence 
you shall give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. CEOSS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ABRAHAM J. HARRIS 

Mr. Cross. I do. 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Cross. James G. Cross, president of the Bakery and Confec- 
tionery Workers International Union of x\merica, and I reside at 7420 
Hampton Lane, Bethesda, Md. 

Mr. Chairman, may I read an opening statement ? 

The Chairiman. Not until you state your business or occupation. 
The purpose of calling you at this time, sir, is to get what coopera- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2787 

tioii the conunittee can expect from yon, and I expect jou to testify 
under oath so that we will know. 

Mr. Cross. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought that I said I was 
president of the Bakery and Confectionery "Workers International 
Union of America. 

The Chairman. Do you have a statement ? 

Mr. Cross. I do, which I have presented to the committee prior to 
today. 

The Chairman. All right. At the proper time we will hear your 
testimony, then you will be privileged to read that statement. But 
for the present I want to be very fair to you, and if anything has been 
testified here today that you intended to refute, and if you thought 
these questions that your counsel has submitted might refute them, I 
simply want to determine and have you make this statement under 
oath that in the course of the committee's interrogation of you, wdien 
we call you for your principal testimony do you intend to cooperate 
with this committee and give it all the information within your knowl- 
edge that is pertinent to this inquiry, and to the affairs of the Bakery 
Union International and the locals under your jurisdiction? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I want you to state under oath unequivocally that 
you will do that. 

Mr. Cross. Well Mr. Chairman, it certainly is my position to co- 
operate in every manner with this committee, as I have in the past 
with your staff". Certainly I will answer all questions that are perti- 
nent to this particular investigation under the authority granted under 
the resolution setting up this committee. 

The Chairman. Do you mean by that including your use of and 
appropriation and expendituie of union funds, both the international 
and the local unions under its jurisdiction or any other subdivisions 
under its jurisdiction? 

Mr. Cross. Well, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Here is all I want to know. Let us shorten it. If 
you are going to come on the stand when we go to interrogate you and 
start taking the fifth amendment, I am not going to grant you any 
courtesy in connection with this, unless the committee overrules me. 
That is, very frankly, we just want to find out what the score is. 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Chairman, let me assure you it has never been my 
intention to take the fifth amendment in front of any duly constituted 
body. 

The Chairman. And it is not now? 

Mr. Cross. It is not now. 

The Chairman. All right, you may stand aside. We will call ^Fr. 
Mann. That is all I wanted. 

TESTIMONY OF GILBERT MANN— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Mann, counsel for Mr. Cross has submitted 
some questions here that he would like to have the committee ask 
you. The Chair has examined them, and I think other members 
of the committee are familiar with them. The committee has agreed 
under its rule that it would be proper for the committee to ask you 
these questions. I propound to you the first question submitted. 



2788 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This is a question asked you by counsel for ]Mr, Cross, and asked 
by the committee at his request. Listen to the question : 

Is it not true that during the year 1954 you pursued the practice of taking your 
salary and expenses for weeks in advance as found Ijy the audit conducted by the 
international representative, David Gefter? 

Mr. Mann. That is true. I took 2 weeks in advance of my sahiry. 
but I never received any more. I took 2 weeks advance in my sahiry 
and I was short of money and I took 2 weeks advance on my sahiry. 

The Chairman. The Chair will ask you this question : Did you do 
that with the knowledge of your union, the executive board of your 
union ? 

Mr. Mann, My executive board knew about it, but it was somethiiifj 
that Ave sometimes granted, and we sometimes granted that privilege 
to the business agents, or maybe the girls in the office if they were 
short, or something. I did take 2 weeks salary in advance, in August ; 
yes. 

The Chairman. You took two weeks salary in advance, and you 
granted that privilege or accorded that privilege to others i You had 
accorded that courtesy, you say, to others employed in the local t 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I w^oulcl like to say in that connection, ^Ly. Chairman, 
that my conversation with ]Mr. Mann the other day was to the effect, 
and he volunteered this information, that this was one of the items 
that had been brought up, as well as the automobile. 

The Chairman, All right. Now, the Chair 

Senator Curtis. May I ask, did you receive more in total than yoii 
were entitled to? 

Mr. Mann. No; I just received $175, and my expenses, and then 
I never received any more money imtil it was time for me to receive 
my check again. I think that I explained that to Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. You mean it was paid back at the next payday '{ 

Mr, Mann. I didn't pay anything back, I drew two weeks salary in 
advance, and then I had to wait until it was time for me to have 
another check, that I had earned. But I did not draw any money 
during that time. 

The Chairman. At the next payday you didn't draw any money ? 

Mr. Mann. I didn't draw any for 2 weeks, any money. 

The Chairman. In other words, within one month's time, the 
books were balanced again, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir ; the books were balanced. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to determine is this : You were 
drawing your salary each 2 weeks, is that right ? 

Mr. IMann. No, I drew my salary every week, and I had some work 
done on my home and I drew 2 weeks in advance. I drew that 2 weeks 
in advance, that money, and I didn't draw any money, any more money 
then until I had my salary coming. 

The Chair:man. In other words, it was just a temporary advance 
imtil your next check time came around ? 

Mr". ?dANx. Yes. 

The Chairman. So the next week you drew nothing ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, And the third week you drew your salary again? 

Mr. Mann. The third week I drew my salary, as it was coming 
to me. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2789 

The Chairman. But for those -2 weeks that you took in advance, 
you drew nothing ? 

Mr. Mann. I drew nothing. 

The Chairman. Here is the next question propounded by counsel 
for Mr. Cross : 

Is it not true that the executive board decided to buy a car for the union 
to which you took title in your name, and on which you subsequently borrowed 
money ? 

Mr. ]\Iann. The executive board selected 4 men, a committee of 
4, to go out and buy me a car, and they bought the car of my own 
choosing and ordered the car bought in my name and title, and 
licensed in my name, and the union insured the car. 

The Chairman. In whose name I 

Mr. Mann. The car was insured in my name, and the union paid 
for that car. That is true, that went on. The union liad a motion 
made that they were to buy a car every year but in the 18 years we 
only bought li cars, and they were all bought the same way. But 
the executive board knew how the car was bought every year, and it 
was reported and it was on the financial pages of our day book, and 
it was on the financial statements every month, that hung on the walls 
in the hall. 

The Chairman. For liow many years did the union or the local buy 
a car in your name ? 

Mr. Mann. It started in 1937 and they bought 4 Dodges, and tlien 
4 Chryslers, and 3 Cadillacs — 11 cars. 

The Chairman. All of these were bought in your name ? 

]Mr. Mann. All of them were bought in my name. 

The Chairman. I have here before me a photostatic copy of a docu- 
ment signed by you on February 12, 1947, signed by you as president 
and secretary-treasurer. It is addressed to the executive board of 
Factory Bakers and Union Local 100. I ask you to examine that 
photostatic copy and see if you identify it. 

Mr. Mann. That was not only one, but there were a lot of those 
signed. 

The Chairman. Each year you signed one of them ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, I didn't sign the last 2 years, because the execu- 
tive board decided, and of course I don't know how it was put in the 
minutes, but the executive board decided it wasn't necessary for me 
to do that. I was told that. 

The Chairman. The Chair reads this— You say several of these 
were signed as you got cars ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This may be made exhibit No. 37. 

The Chairman. This is dated February 12, on Factory Bakery 
Union Local 100 stationery, and the year is 1947 : 

(The document referred to marked "exhibit Xo. 37" and is as fol- 
lows:) 
Executive Board, Factory Bakery Workers Local Union 100 

In the event of my death, or removal from the office of president and sec- 
retary-treasurer of Factory Bakers Union Local No. 100, the ownership of the 
Chrysler automobile, serial No. 7038587, motor No. C39-19123, model New York- 
er, which was purchased on Thursday, February 6, 1947, from the Stoney Island 
Motor Sales Co., will revert to Factory Bakers Union Local 100. 

Gilbert Mann, 
President and Secretary-Treasurer. 



2790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mann. There were several of those signed. 

The Chairman. Now I will ask you the next question submitted 
by counsel for Mr, Cross. 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. 
Mann did not answer the last part of the previous question, namely, 
did he make a personal loan on this automobile tliat belonged to 
the union. 

The Chairman. I think you are correct. 

Mr. Mann, you have answered about the purchase of the car, the 
title of the car being in your name. The last part of the question is, 
"to which you took title in your name, and on which you subsequently 
borrowed money." 

Now, did you borrow money on the car ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir; I borrowed $500 on the car. That was with 
the understanding that I told the executive board what I was going 
to do with the monej^, many of the members of the executive board. 
They knew it. 

The Chairman. They knew about that? 

]Mr. Mann. Yes ; and I can prove that. 

The Chairman. I am not saying it is proper or improper but you 
did borrow money on it, you say. with the knowledge of the executive 
board? 

Mr. Mann. Yes. 

The Chairman. Here is the next question : 

Is it not true that you set up an illegal health and welfare plan with the 
Sawyer Biscuit Co. 2 

Mr. Mann. We set up with the Sawyer Biscuit Co. a health and 
welfare plan and that health and welfare plan that we set up was 
honestly conducted by the members working in that plant. Of course, 
the international president, Mr. Cross, did not like that very well. He 
wanted the international health and welfare plan in there. Naturally, 
after I was out of office, there v/as no charge for the union for con- 
ducting that health and welfare fund and it was run and the employees 
in the plant, the employees in the plant had decided all of tlie money 
was to be paid out. It was their policy. 

The Chairman. The thing revolves around whether it was illegal. 

Mr. Mann. I have to disagree. It was not. It was legal. I would 
say so far as I know, that was legal. 

The Chairman. You said "We set up." Who do you mean bv 
"we"? 

Mr. Mann. The employees desired to set that up with management, 
and management contributed to that, and that was all put in to a fund 
for the employees. 

The Chairman. Did the union members contribute anything to the 
fund or was it all a management fund? 

Mr. Mann. It was an understanding between the union and man- 
agement that management would pay into that fund. 

The Chairman. Well, I am asking you again, did the union mem- 
bers pay into that fund, or was all of the fund coming from manage- 
ment sources? 

Mr. Mann. Well, it was understood in the negotiations that the 
employer would deduct 5 cents from the union members and it would 
be placed in this fund. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2791 

The Chairman. Now, was it 5 cents or 5 percent ? 

Mr. Mann. It was 5 cents on the honrly rate. 

The Chairman, Five cents on the hourly rate ? 

Mr. JVIann. Yes, sir. Of course, I don't have any notes here to 
just come out and exphiin exactly. Senator McClellan, but I am 
doing the best I possibly can. 

The Chairman. At any rate, was this a secret arrangement, or did 
all of your members and all of your board know about it ? 

Mr, Mann. Everybody knew about it, and I received no money 
whatsoever out of that fund, or none of the officers of local 100. 

The Chairman. The officers received no salary, and no expenses, 
or anything from this fund ? 

Mr. ]SIann. Xot from that fund. 

The Chairman. Who administered it? 

Mr. Mann. The fund, you mean ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr, AIann. There were employees who were trustees. A trustee 
was set up of the employees, and tliey elected whoever they wanted. 

The Chairman. You mean the employees administered the fund 
tlirougli a trustee selected by them ? 

Mr. ]\1ann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And not by the officers of the union ? 

Mr. Mann. Well, I was supposed to be president of that, and see 
to it that the union w^ould back them up in that, but there was 
Qothing illegal about anything. It wns all honestly conducted. 

The Chairman. Here is the last of the four questions : 

Is it not true that you used union funds to pay large personal bills you ran 
up at motels or hotels — I will make that apply to both — including bills for 
liquor ? 

That is the question. 

]Mr. Mann. Well, now, I had lots of conferences in hotels, and nat- 
urally there were bills there, and it was understood during negotia- 
tions M'ith the A. & P. Avlien I was negotiating there I was criticized 
on tliat, that when the committee met the employers would buy the 
dinner one day, and if we met the next time, the union Avould j^ay for 
it in the hotels, and naturally when those boys went to dinner they 
generally had a drink, and I am not saying that they didn't. It v^^as 
understood that was a policy of local 100. It was done during all 
negotiations, and there were manv conferences and many, many times 
I had to do that. ' - 

The Chairman. You are talking about negotiating contracts? 

Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, When you are negotiating contracts with manage- 
ment ? 

Mr, Mann, When we negotiated contracts wdth management, es- 
pecially with the A. & P. Now these are executive board members, 10 
of them on the committee, the executive board members of local 100. 
It was understood and agreed by our executive board all of the way 
through that the union would buy tlieir lunches and dinners while 
they were in negotiation. 

The Chair]man. If I understand you now, in the course of negotiat- 
ing contracts when you were in conferences and carrying on negotia- 
tions, maybe one day management or the company would treat you all 



2792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to dinner, the union members, and the next day you all would treat 
tliem, is that ri fjht ? Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Manjs^. We all would buy it one day. And they all would buy 
it the next day. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, this is not only a good southern 
word, but it is a good word in the King James version of the Bible. 
There is one other good word, and that is "Amen.'- 

Tlie Chairman. This is directed to your personal affairs, and not 
to union entertainment or union expenses. Listen to the question 
again. 

Is it not true that you used union funds to pay large personal bills that you 
ran up at hotels or motels, including bills for liquor? 

We are talking about your personal affairs, disassociated from any 
union conferences or negotiations. We are talking about your per- 
sonal affairs. 

Mr. Mann. It was not personal. I vrould say that there are a lot of 
times that we had conferences and things, and I had many conferences 
on agreements and things like that, and there was liquor bought, and 
there always was. But for my personal stuff. I spent my own money. 

The Chairman, As I understand you now, and this is under oath, 
you never used union money except to purchase liquor or to pay hotel 
and motel bills, except that it was union business. Is that right? 

Mr. Mann. That is right. It was always union business. 

The Chairman. Now, when you took a little fling of your own, or 
you had business of your own, personal business, and maybe bought 
some liquor or ran up a bill at a hotel or )notel, did you pay that with 
union funds ? 

Mr. Mann. Senator McClellan, I had a small expense account, and 
when I went out of office I had $175 a week, and I didn't have any- 
thing. I spent my money as well. 

The Chairman. Tliat doesn't answer the question. You could spend 
youi- money and some of the union's, too. 

^Ir. Mann. I would say that v.hatever I spent, it was always for 
union lousiness, and I had necessary expenses. They were granted to 
me by the union. 

The Chair;man. I don't knoAv how much you spent now, but bear 
tliis in mind, and the committee members I am sure bear this in mind, 
tlia we do have testimony here of some very large expense items, some 
of questionable nature in connection with this union. I want to deter- 
mine whether you have been participating in that kind of expenditure 
of union funds. 

Mr. Mann. Well, our executive board, I live at Round Lake, 111., 
and our executive board knew where I lived. Whenever the weatlier 
was bad, the executive board had no objections to me taking a room 
in a hotel, and it was put on organization expenses in the union. 

The Chatoman. It was put on organizational expenses? 

]Mr. ]Mann. It was necessary expenses, and we just put it on or- 
ganization expenses. 

The Chairman. You didn't put it under entertainment? 

]Mr. Mann. It wasn't entertainment. 

The Chairman. Well. I don't know. We do have some cases wliere 
I think it is purely entertainment, and that is what I am ti-ying to find 
out from vou. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2793 

Mr. Mann. I entertained sometimes and I liad these expenses. 
Wliatever I felt was on the executive board, if I felt it was necessarv' 
for entertainment, and for the good will of the organization, I was 
granted tliat. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator McXamara. There was a document submitted indicating 
that while title of the Chrysler New Yorker in 1947 was in your name. 
you had signed a document that was here submitted indicating that 
until you died, this car was to be continued in your name. Was this 
the car that this document referred to on which you borrowed the 
money, or was it a subsequent car? 

Mr. ALa.nn. No ; I borrowed no money on this car. 

Senator McNamara. You borrowed no money on this car? 

Mr. Mann. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Did you have a similar document, or did you 
sign a similar document to this one on the car that you borrowed 
money on '. 

Mx. ]ViANN. I had a 1954 car that I borrowed the money on, and it 
wasn't on that one. From what I best remember, the question was 
asked about a 1937 New York Chrysler. 

Senator McNamara. I think it was 1947. 

Mr. Mann. I wasn't in office in 1947. 

Senator McNamara. "Where is the document ? 

The Chairman. It is a 1947 car. 

Senator McNamara. This document was signed in 1947 ? 

Mr. Mann. Yes; that is true, I am wrong about 1937. It was 1947, 
a Clirysler, and there Avas no money borrowed on that car. 

Senator McNamara. Then did you sign a similar document on the 
subsequent car that you borrowed money on ? 

Mr. Mann. Not on the 1952 or the 1954 car ; no. 

Senator McNamara. Then according to all of the papers in exist- 
ence, this car was bought by the union and turned over to you, and the 
title was in your name. 

]Mr. Mann. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Now, you said tlie license was in your name, 
and naturally the license would be in your name, and you are talking 
about the driver's license or what license ? 

Mr. Mann. As far as the driver's license is concerned, I could drive 
any car, but I am talking about tlie State license. 

Senator McNamara. The registration ? 

Mr. Mann. The State license. 

Senator McNamara. The State driver's license or the registration. 

]yir. Mann. My State driver's license would permit me to drive any 
car. 

Senator McNamara. But you mentioned that the union arranged to 
haA-e the license for the car put in your name. Were you talking about 
tlie license plates ? 

Mr. Mann. Absolutely. 

Senator McNamara. Then apparently this document has no bearing 
on tJie borrowing of the money on this car. 

Tlie Chairman. This particular document does not, but I believe 
tlie witness said, and I think the staff has several of them, and I just 



2794 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

used that as an example, but the: witness says in that year, 1954, when 
]ie borrowed the money on that car, that he had not executed a docu- 
ment of this character to the board at that ime. 

Senator McNamara. So apparently he had every right to borrow 
money on the car. 

Mr. Mann, I had no document for that at all. 

Senator McXamara. That was the point. 

The Chairman. Any other questions of this witness? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Mami. You will remain here, because 
maybe we may require some further testimony from you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask the attorney, Mr. Harris, a question ? 

Wlien these charges were made against Mr. Mann, was he per- 
mitted the same rights that were permitted to Mr. Cross in this 
connection, namely, the right of cross-examination of those who made 
charges against him? Was Mr. Mann permitted to cross-examine 
or liave some one to cross-examine ? 

Mr. Harris. Are you talking about under your committee rules? 

Mr. Kennedy. Under our committee rules, vre allow you to submit 
questions, whicli were asked of Mr. Mann in the manner of cross- 
examination. 

Now I am wondering about whether, based on the charges that 
were made against Mi-. Mann, by the bakers union, whether they 
allowed Mr. Mann the opportunity to cross-examine. 

Mr. Harris. At that time wlien Mr. Mann was asked to resign? 

Mr. Kennedy. Any time when he was asked to resign. 

Mr. Harris. You are not referring to liere before this committee ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he allowed to cross-examine? 

]\[r. Harris. I Avill have to say I don't know, and I will have to 
consult Mr. Cross. 

The Chairman. We can ask Mr. Cross that when we put him 
on the witness stand. The question Avill be directed to Mr. Cross, 
and he has been sworn. 

Mr. Cross, was the same privilege accorded to Mr. Mann when he 
was directed or ordered to resign, that was accorded to you and your 
counsel here, and did he have the opportunity and was he permitted 
to cross-examine his accusers? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. CEOSS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ABRAHAM J. HAEEIS— Resumed 

Mr. Cross. He could have, Mr. Chairman, except he was never 
charged or accused of anything, and lie resigned. In a subsequent 
liearing, on the question of trusteeship, every member of the organiza- 
tion was given a right to appear and ask questions and give testimony. 

The Chairman. We will go into it further when you testify. 

Who is the next witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. INIr. Joseph Kane. 

Tlie Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you 
sliall give before this Semite select 'connnittee will be the truth, 'the 
whole trutli, and nothing bi't tlie ti'utli, so help vou God? 

Mr. Kane. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2795 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH G. KANE 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence, and 
your business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Kane. Joseph G. Kane, 18 Buffalo Street, Elmont, Long 
Island, and I am president of Local 525, Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers, International Union of America, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kane, have you talked to members of the 
staff? 

Mr. Kane. I have. 

The Chairman. You know then, generally, the information that 
the committee desires to obtain from you ? 

Mr. Kane. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. You also know that you have a right to counsel 
while you testify, to advise you with regard to your legal rights? 

Mr. Kane. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Kane. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to discuss with you briefly, Mr. Kane, 
or before we get into that tell us what your background has been and 
how long you have been with the bakers union. 

Mr. Kane. I was first elected president of the union that I now rep- 
resent, as a CIO affiliate in 1941. In the year of 1949 we disaffiliated 
with the CIO, and affiliated with the Bakery and Confectionery 
Workers International Union, and I was el acted president of the 
local union at that time. 

I have represented the same people from 1941 with a space of time 
out that I served in the United States Marine Corps in 1943 to 1945. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And how long have you been a baker? 

Mr. Kane. I was a baker for a short time, 3i/^ years, from 1937 to 
1940, to late 1940. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members does your union have? 

Mr. Kane. At the present time we have approximately 1,400 mem- 
bers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an election every year? 

Mr. Kane. We have a secret ballot election every 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you run that, the secret ballot election? 

Mr. Kane. Nominations for offices are taken at a membership 
meeting from the floor, with everyone having the right to nominate, 
and nominations are encouraged,^ and opposition encouraged, and 
within a 5-day period afterward we have a secret ballot election with 
machines from the union voting machine in New York conducting the 
elections, with the rank and file committee selected by the members 
and voted by the members from the membersliip. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have opposition ? 

Mr. Ivane. Yes, too much. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been elected? 

Mr. Kane. I have been elected the year before this, and I will run 
for office again in January of next year. If the Lord spares me. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many votes are cast in your election ? 

Mr. Kane. Out of the 1,350, approximately, eligible votes, at the 
last election, there were between 1,150 and 1,200 votes cast. 

89330— 57— pt. 8 15 



2796 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And you had someone nimiing against you ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many votes did he have, what was the break- 
down of votes ? 

Mr. Kane. I received something like 900, in the neighborhhod of 
925 or 927. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You were present in California at the recent con- 
vention of the bakers union 'i 

Mr. ELvNE. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in October ? 

Mr. IvANE. In October of last year. 

Mr. Kennedy. In San Francisco ? 

Mr. Ivane. In San Francisco. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, tliere were certain changes made in the 
constitution of the bakers union ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar witli those changes ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were changes made from the floor ? 

Mr. Kane. Not necessarily from the floor. They were discussed on 
the floor and in committee. They were discussed on the floor very 
shortly. But these changes were drawn up and constitutional amend- 
ments made to the constitution and circulated among local unions 
from last July, or tlie July prior to the convention. Approximately 
75 local unions coming from cities in northern Canada to the border 
of Mexico, and in the east and west borders, as far east as New- 
foundland, drew up the same identical constitutional changes and sub- 
mitted them to the convention and on the second day of tlie conven- 
tion with a prepared convention booklet, or manual of these changes, 
and made the changes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were these changes in the constitution to install 
more democratic procedures within the bakers union ? 

Mr. Ivane. Of course not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it your judgment that it is to the contrary ? 

Mr. Kane. In my judgment, and certainly the new printed consti- 
tution so shows, it was very undemocratic, and took the rights away 
from the rank-and-lile members through their representatives on the 
international executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you discuss Avith the committee some of the 
changes that you were critical of that were made ? 

Mr. Kane. I would be glad to. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how you think it affects the rights of the indi- 
vidual members of the union ? 

Mr. Kane. I will be glad to, sir. 

If you will excuse me a moment, sir, I will get some of the facts in 
order. 

In the first place, the old constitution stated that a committee would 
be selected as a connnittee of duly elected delegates, who would be set 
up as a rules committee and audit committee, and they would be 
submitted to the convention for its a])proval. Tliis connnittee was 
notified to appear at the convention city 2 days prior and before the 
convention went into session they went into session and they took up 
one constitutional change. That constitutional change took away 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2797 

from the rank-and-file members of this international union the right 
to vote for its international officials. They came with that resolution 
the first day, and it set forth the election of officers on the thitxl day 
of the convention. I will dwell on that a little later when I come to 
that portion of the constitution. 

I would like to let the committee know that the control of the con- 
vention, of future conventions, it took away the democratic ri^;hts of 
the membership to have anything to say about it and gave the power to 
one man. In the old constitution, it stated that a committee olf three 
shall be appointed by the international president subject to the ap- 
proval of the general executive board. This new constitution says 
that a committee of three shall be appointed by tlie international 
president from the duly elected delegates of the convention, and re- 
ported to the general executive board. 

Tliere is a big difference in having their approval and just report- 
ing to them who this committee will be. This committee shall con- 
stitute tlie standing committee on credentials, auditing rules and 
order of business, and the committee on committees, and it shall con- 
vene 5 days prior to the convention. 

That is one of the controls of the convention taken away. 

The Chairmax. How many are on the general executive board ? 

Mr. Kane. I think there are 18 now, sir; 16 vice presidents and 2 
executive officers. 

The Chairman. Then the change made in the rules, prior to the last 
convention, as I understand it, is that the president appointed the com- 
mittee subject to approval of the executive board. 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, they had some veto power over it, 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The change made was from approval to simple 
directing him to report to the board who they were ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

The Chairman. You think tliat impaired the democratic processes 
and rather concentrated power in the president ? 

Mr. IL\NE. I do, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. ^V}\o initiated that change, do you know? 

Mr. Kane. Well, this constitution, the proposed constitution the 
way I underetand it, came into my possession some time in AuijiLst. 
It was drawn up by the international president and the attorney for 
the union and presented to the general executive l)oard with all of the 
changes, and then tliey proposed the constitutional resolutions that 
would go to the convention. 

The Chairjman. In other words, are we to understand that the 
executive board approved tlie proposed change ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So therefore the executive board in effect by its 
recommendation desired to surrender its right of approval but simply 
just get^notice of who the president has appointed ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir ; its right to represent the rank-and-file members 
and tuni it all over to one man. 

Senator McNamara. While there is an interruption, mav I o-q in to 
it a little bit. 



2798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This 1956 convention is the one that you referred to where the rules 
were changed ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. From a local union, how many delegates were 
generally allowed or authorized at the convention, from your local 
union ? 

Mr. Kane. Five from ours, and that will give you offhand the num- 
ber of delegates; 100 shall be entitled to 1; and 200 to 2; and 600 to 
three; and 600 to 1,000, 4; and 1,000 to 1,400, 5; and it went on up 
from 3,000 to 3,400, 10 delegates. 

Senator McNamara. You have no quarrel with that, the representa- 
tion was all right ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator JMcNamara. Were the delegates from the local unions in 
the 1946 convention selected through the same democratic processes 
as your local officers were, with the voting machines and the nomina- 
tions and all this business ? 

Mr. Kane. Our delegates, you mean? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. Kane. They were appointed by the executive board and ap- 
proved by the rank and file. It was from executive board members. 

Senator INIcNamara, Then the delegates to the convention were ap- 
pointed rather than elected ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. I thought you started out to indicate that 
your union was very democratic, but now you get into the business 
of ai^pointing delegates to the national convention, which is really a 
weakness in the democratic process, isn't it? 

Mr. Kane. I agree with you. 

Senator McNamara. But your local union nevertheless did this ac- 
cording to their local bylaws ? 

Mr. Kane. They came in as a nominating committee with the dele- 
gates, and submitted them to the membership and the membership 
approved them. If the membership didn't vote on them, they wouldn't 
do it. 

Senator McNamara. How did the nominating committee come into 
existence? 

Mr. Kane. From the executive board. 

Senator McNamara. Then the executive board of the local union, 
how many members are there, 5 or 6 people? 

]\Ir. Kane. There are 16 on the board. 

Senator McNamara. Out of their own number did they select the 
nominating committee ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Then this nominating committee recommended 
5 delegates from your local union to it ? 

Mr. Kane. They recommended four. By local constitution the 
president shall attend all conventions. 

Senator INIcNamara. Then they selected the five, and they were 
given this power by a vote of the local union, I take it. 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. So it was totally democratic ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2799 

Senator McNamara. In your estimation. 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. So these delegates at the national convention, 
that made these changes, that you now oppose, were there in the demo- 
cratic process that you just went through. They had every right to 
do this. 

Mr. Kane. They had all of the rights, and they knew that the policy 
of the local union was and they represented the policy of the rank and 
file union on the convention floor. 

Senator McNamara. What you are saying in effect is that while it 
was done in a democratic manner, it was a mistake? 

Mr. Kane. Not necesssarily, when they expressed the opinion and 
the will of the rank and file, and the rank and file approved them to 
go to the convention, with specific instructions on what to fight and 
what not to fight, and what to approve and what not to approve. 

Senator McNamara. Then your delegates now were instructed, it 
develops, not to approve the changes. 

Mr. Kane. No, the individual changes weren't submitted to them 
all, but the local union has a policy to fight dictatorship and to fight 
corruption and stand as a progressive local union. 

Senator McNamara. But in spite of this general policy, then they 
did do this thing that you as an individual or an officer don't think 
was right ? 

Mr. Kane. It could have been done, with nominations from the 
floor, and so on. 

Senator McNamara. You are talking about your local union ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right, the local union. 

Senator McNamara. But it wasn't, and you are not quarreling with 
the way it was done? 

Mr. Kane. No. 

Senator McNamara. And the convention delegates had every au- 
thority to change the rules, even though you think they did it in a 
mistaken manner? 

Mr. Kane. They had a right to do it. 

(Committee members present: Senators McClellan and Mc- 
Namara.) 

The Chairman. Did your delegation vote to change it? 

Mr. Kane. No. It could, on this thing; it voted, because it was 
practically a voice vote, unanimous. It didn't object, but it objected 
to many of the propositions in this new constitution. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a powerful committee that you were talking 
about; is it not? 

Mr. Kane. It is a very powerful committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. It controls the credentials? 

Mr. Kane. It controls the credentials, the auditing rules, the order 
of business, the question of parliamentary law, as I will come to now. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the old constitution, did it stipulate that there 
should be a list of all delegates elected, that it shall be published in 
the Bakers and Confectionery's Journal, and any protests against the 
delegates must be in the hands of the secretary general at least 10 days 
prior to the convention ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir ; a list shall be published in the Bakers and Con- 
fectionery's Journal. 



2800 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That was removed ? 

Mr. Kane. That was deleted from the present constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing in there at this time ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kane. There is nothing in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the harmful results of that ? 

Mr. Kane. The harmful results from that is that no one in opposi- 
tion to the delegates selected, be they people that are representing the 
international union or on the international payroll, and so forth, no 
one would have an idea who the delegates would be, to challenge them. 
In fact, the journal, I think it was the October issue of the journal, 
did not get to the rank-and-file people in the convention, and we had 
no right under this last convention to challenge them either. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the former section did it also stipulate that all 
questions of a parliamentary nature not resolved by this constitution 
shall be decided according to Roberts Rules of Order? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. The old constitution said all questions of par- 
liamentary nature not resolved by this constitution shall be decided 
according to Roberts Rules of Order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that deleted ? 

Mr. Kane. It was changed, sir. The Roberts section of it was 
deleted. 

All questions of parliamentary law not resolved by this constitution shall be 
resolved by the parliamentary rules adopted by the convention in session. Until 
a convention is adopted, those adopted by the preceding convention shall apply. 

In other words, this committee of three, selected by the international 
president, would come in with the rules, or we would be governed by 
the rules of the last convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once again that puts greater power into the hands 
of the president, is that right? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. In fact, along this line, in discussing 
one of the issues according to Roberts on a two-thirds vote of the 
changing of the constitution for the president's salary, there was a 
debate on this issue. President Cross said : 

Now without further ado let us get to the business of the convention for 
which we are here assembled. We can have rollcalls on every vote as this 
convention desires and as much debate on the floor as is desired. But let us 
not get ourselves entangled in things that some of us maybe don't know some- 
thing about. Parliamentary procedure was made for Senators, not for bakers 
and confectioners. 

I answered him from the floor : 

Don't underestimate the intelligence of the baker. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the election of international officers? 
Was that changed also ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. The election of international officers, going back 
70 years, was by referendum vote, or the rank-and-file members voted 
in January following the convention in a referendum, secret ballot 
election. Every member must mark his own ballot in secret and de- 
posit the same. This convention changed that, where nominations of 
all international officers shall be made at large from the floor on the 
third day of the convention. The election of international officers 
shall be held immediately following these nominations. 

Voting for the office of international president shall be held first 
and shall be followed by voting of the office of international secretary- 
treasurer. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2801 

I would say this, that in this last convention, we did no business 
whatsoever, no program was discussed, no platform was discussed, 
no provisions of the constitution were discussed, until Mr. Cross got 
himelf elected president on the 3 days. 

We listened to speeches from employers, we listened to speeches 
from politicians, and we listened to speeches from "phonies," and then 
he got himself elected and went on with the business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on this question of fact, would you say that 
this changing of the election of international officers takes away from 
the rank and file the right to nominate and elect officers ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It leaves it to the convention ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kane. It leaves it to the convention. I would say that in this 
last case, I hope that in the future bakers conventions it won't be so. 
It was a controlled convention, because delegates submitted resolu- 
tions from local 1 in Chicago going through Phoenix, Ariz. ; Hudson 
County, N. J.; Oakland, Calif.; Calawan, Canada; Moose Jaw, 
Canada; Portland, Greg.; Rochester; Quincy, 111. They controlled 
2,989 votes of a total of 5,557 votes, those delegates submitting the 
resolution, all the same identical resolution on this change, and one 
of the resolves in this change says — the rank-and-file voting stated 
this : 

Whereas, to continue such an outmoded and outdated procedure can no longer 
be considered a democratic process, specially costing many thousands of our 
dollars which is a definite waste of the membership funds. 

One of the things that Mr. Cross and his many paid officers talked 
about as they went around the country was that this was no way to 
elect because no one knew, of the delegates, no one knew of their 
achievements. 

I have another thing in regard to Cross' opinion. In 1952, March 
of 1952, I have the Bakers and Confectioner's Journal here. He 
stated "officially speaking," when he was secretary-treasurer of the 
union under President William Schnitzler, when he had some demo- 
cratic blood in his veins : 

Our organization retains the basis of pure democracy, even more so than that 
of the Nation itself. We vote directly for the candidates, where in the Nation 
we vote for electors pledged to vote for certain candidates. We maintain more 
democracy than many labor unions who elect their officers by the votes of dele- 
gates at their conventions. 

Here, 4 short years later, when, he became president, this identical 
resolution from Moose Jaw, Canada, to San Antonio, was brought 
out saying it was undemociatic for the rank-and-file members of our 
union to vote in a secret ballot for their president because they didn't 
know them, and also that they wasted money in so conducting that type 
of an election. God help the country if we ever come to that state, him 
comparing the democracy of the union in 1952 with the country's 
democracy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the control? You are talking about 
the salaries of the president and those who make up the executive 
board. Who controls the salaries of the vice presidents ? 

Mr. Kane. I will get to that in the duties of the president. 

Senator McNamaka. I have another question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 



2802 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. You apparently are very much disturbed by 
the fact that officers are now elected at a national convention rather 
than in a referendum vote. Tell us about the referendum vote. Was 
that conducted at union meetings generally? 

Mr. Kane. It was conducted at union meetings. The only referen- 
dum we participate in, that I had experience with, was conducted the 
same day as an election for officers in our local union. 

Senator McNamara. Was the election on a machine or a paper 
ballot? 

Mr. Kane. Our election was by machine. The international elec- 
tion was by paper ballots supplied by the secretary-treasurer and the 
people voted in secrecy and voted for candidates. 

Senator McNamara. Then on election day you had two types of 
ballots. The local unions officers were elected on a machine vote and 
the international officers were elected on paper ballot ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Is it not the general practice of most interna- 
tionals now to elect tlieir officers at a national convention ? 

Mr. Kane. Senator, it is, and it is a practice carried on in interna- 
tional unions. It is a good practice. But when you have a custom for 
70 years, and you have tried to be as hypercritical to say that that is 
not the democratic right to do it, that the members shouldn't have the 
right to do it because it cost money, that is the issue. 

I don't find objection to the way tlie thing would be conducted. 
There are many international unions in this country that legitimately 
conduct tlieir international officers election and have opposition and 
so forth, tliat way, because it has been the custom, it has been the tra- 
dition of the people to expect that. But this here is just an example 
of more and more rights of the individual member being taken away 
from him. 

Senator McNamara. That is right. 

Mr. Iv^vNE. That is what I oppose. 

Senator McNamara. Eight. You and I, I think, agree on this, that 
it might be better the other way, but, nevertheless, through democratic 
processes it was changed in the 1956 convention. 

Mr. IV.VNE. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. How did you vote ? 

Mr. IvANE. How did I vote on this ? I think I abstained from vot- 
ing on it. 

Senator McNamara. You are putting up a lot better fight here than 
you did tliere ; are you not ? 

Mr. Kane. No, I wouldn't — Senator, I wouldn't say that. In fact, 
I will give you the proceedings to read. But in a flash vote with no 
opposition, when you have a control of 2,989 of the 5,557 votes, when 
you say, "All in favor say 'aye," the ayes have it," you just sit. I op- 
posed this. In fact, if you think that I sat on my hands and put a 
better fight up, I will read the speech I made on it. It will take a 
long time. 

Senator McNamara. I am satisfied now. Thank you. 

Mr. Kane. No, I will give it to you for your study, and you Avill 
agree that there was a fight put up there. 

Senator McNamara. I do not want it. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2803 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I just waiit to go now to the question of the salary 
of the vice presidents and members of the executive board. Who is 
that fixed by ? 

Mr. Kane. It is fixed by the international president. The old con- 
stitution 

Mr. Kexnedy. Could you summarize what the old constitution 
says ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. The international president sets the salary of the 
representatives that are vice presidents in the old constitution, but he 
didn't have the right to place them. That was subject to approval. 
But the salary of the international president and the secretary-treas- 
urer was set by the international convention and that was given over 
to the international executive board to set their salary. And the 
president, in turn, set the international executive board members' 
salary. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that we understand it, the president sets the sal- 
ary of the executive board ? 

Mr. IvANE. Who are international representatives. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And that is a majority of them ? 

Mr. Kane. That is 75 percent of them. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So he is the one who decides how much they will 
get paid ? 

Mr. E^NE. That is right. 

Mr. ICennedy. And they, in turn, set his salary ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Immediately following the convention, did the presi- 
dent give them a raise — the executive vice presidents ? 

Mr. Kane. I don't have that information only from hearsay. I 
understand he gave himself a raise through them first and then had 
them wait and gave them a raise later. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the report on the financial transactions 
of the union ? Was there a change in the constitution on that ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir ; I will get to that. 

In the duties 

Mr. Kjennedy. Was it changed that instead of sending out a printed 
report every 3 months of the finances, the change was that a summary 
of the finances would be sent out every 6 months ? 

Mr. I^NE. That is right. As soon after the end of each quarter- 
year as is practical, he shall send to each local union a printed report 
of all of the financial transactions of the international union. The new 
one is as soon after the end of each semiannual period or as practical 
he shall send to each union a printed summary report of the financial 
transactions. 

All the transactions in a summary are put out every 6 months in- 
stead of every 3 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. One is a summary every 6 months and the other 
was a full report every 3 months. 

Mr. E^NE. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also a change made as far as the signing 
of checks by the international president ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, there was. In the duties of the secretary-treasurer 
of the union, the old constitution stated this : 

He shall prepare and sign all checks of the international union and sub- 
mit same for countersigning by the international president. 



2804 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Tliat was the secretary -treasurer. 
In the new constitution : 

He shall prepare all financial reports required by this constitution or called for 
by the international president, and he shall at the direction of the international 
president prepare and sign all checks of the international union. 

At the direction of the international president, but before he pre- 
pared them, the secretary-treasurer, for the signature. One of the 
things that President Cross has been talking about is that Secretary 
Sims prepared and signed all checks. 

You hear contrary from Secretary-Treasurer Sims. 

Here in this new constitution, President Cross wanted to make sure 
that Secretary-Treasurer Sims signed all the checks that were sub- 
mitted to him, and he drew up the constitution to read so : "He shall 
at the direction of the international president." 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the old constitution, he was to submit them 
to the secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Kane. He shall prepare and sign all checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. He would submit them to the secretary-treasurer 
for his signature and now he gives them to him and directs him to sign ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also a change in the constitution as far 
as the control over the president over what banks the money shall 
be deposited in? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Was it formerly given to banks to be approved by 
the general executive board, that the international money would he 
deposited in banks approved by the general executive board, and now 
it is in banks approved by the general president ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it took the power from the executive board and 
gave it to the president ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. In other words, the old constitution stated : 

He shall deposit all other money in the name of the international union in 
banks approved by the general executive board. 

The new constitution states : 

He shall deposit all other money in the name of the international union in 
banks approved by the international president alone. 

Evidently, it is his money now. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the charges, the grounds for charges, 
against individual members ? Was there a change in that ? 

Are there any other changes, generally ? 

How about the election of the vice presidents? Have we covered 
that? 

Mr. Kane. The appointment of the vice presidents. The election 
of the vice presidents was changed by convention, just as the other. 
But there was an important change in the taking off or the putting 
on of international representatives, who make up 75 percent of the 
board : 

He shall, with the approval of the general executive board, have the authority 
to select representatives for part- or full-time service as local, special, district, 
or general representatives. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2805 

Now it gives the president the exclusive right : 

He shall have the authority to select and remove representatives for part- or 
full-time service as local, special, area, or general representatives, who shall 
function in the geographical territory set by the international president. 

Before, at least, if one of the vice president was being taken off as 
international representative, they could go to the others for their ap- 
proval. Now the international president has the sole right to take 
one of these representatives off that act as international vice presi- 
dent, and they would be out of their livelihood. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Tell me this. You were out at the convention in 
San Francisco? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

jMr. Kennedy. Was there an altercation out there while you were 
there? 

Mr. IvANE. Was there a little trouble ; do you mean i 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

JVIi". Kane. Yes; yes, sir, there was trouble. President Cross — and 
I state that emphatically as I did to the grand jury in San Francisco 
County — came to my room in the Olympic Hotel, on the morning of 
October 21, 1 think it was, and he was accompanied by George Stuart 
and Frank Gardone, both of whose names were mentioned in this 
hearing prior, and Frank Mykalo. They came into the room and 
President Cross decided to give me a working over, which he did. 

After the working over, he told me to get ready. He left the room 
with the other two. George Stuart, as I was dressing, put the gun in 
my back and told me to move. They took vis to the Fielding Hotel, 
where we came in contact with Louis Genuth, secretary-treasurer of 
local 50. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did they happen to get into your room in the 



ace 



first pi 

Mr. Kane. George Stuart called me sometime in the morning, I 
estimate it at 4 o'clock or so. It was a little later developed. He says, 
"Joe, how are you? You have'nt seen me since you came to town. 
You are in town a few days. How about getting dressed ? I would 
like to walk you to mass." 

And I says, "Come right up, George. I will be dressed in a short 
time. I will talk to you." 

George rushes in with the other two that I mentioned, Mykalo and 
Gardone, and Cross followed him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cross denied he was present at this. 

Mr. Kane. Cross denied under oath to the grand jury that he was 
present. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you state he was present ? 

Mr. Kane. I state under oath here, and I stated at the convention, 
and before my God and man, and I will go anywhere, state under oath 
that Mr. James G. Cross was in the hotel rooms of the three delegates 
that were beaten up ; namely, the Olympic Hotel, the Fielding Hotel, 
and the rooms of Nathan Ehrlicli, and beat Nathan Ehriich and Lis 
wife, beat Louis Genuth and beat me up in the city of San Francisco. 

We so testified before the grand jury, and I say again under oath. 

Mr. Kennedy. So wlien they came up and got you, George Stuart, 
to take you to mass, lie took you down the elevator and you went across 
to the other hotel ? 



2806 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kake. After Cross beat me up, lie says, "Come along, we are 
going to get Gennth now." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was Genuth ? 

Mr. Kane. Gennth was the secretary-treasurer of local 50. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to Genuth's ? 

Mr. Kane. We went to Genuth's room. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he beaten up ? 

Mr. Kane. Beaten up by both Cross and Stuart. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go anywhere else ? 

Mr. Kane. Well, George showed the gun again and moved us along 
to the Cliil Hotel, where we w^ent to the room of Mr. and Mrs. Nathan 
Ehrlich, and both of them were beaten up. 

The Chairman. I do not quite follow this, "^^^lat was all this beat- 
ing up about? What were they carrying you around with a gun in 
your back for ? 

Mr. Kane. Well, we were the announced opposition to President 
Cross and his j)olicies at the convention. 

The Chairman. Did you get beat up, too ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes ; I got beat up. 

The Chairman. Was that the democratic process tliat this union 
stands for? 

