(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"

JXS^ib 




7~^ 



'[X 



Given By 
U. S. SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS 



^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE ^.a 
ON IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



AUGUST 7, 8, 9, 12, AND 13, 1957 



PART 11 



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




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
89330 WASHINGTON : 1957 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

NOV 18 1957 



SELECT C50MMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 

MANAGEMENT FIELD 

JOHN L,. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman 
IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL B, MUNDT, South Dakota 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLD WATER, Arizona 

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

RoBEKT F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel 
Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk 
II 



CONTENTS 



Area: New York (Teamster Paper Locals) Pag* 

Appendix 4441 

Testimonv of — 

Bellino, Carmine 4334, 4354, 4359, 4360, 4405 

Brier, Abraham 4126 

Cosentino, David 4079, 4083 

Dioguardi, John 4149, 4180 

Doria, Anthony 4237, 4274, 4337, 4341, 4355, 4360, 4392, 4406 

Easton, Frank 4013 

Eltman, Alexander 4076 

Gordon, Nathan 41 34 

Heaton, Earl 4212 

Hermanson, Merrill 4097 

Hodes, Sidney 4117 

Jacobson, Irving 4046 

Laurendi, Natale 4177, 4180 

Lloyd, Frank C 4040,4115 

Reiss, Theodore 4079, 4083 

Santa Maria, Arthur _. 4079,4083 

Schneider, Hermon 4112 

Snyder, George 4028 

Tierney, Paul J 4080, 4112 

Tolkow, Bernard 4063 

Warschauer , Mildred 4431 

Weintraub, Morris 4186 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

41. List of 54 questions asked by staff investigators of officials 

of local 224 during an interview on January 8, 1957 4020 (*) 

42. Letter dated November 29, 1955, to Joint Council 16, 

signed by Joseph Curcio, secretary-treasurer, local 269, 

requesting seating of delegate 4024 4441 

43. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16 from 

Joseph Curcio, secretary-treasurer, local 269, certifying 

Frank Easton eligible to vote in joint council election,. 4024 4442 

44. Letter dated September 30, 1952, addressed to John 

Dioguardi, local 649, from George Snyder 4029 (**) 

45. Letter dated November 17, 1952, addressed to George 

Schneider, local 250, from John Dioguardi, president, 

local 649, with attached bill for $20 4032 4043- 

46. Letter dated October 1, 1952, addressed to Anthony 4444 

Doria from John Dioguardi, local 649 4034 (**) 

47. Application for charter, dated November 8, 1955, for 

local 258, bearing the name of George Snyder 4038 4445 

48. Schedule of workers' salaries from Mr. Irving Jacobson, 

executive vice president, Roto-Broil Corp 4062 (*) 

49. Application for charter, dated November 8, 1955, for 

local 362 4074 4446 

50. Application for charter, dated November 3, 1953, for 

local 284, on which appear the names of Harry Reiss, 

David Cosentino, and Arthur Santa Maria 4086 4447 

51. Application for charter, dated November 8, 1955, for 

local 284 4088 4448 

52. Letter dated November 29, 1955, to joint council 16, 

signed by Harry Reiss, secretary-treasurer, local 284. _ 4089 4449 



rV CONTENTS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

53. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16 from 

Harry Reiss, secretary-treasurer, local 284 4090 4450 

54. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council from 

Harry Reiss, secretary- treasurer, local 284, certifying 
Harry Reiss eligible to vote in the joint council election. 4091 4451 
54A. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16, signed 

by Harry Reiss, certifying David Cosentino as eligible 4091 4452 
to vote in the joint council election 

55. Copy of contract dated March 22, 1956, between Equit- 

able Research Associates Corp. and Florized Presenta- 
tions, Inc 4101 4453- 

56. Contract between Nu-Way Auto School and Local 228, 4454 

United Auto Workers, AFL, known as the "bouncing 

charter," dated December 1, 1953 4113 (*) 

57. Business card, Harry Davidoff, president. Amalgamated 

Workers Union, Local 130, AFL, New York 4114 (*) 

58. Sign reading "Warehouse and Processing Employees 

Union, Local 362-651, I. B. of T., A. F. of L.," which 

was put up over local 228 sign 4114 (*) 

59. Letter dated May 10, 1956, addressed to Nu-Way School, 

signed by Harry Davidoff, secretary-treasurer. Amalga- 
mated Union Local, 649 4115 (**) 

60. Invoice from Daniel Press, Inc., dated December 16, 1955, 

to local 649 for printed signs for locals 355, 269, 258, 

651, and 362 4116 4455 

61. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16, signed 

by Abraham Brier, secretary-treasurer, local 362, certi- 
fying Sidney Hodes eligible to vote in the joint council 
election 4119 4456 

62. Letter dated November 29, 1955, addressed to joint 

council 16, signed by Nathan Gordon, secretary- 
treasurer, local 651, giving list of officers to be seated 
as delegates to joint council 16 4119 4457 

63. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16, signed 

by Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer, local 651, 
certifying Abe Hodes eligible to vote in the joint 
council election 4120 4458 

64. Letter dated December 1, 1955, to joint council 16, 

signed by Abraham Brier, secretary-treasurer, local 
362, giving list of officers to be seated as delegates to 
joint council 16 4129 (**) 

65. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16 from 

Abraham Brier, secretary-treasurer, local 362, giving 
list of officers eligible to vote in the joint council 
election 4130 (**) 

66. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16 and 

signed by Abraham Brier, secretary-treasuer of local 
362, certifying Abraham Brier eligible to vote in the 
joint council election 4130 4459 

67. AppHcation for charter for local 651 dated November 8, 

1955, and list of suggested charter members, together 
with invoice in the amount of $15 for organizational 
fee, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers charter con- 
tract which certifies that Nathan Gordon is secretary- 
treasurer of local 651, dated December 1, 1955 4139 4460- 

68. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16 from 4463 

Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer, giving list of 
officers who are eligible to vote in the joint council 
election 4147 4464 

69. Letter dated February 2, 1956, addressed to jomt council 

16, signed by Nathan Gordon, certifying Nathan 
Gordon as eUgible to vote in the joint council election. _ 

70. Transcript of a telephone conversation between Johnny 

Dio, Carmine Tramunti, Anthony Corallo, and Dick 
Kaminetsky on February 18, 1955 4177 (*) 



CONTENTS V 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

71. Transcript of telephone conversation between Jolmny 

Dio and Carmine Tramunti on August 17, 1955 4180 (*) 

72. Check No. 3597, dated September 3, 1954, payable to 

John Dioguardi. signed by Anthony Doria, secretary- 
treasurer. International Union, United Automobile 
Workers of America . 4182 4466 

73. Excerpts from minutes of international executive board 

meeting held February 1, 1956, at Beverly Hills, 

Calif 1 4203 (*) 

74. Letter dated September 3, 1954, addressed to Earl Heaton, 

signed by John Dioguardi, president, local 649 4219 (**) 

75. Letter dated September 7, 1954, addressed to John Dio- 

guardi, signed by Earl Heaton, international president. 4220 (**) 

76. Settlement agreement and release signed by Earl Heaton 

and Anthony Doria, dated March 6, 1957 4228 4467- 

76A. Promissory non-interest-bearing note for $30,000, dated 4469 

March 6, 1957 4228 4470 

76B. Promissorv non-interest-bearing note for $25,000, dated 

March 6, 1957 4228 4470 

77. Check No. 1168, dated February 11, 1953, payable to 

Anthony Doria in the amount of $1,000, signed by 
Anthony Doria, secretary-treasurer. International 
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, and 
voucher No. 1168, dated February 11, 1953 4271 4471- 

78. Check No. 454, dated June 27, 1955, payable to Anthony 4472 

Doria, special account, in the amount of $5,000, signed 

by Milton Holt 4278 4473 

79. Letter dated July 13, 1955, to Joseph Curcio, president, 

UAW-AFL Amalgamated Local 649, from Anthony 
Doria re UAW-AFL Amalgamated Local 227, regard- 
ing affairs of that union 4292 (*) 

80. Letter dated July 13, 1955, to Joseph Curcio, president, 

UAW-AFL Amalgamated Local 649, from Anthony 
Doria, re UAW-AFL Amalgamated Local 355, carbon 
copy to John Dioguardi 4294 4474 

81. Letter dated July 6, 1955, to Joseph Curcio, president, 

UAW-AFL Amalgamated Local 649, from Anthony 

Doria, re UAW-AFL Amalgamated Local 224 4295 (*) 

82. Letter dated October 21, 1955, to John Dio from Anthony 

Doria, international secretary-treasurer, re per capita 

tax report 4296 4475 

83. Cashier's check No. 564314, dated November 24, 1954, 

pavable to United Automobile Workers Local, No. 110, 

in the amount of $9,620 4323 4476 

84. $10,000 bond, dated September 1943, registered in the 

name of the United Automobile Workers Local 110, 

American Federation of Labor 4337 (*) 

85. Deposit slip on the Bank of America, new account, Inter- 

national Procurement Enterprises, dated Januarv 24, 

1955, showing check 90-1221, amount of $9,620_J 4337 4477 

86. Five bonds of local 790, Meriden, Conn., $1,000 each, 

pavable to the UAE, American Federation of Labor, 

Local 790 4354 (*) 

87. Cashier's check No. 564315, dated November 21, 1954, 

payable to United Auto Workers Local, No. 790, in the 

amount of $4,727 4354 4478 

88. Compilation based on income-tax returns for the period 

1948 to 1952 of Anthony Doria 4355 4479 

89. Certified check No. 6783, dated October 31, 1955, payable 

to Anthony Doria, special account, in the amount of 

$130,000____ 4365 4480- 

90. Labor organization registration forms on which reports 4481 

were filed with the Labor Department for the years 
1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, and 1950, by Inter- 
national Union, United Automobile Workers Union of 
America 4391 (*) 