Mr. Kane. Unfortunately, Senator McClellan, in the last 3 years, 
never before, this international union has taken it upon themselves 
to conduct their business in goon-squad activities, and the testimony 
at this hearing shows this. Gardone, the boy that was testified by 
Barclay of beating the young 14-year-old boy up, was one of the ones 
that was in the room standing by as a goon to protect President 
Cross. 

The Chairman. Is that his function, this Gardone? Is that what 
he is employed for ? 

Mr. Kane. I was in the city of Pittsburgh at a meeting when Gar- 
done was first put on the international payroll, and at that time he 
was put on, George Stuart told me, because he is a nice young fellow 
that can really slug. He put him on because of the fact that he 
came to his aid in goon-squad activities with the CIO there, and 
protected Stuart. That is the qualifications of Gardone for an or- 
ganizer in this international union. 

The Chairman. These things that you are testifying to happened 
at your last national convention ? 

Mr. Kane. The last national convention. 

The Chairman. In 1956? 

Mr. Kane. In 1956. 

The Chairman. What can you do about it ? 

Mr. Kane. What can we do about it is to continue to show the 
courage and continue to not be fearful of the activities, and continue 
to fight for the right of the members of this international union. 

You ask me. Senator, what we can do about it? I think you and 
your committee are doing something about it. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: It seems here for some 
reason they fired Mr. Mami, who was the head of a union for a 
number of years. I am not saying they did not have some complaint 
against him. Maybe he had done some things improper. But I 
cannot understand how you escaped some retribution like that, of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2807 

reprisal, after they took it upon themselves to beat voii up and so 
forth. 

Have they not undertaken to kick you out of tlie union ? 

Mr. Kane. They were getting to that, Senator. Immediately 
after the convention, sometime in December, they filed charges 
against the 3 men, the 4 men that were involved in this situation in 
San Francisco. They took us up on charges, stating that we brought 
the international into disrepute, that we went to the police, we went 
to the newspapers with our story, as Americans we went to the 
newspapers and police to report a felony, and so forth. 

By the way, that wasn't the truth. The newspapers, and you know 
newspapennen. Senator, came to us, and the police came to us, and 
gave us some sort of protection. 

The thing went to the grand jury, and the grand jury reduced the 
felony charge to a simple assault and said that the case was rampant 
with perjury, which I certainly agreed with. 

The Chairman. Well, anyway, they were convicted for assault? 

Mr. ICane. No. The case was reduced to a simple assault and 
they were never charged for that or we never j^ressured it. 

The Chairman. Has there been any action taken since then to oust 
you from your union or to take it over in trusteeship or management ? 

Mr. Kane. No. They took us up on charges and we were scheduled 
to be heard around January 4. It was postponed from that time 
after we were in a position to get counsel, and set up a defense for 
ourselves. Some of these poor fellows, like the fellows in Los Angeles, 
and Gilbert Mann, didn't have 10 cents to call a lawyer. We had 
lawyers set up a defense and they postponed it. Then, fortunately for 
everybody concerned. President Cross ran into a little trouble him- 
self and decided not to pursue our charges. But if he gets out of this 
trouble, I imagine we will be taken up on charges and given the 
sleighride. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. The unusual part of your story is that you 
joined the goon squad when they went over to beat somebody else up. 
Is that what you intended to say ? 

Mr. Kane. I didn't join the goon squad. I said George Stuart, 
while I was getting dressed, Cross told me I was going along, George 
Stuart put the gun in my back, and the only reason I went and didn't 
make a break was the fact that I thought he would be foolish enough, 
after I heard some of the things lie had done, he would be foolish 
enough, probably, in the condition he was in, to take a potshot at me. 

Senator McNamara. Do you mean he was drunk ? 

Mr. Kane. Well, not drunk, but crazy to the extent that they didn't 
know what was going to come out of the convention regarding their 
activities over the last 2 or 3 years that is coming out at this hearing. 

Senator McNamara. Tell me about this incident in Chicago. Was 
it before the convention, before voting to change the bylaws or after ? 

Mr, Kane. In San Francisco, sir. It was before. 

Senator McNamara. They were putting pressure on you, then, to 
what you had taken in opposition ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. And the other people? 

Mr. Ka.ne. That is right. 



2808 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator INIcNamara. And they forced you, with a gun in your 
back, to go along and at least be a witness to the beating of other 
people ? 

Mr. Kane. No. I think the remark was made by Stuart that 
^'You are not going to stand by here and warn anybody, your other 
two buddies, and you are not going to call the police. You are com- 
ing with us." 

Senator McNamara. They forced you along? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. You had to stand by when they beat the other 
people up ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Naturally, you could not do anything about 
it because they had a gun ? 

Mr. Kane. No; I want to make this clear. When we got to Mr. 
Ehrlich's room, Mr. Ehrlich being a man in his fifties, and not being 
able to take the punishment that both Genuth and I took, I made up 
my mind that we wolild have at least 4 to 4 there, and we would have 
some kind of protection. He wasn't going to get away with beating 
Mr. Ehrlich up. When he started to beat him up, I got into the fracas 
at that time, hit Cross, and Mykalo and I were in a battle for 5 or 
10 minutes, while Cross ran down the back steps, away from all the 
trouble. 

Senator McNamara. They did not beat the man up, although they 
intended to? 

Mr. Kane. They beat Ehrlich up. They just started on him when 
we interfered. 

Senator McNamara. But you fought with them, you put up a 
fight? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. I hit Cross once. That was enough. 

Senator McNamara. Then he was down ? 

Mr. Kane. He picked up a bottle to hit me, and Ehrlich took the 
bottle out of his hand, and after that he run down the steps. 

Senator McNamara. Immediately after that ? 

Mr. Kane. A short time after. 

Senator McNamara. I cannot understand, if the evidence was as 
clear as you presented here, how the grand jury could possibly let 
these people off scot free. Can you ? 

Mr. Kane. I don't know what was in their mind, when all the people 
went there and testified that Cross was there. 

Senator McNamara. What kind of a grand jury was this? 

Mr. Kane. I think it was a good grand jury, like all American grand 
juries. It Avas a county grand jury. 

Senator McNamara. I was not asking abotit 

Mr. Kane. You asked me you can't understand how they found 
them innocent. 

Senator McNamara. I Avanted to find out if it was a Federal or 
county or State. What county ? 

Mr. Kane. San Francosco County, I think, but I am not sure, the 
city of San Francisco and the county of San Francisco. 

Senator McNamara. Certainly the committee is very much inter- 
ested in these kinds of procedures, armed people coming to your room 
at 4 o'clock in the morning, and operating in such a manner as this. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2809 

But the weakness of it is that the grand jury dismisses these people. 
I cannot quite follow that. 

Mr. Kane. They dismissed the felony charges against them and 
stated that the case was a case of simple assault, and not within the 
hands of the grand jury to handle. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, who would handle that? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was referred, I believe, to the district attorney 
for him to handle, and that has been the end of it. 

Senator McNamara. It certainly seems like the processes of the 
courts are breaking down here somewhere ; does it not? 

JNIr. Kane. Well, that is not for me to say. I don't happen to be 
a lawyer. 

Senator McNamara. Well, it is the concern of the committee, and 
we want the facts that you apparently have so we can judge whether 
or not the local courts have broken down in this instance. 

Mr. Kane. This I do know. Senator, that Cross said he wasn't 
there. We said that he was there. They didn't find him there, and 
they said that there was perjury committed, and that is still under 
investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. There wei-e some other witnesses that saw him 
there? 

Mr. Kane. There were many witnesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some emi^loj'ees of the hotel ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be interest- 
ing for the record to see what the grand jury said. "The grand jury 
after hearing the matter took no action." 

I started a paragraph too far down. 

'Tt appears to us that the extent of the beating suffered by the 
complainants was somewhat exaggerated." This is a statement of 
the grand jury. 

Mr. Kennedy. The district attorney. 

Senator McNamara. I would like the chief counsel, who is familiar 
with the document, to explain it to me for the purpose of the record. 

The Chairman. The whole letter may be placed in the record for 
an exhibit for reference. It is not sworn to. It is a photostatic copy 
of a letter. That may be made an exhibit for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 38," for reference 
and may be found in the files of tlie select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a letter of November 19, 1956, from the office of 
the district attorney, to J. W. Ehrlich Esq., Attorney at Law, 333 
Montgomery Street, San Francisco 4, Calif. 

The pertinent parts, I believe, are the last two paragraphs. 

It appeared to us that the extent of the 1>eathi8S suffered by the comphiinauts 
was somewhat exaggerated. Likewise it appeared quite clearly that the com- 
plainants and accused concealed the true subject matter or a portion of it, of 
the ar,c;uments that took place in the hotel room. We were of the opinion that 
Cross, contrary to his statement, was in the hotel room when the arf^umeut 
and alleged beating took place. The grand jury, after hearing the nuitter, 
took no action, but, instead, made the following statement : "Mr. Elkington, we 
have a statement to make resulting from considerable deliberations by the jury, 
after giving quite a bit of time and consideration to all of the testimony. Tlie 
statement is as follows : It appears that this is a case of simple assault, which 
is a misdemeanor and not a felony, and, accordingly, does not come within the 
jurisdiction of the grand jury. The case itself is rampant with perjury raid 



2810 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

we recommend the district attorney's oflBce pursue tliis matter furtlier. There 
will be no further comments or statements by any members of this grand jury, 
in connection with this matter to any individuals in the courtroom or to the 
press." 

It is signed by Norman Elkington, chief, assistant district attorney. 

Senator McNamara. This brings up the question, Mr. Chairman, as 
to how badly this man was beaten. 

Did you have to go to a doctor ? 

Mr. Kane. Hospital attendants came to the room of the Clift 
Hotel and gave me medication and so forth. 

I will say this, that Cross didn't give me a severe beating. I think 
my 10-year-old son could have beat me up more with less' eifort than 
he did with all the effort he put into it in the hotel room with me. 
I will say that the fight between Mykalo and myself was a savage 
affair. I say that Cross slapped Mrs. Ehrlich around when she tried 
to call the police, and he hit Mr. Ehrlich a rather good punch to start 
things out when I interfered. 

I will say that Secretary-Treasurer Louis Genuth got a severe beat- 
ing around the body from both Cross and George Stuart in the Field- 
ing Hotel. 

Senator McNamara. Did you have a black eye or were you cut? 
Did you have any stitches ? 

Mr. I^NE. No. One of my eyes or cheekbones were swollen and 
discolored, and many black and blue marks around my body. 

Senator McNamara. But your fight was with Cross? 

Mr. Kane. No. Cross started, he hit me. 

Senator McNamara. Then the other fellow cut in? 

Mr. Kane. No. No one cut in at the Olympic Hotel. The cut in 
was done at the Clift Hotel. 

Senator McNamara. As far as your fight's concerned, your en- 
counter was with Cross ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. And it did not amount to much? 

Mr. Kane. No. 

Senator McNamara. Then you agree with this, pretty much, with 
this finding? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. That it was properly a misdemeanor ? 

Mr. Kane. No, not necessarily, no. 

Senator McNamara. Well, that is the conclusion. 

Mr. Kane. But there is a difference. There is a difference. Maybe 
the fight part, but the idea of the gun, the idea of putting the gun in 
my ribs, was certainly a felony in my estimation. 

Senator McNamara. Was that brought out at the grand jury ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. The gmi was handled smartly. The gun was 
handled after the three left, and George Stuart put the gun in my 
back in the room with me alone. 

Senator McNamara. He took the gun out of his pocket? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. But the grand jury was not impressed with 
that testimony ? 

Mr. Kane. I don't know what impressed the grand jury, really. 

Senator McNamara. Apparently that did not, though, from the 
records. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2811 

Mr. Kane. Apparently that did not. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Kane, I heard reports that your dislike of Mr. 
Cross comes from the fact that you would like to be president of the 
international union. Is there anything to that ? 

Mr. Kane. I have never solicited any local union to support me for 
international president ; never issued a pamphlet stating that I would 
run for international president. I sat down with Nathan Ehrlich 
about a year ago this time in June, when we were preparing for the 
convention, and I said "The only way we can stop this dictator is to 
have somebody announce they are going to run against him, and if 
we don't do that, he won't curtail the things that he wants to do." 

And I says "Nathan, starting today, I will announce that I am 
going to run against him, but you understand that is just to try to 
create a two-party system in this international union." 

I had no intention whatsoever to run for international union 
president. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So your testimony here and the statements that you 
have made are not based on the fact that you want to be president 
instead of Mr. Cross. 

Mr. Kane. Of course not. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. It is based on your desire to help the members of the 
bakers union ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. My whole record will prove that, going 
back to the days that I first became affiliated with this international 
union. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Apparently, the purpose of this appearing at 
people's hotel rooms in the middle of the night or late in the morning 
was to intimidate ? 

Mr. Kane. I would say so. 

Senator McNamara. There is no question about it, is there ? Or is 
there a question ? 

Mr. I^ne. There is no question about it at all. 

Senator McNamara. Then it was to intimidate them, apparently. 

At the convention, when you did not vote against the proposition of 
the international to change the by-laws, was it because you were afraid, 
or was it because you just did not care? 

Mr. I^NE. I wasn't afraid, Senator, to vote against it. There are 
many, many bills that probably go through the Senate that you— — 

Senator McNamara. Then why did you not bother to vote? 

Mr. Kane. I couldn't vote on every resolution and every word that 
went through there. I couldn't be on the floor that much. I was 
leaving the floor, coming in, going out, trying to prepare for the main 
and important. 

Senator McNAMARiV. Was this not the very most important thing 
in your mind now, that took place at that convention, changing the 
rules so as to set up more of a dictatorship than you previously had ? 
Was there sometliing more important ? 

Mr. K!ane. Yes ; but, Senator, these constitutional changes went on 
some mornings from 10 o'clock to 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, and 
you could not be on the floor on every vote, so I couldn't tell you the 
ones I voted for and the ones I was against, but I was against the whole 

89330— 57— pt. 8 16 



2812 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

program of taking away from the rank-and-file members tlieir riglits 
and centralizing it in the hands not of a committee but in the hands of 
one man. 

Senator McNamara. But you still do not know whether you voted 
or not on this ? 

Mr. Kane. On some of them. I would have to look at the record. 

Senator McNamara. That would show ? 

Mr. ICane. The record of the convention. 

Senator McNamara. Was it not a voice vote ? 

Mr. Kane. I would have to discover the record of the ones that I 
voted against. For instance, I voted against Cross for president. 

Senator McNamara. But on this particular vote to change the by- 
laws, to make it less of a democratic organization as you have so well 
pointed out, according to previous testimony, as I understood it, it 
was a voice vote. They reconmiended this, and by a voice vote it was 
adopted at the convention. Is that not right? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. And some of them were by roll-call votes 
that I voted against. 

Senator McNa:\iara. "We are talking about one particular vote, not 
some of them. This one was a voice vote. You do not know whether 
you voted on it or not and the records would not disclose whether you 
did or not ? 

Mr. Kane. That is riglit. 

Senator McNamara. Then your reference to the records would not 
help you at all. 

Mr. Kane. But I spoke against them. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, I have questions going to both lines of 
testimony to which Mr. Kane has testified. 

The Chairman. You will submit your questions and the committee 
^vill take them under consideration. 

Mr. Kane. Senator, I would like to make a short statement. 

The Chairman. You will submit your questions and the committee 
will take them under consideration during the recess hour. 

Mr. Harris. All right. 

May I also ask this : I would like to submit for the record in the 
event the committee does not yet have them, I am not sure whether 
the committee does or not, photographs of Mr. Kane, of Mr. and Mrs. 
Ehrlich, and of Mr. Genuth taken leaving the grand jury room, within 
2 or 3 days after tlie alleged beating. 

The Chairisian. We are going to have Mr. Cross on the stand. At 
that time you may present whatever he can testify to them. In the 
meantime, you may submit those to the committee for inspection. 

Mr. Harris, May I submit tliem for the cross-examination of this 
witness this afternoon ? 

The Chairman. They may be submitted along with your questions. 

We will take them into consideration during the recess hour. 

Mr. Harris. And also the report of the grand jury ? 

The CiiAiRiNiAN. Yes, sir. We will take that. We will take any- 
thing you want to submit- 

Mr. Harris. And tlie police report of the San Francisco police, 
which shows that all of the alleged victims refused aid ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2813 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The Cliair lias told you that we 
will take any documents you want to submit. 

Mr. Harris. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If w^e ^o much further, you may be testifying. 

Mr. Harris. I do not want to testify. 

The Chairman. The clerk will take the dociunents, and we will oive 
them immediate attention, the questions and the documents. 

Mr. Kane. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement. 

The Chairman. We will hear a brief statement from you. 

Mr. Kane. I, as a trade-union leader, have all the confidence in the 
world in President Meany, secretary-treasurer Schnitzler, the AFL- 
CIO ethical practices committee, to handle the situation of corrup- 
tion and straightening out the American labor movement. But I 
also say this, that I don't think they would have been able to do any- 
thing, and I think it would have taken us as rank-and-file leaders, 
and rank-and-file delegates and rank-and-file members, a hundred 
years to get at cleaning up our international union, of the terror, the 
fear, that is in the international union. This committee deserves the 
praise and the credit of every local union official and every local union 
member and every international official in this Nation for the work 
that they have done, and the work of this committee in bringing 
to our members in the only way that it could be brought to our mem- 
bers, the facts about our international union. It amazes them. 

I have gone to various meetings that Mr. Cross talked to, the Bis- 
cuit Council Convention in Toronto, the New York local union leaders 
meetings, and President Cross ancl many other union officials sup- 
porting him, condemn this committee, the McClellan committee, as 
being an antilabor committee. I don't think any local union leader 
that has nothing to be afraid of, that wants decent trade unionism 
in America, has ever stated that about this committee, and I never 
heard a rank-and-file member of our union, my union, or any other 
union, condemning this committee. 

You deserve the credit of the American workingman, and I know 
the bakery and confectionery workers throughout this country will 
be much better off for it. 

I am sure that the employers ,particularly the small family-owned 
bakeries of this Nation, that have to struggle under the relationship 
of the big bakeries in this country, with the big union officials of this 
country, will be much better off for it, and they will be eternally 
grateful. 

I know that in New York, certainly, they wall be appreciative that 
they don't have to dig down in four or five hundred dollars each year 
for testimonial dinners and so forth. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. 

We hope the committee is rendering a service, not only to the Con- 
gress but to the American people. We sincerely hope that we are 
rendering a service to honest unionism. 

Thank you very much. 

You w^ill remain, you w^ill be recalled after the recess. 

The committee now recesses until 2 o'clock. 

(^^Hiereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan 
and McNamara.) 



2814 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(Members present at the convening of the afternoon session : Sena- 
tors McClellan and Goldwater. ) 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Mr. Kane? 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KANE— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Kane, counsel for Mr. Cross has submitted to 
the committee certain questions he would like to have asked you. 
Some of them, I think, have already been substantially answered, but 
the Chair is going to permit counsel to ask you the questions. Answer 
them promptly. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. Is it not true that you and all members of the con- 
vention were afforded full opportunity to discuss constitutional 
changes on the floor of the convention ? 

Mr. Kane. We were given the opportunity to discuss, given 5 and 
•10 minutes' time to discuss, 5 minutes and then another additional 
5 minutes. But in discussing these issues, we were also given a chorus 
of boos. Ever}^ time we got up we got booed, practically, off the floor, 
by paid organizers and representatives of the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that Secretary-Treasurer Sims and 
Vice Presidents Conway, Miller, and Goodman, were all in favor of 
all constitutional changes both before and during the convention? 

Mr. I^NE. That came out at the convention, the remarks of Presi- 
dent Cross, that it was a unanimous decision of the general executive 
board on these constitutional changes. 

To my way of speaking, they had no right to suggest constitutional 
changes. But they have the right to submit these resolutions, in the 
present constitution. It is true that they went along with them, but 
it is also true, to their credit, to the credit of Secretary-Treasurer 
Sims and Dan Conway and Goodman, Archie Goodman, and Amos 
Miller, and John deConcini, that they had the moral courage and 
courage to come out after the convention and fight the things that 
they are now fighting and have the respect of the rank-and-file people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that the only medication given you 
was one bandaid ? 

Mr. Kane. I don't even know if I was given a bandaid or not. I 
wasn't injured so much physically as much as I was disgusted mental- 
ly, that this international union would stoop to the tactics they did 
in my hotel rooms and the other hotels. It is something that I and 
the others have not gotten over. But wounded and what showed up, 
we wanted no medication. All we wanted was a little silence, a little 
self-respect, and the rights I think we enjoy as American citizens. 

Mr. Kennedy. In exhibit 38, in connection with Mrs. Ehrlich, they 
say more argument and a further attack took place when Mrs. Ehr- 
lich attempted to telephone for help. The telephone was struck from 
her hand and she was physically mistreated. The story as to the 
Clif t Hotel was corroborated by the telephone operator who heard the 
call and by the occupants of the room adjoining the Ehrlich's. 

Were you in the room at the time ? 

Mr. Kane. That is a correct statement. I was in the room at the 
time. 



IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2815 

Mr. Kennedy. Who hit Mrs. Elirlich? 

Mr. Kane. When she was trying to use the telephone to call the 
police? Mr. Cross. James (^ross. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cross stated he was not present at the time. 

Mr. Kane. He lias Jiis conscience and his God to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that James G. Cross and others were 
charged with assault, conspiracy and kidnaping, on the basis of your 
statements to the police ? 

Mr. Kane. I and others when we were questioned by the police. 
We had to be law-abiding citizens and cooperate with the police and 
give them the facts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true — tlie answer to that is "yes"? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that you gave substantially the same 
stor}' under oatli to the San Francisco grand jury in October 1956? 

Mr. Kane. Tlie same story ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That I believe you testified to here. 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

The Chairman. That you gave to the police. That is what he 
means. 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true tliat the four defendants, James G. 
Cross, George Stuart, Frank Gardone, and Frank Mykalo also testi- 
fied before the same grand jury ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right'. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that other witnesses, including hotel 
employees and police officers, also appeared before the same grand 
jury and testified -with respect to your charges against the aforesaid 
Cross, Stuart, Gardone, and Mykalo ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true tliat tiie graiid jury devoted three 
sessions to the consideration of the charsres ? 

Mr. Kane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true tliat after hearing all the evidence, 
the grand jury disbelieved your testimony and that of the other com- 
plainants by refusing to indict Cross and the others of the crime of 
wliich you had accused them? 

Mr. Kane. I don't go along with that, that they disbelieved. I 
don't know what reason they have or what motivated them to make 
the statement they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. (/hairman, we have here also submitted before 
the grand jury of the city and county of San Francisco, State of 
California, in the matter of the investigation of James Cross, Stuart 
Gardone and Mykalo, charged with violations of sections 245, 182, and 
274 of the penal code. It has a statement of the foreman that I read 
this morning. It says that it appears to be a case of simple assault. 

The Chairman. Was this document submitted by counsel for Mr. 
Cross? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. The statement you read this morning was taken 
from this? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it was. 

The Chairman. It may be compared, and if it is the same, the one 
reading of it into the record will be sufficient. 



2816 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Have some member of the staff make a comparison. If it is the 
same as that read this morning, it will not be necessary to reread it 
into the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, I believe, the account of what occurred by the 
police department, the San Francisco Police Department, is here. Do 
you want me to read this? It is an account of the San Francisco 
Police Department as to what occurred, based on interviews with the 
various complainants. 

That document was submitted also. 

I think this just states 

The Chairman. Well, it is a document submitted. 

I do not know the authenticity of it. I assume it is a photostatic 
copy of a police report. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may read it and ask this witness if it is cor- 
rect. Rea d the pertinent parts. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) . 

Mr. Nathan Ehrlicli reported that the within named suspects came to his 
door to room 917, Hotel Clift and knocked. Upon opening the door the suspects 
pushed Mr. Ehrlich into a chair into the corner and began to strike liim about the 
face and body and when his wife attempted to help they struck her about the 
body. I questioned victim No. 2, a Mr. Joseph G. Kane, and he stated that he is 
at the present staying at the Olympic Hotel, 230 Eddy Street, room No. 1208, and 
that the same suspects came to his room this date and had assaulted him and 
then forced him to leave the hotel and go to another hotel, Hotel Fielding, 386 
Geary Street, where the suspects then assaulted another victim, a Mr. Louis 
Genuth. After assaulting the third victim they forced these two men to leave 
the hotel while holding a gun butt to their back and go to the Clift Hotel and 
used them to gain entrance to Mr. Ehrlich's room where they assaulted Mr. 
Ehrlich and his wife. I then questioned them as to the possible reason for this 
assault and they all stated that it was stemming front an argument within the 
convention for the International Bakers Union being held here in San Francisco, 
These victims had already called their attorneys and the attorneys were advised 
to obtain warrants for arrest of the siispects. The suspects are all known to 
the victims and are high officials of the union. 

2. Suspect No. 1 : George Stewart, WMA, age 40 years, 5 feet 7 inches, 200 
pounds, heavy build — ruddy complexion, grey hair. Suspect No. 2 : James G. 
Cross, WMA, age 45 years, 5 feet 10 inches, 185 pounds, heavy build, light com- 
plexion, blond hair. Suspect No. 3 : Paul Cordone, WMA, age 35 years, 5 feet 
7 inches, 180 pounds, dark complexion, medium build, black hair. Suspect No. 4 ; 
no description. 

Then it gives the list of those who complained, Joseph Kane, his 
address, and Genuth. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 39 for 
reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 39", for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it gives Mr. Kane's account about brandishing 
a gun. 

Mr. Harris. I ask leave to address the Chair for a moment. 

At the end of the second page, paragraph No. 4, there is a statement 
which I did not hear counsel read, which says "aid refused by all 
victims." 

Is that not correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; that is correct. 

Mr. HiVRRis. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want me to read tlie last page, Mr. Chairman ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2817 

Counsel, is it a summary of what Mr. Kane testified this morning? 
Is there anything on the last page that you want read, particularly 't 

Mr. Harris. I don't see the necessity of reading it; no. It will be 
put in the record, I take it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will read it, Mr. Chairman. 

The CiiAiR]vi.vN. You follow, and if there is anything in there that 
is untrue, you may so state, and if it is true, you can corroborate it. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading). 

Suspects George Stuart, James Cross, Frank Gardone and an unidentified 
male came to the room of Joseph Kane at the Olympic Hotel, beat Mr. Kane, 
Stuart brandished a revolver and ordered Mr. Kane to accompany them to the 
room of Mr. Genuth at the Fielding Hotel. Along with Mr. Kane the four 
suspects entered Mr. Genuth's room beat him and ordered both Kane and 
Genuth to accompany them to the room of Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Ehrlich, Stuart 
still brandishing revolver. Upon entering Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich's room at the 
Clift Hotel they struck both Mr. and Mrs. Ehrlich, entered the room of Mr. and 
Mrs. Lorber, wliich adjoins Ehrlich's room, and held them in bed. At this time 
for the first time the complainants offered resistance and in the scuffle Mr. 
Ehrlich was able to call for help on the telephone and the suspects fled. 
Suspect .lames Cross arrested at the Palace Hotel this date. Mr. Cross and his 
Attorney Dorsey Redland to surrender other suspects. 

2. An-ested : James G. Cross, WMA, 7420 Hampton Lane, Bethesda, Md. 
Palace Hotel. Age 44 years, charges suspect 207 and 245 penal code. 

Frank Gardone, WMA, Pittsburgh, Pa., 31 years. Charge 207 and 245 penal 
code. 

George Stuart, WMA, 47 years, Washington, D. C. Charge 207 and 245 penal 
code. 

Frank Mykalo, WMA, 34 years, Scranton, Pa. Charge 207 and 245 penal 
code. 

Frank Gardone, George Stuart, and Frank Mykalo surrendered themselves 
at 6 p. m., this date at the Palace Hotel. All four suspects identified by Louis 
Genuth. 

On instructions from Assistant District Attorney Cecil Poole all complaining 
witnesses are to be in the general works detail on Monday, October 22, 1956, at 
10 a. m. 

This is signed Murphy and O'Keefe. 

The Chairman. Is there anything in that statement that you did 
not testify to this morning? 

Mr. Kane. No, sir. 

The Chairman, How soon did you give that statement after this 
occurred ? 

Mr. Kane. That is right. 

The Chairman. How soon ? A week, 1 day or 2 hours ? 

Mr. Kane. Within the hour after. ' 

The Chairman. Within the hour after? 

Mr. Kane. Yes, sir. ' ; 

The Chairman. The situation has not changed any since? 

Mr. Kane. No, sir. 

The Chairman, It is still a fact now as it was then ? • 

Mr. Kane. I am positive. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this document, this photo- 
static copy before the grand jury of the city and county of San 
Francisco, State of California, a part of exhibit No. 38, which is the 
letter from the district attorney; excerpts of which were read into 
the record this morning. 

These documents have been compared. The language read into the 
record from the letter this morning is the same as that in the grand 
jury document. They will both be made exhibit 38. 



2818 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the j)ictiires that were also submitted. 

The Chaikman. The pictures may be returned to the owners of them, 
if he wants them. If he does not, you can put them in incidental 
matters in the file. 

Do you want these pictures ? 

Mr. Harris. I submitted them, Mr. Chairman, for the record. 
I would have hoped that counsel would ask the witness whether those 
are not 

The Chairman. Give the witness the pictures. 

Mr. Harris. Ask him whose pictures they are and when they were 
taken. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize those people ? 

Mr. KL4.NE. Nathan Ehrlich, Mrs. Ehrlich, Louis Genuth, Joseph 
Kane, Arthur Markowitz, an attorney; Joseph Kane, and Mrs. 
Lorber. 

The Chairman. Do you know how long after this fracas the pic- 
tures were made, how many days, hours, minutes or months ? 

Mr. Kane. I have no idea, but I heard it testified to that it was 
at the grand jury. 

The Chairman. How long was it before you went to the grand 
jury to testify after the night of the fracas ? 

Mr. Kane. I think we went there the next night, Monday night. 

The Chairman. According to the pictures, do you see any bruises 
on your face or anywhere else ? 

Mr. Kane. There is a slight bruise on the lip, a little discoloration 
of the right eye. Louis Genuth's right eye seems to be a little closed. 
Mrs. Ehrlich is very nervous. The same thing applies to Mr. 
Ehrlich. 

The Chairman. Those may be made exhibit No. 40. 

(The docmnents referred to were marked "Exhibits 40 for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select coimnittee.) 

The Chairman. I hand you now a photostatic copy of the San 
Francisco paper, a photostatic copy of it. Take a look at that and 
see if you recognize the picture on the front page. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Kane. It is me, but it is hard to recognize. 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Kane. I seem to be beat up around the right side of the face 
and my jaw seems to be swollen. But it could be possible from the 
camera. And my lip is cut right under the nose, the upper lip. 

The Chairman. When was that picture taken ? 

Mr. Kane. That was probaly taken Sunday right after the fracas. 

The Chairman. Sunday, right after the fracas. You did get a 
scratch or two, did you not? 

Mr. Kane. Minor. 

The Chairman. Minor. All right. 

That may be made exhibit No. 41. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 41," for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Exhibit 41 is just for reference. I do not want 
them printed in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have an attorney out there ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2819 

Mr. Kane. I didn't have an attorney, no. There were attorneys 
available. Mr. Ehrlich had an attorney along. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the union pay for those attorneys ? 

Mr. Kane. I understand that local 51 paid for one of the attorneys, 
and there was another attorney that did not participate in the grand 
jury thing. Local 51, to the best of my knowledge, paid for them. 
I know we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know what? 

Mr. Kane, I didn't pay. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

All right, Mr. Kane, you may stand aside for the present. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Curtis Sims, Mr. Chairman. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan and Gold- 
water. ) 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Sims. 

Mr. Sims, do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Sims. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CURTIS R. SIMS, ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY KAISER 

The Chairman. State your name, place of residence and business or 
occupation. 

Mr. Sims. Curtis R. Sims, Bethesda, Md., at the present time sus- 
pended secretary-treasurer 

The Chairman. Wliat? 

Mr. Si3is. Suspended secretary-treasurer of the Bakery and Confec- 
tionery Workers International Union of America. 

The Chairman. What is the status of a suspended member ? 

Mr. Sims. Well, my status now is that I am on vacation with full 
pay. That is about the best I can give. 

The Chahunian. You are still drawing money ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. You have an attorney here representing you? 

Mr. Sims. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will counsel please identify himself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Kaiser. Henry Kaiser, lYOl K Street NW., Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, ]Mr. Kaiser. 

Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr 
Mr. Sims' 

Mr. Sims. I joined the union in July 1933. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been an officer how long ? 

Mr. Sims. I have been a local union officer from 1933 until 1937, 
and in the various capacities as an international officer from 1937 
until March 5, 1957. 

The Chairman. Is that when you were suspended ? 

Mr. Sims. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell me how long you have been an officer 
of the international ? 

Mr. Sims. In various capacities since 1937. 



2820 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Aiicl how long were you secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Sims. Since February 1, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were suspended, were you, recently, Mr. Sims? 

Mr. Sims. I was suspended on March — the wee hours of the morn- 
ing of March 8. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time, had you brought certain charges 
against certain officials of the international union? 

Mr. Sims. I had. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had specifically brought charges against Mr. 
James Cross, the international president? 

Mr. Sims. And Vice President Stuart. 

Mr, Kennedy. And did you have a certain amount of documenta- 
tion regarding those charges that you brought ? 

Mr. Sims. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, and has it been supported in the record 
before this committee, did you have information regarding the mis- 
use of some $13,000 out of a local in Chicago, 111., for the purchase 
of 2 automobiles? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you also have some information, documen- 
tation, showing that there had been a misuse of union funds to make 
personal purchases for Mr. Stuart ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that you also had some documentation for the 
misuse of union money on the part of Mr. James Cross ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The use of union money to pay for his own personal 
bills and pledges ; is that right ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You brought those charges against Mr. Cross and 
Mr. Stuart. Were those charges heard by the executive board ? 

Mr. Sims. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what tlie result was 
after you presented your case to the executive board ? 

Mr. Sims. The charges were filed on March 3, 1957. A special ses- 
sion of the board was called by President Cross for 2 p. m. of March 
6. Before the charges could be heard, it w\as necessary that a trial 
procedure be adopted. That trial procedure was adopted by the board 
in about 2 liours and a half on the afternoon of March 6, at the 
Sheraton-Park Hotel, here in Washington. 

At that time, the general executive board insisted that the charges 
against President Cross be heard immediately at that time. Not 
being prepared at that time, it was postponed until the next afternoon, 
March 7, and the hearing started shortly after 2 p. m., and continued 
through the afternoon and evening with the exception of approxi- 
mately an hour and a half taken oif for dinner. 

The hearing adjourned somewhere at approximately 10 p. m. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Was the result that after you filed your charges, 
they heard the charges, Mr. Stuart and Mr. Cross were cleared by the 
executive board ? 

Mr. Sims. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you suspended ? 

Mr. Sims. I was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2821 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So the result of your presentation of charges to the 
executive board of the international bakers was that Mr. Stuart and 
Mr. Cross were cleared, and you were suspended ; is that right ? 

Mr. Sims. Right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That is the same Mr. Stuart that appeared before 
the committee and took the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

The Chairman. May I ask a question or two? Who constituted 
the trial board or committee ? 

Mr. Sims. The board itself, with the exception of Vice President 
Stuart, President Cross, and myself, who were disqualified, which 
left 17 on the board. 

The CiiAiKMAx. Seventeen members of the regular executive board 
constituted the trial body ? 

Mr. Sims. Right. 

The Chairman. The tribmial. 

All right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Immediately after the vote was taken to clear 
President Cross and Mr. Stuart, was there a vote taken on your 
suspension ? 

Mr. Sims. There was, although I was not present. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Was there a suspension resolution offered? 

Mr. Sims. There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you examine this document ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be a 
carbon copy of what is entitled "Suspension resolution." I will ask 
if you will examine this carbon copy and see if you identify it as 
such, a copy of the original. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Sims. Yes ; this appears to be a genuine copy. 

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

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 42, for reference. 

(The document referred to was market "Exhibit 42" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you hold that in your hand ? What is the 
date of that suspension? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, will you take charge for a 
moment ? 

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

Mr. Sims. On page 2, in the first resolve, the date appears in type- 
writer as the 6tli day of March 1957, and over the top of the 6 has been 
written with ink the 7th day of March. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or is it 8 ? 

Mr. Sims. Eight. March 8. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it would appear that your suspension resolution 
was drawn up 2 days prior to the executive board even reached a re- 
sult, is that right? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And finding that the trial was not to go on the 6th 
of March as expected, it was changed from the 6th to the 8th, is that 
right? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 



2822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. And the suspension resolution was offered imme- 
diately after the executive board cleared Mr. Cross and Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Sims, That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy, I have here the hearings from the executive board, 
Mr, Chairman, a special session of the executive board, Bakery and 
Confectionery Workers International Union of America, 

President Cross stated this, at page 239, while taking the chair again 
as president of this international union and chairman of this general 
executive board. 

May I very humbly and very sincerely thank this board for what I consider 
a very great vote of confidence. I won't say too much. Most of you know how 
I feel. But then it brings us to another serious problem. If as I interpret this 
vote, it is a vindication for me against the charges made, it is then also a vote 
of no confidence in Secretary Sims. You have heard all the evidence in a hear- 
ing body. I think the world, if they could know, and our members, would be 
proud of the deliberations and the method in which you have handled yourselves 
in such a serious manner. I think it will help in some measure to correct some 
of the wrong that has been done to this international union through the public 
press and in the minds of the workers that we represent. I can't make a long 
speech. I don't think it is proper. I wouldn't be able to anyway. 

I will say one thing, which is some of my innermost thoughts. I am not 
going to be able to do this again in another 5 months. I got hit in San Fran- 
cisco, regardless of the feeling of some of the delegates. It was a terrible thing 
for this international union to go through, and it was terrible for me. Five 
months later when I was beginning to get back on my feet again, I got hit with 
this one. I don't think I can stand one more. I don't think I can put up with it. 
I hope it never happens. I won't give it an occasion to happen. 

I sometimes search myself to find out what is wrong, what could I do wrong 
that even these charges would be leveled. 

Then he goes on to discuss the fact that you have brought these 
charges and, therefore, some action should be taken against you, Mr. 
Sims. 

Mr. Sims, Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy, And they did vote on that occasion that you should 
be suspended ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do you have a list there of the charges made against 
you? 

Mr, Sims, I have the list here, 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Roughly, without going into them in detail, weren't 
they that you brought the union into disrepute by making your 
charges public ? 

Mr, Sims. There were four charges preferred against me. The 
first three charges dealt with newspaper publicity and the fourth 
charge was the preferring of my charges in bad faith. 

The Chairman, In bad faith ? 

Mr, Sims. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the basis of your allegedly preferring 
the charges in bad faith ? 

Mr. Sims. That I went to the newspapers to air out my troubles. 
And an unwarranted and unnecessary expense by requiring convening 
of a special general executive board meeting. 

The Chairman. In other words, if you had charges, you had better 
keep them to yourself, is that right ? 

Mr, Sims, That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2823 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you appear before the general executive board 
and defend yourself of these matters ? 

Mr. Sims. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a copy of the hearing at which you 
had appeared earlier and had presented your charges ? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you have a copy of that ? 

Mr. Sims. We were unable to obtain a transcript of the hearing on 
the charges against President Cross. In fact, those transcripts were 
not received by us until after we returned from Miami, which was in 
the first few days of April, although the hearing was on the 27th qf 
March. 

Mr. Kennedy. So when you appeared yourself to answer this ques- 
tion of whether you made these charges in good faith, you were not 
allowed to review the testimony before the executive board ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Was that a public hearing, where you could be 
present and hear everything testified ? 

Mr. Sims. Well, they were public hearings to the extent of the 
board members only being present. It was not a public hearing in 
the sense that this hearing is. 

The Chairman. Well, I mean, were you present during the taking 
of all of the testimony ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of distributing any of this material 
to the press, has that happened before, anything similar to this ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Sims. It happened before, but I am not familiar with the 
details. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any of the charges against you distributed 
in the newspapers ? 

Mr. Sims. No. It got in the paper, but I don't know how it got 
there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Sims. They got in the paper, but how they got there I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You w^ere present out in San Francisco when this 
dispute took place that Mr. Kane has testified to ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The attorneys of the International Bakers Union, 
what are their names? 

Mr, Sims. Herman Cooper is the general counsel for the interna- 
tional union, and his associate is John Long, one of his associates. 

Mr. Ejennedy. Were they paid any special fee at the time of this 
convention and this dispute? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were not given any extra money ? 

Mr. Sims. No ; other than expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not give him any money yourself? 

Mr. Sims. I gave Long $250. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you didn't give Mr. Herman Cooper any monev ? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give him a check out there? 



2824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sims. I gave Mr. Cooper $8,000 in cash on Friday after the 
convention ended on Wednesday. 

(The witness conferred with his coimseL) 

The CiLviRMAN. Why were you handling these matters in cash ? 

Mr. Sims. That was the action of the board, that that money be 
handled in cash. 

The Chairman. By the action of the board, do yon mean the board 
directed it be handled that way? 

Mr. Sims. The board voted that the expenses for the San Fran- 
cisco fracas was $24,000, and that the check be drawn in the amount 
of $16,000 payable to Herman Cooper, and that $8,000 be given to 
him in cash. 

The Chairmax. What was the reason for the cash payment, not 
placing it all in one check? 

Mr. Sims. The only reason I can give you is that it was for ex- 
penses incurred during this fracas, miscellaneous expenses. 

The Chairman. The $24,000, what was that for? 

Mr. Sims. I suppose the $16,000 was to be used to take care of 
attorney and legal expenses. 

The Chairman. For that one fracas out there? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

The Chairman. You keep talking about a fracas. Are you talk- 
ing about this fracas that has been testified to here today ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. You are not talking about the expense of the 
convention ? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

The Chairman. I thought this was the expense of the convention. 
You were right the first time. The expense of a fracas. 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. It was a pretty expensive fracas, was it not ? 

Mr. Sims. Rather; yes. 

The Chairman. I do not understand where the expense of the 
fracas came in. ^^^lat expense was associated with this fracas? 

Mr. Sims. As I understand, there was a firm of local attorneys 
retained. I don't know what other expense was involved in it. I 
was never told. I know that that is the action of the board. 

The Chairman. Well, if you had an expense you were going to 
pay to Mr. Cooper, your general attorney, why did you not write it all 
in one check ? 

Mr. Sims. President Cross brought this up before the board, and 
Attorney Cooper told the board how this money was to be handled. 

The Chairman. What did he tell them ? 

Mr. Sims. He told them that the expenses involved in this San 
Francisco fracas was $24,000. 

The Chairman. Did he give you an itemized statement of it ? 

Mr. Sims. I never saw an itemized statement of it. I never saw 
anything. 

The Chairman. Did he give you any breakdown whatsoever ? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

The Chairman. This money, then, is actually paid out against Mr. 
Cross, the international president? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2825 

The Chairmax. To cover the expense of a fracas apparently he 
initiated so far as this testimony is concerned here? 
Mr. Sims. Kijxht. . . 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Is that a legitimate expense under 
the constitution of this union, to take $24,000 of dues money to pay 
for a little old fracas? They say it is so small they do not even have 
a scratch on the pictures they brought in. Suppose they scratched 
them up a little, what would it cost ? I want to get the facts. Is that 
the loose way in which the union dues are handled by this interna- 
tional? , , 1 n 1 

Mr. Sims. Well, let me say this : That is the way that was handled. 

The Chairman. That is the way that was handled ? 

Mr. Sims. Right. ^ . , ^. 

The Chairman. Was there something about this that was peculiar, 
different from others ? 

Mr. Sims. Well, it is not the best way to handle the thing. 

The Chairman. It might be, for that kind of a deal. I do not know. 

Senator Goldwater ? . 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Sims, this is $8,000 m cash; did you 
give that to Mr. Cooper before the fracas ? 

Mr. Sims. After. It was about 6 or 7 days after. Or 8 days after. 

Senator Goldwator. Was that the same time you gave him the 
check for $16,000? ^ , ^^r r 

Mr. Sims. The check was mailed to Mr. Cooper from the Wash- 
ington office after I returned from San Francisco. . 

Senator Goldwater. Could this $8,000 in cash have been used, m 
your mind, to pay off people ? 

Mr. Sims. It could have. 

Senator Goldwater. People, for instance, who might have come in 
from outside the union to persuade some of these other individuals 
with violence ? -r i i i 

Mr. Sims. It could have been used for anything. I have no knowl- 
edge of where that money went. 

Senator Goldwater. How did you carry it on your books i 

Mr. Sims. We carried it as convention expenses. 

Senator Goldwater. And did you carry the $16,000 check as a con- 
vention expense ? 

Mr. Sims. It was carried as convention expenses. 

Senator Goldwater. The whole thing? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. n i i 

Senator Goldwater. Have you heard anything that would leiid 
you to believe that any individuals in particular benefited by this 
$8,000 in cash other than Mr. Cooper ? 

Mr. Sims. No. , . , n i i j? 

Senator Goldwater. It is a very unusual way to handle a legal tee. 

The Chairman. How did you report this to your union members 

as expense? ...,., i^i i. 

Mr. Sims. Well, the report, when it is printed, I suppose— although 
the report had not been printed when I left the office— I assume that 
it will be printed as convention expenses. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You approved this, did you not, yourself ? 

Mr. Sims. It was approved by the general executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you approve it ? 



2926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sims. The board approved it upon the say-so or recommenda- 
tion or the word of President Cross and Attorney Cooper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion at the time that this 
money was needed to pay off any witnesses ? 

Mr, Sims. There was no discussion, 

Mr, Kennedy, Was there any understanding amongst the board 
members that that was the purpose of the $8,000 in cash ? 

Mr, Sims. There was no discussion or no understanding. There 
couldn't have been an understanding if there were no discussion 
about it. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you something. 

Are you telling the committee and the country at large here that 
you just vote out $24,000 out of dues funds without having any 
explanation of what it is for, and what it is going to ? 

Mr, Sims, That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the way your board operates ? 

Mr. Sims. That is the way it operated in that situation. 

The Chairman. Do you think it is a proper way for it to have 
operated ? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

The Chairman. Did you agree to it at the time ? 

Mr. Sims. I did and I didn't. I didn't vote against it. I didn't 
vote for it. I just kept quiet. 

The Chairman. Is there some reason for such silence on occasions 
when the union's funds are being used in such fashion ? Is there some 
particular reason why you kept silence and did not vote for or against 
it? 

Mr. Sims. Well, if I had opposed it, we would have been in the sit- 
uation we are possibly in now. 

The Chairman. You would have gotten suspended a little earlier, 
you think ? 

Mr. Sims. Possibly. 

Senator Mundt, You were at the meeting when the money was 
voted, were you not ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Can you reconstruct for the committee, as well as 
your memory can recall, what was said by either the president, Mr. 
Cross, or by the attorney, Mr. Cooper, in presenting the bill to the 
board ? 

Mr. Sims, This whole discussion before the board didn't last but 
maybe 1, 2, or 3 minutes. It was handled very quickly. To the best 
of my memory, President Cross stated that, due to this situation that 
had happened there in San Francisco, that certain expenses had been 
incurred, and that it would require board approval. 

Attorney Cooper stated how it was to be divided up. I think Presi- 
dent Cross said a word or two after that. 

Then it was put to a vote. 

Senator Mundt. Did any member of the board raise any question 
or ask for any particulars or want to know what the money was to be 
used for ? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

Senator Mundt. Do you feel that there are other members of the 
board who may have shared your reticence for the same reason that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2827 

you manifested it, that to oppose Mr. Cross and Mr. Cooper might 
jeopardize your position on the board, and, consequently, they did 
not ask any questions ? 

Mr. Sims. Possibly so, yes. 

Senator Mundt. It was just pushed right through in a couple of 
minutes of discussion, with nobody raising any questions, and nobody 
voting in the negative, and nobody wondering what was to be done 
with the money ; out loud, anyhow ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, Mr. Counsel i 

Mr. ICennedt. There is just one question. At this executive-board 
meeting, was it discussed that this $24,000 was for the legal fee for 
Herman Cooper, that he had incurred while out in San Francisco 
for 2 or 3 weeks, rather than in connection with this fracas? 

Mr. Sims. There was nothing in the discussion whatsoever about 
any legal fees for Attorney Cooper in this matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. This $24,000 was explained to you to be in connec- 
tion with this fracas ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the only discussion ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. Had there been a lot of discussion about it before 
you had the executive-board meeting ? Maybe you had an understand- 
ing prior to the meeting as to how you were p:oing to handle it. 

Mr. Sims. I certainly had no prior understanding about it. 

The Chairman. Had anyone discussed it with you prior to the 
meeting? . 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. In fact, the figure of $24,000 was as big a sur- 
prise to me as it was to you. 

The Chairman. You never heard of it when you went into the 
meeting ? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat was your individual reaction when you hrst 
heard the figure ? Did you think it was a little bit large ? 

Mr. Sims. I thought it was ridiculous. 

Senator Mundt. You thought it was ridiculous? It just did not 
seem to vou in your mind that they could justify an expenditure of 
that much money for the kind of incidents tliat occurred at the con- 
vention ; is that right ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Sims, before you get off the stand, 2 weeks 
ago tomorrow, I believe it was the day, Mr. Stuart came before this 
committee and took the fifth amendment. To your knowledge has the 
ethical practices committee of the AFI^CIO done anything about that 
as yet ? 

Mr. Sims. To my knowledge, I don't know whether they liave or not. 

Senator Goldwater. Your union has affiliated; has it not? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

89330— 57— pt. 8 17 



2828 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. I had a few questions that were not pertinent 
to tlie subject we are on this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted 
to ask them. They can be answered quickly. 

In your capacity as secretary-treasurer of the international union, 
did you ever contribute union funds directly to political candidates? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever contribute union funds to either 
political party ? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have any assessments on your mem- 
bers for political purposes ? 

Mr. Sims. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. In the same line, did you ever contribute union 
funds to COPE? 

Mr. Sims. Not throuoh the international union. I mean, not of 
international union funds. The local unions in some instances would 
make considerations to COPE and, through error, would forward 
the money to us, and we would in turn forward it to them. But no 
international moneys. 

Senator Mitxdt. Moneys transmitted to you but not made available 
to you from the local treasury? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. From what was the local money provided ? Was 
it money taken from dues, or where did they get their money ? 

Mr. Sims. No : it was voluntary considerations. As far as I know, 
there was no donation, political donation, made from local union 
treasuries. 

Senator Goldwater. I have one more question or two. On the 
ledger sheets tliat I have before me on the 27th of November 1956, it 
shoATS several payments to steamship lines, the United States Lines, 
one payment — tliis is the attorney's books. I am sorry. Pardon 
me. Excuse me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Sims, I have before me what purports to be 
the charges that you made against Mr. Cross and Mr. Stuart. This 
is from the transcript of special session of the general executive 
board of your union. 

I notice these are charges and generalities, and counsel has inter- 
rogated you in terms of generalities. I am not going to go into the 
specifics at this time. We have already heard a great deal of testi- 
mony, such that Mr. Cross will certainly be given an opportunity to 
comment upon it. 

When I excuse you from the stand, I shall expect you to stand by, 
subject to being recalled. I may want to ask you about the specifics of 
these charges, although we have already had a number of them, I 
think, testified to under oath before this committee. 

Senator Mundt. This may have been asked before I arrived in the 
committee room this afternoon, Mr. Sims, but I would like to ask how 
you got your position as general secretary-treasurer of the interna- 
tional union. 

Were you elected by the members in open convention? Were you 
elected by the membership by referendum or were you elected by the 
executive board ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2829 

Mr. Sims. I was elected by the executive board in December 1952, and 
then I was elected by the delegates to the convention in October of 195(3. 

Senator Mundt. For how long a term ? 

Mr. Sims. Five years. 

Senator Mundt. Does the constitntioi of your international pro- 
vide that the executive board can divest of office a man elected by the 
membership at a convention ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Upon the pref erance of charges ? 

Mr. Sims. Charges, that is right. 

Senator Mundt. So the action they took was based on charges they 
presented in conformity with the constitution of the international? 

Mr. Sims. Well, the preferring of the charges was in agreement with 
the constitution, but my suspension was not in conformity with the 
international constitution. 

Senator Mundt. Will you explain what you mean by that? 

Mr. Sims. There is nothing in the international constitution that 
gives the general executive board the authority to suspend an inter- 
national officer. Charges may be preferred against an international 
officer and a trial held. If the party is found guilty, then they can 
simply move in any such way they see ht to do. But until that is done, 
there is no suspension. 

Senator Mundt. The fact remains that in your case, the charges 
were made but the trial was not held ? 

Mr. Sims. Charges were made against me on the 6th of March and I 
was suspended in the wee hours of the morning of the 8tli. 

Senator Mundt. And the board had no constitutional authority to 
do that without first of all holding a trial and finding you guilty ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. So the action they took against you was outside 
of their authority as a board, if they were going to comply with 
the constitutional standards established by your own international 
union ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I wanted to put down. 

The Chairman. Do I understand you are still drawing your salary ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It looks like they would be getting some work out 
of you. I am going to hurriedly read these charges, because I want 
to get them into the record. I do not believe these have been placed 
in our record. After I read them, I will interrogate you briefly about 
them. These are the charges that you filed against James G. Cross 
and George Stuart. 

1. President Cross wrongfully expended the funds of the international and 
of the health and welfare fund, and wrongfully diverted the property of the 
international for his personal pleasures and uses. 

Do you state that is a fact ? 
Mr. Sims. That is correct. 
The Chairman (reading) : 

President Cross and Vice President Stuart have conducted the affairs of 
subordinate affiliates while under the trusteeship of the international union 
for their own unwarranted financial gain and profit. 



2830 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Is that true? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

The Chairman. I want these things, if they are within your per- 
sonal knowledge, but if they are not, I want you to qualify your 
answer. 

Three: President Cross and Vice President Stuart have Submitted vouchers 
for excessive and unjustified expenditures. 

Mr. Sims. It is true. 

The Chairman. Is that aside from and in addition to the $24,000 
fracas ? 

Mr. Sims. Oh, yes. 
The Chairman. I see. 

Four: President Cross has been maintaining an interest in the relationship 
with a person of ill fame and criminal repute and record. 

What do you say about that ? 
Mr. Sims. It is correct. 

The Chairman. Do you mean at the expense of the union dues ? 
Mr. Sims. Yes. 
The Chairman (reading) : 

Five. President Cross has been maintaining close alliances with employers 
in the industry with whom the union negotiates on behalf of its members. 

What do you say about that ? Is it true or false ? 
Mr. Sims. It is true. 
The Chairman (reading) : 

Six : President Cross falsely denied to delegates of the 25th convention of 
the international union in San Francisco, Calif., that in the early morning 
of October 21, 1956, he personally was present in the hotel room of official 
delegates to that convention from the cities of New York and personally engaged 
in the events that became the subject of criminal investigation and of nation- 
wide advei'se publicity to the international union. 

First, may I ask you if you refer to the incident that has been testi- 
fied to here and which you describe overall and generally as a fracas ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman, Do you know, of your personal knowledge, that 
he was present in those hotel rooms at the time of the fracas ? 

Mr. Sims. The only knowledge that I have of it is what I was told 
by people that were told by the ones that were there. 

The Chairman. That is not within your personal knowledge other 
than from information you have ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. I wanted to determine whether you were present. 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

Seven : President Cross and Vice President Stuart did, in fact, participate in 
the events mentioned in charge No. 6, above, and were directly responsible for the 
consequent criminal investigation and adverse publicity and for substantial ex- 
pense to the international union. 

The substantial expense you refer to there is the $24,000 item? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct, plus. 

The Chairman. Plus? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

The Chairman. How much plus? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2831 

Mr. Sims. Well, there was the $250 that I gave John Long and then 
I put up $2,000 for cash bonds. 

The Chairman. Did you get your bondage money back? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Your money is still up for their bonds? 

Mr. Sims. As far as I know, it is. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

Eight : President Cross sought to obscure his own conduct on the said morning 
of October 21, 1956, and abused his power and trust as international president by 
arranging and causing charges to be brought against the said delegates from New 
York, based on premises which he knew to be false and on an alleged investiga- 
tion that, in fact, was never made. 

Wliat do you say about that one ? 

Mr. Sims. Well, there was a committee appointed to investigate 
what had happened out there. 

The Chairman. You are talking about the fracas ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes ; I am still talking about the fracas. From the report 
that I get from the members that were on the committee, there was no 
investigation. Coming out of the investigation was charges that were 
preferred. 

The Chairman. Charges preferred against Kane and others. He 
testified this morning that charges had been preferred against him, but 
he never has been tried on them, I believe. 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

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

The Chairman. I have read you all eight of the charges and, as I 
stated a few moments ago, it may be necessary to call you and inter- 
rogate you regarding the specifics involved in these charges. 

Are there any other questions? If not, you may stand aside for 
the present, Mr. Sims, subject to being recalled. 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, if you please, pursuant to rule 11, I 
have some questions that I would like to submit on behalf of Mr. 
James Cross for cross-examination of Mr. Sims. 

The Chairman. The Chair wants to make this observation again: 
I put Mr. Cross on the stand this morning and we expected liim, 
in view of his statement under oath, to answer every pertinent ques- 
tion asked him regarding these transactions. 

I would not indulge you to do this. I would not tolerate it except 
on that condition. Kemember, we are proceeding with that under- 
standing. Let me look at them first. 

(Documents were handed to the committee.) 

The Chairman. I will ask you these questions, Mr. Sims. 

Senator Mundt. These are asked in behalf of Mr. Cross, are they ? 

The Chairman. These are asked under rule 11 by Mr. Cross' at- 
torney. You were not here this morning. Before I would consent 
to permit Mr. Cross, through liis attorney, to have the committee 
cross-examine, I placed Mr. Cross on the stand to ascertain whether 
he was going to cooperate with the committee and answer all perti- 
nent questions which might be asked him. 

Therefore, I am proceeding upon that basis. 

Senator Mundt. And Mr. Cross has said under oath that he would? 

The Chairman. He said under oath that he would ; yes. 



2832 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This is a question directed to you from counsel representing Mr. 
Cross. Is it not true that you voted to approve all the constitutional 
changes, both in the general executive board and at the convention? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. 

The Chairman. Another question: Is it not true that under the 
constitution, before if was amended, as well as since, you at no time 
failed to sign any checks or vouchers submitted to vou bv Mr. Cross or 
Mr. Stuart? 

Did you understand the question? 

Mr. Sims. Yes. That is true as far as President Cross is con- 
cerned after, on several occasions, discussing vouchers with him. It 
is not true for Vice President Stuart because on some instances I 
would not initial the voucher and made him refill it out again. 

The Chairman. In refilling it out, did he modify the amount of 
it or reduce tlie amount of it? 

Mr. Sims. The amount was never reduced, but at least he put on 
the voucher what it was for. 

The Chairman. Made some explanation of it? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then you did refuse until the voucher was so 
corrected ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. You said the answer to the question was true in- 
sofar as ]Mr. (^ross was concerned, but on some instances preceding 
your signing the checks, you had some discussion with him. 

Was that also concerning the information included in the voucher 
or were you raising questions as to the legitimacy as to the expendi- 
tures or as to the amount ? What was the nature of the discussion? 

Mr. SiBis. I raised the question as to what it was for. 

Senator Mundt. After you raised the question, did he then write 
into the voucher more specific information about it? 

Mr. Sims. President Cross, to my knowledge — I mean he never made 
out another voucher. I think the explanation he gave me I accepted 
as given. 

Senator Mundt. You accepted his verbal explanation ? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

The Chairman. Here is another question : Is it not true that the 
hearing on the charges made by you against Mr. Cross was presided 
over by Vice President Conway, that the secretary was Vice President 
Di Concini, and that the vote was by secret ballot? 

Mr. Sims. Chairman of the meeting, or the hearing officer, was 
Conway and the secretary was Di Concini. But as to how the vote 
was conducted, I have no way of knowing because I was not present. 

The Chairman. The next question 

Mr. Sims. I believe the transcript would show that. 

The Chairman. Is it not true that your suspension resulted from 
the unanimous vote of the general executive board ? 

Mr. Sims. Well, the trial board are the ones that were present in 
that board and can speak for themselves. I was not present and have 
no knowledge other than hearsay what went on. 

The Chairman. You do not know Avhether tlie vote was unanimous 
or not ? Were you ever told ? 

Mr. Sims. I was told that it was unanimous. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2833 

The Chairman. It was reported to you as being unanimous ? 

Mr. Sims. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Question : Is it not true that you, as secretary- 
treasurer of tlie international union, received all daybook sheets show- 
ing all local union expenditures and that it was your responsibility 
to examine such daybook sheets ^ 

Mr. Sims. That is true. I might say further, I did. 

The Chairman. Sir ^ 

Mr. Sims. And I might say further that I did do that. 

The Chairman. All right. Question : Is it not true that it was 
your res]:)onsibility to report any unusual or questionable items ap- 
pearing on those daybook sheets to the general executive board or to 
Mr. Cross? 

Mr. Sims. I reported them to President Cross. 

The Chairman. It was your duty to do it ? 

Mr. Sims. I did do it. 

The Chairman. You did report them to him ? 

Mr. Sims. The Chicago situation was taken up with President 
Cross and Vice President Stuart. 

The Chairman. Yes. Question : Is it not true that you never 
brought any such items to the attention of the general executive 
board ? 

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

Mr. Sims. Not officially. It was brought to the attention of many 
of the executive board members while not in session. On several of 
the board occasions, individually or collectively with 2 or 3 or 4, these 
things were discussed with the board members. 

The Chairman. In the answer to the previous question you said you 
did report them to Mr. Cross. 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And in other instances you talked to different 
board members about them? 

Mr. Sims. Correct. 

The Chairman. But you did not bring them up officially before 
the board when it was in session ? 

Mr. Sims. Correct. 

Senator Mundt. Did any of the board members to whom you had 
reported the facts bring them up at the meeting ? 

Mr. Sims. No. It was never brought up at the board meeting. 

Senator Mundt. Either by Mr. Cross or by any of the board mem- 
bers, despite the fact that you had advised them of the conditions 
which prevailed ? 

Mr. Sims. It was never brought up before the board by any indi- 
vidual member and I never brought it up because the discussions with 
these board members at various times about Avhat was going on, plus 
discussing it at length on several occasions with President Emeritus 
Winter, he advised against me taking it up with the board. 

The Chairman. With whom did you discuss it ? 

Mr. Sims. President Emeritus Winter, the retired past president. 

Senator Mundt. He advised against taking it up with the board? 

Mr. Sims. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Did he give you the basis on which he arrived at 
that? 



2834 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sims. He told me I couldn't win. 

Senator Mundt. He had had some experience with the same board 
himself, had he? 

Mr. Sims. I don't think he — as far as I know, he had had no ex- 
perience with them, but he possibly knew them better than I did. 

The Chairman. Another question: Is it not true that you never 
brought any such items to the attention of President Cross, with the 
exception of some items relating to Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Sims. No ; that is not true. 

The Chairman. You did bring other items to his attention ? 

Mr. Sims. Certainly. 

The Chairman. Question: Is it not true that on the union 
books 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave that, Mr. Chairman, so that we 
will have the information that has become a point of controversy, I 
have a question. 

Could you tell us some of the items that you did bring to his atten- 
tion besides the ones involved concerning Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Sims. I brought up vouchers on quite a few occasions of Vice 
President Crawford, because I wouldn't O. K. them, because they 
were too vague in what they were for. I questioned vouchers of John 
Nelson, whose name has been mentioned here in these hearings 
previously. 

I questioned vouchers of Frank Gardone and I certainly asked 
President Cross for explanations on some of the items that he had 
submitted vouchers for. One in particular that I recall was a $2,100 
or $2,200 item for expenses for supposedly sending people to Los 
Angeles, Calif., to help out in the strike that Stuart was supposed to 
have sent out. 

The voucher was made out payable to President Cross. There 
were no names on it, there was no supporting evidence to the voucher. 
There was no nothing. I wanted to know where it went. On other 
occasions there were other vouchers. 

The Chairman. Did you ever find out where that money went? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

The Chairman. The last and final question : Is it not true that on 
the union books, you charged the entire $24,000 to Mr. Cooper's law 
firm ? 

Mr. Sims. That is not true to the best of my knowledge. It is 
entered on the books as such. 

The Chairman. As what? 

Mr. Sims. It is entered on the books as the way it was written. 
The $8,000 check was written payable to cash. The $16,000 was 
made payable to Herman Cooper. Certainly, they could not have 
been entered and charged all to him. It was charged all to conven- 
tion expenses. At least, that is the instructions I gave the office 
manager. 

The Chairman. In other words, Mr. Cooper got all of the $24,000? 

Mr. Sims. Yes, he got the full $24,000. 

The Chairman. Well, this question is : Is it not true that on the 
union books you charged the entire $24,000 to Mr. Cooper's law 
firm? 

That is what you are saying now, you did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2835 



Mr. Sims. No. To the best of my knowledge 

The Chairman. It was paid to him. 

Mr. Sims. It was paid to him and charged to convention expenses. 

The Chairman. I see. That is the difference. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Sims, is Mr. Cooper the hiwyer for the 
international union ? 

Mr. Sims. He is the general counsel for the international union. 

Senator GoldwxVter. Do you pay him a retainer? 

Mr. Sims. We pay him a retainer of $25,000 a year. 

Senator Goldwater. And this was just extra-curricular activities 
he was paid for, this $24,000 in addition ? 

Mr. Sims. It was my understanding of the $24,000 that he was not 
to get any of it, that it was to go for other purposes, for other legal 
services not for his legal services. 

Senator Goldwater. That was your understanding during the meet- 
ing, that the $24,000 to go to Mr. Cooper was not to be retained by him, 
but was to be used by him for other purposes ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he ever outline to you the other purposes! 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And you have never seen a statement of his 
to that effect? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

The CiLMRMAN. All right. 

Senator Mundt. As a member of the union, would you interpret the 
intent of the executive board after hearing your charges, after seeing 
the charges made against you, would you interpret the intent of the 
board that they wanted to leave with the members the impression 
that Mr. Cross and Mr. Stuart liad been cleared by them of the 
charges made against them, and that you had been found guilty of 
the charges that they in turn had made against you ? 

Was that the intent of the executive board action ? 

Mr. Sims. That is correct. You see — I might make this statement 
here — the charge against me of going to the press was also done in 
reality by President Cross on the charges against the New York 
fellows. 

He called in the press about noon of the day, and the information 
and the copy of the charges and all the information was given to the 
press. It appeared in the New York Times in the morning. 

The charges weren't mailed out of this office until 11 o'clock the 
next day. Then, of course, the defendants didn't get the charges until 
the following day. So what I was charged with was done 4 months 
previously by President Cross himself. 

Senator Mundt. Actually, in both cases, yours and Mr. Cross', is it 
not true that by going to the press, that is the only way that both of 
you had to let the dues-paying members throughout the country know 
what the controversy was about, and what the charges were, but what 
the conditions were. 

Mr. Sims. I did not go to the press. 

Senator Mundt. You did not go to the press ? 

Mr. Sims. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did your charges not hit the press ? 



2836 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sims. They hit it, but I didn't give it to them. 

Senator Mundt, How did they hit it ? 

Mr. Sims. That I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. What is wrong with the union officials having the 
members who pay the dues read through the cokimns of the news- 
papers what is happening to the union ? 

Mr, Sims. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it; I am 
just saying I didn't give it to them. 

Senator Mundt. What is wrong with Mr. Cross submitting his 
charges? A^Hiether they are true or false they have to be substan- 
tiated. Should not the union dues-paying members be informed what 
the officials do in these matters ? 

Mr. Sims. That is true. The whole question is the inconsistency. 

Senator Mundt. I quite agree with you. I was under the impres- 
sion that you both had given them to the press. I see nothing wrong 
with your doing it and nothing wrong with Mr. Cross doing it. It is 
obviously inconsistent for Mr. Cross to criticize you for actions he 
himself has engaged in, whether or not you gave this to the press. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You may stand aside for 
the present. 

Mr. Herman Cooper. 

Mr. Cooper, will you be sworn? You do solemnly swear that the 
evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God ? 

Mr, Cooper. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HERMAN COOPER 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Gold- 
water. ) 

The Chairman. State your name and profession. 

Mr. Cooper. My name is Herman E. Cooper. I am a member of the 
law firm of Cooper, Ostrin & DeVarco. We have offices at 655 Madi- 
son Avenue, New York City. 

The Chairman. You reside here in Washington ? 

Mr, Cooper. I reside in New York City, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cooper 

Mr. Cooper. May I, Mr. Chairman, if I may, request, respectfully, 
the privilege of a few introductory remarks which I consider to be 
pertinent to any questions which you may have ? 

The Chairman, The Chair is going to make a few introductory 
remarks himself. 

Mr. Cooper. I, of course, will waive to the Chair, as I necessarily 
must. 

The Chairman. I do not believe, Mr. Cooper, you have been sub- 
penaed as yet, liave you ? 

Mr. Cooper. I have not been subpenaed. 

The Chairman, Do you care to waive a subpena or would you prefer 
to have one served upon you ? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course, I am pleased to waive the service of the 
subpena. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Being an attorney, I assume you 
waive the right of having counsel present ? 



IIvIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2837 

Mr. Cooper. I was advised by a very young man that a lawyer who 
represented himself had a fool for a client, but I will chance it today. 

The Chairman. I think you are safe in doing that. 

You have been present here in the hearing room and have heard 
testimony given here today by witnesses that preceded you on the 
witness stand. The committee has called you to give you an oppor- 
tunity, first, to make such explanation of the testimony that you heard 
as you care to make. 

The Chair appreciates that in some respects or in some instances, 
maybe, the relationship of client and attorney may prevail. It might 
be that 3-ou would need to get the permission of those whom you repre- 
sent before you could testify as to some matters you may be interro- 
gated about. 

But we shall proceed, and as these questions come up we will try 
to make the proper ruling on them if any question is raised about tiiem. 
However, I do feel, certainly, that we are being most fair to you in giv- 
ing you this opportunity. Some of this testimony, with some interpre- 
tations, unless it is explained, reflect upon you a little. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your observations and your 
concern with the impact on me as a member of the bar of the inferences 
and assumptions which have been suggested here by the previous 
witness. 

I, of course, am not responsible for any mental operations he may 
have displayed, but I am prepared to explain to the best of my ability 
any questions which do not trespass on my relationship with my 
clients. 

At this moment, I cannot anticipate any such questions. I would 
like it to be noted that I am a member of the New York bar, the Fed- 
eral bar and the bar of the United States Supreme Court and I have 
been admitted now some 25 years. For the past twenty-odd years I 
have specialized in the field of labor relations. 

My office consists of 4 partners and 10 other associate attorneys who 
are on payroll with us. We have what may be considered to be one of 
the outstanding labor-relations offices in the country, in our own esti- 
mate, and I hope, in the estimates of some grateful clients. 

The Chairman. We sometimes allow these plugs. Go ahead. 

Mr. Cooper. In this setting, Mr. Chairman, this may be a ver\' help- 
ful and perhaps necessary one. I tliink it is important that anything 
1 say be considered against that backdrop because it is very easy to 
talk in terms of how much a lawyer receives without evaluating what 
a lawyer does for the fees which he does receive. 

Some of these amounts may appear to be disproportionate. I think 
you are primarily concerned with the situation in San Francisco. I 
think it should also be noted for the record and I think can be con- 
firmed by both your general counsel, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kopecky, aiid 
others, that I have at all times in my individual capacity, been coop- 
erative. 

I have appeared for individual interrogation before Mr. Kopecky, 
have made myself available to him. I have, with great mental reser- 
vations, opened to his representative the books of account of my iivin. 
I did this because, necessarilj', those accounts and records carry infr;r- 
mation which relates not alone to this organization but, necessarily, 
to other clients with whom we are related as counsel. 



2838 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

However, I am certain tliat none of the other items which a])pear 
on my books will become a matter of public notice or concern. To the 
degree that the questions are limited to the relations with this union, 
I feel no constraint, and I am relieved, if I may say so, to answer any 
questions which bear on that subject matter. 

The Chairman. All right. We will certainly start out by directing 
all questions to this transaction, the transactions that have been testi- 
fied to here and any others that may be pertinent to this particular 
union. 

It is not the purpose of the committee, necessarily, to go to other 
accounts. That part of your record as to other accounts as of now, 
miless something develops to warrant a different ruling, will not be 
made public. We will proceed. 

Counsel, you may interrogate the witness regarding the subject mat- 
ters that have been testified to here today. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want me to start on the San Francisco mat- 
ter, Mr. Chairman, or does it matter? 

The Chairman. It seems to me it would be a good place to start. 

Mr. Kennedy. There has been some testimony here, Mr. Cooper, 
that you received $8,000 in cash when you were out in San Francisco 
and, in addition to that, received some $16,000 more in the form of 
checks. Could you tell us first, what is your annual retainer from the 
international union? 

WTiat other moneys did you receive from the international imion? 

Mr. Cooper. From the international union itself we receive an an- 
nual retainer of $25,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received that in 1956 ? 

Mr. Cooper. My firm received that in 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other moneys, other than the 
ones I have just discussed with you from the union in 1956? 

Mr. Cooper. Not from the union as a union ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you receive it from anyone or any union 
associated with this union or any part of it ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. We represent a local union of this international 
in New York City, local 3. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you receive from them ? 

Mr. Cooper. Without the figures, I don't have it before me 

Mr. Kennedy. -Approximately. 

Mr. Cooper. I think it is probably $10,000 or $12,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other moneys fi-om the union? 

Mr. Cooper. Not from the union as a union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Cooper. Well, my office is also general counsel by unanimous 
vote of employer trustees and union trustees of the national bakery 
and industry welfare plan and the national industry pension plan. 

Mr. EIennedy. How much do you receive from those ? 

Mr. Cooper. Last year we received from each of those funds $10,00(>. 
This year we received additional amounts for services rendered to 
the pension plan last year and we have since been increased. 

I might indicate that these are plans which involve some $20 million 
a year in income and that our services to these plans, as general 
counsel, involve effort considerably in excess of any fees which we have 
received from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any other fees that you received? 



IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2839 

Mr. Cooper. Do you mean from the international union? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. From the international or anything connected with 
the international. 

Mr. Cooper. We have received fees this year, of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking of 1956. 

Mr. Cooper. All we received from 1956 was the 10 from the welfare, 
the 10 from the pension, the 25 from the international, and the 15 this 
year that related to last year. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that? 

Mr. Cooper. That has to do with a pension plan, a self-administered 
plan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in addition to the ten ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. That we received this year in relation to its or- 
ganizational activities and its arrangements with the Chase Manhat- 
tan Bank under a contract arrangement which we are contact to. In 
addition to that, at the convention, as has been testified, we received 
and were authorized to receive the sum of $24,000, and which we did 
receive in November 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive anything in addition to that ? 

Mr. Cooper. I cannot at tliis moment recall receiving any other fees. 
We have received some reimbursable expenses. You have all the rec- 
ords. I have made all of these available to you. I have given you 
copies of my bills. I have given you copies of the vouchers, so you 
have all of the information. 

I have none of it befoie me. I have testified with respect to these 
funds to the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received $57,000 excepting the $15,000 which 
you received this year. Leaving that out, you received $57,000, and 
then plus the $24,000 out in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Cooper. Well, you have to distinguish, Mr. Kennedy, as I am 
sure as a lawyer you must 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just adding them up. 

Mr. Cooper. You have to distinguish between the fees our firm re- 
ceives from the union for services rendered to the union and the fees 
we receive as counsel to the trustees of the national-welfare plan, and 
to the trustees of the pension plan. They are separate and distinct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the connection with the Bakers 
and Conf ecioners Union. 

Mr. Cooper. If you want to relate that, we attempt to keep the 
trustees separate and apart in any union interests and activities and do. 
This is by joint action of the trustees of both those funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sure you do. 

The Chairman. We have identified each one. I mean you have. 

Mr. Cooper. I am satisfied. 

The Chairman. There is a $25,000 retainer from the union and 
$10,000 each from the funds. That would be $45,000. Then you re- 
ceived, in addition last year, $24,000 from union funds for the San 
Francisco affair. 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then $12,000 from the local. 

Mr. Cooper. Local 3, which is a separate and also, may I add, a 
nonremunerative activitv in our office. 



2840 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I am not complaining about the amount of fees 
that you receive. I think lawyers should be paid. 

Mr. Cooper. Thank you, sir. Some of us are. 

The Chairman. Last year, the total was $18,000 from the union and 
its affiliates. 

Mr. Cooper. If that is the total, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, I think they are affiliated with the union. 
Bo you ? 

Mr. Cooper. Do you mean the trustee plans ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't think so, sir. 

The Chairman. Where do they get their money ? 

Mr. Cooper. They get their money from employer considerations 
exclusively. They are administered under the Taft-Hartley law inde- 
pendent of eitlier the union or the employers. 

Tlie Chairman. I can appreciate that. They are entirely separate 
funds, but they come as a result of a union being in existence. 

Mr. Cooper. I would agree, except for the fact that I was a union 
attorney, it is unlikely I woulcl have been selected as general counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. And beyond that you received your reimbursable ex- 
penses. In San Francisco you received $3,973.27 for your expenses 
to San Francisco ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is right; my expenses, and my assistant, John 
Long, who was also present for the entire convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received $8,000 of the $24,000 in cash; is that 
rights 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do wdth that $8,000 ? 

Mr. Cooper. May I have the privilege, sir, before explaining Avhat 
I did with it, to review the circumstances under which I received it? 

I think that that is a pertinent concern to this committee in view of 
the testimony of the previous witness. 

The Chairman. Le us start with the whole $24,000. A^Hiat was 
that for? 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Kopecky has in his possession 8 affidavits, 4 of 
which he solicited and 4 of which w^ere made available and others which 
are, of course, procured, from a majority of the members of the general 
executive board who attended the meeting on November 1, which has 
been referred to by Mr. Sims, and at which this transaction took place. 

The recollection of the members of the executive board and of my 
own is as follows 

The Chairman. Were you present at that time ? 

Mr. Cooper. I w^as present. 

The Chairman. All right. You can testify from your own 
knowledge. 

Mr. Cooper. From my own knowledge, I believe there was an intro- 
ductory statement made by President Cross in which he indicated 
that there had been legal expenses incurred by him and by then Vice 
President Stuart, Frank Mykalo, and Frank Gardone in defending 
themselves before the grand jury with respect to the charges they were 
required to meet. 

It was stated, perhaps by him or by others, that this item was one, 
in view of the action of the grand jury, which might more properly be 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2841 

assumed by the general executive board, in that these individuals were 
not in the position to carry the legal costs of such a defense and in view 
of the fact that it is unlikely that they would have been involved except 
for the fact that they were union officers and union representatives. 

At that point, I was either called on or volunteered and discuSvSed 
the fact that such counsel had been retained to perform services, that 
there was an obligation to them, and I also included in my statement 
the fact that my firm had been required to perform extraordinary serv- 
ices in connection with the preparation for the convention and the 
convention itself which were not, in my judgment, properly incorpo- 
rated within the regular and annual retainer which we received. 

These conventions come once every 5 years. Another member of my 
firm and myself had spent 3 solid weeks in San Francisco, away from 
our office and uway from our activity and other clients. There must 
have been at least 2 or 3 months of actual time consumed in prepara- 
tion for the convention, particularly in the preparation of the appro- 
priate changes in the constitution. 

There had been a number of meetings held in Washington. I had 
been away from my office a great deal in anticipation of the activity 
of the convention. We had, in my judgment, performed these extra 
services and, in my judgment, were entitled to extra compensation for 
it. 

I was asked by a member of the board what I would consider to be 
a fair fee to cover myself and to cover the payment to these other 
attorneys. I mentioned the sum of $24,000. There were conunents of 
pleasure by most of the members of the board. 

They felt that my services to the union — they were very pleasant 
about it — had entitled me to this extra compensation. As you can vis- 
ualize from what you heard here, the convention was a very, very 
difficult one. It consumed clay and night activity on my part and my 
associates. The preparation had been most arduous and time-con- 
suming. 

There was no problem. Not a single member of the board raised 
the slightest objection to this amount of $24,000 as covering both my 
firm as well as the reimbursement to these other attorneys. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cooper, let us get down to some of the real 
specifics. Now, give us the names of the other attorneys and the 
amount. 

Mr. Cooper. I have turned over to Mr. Kopecky checks made out to 
two San Francisco law firms which I would suggest, if I may, re- 
spectfully, be made a part of the record. 

The Chairman. Do you have the checks ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Here are some checks. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a check dated October 31, 
lOoG, in the amount of $3,080, drawn by your law firm, signed by you — 
I can't make out the name. I w411 just present the check to you. It is 
No. 2077, a photostatic copy of the check. 

I will let you tell us wliom that check is to. I cannot read it. 

( A document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Cooper. This is a check made to the payment of Ashe and 
Pinney and in the left lower corner it says, "People versus Cross.'' 

The Chairman. In other w^ords. Cross was costing his union that 
much money for that one lawyer ? ' - : ^ 



2842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. I am not in a position, if the Chair please, to evaluate 
the services for which an attorney should receive 

The Chairman. I do not know whether it was worth it or not, but 
that is what it cost the union members. 

Mr. Cooper. It is a question that, in all fairness, might not have 
been involved had other circumstances prevailed. 

The Chairman. I think there are circumstances where it would 
not have been involved. I will agree with you. That check may be 
made exhibit No. 43. 

(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 43" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 3181.) 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you another check dated 
October 31, 1956, drawn by your firm, signed by you, to Leslie C. 
Gillen in the amount of $3,050. Apparently, you have a notation on 
the corner that it is for ^''People v. Stuari et alP I wish you would 
identify this check. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cooper. The check is made payable to Leslie C. Gillen. I can 
identify this as the check drawn on my office account, signed by me 
and dated October 31, 1956, with the notation, as the chairman has 
indicated, in the left corner, '-''People v. Stuart et al.^'' 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Gillen a San Francisco attorney? 

Mr. Cooper. They are both San Francisco attorneys. Mr. Cross 
appeared by the firm of Ashe & Pinney and the other three gentle- 
men appeared by Mr. Leslie C. Gillen. 

The Chairman, Those 2 checks amount to some $6,100 plus. 

Mr. Cooper. I believe that is the total, sir. 

The Chairman. $6,160 I am advised. Did you give any checks to 
any other attorneys out there ? 

Mr. Cooper. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, that is 6 from $24,000 which leaves about 
$18,000. How do we accoiuit for the rest of it ? 

Mr. Cooper. That was legal fees, sir. 

The Chairman. What legal fees ? 

Mr. Cooper. To my firm. The balance of the $24,000 represented 
extra compensation to my firm for the legal services which I have 
described. 

The Chairman. You have $16,000 of that in checks. You only 
paid out $6,000 to other firms out there in San Francisco for legal 
fees. 

Mr. Cooper. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And you got, then, the balance, vour firm got the 
balance from the $24,000'? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What Avas the occasion for the $8,000 in cash and 
the $16,000 check? 

Mr. Cooper. I appreciate the opportunity to explain tliat. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Cooper. As you will note, these two checks which are already in 
evidence are dated October 31. I have also made available to Mr. 
Kopecky 2 other checks totaling about $2,000, one made payable to 
the Fairmont Hotel and the other made payable to the Sheraton 
Palace, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2843 

The Ckairjmax. Those are the two checks I believe I have in my 
hand. If you are g:oing; to testify about them, I wish you would 
examine them and identify them. They amount to about $2,400. 

The one previously identified will be made exhibit No. 44.^^ 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 44,'' for refer- 
ence and will be fomid in the appendix on p. 3182.) 

The Chairman. After you examine these, they will be made ex- 
hibits 45 and 46. 

Mr. Cooper. Check 2079, is in the sum of $1,062.88, payable to the 
Sheraton Palace. In the left corner is the name John B. Long. John 
B. Long was one of my assistants who was with me at the convention, 
and wlio stayed at the Sheraton Palace. This was in payment of liis 
hotel bill, part-payment of it. 

Senator Mundt. Is he a member of your law firm ? 

Mr. Cooper. He works for our law firm. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit 45. 

(The documents referred to were marked ''Exhibit Nos. 45 and 46,"' 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3183, 3184.) 

Mr. Cooper. Check No. 2086, bearing the date October 31, 1956, is 
payable to the Fairmont Hotel, and is in the total amount of $1,489.78. 
On the other side of the check it appears that I received $400 of that 
in cash, so that I had, in effect, drawn checks of $8,000 on October 
31, in relation to the convention in San Francisco. 

The Chairman. But no bill was submitted for these other than 
the overall broad charge of $24,000, no itemized statement? 

Mr. Kennedy. Plus $3,793. 

Mr. Cooper. I will explain that, Mr. Kennedy, if I am given an op- 
portunity to. May I explain why I received $8,000 in cash and why 
I asked for it ? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Cooper. At the time of the arrests of Mr. Cross and the other 
three, I was approached on several occasions by Secretary-Treasurer 
Sims, during which he discussed with me the possibility of indictment 
of Mr. Cross. 

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

Mr. Cooper. Frankly, knowing how grand juries indict, it was my 
expectation, and that of almost everyone involved, that there would 
be an indictment found without regard to the ultimate outcome of 
i\Ir. Cross' innocence or guilt as might be ultimately determined at a 
trial. ^ 

Mr. Sims spoke to me very earnestly about the fact that he con- 
sidered Mr. Cross to have been guilty, he considered that Mr. Cross' 
conduct was reprehensible. He considered that this was the occasion 
for displacing Mr. Cross, and that it should be done.. To summarize 
our various conversations, be urged upon me that I, in effect, aline 
niyself with him in this effort that he projected for utilizing the 
situation to displace Mr. Cross. 

I told Mr. Sims very categorically that I felt that Mr. Cross was 
entitled to be tried, if he was indicted; that any action on the part 
of the union at this time would constitute a prejudgment, and that I 
felt that it would be grossly disloyal of any one associate to take 
any action or say anything derogatory of Mr.' Cross until he had had 
his opjwrtunity to be tried. 

80.330— 57— pt. 8 18 



2844 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(At this point, Senator Goldwater withdrew from the room.) 

Mr. Cooper. In the course of these various convei*sations, the prior 
liostility to me personally of Mr. Sims became increasingly apparent. 

The Chairman. We do not care about that. Let us get down to the 
money. 

Mr. Cooper. If the Chair pleases, I would have no other purpose 
except in giving this as a reason for my asking for the cash. 

The Chairman. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. Cooper. I had drawn checks against my office account. I had 
been voted the $24,000. 

The Chairman. You had been voted that prior to these conversa- 
tions with Sims? 

Mr. Cooper. I had been voted this after the conversations with 
Sims. I had drawn the checks on the 31st. The board action took 
place on November 2. I told Mr. Cross that I was most uneasy about 
what would happen after the board recessed and the union moved 
back to its regular affairs, particularly with respect to Curtis Sims 
and what he might project. 

I asked Cross — I had not discussed this at the board — I said to 
Cross that I would appreciate receiving my part of the fee at that point 
in $8,000 in cash, and that the balance could be sent to me as a check. 
I knew that this would show on the books or otherwise be noted as a 
j^ayment to my firm of $24,000, which we would have to account for. 

Mr. Cross spoke to Mr. Sims, and he had no objection, for reasons 
which may become clearer subsequently, in drawing a check for $8,000 
in cash, in cashing it at the hotel, in giving it to me without a receipt 
and without asking a receipt. I had the $8,000. 

About a week later, I received the balance of $16,000. Wlien I re- 
turned to my office in New York, I think it was November 4 or 5, I 
reported to my partner, who is also office manager, that I had $8,000 
in cash. I gave her a list of the checks which I had drawn so that she 
could see to the proper entry of those checks, and I gave her the $8,000 
in an envelope which she put in the office safe, on my request that this 
be charged to me personally but be included as office income as it would 
necessarily have to be. And that is what took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you deposit the $8,000 ? 

Mr. Cooper. I deposited the $8,000 about 2 weeks ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. After we contacted you? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes ; exactly after you contacted me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the $8,000 in cash listed in with the $16,000 in 
your books ? 

Mr. Cooper. I am not an accountant. We have checked with ac- 
countants. Our office accountants made what they consider and what 
has since in my judgment been confirmed as proper entry. They 
showed the $16,000 as a check and they also showed as a journal entry 
the $8,000 in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. They show the $16,000 as cash. 

Mr. Cooper. That is a term used for all checks that come into a 
lawyer's office. 

Mr. Kennedy. You Tiould think if they had that, they would also 
put the $8,000 that they did receive in cash. 

jMr. Cooper. That would not be good bookkeeping or accounting 
because it would have unbalanced the whole month's statement. If 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2845 

you will notice the records, at the end of the day, all receipts which 
are deposited are noted accordingly. If you had included $8,000 
M'hich did not pass through the bank, you would have had an un- 
balanced monthly account there. 

Mr. Kennedy! If there wasn't anything illegitimate about this, 
why didn't you deposit it in the bank ? 

Mr. Cooper. I had the $8,000. It was charged to me. It was my 
money, since it represented drawings from the firm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did it represent that? You said it was a legal 
fee to the firm. 

Mr. Cooper. Exactly, And then the firm charged it to me as my 
drawing, so I was accountable for it on a drawing as income. 