VI CONTENTS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 
91. Check No. 1099, dated May 21, 1952, payable to L. J. 
Wadsworth in the amount of .$2,000, signed by Peter 

Lentine, treasurer, UAW-AFL Local 286 4401 4482 

91A. Disbursement record No. 7803 dated May 21, 19.52, 
signed by Anthony Doria, secretary-treasurer, local 

286 .' 4401 4483 

[ 92. Deposit slip of First Wisconsin National Bank of Mil- 
waukee, dated January 15, 1954, showing deposits 
totaling $5,556 4404 4484 

93. Letter dated February 11, 1957, addressed to Anthony 

Doria, from Earl Heaton, president. Allied Industrial 
Workers, accepting Doria's resignation as international 
secretary-treasurer 4409 4485 

94. Letter dated May 28, 1953, to John Dioguardi, business 

manager, UAW-AFL Local 102, from Anthony Doria, 
international secretary-treasurer, closing out exjiendi- 
tures of taxi local 4421 4486 

95. Check No. 223, dated January 7, 1956, payable to An- 

thony Doria, special trust account, and signed bv Spiros 

Kallas, in the amount of $11,101.75 _" 1 4422 4487 

i 96. Check No. 20, dated June 21, 1955, payable to Spiros 
Kallas and signed by Spiros Kallas, in the amount of 
$9,000 4423 4488 

97. Undated check No. 2615, payable to Anthony Doria and 

signed bv Spiros Kallas, in the amount of $5,000, cleared 

March 18, 1955 4423 4489 

98. Check No. 108, dated August 14, 1956, payable to An- 

thony Doria and signed bv Joseph Becker, in the 

amount of $4,500 1 4423 4490 

99. Check No. 660, dated August 18, 1956, payable to An- 

thonv Doria and signed by Spiros Kallas, in the amount 

of $600 4423 4491 

lOOA. Letter dated December 1, 1955, addressed to joint council 
16, Martin T. Lacey, president, signed by Harry 
Davidoff, secretary-treasurer, local 258, listing delegates 
to joint council No. 16 4433 4492 

lOOB. Letter dated November 29, 1955, addressed to joint 
council 16, Martin T. Lacey, president, and signed by 
Joseph Curcio, secretary-treasurer, local 269, listing 
delegates to joint council 16 4433 4493 

lOOC. Letter dated November 29, 1955, addressed to joint 
council 16, Martin T. Lacey, president, signed by 
Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer, local 651, listing 
delegates to joint council 16 4433 4494 

101. Letter dated December 1, 1955, to joint council 16, 

Martin T. Lacey, president, from Abraham Brier, 
secretarv-treasurer, local 362, listing delegates to joint 
council No. 16 4434 4495 

102. Letter dated Januarv 27, 1956, to Dave Beck from locals 

258, 269, 284, 362^ and 651, on letterhead of local 269, 

appealing refusal to seat locals in joint council 16 4435 4496- 

103. Letter dated January 27, 1956, addressed to Dave Beck 4497 

from John McNamara, secretary-treasurer, local 295, 

appealing refusal to seat local 295 in joint council 16__ 4436 4498^ 

4499 
Proceedings of — 

August 7, 1957 4013 

Augusts, 1957 4111 

August 9, 1957 4185 

August 12, 1957 4233 

August 13, 1957 4341 

•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 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select CoMMrrrEE on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select coinmittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Eesolution 
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 : Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Irving 
M. Ives, Republican, New York; John F. Kennedy, Democrat Mas- 
sachusetts; Karl E. Mundt, Kepublican, South Dakota; Barry Gold- 
water, Eepublican, Arizona; Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel; Walter R. May, assistant coimsel; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members present at the convening of the session were: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue today what 
we ended with last night on the voting, the individuals that were 
brought into the labor movement by Johmiy Dio, into the UAW- 
AFL, and then were in turn transferred over to the teamsters for the 
purpose of voting in the election. We had one official yesterday, our 
last witness from Local 224 of the UAW-AFL. 

Our first witness today is Mr. Frank Easton, who is president of 
local 224. 

The Chairman. Mr. Easton, come forward, please. 

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

Mr. Easton. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK EASTON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

LEON REICH 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Easton, state your name, your place 
of residence, and your business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, my name is Frank Easton. I live at 321 Wycoff 
Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

The Chairman Will you favor us by telling us your business or 
occupation ? 

4013 



4014 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Eastoist. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You state under oath that you honestly believe 
that if you gave a truthful answer to that question, that such an 
answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Easton-. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You understood my question ? I said you honestly 
believe that if you gave a truthful answer to the question regarding 
your business or occupation, that such an answer might tend to 
incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that I may 
waive my rights. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question as to whether you 
honestly believe that if you gave a truthful answer to the question 
with respect to what is your business or occupation, that such truthful 
answer might tend to incriminate you. 

You are ordered and directed to answer. 

Mr. Easton. Sir 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

IVIr. Easton. Under that direction, sir, and only in view of that, 
I believe it would. 

The Chairman. You know best. All right. Do you have counsel 
with you? 

Mr. Easton. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Reich. Leon Reich, 141 Broadway, New York 6, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to our information, Mr. 
Frank Easton became chairman of the XTAAY-AFL Local 224 

The Chairman. Chairman or president? 

Mr. Kennedy. President of UAW Local 224. When the election 
came up in 1956 and these paper locals were chartered in December 
of 1955, he was appointed as a trustee of the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, Local 269, which was one of the paper locals. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the election in Joint Council No. 16 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In New York City. He wae also listed as a charter 
member of the paper local of the Teamsters No. 269. 

We have here the charter affiliation for the UAW-AFL for local 
224, Mr. Chairman, which lists Mr. Easton's name. It has already 
been marked as an exhibit. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you exhibit No. 38, wliich 
has been previously identified as the official application for charter 
of affiliation. It is for the amalgamated charter No. 224, It is 
noted on this document that the charter was written September 15, 
1953. 

The clerk will present that document to you. 
(Document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. The Chair ask you examine it and state first, 
if you identify the document. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4015 

Mr. Easton". Sir, are you asking me if I identify it or if I have 
examined the document ? 

The Chairmax. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. Easton. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

(At tliis point Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that a truthful answer 
to that question, your identifying the document and saying whether 
you do identify it or not, might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer on 
the gi'ounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us what kind of a racket you have 
been in that causes you to decline to answer, to think you might be 
incriminated if you admitted you were an applicant for a union 
charter ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You could not tell us that without incriminating 
yourself, is that right ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions on the charter? I 
think his name is on it. I want the record to show exactly. 

According to this document, your name appears No. 1, right at the 
top, on the application for this charter. 

Did you apply for this charter, along with the other signers? 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
basis that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your name Frank Easton ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. That doesn't incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The name appears here ; Frank Easton. Are you 
the same Frank Easton whose name appears here? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It appears this charter came through Johnny Dio. 
Do you know Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. There seems to be a lot of folks about to be in- 
criminated in connection with this labor racket going on up there. 
Aren't you proud of being in that racket ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are not proud of it or you would not admit it. 
Is that it? 



4016 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Easton. I decline to answer, sir, on the grounds that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Let me ask him another question. 

Are you now a member of any labor union or labor organization? 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I respectfully ask you if you are now a member 
or if you have been a member of a union organization in the past. 
I ask it just as respectfully as you decline to answer respectfully. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must again respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The committee respectfully needs this information. 
Are you unwilling to give it ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The honest union members of this country, the 
people who are working and paying dues to what they may believe to 
be an honest union, and under the administration of honest officials, 
respectfully, through this committee, request you to give us the in- 
formation we are seeking. 

Will you do it? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my" 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Counsel. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some information that in 
1955, Mr. Easton and his colleagues of local 224 raised some $1,925 
for a souvenir journal, that in 1956 they raised some $810 for the 
souvenir journal, and that that souvenir journal has never been 
published. 

I would like to ask you for any details that you have on that matter, 
please. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Our information is, Mr. Chairman, that this little 
less than $3,000 was raised in 1955 and 1956 for ads in a journal that 
was never published, or has not been published to this time. 

The Chairman. Do you believe that if you raised that money and 
honestly administered it for the purposes for which it was raised, that 
such action might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also have information which in- 
dicates that when our investigators went to visit Mr. Easton, and 
Mr, Seglin, and, I believe, Mr. Reich, the attorney was present, during 
that interview their conversation was bugged. There was a bug put 
in the room to take down the questions that were asked. 

I am wondering, Mr. Easton, if that is correct. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the conversation monitored, the interview that 
Mr. Dunne had with you at that time on January 8 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4017 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must again decline to answer on the basis that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Will you produce the wire, if you took a wiretap of 
it? 

Mr. Easton. Would you repeat the question ? 

The Chairman. Did you take a wiretap of it, of the conversation ? 
Have you got a recording of it ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must refuse to answer on the grounds that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We would be very happy if you would produce it. 
Would you accommodate us ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incrmiinate me. 

The Chairman. Would you not like to hear it played back ? 

Mr. Easton. Is that a question, sir ? 

The Chairman. I thought it was. 

Mr. Easton. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask a question. 

The attorney now with Mr. Easton, was he present during that 
interview ? 

Mr. Easton. Pardon me? 

Senator Kennedy. I am asking counsel. Was the attorney who is 
now representing Mr. Easton present during this interview which 
was supposed to have been recorded ? 

]Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Senator Kjennedy. I would like to ask the attorney if he would 
care to comment on that. Does he know that this conversation was 
recorded unbeknownst to the interviewers or investigators ? 

Mr. Reich. Senator, I tell you unequivocally, the only interview I 
recall being present at was one where the staff members wanted to see 
the books of local 224, where we arranged for them to have complete 
access to all the books and records, and they did have such complete 
access. 

To the best of my knowledge, sir, and to this moment, sir, I have no 
knowledge of any bugging being done or any tapping being done or 
any recording being made in any manner, shape, or form whatsoever. 

Senator Ivennedy. To the best of your knowledge, was a stenotypist 
or a reporter on behalf of the committee investigators present at that 
time? 

Mr. Reich. There was not, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, there was no one taking down 
the questions on behalf of the committee ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Reich. Tliat is correct, sir. My recollection is that merely a 
conversation with respect to arranging for the going over of all the 
books, records, and other data in the possession of the union, which 
was made available. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you recall the questions that were asked? 

Mr, Reich. Honestly, no, sir. 

Senator Kjennedy. Did you take them down? 

Mr. Reich. I did not. 

Senator Kennedy. Did anyone else take them down ? 



4018 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reich. I don't believe they did. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask the counsel why he believes 
they took it down. 

Mr. Kennedy. We subpenaed the records of the international, 
and from the international we got a list of the questions that were 
asked almost verbatim, that were asked during that interview. 

Senator Kennedy. How many questions were asked ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Some 54 questions. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you have an explanation as to how that 
could be done without someone recording it ? 

Mr. Reich. Senator, I have an explanation as to how that could 
have been done and at least a theory of what happened. That is 
from the recollection of someone present, that someone being someone 
other than myself, a list of the questions or the subject matter was 
forwarded to the international. It could have been, sir, and to the 
best of my knowledge it was not verbatim. 

The Chaikman. Did you forward this to the international as at- 
torney ? 

Mr. Reich. I did not, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no knowledge of it ? 

Mr. Reich. No knowledge whatsoever. 

The Chairman. Present tliat to the witness. Let the witness look 
at it. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Did you ever see that document before, Mr. Wit- 
ness? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, will you repeat that question, please? 

The Chairman. Have you seen that document before, the docu- 
ment I presented to you there, a list of questions that was obtained 
from the international files ? 

Mr. Easton. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. And it is purporting to be questions that were 
asked at the time. 

Mr. Easton. Yes, sir; I have. 

The Chairman. You have seen it before ? 

Mr. Easton. I have. 

The Chairman. Did you prepare it? 

Mr. Easton. I dictated it; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You dictated it from a recording you made at the 
time ? 

Mr. Easton. I did not. 

The Chairman. From a monitor of it that was taken by someone 
else? 

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

The Chairman. You dictated it from recollection ? 

Mr. Easton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now I will ask you again the question : Was that 
conversation monitored or was it bugged in any way, a recording 
made of it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Not to the best of my knowledge, sir. Certainly we 
did not record it or buo; it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4019 

The Ctiatrmax. It doesn't incriminate you to say that, does it, if 
that is the truth ? Tliat is Avhat I asked you awhile ago. 

Senator Curtis. Mr, Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did you dictate it? 

Mr. Easton", Do you want the specific name, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. Easton. I believe it was to one of the girls in the office. I 
can't recollect 

Senator Curtis. What was her name ? 

Mr. Easton". I believe it was June Licata. 

Senator Curtis. In what office ? 

Mr. Easton. In my office. 

Senator Curtis. ^Yh?it is the address of that office ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the basis 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion. With the approval of the committee, the Chair gives you such 
order and direction right now. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must again decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Who else was present when you dictated this to 
this stenographer ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must again decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Will the Senator yield ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. I wonder if it would be possible for a member of 
the staff to call this young lady on the phone now and ask her if she 
took that dictation, and, if necessary, to get her down before the 
committee. The witness made a statement which, on looking over 
the 55 questions, I don't think anyone in the world can, by recollection, 
write 55 questions down. 

The staff member present at the interview said they are verbatim. 
I think that is a physical impossibility, but I think we ought to get 
the girl on the phone now and see if she did do that. 

Ml'. Reich. Senator, if I may interject, it is my understanding that 
staff members of the committee have interviewed the young lady in 
question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not on this subject. 
Mr. Reich. That, of course, I wouldn't know. 
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I favor such a proposal. 
The Chairman. The call is now being taken care of. 
Senator Curtis. "Wliat was your answer to who else was present 
when you dictated this ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that I may 
tend to incriminate myself. 



4020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. "Wlio, if anyone, helped you reconstruct these 
questions ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that I 
may tend to incriminate myself. 

Senator Cuetis. But you have testified that you dictated them and 
that you did so from memory or recollection. 

Now I ask you, did anyone assist you in any way to help recall 
what was asked ? 

Mr. Easton. Senator, I must decline to answer on the basis that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How long did it take you to dictate these questions ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Were they typed up more than once before being 
transmitted to the international ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. You testified that you 
dictated it. When you do that, I think the committee is entitled to 
know what followed the dictation and what transpired with respect 
to it thereafter. 

According to you, according to your testimony, it is your document. 
You are the author of it. You have so admitted. 

Therefore, the Chair will direct the witness to answer any questions 
asked him regarding the document. 

That document may be made exhibit No. 41 for the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 41" for ref- 
erence, and may be found in tlie files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Reich. May I, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the record, ob- 
ject to this question, and this entire line of questioning, on the grounds 
that it appears to me to be beyond the scope of the purposes for which 
the Senate has set up this committee, and on the ground that I don't 
know, and fail to see what legislative purpose there can be, or wliat 
the materiality of tliis line of questioning is to the proceedings for 
which this committee was created. 

The Chairman. Objections are overruled. The Chair holds that 
the questions in the document, many of them, are pertinent to this 
inquiry. The answers thereto would be pertinent to this inquiry. 

Therefore, the Chair overrules the objection. 

We will proceed to try to find out whatever we can about the docu- 
ment and how it originated, as has been testified to by the witness, and 
what purpose it served. 

Senator Curtis. These 54 questions, were they in the same order 
when they were transmitted to the international as they were when 
you dictated them the first time ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How did this document get into the hands of the 
international ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. You dictated 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4021 

The Chairjman. Just a moment. With the approval of the com- 
mittee, the Chair orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Easton, Respectfully, sir, I must decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Kennedy. Can you remember any of these 54 questions? 
Could you recall them right today ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. You stated to the committee, without taking the 
fifth amendment, that you had dictated these questions from memory. 
They appear to be, according to our staff, in order and verbatim. It 
seems to me, if you could do that, you could at least today tell us a 
few of the questions you were asked. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. One of these questions. No. 17, was, 

Did you ever organize under another name, such as 224t-A, or something like 
that? 

Did you have any difficulty remembering that number ? 
Mr. Easton. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 
Senator Kennedy. Another question was : 

Do you know anyone by the name of "Ski"' or "Wisiski," or something like 
that? 

Did you have any trouble remembering that ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the last two questions of Senator 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have a question that will not in- 
criminate him. 

Will you repeat the first 54 questions that you have been asked 
today ? 

Mr. Easton. Senator, I must again respectfully decline to answer 
on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That could not incriminate you. Repeat the first 
five. 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. May I ask the staff a question ? 

Did the staff disclose any other documents similar to this when they 
were looking through the files of the International? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the only one similar to this. 

Senator Goldwater. The only list of questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Wlien did Dio tell you to write the questions 
down? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4022 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. He told yon at some time to write them down ? 

Mr. E ASTON. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that not one of the requirements of his 
organization, that any information like this must be passed right 
on up ^ 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. This exhibit appears to be a carbon copy. 

Will you tell us where the original is ? 

Mr. Easton. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
will order and direct you to answer the question. 

First I will ask this question : Do you know where the original is ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair orders and directs you to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kenxedt. Mr. Chairman, moving on to November 8, 1955^ 
when Local 269 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters re- 
ceived its charter, we see that Mr. Frank Easton's name is listed as 
one of those applying for the charter of local 269, one of the paper 
locals, and there is also a Richard Easton listed. We understand Mr. 
Frank Easton has a brother, Richard Easton. 

The Chairman. The other charter was for 224, was it not? 

Mr. Kennedy. 224 was in the UAW, and now it is a transfer of some 
of the names of these UAW locals of Johnny Dio being used as appli- 
cants for the teamster paper locals. Mr. Easton's name, coming from 
UAW 224, was used as an applicant, his name was used as an applicant, 
for 269 of the teamsters. This is November 1955. This is 269 of the 
teamsters, one of our paper locals, who had as the secretary-treas- 
urer, Joe Curcio. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you exhibit No. 39 of the 
evidence previously taken by the committee, asks you to examine it,, 
and state if you identify it. State if your name is on it, if you were 
one of the applicants for that charter. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Would you repeat the question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Have you examined the document presented to 
you ? 

Mr. Easton. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your name on it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4023 

Mr. Easton. Ag-ain, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You can see, can't you ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are not blind, are you? Can you read and 
wl'ite? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you see your name on that document, as one of 
the applicants for a charter? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you got a brother? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is your brother's name ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truth- 
ful answer to the fact as to whether you have a brother, that such an 
honest and truthful answer might tend to incriminate you ? Do you 
honestly believe that? Do you state that you honestly believe that 
under your oath ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRiMAN. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion. I gave that order and direction with the approval of the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Easton. Sir, again I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know if your position is correct, if there is 
any justification for the position you are taking? This must be an 
awful, awful racket, where a man gets so involved that he can't 
acknowledge that he has a brother, and can't tell his brother's name 
without incriminating. It is one of the most disgraceful and shameful 
situations that exists in America today, if you are at all sincere and in 
good faith when you state under oath that you honestly believe that 
if you gave a truthful answer as to whether you have a brother or not, 
such an answer might incriminate you. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Ki:nnedy. Mr. Chairman, a list was furnished to the joint 
council 16 of those who were eligible to vote in the election that was 
to be held on February 14, 1>956, and that list was submitted on 
November 29, 1955, for Local Union 269 of the Teamsters. The list 
was signed by Joseph Curcio, secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Frank Easton's name appears as one eligible to vote with the 
title of trustee. 

The Chairman. Mr. Easton, the Chair presents to you a document 
which is a photostatic copy of a letter dated November 29, 1955, 



89330 — 57 — pt. 11 2 



4024 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

addressed to joint council 16, written bj^ Joseph Curcio, secretary- 
treasurer of local 269, which says : 

"We are submitting the names and titles of the officers of our local union 269, 
and respectfully request these same names be seated as delegates to the joint 
council 16. 

I ask you to examine that document and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Easton. I have examined it, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your name on it ^ 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
basis that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I know that your name is on it if your name is 
Frank Easton, and you know it, too. So I will ask you then, on that 
basis, if you were seated as a delegate. 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you vote at that convention ? 

Mr. Easton. I must again decline to answer, sir, on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If it were true and, of course, it is, that is a tragedy 
of a democracy, to have folks vote in a labor union election, then if 
he admitted it, it might tend to incriminate him. 

That document that has just been identified may be made exhibit 
No. 42. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 42" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4441.) 

The Chairman. I hand you another document, a letter of February 
2, 1956, to the joint council from Joseph Curcio, saying : 

This certifies that the bearer, Frank Easton, is an executive board member 
of our local union 269, and is eligible to vote in the joint council election. 

I ask you to examine that document and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the basis that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That document 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. 4442.) 

The Chairman. Do you know any other man by the name of Frank 
Easton ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the basis that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If that certification is true, that you are a member 
of the executive board of that union and, therefore, a delegate to that 
convention and entitled to vote, I would assume you would know 
whether there is any other Frank Easton who is a member of that 
union. 

I ask you, do you know if there is any other member of that union 
by the name of Frank Easton? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4025 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decliue to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me, 

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

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. ]SIr. Chairman, I might say in that connection, that 
under those credentials a ballot was cast for John O'Rourke iu that 
election that was held February 14 in New York, one of the ballots 
that was impounded. 

There was also a ballot cast from local 258 in the name of Richard 
Easton, which is another one of the paper locals. 

The Chairman. Is Richard your brother ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you call him Dick sometimes ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, are you Richard's brother ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions 
that have nothing to do with these union transactions, but they do 
serve a legislative purpose because I am interested in who carries on 
bargaining, negotiations, and something about their background. 

AVhen were you born ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline — excuse me. I am 
sorry sir. I take that back. 

I was born in 192G. 

Senator Curtis. Where? 

Mr. Easton. In Brooklyn. 

Senator Curtis. What schools did you attend ? 

Mr. Easton. High school. 

Senator Curtis. Did you graduate from high school ? 

Mr. Easton. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How far did you go in school ? 

Mr. Easton. About halfway through. 

Senator Curtis. What was your first job? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Who was your first employer ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you had any training in labor relations ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. When did you enter the field of labor union activ- 
ity? 

Mr. Easton. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Could you tell me why you chose labor union activ- 
ity as your work? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4026 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you one question. I believe you say 
you were born in Brooklyn ? 
Mr. Easton. Yes, sir. " 

The Chairman. Is it safe for the committee to assume then, that 
you had a mother. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you not think that that is a reasonably safe 
assumption ? 

Mr. Easton. I would say that was a reasonable assumption, yes, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Did she have another son besides you ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I think that is a reflection on your mother, if you 
want to leave the record that way. Do you want to leave it that way ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir. I must decline to answer, since my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The record will have to stand, then. 

Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Easton, what work do you do in the 
refrigeration field ? 

Mr. Easton. Senator, I must decline to answer on the grounds that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. I do not see liow that can incriminate you. 
It is a subject that we have interest in. Do you take care of the 
whole job of refrigeration or do you handle just the compressing end 
of it, or what ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Has there been any time in your life when you 
have been arrested ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have any feeling that you might be 
involved with the law soon ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Did Mr. Dio tell you what to say when you 
came down here ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, again I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer maj' tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Can we expect pretty much the same testimony 
from him? 

iNIr. Easton. Pardon me, sir ? 

Senator Goldwater. Can we expect pretty much the same testimonv 
from Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. From your answer, then, I assume that you 
know what Mr. Dio will testify to. 

Mr. Easton. Is that a question or a statement, sir? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4027 

Senator Goldwatek. That was a statement, but I will put it in the 
form of a question if you want to take the fifth amendment on it. 
Do YOU know what Mr. l)io is going to testify to ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Have not all you fellows gotten together in 
the back room up there with Johnny Dio and discussed what you 
would say when you came down here? You would have to have 
a pretty big room. I think there are about 98 of you. 
Mr. Eastox. Again, sir, I must decline to answer. 
Senator Goldwater. You leave the assumption, you leave the pos- 
sibility of assumption, that such a meeting did take place because we 
are getting a rather startling similarity in testimony from you people, 
confined to the usual language of taking the fifth amendment. 

Certainly, you could not have done that on your free will. The 
similariy is too marked. I am inclined to think that you got to- 
gether in the back rooms and Johnny Dio said, "Now, boys, when 
you go down there, don't say anything that will get me in trouble." 
Did he threaten you ? 

Mr. Easton. Sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did orders come down from Jimmy Hoffa for you 
to testify this way, and others ? 

Mr. Easton. Again, sir, I must decline to answer on the grounds 
that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, if they did not, do you not think it would 
be fair to him ? 

Mr. Easton. Pardon me, sir ? 

The Chairman. If he did not send down such orders and you did 
not get such orders, do you not think it would be fair to him for 
you to say that you did not, instead of taking the fifth amend- 
ment ? 

Mr. Easton. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline to answer 
on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say about Mr. Easton that we made an 
examination and have not found that he has been arrested or indicted 
for anything. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Easton, you will remain under your present subpena, subject 
to recall by the committee at such time as it may need further tes- 
timony from you. If you will acknowledge that recognizance, the 
Chair will permit you to go for the present. 

Mr. Easton. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. And you will return upon notice without being 
resubpenaed ? 

Mr. Easton. Yes, sir, I will. 

The Chairman. You will be given reasonable notice. All right, 
you may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we are now going to call jVIr. George 
Snyder, president of Local 250 of the UAW-AFL. He was a charter 
member of Local 258 of the teamsters. 



4028 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Mr. Snyder, come forward, please. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. He is also, Mr. Chairman, listed as president, pres- 
ently, of 362 of the teamsters. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and 
Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Snyder, will you be sworn ? 

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. Snyder. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE SNYDER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ALEXANDER ELTMAN 

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

Mr. Snyder. My name is Joseph George Snyder. I reside at 86-91 
208th Street, Queens. 

The Chairman. Do you want to answer the third part of the ques- 
tion as to what your present business or occupation is ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me, under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairivian. You have comisel with you ? 

Will you answer that? That would not incriminate you. . 

Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Eltman. T am Alexander Eltman, a member of the bar of the 
State of New York. My office address is 350 Fifth Avneue, in the 
Borough of Manhattan. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, our interest in Mr. Snyder originates 
with his getting a charter, requesting a charter, from Mr. Johnny 
Dioguardi, requesting a cliarter for Local 250 of the UAW-AFL, 
which charter was granted on October 14, 1952. 

We have a document here which I would like to have the witness 
identify. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
a letter, dated September 30, 1952, addressee! to John Dioguardi, Ux\^W, 
Local 649, 130 West 42d Street, New York City. 

The letter purports to be signed by George Snyder. Will you exam- 
ine this letter, please, this document and see if you identify it ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I have examined the document and I decline to 
answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think that letter is self-incriminating ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chauiman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question truthfully, that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you? 

Mr. Snyder. It might, sir. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4029 

The Chairman. The letter will be made exhibit No. 44. 

Would you like to read the letter for the record, or would you pre- 
fer to have the chairman read it in your presence? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think it would tend to incriminate you to 
say whether you prefer to have the chairman read it ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it would tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You think it may incriminate you if I read it aloud 
in your presence ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Snyder. It might, sir. 

The Chairman. I am sorry. I will have to do it. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 44" and fol- 
lows.) 

The Chairman. Hand me the letter. 

This letter is dated September 30, 1952. Apparently it is on plain 
stationery. It is addressed to Mr. John Dioguardi, UAW, Local 649, 
130 West 42d Street, New York City. 

Dear Friend John : As per our conversation of the 30th of Septemher, I am 
inclosing a complete data on our membership. We have under contract the 
following firms : 

1. Ledkote Products Corporation, 35-10 Vernon Boulevard, L. I. C. 

2. Metaplast Process, Incorporated, 35-15 56th Street, Woodside, Long Island. 

3. Topps Auto Body Repair, 778 Bruckner Boulevard, Bronx. 

4. Federal Fiber Corporation, 3704 10th Street, L. I. C. 

5. Rockaway Road Manufacturing Co., 104-37 150th Street, Jamaica. 

All these firms combined consist of approximately 300 employees who are dues- 
paying members. 

Thank you for your interest in our behalf toward getting a charter from your 
international and hoping we receive the application form real soon, I remain, 
Yours truly, 

George Snyder. 