Mr. Kennedy. The $1G,000 and P^8,000 in cash, why didn't you take 
this money and deposit it in your bank account? Why did you wait 
until after this committee started to investigate ? 

Mr. Cooper. If the committee had not investigated, and if the com- 
mittee had not prodded me to make it appear that this was an irregu- 
lar transaction, I would still have retained the $8,000 in cash. I saw 
no irregularity in that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give any of this cash to anybody in San 
Francisco ? 

Mr. Cooper. I did not. Categorically not. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you give it to anybody to take a trip out of 
San Francisco? 

]\Ir. Cooper. Categorically not, I resent the implication. If you 
have proof of that, I wish you would put it on the record. 

Did I give it to anyone? Of course not. Did I give it to anyone 
to leave San Francisco? 

Does that convey an implication ? 

The Chairman. Let me point out to you that there is an implica- 
tion in the whole transaction, if you want to be frank about it. There 
is a little fracas out there, and somebody got a little skin knocked 
off of them, that cost that union, apparently, from that bank, $24,000 
of union dues, and the union members are entitled to have an ex- 
planation of that. 

If this money was paid to you in a lump sum, or $16,000 of it in a 
check, and $8,000 in cash, I think the union members are entitled to 
the full exiDlanation. 

If you paid out any of that money to anyone else, I think this 
committee has a right to know, and also the union members. You 
are just being asked the question. You can deny it categorically. 
Just state the truth. That is all, 

Mr, Cooper. That is the truth. 

Mr. Chairman, you are also a member of the bar. You can also 
appreciate the scriptures under which we function as lawyers. You 
can also appreciate that in the absence of any objective conditions 
which entitle the asking of that kind of question, the im})lication is 
left that I had done something improper with that cash. 

The Chairman. I am not saying that you did. 

But the circumstances attending that certainly suggest that such 
questions should be asked, if this record is to be made clear. Do 
you not agree, as a lawyer ? 



2846 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. I agree, and I hope I lia^e answered them to the best 
of my ability. 

Mr. Kennedy. You Avould not want to put yourself as a lawyer in 
a different class than any other person, 

Mr. Cooper. No. Except we are not entitled to commit any wrong- 
doing any more than any other citizen. By the same token, there 
should be no implication of wrongdoing in the absence of proof. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^n ot just because you are a lawyer. 

Mr. Cooper. I am held to a higher degree as a member of a court, as 
you well know, than an ordinary citizen, because we are officers of the 
court. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The Chair will hold that questions regarding the 
$24,000, the use of it, the expenditure of it, the disposition of it, how 
it was handled, are completely pertinent to this inquiry, to know 
whether union funds were misappropriated or misused. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to inquire a little bit, Mr. Chairman, 
about the $8,000 in cash, and the reason why Mr. Cooper did not put it 
in the bank. 

You said had it not been for this inquiry that you still would have 
the $8,000 in cash in your safe. 

Mr. Cooper. Eight. 

Senator Mundt. As a lawyer, you are not suspicious of bankers, 
are you ? 

Mr. Cooper. Well, Senator, I still am young enough and old enough 
to remember when the banks closed down in 1933, but that is not the 
reason I kept it. 

Senator Mundt. Well, will you give us a better reason ? 

Mr. Cooper. Another reason was that the $8,000 was in currency. 
I must have had in back of my mind the idea that this is something 
that is good to have in cash. It is as if I went to the bank with my 
own check and cashed it for $8,000, which would have aroused no 
problem, and I put it in the safe. 

Senator Mundt. In spite of all these fine lawyers in the city of New 
York, you do have some crime up there. It seems to me $8,000 is quite 
a chunk of money to keep in an office safe. 

Mr. Cooper. It may appear that way to you, Senator, but let me 
assure you that as far as my conduct is concerned, I have no apologies 
to offer for my conduct. It may appear that having $8,000 in a 
lawyer's safe may suggest an iiTegularity. I assure you none was 
committed. That is as far as I can go with respect to that. 

Senator Mundt. I am not suggesting anything, Mr. Cooper. I am 
just searching you mind, trying to find out Avhy you kept the $8,000 
in cash. You said you would still have it there in cash had it not 
been for this investigation. It does seem to me to be an unusually 
large amount of folding money to keep in your safe, unless you have 
skepticism in bankers. If you do not have, if you are not suspicious 
of banks — even though you feel that lawyers have some higher degree 
of responsibility than the rest of we citizens, I know something about 
banking. I feel bankers are just as good as lawyers. I wonder why 
you have hesitancy to put your money in the bank. 

Mr. Cooper. I have no hesitancy. Mr. Kennedy has my records. 
He knows we have substantial deposits that we make regularly on our 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2847 

account, tliat this $8,000 must be weighed against our total oflSice 
operations, that this is not a major source of income to us, nor does 
it represent a major portion. 

Consequently, I did not attach to it the importance that might be 
inferred at this point. I really did not give it that degree of weight. 
T had the currency. It was there. I assumed that someday there 
might be an emergency and I might use it. It is largely a matter 
of it being funds which I was accountable for. I would have acted 
no differently had I taken an ordinary check, cashed it at one of the 
banks, and put the proceeds in my safe. 

Senator Mundt. You received the currency, you say, in San Fran- 
cisco ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. You cashed the $8,000 check at a hotel ? 
Mr. Cooper. I didn't cash it. Mr. Sims cashed it. 
Senator Mundt. And he gave you the currency ? 
Mr. Cooper. In an envelope, yes. 

Senator Mundt. And you brought that back in currency and put 
it in the safe ? 

Mr. Cooper. I brought it back to New York, and was accountable 
for it as personal drawing. 

Senator Mundt. It may not have been unusual. Is it the usual 
practice of you to keep a floating account with about that amount of 
currency in the office safe? 

Mr. Cooper. I have never been in a similar circmnstance before. 
Senator Mundt. Then let us try to explore what did motivate you 
to treat this $8,000 differently than the way throughout a lifetime of 
practice in New York you treated other fees. 

Mr. Cooper. I say I have never before been in such a circumstance. 
Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out why you deviated m this 
particular case. 

Mr. Cooper. As I say, this is all trying to recapture my recollection 
or motives at the time. 

At the time, I did not consider that there would be any apparent 
or real irregularities in keeping this currency, particularly in view 
of the fact that it was a known transaction. 

Sims had given me the money. The union knew I had $24,000. 
I had reported it so that it would appear on my books, that I would 
be charged with it as a personal drawing, and that I would be ac- 
countable, taxwise, for those funds. 

Senator Mundt. I was not quite clear from your earlier testimony, 
Mr. Cooper, as to the precise reason why you asked Mr. Sims to give 
you the $8,000, vis-a-vis the $16,000. You said there was antagonism 
to you, but I cannot see what the reason was, because you had to report 
it all to your firm, and treat it in your bookkeeping the same as though 
it were two checks, with the exception that you had done what was 
tantamount to withdrawing $8,000 from your drawing account and 
putting it in the safe. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Senator, it is very comfortable in these surround- 
ings to view the circumstances on that occasion as detached. But I 
would like you to consider that in the climate in which we were all 
engaged after a most trying and difficult 3 weeks, that my state of mind 
with respect to Sims was one of total and complete suspicion. 



2848 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. That I can understand. But I cannot understand 
how getting the $8,000 in cash would give your mind any more relief 
than if you got an $8,000 check. 

Mr. Cooper. It relieved me to this degree, that I had drawn previ- 
ously these 4 checks, amounting to about $8,000, yes ; and I wanted to 
at least know that those checks which I had drawn would be covered 
by the cash which I received then. Otherwise 

Senator Mundt. Wait a minute. Money in an office safe will not 
cover a check. 

Mr. Cooper. I didn't need it to cover at the bank. I needed it to 
reassure myself that if I never got the $16,000 I would at least have 
the $8,000 in currency to cover checks which I had drawn. 

Senator jSIuxdt. I understand that. But I cannot understand why 
you feel any more comfortable in your mind because you have the 
$8,000 in cash than you would if they had given you the union's check 
for $8,000. The union's check was certainly good. 

Mr. Cooper. By the same token, had I received the check, I was 
concerned that had they got back to Washington, there might be an 
injunction, a lawsuit, some proceeding that might stop payment on the 
check and put me in the difficult position of having to go after them 
in order to meet the obligation which I had assumed. 

Senator Mundt. If that were your only reason, you might have gone 
down to an apothecary sliop and buy a whole handful of tranquilizer 
pills when you started to worry about the $8,000 check. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, it is one thing to worry about getting paid as 
income for services rendered ; it is another thing to be concerned about 
checks wliicli you have drawn on behalf of the union for which you 
might not receive reimbursement. Otherwise, I might have asked for 
the whole $24,000 in cash. I could have done that just as easily. 

Senator Mundt. I can understand wliy you might want to break it 
up in two payments, but you have not quite cleared up in my mind why 
you wanted $8,000 of it in cash, and you are willing to take the union 
clieck for twice as much, $16,000, and not worry about that, not worry 
about litigation, lawsuit, or any cancellation of payments or anything. 
But you were worrying about the $8,000. Both were signed by the 
same Mr. Sims, both on the same bank account, I presume, of the same 
union. 

Mr. Cooper. I was worried about the eight because that represented, 
factually, checks which I had already drawn, for which I was account- 
able, which, if I never received it from the union, would represent 
out-of-pocket loss to me, as distinguished from the whole $16,000 plus 
the two which represented the hotel checks, which represented fees. 

I am prepared to lose fees. I am not prepared, if I can avoid it. 
to lose the repayment for expenses or moneys which I had advanced 
on behalf of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you cause to draw or did you draw up the reso- 
lution against Mr. Sims ? 

Mr. Cooper. If I may respectfully discuss the 

Mr. Kennedy. If it is going to be a long answer, we will resume it 
tomorrow. 

Mr. Cooper. Whatever you prefer to do. I think it is an answer 
which goes to my relationship with a client. I am prepared to testify 
what I do with fees and how I receive them, but I am a little reluctant 



IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2849 

to go into what I have done in terms of my relationship with a client, 
whether I drew a resolution or did not. 

IVfr. Kennedy. This resolution is of some interest to us since it was 
drawn 2 days before Sims' charges were heard before the board. If 
you were a part of that, then it gets to be a question of whether you 
were representing the union or representiuj^ Mr. Cross and being paid 
by the union. I think it gets into your integrity, and I think you 
would want to answer it. 

Mr. Cooper. I am prepared to match my integi'ity to anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why not answer the question ? 

Mr. Cooper. That may not be the only way to match integrity, Mr. 
Kennedy. There are other Avays. 

The Chairman. Tomorrow morning, you be prepared to come back, 
and we will interrogate you on that point. Until that time, you are 
excused, but you will return in the morning. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Peter Carbonara. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Carbonara. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER CAEEONAEA. ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
SHEEMAN CAEMELL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Carbonara. My name is Peter Carbonara. I live at 95 North 
Crawford Avenue, Skokie, 111. Presently I am secretary-treasurer 
of local Xo. 1. 

The Chairman. Do you have your counsel present ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself. 

Mr. Carmell. Sherman Carmell, 138 West Eandolph Street, Chi- 
cago. 

The Chairman. You have discussed the testimony or information 
that you have with members of the staff, have you ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been with the union how long ? 

Mr. Carp.onar.\. I joined the union in November 1937. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when did you become an officer in the union? 

Mr. Carbonara. In November 1945. 

Mr. Kennedy. November of 1945? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Within your jurisdiction, is there contained the 
Zion Industries ? 

^Ir. Carbonara. Well. I could say that, in April 1956, Zion Indus- 
tries v»as a local independent, an independent local. No. 150. In April 
195f), by resolution, it became a part of local No. 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in April 195G, it came within your jurisdiction 1 

]Mr. CARBONApa. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Zion Industries has a bakery, does it not ? 

Mr. Carbonara. They have a bakery, and aLso a candy plant. 



2850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And a candy plant? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is that bakery and candy plant run by Martin 
Philipsborn, Jr.? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Martin Philipsborn, Sr., used to connected 
with it ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't know, sir, because, prior to April 1956, 
the local was independent. As a matter of fact, up to that date it 
was under the supervision of the international. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you do not know about Martin Philipsborn, Sr. ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No. I never met the gentleman. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. In September and October of 1956, you were carry- 
ing on negotiations with Martin Philipsborn, Jr., regarding the con- 
tract with the bakery ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. That was the first time I met Philips- 
born, although the local was under our jurisdiction for 5 or 6 months 
prior to that. We had a business representative that used to go and 
take care of the business of the local union. As a matter of fact, in 
August 1956, or July 1956, 60 days prior to the date of the expira- 
tion of the contract, we served notice to Colonel Philipsborn, Jr., 
that the contract was expiring on September 3, 1956, and we were 
ready to negotiate a new contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you carried on negotiations then, did you? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. First we got a committee of the 
shop organization 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You carried on negotiations? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, during this period of time, did you find that 
the negotiations were not successful that you had with Colonel 
Philipsborn ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, during the early part of October of 1956 did 
you request strike permission from the international union? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is right. It was a request to James Cross. 
All our correspondence goes to James Cross. We requested strike 
permission. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you the date of that telegram ? 

Mr. Carbonara. October 1, 1956. 

The Chairman. Is that a copy of it ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir ; it is a copy. 

The Chairman. Do you have an extra copy ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't know if I do have an extra copy. I think 
the committee has a photostat copy. 

The Chairman. The photostat copy of it may be made exhibit No. 

Mr. Carmell. This copy we have. Senator, is a confirmation copy 
of a wire. 

The Chairman. Well, he testifies that he sent the wire? 

Mr. Carmell. Yes. 

The Chairman. The copy we have of it may be made exhibit No. 
47. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2851 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 47" for 
reference and will be fomid in the appendix on p. 31H5.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you read the telegram into the record, please ^ 

Mr. Carbonara (reading) : 
To James Cross, 1U5 15th Street 2\^W., Washiyigton: 

Strike permission requested for Zion Industries, Zion, 111. One hundred twenty 
members LTlved in the strike vote taken Saturday. September 29. One hundred 
and ten voted in favor and eijrht against. 

Mr Kennedy. So, you notified President Cross that you had taken 
a vote of the union, and that the union had voted overwhelmingly to 
strike, and that you requested strike permission from the inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. . -, ^ . 4. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. That is the usual procedure, is it not, to request 
strike permission from the international ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is customary. a^ - ^^ ^ 

Mr Kennedy. Otherwise, you do not receive strike benefits, is that 
right,' which would be hard and difficult on the members? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. u i -e t> .'. 

l^Ir. Kennedy. Then, did you receive a telegram back from Fresi- 

^Mr cTrbonara. We have received a telegram back from President 
Cross that said to avoid any stoppage of work until we received con- 
firmation of the strike permission. . .^ .0 
Mr. Kennedy. That is also the usual procedure ; is it not ? 
Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. . , , -, -^ ^.-i 
Mr Kennedy. The president then wires back and says wait mitil 
you hear when they have taken it up with the board ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is right. . -, , , , n 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly after you received that telegran, did you 

hear from President Cross again? 4= o.f^w^ 

Mr. Carbonara. I think it was around the middle part of October 

that Anthony Conforti, the president of the local umon, got strike 

permission from the international. 

Mr Kennedy. You received word from Mr. ContortJ « 
Mr". Carbonara. Mr. Conforti was going to go to San Francisco, and 
I was going to carry on the negotiations with Zion. He gave me the 
strike permission. • i «> 

The Chairman. Is he an international officer^ 
Mr. Carbonara. Mr. Conforti is president of local JNo. 1. 
The Chairman. Did he get authority from the international i 
Mr. Carbonara. Well, the authority. Senator, is given to the vice 
president of the international, and, in turn, the vice president ot the 
international gives authority to the president of the local. 

The Chairman. And he was president of the locaH ^. , , 
Mr. Carbonara. Anthony J. Conforti was president of the local. 
The Chairman. Do you know that he got strike permission from the 
vice president of the international ? 
Mr. Carbonara. He gave it to me. 
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : 

Is this the copy of the strike permission? ^ , .^ 

The Chairman. I have here before me a carbon copy of a letter pm'- 
porting to be from James Cross to Anthony Conforti, president, 7iy 



2852 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

North Wilkin Avenue, Chicago 14, 111., dated October 5, 1956. It 
reads as follows : 

Dear Sir and Brother : The general executive board has acted on your request 
for strike j^ermission for local union 1, Chicago, 111., against Zion Industries, Inc. 
This matter has been referred to Vice President Stuart. Be giaided by his advice 
S-nd direction. 

Fraternally yours, 

Copy to Vice President Stuart. 

It is signed by James G. Cross, president. 
Then there is a notation on the bottom : 

ifou are hereby clothed with strike permission for local 1 against the above- 
named, to be released by you if final adjustment efforts fail and you have deter- 
mined that the local union is in full compliance with all Federal and State 
regulations. 

Avith material to research department. 

Do you know anything about these copies of letters ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't think I have seen those. Senator. 

The Chairman. May I ask the staff where we procured these? 

Mr. Kennedy. These are letters from the international. 

The Chairman. From the files of the international ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. I will read you now what purports to be strike 
permission. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the letter you just read in. 

The Chairman. Attached to a copy of a letter signed by James G. 
Cross, which I have just read, is a letter dated October 5, 1956, George 
Stuart to Anthony Conforti, Zion Industries, Inc., strike permission. 

Attached is the strike permission form for local 1 against Zion Industries, Inc. 
You are hereby clothed with strike permission for local 1 against the above- 
named to be released by you if final adjustment efforts fail and you have deter- 
mined that the local union is in full compliance with all Federal and/or State 
regulations. 

Then it states further : 

"VA^en settled, please fill out section 2 and return the form to me. 

Did you see that ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I would like to take a look at it. Senator. 

The Chairman. Sir ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I would like to take a look at that. 

The Chairman. You may take a look at both of them, or all three 
of them, and see if you identify them. 

(Documents handed witness.) 

The Chairman. I will ask you if you are familiar with Mr. James G. 
Cross' signatured 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes; I am familiar with Mr. James G. Cross' sig- 
n.ature. We get a lot of documents at the union. But I never seen 
this document before. 

The Chairman. You never saw the document before ? 

Look at the one signed J. G. Cross, and see if you ever saw it before, 
or if you can identify his signature. 

Mr. Carbonara. I know the signature. 

The C H A iR M A N . Sir? 

Mr. Carbonara. I know the signature. 

The Chairman. Is that Mr. Cross' signature on the white document, 
the letter? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2853 



The Chairman. What stationery is that letter on ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Bakers and Confectionery Workers International 
Union of America. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 48, the one identi- 
fied as bearing Mr. Cross' signature. 

The other documents may be withheld for the present. We may 
have to introduce one of our staff members to identify those. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 48" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 3186.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Carbonara, you understood from Mr. Conforti 
that the strike permission had been granted, is that right ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Precisely. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in early October of 1956 ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the next thing that you heard? 

Mr. Carbonara, Well, all the officers, most of the officers of the 
union went to the convention that Avas going to take place in San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, did you receive a telephone call from 
Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Carbonara. That was after all the delegates were in San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Kennedy. While all the delegates were in San Francisco, did 
you receive a telephone call from Mr. Stuart in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He called you from San Francisco ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you in that telephone call? 

Mr. Carbonara. He said to me he wanted to retract the strike per- 
mission and to mail it to him at the hotel where he was staying in 
San Francisco. I can't recall the name now. 

The Chairman. He wanted to retract the strike permission ? 

]Mr. Carbonara. No; he said, "Mail me the strike permission back 
to San Francisco." That is what he said over the telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has that ever happened before ? 

Mrf . Carbonara. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised that he should ask j^ou to mail 
the strike permisison back ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Indeed I was surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Indeed I was surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you do that ? Did you mail the strike permis- 
sion back to him ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he would send you a new strike permis- 
sion ? 

Mr. Carbonara. He said he would get together the general execu- 
tive board in San Francisco and mail me a new strike permisison. 
tive board in San Francisco and mail me a new strike permission. 

Mr. Carbbonara. I never seen it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet Mr. Stuart after that? 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't know whether I met him after the conven- 
tion in November or December. I can't recall. He was sometimes in 



2854 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and out of our office. But I know that he was back to our office after 
the holidays, which would have been the first part of Januaiy. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carbonara. I think when he was in in January, he must have 
met with Colonel Philipsborn, Jr., and Anthony Conforti. Then he 
came to the office and instructed me to mail some union applications 
to Colonel Philipsborn and some authorization for checkoff, because 
he said that the candy plant would be organized. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted some applications. This is George 
Stuart telling you this in early January, "Send me some applications 
because Colonel Philipsborn has agreed to organize the candy plant" ? 

Mr. Carbonara. To put the candy plant in the imion, in local No. 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat occurred after that? Did you mail liim 
those? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, I did. I made about 3 or 4 books of applica- 
tions, and I mailed about 150 or a couple hundred authorization cards 
for checkoffs, and after that I started receiving the applications signed 
from the members. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^^Hiat was that again ? 

Mr. Carbonara. After that I started receiving to the office applica- 
tions signed, from the people in the candy plants. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time of November and De- 
cember, did any of your members speak to you about the fact that 
they were not going out on strike as they had agreed to? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. We tried to hold them down in the best of 
our abilities, because, due to the fact that there were holidays, it would 
have been a bad time to go on strike anyhow. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that what you told them ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is what we advised them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they concerned with the fact that they were 
not going out on strike ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes ; they were very much disturbed about the way 
the things were proceeding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you disturbed yourself? 

Mr. Carbonara. I was disturbed myself, sure, because I felt closely 
responsible for the negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware at this time that there was any 
financial arrangement between either Mr. Cross, the president of the 
union, or Mr. George Stuart ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And with Mr. Philipsborn? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew nothing of that? 

Mr. Carbonara. I had no knowedge of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you are taking it up to January. Mr. Stuart 
spoke to you about getting the candy workers organized as well. 
Wiat occurred after that? 

Mr. Carbonara. Well, after that, sir, the people in the bakery, they 
were perturbed about it, and there were several calls made to the office 
of the union that they wanted to see this thing brought to a climax 
one way or another, whether they were going to go on strike or whether 
they were going to have any benefit by it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2855 

So I sent a telegram to James Cross, making him familiar with the 
situation in Zion, and to send some international representative to 
take care of the situation. 

Mr. KJBNNEDY. So what occurred ? 

Mr Carbonara. On February 11, he sent George Stuart. He was 
sent by— I don't know who sent him, but that was the consequence 
of the telegram that I sent to James Cross. He came and he was 
present at the meeting, and he told the people that the contrax^t that 
expired on September 30, 1956, plus the changes that we had agi^eed 
with Colonel Philipsborn during the negotiation , 

Mr I^NNEDY. Just to explain that, the contract had expired on 
September 30, but in your negotiations there were certain parts of the 
contract that you and Colonel Philipsborn could agree to? 

Mr. Carbonara. We had agreed; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there were certain other parts that you could 
not agree to, is that right? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So when he talked to you, when he came out m 

mV^ Carbonara. When he came out in February, George Stuart told 
the people in the meeting that the contract will be m force until May 
31, 1957, the old contract, plus the minor changes thtat we had agreed 
to with Colonel Philipsborn, and plus the organization ot the candy 
plant. The contract was going to be for the bakery and the candy 

^ Mr'. Kennedy. And that would not be up until the end of May? 
Mr. Carbonara. May 31, 1957. . ,. ,, 

Mr Kennedy. What did the membership think of that^ 
Mr*. Carbonara. Well, they didn't feel so good about it, but they 
thought that we would get along with it until May 31, and they ap- 
proved of the suggestion of Mr. Stuart. ' ^ . ,, 

Mr. IvENNEDY. During this whole period of time, now, the mem- 
bership was still di sturbed as to what had happened ? 

Mr Carbonara. Yes. There was some disturbance reported some- 
times from the business agent that would take care of that plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you disturbed yourself at the way it was 
being handled? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. i i ^ ^i ^^^ 

Mr. Kennedy. After this meeting, did you go back to the olhce 

"^ Mr^CARBONARA. Yes, we did come back to the office with Mr. 
Stuart. Mr. Stuart suggested, or told us, that the contract was going 
to be up to and including December 31, 1957. ^u , •, ^^„u 

Mr Kennedy. He had just told the membership that it would 
be extended to May 31, and the membership even at that was dis- 
turbed, and then he came back to the office and told you this? 

Mr. Carbonara. To write up a contract with all those provisions 
agreed up to December 31, 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did you say to that? , ^^ , ^ • a ^r. 

Mr. Carbonara. Well, I couldn't say much, only that we tried to 
write the contract, but we were reluctant, as f ar as mysell was con- 
cerned, and Conforti was concerned, we were reluctant to sign that 
contract. 



2856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything about what the membership 
would think? 

Mr, Carbonara. Sure. He knew it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did you say ? 

Mr. Carbonara. To Mr. Stuart, do you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Carbonara. I told him that the members don't like that. But 
he said just "Lefs handle it this way. Wlien June 1 comes aromid, 
I will talk to the people again." 

Mr. Kennedy. So was a contract drawn up then ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, a contract was drawn up, but it was never 
signed. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize this document as a photostatic 
copy of that contract ? 

(Docmnent handed witness.) 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 49, for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 49" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. I^NNEDY. The date of that contract was from January 1 to 
December 21 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Eight. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So cven though the membership was promised it 
would only be extended to May 31, the contract was drawn to Decem- 
ber 31 ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. 

Mr. EJENNEDY. In your experience in the labor-union movement 
have you ever experienced anything like this before ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you feel that you were being betrayed by the 
higher officials of the bakers' union ? 

Sir. Carbonara. By George Stuart, I would say, mostly in this 
contractural relation. In our district we dealt with Mr. Stuart, 
although our correspondence was always directed to Mr. Cross. 

The Chairman. How did you feel you were being betrayed ? 

Mr. Carbonara. Well, I don't think that was the right deal for the 
workers over there, especially in the area where we are situated. 

Other people working in the similar industry, they were getting 
more benefits than the Zion industry. 

The Chairman. In other words, you felt that something had gone 
wrong with this contract. There was something peculiar about it 
because you could not get in negotiations with this company compara- 
ble benefits, wages, and so forth, that you had gotten from others 
in the same area. 

Mr. Carbonara. That is about the size of it, Senator. 

The Chahiman. Is there any difference in the size of it? If so, 
state what it is. 

Mr. Carbonara. That is. 

The Chairman. That was it? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you get any explanation as to why you should 
not go on and strike if they wanted to strike in order to get the com- 
parable benefits to others ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2857 

Mr. Carbonara. No explanation whatsoever, except that it was 
pointed out by the company on several occasions that the company 
could not afford to pay any benefit above the contract they had up to 
September 1956. 

The Chairman. That was an argument on the part of manage- 
ment ? 

Mr. Carbonara, That is right. 

The Chairman. I still do not quite understand this peculiar situa- 
tion. You are told to strike and then you had the strike permit 
withdrawn. Then, they come down and negotiate something said to 
be until May 31, I believe, and then they direct you to draw up a con- 
tract making it December 81, and you draw that up. 

Was any contract ever signed at all ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

The Chairman. None has been signed yet ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carbonara. There is one signed now. Senator. I did not sign 
it. I don't know who signed it. Some representative of the union 
did sign. It was an agreement made after this investigation was on. 

The Chairman. After the investigation got on, you got some kind 
of a contract? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. Another contract has been written a 3-year 
contract, with 8 cents for the firet year and 5 cents for the second year 
and 5 cents for the third year. That has been accepted by the people. 

The Chairman. Tliat has been accepted by the people? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you felt you were betrayed by Stuart. Do 
you know whehter Mr. Cross played any part in this ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I wouldn't know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know whether Mr. Cross met with Mr. 
Philipsborn, Sr., regarding this contract? 

Mr. Carbonara. I would not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the negotiations you had were with Mr. Stuart? 

Mr. Carbonara. Mr. Stuart. 

Mr. IvENNFJJY. Mr. Stuart takes his instructions from Mr. Cross, 
does he not ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I assume he does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know whether Mr. Stuart was keeping Mr. 
Cross advised during this period of time ? 

Mr. Carbonara. He shoidd have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that Mr. Philipsborn had made 2 
loans of over $100,000 to Mr. Cross during the period of the last 2 
years ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No. 

Mr, Kennedy. That at one time he loaned $56,000, Mr, Philipsborn, 
Sr., loaned $56,000 to Mr. Cross to purchase a home here in 
Washington ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that in 1956 Mr. Philipsborn, Sr., loaned $40,000 
to Mr, Cross to purchase a home in Palm Beach, Fla. ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir; I did not know that. 



2858 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not aware of that? You do not know 
that Mr. Cross himself has met personally with Mr. Philipsborn on 
this matter ? 

Mr. Carbon ARA. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Philipsborn, Jr., talked to Mr. 
Cross regarding this matter ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I would not know. I know once, when we were 
just about at the brink of a strike, he asked me for a couple of days 
of recession, so that he could get in touch with his father. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that he could get in touch with his father? 
Mr. Carbonara. In Washington. Wliat transpired in Washington, 
I would not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Philipsborn, Sr., got in touch 
with Mr. James Cross ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That I would not know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the facts were that you received the strike per- 
mission, it was granted to you ; it was withdrawn subsequently, over 
the protest of your members that that strike permission was never 
given back to you. Is that true ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you then had a meeting of your members and 
Mr. Stuart was sent out there after you wrote Mr. Cross and Stuart 
said that you should continue the old contract through May 31, 1956. 

Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. But when he came into your office he said, "I didn't 
mean that. We will continue to December 31, 1956." 

Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the whole contract during the entire period of 
time was below the level for the other bakers unions thei'e in tliat 
area? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And the membership of your union had voted over- 
whelmingly to strike in this matter ? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did any of your union members know, or did you 
know, that this company was making loans to Mr. Cross during 
the course of these negotiations? 

Mr. Carbonara. Senator, I might say there were rumors about, 
but I never heard facts. 

Tlie Chairman. You heard a little rumor along about tliat time, 
is that it? 

Mr. Carbonara. That is it, yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know now whether or not that rumor 
turned out to be true ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You do not know of your own knowledge? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you be surprised to find out it is true? 

Mr. Carbonara. I would be surprised. 

The Chairman. You would? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you something else. As a unionmari, 
aud knowing the rank and file members of your union, and taking 



IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2859 

into account what you believe to be the responsibility of your na- 
tional officers, do you think it would be proper for your interna- 
tional president to be borrowing money from some business enter- 
prise that you are negotiating a labor contract with, borroAving 
money for his own personal use, without advising and informing 
the membership of that union that he is so involved with manage- 
ment, under those circumstances? Do you think that is a proper 
way to treat the miion members ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I have some doubts about it m3^self . 

Senator Curtis. When did you hear these rumors that there might 
have been some loans made ? 

j\Ir. Carboxara. I think it was during the investigation. 

Senator Curtis. During wliat investigation ? 

Mr. Carboxara. The Senate investigation. 

Senator Curtis. But at the time the events were taking place, you 
did not hear rumors ? 

Mr. Carbonara. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Suppose you had not only heard the rumors, but 
that you had had evidence that these loans had been made. AFhat 
could you have done about it ? 

]Mr. Carbonara. I don't think I could have done too much about 
it, but tliinking tliat tliey were unethical. 

Senator Curtis. What could the members of the local imion col- 
lectively have done about it ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't know what they would have done. 

Senator Curtis. What could they have clone ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carbonara. You see, the point is. Senator, that I don't think 
they could have done much about it, because in a situation of contrac- 
tual negotiations, the membersliip have to have the strike permission 
from the international in order to go on strike, in order to accomplish 
what their aim is. If they don't get the strike permission from the 
international, they would be deprived of the benefit of $20 a week that 
they would get from the international. 

That is pretty hard to put people on strike, or on a wildcat strike. 

Senator Curtis. The question I am raising is this : When union 
members receive reliable information of misconduct of their top offi- 
cers in their union, what rights do they have to take any action that 
might correct it ? I think that is a question that the Congress ought to 
look into. 

Mr. Carbonara. They don't have any rights at the moment. They 
might take action when election would come around. 

Senator Curtis. What kind of a contract do you have with the Zion 
Industries, with reference to union members? Is it a union shop 
contract ? 

Mr. Carbonara. It is a union shop; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Suppose an individual worker decides that he is 
not going to pay dues to a union that was headed by individrals who 
were accepting loans and favors from management. What would 
happen if he elected not to pay his dues? 

Mr. CarboNxVra. We never had any case like that before. 

Senator Curtis. I know, but what would happen? 

80330— 57— pt. 8—19 



2860 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carbonara. I don't know what would happen. 

Senator Curtis. Would he continue in his job? 

Mr. Carbonara. The action of the union would depend on what the 
people would decide to do. But we never had occasion. 

Senator Curtis. What does your contract say would happen ? 

Mr. Carbonara. The contract says that they are paying the dues 
and they are on a checkoff system. 

Senator Curtis. And if they fail to pay their dues ? 

Mr. Carbonara. I would not know, Senator, what w^ould be the 
reaction. We would certainly try to keep them in the union. 

Senator Curtis. But they would lose their job, would they not? 

Mr. Carbonara. Yes, sure they would. 

Senator Curtis. That is what I want to know. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 
a. m., Wednesday, June 19, 1957.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan 
and Curtis.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Impropek Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. 0. 

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the Caucus Eoom, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel to the select com- 
mittee ; George Kopecky, assistant counsel ; James F. Mundie, investi- 
gator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

(Members present at the convening of the session : Senators McClel- 
lan and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Herman Cooper, will you come around, please. 

TESTIMONY OF HERMAN COOPER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cooper, you were the hearing officer or you had 
some official capacity ? 

Mr. Cooper. I was not the hearing officer. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not wait until you heard my question. 

Mr. Cooper. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had some official capacity in the hearing that 
was held at the special session of the general executive board? 

Mr. Cooper. As general counsel to the union, and at the instance of 
the hearing board, I acted as legal adviser to the hearing board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, that was in accordance with the rules and 
procedures that were agreed to by the board? 

Mr. Cooper. That was in accordance with the code of procedure 
Avhich the general executive board adopted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who drew up the code of procedure? 

Mr. Cooper. It was drawn up by a number of people including 
myself, my assistant, John Long, and with the effort and cooperation 
of Vice President Daniel Conway. 

2861 



2862 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It was drawn up with your law firm, was it not ? 

Mr. Cooper. In part. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the general rules of procedure it was stipulated 
that the general counsel of the international union or his designee 
shall serve as legal adviser to the hearing officer. 

Mr. Cooper. This was changed by action of the general executive 
board to the word "may." 

Mr. Kennedy. To "may," and you served in that position did you ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was asking you, and this record shows that on the 
day that the board voted that Mr. Stuart and Mr. Cross were not 
guilty of the charges against them, there was another resolution of- 
fered of charges against Mr. Sims. There was also a resolution or a 
group of charges drawn up by Mr. Cross against Mr. Sims, which was 
made up prior to the time that the board had finished their delibera- 
tions. I asked you yesterday at the end of the session whether you 
had anything to do with drawing up these charges against Sims. 

Mr. Cooper. Yes; I did. 

JNIr. Kennedy. You drew them up ? 

Mr. Cooper. I, at the request of President Cross, and after consulta- 
tion with him, and as law officer for the international union, drew 
those charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at the same time during this period you drew 
these charges up even prior to the time that the council or the executive 
board reached their decision ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were acting in what position ? 

Mr. Cooper. I was acting as general counsel to the international 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was another gi'oup of charges drawn up 
against Mr. Sims which was offered on the same day that the board 
cleared Mr. Stuart and Mr. Cross. Did you have anything to do 
with those charges ? 

JMr. Cooper. I don't know which other charges you are referring to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you draw up any other charges ? 

Mr. Cooper. I assisted in drawing only one set of charges against 
Secretary-Treasurer Sims. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Vice President Gamble, did you have 
anything to do with his charges against Sims ? 

Mv. Cooper. I had nothing to do with any charges drawn by Vice 
President Gamble. To assist you, I am certain that you are referring 
to a resolution. 

Mr. Kennedy. Four resolutions ? 

Mr. Cooper. Four resolutions calling for certain subsequent action 
which was to be considered and, if approved, to be taken by the gen- 
eral executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have anything to do with drawing up 
those resolutions ? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't say "of course." I didn't know that until 
now. 

Mr. Cooper. That is the answer, because I am the law officer for 
the union and they are not lawyers and it is my function as their 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2863 

lawyer to transcribe into legal terms and legal forms the documents 
and actions which they contemplate and which they may ultimately, 
after due consideration, approve. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you drew up the charges or the resolutions of 
Mr. Cross against ]\Ir. Sims, and you drew them up prior to the time 
that the executive board reached its decision, and you did the same 
thing for Vice President Gamble ? 

Mr. Cooper. And I would have done the same thing for Secretary- 
Treasurer Sims had he requested me. Having read the record, Mr. 
Kennedy, you must know that I stated this before the general execu- 
tive board, and that I indicated to them that as a law officer for the 
international union I was available to all of the international officers 
for whatever legal efforts they required, with respect to the internal 
or external affairs of the international union. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. At the same session, where the board reached its 
decision that Mr. Cross and Mr. Stuart were not guilty of the charges 
against them, and this resolution was offered against Mr. Sims, a 
statement was made by you as to the press release that could be issued 
or a release to be sent to all of the bakers offices. 

Mr. Cooper. Which date are you referring to, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Ejennedy. The last day of the hearing. 

Mr. Cooper. Of which hearing ? There were two of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. March 6, 7, and 8, and I presume it is the 8th. 

Mr. Cooper. If you will refer to the page I will be glad to refresh 
my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Page 253. 

Mr. Cooper. And what did I say ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a statement that you read, and which you 
stated that you had drawn up. This obviously had been drawn up 
prior to the time the board reached its decision. 

Mr. Cooper. Precisely, exactly the same way that this committee 
and every organization functions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just let me read the statement. 

Mr. Cooper. Statements are prepared in advance of action and 
released if the action requires it. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

This letter is sent by the general executive board to clear up certain misin- 
formation concerning an unfortunate conflict among the highest ranking officers 
of our international union. Charges of misconduct were first brought by Inter- 
national Secretary-Treasurer Curtis Sims against International President James 
G. Cross and Vice President George Stuart. These charges first appeared in 
the public press of March 4, 1957, before they were received by the accused 
oflacer, the general executive board, or the local unions. 

President Cross promptly called a special meeting of the GEB in Washington 
to begin on March 6 and remain in continuous session through March 8. The 
first action was to adopt by a vote of 18 to 2 a code of hearing procedure under 
article 20 of the international constitution for cases before the GEB. President 
Cross and Vice President Stnart requested an immediate hearing on the charge 
against them, although entitled to 20 days' notice. Secretary-Treasurer Sims 
asked for a delay and the hearing was set for the next day at 2 p. m., when 
it began and continued for some 12 hours. 

The GEB sat as a hearing board to consider the charges with Vice President 
Conway named as chairman and Vice President deConcini as secretary. A 
court stenographer was present to record a word-for-word account of the 
proceedings. Secretary-Treasury Sims made eight charges, which have already 
been widely publicized. The GEB heard him present his case and heard President 
Cross and Vice President Stuart reply. The interested parties were then 
excused, and the GEB collaborated and weighed the evidence. 



2864 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

After hours of debate, the GEB by secret ballot overwhelmingly found Presi- 
dent Cross and Vice President Stuart to be not guilty of any of the charges. 
President Cross has filed charges of misconduct against Secretary-Treasurer 
Sims, which will be heard by the GEB on March 27, 1957, at its regular semi- 
annual meeting. 

The GEB wishes to reassure the general membership that no effort has been 
or will be spared to protect the good name of our international union. 
Fraternally yours. 

And it was to be sioned. 

Mr. Cooper. Now, most of that was prepared in anticipation of 
possible favorable action by the general executive board, while I was 
out of the room, and the board was in executive session. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean, "favorable action"? 

Mr. Cooper. In the sense that the action would uphold the inter- 
national president and the vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is favorable to you ? 

Mr. Cooper. That would be favorable in terms of the outcome, and 
the need for this statement. 

Had the outcome been different, then necessarily the statement 
would have been to the contrary. By the same token, the vote and 
other items wliich appear at the conclusion of that statement were 
added after a disclosure by the general executive board sitting as a 
trial board of the outcome of that hearing, because we did not know 
until we came into the room at about 1 : 30 or 2 o'clock in the morning 
precisely what the general executive board had done by secret ballot. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say the rest of this was drawn up after the vote 
of the board ? 

Mr. C^ooPER. The additions were made toward the end, and it was 
all written out, when the general executive board, sitting as a trial 
board, through its chairman, Vice President Conway, annoimced the 
outcome of the hearing. 

(At this point Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You recognize that you were working for the inter- 
national union and not just for Mr. Cross? 

Mr. Cooper. I was working for the international union, and by that 
token for the international officers, the general executive board, and, 
necessarily, through them, for the membership at large. 

Mr. Kennedy. You must have really rushed through that last bit 
of that statement, because there is only about 10 minutes here, between 
2 : 07, when they took the vote, and 2.20, Conway took the chair again, 
or Cross took the chair. You really rushed that last two paragraphs 
in. 

Mr. Cooper. I am not responsible for your characterization, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy, It took you 13 minutes. 

Mr. Cooper. There was a lapse of time, which may not be disclosed 
by the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. The la})se of time right here when these things took 
place. 

Mr. Cooper. The only part that I wrote when we came back into 
the room, as I previously testified, had to do witli the action of the 
general executive board, which would not take more than a minute or 
two to transcribe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you put it in your own writing ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes ; on a j^ellow legal cap. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2865 

Mr. Kennedy. You worked very quickly. 

Mr. Cooper. I would be happy to accept the compliment from you, 
sir. and that is my practice. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair ask you a little question or two, 
l^lease, sir. Plow long did the hearings before the executive board 
on the charges against Mr. Cross and Mr. Stuart continue ? 

Mr. Cooper. The hearings, as I recall them, sir, began at 2 o'clock, 
and they ran continuously, I think, with a possible break of an hour 
or an hour and a half, until 10: 30 or 11. Then the general executive 
board, sitting as a trial body, w^ent into executive session which meant 
that they excluded me. President Emeritus Winter, and the tlrree 
interested parties from the room, from their deliberations. We were 
called back into the room at about 1 : 30 or 2 o'clock n the morning, 
as I now recall it, when the board had arrived in executive session by 
secret ballot at their determination. 

The Chairman. Now, let us see if I am correct in this calculation. 
It went into session to begin the hearings at 2 o'clock in the after- 
noon ? 

Mr. Cooper. I believe that was the time, sir. 

The Chairman. And it finally recessed the hearings to go into 
executive session for deliberations at 10 o'clock ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is my recollection. 

The Chairman. And about an hour and a half was taken out for 
dinner that evening? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. So that would be six and a half hours applied to 
the hearing ? 

Mr. Cooper. That would appear to be accurate. 

The Cjiairman. Did you have there before the board — you were 
present, I believe, all during the hearing ? 

iSIr. C(X)PER. I was, except the executive session. 

The Chairman. I mean you were present when all of the testimony 
was taken ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have there the same testimony, comparably 
the same testunony there presented against Mr. Cross and Mr. Stuart 
that has been presented to this committee? 

Mr. Cooper. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did the board with your advice and counsel, rep- 
resenting, as you say, the union members as well as the officers and the 
union — did they make any effort to go out and get confirmation of 
these charges or to see whether confirmation of them could be had 
from other sources? 

Mr. Cooper. In the first instance, Mr. Chairman, I was there in a 
most limited caj^acity, at the direction of the board. 

The Chairman. I did not ask you that now. I asked you if the 
board did. 

Mr. Cooper. The board was sitting as a trial body and not as a 
prosecuting body. The function of the person bringing the charges 
was to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a majority of the board, as 
in any court, or before any jury, that the evidence supported the 
charges as he made them. I think if a fair and objective appraisal 
is made of the record of that hearing as against the record of the 



2866 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

testimony before this committee, the disparities, and the confusion, 
and the failure to support the charges might be much more evident 
than it is here. 

The CuAnaiAN". Mr. Cooper, now you, being an attorney, know 
wJiat I am trying to determine was whether there was any genuine 
effort made to hnd out whether these charges were true or not. 

Mr. Cooper. I would judge that an effort was made at the hearing. 

The Chairman. In that limited time, but was any investigation 
made ? You regarded these charges as serious charges ? 

Mr. Cooper. They were certainly serious. 

The Chairman. They were serious? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, the board, having a responsibility certainly 
to the union to determine whether these charges were true or not • 

Mr. Cooper. If you are asking my opinion, sir, which I assume is 
the nature of your question 

The Chairman. You do not wait until I finish, do you ? 

Mr. Cooper. I am sorry, sir. 