With the signature of George Snyder above it. You said you ex- 
amined this letter. I ask you if this signature on the letter is yours. 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You said it might tend to incriminate you if I read 
the letter. Do you feel now that you may have been incriminated by 
the reading of the letter ? 

Mr. Snyder. Pardon me, sir ? 

The Chairman. I said you said before I read the letter that it might 
tend to incriminate you if I read it. Do you feel now that you are 
incriminated by reason of the letter having been read ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of other letters 
here which were subsequent to this and which involved the granting 
of the charter and which show the complete control that Mr. Dio had 
over this local and over the situation in New York. 



4030 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This is local 250. As I said, Mr. Snyder became a charter member 
of 258 of the teamsters and is presently X)resident of local 362 of the 
teamsters. 

Senator Kennedy. Is he in control now of that teamsters' local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is now, presently, according to our records, presi- 
dent of Local 362 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Senator Kennedy. Did this local have seven votes at the time of the 
election ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. And no members at that time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you vote ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Although he was a charter member of the teamsters 
and is presently president of local 362, he didn't vote in the election. 
At least, nobody voted under the name of George Snyder in the elec- 
tion. 

Senator Kennedy. Can you give an explanation for that, if the 
union you w^ere the president of was voting at that time — can you 
answer whether it did vote or whether anybody voted for you or 
whether anybody representing your local voted in the election last 
year for the president of the council, or chairman of the council, the 
O'Rourke-Lacey dispute ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may incrimi- 
nate me. 

Senator Kennedy. You do have that information ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 362 and 258, both of them, voted in the election. 
I will get the names of those. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Snyder was, nevertheless, president of it? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is presently president. 

At that time it listed Sidney Hodes as president. 

As I explained the first day, the key officers of 649, Johnny Dio's 
local, they came down into each one of these locals, 258, 269, 284, and 
362, and then into 269 came a brother of a great friend of Johnny Dio, 
Nat Gordon. You can see how down into 362 came Sidney Hodes, and 
he became president. Then we have about six other names. Abe Brier 
came down, Martin Slanger, George Monica, Stanley Seglin, Joseph 
Consentino, and Jerry Stein. 

Senator Kennedy. Nearly all the officers of 369 became leading 
officers of all the paper unions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right, 258, 269, 284, and 362, and then Gordon, 
a friend of Johnny Dio, became a leading officer at 361. 

Senator Kennedy. The etliical practices committee of the AFL- 
CIO feels tliat any member obliged to take the fifth amendment should 
resign as a member of the AFL-CIO. Do you plan to resign ? 

Mr. Snyder. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you are challenging the report 
of the ethical practices committee and refusing to resign from the 
AFL? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4031 

Senator Kennedy. What is the position the teamsters have taken 
in New York City on this qnestion of wliether a member should con- 
tinue to hold the position of responsibility in a teamster local when 
he comes before a Senate committee and refuses to answer the most 
basic questions ? Do you know what the position is ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. When do you come up for election ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

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

Senator Kennedy. Were you ever elected ? 

Mr. Snyder. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you care to tell the committee how you 
were chosen to be the president ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Did Johnny Dio play a large part in securing 
you the office of president of a teamster local ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr, Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Along the line of the questions of Senator Kennedy, 
it has been my observation here that when international officers wanted 
to remove a president or any other officer, they always had means of 
doing it, by lifting the charter, putting it under trusteeship, or other 
means. 

I would like to ask the staff this question : Based upon Mr. Snyder's 
present connection with the union, who in the international would 
have authority to remove him, should they so desire after his appear- 
ance here before this committee today ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It would be up, I would think, to Mr. Dave Beck to 
take action in that field. 

Senator Curtis. He could, if he wanted to ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. It will be interesting to note what international 
leaders aline themselves with the men and women who work, and who 
pay the dues, whether they are for those people or whether they aline 
themselves with power and moneygrabbing leaders who cannot reveal 
their transactions. 

Would anybody else have any authority in this besides Dave Beck ? 
Does he do it with advice or consent of anybody? 

JNIr. Kennedy. I think he takes the initial action, and then the 
man comes up for a hearing, according to the code, and the individual 
who takes the fifth amendment should have a hearing prior to the time 
he loses his job. He can be suspended in between that time. 

But prior to the time he is released from his job completely, he 
has the right to have a hearing. 

That action should be initiated by Mr. Dave Beck. 

Senator Curtis. It has been gratifying to see that a number of 
important labor leaders have agreed with the necessary role that this 



4032 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

committee plays, in finding out what is going on, and the part coming 
out of these hearings. I hope the labor leaders of America go one 
step further and bring out some reconunendations with reference to a 
change in law. 

I hope they go to the very heart of this proposal, to take away the 
temptation for people to seize power because it does offer an oppor- 
tunity for them to enrich themselves. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of counsel. 

I wonder whether counsel believes that Mr. Dave Beck considers 
taking the fifth amendment a crime sufficiently grave for removing a 
labor leader from office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator Mundt, I haven't seen any particular signs 
that he does so far. 

The Chairman. The Chair will present to you some further docu- 
ments. 

The letter that I first asked you about, which has been made an 
exhibit, has been made exhibit 44 and was dated September 30, 1952. 
I will ask you now to examine this document, which is a photostatic 
copy of the official application for a charter, which bears your name, 
and also your signature as president of local 250, and ask you if you 
identify it It is dated October 6, 1 believe. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I have examined the document and I decline to 
answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature on the document? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think it might incriminate you if you got 
a charter from the UAW-AFL? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Now I present to you the original of a letter dated 
November 17, 1952, on stationery of Amalgamated Union Local 649, 
addressed to you, Mr. George Snyder, signed by Johnny Dioguardi, 
president of "local 649, together with an attached bill for $20 for 
charter and supplies, United Automobile Workers of America, Inter- 
national Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. ^ 

I ask you to examine this letter, which is an original, and state if 
you identify it, if you received it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I have examined the documents, and I decline to 
answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The documents may be made exhibit 45. 
(The documents referred to were market "Exhibit No. 45" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4443^444.) 

The Chairman. You do not want to acknowledge that you received 
that letter? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you mind telling us what there is about 
the letter that might incriminate you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4033 

]Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was it the source of it and the author of the letter 
that you think might incriminate you? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Johnny Dioguardi ? 

]\Ir. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
ro incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mv. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. This former letter that I introduced here, a photo- 
static copy, in which you wrote to Mr. Dioguardi, you said in that 
regarding your conversation of the same date. You were writing a 
letter giving him the list of names. Would you deny that you had 
a conversation with him on that date? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. What is there in connection with your association 
with him and with labor unions that might tend to incriminate you ? 

Can you, in justice and in fairness, and with some decency toward 
the union movement in this country, and toward the honest working 
people, state what there is about your connection with the labor union, 
a labor organization, that might incriminate you if you disclosed it? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever hear of this letter before? I will 
read it to you. It is on Amalgamated Union Local 649. It is dated 
October 1, 1952. The letter reads as follows, and I want to know if 
you heard of this letter before or knew anything about it. I will read 
it to you in full. 

Mr. A>}thony Doria, 

United AutomoMle Workers of America, 

^29 West Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wis. 
Dear Tony : Enclosed herein please find letter of application for a charter to 
be issued in the metropolitan area. I have investigated the people involved 
here and find that they have an excellent labor background and have been func- 
tioning as a labor organization for several years. 

As per your instructions, I emphasized the necessity for proper per capita 
taxpayments, furnishing of copies of all labor management agreements to the 
international, and making themselves available at all times for instruction and 
check by the international as to other records and activities. 

Mr. Snyder and his fellow officers agree to the terms and conditions as laid 
down by the international. 

I urge your valuable action herein as I am convinced that this union would 
be an asset to the international and to the labor movement in this area. 
Fraternally yours, 

Amalgamated Union Local 649, UAW-AFL. 

Printed first is the name of John Dioguardi, and a signature that 
reads "John Dioguardi." 

Do you know anything about that letter ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. This letter, since it has been read into the record, 
rnay be made exhibit 46, for reference only. 



4034 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 46'' for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Snyder, have you any comments you wish to 
make in the face of this evidence ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I assume from that that you have no comment to 
make, because any comment you might make, you think, might tend 
to incriminate you. Am I correct in that ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Snyder, I would like to ask you and then 
perhaps counsel a couple of questions. 

As I understand this, Mr. Snyder was transferred from UAW Local 
250 down to 362 in order to vote in the election between Lacey and 
O'Rourke ; is that correct ? 

(At this point the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. In the original transfer, he became a charter mem- 
ber of 258, but he did not actually vote in the election. He was a 
charter member. He was one of those who requested that a charter 
be granted to local 258, but he did not actually vote in that election. 

Senator Kennedy. But the local voted ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. What was his position ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a charter member. 

Senator Kennedy. How many charter members were there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Seven. 

Senator Kennedy. And they had seven votes? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Then what happened ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Then this Mr. Snyder continued on as head or presi- 
dent of Local 250 of UAW-AFL. 

Senator Kennedy. And he was a charter member at tliat time of the 
teamster paper local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Eight. Two-fifty-eight continued until the middle 
of 1956 with no members. Then in 1956, some members were trans- 
ferred over from local 250. 

No, some members were transferred to 258 from 649. 

Senator Kennedy. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we continue until March of 1957. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand in ISIarch 1957, that as a result of 
the ethical practices report put out by the AFL-CIO, that Mr. Snyder 
and others were let out of the UAW locals, and that they then moved 
over to the teamsters ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. As far as George Snyder was concerned, he 
was president, as I say, of Local 250 of the UAW, and remained at 
that. When the charter was lifted in February or March 

Senator Kennedy. Who lifted the charter ? 

Mr. Kennedy. TJie international board of the AFL-CIO, as a re- 
sult of the pressures put on them by the ethical practices committee. 
One was the situation that existed as far as Incisco, in Chicago, and 
the second was as far as Johnny Dio's activities in New York City. 

Senator Kennedy. Because of Dio's activities ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4035 

Mr. Kennedy. And the control of these charters. 

Senator Kennedy. They lifted the charter of Local 250 of UAW- 
AFL? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Snyder, being a charter member, what did 
he do? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a charter member of 258 of the teamsters, 
but he transferred over then and became president of local 362 of the 
teamsters. He moved his shops over to local 250. From local 250, 
the shops he had there, he moved them over to local 362 of the team- 
sters. 

Senator Kennedy. Was there an election of the shops moved by 
the UAW-AFL? When their charter was revoked by the UAW- 
AFL, for malpractice, did the members of the local vote as to what 
action they would take ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. We have no information that they did. 

In fact, we have information that even prior to this, Mr. Snyder 
had a friend by the name of Murray Silverstein, and Murray Silver- 
stein wanted to start out in the labor movement union. He got a char- 
ter, local 55, from the Jewelry Workers Union. He had a conversa- 
tion with George Snyder and George Snyder then had a number of 
diiferent shops. So he said, "Well, I will give you some of my shops." 

He transferred over a toilet-seat reconditioner, Christmas candy, 
and a drapery maker. 

Senator Kennedy. ^Vhen you say shops, do you mean union mem- 
bers? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask him whether there was an 
election as a result of that transfer. 

Did they chose to move, these three, into Mr. Silverstein's Jewelry 
Workers Union? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir; I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

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

Senator Kennedy. In March 1957, Mr. Snyder's charter at 250 is 
lifted. He then transfers his union members, as I understand, with- 
out an election. 

Was there an election then on the transfer from the UAW to the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. Snyder. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. He then transferred them to Teamster Local 
362, and became president of that. 

Was there an election in March of 1957 when you moved and became 
a president in a teamster local ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask how it was if you were com- 
pletely unacceptable to the UAW-AFL because of your tie-up with 
Johnny Dio, why you were acceptable to the teamsters in New York, 
as president? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 



4036 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. If you are completely unsatisfactory as a trade 
union leader to represent your people, why is it you are satisfactory 
as president of an important local in New York, with all the power 
that gives you ? 

Mr. Snyder. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask what Mr. Snyder's salary 
is from his shop. 

What is your salary? What do your union members pay you in 
salary ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information that we have, as 
president of liocal 250 of the UAW-AFL, he received $250 in salary 
per week, expenses of $65, for a total of $315, a week, or about $16,000 
a year, plus a new car, which he has, an Oldsmobile, and free gasoline. 

In an examination of some of the checks, and I don't believe we 
had all of them, in 1956, out of local 250 we found $18,239.36 going 
to Mr. Snyder in that year. 

Senator Kennedy. Now he is getting this salary as president of 
this teamster local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We knew as president of local 250 he was getting 
this. 

Senator Kennedy. What is your salary now as president of the 
teamster local ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. It is the same shops. Is it reasonable to assume 
that it is about the same salary ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How much do you take out of the union besides 
salary and expenses? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Who signed your papers ? 

I will ask the counsel, who signed his papers when he transferred 
over from the UAW? The first charter, I understand, was the so- 
called paper 1 in March 1956, issued by Mr. Einar Mohn, here in 
Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened. Senator, as far as the transfer, 
was that they just scraped off the No. 250 on the door and wrote up 
362 and he became president of the teamsters local. He was presi- 
dent of the UAW-AFL Local 250, and he scraped the number off the 
door, wrote 362, and became president of the teamsters. That is in 
the early part of this year. 

Senator Kennedy. And, as I understand it, without an election by 
the members? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. The members didn't even know 
they were transferred over. I am not sure all of them know yet, un- 
less they have been informed that their dues are to be paid to 362. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand, the only man that can remove 
Mr. Snyder from his office is Mr. Dave Beck ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 4037 

Mr. Kennedy. The only one that can initiate the action would be 
the international president of the union. He can suspend him and 
he then has a hearing. There is some mechanism set up for a hearing, 
but the action must be initiated by Mr. Dave Beck. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand, the ethical practices committee 
has the binding policy of the AFL-CIO, that any member of their 
union, any officer of the local, who feels obliged to protect himself 
and take the fifth amendment, should not continue as an officer of the 
union and should resign. 

Do you plan to resign ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I think this is a test case of the good faith of 
the teamsters. T hope this committee will keep in touch with what 
is done by Mr. Snyder remaining as an officer of the teamsters in 
New York. 

I would think if he would continue to remain there, and his resigna- 
tion was not asked for and accepted immediately it would be an in- 
dication of bad faith by them. I hope they go ahead and ask for your 
resignation and accept it, Mr. Snyder. 

The Chairman. Would that not also apply to Mr. East on ? 

Senator Kennedy. It would, if he takes the fifth amendment. That 
is against the policy of the AFL-CIO. 

Senator Goldwater. I have a question I wish to direct more to 
counsel, because I don't think we can get much out of the witness 
on it. 

Wlien this paper local existed, local 250 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the UAW-AFL. 

Senator Goldwater. That is what I am getting at. Under UAW- 
AFL 250, what trades were represented in that union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That was not one of the paper locals. 

Senator Goldwater. I am wrong on that. 

In local 250, they had : Dog food maker, ball point pens, optical 
company, printer, notebook manufacturer, crucifix plater, brass 
works, mattress maker, screw machine manufacturer, ball bearing 
company, toilet seat reconditioner, draperies maker, dry cleaner, 
coffee roaster, and aircraft parts manufacturer. 

When it went over to the Teamsters Union 362, did these same 
trades just transfer over by the changing of the number on the door? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, except the toilet seat reconditioner 
and the Christmas candy. Mr. Snyder had already given to Murray 
Silverstein of local 55 of the jewelry workers. He also gave them 
the draperymaker, but the draperymaker refused to go, as I under- 
stand it. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I think this brings up a rather 
interesting point in our investigation, that we will probably have 
to remember when we begin to write suggestions for legislation. In 
my own mind, I do not believe that a teamster union should be al- 
lowed to encompass 10, 12, or 15 different trades, none of them related 
to the teamster movement. In other words, we are going to possibly 
have to consider legislation, where a union is designated as a teamster 
union that they confine their organizational activities to the trans- 
portation field. I want to get that into the record here. It has been 



4038 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

developing over the past few days that the teamsters cover every- 
thing. I am not surprised day by day to find every trade in the 
teamster business. In fact, I do not think so far we have discovered 
any transportation organization under the so-called teamster union. 

I wanted, Mr. Chairman, to bring that out, so that the staff can be 
considering that as we go along. T\nien the time comes to prepare 
legislation, we can consdier the advisability of confining the organiza- 
tion fields of the union to the specific areas that they designate by the 
title. 

The Chairman. The Chair agrees with what Senator Goldwater 
has said. 

The most tragic aspect of this is that these poor working people 
who pay their dues, have to pay to make a living, in many instances, 
are simply pawns in the hands of unscrupulous characters who head 
their labor organization. That is the pitiful thing about it. They 
are probably helpless. I think we have to pass some legislation to 
protect them and, in some instances, to liberate them from this 
vise of evill that now grips them. 

Proceed. 

Are there any other questions? 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask you if you received any 
money from Mr. Silverstein for giving him three shops. 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. On the question of the jurisdiction of the 
teamsters, the question raised by Senator Goldwater, the constitution, 
after giving the list of all of the garage workers, warehousemen, 
stockroom and shipping room employees, et cetra, which indicates 
a rather wide jurisdiction, the last clause states "and other workers 
where the security of the bargaining position of the above classifica- 
tions requires the organization of such other workers," which would 
indicate that they regard their jurisdiction as almost unlimited. 

Senator Goldwater. Senator Kennedy, would you consider a cruci- 
fix plater a tlireat to the organizational ability or jurisdictional 
rights of the teamsters ? 

Senator Kennedy. No; I would not, but evidently they interpret 
that language to do so. Obviously, they interpret it extremely gen- 
erously. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands the witness a photostatic copy 
of another application for a charter, dated November 8, 1955, the 
application for charter 258. It bears the name of George Snyder. It 
is in the jurisdiction for warehouse and processing organizations. 

The Chair presents this to the witness and asks him to examine it 
and state if he identifies it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I have examined the document and I decline to 
answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The document will be made exhibit 47. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 47," for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 4445.) 

The Chairman. Your name appears on that document. Do you 
want to give any explanation of it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4039 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there any legitimate question you would an- 
swer about your associations and your connections with the labor 
movement ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We must assume, then, there are no questions that 
you would answer ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you feel any sense of obligation or moral re- 
sponsibility to these people whose dues pay your salary for represent- 
ing them in a labor union ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. Are we to assume from that answer that you have 
no scruples whatsoever ? 

Mr. Snyder. Sir, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

You will remain under the same subpena subject to being recalled 
when the committee may desire further testimony from you. 

Do you acknowledge that recognizance? 

Mr. Eltman. Yes ; we do. 

The Chairman. Upon reasonable notice you will be required to 
be present. 

Stand aside. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. In reference to the previous witness, Mr. Frank 
Easton, I would like to ask the staff, for the purpose of the record, 
whether or not a charter was issued in response to what purports to 
be an application for a charter, which is committee exhibit 38. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; it was issued. 

Senator Curtis. Who was it issued by ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was issued by Mr. Anthony Doria, of the inter- 
national, through Mr. Johnny Dio in New York City. 