The Chairman. The board having a responsibility to the union and 
to the members to determine truthfulness of these charges, do you not 
think should have used some diligence in going out and trying to find 
whether the charges made were true or not? Or did you think that 
the responsibility was limited to just sitting there and hearing the two 
disputing parties, and then trying to settle it that way ? 

Mr. Cooper. In the nature of these hearings, and in the general 
practice which prevails in the labor movement and in other fraternal 
associations of the same kind, the burden rests upon a person or an 
officer bringing charges to substantiate those charges at the hearing 
before the body which is called upon to pass them. This board did 
not sit in any capacity except as a hearing board. They did not sit 
as an investigatory body, and there was no request made by Mr. Sims 
in advance of the hearing that this board investigate the charges. 

He brought the charges, and he was chargeable, therefore, with re- 
sponsibility for establishing the truth of those charges. If he had in 
advance of bringing those charges asked for an inquiry, asked the 
general executive board to look into the charges, then you might have 
had a responsibility imposed on the board, which in my judgment did 
not carry once he did bring the charges. 

The Chairman. That gets down into pretty technical legal aspects 
of where the burden and responsibility lie. I can appreciate that 
one bringing the charges may have the burden to sustain the charges 
in the general sense, but I do take the position, and I may be wrong, 
that the officers of that union, as well as you as its adviser and 
counselor, have a responsibility when serious charges are made, to go 
beyond just what the accuser may say, and check on the information 
he gives you to ascertain whether those charges are true. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, the constitution of this international 
union makes provision for just what you have suggested. 

]Mr. Sims bypassed that provision, and Mr. Sims had the obligation 
and opportunity in advance of bringing charges to bring before this 
general executive board whatever suspicions he may have had. The 
board would then have been obliged, and I would have so advised 
them, to set up a committee of inquiry and to have brought before the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2867 

board all of the necessary parties to have inquired into the records of 
the local unions affected, or of the international. But he bypassed 
that. He put the general executive board into the position, perhaps 
unfortunately, where they had no choice, if they had done anything 
else but to sit as a hearing body in the nature of a jury. 

Had he proceeded correctly, then your postulation would have been 
completely correct. 

The Chairman. I am not sure about his procedure under your con- 
struction, whether lie proceeded correctly. But the thing that im- 
presses me, and I may be wrong about it, is wlien sucli serious charges 
as these are made certainly, officers of a union faithful to their member- 
ship and to their responsibility have a duty to ascertain whether those 
charge are true, irrespective of whether the party bringing the charges 
has complied with all of the technicalities that might be required uncler 
the constitution. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, had the board clone that, they would 
have abandoned their position as a hearing board and they would 
have been in court on the position of having assumed other attitudes 
which were not consistent with their objectivity. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : AVlio has the responsi- 
bility of ferreting out these charges and finding out whether they are 
true? 

]Mr. Cooper. I think initially the person who has information which 
is derogatory has the obligation under the constitution to bring it to 
the general executive board. He has no right to assume or arrogate to 
himself the authority to make an individual investigation and then to 
bring charges. He liad a duty to the international union. 

The Chairman. All right, you want to put all of the blame on the 
fellow who makes the report of the wrongdoing. I want to determine 
what is the responsibility and what responsibility does the board or 
the high officials of the union accept when such charges are brought 
to their attention. 

Mr. Cooper. It depends on the manner in which the charges are 
brought. Obviously, if the charges are brought to the general execu- 
tive board for the purpose of investigation, it is one thing. But if the 
charges are brought seriously, which seek to condemn an officer or 
member on the basis of specific acts of wrongdoing, it cannot be the 
function of the general executive board to be both a hearing body and 
an investigatory body. 

The Chairman. All right. Let us pass on from the board. These 
charges still prevail and tliey were public knowledge after your execu- 
tive board action. Wliat action was taken to pursue it beyond that, 
and ascertain whether there was any truth in it? 

Mr. Cooper. If the Chair please, ever since these charges first ap- 
peared in the papers, on the night of March 3, this organization has 
been in the throes of a dissident factional fight. I cannot see how it 
has been able to function as eifectively as it has because its complete 
activities have been devoted to preparing for these hearings, the hear- 
ings before other committees, and in meeting the challenge that exists 
in the local unions throughout the country. 

It is impossible in this climate to anticipate that a fair, objective, 
and further investigation could have been contained. This committee 
is conducting the investigation and the hearings and the results of 
this committee may be the basis for further action or further consid- 
eration by the union or other bodies. 



2868 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The union itself is not in a position to conduct any independent 
investigation at this point. 

The Chairman. Why not? 

Mr. Cooper. Because they are completely paralyzed by what is going 
on today and what has been going on since March 4. 

The Chairman. What do you refer to, and what is going on today ? 

Mr. Cooper. The hearings, the preparation for these hearings, the 
preparation for hearings before other committees and this union can- 
not properly be expected fairly to view the whole situation in an objec- 
tive, detached way. 

The Chairman. A^Hiat are we saying? Are we saying that unions, 
particularly this one, cannot meet their responsibilities to their mem- 
bership in ferreting out corruption ? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course not. 

The Chairman. And improper activities? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course not. I am not saying that. 

The Chairman. I say to you if unions could and would do that, 
there would not be any necessity for this committee, and there would 
not be any necessity for us trying to consider legislation. 

If they can do that and run their house or their organization prop- 
erly and orderly and effectively and without graft and corruption 
and rascality, it would not be necessary for us to be here holding these 
investigations and trying to develop what the facts are, so that Con- 
gress might know how to legislate to prevent these things. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't want to leave the impression that I am question- 
ing the value of your hearings, or the virtue with which it is conducted 
or the motives that keep you gentlemen in this rather unpleasant task. 

All that I am saying is that if this committee will consider the time 
sequence which has taken place since March 3, it will very definitely 
appear that nothing could have happened internally beyond the fact 
that on March 28 another hearing was conducted by this union and 
that since that time the. union and its machinery has necessarily been 
preoccupied with preparing the material and satisfying the requests 
of this committee. 

Xow, what will take place subsequently, is a matter which the com- 
mittee Avill be answerable for. 

The Chairman. I am concerned that when these things develop 
that the union itself, its responsible officials, do not take some re- 
sponsibility and start immediately trying to find out what the truth 
is and taking appropriate action thereon. 

If they would do that we would save the taxpayers a lot of money 
and we would save Senators a lot of valuable time that they might be 
applying to other things. There seems to be on the face of it, in this 
union, a completely indifferent attitude. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't consider, if I may respectfully say so, that that 
last statement is warranted by the record. I may also respectfully 
differ from you in this respect, that this union has had to meet most 
unfavorable public notice. 

Much of it has been based on supposition and inference before the 
evidence was in the record. I cannot conceive of how any union and 
how any organization can be expected to meet its obligations to its 
membership in a climate which is surfeited with advance statements 
of proof which is not yet in the record and which is not before the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2869 

committee and which has not been properly evaluated or given any 
weight to. 

Therefore, I submit 

The Chair]man". Mr, Cooper, are all hearings not based upon ad- 
vance information before the proof comes in ? 

Mr. Cooper. Obviously to the committee but not to the press, sir, 
if I may respectfully say so. 

The Chairman. Usually when a fellow is indicted it gets in the 
press. That is a long time before the trial. You know that is true. 

Mr. Cooper. I am not suggesting that that is a fair approach to 
a person who has not yet been tried and convicted. 

The Chairman. It is not a question of being fair or unfair. It is 
a practice and it is news when an indictment is found and it is official 
and certainl}^ after the parties are arrested there is no reason for it 
to be kept secret. It becomes an official public act that the public is 
entitled to know. 

When one brings charges in your union and files the charges, and 
it happens to get to the press, I do not know who is telling the truth, 
Mr. Sims says he did not go to the press. But whether it got to the 
press or did not get to the press, it did not in any way diminish nor 
relieve the union's responsible officials from their obligations to do 
something about it. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Senator oMundt. Did I understand that you said that you thought 
it was an unwise practice for the newspapers to report Federal 
indictments ? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course not. In the first place, this is not an in- 
dictment and this is not a criminal proceeding. This committee, as 
I understand it, is an investigatory committee for the purpose of 
obtaining information on which to predicate proposed legislation. 

I, tlierefore, do not feel that the committee is in the same position, 
even as a district attorney, in announcing the indictment when it 
is found. 

Senator Mundt. You are talking about your committee or our 
committee ? 

Mr. Cooper. I am talking about your committee. 

Senator Mundt. We are not announcing any indictment. 

Mr. Cooper. No ; but the chairman implied that there was a parallel 
between the announcement yesterday by Counsel Kennedy and the 
announcement by district attorney of a criminal indictment. That 
was my only reference. 

Of course, the press are entitled to know everything there is to know. 

The Chairman. Now, you misunderstood me, if that is your inter- 
pretation. You are taking the position that because the charges of 
Mr. Sims hit the press that that w^as wrong, and that made it difficult 
for you to proceed, or relieved you from some responsibility, the high 
officials of the union. 

I challenge that. Wliether he gave it to the press, or whether the 
press got it from some other source should make no difference. It 
neither diminishes the responsibility and obligations, or relieves them 
from it in any degree to pursue it and to find out whether these charges 
are true. 

You took the position that because it got in the press that that just 
relieved them. 



2870 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. I am afraid we were talking at cross purposes, if I 
may say so. 

The Chalrman. All right. I am sorry to interrupt you but I 
wanted to clarify that. 

Mr. Cooper. I will try to be brief if I may complete my answer. 
The objection which the hearing board found to the release of infor- 
mation by Mr. Sims was not excKisively related to the fact that it was 
announced before anyone received the charges. 

The objection which I understand the hearing board had to Mr. 
Sims was the fact that he had violated a constitutional obligation 
which required him, upon obtaining any such information, promptly 
to bring this to the attention of the ruling body of the organization, 
the duly constituted general executive board. 

Instead of assembling quietly and secretly such information, while 
at the same time voting for the actions which he later disparaged and 
claimed constituted a breach of conduct on the part of other officers. 

After assembling this by himself, without any authority, he was not 
a secret agency within the union, constituted with the right to assemble 
this information. He had a duty as secretary-treasurer of the board 
to provide this information as he got it, and if the general executive 
board failed to act on it, then he would have been properly authorized 
to have sought redress elsewhere. 

The Chairman. We have a lot of complaints like that from mem- 
bers, that they are not authorized to complain and if they do they get 
a trouncing. 

Mr. Cooper. He was not only authorized, he was obliged to complain 
as soon as he knew. 

The Chairman. And when he did, he got condemned. 

Mr. Cooper. He did not do it that way. He cannot demonstrate 
that if he had brought these charges to the attention of the board 
properly under the constitution that they would not have received 
proper attention. Had he done so, he would not be in a better posi- 
tion to complain. He can't assume that the board would have dis- 
missed those charges, that the board would have done nothing to 
investigate them. 

That is an assumption which he makes, but it is not borne out by 
any facts. 

The Chairman. I do not think that you are going to absolve the 
high officials of that union from responsibility simply because Mr. 
Sims may have not proceeded according to your wishes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What is the section of the constitution that provides 
that? 

Mr. Cooper. If I may have a copy of the constitution, I will be 
glad to find it for you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is a copy. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cooper. In tlie first place, under article VII, the secretary- 
treasurer is chargeable w^ith keeping all of the records and accounts 
and is initially in a position 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer my question, please. You said there 
was a constitutional provision. 

Mr. Cooper. I will be glad to show that to you in just a moment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2871 

Under the membership oath initially, that is on page 39, article 
XYII, one of the membership oaths which bound Curtis Sims was the 
following : 

I will aid and assist in bringing to justice any member violating this 
obligation. 

That is the obligation supporting the organization. Under article 
XVII, section 3 — and I will read this — members' duties: 

Membership in the international union constitutes an acceptance by each 
member to be bound by the provisions of the constitution, the oath of mem- 
bership — 

wliich I have just read — 

and the laws, policies, and directors of the international union and the local 
union. 

It is the duty and obligation of every member to report to the general execu- 
tive board every infringement of the constitution by any subordinate body or 
member of officer thereof. 

The Chairmmst. It does not say he has to report when he first 
learns, the first day he learns about it. 

Mr. Cooper. Well 

The Chairman-. That is your contention, that he had to report it 
every time he heard anything. You do not mean that, do you? 

Mr. Cooper. I mean that as soon as a member or an officer, particu- 
larly someone holding a high office of the second-ranking officer of 
the international union, acquires information in his official capacity, 
he has a bounden obligation to report tliis to the general executive 
board. 

The Chairman. You did not read that. Tliat is your interpreta- 
tion, but you did not read it. 

Mr. Cooper. You have asked me as a lawyer to interpret the 
constitution. 

The Chairman. You were asked to site the constitution. Let me 
ask you something else. Apparently, Mr. Sims, when he did report 
it, reported it prematurely because nothing was done about it. 

Mr. Cooper. He never reported this. 

The Chairman. He did not have all of the evidence to sustain it 
and he did not have it there before you. 

Mr. Cooper. He claims to have the evidence as early as March of 
1956, sir. He so stated at the hearing, which is before you. 

The Chairman. On IMarch when? 

Mv. Cooper. In ]\Iarch of 1956. That was a year before he brought 
the charges against Cross and Stuart. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was that article XVII not mentioned in the 
charges against Sims then? If that is the one that you are going by? 

Mr. Cooper. I don't think that it is appropriate, Mr. Kennedy, for 
me to try before you or this committee the question as to whether 
or not the general executive board acted properly. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you have said he violated the constitution 
and 

Mr. Cooper. That is the finding of the general executive board. 

i\Ir. Kennedy. I asked you the name of the provision of the con- 
stitution. 

Mr. Cooper. I think if you will also look on pages 50 and 51, in 
which you find grounds for charges against members, subordinate 



2872 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

bodies and officers, you will find there, too, the specific references of 
the charges that were applied to Secretary-Treasurer Sims. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question. You said he violated the 
constitution. 

Mr. Cooper. Well, of course, and if you will examine the sections 
under pages 50 and 51, and relate that specifically to the charges that 
the board brought him on, you will see the references there. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no provision in the constitution that he has 
to bring it to the board or bring it to the board first before he does 
anything else about it. 

Mr. Cooper. The general executive board is charged by the con- 
stitution with interpreting the constitution. They interpreted that 
membership obligation as every union does, and every fraternal organ- 
ization does as requiring tlie disclosure upon acquiring the infor- 
mation. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it then, it would be improper to 
give it to newspapers first or discuss it? 

Mr. Cooper. I think it is an obligation to first, just as anybody 
would or any group, internally to have resolved any charges or deroga- 
tory information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell me whether James Cross had some 
charges against Joseph Kane and some of these other people involved 
in this fracas out in San Francisco? 

Mr. Cooper. Those charges, as I recall them, were framed by a 
committee of the general executive board which was designated to 
frame the charges after an investigation of the facts. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if those charges were distributed to 
any member of the press? 

Mr. Cooper. Those charges were not only discussed at the interna- 
tional convention from October of 1956 before the assembled press 
and assembled membership, but they were also discussed 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to them being sent out to those who were ac- 
cused, were these discussed with any members of the press ? 

Mr. Cooper. I would not know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you specifically discuss the matter with Mr. 
Joe Lof tus, of the New York Times ? 

Mr. Cooper. I may have, and I don't personally recall at this point. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before they went out ? 

Mr. Cooper. I do not recall that, and I may have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well now, this is something that you have spent 20 
minutes condemning Mr. Sims for and now I am asking whether you 
discussed this matter with Mr. Joseph Lof tus, of the New York Times, 
before they went out. 

Mr. Cooper. Tn the first place, there is no parallel, and 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question ; would you ? 

ISIr. Cooper. I would like to answer the question in my own way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not discuss it? 

Mr. Cooper. I may have and I don't personally recall it. It is 
unlikely that I discussed it with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you deny that you discussed it with him ? 

Mr. Cooper. I cannot at this moment recall but it is unlikely that 
I talked to him about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2873 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to December 4 — on or about December 4— you 
deny that you discussed this with Joseph Loftus, of the New York 
Times? 

Mr. (^ooPER. It is unlikely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny ? 

Mr. Cooper. I cannot recall it, sir. I am not trying to be equiv- 
ocable. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is something that you are very critical of Mr. 
Sims for. 

Mr. Cooper. I certainly am. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you are that critical, you would be able to remem- 
ber a conversation that you had with Mr. Joseph Loftus on the same 
matter. 

Mr. Cooper. My answer stands. I think Mr. Loftus should be asked, 
if you will, since you are probing in those things, ask him as to his 
recollection, it may be better than mine, if this is a matter of real con- 
cern to you. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are interested in you. 

Mr. Cooper. I can see that by the questions you ask. I assumed that 
your function here was not to be interested in me, but in my conduct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what interests me. 

Mr. Cooper. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Was a meeting held in Miami, on March 27 with 
regard to charges against Secretary Sims ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. I think it was the 28th, if I recall it. 

Senator Mundt. During the convention down in Miami ? 

Mr. Cooper. No, this was subsequent to the meeting of the general 
executive board. 

Senator Mundt. What was the determination made at that meeting ? 

Mr. Cooper. The determination of that meeting or that hearing 
board was to find that Sims was found guilty of the charges made 
against him by President Cross. 

Senator Mundt. Did Mr. Sims appear in person at that meeting? 

Mr. Cooper. He certainly did. 

Senator Mundt. In Miami? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, he did. 

Senator Mundt. He appeared before the board ? 

Mr. Cooper. He did. And he made a statement to the board and 
Mr. Cross, and submitted his position in support of his charges at 
that meeting. 

Senator Mundt. You say he was found guilty by the board ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is the information conveyed to me after execu- 
tive session. 

Senator Mundt. Were you not at the meeting ? 

Mr. Cooper. I was not at the executive session, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat were the implications of being found guilty ? 
Was he removed from office ? 

Mr. Cooper. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Was he suspended ? Wliat happened ? 

Mr. Cooper. No penalty was imposed. The suspension was con- 
tinued, which had previously been voted unanimously by the general 
executive board, including the four vice presidents who had adhered 
in support of Mr. Sims. 



2874 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. He was actually suspended, then, from his tasks 
at this meeting on March 6, 7, and 8 ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. You attended that meeting ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, except for the executive session. 

Senator Mundt. And as general counsel for the union, it is your 
responsibility, I presume, and function, to advise him as to whether 
or not they are proceeding in conformity with their own constitution ? 

Mr. Cooper. To the extent that my advice is sought, I am happy to 
provide it. They don't always ask me. 

Senator Mundt. They did, however, on this occasion? 

Mr. Cooper. On some legal questions, yes. 

Senator Mundt. Was the meeting on March 6, 7, and 8 called for 
the purpose of considering the charges that Mr. Sims made against 
Mr. Cross, or the charges that Mr. Cross made against jNIr. Sims? 

Mr. Cooper. The meeting of March 6 and 7 was called initially 
at the instance of Secretary-Treasurer Sims, who insisted that unless 
such a meeting was called and a code of procedure adopted, he would 
assume the office and call a meeting himself. 

Senator Mundt. In doing that, he was conforming with the consti- 
tution, internally ? 

Mr. Cooper. There is no clause in the constitution that sustained 
that kind of a threat by Secretary-Treasurer Sims. 

Senator Mundt. But he was proceeding properly by taking up in- 
ternally, as you said, with the members of the union, his charges 
against Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Cooper. To the extent that he was making charges, he was pro- 
ceeding under the constitution. 

Senator Mundt. So the meeting was called, then, for the purpose 
of analyzing and evaluating the charges against Cross by Sims? 

Mr. Cooper. The meeting was initially called to adopt and consider 
a code of procedure for trials to be held in this fashion. 

Senator Mundt. That was the purpose of the meeting? 

Mr. Cooper. That was the initial purpose of the meeting. 

Senator Mundt. And as the meeting proceeded, they then voted 
a vote of confidence, or what was equivalent to a vote of confidence, 
to Mr. Cross, and it was the same as denying the validity of the charges 
of Mr. Sims? 

Mr. Cooper. After considerable discussion, which the record will 
show, considerable discussion, the code of procedure was finally 
adopted by a mixed — by a mixed vote, and thereafter, upon the adop- 
tion of the code, the charges were considered by the general executive 
board, brought by Secretary-Treasurer Sims against President Cross 
and Vice President Stuart. 

And this, if I may interrupt. Senator, the hearing, although en- 
titling Cross and Stuart to a 20-day lapse, as Sims himself obtained, 
w^as entitled to, the hearing proceeded without that delay at the re(iuest 
of President Cross. 

Senator Mundt. What do you mean ? Is it in the constitution that 
the 20-day lapse shall be between the charges and the answers ? 

Mr. Cooper. That 20-day lapse is in the code of ])rocedure which 
was then adopted on March 6. 

Senator Mundt. The code of procedure, as I understand it, says 
that when a member of the union has been charged with wrongdoing 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2875 

of any kind, there shall be a 20-day lapse before the so-called trial is 
held; is that it? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. That is one of the facets of the due process which 
this code underwrites. 

Senator Mundt. Then after that was adopted, and after Mr. Cross 
had been vindicated by his associates, Mr. Cross, at the same meeting, 
made charges against Mr. Sims ? 

Mr. Cooper. After the general executive board brought in its con- 
clusion, sitting as a trial board, the charges, as I recall it, were filed 
by Cross against Sims. 

Now, my time lapse ma}^ be at fault. I don't recall whether he did 
it afterward or before or during. 

Senator Mundt. I think your time lapse is correct; your memory 
of time is correct. 

Now, at that meeting, and at that time you were sitting at the meet- 
ing, Mr. Sims was not there. Why was he not there then ? 

Mr. Cooper, At which meeting, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. At this meeting at which Mr. Cross made his alle- 
gations against Mr. Sims. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Sims had left. The board session, sitting as a 
trial board, had finished, I think, at 1 : 30 or 2. Everybody else stood 
by as they were expected to. When the board reconvened, he was not 
present. However, the next morning, the board reconvened again. 
I think it was at 12 o'clock or thereabouts, and he had a further oppor- 
tunity to be present. 

My recollection is that he was not present at that meeting either. 
Not because he was forbidden to be present, but because it appears 
that he did not choose to be present. 

Senator Mundt. And he had been notified that charges would be 
made against him at that meeting ? 

Mr. Cooper. The charges were handed to him. He was given a 
copy of them. 

Senator Mundt. He was not there. 

Mr. Cooper. They were sent to him, as I recall, by registered mail, 
in addition. So he knew and had in his possession the very charges 
on which he was subsequently tried. 

Senator Mundt. If our chronology is correct, they could not have 
been handed to him at the meeting, because you just stated to me 
earlier that he was not at the meeting at the time Mr. Cross made the 
charges. 

Mr. Cooper. No. He was present at the meeting when Cross made 
the charges, of course. They were handed to him in front of the 
whole board. I think what you may be referring to, if I may re- 
spectfully interject this, you are not distinguishing between the charges 
of Cross against Sims and the action of the general executive board 
ordering tlie suspension of Secretary-Treasurer Sims until the deter- 
mination of those charges. 

Senator Mundt. Was Mr. Sims given the benefit of the 20-day 
lapse provided for ? 

Mr. Cooper. He certainly was. He was offered his choice and he 
took the 20 days. 



89330— 57— pt. 8- 



2876 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mfndt. I thought this meeting went right along in the 
same 3 clays, and the executive board voted the suspension in the course 
of the meeting of the 6th, 7th, and 8th. 

Mr. Cooper. The suspension was independent of the subsequent 
hearing on the charges. 

Senator Mundt, But you said they had developed a code of pro- 
cedure which assured somebody who had been charged 20 days in 
which he could assemble his evidence and get ready for the considera- 
tion of it. 

Mr. Cooper. The suspension was not related to his guilt or innocence 
on the charges. The suspension was voted by the general executive 
board for the purposes stated in the resolution which the commitee 
has before it. This was by unanimous action of the general executive 
board. 

Senator Mundt. On your advice ? 

Mr. Cooper. You mean by advice to what extent, sir? As a lawyer? 

Senator Mundt. On your advice that they could proceed and should 
proceed at that meeting to do it. 

Mr. Cooper. My advice was primarily that they could proceed to 
do it. 

Senator Mundt. And that you thought it was advisable that they 
should proceed ? 

Mr. Cooper. That I don't recall, putting in those specific terms. 
This was a decision 

Senator Mundt. Not in those specific terms, but I am sure that you 
would agree that the implication is specifically there. 

Mr. Cooper. If we are going to deal with implications, that impli- 
cation might be drawn from it. 

Senator Mundt. You will recall that some of the vice presidents 
objected to this summary way of dealing with Mr. Sims. Some of 
them raised a question that since Mr. Sims was not there to defend 
himself, perhaps they should tell him that this resolution was pending, 
and he be given a chance the next morning to attend the meeting. 

Mr. Cooper. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Some of them raised the question that he was not 
only not there, but that he was forbidden to come there, or that he 
would be forbidden to come there, if the resolution were adopted, 
because that took away from him his seal of office, so to speak. 

(At this point. Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr, Cooper. Senator, as a matter of fact, rather than speculation, 
Sims was not suspended from his position as a member of the general 
executive board. He attended all of the sessions of the general execu- 
tive board, subsequent to his suspension. He participated in the de- 
liberations of the general executive board subsequent to it. It is true 
that some of his adherents on the general executive board suggested 
a delay in acting on the suspension. However, all of them that morn- 
ing voted to suspend, and this was reaffirmed the next day. 

The object of the suspension was to preserve within the union its 
capacity to function effectively until the guilt or innocence of Mr, 
Sims had been determined in orderly fashion under the code of 
procedure. 

Senator Mundt, Is it the position of the union that it can function 
successfully onlj^ when every member votes obediently and affirma- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2877 

lively and iinaniniouslv with the president, and that if they have one 
man voting in opposition, to wit, Mr. Sims, then the union could not 
function ? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course not, sir. If the facts are of interest to you 
at this point, I will say this: That Secretary -Treasurer Sims was 
suspended, as 1 recall, with full pay and is still under such suspen- 
sion, that you would have had in this organization, as in any 
organization, a complete stalemate if the secretary-treasurer and the 
president were at the particular loggerheads which the charges and 
countercharges reflected; that no organization could be expected to 
function effectively when its two top officers were in this particular 
posture, and that the general executive board acted, in their judgment, 
unanimously to effect a temporary suspension of Secretary-Treasurer 
Sims until a determination had been made on the charges. 

Senator Mundt. Since no determination had been made on the 
charges, would it not have been more appropriate, then, to suspend 
them both until a determination could have been made? Why single 
out one and label him as guilty by virtue of his suspension and retain 
the other ? 

Mr. Cooper. Well, there were two reasons, I assume, for that not 
taking place. In the hrst place. President Cross had been cleared of 
the charges. Secondly, you cannot function in any organization by it 
being headless, and to have suspended both would have destroyed 
the capacity of the organization to function in that period. 

Senator Mundt. You do have a vice president ; do you not ? 

Mr. Cooper, The vice presidents are not the executive officers of 
the international union. The executive officers are only two, the presi- 
dent and the secretary-treasurer. 

Senator Muxdt. What would happen if Mr. Cross had had a heart 
attack? 

Mr. Cooper. The general executive board would have met, under 
the constitution, and, I assume, either named a substitute or otherwise 
proceeded. 

Senator Mundt. Which they could likewise have done had they 
suspended both officers ? 

Mr. Cooper. There was no basis that the board could find at that 
point for effecting such a suspension, however welcome that might 
have been to Mr. Sims and the others. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt. No; I think not, but I think the record shows, 
and I think Mr. Cooper will not deny, if he does we can read it to 
him, that his counsel to the executive board urged promptness at that 
meeting in suspending Mr. Sims, and assured them that they had the 
constitutional authority to do so, w^hen the vice presidents raised 
the question. 

Mr. Cooper. I think. Senator, that in all fairness to me, there should 
be read into the record my statement to the general executive board 
at that point. 

Senator Mundt. And that you had also drawn up the resolution 
against Mr, Sims. 

Mr, Cooper. I had helped prepare it ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. That had been drawn up, as I understand it, prior 
to the vote. 

Mr. Cooper. Naturally. 



2878 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. And prior to tlie motion made by whoever moved it ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. But by the same token 

Senator Mundt. At the suggestion, I presume, of Mr. Cross. 

Mr. Cooper. By the same token, had the charges against Cross been 
sustained, the resokition would have had no place. This is common 
practice among lawyers, as Mr. Kennedy may be able to disclose. It 
is common practice that in anticipation of action, papers are drawn, 
legal documents are drawn. They don't go in unless the occasion 
warrants it. 

The Chairman. Let us see if you followed that f>ractice. 

Did you draw up one against Sims in advance? 

Mr. Cooper. Sir ? 

The Chairman. Did you draw up one against Cross in advance? 

Mr. Cooper. I was not asked to by Mr. Sims. If Mr. Sims had come 
to me, sir, as a legal officer for the union 

The Chairman. But you have the responsibility to initiate some 
things as counsel. 

Mr. Cooper. My responsibility is circumscribed and limited so 
that 

The Chairman. At least, you did not draw up one against Mr. 
Cross. 

Mr. Cooper. I was not asked to. It was not suggested to me. If it 
had been and I refused, certainly there would have been a cause for 
complaint against me. 

Senator Ervin. May I ask a question along that line? 

Did you draw up an alternative one in Mr. Sims' favor ? 

Mr. Cooper. It was not suggested to me and I did not do so. There 
would have been no occasion. 

Senator Ervin. Did you know in advance of the meeting what ac- 
tion the committee was going to take? 

Mr. Cooper. No ; I did not. 

Senator Ervin. That being true, the meeting could have either 
passed the one you drew or they could have passed one in favor 
of Mr. Sims, could they not? 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, that resolution could have easily, wdth a few 
pen scratches, have provided for the contrary in accordance with your 
suggestions. 

Senator Ervin. It would have been easier to draw than the one you 
did draw. Why did you not draw them in the alternative, so you 
would have whatever action was taken covered ? 

Mr. Cooper. Because the conduct of the board at that point was 
in consideration of the charges against Cross. 

Senator Ervin. So you prepared a verdict, what was equivalent to 
a verdict, of guilty, and neglected to prepare a verdict of not guilty ? 

Mr. Cooper. If the Senator please, had the board at that session on 
March 8 voted to sustain the charges against President Cross, they 
would then 

Senator Ervin. I am not asking about Mr. Cross. I am asking 
about Sims. You drew up a resolution which was a resolution an- 
ticipating in advance that the board was going to take action against 
Sims, adverse to Sims. "\'\niy did you not draw an alternative one for 
them in case they took action favorable to Sims I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2879 

Mr. Cooper. I think sucli a resolution might have been prepared 
by Mr. Sims' personal counsel, for all I know. 

The same gentleman 

Senator Ervin. You were the counsel employed by the union to 
draw up the resolutions showing the action of the executive board, 
rather than Mr. Sims' personal counsel were you not ? 

Mr. Cooper. Except that Mr. Sims did not repose in me the con- 
fidence which he did in other counsel. 

Senator Ervin. I am not asking you about that. I am asking if 
3'ou are supposed to be the counsel for the union. 

Mr. Cooper. I am, sir. 

Senator Ervix. And you went to a meeting at which a decision was 
to be made, and which decision could have been made either one way 
or the other. You prepared the resolution to take care of the situation 
if the action was adverse to Sims, but no resolution to be used in case 
action was favorable to Sims. Is that not correct ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Ervix. To my mind, it is sort of similar to the Liclford 
Law. "I oft have heard of Liclford Law " 

Mr. Cooper. I am unfamiliar with that, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Listen and you can hear about it. 

Mr. Cooper. I will be happy to learn. 

Senator Ervin. You may not have heard of it, but you seem to be 
familiar with it. "I oft have heard of Liclford Law, how in the 
moi-n they hang and draw, and sit in judgment after." 

In other words, the judgment of the executive Ijoard was prepared 
by you as counsel before the judgment was handed clown, was it not, 
in the form of tlie resolution you drew ? 

Mr. Cooper. The resolution was unrelated to the decision of the gen- 
eral executive board, which was drawn by the general executive board 
sitting as a trial body. Let us distinguish, in all fairness to me, be- 
tween the action of the general executive board and its minutes, which 
were drawn, incidentally, by Vice President Conway, who is an 
adherent of Secretary-Treasurer Sims, reporting the vote and the ac- 
tion of the general executive board. I did not draw that. 

Wliat you are referring to is a subsequent action unrelated to those 
charges, but related specifically to the charges drawn by Cross against 
Sims. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you drew a resolution in advance 
of the meeting to sustain the charges preferred by Cross against Sims 
before the executive board had had an opportunity to pass on those 
charges. 

Mr. Cooper. Not at all, sir. The suspension resolution which I drew 
related to the charges not yet heard. 

Senator Ervin. That is v>^hat I am talking about. That is exactly 
what I thought. 

Mr. Cooper. They did not contain — if you will look at the resolution 
or read it into the record, you will see that it is a carefully drawn paper 
which does not convey guilt or innocence with respect to the charges of 
Cross against Sims; that it is strictly a mechanical proposal designed 
to make it possible for the union to function eilectively in the event 
that the charges against Cross were not sustained by the board, and 
pending the determination of the charges of Cross against Sims. 



2880 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. You 
drew up something to take care of one event which had not, theoreti- 
cally, been decided on, and did not draw up anything to take care of the 
other event in case the first event did not happen. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt, 

Senator Mundt, Mr. Cooper suggested that I read into the record 
the statement he made which indicates to me he was not strictly an 
impartial adviser in this matter, but that he was on the side of thOvSe 
trying to oust Mr. Sims at the particular meeting. 

He said that he made some statements only when called upon for 
his recommendations. I believe. 

Mr. Cooper. If you will see, sir, this statement that you are about 
to read was not made at the hearing board. This statement was made 
when the hearing board had finished its deliberations. This state- 
ment was made at a subsequent meeting of the general executive board, 
at which I frequently volunteered statements. 

Senator Mundt. Your powers of clairvoyance are not nearly as 
competent as your legal capacity, Mr, Cooper, You are wrong. 
What I am about to read was made at the executive committee meet- 
ing; it was made after the resolution which you had drawn up con- 
demning Mr, Sims had been offered ; it was made before the vote was 
held. 

Mr. Cooper. If the Senator will permit me one minor correction, 
the general executive board had, sitting as a trial board, concluded 
prior to reconvening as a general executive board. If you will look 
a few pages ahead, I am certain you will find that what I say is 
accurate, 

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

Senator Mundt. I do not see any pertinence to what you are say- 
ing, because of what I am pointing out, and you can comment on this, 
if you will ; the statement I am about to read was made by you volun- 
tarily without being called on for counsel. 

Mr, Cooper. Not at the hearing board. 

Senator Mundt. The statement was made by you at whatever kind 
of a "shenanigan" board you had at the time you disposed of Sims, I 
do not know whether it was a hearing board. I do not think it was, 
either. I think it was kind of a trumped-up scheme to get rid of 
Sims. I agree with you ; it was not a hearing board. It was an execu- 
tive session after the hearing board had been concluded. Then they 
presented charges against Mr. Sims. Without going into a hearing 
iDoard, they disposed of him. I quite agree with you on that; that 
they rang him out without going into an executive hearing board. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, I am sure you don't intend to convey by your 
last statement a judgment of what took place there, based on the 
hearing that you have had thus far. 

Senator Mundt, I simply accept your word for the fact that you 
got rid of Mr, Sims without even giving him the right to be heard 
in a hearing board or to have his case considered by a hearing 
board, 

Mr, Cooper, Senator, I think there, too, you may be overreaching the 
facts. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2881 

Senator Mundt, I am taking your word for it. 

Mr. Cooper. You are not taking my word by that previous 
statement. 

Senator Mundt. I am taking your word that you were not in a 
hearing-board session. We will start over. Were you in a hearing- 
board session or were you not, when you voluntarily injected yourself 
into the argument about Mr. Sims ? 

Mr. Cooper. Now that you ask me, categorically, I tell you that that 
statement was not made as part of the hearing-board session, and I 
submit that the record Avill support that. 

Senator Mundt. All right, then 

Mr. Cooper. I think, Senator 

Senator Mundt. You were not considering the chai'ges against Mr. 
Sims as part of the hearing-board sessions; you did not extend to him 
the same constitutional privileges you had a few hours ago extended 
to Mr. Cross. Mr. Cross had a hearing board. Now you say for 
Mr. Sims, "We had the resolution of condemnation, but didn't give 
him the benefit of a hearing board; we simply voted his suspension." 
Is that what you are trying to say ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is not what I am trying to say, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It sounds like it to me. 

Mr. Cooper. I am sorry if I left that impression with you. 

Senator Mundt. Correct it, if you can. 

Mr. Cooper. I will be happy to. The hearing board had concluded. 
The hearing board had taken action on the charges by Sims against 
Cross, by a secret ballot. The meeting was then reorganized and con- 
tinued as a session of the general executive board, not of the hearing 
board. 

The general executive board, unlike in character the hearing board, 
functions in an executive and legislative capacity. In its legislative 
and executive capacity, it considered the fact that the charges had 
been made by Cross against Sims, which were to be heard on March 
28, and a resolution was proposed in the interest of maintaining order- 
liness \vithin the organization until those charges were resolved. 

Sims had 20 days to prepare for that hearing. The hearing, there- 
fore, did not take place at that time. The general executive board 
was to consider what to do at that point, in order to maintain a proper 
administration of the organization. And, therefore, at the general 
executive board session, they considered this resolution and debated it. 

Senator Mundt. Why did they not? deal with Mr. Cross in the same 
manner ? Why did they have a hearing board for him ? 

Mr. Cooper. I will tell you precisely why. The charges against 
Cross were mailed to him on March 3. He received them physically 
on March 5. The session of the general executive board was convened 
on March 6. On that day, they adopted a code of procedure. There- 
after, I believe it was the next day, they went into session as a hearing 
board. Cross waived the 20 days he was entitled to. He stood ready 
to go to trial right then and there. So there was no lapse between 
the bringing of the charges against Cross and the hearing, as there 
was in the case of Sims. In the case of Sims, he was offered the oppor- 
tunity to go right to trial. He chose not to go to trial at that point. 
He asked for the 20 days. 

Senator Mundt. He was not there, and he was suspended. 



2882 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. What Counsel Kennedy said to you was not the fact. 
He Avas publicly, on the record, offered the opportunity, when given 
the charges, to go to trial at once or the next day, and he rejected it. 

Senator Mundt. Will you find that for us in the minutes? 

Mr. Coopi:r. Of course, I can. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he present? Answer the question. Was he 
present at the time he was suspended ? 

Mr. Cooper. He was not present at the time he was suspended. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. Was he notified that that matter was going to be 
taken up ? 

Mr. Cooper. No; he was not notified, but he was given the ciiarges 
and given the opportunity to go right to hearing. The fact that he 
was not present was his choosing, sir, because every single other mem- 
ber of the executive board was present at that meeting, except Sims, 
and no one kept him away. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he know it was going to be taken up ? 

Mr. Cooper. Did he know? I don't know whether lie knew it or 
not. He had 4 people there who could have brought him in in 10 
minutes. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a vice president by the name of 
DeConcini ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. He was protesting against this rush action. 

Mr. Cooper. As he called it, yes. And he voted for the resolution. 

Senator JSIundt. i^fter you had urged him, and others had urged 
him to do so. But he had said : 

I think the fact of the secretary's absence at this meeting, to take action such 
as this in his absence may give him cause for recourse which he ordinarily 
would not have. While the statement was made that the board is still in ses- 
sion. I came to the meeting today to a hearing. 

The vice president did not understand that this was going to be sort 
of a Dr. Jekyll and INIr. Hyde jDroceeding, that you switch from one 
kind of meeting to another, depending upon whether you are working 
against the president or the secretary of the union. He did not imder- 
stand that, and he is vice president. He ought to be pretty well 
advised. 

That can be one interpretation, but I don't think that there has been any normal 
announcement of any board meeting this evening. 

This is a meeting which is called on the spur of the moment, after 
Mr. Sims, perhaps, had gone home. 
At least, the vice president said : 

There hasn't been any formal announcement of any board meeting this eve- 
ning, and without the secretary having such a formal announcement, it may 
give him recourse as to the legality of this being taken in his absence. I think 
for the protection of this international union, or for any recourse that he may 
take as a result, there is no question in my mind that the resolution will be 
passed, yet I would pref-er to see the resolution held in abeyance until we con- 
vene at 10 a. m., tomorrow morning for the protection of our own international 
union. 

at which point you voluntarily injected yourself into the conversation 

by saying— 

What assurance have you that Mr. Sims will be here then? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2883 

That pretty well indicates what side you are on. This shows 
whether it is an executive meeting, a board of hearing, or a neighbor- 
hood club. 

It indicates where you were. . 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, it depends on the tone of voice. 1 assure you 
that was not my tone of voice at that time. x • ^i f „ 

Senator Muxdt. The words to me indicate the tone of voice that a 
histrionic young man like you would use. ,, ^ ^i i • ^^ 

Mr Cooper. Senator, you are well aware that the emphasis ot 
words o-iven convey an impression. In this case, that was not my 
impression. The words are accurate, but the tone was not. 

Senator Mundt. I cannot argue about the tone. I was not there. 

Mr. Cooper. Exactly. Let me underscore this tact, rather tlian 

^' These 'sime gentlemen, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Conway, Mr. Miller, 
and Mr. Goodman, were present the next day. They did not bring 
up, and they did not offer, any counterproposal to the resolution 
They had an opportunity. Mr. Sims had an opportunity the next 
day to ask for a reconsideration of the action taken that morning. 
None of these gentlemen afforded themselves of the parliamentary 
opportunity, since they had voted for the resolution, of asking that it 
be reconsidered or that other action be taken. 

They stood quietly by. . , , • x 

(At this point. Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 
Mr Cooper. It is only now after the event that they come forward 
and say it shouldn't have happened. But they were for it when it 

happened. . ■ • ^ jt^ 

Senator Mundt. What I am quoting to you, sir, is not after any 
events. This was something that you said, and something Mr. 
DeConcini said at the meeting before the vote. _ - 

Mr. Cooper. Would you mind reading my full statement, sir < 

Senator Mundt. I read it to you and you objected to the tone ot 
voice. I read everything you said at that point, as a volunteer. 

Mr. Cooper. Suppose you use whatever tone you prefer, naturally. 

Senator Mundt. I will read, now, something Mr. DeConcini said, 
after you had spoken, regardless of what tone of voice was used. 
These are the words. 

Mr. DeConcini said : 

You want to know what good will be, accomplished by holding this off until 
10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I can name a number of things that will be 
harmful for this international union. You are stating here now that you are 
suspending the secretary-treasurer while he was not present, and you are telling 
him not to come into the building. 

That would be pretty difficult, for him to appeal from the ruling 
of the board or ask for reconsideration if he has to do it by telephone, 
because they are telling him not to come into the building. 

He can't even go over to get his stuff out of his desk. He will have a nice 
story to tell about this international union when he leaves here. Is that what 
you want to arm him with? 

I assume that Mr. DeConcini must be the seventh son of a seventh 
daughter. He has prophetic power. 

What harm can you do by holding it off until 10 o'clock tomorrow? If you 
want to give him a good story to hit the road with, start it off now. That is 
all I have to say. 



2884 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Hearing Officer Conway said, "Is there anything further" and they 
snapped the resolution through. 

Mr, Cooper. As you must appreciate by now, Hearing Officer Con- 
way is, I assume, the chairman for a so-called committee for the integ- 
rity of the union and a firm and outspoken adherent of Secretary- 
Treasurer Sims. He was in the chair, sir. As the chairman of the 
meeting, he had an opportunity to declare the resolution out of order, 
he had an opportunity to direct that there be no action taken. 

Senator Mundt. The general counsel said it was in order, and I 
doubt if layman Conway would want to refute the general counsel. 

Mr. Cooper. The fact is that Hearing Officer Conway did not take 
my advice on several occasions during the hearing, and I was not 
sustained in every particular. He is a very strong-minded individual 
who had the opportunity to act and didn't act. 'Wliether they didn't 
act out of choice, or whether they didn't act out of strategy is for 
them to answer. But the fact is they had an opportunity at that very 
meeting. The next day we reconvened, I think it was at 12 o'clock 
of tliat same day, to take whatever affirmative action they would have 
considered to have been appropriate. This is a deliberative body. It 
is like any board, like any group of men who function in this fashion. 

The Chairman. Let us get to a little shorter procedure here. I 
do not want to deny someone a right to say anything that is relevant. 
But when a question is asked, you are making a speecn. 

Senator Ervin. I want to ask a question or two in a very mild tone 
of voice. 

Mr. Cooper. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What day of March was it that the hearing board 
and the general executive board took this action witii respect to the 
acquittal of Cross and the suspension of Sims ? 

Mr, Cooper. I think it was March 8, sh'. 

Senator Ervin, March 8. The hearing board and the general exec- 
utive board are composed of the same men ? 

Mr, Cooper, With the exception of the three individuals who were 
involved in the proceeding. 

Senator Ervin, Well, now, did some of the individuals involved in 
the proceeding participate in one of these and not the other? 

Mr. Cooper. Participate in what, sir? 

Senator Ervin, Well, you said that the two boards were the same 
except for the three indiv^iduals involved in the proceeding, 

Mr, Cooper, That is right. When the board reconvened, sir, the 
three gentlemen disqualified themselves from any action. 

Senator Ervin. A\'Tio were they? 

Mr, Cooper, They were President Cross, Secretary-Treasurer Sims, 
and then Vice President Stuart, 

Senator Ervin. I thought you said that Sims was not there. 

Mr, Cooper, Sims was not there the next day. Cross made a state- 
ment on the record. 

Senator Ervin. I am not asking about Cross. Let us stick to 

Mr. Cooper. He did not vote. 

Senator Ervin. Shns was not there the day the action was taken? 

Mr, Cooper, Sims was not there for reasons known best to himself. 
He was not barred from the meeting. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2885 

Senator Ervin. He was not there. That is all I asked you. 

Mr. Cooper. That is a fact. 

Senator Ervin. The clay that the hearing board and the general 
executive board sat, Sims was not there. 

Mr. Cooper. Right. 

Senator Ervin. And Cross and Stuart did not sit on the hearing 
board but sat on the general executive board ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is right. But I think you will find that Stuart 
did not vote. 

Senator Ervin. But anyway, he was there. Who had preferred 
charges against Stuart. 

Mr. Cooper. Sims. 

Senator Ervin. And Sims had preferred charges against Cross? 

Mr. Cooper. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And the charges against Cross and Stuart were 
not supposed to be heard in the normal coui*se of events for 20 days, 
Avere they ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is what the code allowed them as defendants 

Senator Ervin. Right. So Cross and Stuart came in in the absence 
of Sims and waived the 20 days ? 

Mr, Cooper. That is not true, sir. 

Senator Ervin. When did that happen? 

Mr. Cooper. That happened in front of Sims. He was present. 
He w^as present, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What day w^as that? 

Mr. Cooper. I think that was March 7, wdien the hearing began. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, on March 7 

Mr. Cooper. If the Senator please, the dates are getting confused. 
On March 6, as I recall it, Cross and Stuart stated on the record that 
they were prepared to proceed at once with the charges. Sims then 
stated that he would require an additional day or half -day in prepara- 
tion. This, of course, w^as provided to him. 

So the hearing did not begin until the next day, that is March 7, 
at 2 o'clock. 

Senator Ervin. And, as a matter of fact, such hearing that was held 
was on the 8th, Tvas it not ? 

Mr. Cooper. It began on ]March 7 at 2 o'clock, and terminated, I 
think, at 1 : 30 or 2 o'clock in the next morning of March 8. 

Senator Ervin. Was Sims there on the 7th ? 

Mr. Cooper. He was there on the 7th, up to the time when the 
general executive board sitting as a trial board concluded the hear- 
ing and went into executive session. 

Senator Ervin. The action was taken, I thought, on the 8th, 

Mr. Cooper, The meeting ran into the 8th, At the conclusion of the 
hearing board's action, w^hich was announced by Hearing Officer 
Conway and Secretary DeConcini, that the charges against Cross and 
Stuart had not been upheld, the meeting was reconvened, as the record 
will show, as a general executive board, because the function of the 
hearing board had terminated. 

Senator Ervin. Did Sims testify against Cross? 

Mr. Cooper. He certainly did. 

Senator Ervin. Sims was not back on the eighth ? 



2886 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. Sims was in the hallway for a considerable period of 
time, and left for parts unknown before the general executive board 
reconvened and before the hearing board came together. 

Senator Erven. How long, precisely, was it before the hearing 
board reconvened on the eighth as a general executive board ? How 
many minutes in time was it ? 

Mr. Cooper. I think the record will show that they terminated the 
hearing at about 10 : 30, and my recollection is they debated this and 
sat in executive session until at least 1 : 30 or 2 in the morning, of the 
eighth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Debated what ? 

Mr. Cooper. Sir? 

Senator Ervin. You have not quite answered the question. 

The hearing board ceased to operate, and the general executive 
board began to operate. How much time was it between the time the 
hearing board ceased to function and the general executive board 
started to function? 

Mr. Cooper. Not much time. 

Senator Ervin. How many minutes ? 

Mr. Cooper. I think the record may show that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, the hearing board ended at 2 : 07 a. m. 
This is 2 : 07 in the morning. 

Mr. Cooper. March 8. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Sims wasn't around. By 2 : 55 a. m., they had 
taken the action suspending Mr. Sims. 

Senator Ervin. Precisely when did you draw the resolution about 
Mr. Sims? 

Mr. Cooper. The resolution was drawn, probably, on March 6, as 
I recall. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, a resolution was drawn 2 days 
before ? 

Mr. Cooper. Tlie resolution was drawn in contemplation of two 
possible events, one of which was the fact that Cross was going to 
bring charges against Sims, which he did, I believe, on March 6, 
and the other was the fact that if the board did not sustain the charges 
against Cross and Stuart, that it might consider appropriate the 
action proposed by the resolution. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you drew the resolution providing 
for the suspension of Sims on charges which Cross had not then 
brought ? 

Mr. Cooper. The charges were prepared and were served on the 
same day that the resolution was brought. 

Senator Ervin. Wait a minute. 

Mr. Cooper. Was dated. 

Senator Ervin. Wait a minute. As a matter of fact, you drew the 
resolution, the proposed resolution, suspending Sims before the 
charges on which he was to be suspended were prepared and served? 

Mr. Cooper. I think that is so. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you draw up what is equivalent to 
a verdict of guilty before the inclictment is even presented and the 
charge made. 

Mr. Cooper. Well, you can place that construction on it, but I tell 
you this is customary practice in courts, in administrative agencies, 
and elsewhere. There is nothing unusual about that, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2887 

Senator Ervin. Having spent a large part of my life in courts, 
I have never yet heard of drawing up a verdict, which is to be ren- 
dered in a case, before the charges are preferred against the person 
against whom the verdict is to be rendered. This is the first time I 
have ever heard of it in human history. 

Mr. CoorER. Senator, perhaps I did not make myself clear. 

Senator Ervin. You made yourself too clear. 

Mr. Cooper. May I explain that so that it is not left dangling in its 
present context ? If you will recall, the general executive board, sit- 
ting as a hearing board, had complete authority and did exercise it in 
executive session by secret ballot as to whether or not to sustain or to 
support the charges made. 

That hearing took place on March 7 and 8. 

The charges which Cross had brought and was to bring against 
Sims were necessarily prepared in advance of that. Had the general 
executive board, sitting as a trial board, not sustained the charges, 
and they were in a position to do so without influence or control be- 
cause they sat in executive session by secret ballot, then, naturally, 
these preliminary documents would have had no place. But it is the 
function of a lawyer to anticipate, as I did, the possibility that the 
charges would not be sustained. 

Had the charges been sustained, obviously this resolution would 
have had no place, because the board could then have proceeded to 
have terminated Mr. Cross' connection with the international miion. 

By the same token, under the charges which Cross brought against 
Sims, and which contemplated this period of 20 days before the hear- 
ing would be had, you had a different circumstance, and it would be 
just as natural to anticipate that the hiatus would have to be filled 
in some way. 

My proposal which the board adopted was the suspension resolution 
which they acted on. 

Senator Ervin. So, to make a long story short, you, as a lawyer, 
anticipated 2 days before, that the secret ballot would be in favor of 
Cross and, therefore, you did not anticipate anything to the contrary. 
Therefore, you did not draw anything for any use in any contrary 
result from the secret ballot ? 

Mr. Cooper. There would have been no need for me to draw a con- 
trary document, because the action of the board at that point would 
have been final. 

Senator Ervin. But 2 days befoi'e the secret ballot was held, you 
prepared the j^apers, based upon the secret ballot going a certain way 
rather than another ? 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, as a practicing lawyer 

Senator Ervin. Answer that question. 

Mr. Cooper. I drew this for the assistance of the board in anticipa- 
tion of the possibility that it would be of use to the board. By the 
same token, and let me make this clear, we frequently make motions 
in various courts, and in contemplation of what a judge will do, we 
prepare proposed orders, and those proposed orders, inevitably, re- 
flect the possibility that a motion will be granted or denied, and that 
the order will reflect the proposed action of the judge. 

There is nothing irregular or surprising about that. 

Senator Ervin. Did I understand you to say that you drew this in 
collaboration with the board ? 



2888 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. I did not draw it in collaboration with the board. I 
drew it under the only circumstance under which it could have been 
of service to the board. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. You did say you drew it in consultation with the 
board. 

Mr. Cooper. Xot with the board. It was adopted by the board. I 
drew it in consultation with some members of the board. 

Senator Ervin. That is right. 

Mr. Cooper. Of course. 

Senator Ervin. In otlier words, 2 days before the trial was to be 
held, you drew, in consultation with the jury that was going to pass 
on the trial, you drew the verdict, and the verdict w^as in favor of 
Cross and against Sims, 

Mr. Cooper. "Well, I think that you have to measure that not in the 
form in which it is stated. Obviously, the board, by a majority of 
votes, could have exercised its power and have upheld the charges. 
Certainly some of the members 

Senator Ervin. If they had done that, you would have to say. 
"Well, I haven't got a verdict to cover that situation. The verdict is 
for the otlier situation." 

Mr. Cooper. Let me make this clear. The board itself adopted the 
minutes of that meeting. 

The board itself could have included in those minutes what action 
it wanted to take. This was not in contemplation of the charges that 
were then being heard. This was in anticipation of the fact that if 
the charges were not sustained and the other charges were served as 
they were, that a hiatus of 20 days would have elapsed, during which 
there would have to be some affirmative action, either to suspend or 
not to suspend. 

That suspension was one which the board itself took. There is 
nothing irregular in that. 

It would have been possibly irregular if Cross liad a 20-day lapse 
of time and he was not suspended, while at the same time Sims was 
suspended. But Cross was tried. Cross was found not guilty of the 
charge. Therefore, he was not in the same position. 

Senator Ervin. Just as you had anticipated 2 days before that he 
would be acquitted and prepared the record accordingly. 

That is all. 

Mr. Cooper. M3' mental operations and my anticipation, I submit, 
are not a proper subject for judging what took place at this meeting. 
I acted as a lawyer, and as lawyers often do. 

Senator Ervin. I say you are a pretty good prophet because every- 
thing came out pretty much as you planned it and drew the papers 
for. 

Mr. Cooper. It might have come out that way. Senator, but that is 
the way it should have come out. That is the correct way. I don't 
think it is fair to draw an assumption that any other way would ha\"e 
been a correct way, or because anybody dissents that they are right. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Cooper. I am sorry, sir. 

The Chairman. I expect to get a little attention when I call for 
order. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2889 

Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt, Tlie board convened, the counsel says, and I want 
to confirm this, the board convened after its court hearing or what- 
ever he called it 

Mv. Cooper. The hearing board. 

Senator Mundt. The board convened after the hearing board at 2 
something in the morning. 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, the same members, with the ex- 
ception of the people personally involved were to vote. 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, except for the absence of Sims at 2 : 30 in the 
morning that day, or 2 o'clock. 

Senator Mundt. So they divested themselves of their halos as 
members of a judicial board as far as Cross was concerned and put on 
horns as far as stabbing Sims was concerned at 2 o'clock in the morn- 
ing when Sims was not there. 

Mr. Cooper. At his own choice, I might add. 

Senator Mundt. His own choice ? 

Mr. Cooper. Right. 

Senator Mundt. Since the first time that the executive board had 
met and approved this resolution that you and the Senator from 
North Dakota have been discussing, I wonder how Sims, who was not 
there at 2 o'clock in the morning, between then and about 2 : 30 or 
2 : 50 when you adjourned, was given any opportunity to express him- 
self as to this 20-day waiver. 

Mr. Cooper. He had been given the opportunity on the 20-day 
waiver. I believe it was, on March 6, as the record will show. 

Senator Mundt. Had he been advised on March 6 that the jury was 
going to go against him and that he was going to be charged? How 
did he know? 

Mr. Cooper. May I again correct the statement, in the light of the 
record ? When the charges were given to him, the statement was made, 
as I recall, by President Cross, that since he had been prepared to 
immediately proceed to trial on the charges against him, he suggested 
that it might be just as appropriate if Sims preferred it, that he, too, 
waive, and that the whole thing be disposed of by the hearing board 
at that session. 

It was Sims who invoked the 20-day lapse as he had a right to do 
and, therefore, the space of 20 days was utilized by Sims as he had a 
right to do under the code and he acted on that. He made the choice, 
not the board. i • • 

Senator Mundt. It is very difficult for me to comprehend m view of 
the fact that the charges made by Cross against Sims grew out of the 
failure of the hearing board to sustain the charges that Sims made 
against Cross. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Cooper. That was one of the elements of the charge, of course. 

Senator Mundt. That was in the resolution ? 

Mr. Cooper. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So it is very difficult indeed to see how the execu- 
tive board would say to Sims : 

We are going to have a hearing board, and after the hearing board, we are 
going to brinii- out a verdict of not guilty for Cross, and then we will bring in a 
verdict of guilty for you. So after we go through the motions of a hearing 
board, we want to know yhat you are going to do about the charges against you. 



2890 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

And he said — 

Well, I waive the 20 days. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, that is not what took place. 

Senator Mundt. That sounds like what took place. 

Mr. Cooper. It may sound like it, but that is not what took place, 
and I am sure the board record will support me. I am confident that 
when Cross gave the charges to Sims, he then offered him the oppor- 
tunity ]"ust as a suggestion — he couldn't impose it on him; he couldn't 
force him to do it — that he could then, despite the fact that he had 20 
days, proceed to a hearing. 

Sims chose to wait. He had a right to do that. Follow me, sir. It 
was not the general executive board which made this proposal to Sims. 
It was the accusing party. The general executive board took no action 
on whether or not Sims should or should not have the 20 days. That 
was incorporated as a condition of the code of procedure. 

He had a right to the 20 days. 

Senator Mundt. Yes ; but there was no time when Cross could con- 
ceivably have made his charges with any validity until after he had 
been cleared, and he was not cleared until 2 o'clock in the morning. 

Mr. Cooper. That is not when he gave him the charges. 

Senator Mundt. The charges include the fact, or he stated in his 
original statement, that — 

Due to the fact that I have been cleared, therefore, the man who made these 
charges against me makes it untenable for us to sit on the board together. 

Mr. Cooper. Suppose we determine from the record, sir, precisely, 
since this is a point of interest to the committee, what took place in 
point of time, rather than depending on my recollection or your inter- 
pretation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say that Sims waived the 20 days or did not 
waive the 20 days. 

Mr. Cooper. He did not waive the 20 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he had the 20 days ? 

Mr. Cooper. He certainly had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he know that this matter was going to be taken 
up at 2 : 07 in the morning ? 

Mr. Cooper. Did he know that the resolution was coming up ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't think lie knew it ; of course not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had the 20 days, and he was suspended before he 
had a chance to answer the charges. 

Mr. Cooper. The suspension was unrelated to the ultimate outcome 
of the charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine, but he never had the possibility of 20 
days to answer the charge, did he 'i 

Mr. Cooper. The charges were unrelated. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1 understand that. xVnswer the question. Did 
he have 20 days to answer the charges? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was lie suspended prior to that time? 

JNIr. Cooper. Yes; the susjjension was an interim determination. 
Pie was suspended with full pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand. But was he suspended? 



IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2891 

Mr. Cooper. He was suspended by action of the board, sir; yes. 
He was suspended the same way tliat the AFI^CIO under its consti- 
tution in almost parallel language, suspended Dave Beck as a vice 
president of that organization, the executive council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they give Mr. Sims, did the executive board 
give Mr. Sims a chance to answer the charges before they suspended 
him? 

Mr. Cooper. He had 20 days to answer the charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was suspended first? 

Mr. Cooper. The suspension 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Cooper. You are mixing up two things, 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Was he suspended prior 
to the time he had a chance to answer the charges? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course. 

JMr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Cross, when the charges were made by ]Mr. 
Sims against Mr. Cross, suspended ? 

Mr. Cooper. No. Because the charges he received on March 5 and 
he went into hearing on March 7. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the board meet then and suspend him? 

Mr. Cooper. There was nothing to suspend him. He w^ent right 
into charges. Had Sims gone right into charges, we might not have 
had this problem with you now. The suspension was unrelated. 

I think it is important that you have the resolution of the suspension 
read into the record and that will explain why the board took the 
action. It did unanimously, including the four people who were sup- 
porting Sims in this proceeding, and they made no protest of the 
suspension, although they had an opportunity to do so the next day. 

]Mr. Kennedy. I think it is a little peculiar to have a meeting at 
2 O'clock in the morning, an executive board meeting at 2 o'clock in 
the morning, not inform anybody that it is going to take place, and 
then suspend somebody. 

If that is the way you operate, fine. You are the attorney and you 
have advised them to do it. 

Mr. Cooper. Mr. Kennedy, I cannot quarrel with the implications 
that you place on these acts. It is to me strange that 19 out of 20 or 
whatever the number was, with 1 absentee of the whole general execu- 
tive board, was present there and the man who claimed to be most 
concerned with the outcome, the man who brought the charges, the 
secretary-treasurer of the union, found it in his self-interest, perhaps 
not to be there. 

yir. Kennedy. "Would you tell the committee why you would not 
want to wait until the following morning at 10 o'clock? 

Mr. Cooper. The resolution will indicate the reasons why the gen- 
eral executive board unanimously adopted that resolution. It was to 
provide an interim orderly method 

Mr. Ivennedy, They could not do it from 2 a. m. to 10 a. m. ? You 
could not w\ait 8 hours ? 

Mr. Cooper, For a variety of reasons which I submit the resolution 
speaks for itself, and I think if you will read the resolution into the 
record you maj^ have a complete answer, 

I don't know wh}' the resolution is not being read. It is a short one. 
I think the importance of when the resolution was drawn is less impor- 

89330— 57— pt. 8 21 



2892 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tant, sir. than what it was intended to create and the purpose it was 
pro\dded to serve. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say here that the charges Mr. Cross made 
against Mr. Sims were handed to Mr. Sims ? 

"Mr. Cooper. I think they were either handed to him or mailed to him. 
He had them. I was present at a meeting at whicli the charges were 
discussed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You testified that they could be found in this hear- 
ing, did you not ? 

Mr. Cooper. I believe they will be found in the hearing. I think if 
my recollection can be refreshed, I have a mental image of the charges 
being handed to Sims. I have a mental recollection of the fact that 
Sims Avas then told by Cross that if he chose to waive the 20 days, as 
Cross and Stuart had done, that the hearing could proceed in the same 
fashion and that Sims, on the record, or perliaps in the minutes. 
perhaps not in the record, Sims himself was the one who said that he 
wanted tlie full 20 days. 

Senator Mundt. Mr, Cooper suggested that I look at the record and 
find out about the time. I was 7 minutes otf. It was 2 : 07 a. m., that 
the hearing board adjourned. They immediately resumed as an 
executive board and President Cross took the chair. 

Then he began and gave a little speech, as chairman again of the 
general executive boarcl and president of the international union : 

May I very humbly and very sincerely thank the boarcl for what I consider a 
verv areat vote of confidence. I won't sav too much. ^Nlost of vou know how 1 
feel. ^ 

Tlie record would indicate that he has then brought to the attention 
of the executive board for the first time some charges against ]Mr. Sims. 
He says : 

This brings up another serious prolilem. If. as I interpret this vote, it is a 
vindication for me against the charges made, it is then also a vote of no confldeuce 
in Secretary Sims. 

You have heard all the evidence in a hearing body. I think the world, if they 
could know, and our members would be proud of the deliberations and the method 
in which you have handled yourselves in such a serious manner. 

He says : 

I can't make a long speech. I don't think it is proper — 
and then like any Senator would do, he made a long speech. In the 
procedure, he came over and continued because he says : 

Now, I believe, and sincerely, that the lioard must take choice between Curtis 
Sims as secretary and myself. 

Tliis is still news to the board. 

Bec-ause how can I sit daily with a man who has leveled these charges at me in 
the public press? I want to say now publicly to you. had this man leveled these 
charges against me in the privacy of our constituted body, and this board kicked 
them around and there was censoring to be done and this board felt that there 
should be, and if at that time the board felt that I was guilty or not guilty, I 
would have quietly given my resignation and gotten out — 

and so on. 

He continues with his long speech. So he says : 

You are faced with another serious problem tonight and we have to have a 
session tomorrow. 

He was ^uggesti]lg tomorrow. Tlien he savs : 



IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2893 

111 the meantime, I sec Brother Gamble raising his hand for the floor. Tliis 
might be a good opportunity, Brother Gamlile. 

Brother Gamble h:ul l-eeii 1 ipped off that this Avas g'oiiig to happen, 
so he said : 

Come on, pal, this is a good opportunity. 
Gamble responded by reaching into his pocket and bringing out this 
resolution which was prepared some 48 hours before and he read the 
resolution. 

We know what happened from there. De Concini objected but he 
was persuaded that it was proper and they voted imanimousl}'. Out 
went Sims. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, I think you will agree that this procedure is 
not unusual in any political body, that this is not unusual in any 
fraternal oi-gar.ization, labor organization, or corporate affairs, that 
this is the connnonplace kind of garden variety procedure, that is 
here 

Senator Mi'xdt. I might point out that ]SIr. Sims was probably?- 
sleeping some ])lace in bed at that time and had no conceivable way of 
knowing that this was going to come up because cA-en the board mem- 
bers did not know. 

]Mr. Cooper. He Avas neither foreclosed from being there nor was 
he foreclosed the next day from appearing and personally protesting. 
Certainly, the four adherents that he had on the board had the same 
opportunity. 

Senator ^Iuxdt. Except, as Mr. De Concini pointed out, there had 
been no notice of an exectitiA^e board. This Avas a hearing board. He 
had a right to conclude that Avhen the hearing board brought in their 
verdict at 2 o'clock in the morning, there Avonld be no further meeting. 
He had not been advised that there Avould be a meeting. 

Mr. Cooper. Of course, AAhat you had there. AA-as 19 out of 20 mem- 
bers of the executiA'e board, including the 4 adiierents of Mr. Sims, so 
this AA-as not a rump meeting. 

Senator Muxdt. The reason you had them there, the same 19 mem- 
bers Avho AA-ere sitting at the hearing board AA-ith the exception of Mr, 
Cross, Avas you Avcre i)lanning to bring in this resolution unbeknoAvn 
to Mr. Sims. 

Mr. Cooper. And had Mr. Sims utilized the same nd\-antage and 
suffered the same discomforts as the rest of the board, he could have 
been there at the same time. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Senator McNainara ? 

Senator ^IcXazvcara. Pei-haps at the expense of being slightly repeti- 
tious, I AA'oidd like to ask a cou})le of questions. Hoaa- is the executive 
board selected or elected '^ 

Mr. Cooper. The general executive board is selected — this board Avas 
elected at the convention. The previous general executive boards, the 
one that acted on this March situation, had been selected by referendum 
A-ote nndei- the constitution, AA-ith a number of exceptions of those aa-Iio 
had replaced other members of the general executiA"e board and aaIio 
had, under the constitution, been selected by a majority of the board. 

Senator McKvmara. How do the hearings work? 

Mr. Cooper. The hearing board came into being pursuant to a code 
of ])rf)ccdiire for trial, AA-hich the general executive boaid adopted 
after considerable discussion and preparation. 



2894 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This code reflected every facet of due process. 

Senator McNamaea. How did the hearing board come into being ? 
Was it elected? 

Mr. Cooper. The hearing board, under the code of procedure, where 
an international officer is involved, was composed of the whole execu- 
tive board, with the exception of the parties in interest. 

Senator McNamara. Who decided that this would be the hearing 
board? 

Mr. Cooper. This was decided in accordance with the code of pro- 
cedure, which the general executive board had adopted on a majority 
vote. 

Senator MoNamara. Then, the general executive board had the 
authority to decide who would constitute the hearing board, and they 
decided that their own body would constitute that ? 

Mr. Cooper. As the highest body of the international union, be- 
tween conventions. 

Senator McNamara. The only thing that appears to me on the face 
of it to be a little bit strange, is that now there is no body to appeal 
to beyond that. If there were another board, then the executive 
board would be a higher body. So the higher body, acting as the 
hearing board, precluded what would normally be another set. 

Mr. Cooper. This was due, Senator, to the fact that the general 
executive board was now hearing charges brought by the second high- 
est officer against the president. 

I might coiTect something I said on the record. This general execu- 
tive board which acted as a hearing board was elected in the October 
1956 convention by unanimous vote of the delegates assembled and I 
think there were just two additions made to that board since the 
convention. 

One was Vice President Conway and the other was Vice President 
Alvino. Otherwise, the whole board had been elected unanimously 
by the convention. 

Senator McNamara. You made something of a resolution that you 
thought would be to your advantage to put into the record. Do you 
have a copy of it in the room ? 

Mr. Cooper. I have given it to the Senator — to Mr. Kopecky. I am 
certain that that resolution is before the counsel of your committee 
and might, with all propriety, be read into the record because there 
has been a great deal of discussion about it. 

But the resolution itself has not appeared on the record yet. 

Senator McNamara. I will ask the general counsel if he has the 
resolution. I suggest that it be given to the witness and let him read 
it into the record, since he has made the request. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have two resolutions, one by Cross and one by 
Gamble. 

Senator Ervin. AVliich one are you referring to ? 

Mr. Cooper. I don't know of two resolutions. I only know of one. 

Mr. Kennedy. You drew up or had drawn both of them or just one 
of them? 

Mr. Cooper. I think the one you are talking about. Cross — you 
are talking of the charges against Cross by Sims, and the one of 
Gamble is the one to which reference lias been made here, 

Mr. IvEN^-EDY. Which one did you Avant? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2895 

Mr. Cooper. The one from vice president Gamble. 1 am talking, 
Mr. Kennedy, about the suspension resolution. 

Senator ]\icNAMAR.s.. Is it in the record? 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, it is in this hearing record. It is on 
pages 241-245 and then — I understand you drew up both of these. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't know what other one you are referring to. If 
you will particularize, I will identify. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

I hereby charge that Curtis R. Sims, secretary-treasurer, has violated sec- 
tions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and IS of article XX. 

Mr. Cooper. I assisted in the drafting of that resolution. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Then you have here, vice president Gamble, signed 
by James Cross, and written May 6 which, as Senator Ervin pointed 
out, was 2 days before the result. Then we have the other one by 
vice president Gamble, wliere they present four resolutions, r.nd 
copies are available, according to this record, for distribution. 

Senator McNamara. You need notliing further. It is already in 
the record. 

The Chairman. This is their hearing record ? 

Senator McNamara. Does the Chair object to putting them into 
the record? 

The Chairman. I have no objection. Tlie question is that they 
will have to be extracted from this. 

Mr. Cooper. It can be read from that, if I am permitted to do so. 

The Chairman. Do you want this read into this record ? 

Senator McNamara. Since the witness made the request that it 
be put into the record, I think we ought to comply. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want both of them in, then, so that we cover 
the whole thing ? 

Senator McNamara. There is no objection on ray part. 

The Chairman. The witness may read both of these, which he 
says he helped prepare into the record. Eead the transcript one first, 
and then read the one dated March 6, 19.57, with the notation of 
charges— "I hereby charge that Curtis E. Sims." 

Kead tlie one in the record first, from the transcript of the board 
hearings and read this March 6th one following. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Curtis Sims a client of yours ? 

Mr. Cooper. I don't know what you mean by "client." 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Cross a client ? 

Mr. Cooper. The union was my client and, necessarily, I provided 
legal services to the officers in connection with the internal and ex- 
ternal affairs of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you consider them clients? 

Mr. Cooper. I would consider that thev were derivative clients 
because they did not pay me a fee, but the union paid me a fee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were drawing up charges against a deriva- 
tive client ? 

Mr. Cooper. I would have been happy to draw the answers to tliose 
charges if Mr. Sims had wanted me to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can go eitlier way ? 

Mr. Cooper. I am a lawyer, and I serve my client in accordance 
with the needs of the client. 



2896 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiRMAX. Proceed and road that into the record. I want to 

move along". Proceed. 

( Senator Mundt withdrew from tlie hearing room. ) 

Mr. Cooper. I am reading now from page 242 of a transcript, a 

verbatim transcript of a special session of the general execntive board 

held in Washington, D. C, March 6, 7, and 8, 1957 : 

Whereas the general executive board of the iuteruational union lias received 
from International President Cross charges of alleged misconduct against Inter- 
national Secretary-Treasurer Sims as a member of the international union, and 
in his capacity as international secretary-treasurer, which charges, if upheld, 
after hearing, are of such magnitude and seriousness to jeopardize the interest 
of the international union and may result in the removal from office of Interna- 
tional Secretary-Treasurer Sims and his expulsion as a member of the inter- 
national union ; and 

Whereas the general executive board upon receipt of such charges has desig- 
nated March 27, 19.")7. as the hearing date therein, to be held at its regular semi- 
annual meeting in the city of Miami Beach, State of P"'lorida ; and 

Whereas it would be in the best interests of said International Secretary- 
Treasurer Sims to afford him full and ample opportunity to prepare and meet 
such charges without the burden of fulfilling his ordinary duties and concur- 
rently ; and 

Whereas the best interests of the international union would be served in the 
orderly administration of its affairs by relieving International Secretary-Treas- 
urer Sims of all of his official duties during said interim period, and until the 
general executive board has concluded its hearing and made determination 
on the charges filed, particularly in view of the nature of the charges and the 
high and important office occupied by him, with its requirement of detailed 
execution and fuliillment of the international union as determined by the inter- 
national constitution, the convention, and the general exe<-utive board : and 

Whereas the failui-e to relieve International Secretary-Treasurer Sims of his 
duties by such interim suspension would be imprudent ami incautious in view 
of the acts of alleged misconduct charged against him, in that the general execu- 
tive board is obligated as the custodian of the interests of the international 
union and the supreme governing body thereof between conventions to avoid any 
of the inherent and potential risks entailed in permitting International Secre- 
tary-Treasurer Sims to continue the duties of his office during said period, which 
suspension, constitutional authority requires under these circumstances as con- 
templated by its enactment : and 

Whereas the action hereinafter resolved shall not be conclusive as a pre- 
liminary or conditional finding of guilt on the charges as alleged by Interna- 
tional President Cross, but as required by the circumstances and without preju- 
dice to said international secretary-treasurer, it being also provided that should 
the general executive board reject the charges of alleged misconduct as not 
sustained by the evidence, the suspension of office hereinafter provided shall be 
lifted upon such finding, and International Secretary-Treasurer Sims shall 
thereupon resume his duties as heretofore : Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved hy the general executive hoard in special session convened in Wash- 
ington at the Sheraton Parli Hotel on the 8th day of March 1957: 

One : International Secretary-Treasurer Sims is herewith temporarily sus- 
pended from office pending the determination by the general executive board 
of the charges of alleged misconduct made against him by International Presi- 
dent Cross pursuant to article XX, section 2 (D) of the international 
constitution. 

Two: International Secretary-Treasurer Sims is directed forthwith to deliver 
all the indicia of authority attached to his office as international secretary- 
treasurer to a designee of the general executive board from among its members 
who shall serve in all respects as acting international secretary-treasurer for 
the period stated. 

Three: International Secretary-Treasurer Sims shall forthwith vacate his 
office and cease to exercise any authority attached thereto for the stated period, 
as presently provided by the international constitution, including but not lim- 
ited to preparing and signing of vouchers and checks issued thereon by the 
international union and shall execute appropriate documents upon report giving 
effect to the within resolution. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2897 

Four: Inteniational Secretary-Treasurer Sims shall, for the stated period, 
cease to hold himself out as the international secretary-treasurer except with 
the qualifying notice of his suspension by the general executive board and 
shall remain physically absent from the premises of the international union 
during the period of his suspension. 

Five: International Secretary-Treasurer Sims shall, for the period of his 
suspension, continue to receive his present salary as provided by action of the 
general executive board on condition that he comply with the within resolution 
and all other actions taken by the general executive board. 

Tlie CiiAiRMAx. May I ask one question there? After the resohi- 
tion. did Mr. Sims have an}' right to appear in that building? 

;Mr. Cooper. I did not, sir. and may I state why ? 

The CiiAiRiiAX. Xo. I just asked that question. I just want to get 
the eiiect of this suspension. 

Did tlie suspension bar him? 

>.Ir. Cooper. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is, wonkl that provision in it ? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. I woukl be pleased to tell yon why. 

The CuAiRMAx. I thought tlie suspension was why. 

^Ir. Cooper. Because it appeared that not only had Secretary-Treas- 
urer Sims witlidrawn in his OAvn possession official records, vouchers, 
documents 

The Ciiairmax. Was that charge made in there? 

Mr. Cooper. Xo. This is developed as a condition, and this is a con- 
cern which the board had at that time. 

The Chairmax. Is that referred to in the resolution ? 

Mr. Cooper. Xo. 

The Chairmax. That is not referred to in the resolution ? 

Mr. Cooper, Xo ; but uiay I 

The Chairmax. That is one of tiie reasons for keeping him off the 
premises; is that right? 

Mr. Cooper. Sir? 

Xo : it was not in the resolution. 

The Chairmax. It was not in the resolution, although it was known 
at the time you prepared tlie resolution? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course. 

The Chairmax. You did not state it in the resolution as one of the 
reasons for barring him from the premises? 

Mr. Cooper. Xo. The board knew the fact that he had already with- 
draAvn considerable documentation and records from the interna- 
tional union. 

Tlie Chairmax. Let me ask you another question. 

Would barring liim from the premises also operate to keep him from 
gettting access to records and documents he had there that he might 
need to make proof ( 

Mr. Cooper. He had already taken all such documents and made no 
requests. Senator. 

The Chairmax. Wait a minute. You are making a pretty broad 
statement under oath, that he had already taken all documents. 

Mr. Cooper. I am sorry. I should qualify that. 

The Chairmax'. I think so. 

Would the same resolution there adopted preclude him from getting 
anv documents there that he might need in his defense? 



2898 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. In the event that a request was made and the documents 
were properly his to have, I assume that this resokition would not pre- 
clude him. 

The Chairman. Would not any official documents, any document 
in the files there that sustained his charges, be a proper document 
for him to have to present at a hearing ? 

Mr. Cooper. Of course. Senator, may I finish that? He wrote a 
letter or made a request through his attorney, Plenry Kaiser, for a 
number of personal things that he had in his own office, and those 
letters and correspondence and files which he requested were turned 
over to him. 

That was the only request that he made, and that request was com- 
plied with. 

The Chairman. Did you provide him with a copy of these hear- 
ings when he requested them ? 

Mr. Cooper. May I explain that, sir ? 

The Chairman. Answer "Yes" or "No," and then you may explain 
it. 

Mr. Cooper. He was provided with a copy of these hearings, yes. 

The Chairman. Wlien ? ^ 

Mr. Cooper. He was provided with a copy of the hearings when 
they became duplicated and available for him and other members of 
the board. 

The Chairman. How long after? 

Mr. Cooper. Sir? 

The Chairman. How long afterwards? 

Mr. Cooper. Not long after, sir. Wlien he got back to Washington, 

The Chairman. You are pretty accurate about most things. I 
think you can be accurate about that. 

Mr. Cooper. May I tell the facts? 

The Chairman. You may tell the facts. I asked you how long 
afterwards. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't have the exact date, but I will be glad to tell 
you what happened. 

The Chairman. I want to know when he got a copy of the record. 

Mr. Cooper. I don't have the exact date. 

The Chairman. Can you get that for me ? 

Mr. Cooper. I am certain that it can be obtained. 

The Chairman. Get it for us. That is what I want to know. 

Mr. Cooper. May I be permitted the privilege of explaining, so 
that the date does not appear out of context ? 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

I have given you every opportunity, I think, I do not want you to 
complain, but I am trying to proceed here, and expedite this. I do 
not want to expedite it at the expense of any injustice or deny anyone 
any proper right. 

Go ahead and explain it. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, you have been most gracious and I appreciate 
it. At the time when the hearing was held on March 6, 7, and 8, we 
had no advance knowledge that this matter would ultimately be heard 
by this committee, or that ultimately this matter would "go to the 
AFL-CIO ethical practices committee. 

The Chairman. Are you implying by that that if you had such 
knowledge you would have gotten it to him quicker ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2899 

Mr. Cooper. I am imiDlying by that, Senator, that we woiikl have 
ordered more than four copies. His coming to these committees was 
not a factor in the hearing. 

The chairman of the committee, of the trial committee, the hearing 
board, was Vice President Conway. Vice President Conway ordered 
4 copies of the transcript, 1 for himself, another for Sims, 1 for Stuart, 
and 1 for Cross. 

By the time the four copies were to be delivered to the international 
heaciquarters, Vice President Conway was in California. The copies 
were, therefore, accepted by my assistant attached to the international 
union, John Long. Those copies were then made available, in due 
course, to this committee, the first copy, and another copy just about 
that time went to the ethical practices committee, and there were 2, 
each 1 of which went to Cross and to Stuart as the 2 accused, and, 
therefore, having a prior claim on those copies. 

It w^as only then that we realized the need for more copies and we 
ordered them duplicated. When we returned from Florida, and I 
think it was probably the end of March or the early part of April, we 
had the duplicated copies. I think it was probably a week or so after 
we got back that the copies were widely distributed, including copies 
to Sims and to Mr. Conway, 

I might add that the burden of the charges as they w^ere made were 
based on so-called documents which Sims put in the record. He had 
the facts at the time, and the delay in his getting the copy did not 
appear to be a handicap sufficient to disqualify the board from pro- 
ceeding with its hearing. 

The Chairman. Have you answered, now, all that you want to 
answer about it? 

Mr. Cooper. Sir? 

The Chairman. Is your answer complete now ? 

Mr. Cooper. I believe it is. 

The Chairman. You still have not given us any indication of the 
time. 

Mr. Cooper. I say 

The Chairman. When you get that, all I want 

Mr. Cooper. I think he got it a week or so after we came back from 
Florida. 

The Chairman. I do not know a week or so after you came back 
from somewhere. 

Mr. Cooper. My recollection is that it was probably the first on the 
beginning of the second week in April. That was about it. 

The Chairman. It was after the trial that you had? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did he not have it available for him at that time ? 

Mr. Cooper. In preparation? No. 

But it was present at the hearing. He could have observed it and 
read it and done what he liked with it. 

Senator McNamara. It would seem to me that it was a rather un- 
usual practice not to furnish this man with a copy of the resolution. 
I do not accept as reasonable procedure that you had to wait until the 
entire transcript was published. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, I am glad you asked that, because we did give 
him a copy of the resolution of suspension. It was sent to him, and 
he received it promptly. 



2900 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. What do you mean by promptly ? Within 24: 
hours ? 

Mr. CooFER. I think it was mailed to him by registered mail im- 
mediately; the next day. He got the resolution of suspension. He 
had immediate notice of it. 

Senator McNamara. He did not have to wait ? 

Mr. Cooper. No. 

What Senator McClellan is referring to, I believe, is the transcript 
of the hearings of the charges of Sims against Cross and Stuart. 

Senator McNamara. I think he is referring to everything involved. 
I think the important thing at this point, since we are discussing the 
resolution, is whether or not a copy was promptly made available. 

Mr. Cooper. It was certainly made available to him at once. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

All right, read the other resolution. 

Mr. Cooper. This is not a resolution, sir. This constitutes charges 
brought by Cross against Sims. It bears the date March 6, 1957.^ 

I hereby charge that Curtis R. Sims, international secretary-treasurer has 
violated subsections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 18, of article 20, subsection 6, article 17 sub- 
section 4, and article 20 subsection 7, of the international constitution in the 
following manner : 

1. International Secretary-Treasurer Sims violated his membership oath and 
obligation as the second highest ranking officer by failing to maintain the dig- 
nity and good name of the international union and to preserve the secrecy of 
the inner procedings thereof by revealing to the public press for wide national 
dissemination the contents and nature of charges preferred by him against 
International President Cross and Vice President Stuart of gross misconduct, 
moral terpitude, and other acts, which, if true, would have disqualified them 
from continuing to hold high ofBce and constitute actionable crimes, in advance 
of such charges having been received by them or by members of the general ex- 
ecutive board and subordinate local unions, to whom such charges were mailed 
and circulated without authority by said International Secretary-Treasurer Sims 
in an effort to discredit and destroy International President Cross and Vice 
President Stuart for his own personal purposes. 

2. International Secretary-Treasurer Sims thereby caused International Presi- 
dent Cross and Vice President Stuart to be subjected to unfavorable and dam- 
aging public notice on mere allegations of misconduct, in a public climate par- 
ticularly hostile to labor leaders chai-ged with dishonesty and reflecting upon 
the reputation and integrity of the international union itself, in advance of any 
opportunity afforded to them to meet and answer said charges before the gen- 
eral executive board as to the constitutional authority empowered to consider 
and act upon such charges. 

3. International Secretary-Treasurer Sims caused the international union to 
be injured by the unwarranted allegations in its outstanding public reputation 
and effectiveness and representative of 180,000 bakery workers by the public 
disclosure in advance of hearing and determination by the general executive 
board of said charges in violation of his duties, obligations and fealty and 
violation of sound trade union principles. 

4. International Secretary-Treasurer Sims preferred said charges against 
International President Cross and Vice President Stuart in bad faith and did 
cause the international union unwarranted and unnecessary expense by requir- 
ing convening of a special general executive board meeting on March 6. 19.'57. 
to act upon said charges, notwithstanding the regularly scheduled meeting 
fixed for March 20, 1957. 

By reason of the foregoing, the undersigned requests that article 20 of the 
international constitution be invoked, and that the fitness of International 
Secretary-Treasurer Sims to continue in oflice and retain his membership in 
the international union be determined by the general executive board ac- 
cordingly. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 2901 

The Chairman, You were asked earlier, Mr. Cooper, whether you 
had committed the same offense by giving out, at an occasion prior 
to that, giving out to Mr. Joe Loftus, of the New York Times, sim- 
ilar charges as ]\Ir. Cross had brought against Mr. Kane and othei-s. 
At that time you M'ere interrogated about it, and you said you could 
not be sure, or you did not think you did. I want you to reflect, 
because I think if that was such an offense, and Mr. Sims swore 
there that he did not give it to the press, but a])parently from informa- 
tion I have you and Mr. Cross deliberately gave the press the charges 
you preferred against Mr. Kane and otliers regarding the incident out 
in San Francisco before the charges were received by them, I Avant 
to ask you to state under oath w-hether you did or did not. 

Mr. Cooper. I must repeat. Senator, tliat I do not recall specifically 
whether or not I did so. I say again it may be that I did. 

May I also add this, so that the answer 

The Chairman. If you did, then you violated it. 

Mr. Cooper. I did not, sir. 

The Chahiman. What is the difference ? 

Mr. Cooper. There is a great difference. 

The Chairman. What is it ? 

Mr. Cooper. In the first place, the nature of tlie charges involving 
the four gentlemen in New York w^as entirely different. The process- 
ing was different. It was a matter of public knowledge at the con- 
vention. It was a matter of public knowledge so for as the action of 
tlie general executive board was concerned. It was a matter of gen- 
eral knowledge that the general executive board had designated an 
investigatory committee to frame charges, if warranted, against these 
four individuals. 

This was not a matter which anyone knew about except Mr. Sims. 
This was not a matter which had not been in all the ])ress all over 
the country. This was not a matter which reflected the inner pro- 
ceedings of the organization to the degree that this did. Everybody 
knew from the headlines in the newspapers about this fracas in San 
Francisco and involvement of the individuals involved. 

The Chairman. If you did it, was your action improper I 

]Mr. Cooper. If I personally did it? 

The Chairman. If you advised or counseled them in doing it, or 
were present wlien it w-as done. 

Mr. Cooper. I do not consider that mv actions were improper if I 
did it. , . . 

The Chairman. Would Mr. Cross" actions be improper if he did it? 

Mr. Cooper. I do not consider that his actions in this context would 
liave been improper ? 

The Chairman. It was perfectly all right? 

Mr. Cooper. I believe so. 

The Chairman. Did you do it? 

Mr. Cooper. I say again, sir, and I must uiulei' onth say that I do 
not actually recall specifically whether I did so. Mr. Loftus may have 
a better recollection. If he chooses to tell yon, 1 will ];e bound by his 
answer. 

The Chairman. That is about the only tiling yon lu; vc i'ovgotf en. 

Go ahead. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. The essence of the charges against SiniK was that he 
publicly accused Cross and Stuart of misconduct i 



2902 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cooper. No ; I think that that was the effect of his not proceed- 
ing under the constitution and in accordance with his obligations. 