Senator Curtis. What international ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The international of the UAW-AFL, whose head- 
quarters was at that tmie in Milwaukee, Wis., and whose headquarters 
now is in Los Angeles, Calif., with the name of Allied Industrial 
Workers of America. 

Senator Curtis. Who was Anthony Doria ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Secretary -treasurer at that time. 

Senator Curtis. Does a secretary -treasurer have authority to issue 
the charter ? 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the documents that we have, Mr. An- 
thony Doria handled the matters in New York City. The charters 
were handled through him and through Mr. Dio. 

89330 — 57 — pt. 11 3 



4040 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Do you happen to know who signed, the charter? 

Mr. Kennedy. Both the international president, who is now Earl 
Heaton, and Mr. Anthony Doria, secretary-treasurer. 

Senator Curtis. Are those men the present officers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. Anthony Doria resigned in February or March 
of this year, again because of pressure brought on him and brought on 
the union by the AFL^CIO. 

At that time, however, when he resigned, he was promised $80,000 
to leave the union. That is No. 1. 

Mr. Earl Heaton has announced in the last 24 hours or 36 hours — 
they are having their election in this union at the present time — he has 
announced he is not going to run. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I will not take further time. My 
purpose in eliciting this information is that according to exhibit 38, 
w^hat purports to be an official application for charter affiliation under 
the jurisdiction of the International Union of the United Automobile 
Workers of America, affiliated with the AFL, that that application is 
neither dated nor is it signed by anyone. The charters involving the 
rights of workers are being issued on pieces of paper that are neither 
signed nor dated by anyone. 

The Chairman. That is apparent from the document itself. 

Call the next witness, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had some testimony out 
of order by Mr. Harold Krieger, a lawyer and a judge from New 
Jersey, who testified about his connection with Local 355 of the UAW, 
and how Mr. Tolkow and a Mr. Mas had come to him to request a 
charter, and that he, in turn, got in touch with Johnny Dio and the 
charter was granted. 

Today we will have a number of witnesses involving that charter. 
Local 355. The first witness is Mr. Frank Lloyd, a member of the 
staff. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Lloyd. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Kennedy, and 
Curtis.) 

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 but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK C. LLOYD 

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

Mr. Lloyd. Francis C. Lloyd; I am an investigator with the Gen- 
eral Accounting Office, assigned to the committee. 

The CiiATR^rAN. You are presently employed by the General Ac- 
counting Office ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right, sir. 

The Ciiair:man. And you are on special assignment to assist this 
committee? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

The C^HAiRMAN. How long have you been on such assignment? 

Mr. Lloyd. Since November of last year. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4041 

The Chairmax. What is your position with the General Accounting 
Office? 

Mr. Lloyd. I am an investigator, sir. 

The CnAiR3iAN. You are an investigator for the General Account- 
ing Office ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

Tlie CiiAiRAiAN. How long have you been in that position? 

]Mr. Lloyd. Seventeen years. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

JNIr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, we had the 
testimony that Mr. Mas and Mr. Tolkow came to see Mr. Harold 
Krie2:er in New Jersey to get a charter for this UAW local in New 
York City. 

At that time, Mr. Krieger said he got the charter for them through 
Johnny Dio and then he represented local 355 for several months 
afterward. He also testified that he did not get paid for any of the 
work that he did. 

He was asked if he put any money into this local or knew anyone 
who loaned any money to the local to sponsor it, and he said he did 
not. 

I would like to ask Mr. Frank Lloyd if he has made an examination 
of the books and bank accounts of local 355, certain of the books 
and records. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir ; we did, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that this local 355, which received its 
charter in December of 1953 had a considerable amount of money that 
was loaned to it in its early period of time? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what you fomid as far 
as that was concerned ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. In our examination of the records, we found 
that from January 4 to November 11), 1954, the local recorded on their 
books $12,850 in loans. There was no source of these loans indicated. 

In other words, the individual from whom they were received. 
They were still owing as of December 31, 195G, which was the end of 
our audit. 

I asked Mr. Tolkow if he coukl give me the identification of the 
individuals from whom he received this money and he was reluctant to 
do so. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was loans made from January 4, 1954, to 
November 19, 1954, and the total as listed on the books was $12,850,, 
and there was no information as to where the money liad come from? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee how that money was 
loaned, in what form ? Did they receive checks, or what ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Well, we followed through, sir, and we found that, if I 
may look at my notes, that there was $12,100 deposited in the Manu- 
facturers Trust Co., in cash. We examined the deposit tickets and 
$750 was dei)osited in cash in tlie Chemical Corn Exchange Bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a schedule of those cash kxuis to the 
union ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir ; I do. 



4042 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



The Chaieman. I hand you here a document which purports to be a 
schedule of those loans about which you have testified. Will you 
examine it and state if it is correct ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. That is correct? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

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

(The schedule is as follows:) 

Analysis of loans payable account, Allied Industrial Workers, Local 355, L. I. C. 



Date 


Source 


Amount 


Remarks 


19S4 
Jan. 4 


Not shown 


$350 
150 
500 


(') 


n 


.__ do 


(') 


29 


do 


(') 




Subtotal 






1,000 


• 1, 000 




Not shown - .. _ 




Feb. 19 


350 
250 


(i) 


26 


do - 


(') 




Subtotal 






600 


1600 




Not shown _ 




Mar. 4 


250 
250 
250 
250 


(') 


5 


do 


0) 


17 


do 


(') 


25 


___. do 


(') 




Subtotal - 






1,000 


'1,000 




Not shown ... . . . ...._._. 




Apr. 1 


250 
250 
500 
250 
250 


(') 


8 


.__. do -_ - 


(') 


15 


do 


(') 


21 


do 


(') 


30 


do.. 


(') 




Subtotal . 






1,500 


1 1, 500 




Not shown 

do 




May 6 
13 


250 
250 
250 
250 


(') 


21 


do 


(') 


28 


do . 


(') 










1,000 


■1.000 




Not shown -----_ 




June 4 


500 
500 


(') 


21 


.___ do 


(0 




Subtotal --- --..,-.. 






1,000 


1 1, 000 




Not shown ^ __ .._ _. _ 




July 2 


750 
500 
500 


(') 


21 


do 


(') 


28 


.... do 


(') 




Subtotal - 






1,750 


■ 1, 750 








Aug 12 


750 
500 


(') 


17 


do 


(') 




Subtotal . .- 






1,250 


'1,250 








Sept. 16 


750 


'750 




do 

do 




Oct. 4 
22 


750 
750 


(') 
(0 




Subtotal 






1,500 


' 1, 500 




750 
750 


(') 




do 


(') 


19 


1,500 


' 1, 500 




Total 






12, 850 


'12,850 









1 Cash deposit. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4043 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to go on to another subject. Did you 
also make a study of the dues that were paid local 355, particu- 
larly by Roto-Broil ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Roto-Broil Co. ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Roto-Broil Co. has approximately 1,000 em- 
ployees, is that right ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right, approximately, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they pay dues of $4 a month per employee ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And there is a checkoff system? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The dues are taken out of the salaries of the em- 
ployees, is that right ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And those dues are sent into the union ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have you make a report to the com- 
mittee as to what you found as far as the dues that were checked 
off by the Roto-Broil Co. and whether they transferred or transmitted 
that company to the union local 355. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. Well, we examined the books of local 355 
and we found that as of December 31, 1956, $22,944.35 was due from 
J. K. Metals. We also examined the books of J. K. Metals Specialty 
Corp. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Wait a minute. J. K. Metals is one and the same as 
Roto-Broil, is that right ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. I believe they are the parent company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's refer to it as Roto-Broil. 

Mr. Lloyd. All right, sir. 

On the books of the local, dues receivable was $22,944.35 from Roto- 
Broil. 

The Chairman. You are a little too close to the microphone. 
$22,000 what? 

Mr. Lloyd. $22,944.35. 

The Chairman. In other words, the books of the union, as of that 
date, showed this company owed that much dues ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And presumably it had collected that from the 
members ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. There is a discrepancy of approximately $600 as to 
what the company says they owe and what the union says they owe 
them, is that right ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it is approximately $23,000. 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dues collected, the dues taken from the employees 
that worked for Roto-Broil, the amount of money that Roto-Broil 
took out of the employees' salaries, was $3,735 ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 



4044 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

INIr. Kennedy. And the amount that they remitted to local 355 was 
$1,800, is that right? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So they kept $1,935 of the dues for themselves? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is in 1954. In 1955 they collected $33,316.85, 
is that right? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And although they collected this $33,316.85, they 
only remitted to local 355 $28,487.90, is that right ? 

JNIr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They kept for themselves, $4,828.95 ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Li 1956 they collected $51,748.03? 

Mr. Lloyd. Correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they only sent over to local 355 $34,899.70? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Keeping for themselves $16,848.33? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Making a total for that 3-year period of $23,612.28? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They collected $88,799.88, right? 

Mr. Lloyd. Correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they only remitted to local 355 $65,187.80? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 

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

The Chairman. That is according to the books of the company? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. And the books of the union correspond with respect 
to showing about an $800 difference? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So in round numbers there was some how many 
thousand dollars collected from the dues that did not go to the 
union ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Approximately $23,500. 

The Chairman. Did you check on that? Have you any accounting 
as to why it was not paid to the union ? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, sir ; we haven't, other than the fact — well, I believe 
I spoke to Mr. Tolkow and asked him why this money was outstand- 
ing. I believe he said to me at the time that this Roto-Broil was having 
financial difficulties, and he did not want to press them for the money. 