The result of his not proceeding was to make a public disclosure in 
advance of the hearing. 

Senator Curtis. Eegardless of what the cause was, that is what he is 
charged with, is it not ? 

Mr. Cooper. He is charged with the ultimate act of avoiding his con- 
stitutional obligations and making a public disclosure without pro- 
ceeding through the constitution. 

Senator Curtis. Thei-e is nowhere in here, as I follow it very care- 
fully, where he is charged with making an untrue accusation. 

Mr, Cooper. I would submit, sir, that when we used the word "un- 
warranted- - 1 think you will find that w^ord 

Senator Curtis. I think there is a vast difference between "unwar- 
ranted" and "untrue." 

Mr. Cooper. There may be a difference without a distinction in my 
mind, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I think there is a distinction, too. He is charged 
in this statement of making an accusation against two officers of mis- 
conduct, but he is not charged with falsely doing it. 

Mr. Cooper. If I may look at the resolution so that I can have it 
before me, I will be able to answer you more specifically. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Senator Ervin. You will pardon an observation. I think he is 
charged with exercising his rights to freedom of speech under the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

The first three specifications clearly charge him with exercising his 
rights of freedom of speech under the Constitution of the United 
States, and undoubtedly under the constitution of the State in which 
he was speaking. 

Senator Curtis. The deliberations of this committee may tend to 
show that those charges were true. I do not know. 

But he was not charged with making any false accusations. He was 
charged with making an accusation. 

Mr. Cooper. Senator, of course, this is all preliminary to, I assume, 
some ultimate judicial test as to whether or not the union acted cor- 
rectly with respect to its act of suspension and finding of guilty. But 
since the union chooses to go into these matters in advance, I am re- 
quired to discuss it in this context. I think if you will look at item 1 
of the charges, you will see there that, about the middle of it, it says 
"and other acts which, if true, would have disqualified them." 

I submit, sir, this appears right in the first item. 

There are some others. 

Senator Curtis. But nowhere in there is he charged w^ith falsely 
making an accusation. 

Mr. Cooper. I now refer you, sir, to 3, and there it refers to the un- 
warranted allegations. 

Senator Curtis. Unwarranted is not synonymous with untrue or 
false. 

Mr. Cooper. Obviously, I am at a disadvantage in arguing with you 
as to whether, when I put the word "unwarranted" in, and when I 
used the phrase "charges which, if true, constituted an actionable 
crime," whether those constituted by the same token a denial of the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2903 

truth of the charges. I can only tell 3^011 as having been credited here 
with liaving drafted the instrument in large measure that this was in- 
tended to reflect the position of Mr. Cross that the charges, as made, 
were not true. 

Senator Curtis. I think it is intended to reflect if anybody else 
chooses to publicly expose wrongdoing, they are going to get the works. 

Mr. Cooper. That is an assumption, again, which I cannot, of course, 
debate with you, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, that is what happened. 

Mr. CoorER. Again I must refrain from any comment on my part. 

Mr. Kennedy. You discussed, Mr. Cooper, the charges against Joe 
Kane and the others. Were they publicly known as charges ? 

Mr. Cooper. I think the charges were well known, because, at the 
convention, President Cross made a statement that he would hold them 
ynswerable for their conduct in falsely accusing him of having par- 
ticipated in the San Francisco fracas. 

It was said several times at the convention. The delegates were, 
therefore, advised that this was contemplated if the general execu- 
tive board ultimately decided to make the charges. What you must 
also appreciate is that the charges against these 4 were not brought 
by President Cross. The charges by these 4 were signed by 3 mem- 
bers of the general executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say the cliarges were first made by Mr. Cross 
in San Francisco? 

Mr. Cooper. He did not make any charges. He made a public 
statement then, that in view of his vindication by the grand jury in 
San Francisco, that those who put the union in the position by 
falsely charging him as they had, he said, would be answerable. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the charges been made public or not? 

Mr. Cooper. You have to agree with me for me to answer correctly 
what you mean by these charges being made public and whether or 
not there is a parallel between these charges and the charges which 
erupted from the action of Secretary-Treasurer Sims by his public 
disclosure. 

Mr. Kennedy. This matter of which Joseph Kane and the others 
were charged in December, had that been made public ? 

The Chairman. That is the formal charge, the formal charge that 
you prepared, was it made public or released to the press before it 
was sent to the men v.^ho were charged ? 

Mr. Cooper. I must rely on my recollection. It is that the charges 
were sent out of Washington — I don't think I was here then — and 
that they appeared at about the time, and possibly after — again, this 
is a matter of record — the charges were mailed and received by the 
four individuals involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. They appeared on December 5 in the New York 
Times. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Joe Loftus about 
this matter at all? 

jNIr. Cooper. I have had many conversations Avith Mr, Joe Loftus. 
He is a friend. He is a gentleman whom I respect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations about these 
charges ? 

Mr. Cooper. I do not specifically recall it. I wish he would be 
called on to disclose what his recollection is about this. I do not 
have a specific recollection. 



2904 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It would appear to me, sir, since you prod my recollection so 
sharply, that it is not likely that I did, because my recollection is 
that about tliat time I was in New^ York and he was in Washington 
here. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Would you tliink it was improper if these formal 
charges appeared in the press ? 

Mr, Cooper. Xo; because these charges had a different character 
entirely. They did not relate to the internal affairs of the union, sir. 
These four individuals were not charged with making disclosures of 
records, of making charges of dishonesty wliich related to the conduct 
of office. 

These charges were made against four individuals for reprehensible 
conduct that the board considered appropriate for cliarges contlucted 
outside the union. 

The Chaikmax. Let me ask you one question. I do not know just 
what you mean by internal affairs of the union, but if the president 
of the international union, along with the vice president goes to the 
room of a man in a hotel, early in rhe morning, and carries a gun, 
which they put in his back, and intimidates him witli otlier people as 
to how they should vote in a coming election, is that internal or 
external ? 

Mr. CooPEK. Your assumption is different from tlie grand jury, 
wliich had all the evidence before it. 

The CHAiK^fAX. I do not know that it is. We have the grand jury 
report. They said a crime was committed, but it was a misdemeanor. 

Mr. Cooper. First of all, they did not indicate that these four indi- 
viduals committed any crime. Second, they said that the case was 
rampant with perjury. 

The Chairman. I am asking you if it is a fact that if the president 
of the international union, and the vice president, together with 
others, go to a member's room, a delegate's room in the early morning 
hours, put a gun in his back, marches him over to another hotel, and 
have an encoiniter there, beats up somebody, or strikes them, is that 
an internal or an external aft'air of the union, where it is being done 
for the purpose of intimidating those delegates ? 

]\Ir. Cooper. Senator, your question has many assumptions. 

The CiiAiRMAX. It just has one, that those things occurred. There 
has been testimony here that they did occur, so it is not exactly an 
assumption. 

Mr. Cooper. It is an assumption which is not borne out by the evi- 
dence which Avas heard by the duly constituted body. 

The Chairman. I am not asking you that. I asked if it is true, 
is that an internal or external affair of tlie union. I am trying to 
find out what is an internal affair and what is an external affair. 

Mr. Cooper. It might be internal to the extent that the effect of it, 
if committed, constituted undue pressure on delegates in the exercise 
of their free democratic right, but by the same token 

The Chairman. Would that not be internal affairs Avhen they are 
trying to elect officers, and an intimidation of that fashion takes 
place? That is not an external aff'air. It seems to me like it is right 
in the union, and you cannot get it out, 

Mr. Cooper, Except, sir, that this was public knowledge 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2905 

The Chairmax. I do not care about the knowledge. That has 
nothing to do with it, whether it is inside or out. 

Mr. Cooper. Therefore, because it was public knowledge, tlie dis- 
closure did not constitute an improper act. 

The Chair]\[an. You are not answering my question. 

Mr. Cooper. I may not be answering it, sir, as you Avould like me 
to, but I am answering it to the best of my ability. 

The Chairmax. You are not trying to answer it. 

Mr. Cooper. That, sir, is something I must differ with you about. 

The Chairmax. You are not trying to answer the question as to 
whether it is an internal affair or an external affair. The fact that 
it had publicity has nothing to do with the nature of it. That would 
not change the nature of it, the fact that it had publicity. 

Mr. Cooper. I draw a distinction between unknown and unrevealed 
internal aft'airs, and something which is a matter of national 

The Chairmax. You are qualifying it. I asked you if tliat was 
an internal affair. 

Mr. Cooper. Only if the impact of it was 

The Chairmax. In otlier words, if it becomes public, it is not an 
internal aft'air. 

Mr. Cooper. Had it become public to this degree, it would not have 
been an internal aff'air. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, the witness will stand aside. 

Tlie committee will be in recess until 2 o'clock. 

("Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., th.e committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m.. the same day. ) 

(^lembers present at the taking of tlie recess: Senators ^McClel.laii, 
Ervin, and Curtis.) 

afternoon sessiox^ 

Tlie Chairmax. The liearing will come to order. 
( Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 
The Chairmax. Call your next witness. 
Mr. Kexxedy. Mr. James Cross. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. CEOSS. ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ABE AH AM J. HAEEIS— Eesumed 

The Chairmax. Mr. Cross, I believe you were sworn yesterday? 

^Ir. Cross. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You will remai]i under the same oath and the same 
counsel appears for you. Let the record so show. Mr. Reporter. 

All right. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kexnedy. I think Mr. Cross has a statement that he wishes to 
i-ead. 

The Chairmax. Do you have a statement ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Has it been submitted ? 

?»Ir. Kennedy. It has. ]Mr. Chairman. 



2906 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The Chair lias not seen the statement, but the chief 
counsel advises that it was submitted within the rules and he has 
examined it and jou may, therefore, read it, ]\Ir. Cross. 
, Do you have extra copies of it ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes; and Mr. Chairman, I would also, with your per- 
mission, like to submit to the committee copies of our constitution and 
also the general executive board's report of its 5 years of stewardship 
to its last convention, for the committee's information. 

The Chairman. Those things may be submitted for examination at 
present, and I assume we already have a copy of the constitution. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe we do, but we are glad to have more. 

The Chairman. We are glad to have your copy and also copies of 
the other documents to which you referred. I accept them for exami- 
nation at present and I do not know whether any part of them should 
be printed in the record. We do not want to encumber the record 
with a lot of unnecessary material. 

But if we find there is anything that is appropriate for the record, 
in the course of the proceedings, we will admit it. 

Mr. Cross. Statement to the Senate Select Committee on Improper 
Practices in the Labor and Management Field : 

I respectfully offer these summary and impersonal facts about our union as 
essential to. an evaluation of derogatory material that might otherwise prove 
misleading. 

The Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union of America has 
a membership of about 160,000, in some 320 local unions located in the United 
States and Canada. We are governed by a constitution which provides demo- 
cratic rules and regulations. 

Elected officials have limited authority, and due process is assured to local 
unions and individual members in enforcement of constitutional obligations. 

Local union autonomy is carefully preserved against intervention by the 
international union except in rare cases and as required in the demonstrated 
interest of the local or general membership. This is shown l)y the voluntary 
character of local union mergers and the extremely low ratio of trusteeships. 

Since I became international president in January 1953, no more than three 
of such local unions have been in trusteeship at any one time, several inherited 
from my predecessor. At present only two such situations exist. 

At our most recent convention, in October 1956, many constitutional changes 
were adopted after considerable free and open debate by the delegate repre- 
sentatives of the local union memberships. The present international officers 
were there unanimously reelected. The conduct of this convention and all of its 
sessions were observed by Nelson Cruikshank as a representative of George 
Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, and his report confirmed the democratic 
processes by which questions were considered and decisions reached. 

The international union and its various activities are financed by per capita 
tax payments forwarded by each local union from membership dues. The 
finances of the international union are audited by Scovell, Wellington <& Co., 
nationally recognized certified public accoimtants. 

Financial reports are periodically prepared and distributed to the local unions 
as M-ell as to the membership by publication in the union's monthly magazine. 

Between conventions the general executive board, composed of all interna- 
tional officers, is the governing body. Meetings are held at least semiannually, 
and more often as required. Between sessions, the board has the authority to 
act, by telegram, letter or long-distance telephone, on specific questions sub- 
mitted for its consideration. 

Like any other member or local officer, members of the general executive board 
may not be removed except for violations of the constitution and by application 
of the code of trial procedure, which provides all the elements of due process. 

The international president has initial responsibility for the designation and 
assignment of international representatives and other nonelected employees of 
the international union. He is at all times subject to the decisions of the general 
executive board. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2907 

The secretary-treasurer is initially responsible for the financial affairs of the 
international union as well as for supervision of the financial conduct of local 
unions. He receives monthly duplicate pages of local union financial day books 
and is, therefore, obliged to report any apparent or real irregularity for further 
audit or investigation. This applies both to trusteed and self-administered 
local unions. 

Only since the October 1956 convention has the international president had 
the further specific powers to demand books and accounts for audit, or to in- 
vestigate the financial affairs of local unions. 

Collective-bargaining contracts cover several thousand employers, ranging 
from neighborhood handcraft bakeries to national multiplant companies, such 
as National Biscuit Co., Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., American Bakers, Conti- 
nental Baking Co., and General Baking Co. 

Such bargaining is conducted through the local unions on the basis of either 
shop, company, product area or region. The present union administration has 
atteuipted to streamline bargaining to meet current industry structure. Con- 
sequently, regional bargaining with multiplant employers was recently insti- 
tuted with voluntary participation of local unions. 

The international union assists in the bargaining, which is conducted by 
local union representatives who, in turn, submit any proposed agreements to 
local union memberships for ratification or rejection. 

The international union engages actively in organization in new plants. This 
is accomplished either by assisting local unions in the area or by direct solici- 
tation. Workers so organized either become part of an existing local union 
with jurisdiction in the area or field, or join together and are chartered as an 
autonomous local union under the constitution. 

Other activities of the international union involve the institution of national 
health, welfare and pension programs which are jointly administered by union 
and industry trustees. Participation by local unions and employers in these 
programs is voluntary. 

The constructive aspects of the administration and operation of these plans 
have already been amply stated by communication dated April 5, 1957, to Sena- 
tor McClellan from George Faunce, Jr., secretary of the board of trustees of 
the Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union and industry national pension and 
welfare funds. 

The general executive board, at its March 1957 session, adopted in all re- 
spects the code of ethics previously established by the AFL-CIO. This action 
was supplemented by a questionnaire addressed to each international and local 
union officer and representative, inquiring as to individual compliance with 
these codes. 

As international president, I am also prepared to sponsor adoption in all 
respects of recommendations by the AFL-CIO respecting financial auditing and 
recordkeeping for the international union as well as for local unions. 

In addition, a survey is presently being conducted under the supervision of 
Prof. David Brown of George Washington University in an effort to improve 
procedures and practices of administration and operation of the interuatit)nal 
union to assure maximum utilization of funds and personnel. 

As international president, I am likewise prepared to recommend to the 
general executive board adoption of stringent standards affecting disbursement 
of union funds by union representatives in all categories. 

In summary, this union both on the international and local level is becoming 
an increasingly eifective vehicle, through free collective bargaining, for im- 
proving the status, income and working conditions of its members. 

Consistent with our primary object, the union has developed a cooperative 
working relationship with management representatives. We have abandoned 
the class war philosophy of the founders of our union, and have sought common 
ground in many areas for dealing with mutual problems of the industry in an 
atmosphere free of hostility and distrust. 

As a result, it has not been required to devote union resources to avoidable 
strikes and unnecessary conflicts for gains achievable through discussion, ex- 
change of views, and peaceful negotiation. 

May I add, Mr. Cliairman, that I was made acquainted with a news 
article this morning dealing with testimony yesterday in regards 
to the Zion industry, I certainly feel that this committee will give 

89330— 57— pt. 8 22 



2908 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

me the full and free opportunity to put in its proper light the state- 
ments tliat appeared in that paper. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to do that. It is not our pur- 
pose to deny anyone who appeared before the committee, and especially 
one against whom derogatory testimony has already been received, 
the right to make any explanation that he thinks is called for and 
he can testify to under oath. 

I was interested in 2 or 3 items here in your statement. I am not 
going to take time to interrogate you about all of them at the moment, 
but there is one that strikes me here. You say the general executive 
board at its March 1957 session adopted in all respects the code of 
ethics previously established by the AFL-CIO. 

This action was supplemented by a questionnaire addressed to each 
international and local union officer and representative inquiring as 
to individual compliance with these codes. 

I believe ]\Ir. Stuart is a vice president of the international, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

The Chairman. 'Wliat is his position ? 

Mr. Cross. He has resigned and he is no longer an officer of this 
international union. 

The Chairman. When did he resign ? 

Mr. Cross. He resigned on ]March 20, 19rt7. 

The Chairman. Was that after he testified I 

^Ir. Cross. Yes, sir. No. sir. I am sorry. It was before lie testi- 
fied here. 

The Chairman. Before he took the fifth amendment ? 

]\rr. Cross. That is right. 

The Chairman. I was not sure wlietlier lie was stijl in the union or 
not. 

Mr. Cross. He may still be a member, sir. but he is not an officer 
of ;m international or local union. 

The Chairman. He has no official responsibility since that date ? 

]\Ir. Cross. No, sir. 

The Chairman. He is not being paid a salary as such ? 

Mr. Cross._ No, sir, he has returned all of his credit cards and all 
of the belongings to the international union. 

The CHATR:NrAN. Maybe we helped the union a little by this hearing 
at least. 

Mr. Cross. This, sir, if I may say, was prior to your hearing and 
prior to any hearing by Stuart. This was after our hearin<r on 

:\rnrch s. 

_ The Chairman. In other words, your own union took charge of the 
situation and gave it attention? 

Mr. Cross. To the best of our ability, sir. 

The Chairman. For that reason, I want to compliment your union. 
I]iternationa] unions and locals, if they will take the initiative in this 
clennup, this committee would have far less work to do. 

Mr. Cross. T thank you, sir, and I feel that if Mr. Sims would have 
done this in the same procedure, we would have been able to do it 
without the attendant publicity. 

The CiiAiHArAN. T do not know about Mr. Sims. I am not arguing 
that at the moment. We have Mr. Cross before us now and we want 
to talk about some of vour actions. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2909 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr, Kennedy. Just on that, you hud a hcariiiji-, did you, for the 
charges against yourself and Mr, Stuart? 

Mr. Cross. I didn't get your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a hearing, your executive board held a 
liearing on the charges that liad been made against yourself and Mr. 
Stuart ? 

Mr. Cross. You say did our board have ? 

Mr, Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in connection with your answers to Senator 
McClellan and about the fact that you cleaned up your own union, 
Avas it not true that the board met and cleared Mr. Stuart ? 

Mr. Cross. Well, ^Ir. Kennedy, if I may, in the first place, 1 didn't 
respond to Senator McClellan's question by saying we had cleaned 
up our own union. I said that 5lr. Stuart was no longer with us. 

Xow, he resigned, and there were no charges against him after he 
was found not guilty by a hearing board of this international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the hearing board found him not guilty, is that 
right ? 

Mr. Cross. I wanted to make sure the record was clear. 

The Chairman. ^Slaybe I complimented the union too quickly. 

Mr. Cross. The assumption that I am going on, the facts 

The Chairiman. I want on every occasion when a union takes the 
initiative to do this housecleaning job, 1 certainly Avant to compli- 
ment them. I vrant to encourage insofar as I can, in the position I 
occupy here, all unions to take the initiative in this thing, and proceed 
with the job that it has bec(mie apparent, needs to be done in many 
areas. 

Mr. Cross. Where there is wrongdoing, we will join with you. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr, Kennedy. I notice from the statement that you take several 
paragraphs indicating your interest in having a close check on fi- 
nances of the union. Have you also been interested in that ? 

]\Ir. Cross. Certainly, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, Have you followed that procedure yourself ? 

Mr, Cross, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, Are you familiar with the forms that unions must 
file with the Labor Department, in order to get the use of the NLRB ? 

Mr. Cross. It is a broad statement to answer. I know of the form, 
but the auditors fill it out. I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is from the Taft-Hartley Act, 9 (F), (G), and 
(H), I think. 

Mr. Cross, That is rigiit. 

Mr. Kennedy. You sign it, do you not, when tliey are submitted? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, I think that I signed the accompanying letter which 
is prepared for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you attest to its accuracy ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, I think Mr. Kennedy, it is prepared by the Scovell 
& Wellington firm. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be a 
copy of a letter dated July 9, 1956, which appears to be a covering 
letter addressed to Mr. Russell Miller, election officer, an affidavit of 



2910 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

compliance, National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General 
Counsel, Washington, D. C. 

This letter purports to be signed by you as president of the bakery 
and confectionery union, together with the forms, photostatic copy 
of the forms of statements that the letter refers to. 

I ask you to examine them and state if you identify them as photo- 
static copies of the letter, and of the report that was transmitted 
with the letter. Do you identify those, Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, they are signed by me as president. 

The Chairman. Those appear to be photostatic copies of the origi- 
nal documents which you signed ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes. These are signed by me and appear to be photo- 
static copies of a form filled out by the Scovell Wellington firm. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is for the year 1955, and you submitted it in 
July of 1956? 

Mr. Cross. The letter is dated July 9, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. And I believe it is for the year 1955. Would you 
look on the first page of that ? 

The Chairman. Are there reports for the year 1955 ? 

Mr. Cross. This says cash receipts and disbursements, for the year 
ended May 31, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is the fiscal year. 

Mr. Cross. We don't have a fiscal year 1955-56. We have it from 
May to May. 

Mr. Kennedy. From May 1955 to May 1956 ? 

Mr. Cross. Possibly, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you examine the first page there, where it 
has the salaries and allowances, I believe it is, of the officers? Does 
your name appear there ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I^^iat figure appears opposite it ? 

Mr. Cross. $17,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does it say ? What is the description, and what 
information are you supposed to put there ? 

Mr. Cross. It says the name, title, total compensation allowances 
for the year and how selected. 

Mr. Kennedy. Total compensation and allowances for the year? 

Mr. Cross. Total compensation and allowances for the year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you have what figure there? 

Mr. Cross. $17,500. ' 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that figure for your total compensation and allow- 
ances; is that figure accurate? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never received anytliing more than $18,000? 

Mr. Cross. I received $17,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never received anything more than $17,500 
from the union ? 

Mr. Cross. Mj actual expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't it say total compensation and allowances? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, but allowances and expenses, in my mind, are two 
different things. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not feel that the Government wanted you to 
put down your expenses tliere ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2911 

}>lv. C;K()SS. I don't know what the Government feels, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. But you did not consider that you shoidd o-ive them 
your expenses? 

Mr. Cross. No; this has been filled out by auditors for me. and I 
sig-ned it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you examine it yourself ? 

Mr. Cross. It does not ask for expenses for anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says total compensation, and did you think total 
compensation and allowances should include eyerything that you have 
received, your total compensations and allowances from the union? 
Did you not receive more money than just the $17,500? 

Mr. Cross. In expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not think that that should have been in- 
cluded in there? 

Mr. Cross. I do not think it was asked for. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not believe compensation and allowances 
include expenses ? 

Mr. Cross. I would not interpret it that way, and evidently my 
auditors did not, either ; I didn't prepare this, understand, 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed it. 

Mr. Cross. I signed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you attested to its accuracy ? 

Mr. Cross. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am interested in this because I know you have been 
interested in making sure, and in assuring at least, according to your 
testimony, that you w\anted to insure a tight financial control over 
the funds of the union. 

I notice we received here a letter dated April 23, 1952, a letter ad- 
dressed to Gilbert Mann, president, local No. 100, 8 North Ogclen Ave- 
nue, Chicago, 111., and it is signed by you, James G. Cross. Would 
you examine this letter ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be a 
photostatic copy of a letter from you to Mr. Gilbert Mann, president, 
8 North Ogden Avenue, dated April 23, 1952, and asks you to examine 
it and see if you identify it. 

The other document, the previous document just submitted to the 
witness, will be made exhibit No. 50. That is an exhibit for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 50" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

(At this point Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you recognize that letter, Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Cross. Well, sir, you have me at a disadvantage because it is 
over 5 years old and I cannot identify it because there is no signature 
to it. I do not either claim or disclaim it. It is so long ago, I wouldn't 
remember an individual letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the letter, I believe was obtained from the 
files. The letter was obtained from the files of the local union in 
Chicago. 

Mr. Cross. It doesn't have my signature on it. 

Mr, Kennedy. No, it does not. 

Mr. Cross, No, 

Mr. Kennedy, You do not recognize it ? 

Mr, Cross. And it isn't on a letterhead of our international union. 



2912 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : I will just quote from a paragraph 
here : 

For each and every check thar is issued, either an invoice or a voucher with 
detailed explanation should be approved b.v an officer. 

All merchandise should be checked in order to verify receipt of quantities as 
ordered, and the person receiving it should sign their name on the invoice. 

Is that a procedure that you would approve of, detailed vouchers 
should be submitted for expenses ? If you cannot recognize the letter, 
is that a procedure or process that you approve of ? 

Mr. Cross. If our auditors would recommend this procedure, I 
would be happy to approve of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you personally approve of having detailed vouch- 
ei^s or vouchers submitted for any expenses ? 

Mr. Cross. As far as possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you were evidently interested in that in 1952, 
and have you been interested in having that type of process followed 
since you haA^e been international president of the bakers union? 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to quarrel with you, but I 
say I have evidently been since 1952 and you are assuming this is my 
letter. We have no proof even this is my letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said this was a procedure that you approved of. 
Have you approved of it since you have been international president ? 

Mr. Cross. If it had ever been brought to my attention, I probably 
would have. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking about this specific letter, but do you 
generally approve of the fact that vouchers should be submitted for 
expenses ? 

Mr. Cross. Wherever possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is that a procedure that you have followed 
yourself ? 

Mr. Cross. Wherever possible. 

The Chairman. Let me see. The witness seems to be in doubt about 
the letter here. I think we can clear that up. You still have the files 
of the international union, do you, since 1952. the date of that letter? 

Mr. Cross. Well, sir. I could not answer that offhand. 

The Chairman. Have an}- of the records been destroyed, so far as 
you know? 

Mr. Cross. It is quite possible. We moved our international head- 
quarters from Chicago to Washington and I doubt very much if we 
would keep an ordinary correspondence — may I answer, sir — I doubt 
very much if we would keep the correspondence Avhich is just general 
correspondence for years upon years. 

This is over 5 years old and it is just a routine correspondence, with- 
out a signature. I don't know whether I would keep it or not. It 
would not be in my charge ; it would be in charge of Curtis Sims. 

The Chairman. That may be true. All I wanted to do was to ask 
if you would have your records searched and see if you find a copy of 
that letter in your files. 

Mr. Cross. Certainly. 

The Chairman. Ail right. That is all the Chair wanted and you 
will instruct someone to make that search, and report to the committee 
whether you have found that letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. As further identification, at this time, April 23, 1952, 
were you general secretan'-treasurei- of the union? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2913 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At least the printed name, J. G. Cross, general secre- 
tary-treasurer, appears at the end of the letter; does it not? 

Mr. Cross. It does appear, but it is not in stationery of the interna- 
tional union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I would like to ask you about some of the ex- 
pense vouchers that you have submitted. We will start back in Sep- 
tember 26, 1955. Would you identify this for me, please? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what purports to be a 
voucher, a photostatic copy of a voucher for disbursement, dated Sep- 
tember 20, 1955. Will YOU please examine — I present to you 2, 1 dated 
September 26, 1955, and the other dated October 10 or 11, 1955. 

I will ask you to examine them and see if you recognize them as 
vouchers that you approved. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 3'our voucher ; is it not ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir; they are my initials on both. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for a trip to Portland, from October 3 and 
vou went up there on October 3 and came back on October 6 : is that 
right ? 

Mr. Cross. Xo, sir ; this states October 1 through the 5th. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your total expenses for that trip to Portland, 
Oreg. — where did you come from to Portland, Oreg. ? 

Mr. Cross. I haven't the slightest idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is from Washington, D. C. It shows the date you 
left Washington. You left Washington on October 3 according to 
your ticket, at 1 : 30 p. m., and went via Denver to Portland, Oreg., and 
you left Portland, Oreg., on the 5th of October, for Los Angeles, and 
went to Los Angeles and came back to Washington, and you came back 
from Portland, Oreg., to Washington, via Los Angeles. 

The record shows that you spent $962.53 on that trip. That was 2 
days in Portland, Oreg. Do you have any vouchers at all of how you 
spent that money, other than your plane ticket? 

Mr. Cross. It is you that is testifying to the plane ticket. I just said 
I didn't recall how I got to Portland and you have just said I was in 
Los Angeles and so it must have been in Portland, Los Angeles, and 
wherever I departed from and any stopovers. I certainly don't re- 
member it. 

Mr. Kennedy. The ticket shows^ you left Washington, D. C., 
United Air Lines, flight 747, October 3, at 1 : 30; you went to Portland, 
Oreg., and that you left Portland, Oreg., on October 5 via Los Angeles 
and went to Los Angeles and then went on October 6 from Los An- 
geles to Washington, D. C. 

Would you like to examine the ticket ? 

The Chairman. Did you identify those vouchers? 

Mr. Cross. I certainly did, sir. 

The Chairman. They will be made exhibits Nos. 51 and 51-A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 51 and 
51-A'' for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3187- 
3189.) 

The Chairman. Now, the Chair presents to you what purports 
to be a plane ticket, dated September 30, 1955, and asks you to examine 
it and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 



2914 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cross. What is the question, sir? 

The Chairman. Have you examined it ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it ? 

Mr. Cross. It says it is American Airlines ticket from Washington, 
D. C, to Denver, to Portland, to Los Anoreles, to Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it have a name on it ? 

Mr. Cross. It has a name which is not my signature. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the name ? 

Mr. Cross. James G. Cross. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to Portland ? 

Mr. Cross. I can't remember that far back. 

Mr. Kennedy. You will have a $500 expense advance right at the 
beginning in connection with regional conference to be held in Port- 
land, Oreg., October 4 and 5. 

The Chairman. The counsel is reading from the voucher that you 
say you identified bearing the date of September 26, which is exhibit 
No. 51 and it says here that this is your voucher, expense advance in 
connection with regional conference to be held in Portland, Oreg., 
October 4 and 5. 

Now, does that have any connection with the ticket ? 

Mr. Cross. Well, I am not denying the voucher, sir, and I am not 
denying being there. You are asking me about the ticket and I did 
not make the ticket out. I evidently was in Portland, and my voucher 
is in for it and I agree to that. 

The Chairman. All right, then. 

Mr. Cross. And I was in Los Angeles. 

The Chairman. That is all I am trying to get at. Did you go or did 
you not go? 

Mr. Cross. If you ask me from memory, which you did, I do not 
remember that date. 

The Chairman. We are presenting you these documents to help 
you remember. 

Mr. Cross. And I admit to the documents. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your total expenses for those 2 days in Portland 
and the trip, were $962.53. Do you have any vouchers other than the 
plane ticket to support the payment of that money or the spending 
of that money ? 

Mr. Cross. Would you tell me how that money is computed, or the 
total ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I would like to have your help, actually. You 
have food, Portland, $179.60; entertainment, $197.43; and a hotel in 
Los Angeles, $10. You can look at it and here it is, and I do not have 
anything more than you have. 

Mr. Cross. You certainly do because the voucher shows $600 and 
you just mentioned a figure of $900. 

Mr. Kennedy. The vouchers total $629.12, and the transportation 
was $333.41. 

Mr. Cross. You mean the American Airlines ticket cost $300 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cross. Well, that is not my expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the union is paying for you going to Portland, 
Oreg., for 2 days. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2915 

Mr. Cross. Well, certainly— for how many days ? 

Mr. Kennedy. For 2 days. 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You tell me. 

Mr. Cross. Doesn't the ticket say from October 3 and returning 
October 6 ? 

Mr. Kennedy, ^^-liat does your voucher say ? 

Mr. Cross. From the 1st to the 5th, and that is 4 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first voucher says what ? 

Mr. Cross. The first voucher says for an advance. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what days? 

Mr. Cross. For October 4 and 5 in Portland. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you left on the 3d and you got there, the ticket 
shows what date you arrived and you left on the 5th again, and you 
left Portland, Oreg. 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir, and I went to Los Angeles. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have business in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Kay Lower in Portland, Oreg., Math you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. First off, Mr. Kennedy, the only reason I am hesitating, 
you leave me with a double question. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Cross. In the first place, I did not even remember saying she 
was there, and then you want to know if she is with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You answer it. Was she there with you ? 

Mr. Cross. You have information that she was ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You tell me. 

Mr. Cross. I can't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot remember? 

Mr. Cross. Of course not ; you meet a lot of people all over this 
country. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, now, and I think there is already 
enough known about this so that there is not 

Mr. Cross. There is enough assumed about this, Senator. 

The Chairman. We are trying to get what we can know about it 
from you. 

Mr. Cross. Thank you. 

The Chairman. If you can tell us about it, just give us the score and 
what happened. 

Mr. Cross. ^Yliat happened where ? 

The Chairman. In Portland, Oreg., on this trip. 

Mr. Cross. I attended a Pacific coast conference of bakery workers. 

The Chairman. The question was, was Miss Kay Lower there ? 

Mr. Cross- If you would refresh my memory. 

The Chairman. We are trying to refresh it. 

Mr. Cross. I haven't anything in front of me. You are asking 
me for something that is how many years old. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever in Portland with Kay Lower? 

Mr, Cross. If you put it that way, the answer is "No." 

The Chairman. Then it could have been "No" all the time. 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. That is a double question asking me if I was 
ever there with Kay Lower and the answer is "No." 



2916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairmax- T^t us get this straiglit. This is less than 2 years 
ago, apparently. On the occasion when you submitted tlie voucher 
tliere for these expenditures, on the occasion when you made the 
trip for which those vouchers are to cover, the simple question is, was 
INIiss Lower there in Portland, Oreg., with you at that time ? 

Mr. Cross. And the simple answer, ^Ir. Senator, is I don't re- 
member. 

The Chairman. Well, you just testified under oath that she has 
never been with you there and now, can you not answer that ? Why 
can you not remember this particular one? 

]\Ir. Cross. Because she was not with me. The implication you are 
l>utting on that, and now if you ask if I ever remember her being 
in Portland, I will be ha]:>py to admit it freely. 

The Ciiairmax. All right. Let us see if we can get it that way. 
Do you ever remember being in Portland, Oreg.. at tlie same time that 
Miss Kay Lower was there? 

Mr. Cross. This one I will say that my recollection, my memory 
has been refreshed to the extent that there has already been testi- 
mony here to the fact that I was there at the same time, attending 
the conference. 

The Chairman. And she was there at the same time ? 

^Ir. Cross. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did you pay her expenses to come there? 

Mr. Cross. Me? No. 

The Chairman. Did your union, at your direction? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]SIr. Cross. Mr. McClellan, I am sure that if your conmiittee has 
any vouchers or any evidence of this international union paying Miss 
Lower's fare to Portland, I would he ha]>py to identify it. 

The Chairman. We will give you a chance in a moment, but I am 
trying to test your memory. 

]Mr. Cross. My memory is very poor when it comes to people over 
a ]^eriod of 2 years. I meet thousands of people. 

The CiiAiR^tAN. But I thought this might be a little ditferent. 

Mr. Cross. I know what your thoughts are. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You met Kay Lower in Portland and you can re- 
member that. 

Mr. Cross. Pardon me? 

Mr. Kennedy. You met Kay Lower in Portland? 

Mr. Cross. I say my memory having been refreshed by prior testi- 
mony here, I would be willing to say that Kay Low^er was in Portland. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss union business with Kay Lower at 
that time? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what Kay Lower was doing in Port- 
land at that time? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you need legal advice to find that out ? 

Mr. Cross. Do you have objections to legal advice ? 

;Mr. Kennedy. No ; as long as you ask for legal advice. 

Mr. Cross. How do you know what I am asking? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't. I am just asking. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2917 

The Chairmax. The Chair will make it very clear that under the 
rules the counsel is here to advise the witness as to his legal rights. 
It is not to advise the witness as to what facts to state and an answer 
to the question. 

The witness has the facts or knowledge perhaps, more so than the 
counsel, and that is the theory at least. Counsel may advise the wit- 
ness as to any legal right he may have, and with it the witness may 
feel free to consult with his counsel regarding any legal right. 

But counsel knows that he is not permitted l:o put words in the wit- 
ness' mouth as to answering a question under oath as to what the 
facts are. 

Mr. Cross. But he is allowed to discuss with me whether my 
answer 

The Chairman. Your legal rights which would be — well, you can 
get the idea — go ahead. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. Would you repeat the question, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Repeat the question. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. Tlie question was, Do you know what Miss Lower 
was doing there, in Portland, Greg., at that time ? You said you did 
not discuss union matters with lier. 

Mr. Cross. To the best of my recollection, she Avas there with for- 
mer Vice President Stuart, as part of the organizing campaign in Los 
Angeles. 

The Chairman. Was she ever employed as an organizer ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you known her ? 

Mr. Cross. Again to the best of my memory, sometime in the fall 
of 1954. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

yiv. Kennedy. You say she was there with Vice President Stuart ? 

jVIr. Cross. I don't follow the question. She was in Portland while 
Vice President Stuart was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said she was there with Vice President Stuart, 
as I remember it. 

Mr. Cross. She was tliere at the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was she and Vice President Stuart doing, and 
what was she doing with Vice President Stuart in Portland ? 

Mr. Cross. I presume discussing the Los Angeles campaign with 
some of the other men in Portland at the time. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it with her ? 

Mr. Cross. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with her ? 

Mr. Cross. I met her once. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you meet her ? 

Mr. Cross. I met her in the cocktail lounge, as I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was she working for the union at that time ? 

Mr. Cross. As I understand, from later discussions with Stuart, 
Stuart had her on special assignments in the Los Angeles area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss this matter with her, what work 
she was doing for the union ? 

Mr. Cross. Not at that time. 



2918 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it later ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat discussions did you have with her about it? 

Mr. Cross. I had discussions on the Van de Kamp organizing cam- 
paign and tlie Golden Crust, as to the question of the best way to at- 
tempt to sign members in the Van de Kamp organization. 

The Chairman. Was she experienced in that field ? 

Mr. Cross. It does not take experience to organize workers, and it 
takes hard work. 

The Chairman. But you were asking her the best way to organize. 

Mr. Cross. Because she was familiar with a lot of the people in the 
Van de Kamp plant. 

The Chairman. She has testified, and her memory is something like 
yours, and she could only remember one person she knew and could 
not even recall his name. 

Mr. Cross. That is her memory and not mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. She testified that the only person she knew was the 
head baker, and she could not remember his name, but his wife's name 
is Marjorie or something like that. She said she did not know any- 
body else there. Did she tell you she knew a lot of people ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the conversations you had with her ? 

Mr. Cross. I had subsequent conversations with her, and I would, if 
you would allow me, before this becomes a problem, say that it isn't 
really a problem to explain, because of your interest in getting the 
facts. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. We will give you the opportunity 
now to explain the whole circumstance. 

Mr. Cross. Thank you, sir. In the Los Angeles area we had at- 
tempted through our regular procedure of organization for almost a 
period of 20 years to organize the Golden Crust Bakery and the Van 
de Kamp Bakeries. The Van de Kamp Bakeries employed over 1,400 
members that I thought belonged to the jurisdiction of this inter- 
national union. 

By testimony of local union officials and other organizations, well 
over $150,000 worth of moneys had been expended in prior cam- 
paigns of organization and each time we had been defeated. We had 
to find a way to organize this plant in a manner that no one would be 
able to anticipate our moves, in a mamier, if you may allow me, un- 
orthodoxly, so that we could 

The Chairman. Wliat do you mean my that? 

Mr. Cross. Not the usual house-to-house knocking at doors and 
asking people to join and putting out leaflets to come to the union 
meetings. We had to contact on a secret basis 

The Chairman. Now, let us get what the secret basis was, and what 
operation involved was secret. 

Mr. Cross. I thought. Senator, you would be so kind as to allow 
me to tell the story. 

The Chair]man. I am. I am just trying to get clarification as we 
go along. Does this interrupt you ? 

Mr. Cross. It does get me off my trend of thinking. 

The Chairman. All right ; I do not want to get you off your trend 
of thinking. Proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2919 

Mr. Cross. Thank you. And we have at the Goklen Crust and the 
Van de Kamp in many attempts past, in very long, hard strikes and 
many attempts at organization, all of which had failed. We were 
devising ways and means. Vice President and Director of Organiza- 
tion Stuart and I, in a manner that would hide from this company 
and the people who worked in the plants the fact that we were in 
anotlier organizing campaign. 

It was the main reason why we discontinued financial support to 
local 37 for a special organizer and took it out of the hands of local 
37 and put it directly into the hands of the international union. That 
was so that we could proceed with as much secrecy as possible, so 
that we would not again be defeated in our efforts. One of the people 
that we chose to help us in this organization campaign was a person 
entirely outside of the ranks of labor, which, incidentally, it is under 
my prerogative as president to hire, by constitution. 

We did hire to my knowledge at that time, Mrs. E. K. Thorpe, the 
motlier of 2 children, and we put her not on the official payroll of the 
organization, because of the reasons of our own in our international 
office, which seems to be apparent now, and proceeded to pay her 
whatever money was necessary for her expenses in soliciting the men 
and tlie women at the 250 retail outlets at Van de Kamp and the 
bakery employing over 800 people and also the contact work neces- 
sary tiiat surrounds this particular type of work. 

Whether or not it was successful can only be demonstrated by the 
fact that both of those organizations, the Golden Crust and the Van de 
Kamp, are now under contract with this organization for the first time 
in tlieir history and under union-shop arrangements. 

The Chairiman. Do you give Mrs. Thorpe credit for that? 

Mr. Cross. I give her partially credit for that. 

The Chairman. What was the unorthodox means you mentioned ? 

Mr. Cross. The fact that we were employing people that w^ere not 
members of this organization and that were not known to the official- 
dom of our local unions in the Los Angeles area. 

The Chairjman. It was kept secret from them ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They said that they furnished her a car, a union 
car. 

Mr. Cross. That is not an official, sir, of the local union. That is an 
international organizer. 

The Chairman. An international organizer furnished her the car, 
and not the local union ? 

Mr. Cross. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who was the international organizer ? 

Mr. Cross. John Nelson. 

The Chairman. Is Mrs. Thorpe and Miss Lower the same person. 

Mr. Cross. I understand they are. 

The Chairman. When you first met her, you met her by what 
name ? 

Mr. Cross. Mrs. Thorpe. 

The Chairman. When did you begin to know her as Miss Lower ? 

Mr, Cross. It is hard to say, but, if I was guessing, about 4 months 
or a year later. 

Mr. Kennedy. When she was doing this work for you, in soliciting 
these men and women at the bakery, did she make reports to you as 



2920 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to how it was coming, or whether her solicitation was being suc- 
cessful ? 

Mr. Cross. She not only reported to me on that, but I think one 
of the very important things in the successful conclusion of that 
negotiation was the fact that she gave me the first information before 
it was published or before it was general knowledge of the fact that the 
Van de Kamp had sold their plants and their holdings to the General 
Baking Co., and because of that it gave me prior knowledge to sit 
down with the heads of the General Baking Co. and work out w^hat- 
ever arrangements could be for a peaceable settlement of that situa- 
tion. She was the one who gave me the first information on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you happen to select lier to do the soliciting 
for you ? 

Mr. Cross. Because 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. I want to say first oil, so that we get it straight, I wasn't 
the first to choose Mrs. Thorpe for her particular work. It was 
Director of Organization Stuart, and then through him John Nelson. 
When I finally got into this campaign. I knew of her background 
from Stuart on the question of her knowledge of the local unions in 
Los Angeles, and thought that it would be a good asset for us, as 
far as getting the plant. I think the result proves that out. 

The Chairman. Do vou know why she will not take any credit 
for it? 

Mr. Cross. She must have her own reasons, sir. 

The Chairman. She must haA-e. but we tried to get a little informa- 
tion from her along these lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say you knew about her background 'I Had sin 
had some experience in this deal before I 

Mr. Cross. When I checked back, her husband had been a former 
official of the hotel and restaurant workers union. She was very 
well acquainted with the members and officials of the waitresses union, 
and approximately 800 of these people we were attempting to get 
in our organization fom the Van de Kamp Bakeries. They also have, 
you know, restaurants, two-hundred-and-forty-some-odd. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that in 1949 she had been arrested 
for grand theft ? 

Mr. Cross. My first knowledge of Mrs. Thorpe's background as far 
as the question you just asked was at the March hearing, when Mr. 
Sims brought out a record at that time. March 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in 1951 she had been arrested for offering, 1951 
residing in a house of ill fame. 1952 offering, 1954 oft'ering, 1956 
offering, 1950 drunken driving. Did you know that ? 

Mr. Cross. It is the same answer as I gave you l)efore. I was aware 
of the record in March 1957 liearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You hadn't known 

Mr. Cross. I might say that since that time, she no longer works 
for this organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know that she had been arrested and 
convicted for residing in a house of ill fame when you hired her ? 

Mr. Cross. It is the same answer, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You talked to her quite frequently by telephone, is 
that right? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2921 

Mr. Cross. She talked to me, I talked to her, and she talked to 
several other officers of this international union by telephone. 

Mr. Kexxedy. As I understand it, there ^Yere some several thousand 
dollars worth of telephone calls from you to her. 

Mr. Cross. That isn't so, sir. 

Mr. Kexnedy. How many? 

Mr. Cross. I have no idea, because I haven't made an audit. But 
in the charcres that Sims made to the board, he put in an estimate 
on his own audit of approximately $2,300. The truth of the matter 
is we have — you have some woi'kinjj sheets which shows that a lot of 
those calls went to Vice President Stuart and to Vice President Craw- 
ford, besides myself, and a further examination will bear it out. 

My secretary also took some of those calls. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Were you talking: to her on the phone at that time 
repirding Van de Kamp Bakeries ? 

Mr. Cross. Golden Crust and Van de Kamp. 

Mr. Kex'X'edy. As I understand it, you returned some money to the 
union after these charges were made by Mr. Sims; is that correct^ 
Did you return some money to the union ? 

Mi-. Cross. I didn't return any because I never took any. 

Mr. Kex'xedy. Well, did you pay any money to the union for the 
telephone calls that you had made? 

Mr. Cross. I gave a personal check of $2,500 to the union, and I 
am sure you will allow me to explain why. 

Mr. Kex'xedy. Was that in connection — go ahead. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Let me ask you first, and then you can explain, 
were these reimbursements to the union for telephone calls you had 
paid for out of union funds, telephone calls between you and Mi's. 
'Jliorpe or Miss Lower ? 

Mr. Cross. That is what it is alleged. I have never yet made an 
audit to know whether that is so or not. 

The Chairmax. Well, was it to cover those telephone calls? 

Mr. Cross. Tlie check was put in the treasury of the international 
union to cover those calls alleged bv Sims that they were personal 
.•alls. 

The Ctiairmax. Alleged by Sims to be personal calls? 

Mr. Cross. The daily newspapers had already smeared me with 
a relationship which was not true, and rather than have the organiza- 
tion exposed, I remained silent and took the blame and returned the 
check. 

The Chairmax. What would be the exposure of the organization 
if it was a legitimate expense ? 

Mr. Cross. Because Curtis Sims exposed the record for the first 
time. 

The Chairmax'. What is wrong in expressing the record? What 
is there about the record that would reflect upon the union if it was 
legitimate expense ? 

I cannot see how it smears to say, "Here is the record of legitimate 
expense of $2,500 in telephone calls." 

Mr. Cross. You misunderstood me, sir. I was talking aboui tlie 
]~>erson's record. 

The Chairmax. About what records? 
Mr. Cross. About ]Mrs. Thorpe's record. 



2922 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I don't think you would want me to continue a person like that on 
the ])ayroll after it became public knowledge of the record. 

The Chairman. Well, that might be true. 

Mr. Cross. That is why. 

The Chair:man. If you had expended the money without that 
knowledge of her record, why would you feel under any personal obli- 
gation to replace it ? 

Mr. Cross. Because it was my thinking at the time when this 
hearing was held on the charges against me, and the subsequent 2-day 
or 3-day later exposure of a relationship by the Post-Times which was 
not true, that as long as it had been exposed in that particular way, 
that it was better for me to suffer the consequences than to have the 
union charged with hiring that type of person. 

The Chairman. I cannot quite follow that. 

Proceed, Counsel. 

Mr. Cross. I am sorry, sir. 

The Chairman. I can hardly conceive of a man in your position 
would pay out his owai money to reimburse the union for the legitimate 
expense incurred. 

Mr. Cross. I have done it before, sir. 

The Chairman. I do not know the circumstances of the other. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cross. Could I, Mr. Chairman, have your indulgence? 

I have a record here on these telephone calls showing that the calls 
were received and made by more than myself. 

The Chairman. Have you examined the record with respect to those 
calls? 

Mr. Cross. I have an affidavit from Miss Elizabeth Parker, who 
is the lady who operates our switchboard, and from her records she 
attests that the following is true. 

The Chairman. Have you the records? She may be called as a 
witness. I want to know if you have personally checked the records 
so that you can personally testify to them. 

Mr. Cross. As to the dates, no ; but as to the men and as to the calls, 
yes. 

The Chairman. You have checked it as to the men and as to the 
calls? 

Mr. Cross. Right. 

The Chairman. So you can testify under oath yourself that the 
documents you have there, the recapitulation and tabulation of those 
calls, is correct from your records? 

Mr. Cross. To the best of my knowledge, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, you checked them for the purpose of being 
able to testify that to the best of your knoweldge, after checking the 
records, they are correct. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. I think you do. I didn't keep these records, you know. 

The Chairman. I did not ask that. I am talking about the records 
of the union. They are kept under your supervision, are they not? 
As president, you have authority to examine them, to check them, 
to try to keep them accurate ? 

Mi-. Cross. I have a difficult time checking these because your com- 
mittee has them all. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2923 

The Chairman". Do we have your original records ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to check them. 

Do you have them here ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, they have had the opportunity and 
free access to these records continuously. 

The Chairman. And have they also cooperated in the manner of 
checking them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They have always been available. I don't know 
how much they have checked them personally. 

The Chairman. Do you want to read them off? How many are 
there ? 

Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, if I may interject, these are log sheets 
that are kept by most offices of long-distance phone calls. What we 
have here, what Mr. Cross has here, are photo copies. It is my; 
understanding that the original logbook was turned over to the com- 
mittee staff and was examined by the committee's staff. 

I believe, though I am not sure, that it has been returned to the 
international union. These are photostats of those same sheets, and 
accompanied by this affidavit. 

The Chairman. Do these telephone calls involve the $2,500 that 
you returned to the union? 

]\fr. Cross. They are part of those as charged by Curtis Sims. 

The Chairman. Do you want to submit these, or do you want to 
testify to them one at a time ? Do you want to submit them for the 
record ? 

Mr. Cross. I will submit them for the record, if you do not mind, 
sir. 

The Chairman. All right. They may be made exhibit No. 52. 

(The document referred to was "marked "Exliibit No. 52," for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. KJENNEDY. I would like to get cleared, if I could, on this situa- 
tion up in Portland, according to the record you spent up in Port- 
land, air transportation, allegedly, $333.41, but your expenses up in 
Portland were $629.12. Do you liave any vouchers at all as to how 
you spent $629.12 of union money in 2 days? 

Mr. Cross. You continually say 2 days. Doesn't it show the listing 
of a Los Angeles Hotel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let w^e show you.. You left Portland, Oreg., at 
6 : 10 p. m., on October 5. It takes at least 21/2 hours to get down to 
Los Angeles. Therefore, you arrived at Los Angeles, say, at 9 o'clock 
that night. You left at 9 : 35 the following morning and came back 
to Washington. 

You have a charge in there for a Los Angeles hotel of $10. Then 
$619.12, how did you spend that for the Oregon situation? How did 
you spend that in Oregon, in Portland ? Do you have any vouchers 
for it? 

Mr. Cross. You have the voucher. 

Mr. Kennedy. x\11 right. 

IVliere are the vouchers you submitted saying this is how much 
money you spent. That you spent $199 in entertainment in Portland. 
Wliere'are the vouchers to support that? 

Mr. Cross. Do you mean receipts ? 

89330^57— pt. 8 23 



2924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cross. I don't know whether they are there or not, but Mr. 
Sims would have them with the vouchers. 

I have had a difficult time in the last 3 or 4 months hnding the 
vouchers. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had a difficult time in the last 3 or 4 montlis 
finding the vouchers. 

Mr. Cross. You have been doing better than we have, because you 
have had better access to them than I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. We cannot find any vouchers for this money that 
you spent up there. 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy, I think we can save a lot of time. If 
there are no attached vouchers and there never were 

Mr. Kennedy. This came from the union. This didn't come from 
Mr. Sims. This came from the international union. We subpenaed 
the records. 

Mr. Cross. Yes, but Mr. Sims had these in his custody. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you saying or charging that Mr. Sims destroyed 
the support for these vouchers ? 

Mr. Cross. I wouldn't charge Mr. Sims with anything until I had 
proof of his guilt. However, I might say on these vouchers we could 
save time, that whatever I have on those vouchers, or the listing and 
what was submitted to this organization, and what was approved by 
the organization, and what was approved by Secretary-Treasurer 
Sims, and what was subsequently approved by the international con- 
vention of this organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then to go on, that, apart from the transportation, 
$629 up there, you went Shortly afterward, November 29 through 
December 9, 1955, on a trip to New York City. That is about 10 
days, 10 or 11 days. You charged the union $4,069.75. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Cross. May I see the vouchers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. It was a trip to New York City for AFL-CIO 
merger. The total that we have is $4,069.75. 

Mr. Cross. Does that also include hotel bills? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cross. May I see them ? 

The Chairman. Let the Chair present them to you for identifica- 
tion. I was just trying to familiarize myself sufficiently to identify 
them. 

I present to you what purport to be photostatic copies of vouchers. 
One is dated November 14, 1955, in the amount of $1,000. Another 
one is dated December 2, 1955, in the amount of $1,000. Another one 
is dated December 12, 1955, in the amount of $1,827.55. 

Another one is dated December 12, 1955, in the amount of $434.93. 
Another one is dated December 12, 1955, in the amount of $221.67, 
and another one dated November 30, 1955, in the amount of $214.50. 

That is a series of six vouchers, from November 14 to December 12, 
inclusive. These six purportedly total how much '. 

Mr. Kennedy. $4,069.75. The'last voucher is for 22 football tickets. 
for $214. 

Tlie Chairman. I present to you a series of six photostatic copies 
of vouchers which the Chair has preliminarily identified, and I will 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2925 

ask yoii to examine them and see if you can identify them as vouchers 
which you submitted for your expenses during that period of time. 

(The docimients were handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. These are initialed by myself and Mr. Sims. 

The Chairman. All right. They may be made exhibit Xos. 53-A, 
53-B, r)3-C, 53-D, 53-E and 53-F. 

(The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 53-A 
through 53-F, inclusive, for reference and will be found in the appen- 
dix on p. 3190-3195.) 

Mr. Cross. But, Mr, McClellan, these do not show the total that 
Mr. Kennedy is talking about. 

The Chairman. If the Chair was inaccurate in the figure given, 
they may be totaled by your attorney. 

Mr. Cross. They are totaled, sir. 

The Chaikman. What do they total ? 

Mr. Cross. The total is $2,721.67. 

The Chairman. Let me see them again. I saw 2 for $1,000 each. 

Mr. Cross. Yes, but, sir, what you are doing is taking advance 
moneys, and the recapitulation of the vouchers subtracted frr)m the 
advances, and adding it all together. That is not it. The advances 
are deducted by subsequent vouchers. 

The Chairman. They are? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Tiie Chairman. What is the total ? 

Mr. Cross. The total is, as I gave you, $2,721.67, which, sir, includes 
$214.50 for the Rose Bowl tickets that have been presented, and which 
I didn't attend, and others of our organizations, such as Vice Presi- 
dent (roodman and his wife, and those that are now yelling about this 
voucher, attended that particular function. 

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

Tlie Chairman. The Chair never wishes to make an inaccurate 
statement about what the vouchers show. They speak for themselves. 
If there were some deductions in them, that should be credited. The 
correct total will be inserted in the record. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the record shows that there Avere 
advances, and you can look at those vouchers, of $2,500. 

Mr. Cross. Kight. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was an additional expense claimed of $221.67. 
There are 22 tickets to the football game, $214.50. The hotel bill 
paid, $31 a dav, totaled $973.31. There Avas another hotel bill paid 
for $130.13. 

Was Kay Lower in New York at the time ? 

Mr. Cross. To the best of my recollection, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was she still discussing Van de Kamp? 

Wliat was she doing in New York City ? 

Mr. Cross. Slie Avas there on union business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Discussing Van de Kamp ? 

Mr. Cross. Not only Van de Kamp, but the Golden Crust which, 
if I am not mistaken, at this ])articnlar time Avas in a very serious 
strike situation. 

Ml'. Kkxneda-. Was she re<>-istei'ed under the name of Kuth Ci-oss? 



2926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cross. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Ruth Cross there ? 

Mr. Cross. No. The room was used for playing poker for the rest 
of the general executive board members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ruth Cross' room ? 

Mr. Cross. Right. Wliich is a common practice with this inter- 
national union long before I became president. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the room for the officials to play poker in cost 
the union $130.13? 

Mr. Cross. Over what period ? 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period you were up there — 10 days? 

Mr. Cross. You have it ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. The transportation was $30.14, making a grand total 
of $4,069.75, including the $130 for playing poker. Did the union 
pay for Kay Lower's room there? 

Mr. Cross. I think the records show, if there were any, that she 
paid for her own. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Hiy would she come all the way to New York 
City to discuss Van de Kamp Bakery with you and pay for her own 
room? 

Mr. Cross. She would be reimbursed by the organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. She was reimbursed ? 

Mr. Cross. I would presume so. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was quite a trip. You couldn't discuss that 
on the phone when you were talking to her about these other things ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you had a trip to — again, I don't think there 
are any vouchers for any of the expenses other than the hotel bill, 
M'hich is $073.31, the air transportation which is $30.14, the tickets, 
$214.50. The rest of it, about $2,700, has no vouchers at all for it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some more here that I would like to go over 
with you. Do you remember going to Ottumwa, Iowa? 

Mr. Cross. Ottumwa? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember going to Ottumwa, Iowa? 

Mr Cross. Yes. I wouldn't Imow the date, but I was in Ottumwa. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVas Kay Lower in Ottumwa, Iowa, with you? 

Mr. Cross. She wasn't with me, but she was in Ottumwa, Iowa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was she discussing Van de Kamp Bakeries there? 

Mr. Cross. Yes ; in conference with Mr. John Nelson. I would like 
it to show right now that there was never a single instance that I 
ever discussed union business or in any of the cities where Miss Lower 
or Mrs. Thorpe was, that there wasn't either Vice President Stuart 
or International Representative Nelson, or Vice President Crawford 
in my company. 

Mr. Ivenxedy. You saw her there, did yon ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get in touch with the hotel and ask that 
they make hotel reservations there for you and Nelson and Kay 
Lower, and that you have adjoining rooms? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't ask that there be adjoining rooms for 
vou and Mrs. Lower ? 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2927 

Mr. Cross. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that seem conceivable ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy, if I might, or Mr. Chairman — I should 
direct my remarks to you^I would like to ask at this particular point 
what the relevance is of the adjoining room question? 

The Chairman. Well, I do not think it needs much explanation. 
You are an adult. 

Mr. Cross. It does to me, sir. 

The Chairman. It does ? Well, the question in here is whether this 
woman was on union business or Avhether you were paying this wom- 
an's expenses for other purposes. That is the plain import of the 
whole thing. I don't know how to make it any clearer. 

Mr. Cross. I have testified to the fact that she was on union business. 

The Chairman. I know you have. Proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. I w^ould like to go back just a bit here to try 
to clear up one point, Mr. Cross. 

What date did you say ]SIiss Lower told you that the Van de Kamp 
Co. sold out to the General Co. ? 

Mr. Gross. I didn't say what day, sir. I said she was the one that 
gave me the advance notice. 

Senator Goldwater. Approximately what date ? 

Mr. Cross. I haven't the slightest idea. 

Senator Goldwater. Could it have been 1954? 

Mr. Cross. It couldn't have been, because they didn't sell out until 
sometime in 1956. 

Senator Goldwater. That is what I wanted to know, 

Mr. Cross. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. "N-Mien did you conclude negotiations with the 
Van de Kamp organization ? 

Mr. Cross. There were two negotiations, one which we refer to as 
the top level, which was the recognition stipulation, and the other 
on the question of wages, hours, and general conditions was concluded 
sometime this year by the local negotiators. 

Senator Goldwater. And when did you conclude negotiations with 
Golden Crust? 

Mr. Cross. With Golden Crust ? I think we concluded and ended 
the strike in May 1956, or something, if my mind is right — my memory. 

Senator Goldwater. How long have you been a member of this 
union ? 

Mr. Cross. I was a member in 1933 and 1934, then dropped out, 
and became a member continuously since 1937 — 1936 ; I am sorry. 

Senator Goldwater. What particular part of this trade did you 
practice ? 

Mr. Cross. I was what they usually refer to as a pan greaser and a 
fruit cook. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember your trip to Ottumwa ? 

Mr. Cross. I remember being in Ottumwa, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you come from Washington, D. C. ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember the trip at all ? 



2928 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Ckoss. I remember being — ^you see, my memory will attach 
itself to meetings rather than to the mode of transportation or to the 
dates, so that I remember Ottumwa because the midwest bakers were 
meeting there. So that is the important part to me, and not how I 
got there or when I got there. 

Mr. Kennedy, I see. 

Our records show that from the 5th of January to the 16th, and 
the total spent was $774.57, including your transportation. 

Mr. Cross. That is quite possible, sir, because there w^ere 35 to 40 
delegates there, and I entertained them all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember you went from Washington to 
Cliicago and then out to Ottumwa ? 

Mr. Cross. Washington to where ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Washington to Chicago, and then out to Des 
Moines ? Do you remember how you went ? 

Mr. Cross. I went by plane. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember if anybody was on the plane that 
you knew, with you ? 

Mr. Cross. No. I think I met John Nelson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember meeting Kay Lower in Chicago ? 

Mr. Cross. I was getting ready to answer you. You ask me and 
then you jump my answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't mean to. Did you meet Kay Lower in 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't recall. I was getting ready to say to the best of 
my recollection that I met Mr. Nelson and Miss Thorpe in Des 
Moines, Iowa, and we drove to Ottumwa. That is the best of my 
recollection. 

They could have gotten on the plane at Chicago and then we drove 
from Des Moines to Ottumwa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember meeting Kay Lower in Chicago 
and she boarding flight 201 with you and you both flew from there 
to Des Moines ? 

Mr. Cross. Does it show Mr. Nelson was with me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Cross. Then I can't recall it. I recall meeting Mr. Nelson and 
Mrs. Thorpe, either in Des Moines — if you say Chicago, I will accept 
it; there is no reason why I shouldn't and we did rent a car in Des 
Moines and drive to Ottumwa, Mr. Nelson, Mrs. Thorpe and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did Miss Lower want to come to Chicago? 

Mr. Cross. I suppose that is the best way to get to Ottumwa. 

Mr. Kennedy. She just couldn't go through Des Moines ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't suppose so, on a direct flight from Los Angeles. 
I don't know. 

(At this point Senators Kennedj^ and Gold water withdrew from 
the hearing room. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to examine these vouchers ? 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Kennedy, again, you mention a figure which, by my 
records here, taken from those, do not reflect the same amount of 
money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do your records show ? 

Mr. Cross. My records here show $620. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that including your transportation ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2929 

Mr. Cross. I don't know, sir. T doubt it very much because tlie 
transportation is always charijed direct to the international office. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is includino; your transportation. 

Mr. Cross. It would be nice if we always said that. 

Mr. Kennedt. You got an advance for $500. Your airline ticket 
was $119.48. You rented an automobile for $34.74. You had addi- 
tional expenses of $120.35, which make a total of $774.57. 

Mr. Cross. So the transportation also included $34 or $35 of the 
rented automobile for three people. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had about $600 to account for. 

Mr. Cross. Five hundred and some odd. 

The Chairman. Do you want those made part of the record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it might be well. 

The Chairman. I hand you a voucher for $500, a voucher for $120, 
plus a hotel item of $15, plane tickets, room rental and paid for rental 
of a car. 

I ask you to examine them and state if you identify them as items of 
expense on the trip referred to. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also did not put in the hotel bill 
of Mr. Cross up in New York, with $130 for the poker room, plus the 
$970. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir ; these are the vouchers initialed by myself and 
Secretary Sims. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 54. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 54" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the hotel bill we were discussing, of the last 
trip to New York. 

The Chairman. I present what purports to be the original hotel 
bill of your trip to New York. I ask you to examine it and state 
if you identify it as such. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. His hotel bill and also the one for Ruth Cross. 

(The witness confererd with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. Mr. McClellan, may I ask Mr. Kennedy a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

Mr. Cross. You are submitting here a hotel bill which you charge 
against me for $2,300 and 32 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I am not. $973 is yours. 

Mr. Cross. But this voucher is for 70 other people. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not including those. Your total is $973. Just 
identify the amount of yours. 

The Chairman, You want to present to him only the vouchers 
charged to him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The $973 to your hotel bill, and $132 for Ruth Cross. Those are 
the only two I am asking about. 

Mr. Cross. You are not including that Sims had one for $650 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. We will ask him about that. 

Mr. Cross. All right. 



2930 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cross. Mr. McClellan, I want to say, in identifying it, to say 
that it does show not only restaurant charges included in this, but 
also shows, if my figuring could be very fast, possibly well over $150 
or $200 in long distance telephone calls, which could be on business at 
that particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am gi\ang you full credit for that. I am saying 
that $2,700 plus that that you don't have vouchers for — I am giving 
you 100 percent credit for $973. 

Mr. Cross. I thank you. Nine hundred and seventy-three dollars 
not only for a hotel, but for long distance calls and food for seven men 
during this entire period. 

The Chairman. The voucher will speak for itself. It has that 
on it. 

Mr. Cross. But the reporters will not see that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You spent $4,069.75 during that trip, and you have 
vouchers from that hotel for $973, which you say was for food, tele- 
phone calls and whatever you have. 

Mr. Cross. That is what the hotel says. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But beyond that, you had $2,500 in advances, an- 
other $221.67 in advances, and I say also you have a voucher for 
$30.14 which is accounted for for your transportation. There is 
$130.13 for Kuth Cross, which was for the poker, and the 22 tickets 
for the football game. 

I say you accounted for some of it. It is about twenty-seven or 
twenty-eight hundred dollars that there are no vouchers for at all. 

Mr. Cross. You are not implying that I didn't account for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you account for it ? 

Mr. Cross. I listed on the voucher exactly what it was for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Entertainment^ Do you have any bills or any- 
thing? 

Mr. Cross. Of course not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am talking about. I would think if 
you spent $2,700, that somebody would want to know where it went. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Those hotel vouchers, the 2, may be made exhibit 
No. 55, and the 1 for the poker room may be made 55-A. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 55 and 55-A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3196-3199.) 

The Chairman. At this moment, the Chair will read to you an 
excerpt from a letter that the committee received, and I will ask you 
to make any comments on it that you care to. You have been in- 
terrogated about this. 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Chairman, is this off the subject of vouchers now, 
on this particular voucher ? 

The Chairman. This is about 

Mr. Cross. Is it on the New York voucher? 

The Chairman. No ; this is not on the New York voucher. 

Mr. Cross. Have we concluded that ? 

The Chairman. I am not sure. 

Mr. Cross. I would like to give a breakdown to show that I did 
break down this money that was spent, to this organization. 

The Chairman. The only question is the $2,700 for entertainment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2931 

Mr. Cross. I have it broken down here, sir. 

The Chairman. You have it broken down ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir, and it is on the voucher. 

The Chairman. Then you mav state what it was for. 

Mr Cross. The expenses of the union Labels department coiiyention 
from the November 28 to the 30th, that was not during the Al L con- 
vention, but was preceding it, entertainment and dinners tor dele- 
gates, international officers, at the New York Hotel btatler, this is 
$672.45. 

From December 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have that bill ? 

Mr Cross. No, sir. I am listing here as to what they were for. 

I know what you said. You wanted receipts for it. I don t have 

the receipts for it. . . . p -^ 

The Chairman. We wanted a voucher, a statement for it, or some- 
thing. 

Mr. Cross. He has it. , , x 

Mr. IvENNEDY. All you do is list in general terms how you spent 
the money. There are no bills or any supporting documents at all. 

Senator Mundt. What are you reading from ? 

Mr Cross. From the breakdown of the voucher he has. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cross, this is very simple. You go up there 
and you spend two-thousand-seven-hundred-and-some-odd dollars for 
entertainment or some purpose. . -, ^ j- 

Now you come back and on your records you show a breakdown ot 
it. But the question is: Do you have any supporting vouchers for 
those expenditures ? • i . i 

Mr. Cross. If you are asking for the entertainment voucher, the 
answer is "No." That has been a practice under this international 
union long before I came in it, under William Schnitzler, under 
President Winter, under President Myrup. They put down only 
what they spent. 

The Chairman. I am not questioning what has been the practice. 
I am simply trying to get the facts in the record. I do not know, 
but it occurs to me that one could come back and say he spent any 
amount. But, if he had a voucher for it, he would have some corro- 
borating evidence. You have kept your books so and your records 
so that no one has anything for that $2,700 expenditure except your 
word. 

Mr. Cross. And those who w^ere w^ith me. 

The Chairman. I do not know wdiat they say. I am talking about 
so far as what the books show. 

Mr. Cross. The books show on the breakdown a Rose Bowl ticket 
expense in California on New Year's Day, which is included in this 
expense. I think it should be shown tliat that is not a New York 
expense. Those were moneys sent to the Big Ten committee in Cali- 
fornia for a New Year's Day 

The Chairman. Well, you sent it from New York, while you were 
up there ; did you not ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes ; because the gentleman needed it in order for him 
to get tickets. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are giving you credit for it. That is not in the 
$2,700. 



2932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cross. There is also an advance of $110 out of this money to 
one of our representatives for his local entertainment at the same 
time. 

The Chairman, Mr. Cross, this is quite simple. If you do not have 
vouchers, you do not have vouchers. But the question is this system 
of bookkeeping, keeping your records, where the officials can go out 
and spend large sums of money, maybe $2,700 is not a very large 
sum — I do not know from the standpoint of your union but it would 
be to a lot of people — you spend the $2,700, and you come back and 
report, so far as your records are concerned, that you spent it for 
this purpose and for that purpose. But jou have no vouchers. 

For your hotel expenses, you had a voucher, showing that you paid 
it, that it was charged to you and you paid it. 

For these other items, you do not have a voucher. I do not know 
whether that is good practice or not, or bad practice, or a common 
practice. But it certainly affords the opportunity if no vouchers are 
provided, it affords the opportunity for a lot of padding to go on 
expenditures. 

Do you agree ? 

Mr. Cross. If you are dealing with a dishonest man. 

The Chairman. I said it afforded the opportunity. 

Mr. Cross. Only to a dishonest person. 

The Chairman. I think it affords it to either. The doing of it 
would be the dishonest act as distinguished between whether it actu- 
ally occurred or did not occur. But the opportunity for that practice 
affords it both to honest and dishonest, does it not ? 

Mr. Cross. You are better at expressing than I am. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Let me ask you about this one letter. 

Wait a moment. We will let you finish that. 

Senator Mundt. He accounted for $700 out of the $2,700 so far, 
$600 for a dinner and $100 for an advance to somebody. 

Mr. Cross. I am sorry. Senator Mundt, $672.45 for the dinners for 
the delegates and the international officers, at the period of November 
28 to November 30, which was a different convention than the one 
Mr. Kennedy asked about. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I included that, November 28 to December 9. 

Mr. Cross. But it was a different convention. And then there was 
the convention expenses for dinners, refreshments, and entertainment 
of our own delegates, the teamsters delegates, the grain miller dele- 
gates, the machinists, the restaurant workers, our Ibakers local rep- 
resentatives, and then for $1,389.62 during this entire period. 

Then there was an item of December 5 to the 9th, which is in addi- 
tion to this, of $549.60, again for gratuities at the hotel during tliis 
entire period, for refreshments and for the dinners for the delegates. 

There was $110 given to an international representative for his local 
expenditures at that time. Making a total of $2,721.67, of which I 
had received an advance of $2,500, saying that when I got back, the 
international issued me a further check for $221.67, 

Senator Mundt, Did you pay this $672 dinner, for example, did 
you pay the hotel that money in cash ? 

Mr. Cross. It was several dinners, sir, and I would pay all of this 
in cash because of the cash advance that was given to me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2933 

Senator Mundt. You could have gotten a receipt from the hotel, 
could you not? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir; it might not have been at the hotel. This is 
partially at the hotel. It might have been at the Latin Quarter in 
New York. It might have been at several of the restaurants in New 
York. It has never been my custom to stop, while paying a check, and 
ask for a receipt at a night club. I doubt if it is many people's ex- 
perience to do that. As Senator McClellan says, whether it is right 
or wrong, that has been the custom and the practice in this interna- 
tional, and I just followed it. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further about that item? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

The Chairman. We have a letter from Jones, White & Johnson, of 
this place in Iowa — Ottumwa 

Senator Mundt. Ottumwa, the home of the oldest packing company 
in the United States. It is the oldest packing in the United States. 
It is an Indian name. 

The Chairman. Let us always remember that. 

Senator Mundt. I should say it has a branch in my hometown. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cross, we have this letter signed by Mr. R. E, 
White to the committee dated June 4, 1957, which says 

The hotel management has made further check in regard to the above matter 
refered to in our recent letter on May 22, 1957. Shortly before .January 13, 
1956, a man who identified himself as J. G. Cross telephoned the hotel and talked 
to the clerk, Doyle Jones, and made reservations for January 13, 1956, for 3 
separate but connecting rooms for 3 persons. One for himself, whom he identi- 
fied at that time as president. Bakers Association of Washington, D. C. ; one for 
John Nelson, and one for Miss E. Lower. They arrived on January 13, 1956, and 
all 3 checked in at approximately 3 : 20 p. m. Mr. Cross was assigned room 618, 
Mr. Nelson was assigned room 616, and Miss Lower room 620. 

Is there any comment you wish to make about it? That is the 
information the committee received. You were being questioned 
about that a while ago. 

The questions were predicated upon this information. 

Mr. Cross. I wouldn't know the arrangements of the room. They 
assigned them. It still doesn't say they were connecting rooms. They 
might have been on the other side of John Nelson's. 

The Chairman. They say they are connecting rooms. 

Mr. Cross. No, they don't. They say 616, 618, and 620. 

The Chairman (reading) : 
For 3 separate but connecting rooms for 3 persons. 

Mr. Cross. And none of the rooms are connecting in the Ottumwa 
Hotel, because there are no doors between the rooms. 

The Chairman. Well, I do not know about the arrangements of the 
hotel. I guess they could not give you a connecting room, then, and 
gave you the next thing to it. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have other vouchei*s. On a trip 
to Miami Beach, February 5 to February 11, 1956, the total expense 
vouchers that were submitted totaled $2,890.15, of which $1,872 was 
entertainment. 

Your room was $54 a day, and we are giving you credit, of course, 
on that. You submitted a voucher on that. You had a cabana for 
$50. Would you like those vouchers? During the same period of 



2934 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

time, or approximately the same period of time, February or Marcli, 
you were in your own home in Palm Beach, Fla., according to our 
records, and "at that time you charged the union $1,070.58 for your 
driving down to your liome in Palm Beach, Fla., and for entertain- 
ment there. 

Mr. Cross. I drew how much for driving down ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want me to go through it again ? 

Mr. Cross. No; just the item for driving down. You are sure it 
wasn't 7 cents a mile for 1,040 miles? 

Mr. Kennedy. The total vouchers that you submitted for your 
driving to your home in Palm Beach, Fla. 

Mr. Cross. From where ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Cross. Was 7 cents a mile at 1,050 miles ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Eight. 

Mr. Cross. I want that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Good. And your charges to the union for driving 
down from Washington, D. C, to your liome in Palm Beach, Fla., and 
j^our entertainment at your home in Palm Beach, Fla., was $1,070.58. 
1 went on to say that from February 5 to February 11, 1956, a trip to 
Miami Beach, "^AFL^CIO executive board, you spent $2,890.15, of 
which $1,872 was entertainment; that your hotel room in Florida cost 
$54 a day, and you had a cabana for $50. 

We are uncertain from the vouchers how long you spent at your 
home in Palm Beach. It is a little confusing. The total of the 
vouchers is $1,070.58, which includes your trip down, 7 cents a mile, 
1,500 miles. 

Mr. Cegss. You are unsure I stayed there, but you are sure I spent 
a thousand dollars while there? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I don't know how much you spent. 

Mr. Cross. You said one thousand-some dollars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are tlie vouchers. 

Mr. Cross. May I see them, if it is while I am in Palm Beach or 
somewhere else ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The first one is for February 5 to February 11. 

Tlie Chairman. The Chair hands you a series of vouchers for differ- 
ent items of expense, including one for $1,000, January 20, 1956 ; anoth- 
er for $822.29 — I am trying to find the date of it. I am unable to deter- 
mine the date of it, but that will identify the amount. 

There are certain hotel bills. There is an item here of $1,055.93 
covering expenses, apparently, of 4 people. 

There is another voucher in the amount of $115.11. 

There is a plane ticket in the amount of $132.33. 

In order to be helpful to the committee, if you can, examine these 
vouchers, the series I am handing to you now, and state if you identify 
them as vouchers you submitted for expenditures or expenses that you 
incurred in Miami Beach in January 1956. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ITvrris. I take it, Mr. Chairman, you meant, February 1956? 

The Chapman. January or February. 

Mr. Kennedy. February 5 to February 11, 1 believe. 

The Chairman. Februaiy 5 to February 11, all right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2935 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Chairman, I don't see anything here in reference to 

Pahn Beach. ^ .• , ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. That is he first one. Is there any question about 

that one? . j; . - 1, 4. 

Mr. Cross. The only question here, Mr. Chairman, is the tact that 
they are initialed by me. However, there are 5 or 6 other gentlemen's 
bills in here which I couldn't identify. . 

Mr. Kennedy. We are just talking about your bills individually. 
We have included just your own bill. 

Mr. Cross. Buton my bill, or some of the charges for these other 
men, such as Mr. Wolffman. 

The Chairman. Well, you paid it. 

Mr. Cross. I wouldn't pay these, sir. That is why I could not 
identify them. These would be shipped to the international office. 

The Chairman. They were charged on your bill. 

Mr. Cross. Mr. Sims would handle the payment of these. 

The Chairman. Did you pay the hotel ? 

Mr. Cross. No. 

The Chairman. It went to the international and was paid there ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are giving you credit for all of your bills. TVlien 
you have something like that, you are much better off. There you 
have vouchers. 

Mr. Cross. I don't feel bad off under any considerations. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have $1,800, approximately, of the $2,890.15, 
$1,800 entertainment at Ciro's, the Latin Quarter, et cetera, for which 
there are no vouchers. 

Mr. Cross. I think, Mr. McClellan, we could save a lot of time if, 
where there are no attached receipts, and they are my initials on them, 
they are my vouchers. 

The Chairman. All right. You identify those as havhig your 
initials on them? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir, but not the hotels. I identify the voucher 
only. These attached things that you have here, there are some of 
tliem I know nothing about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your hotel bill out of that amount is $610.63, out 
of the $2,800. 

The Chairman. Take the hotel bill out. We will introduce that 
separately. 

I do not want the witness to be confused about it. 

If there is anything in there that should not be charged to him, 
let us eliminate it. 

You take those vouchers and pick out the ones which should be 
charged to you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gross, "^^'^lat do you mean by ciiarging to me, sir? 

The Chairman. Well, that you are accountable for, responsible for. 

Mr. Cross. I have identified the voucher and the hotel bill, the one 
tliat is in my name, without the other charges of the other men, is my 
bill. 

The Chairman. It shows on the face of it what part was to the 
other men, does it not ? 

Mr. Cross. I would have to go through it, because it is scattered 
through the bills. .^ 



2936 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I understand, but the items as charged, where 
charged to other men, the bill would show it, would it not f 

Mr. Cross. I am sorry, sir, but either I am confused, or the chair- 
man is. It says Mr. James Cross and then it says Earl Wolffman, if 
I have to go through it, $229 for his room. 

The Chairman. Did you pay for his room ? 

Mr. Cross. You are asking me that, and this bill went to "Wash- 
ington. 

The Chairman. Well, all right. His room was charged on your 
bill, is that right? 

Mr. Cross. According to this. I want it known that I didn't spend 
that type of money, that it was for 5 or 6 other people all the time. 

There are several hundreds of dollars of long distance calls on this 
telephone bill. 

The Chairman. On the hotel bill ? 

Mr. Cross. Eight. 

The Chairman. Well, the hotel bill shows that, does it not? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, but I think it is unfair to me to say six hundred 
dollars-and-some worth of hotel bills and then not say that that there 
are long distance calls for business of this organization and 3 or 4 
otiier men are charged to my bill. 

The Chairman. I do not know how you handled it. 

We are trying to find out. 

Mr, Cross. I had the bill shipped to Mr. Sims in Washington, D. C, 
and he sent a check for it. 

The Chairman. The hotel bill was made out to you, is that correct? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir, I registered in. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The expenses there are $2,819.15, of which the hotel 
bill, we figured, was $610.53, among the items in the hotel bill, is that 
right ? 

Mr. Cross. I show on my recapitulation $1,872.29. 

Mr. Kennedy. Including the hotel bill ? 

]Mr. Cross. Not including the hotel bill, because I don't put in 
vouchers for that. It goes direct to the organization. 

The Chairman. These may be made exhibit 56, and these do not 
include the hotel bills. As I understand it, that is all that is in con- 
troversy. On the hotel bill, the expenses of some others are charged 
to your account at the hotel. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 56'' and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We included air travel, and automobile rental. 

Mr. Cross. I think, Senator McClellan, it might be nice to point out 
that I did not pick the hotel or time of year. It was Mr. Meany and 
Mr. Schnitzler who picked that hotel at that time. I only stayed 
there to be with the council. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pick the cabana, too ? 

Mr. Cross. The cabana is always used for anyone that is there. 
They also have cabanas. That is a common practice. 

The Chairman. These 2 vouchers, do you identify those, the 2 the 
Chair hands you for Palm Beach, $530.95 dated February 26, 1956, 
and the other in the amount of $539.63, dated March 14, 1956? 

I ask you to examine them and see if you identify them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 



MPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2937 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) i i, n 

The Chairman. On identification by the witness, the vouchers shall 
be made exhibits No. 57-A and B, respectively. , , . v 

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room. ) 
(Members present at this point: Senators Ervm, Mundt, and 
Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Kennedy. Are those vouchers accurate ? 

Mr. Cross. I was checking. Both of these vouchers are, with the 
exception of the name that is written on the voucher of March 14, 
195e_I wouldn't deny it, Mr. Kennedy, but neither would I agree 
to it. The one on February 26 is mine, it is my handwriting and 
signed by me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the two ? 
Mr. Cross. One is for $530.95. 
Mr. Kennedy. And the other is for how much ? 

Mr. Cross. The other is during the Miami Beach session of March 
14. The March 14, 1956, date is not mine, was not mine, was not 
written by me, my name was not written by me, and it is not approved 
by me in the normal place. 
"^Mr. Kennedy. How much is that ? 

Mr. Cross. $539.63. . . ^^ ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you do any of the things it says there^ 
Mr. Cross. Yes, I did, because I remember meeting with the Cleve- 
land health and welfare trustees at this particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Vouchers were submitted under your name, anyway, 
for entertainment in Palm Beach for $1,070.58, is that right ? 
Mr. Cross. For a period of approximately a month. 
Mr Harris. Mr. Kennedy, I do not like to interject but I am sure 
vou want the accurate facts here. On the face of the vouchers, it 
appears that that is not entertainment. There is mileage to (jl^B, 
which I believe stands for "general executive board." 
Mr. Kennedy. I think I went through this. 

Mr. Harris. That amounts to $73.50. Motel charge, and a food 
charge. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much is the motel ? 

Mr. Harris. $8. And then there are entertainment charges. 
Mr. Cross. I think it is well to note that on the motel charge, I drove 
from Washington to Palm Beach with one motel charge only. 

Mr. Harris. The total is not entertainment. I think it should be put 
in accurately. 

Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate the correction. ^ i -n » j? 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 57-A and B, tor 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 3200-3201.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I wonder if we can put these records on with a stall 
investigator, and Mr. Cross can examine them as we are putting them 
on. If there is a correction, he can make it then, and we will get 
through these much quicker, particularly as he stated that the 
vouchers with his name on them would be accurate. 

Senator Mundt. It is satisfactory to me, but would it be satisfac- 
tory to Mr. Cross ? 

Mr. Cross. I do not understand what he said. 



2938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. I^NNEDY. We will put a staff investigator on to go through 
the rest of the records that we have. 

Mr. Cross. That is not fair. You get a rest and I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not understand. 

Mr. Cross. I am just kidding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that all right ? 

Mr. Cross. It is all right with me, if that is what you want. 

Mr. Harris. We will be able to examine each voucher I take it '^ 

Senator Ervin. I am certain that if you want to rest, temporarily, 
the committee would grant you that privilege. 

Mr. Cross. I am at the discretion of the committee, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I know all of us get tired. 

TESTIMOIilY OF GEOEGE M. KOPECKY— Eesumed 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. We talked about the ones down until March 5 to 
23, a trip to Miami Beach for the general executive board. As I 
believe the record shows, the total was $4,834.21. 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And the hotel room at that time was $44 a day ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. $44 a day for the hotel room. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And there were 6 cabana charges for $50, for a total 
of $300? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And there was an air ticket, was there not, paid by 
local 37, for Miss Kay Lower ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. The records of local 37 indicate that a check was 
made payable to the airline, and that one of the tickets covered in this 
check was an airline ticket for American Airlines, ticket No. 389964, 
in the amomit of $252.34. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. CROSS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ABRAHAM J. HARRIS— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Miss Kay Lower in Miami Beach at that 
meeting ? 

Mr. Cross. I was not paying any attention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Kay Lower ever in Miami Beach, Fla. ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you discussing the Van de Kamp Bakery at 
that time witli her ? 

Mr. Cross. We were discussing more than that at that time, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In March 1956 ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^^liat else were you discussing ? 

Mr. Cross. We were discussing the inner union political fight in 
local 37 at that particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were discussing that with her? 

Mr. Cross. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. She had had some experience in inner union fights ? 

Mr. Cross. I wouldn't say. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring her from the west coast to get her 
advice on that matter? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 2939 

Mr. Cross. It was very important. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. And the union paid her hotel in Miami 
Beach at that time ? 

Mr. Cross. I don't know. You are asking. Have aou got records 
of it? 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that be the procedure that you "svould follow ? 

Mr. Cross. If she was there at that time, and you are asking me 
awfully fast, if she was there at that time, I recall her being there 
in February or ]March of 1956, and we did discuss the Los Angeles 
local-union political situation, and she discussed it with Mr. Nelson 
and Mr. Stuart and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is Mr. Nelson stationed ? 

Mr. Cross. Los Angeles. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, both of them had to come from Los Angeles to 
Miami Beach to discuss the political situation in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Cross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we have those records made 
a 

Senator Mundt. That will be made exhibit No. 58. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 58" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the hies of the select committee. ) 

Senator Mundt. This lady. Miss Lower; is she an official of the 
Los Angeles union? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What connection did she have with the Los An- 
geles union? 

]Mr. Cross. She was a special organizer for the international union 
in Los Angeles, 

Senator Mundt. And had she organized the specific union that was 
having the difficulty ? 

Mr. Cross. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to determine why she would come in 
with Mr. Nelson. Is he the president of it ? 

Mr. Cross. No. He is an international organizer. 

Senator Mundt. And she is what? 

Mr. Cross. She is a special international organizer. 

Senator Mundt. What was her connection with this local union 
that was in trouble or in controversy? 

Mr. Cross. Her connection? 

Senator Mundt. And his ? 

Mr. Cross. He is assistant trustee of the local union. 

Senator Mund'J'. What w^as her connection ? 

Mr. Cross. Her connection was none, except on special assignment 
as given by John Nelson. , 

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

Senator Mundt. Had he given her some special assignments in con- 
nection with that union ? 

Mr. Cross. As I understand, he had, and we discussed it in Miami 
at this particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is broken dov^n, that $4,834.21, and at one time 
an advance of $1,000, a second advance of $1,000, payment to you for 
mileage, motel, and food, $121.53; your hotel bill at the Monte Carlo 



2940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Hotel included a $500 advance in cash, and the charge of the room 
being $44, and 6 charges of $50 for cabanas, total $2,313.01. 

Automobile rental, which, of course, you have some evidence of, is 
$223.78. Miscellaneous restaurant charges, $60.30. Additional ex- 
penses for entertainment, gratuities, $169.59, and then from Miami, in 
addition to uncovering the fact that there was this ticket paid for Kay 
Lower to come to Miami, for $252.34, she evidently returned to Los 
Angeles and there was a $200 check, or $200 money order, sent to her 
by Western Union which evidently you approved. 

Wliat was that for, the $200 advance? 

Mr. Cross. I don't know. I don't know the dates you are talking 
about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we have t