The Chairman. He did not want to press them for the money, so 
they were permitting the company to collect dues from its members 
and use those dues for its private purposes ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And the officers of the union knew about it and 
were consenting to it ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, I mean, yoti talked to the officers of the uiiion 
and they explained that they were permitting them to handle the 
money, to keep the money because they were having financial 
difficulties ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4045 

The Chairman. There might have been a little collusion there; 
AYoiild yoii say? 

Mr. Lloyd. There is a possibility, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Is there any report made to the union member- 
ship to ask them for their consent that the company receive those 
funds ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I don't know that, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you had any record of it ? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You have no report that such a request was ever 
made to the union members? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, sir ; I haven't. 

Senator Kennedy. And you found no such record of any request? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, sir; I did not.- 

Senator Kennedy. Do you know what the company did as far as 
how it kept its books as far as this extra $23,000 which it owed to the 
union ? Did it put it on its books as a deduction or as a transfer of 
funds or on its books did they record that it held back $23,000 ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Well, Senator Kennedy, they received a copy of the 
checkoff list from Roto-Broil and, of course, from that checkoii list, 
I believe that is their control. 

In other words, the dues that they received from Roto-Broil are 
checked off against that checkoff list. 

Senator Kennedy. AVliat I am wondering now is about Roto-Broil. 
How do they keep these funds in their books ? Do they indicate they 
were holding back $23,000 ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. What sort of a category did they have it under ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I think they have it as dues account. 

Senator Kennedy. Dues account? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, there was an obligation on it 
to the union members? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Were they holding it in a fund or had it been 
disbursed for the other expenses? 

Mr. Lloyd. I don't believe it was kept separately, in other words, as 
such. 

Senator I\j:nnedy. In other words, it was used but they kept it on 
their books as a future obligation ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. It was an account payable to the 
union. 

Senator Kennedy. Over a period beginning in 1954, was there any 
indication that they were making — after all, in the last 3^ear they held 
back a rather large sum — was there any indication that they were mak- 
mg any payments or did they have a schedule of payments to liquidate 
this $23,000 ? 

Mr. Lloyd, No, sir, I didn't see any. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, we have a case of a company 
holding back money, which the employees pay as union dues, the com- 
pany using it for their own purposes and union officials agreeing to 
it without any evidence that they made any reports that such a situa- 
tion existed to the union members, is that the situation ? 



4046 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lloyd. I believe so. 

The Chairman. You may have already stated this, but who are 
the officers of this union ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I believe Bernard Tolkow was the business representa- 
tive. I believe it is in the record, Senator. I don't have it just handy. 
1 believe Al Benny Mas was the former president of it. I believe 
Murray Flatow is the president 

The Chairman. That is probably already in the record. I thouo;ht 
maybe you could testify from your contacts with them. 

Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. Did you examine the financial statement of Roto- 
Broil carefully enough to verify whether or not they were making 
money or losing money ? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, sir. Senator Mundt, we did not examine Roto-Broil's 
statement. Our primary function, Senator, was to more or less con- 
firm the outstanding figure against Roto-Broil. In other words, other 
than that we did not 

Senator Mundt. Having confirmed the figure and having had the 
explanation from the union officials that the company was in financial 
straits, I am wondering whether you examined the financial structure 
of the company to determine whether or not in fact they were in 
financial straits, or whether perhaps they were disbursing these funds 
to their stockholders and their officers as benefiting to them rather than 
to the members, 

Mr. Lloyd. No, Senator, we did not. We did not examine the 
financial statement. 

Senator Mundt. I think counsel should pursue that, to determine 
whether or not the company resulted in making money or losing money 
and what happened from this discrepancy. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy, We are having the employer come in, Senator, 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman, Do you have anything further of this witness? 

Mr. Kennedy, No. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside. 

Do you want to call another witness before lunch ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; the employer, Irving Jacobson of the Roto- 
Broil Co. and following him we will have Mr. Tolkow, of the union. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Kennedy, and 
Mundt.) 

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. Jacobson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF IRVING JACOBSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
BENJAMIN MANDELKER 

The Chairman. Will you state your name, your place of residence, 
and business or occupation ? 

Mr. Jacobson. My name is Irving Jacobson, I reside at 900 West 
190th Street ; I am executive vice president of Roto-Broil Corporation 
of America. 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4047 

The Chairman. How long have you been president of tliat com- 
pany? 

Mr. Jacobson. Since 1951. 

The Chairman. 1951. You have counsel present with you, Mr. 
Jacobson ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record, 
please ? 

]\Ir. ]\L\.NDELKER. Benjamin Mandelker, 37 Wall Street, New York, 
X. Y. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been in the Roto-Broil Co. That Roto- 
Broil Co. is made up of about 5 or 6 companies ; is that right ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And you have had that business for how many 
years ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Roto-Broil has been in business since about 1951. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Who are the officers of Roto-Broil ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Albert Klinghoffer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Albert Klinghoffer? How do you spell his name? 

Mr. Jacobson. K-1-i-n-g-h-o-f-f-e-r. His brother, Leon Klinghof- 
fer, and myself, Irving Jacobson. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What is the gross business of Roto-Broil and its sub- 
sidiaries or its connecting companies, per year ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, it has been fluctuating. From the start of our 
business up until the last year, I imagine, approximately, we had done 
$10 million. 

Mr. Kennedy. About $10 million ? 

Mr. Jacobson. About $10 million, approximately. 

The Chairman. By that you do not mean annually, but you 
mean 

Mr. Jacobson. No, I mean for the year 1956. The last year we 
done $10 million. Probably in the first year in business we might 
have done a million dollars and gradually increase it. 

The Chairman. I did not quite understand it. The $10 million 
applies to the year 1956 ? 

5lr. Jacobson. 1956, approximately. 

The Chairman. Was that your largest year? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And in the other 5 years it may have been, and 
was probably less ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Going back to when you started, you say Roto-Broil 
started in about 1951 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. 1951. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What were you doing prior to 1951 ? 

Mr, Jacobson. We had a manufacturing business. We were manu- 
facturing wiring devices, electrical wiring devices. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wiring devices ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Wiring devices. 

Mr. Kennedy. The three of you were in that business ? 

Mr. Jacobson. We were in that business. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees did you have in that busi- 
ness? 



4048 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson, At one time, I imagine we probably had approxi- 
mately 100 workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many employers did you have at the time 
you transferred over to start Eoto-Broil ? 

Mr. Jacobson. At that time, I think it went down to about 25. 

Mr. Kennedy. Business was not quite as good then ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, it wasn't quite as good, and we had intentions 
at that time to diversify our line. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So you had about 25 employees that you transferred 
over to Roto-Broil ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Where did the money come from to finance Roto- 
Broil? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, we had an arrangement with Factors & Co. to 
assist us in a financial situation. They would advance us money on 
the accounts receivable, or else if we had any equipment in the plant 
they would advance us money on a chattel mortgage. In that way, 
we were able to go ahead and operate with additional capital. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the outstanding loans at this time ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Outstanding loans? 

Mr. Kennedy. ^\niat are your loans ? How much are j'our accounts 
receivable ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I imagine our outstanding loans, and various, be- 
tween one and the other, may accumulate over a couple million dollars. 

Mr, Kennedy. You built a building, did you, constructed it? 

Mr. Jacobson. No ; we bought a building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you borrow money to do that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, we did, 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere did you borrow that money ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, we financed it through a first mortgage, a 
second mortgage, and also with financial assistance from the factor- 
ing company. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlio was that? 

Mr. Jacobson. It is A. J. Armstrong, of New York, and also we had 
borrowed money on our equipment from the Sterling Factors in New 
York. 

Mr. Kennedy, And you have a first mortgage ? 

Mr. Jacobson. We have a first mortgage. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much is that first mortgage? 

Mr, Jacobson, The first mortgage is, I think, approximately 
$1,800,000, 

Mr, Kennedy, "Wlio has that? 

Mr, Jacobson. I think it is the Columbia University, New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Columbia University has that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien local 355 started organizing in your plant, 
could you tell us approximately the date that that occurred? 

Mr. Jacobson, They contacted me about 6 months previous to the 
expiration of the contract, and told me that they Avere interested in 
organizing the shop, 

Mr, Kennedy. "When would that have been ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That was in — the contract expired, I think it was, 
October 1954. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 4049 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a contract with another union at that 
time ? 

Mr. Jacobson. We had a contract with another union. 

Mr. 1\J!:nnedy. What union was that^ 

Mr. Jacobson. That was local 377 of the warehouse something. I 
forget now. 

Do you have that? 

Mr. Mandelker. That was the RWDSU, the Retail and Whole- 
sale Department Store Union. 

The Chair]vian. You may advise him of that. 

Mr. Jacobson. It was 377 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department 
Store Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. They contacted you, then, 355 contacted you, then, 
in approximately May, April, or May ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I think it was about March. 

Mr. Kennedy. March of 1954 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they been active in your plant prior to that 
time ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you sure of that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harold Krieger testified yesterday that when 
Mr. Tolkow and Mr. Mas came over to see him in Jersey, in 1953, 
that they already had 200 of your employees signed up. Is that 
possible '( 

Mr. Jacobson. I think that was probably 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. The charter was granted, I believe, December 
31, 1953, and he was consulted prior to the time the charter was 
granted. He said at that time the reason he was interested in it was 
because they already had 200 of your employees signed up. 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, I can't exactly say for 1953. To my knowl- 
edge, I think it was 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the first time that they ever became interested 
in your employees, you say, was March of 1954? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is coiTect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any money from Roto-Broil or from 
yourself loaned to 355 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you loan any money to local 355 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anybody that loaned any money to 
355 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anybody that gave money to local 355 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever give any money to Mr. Tolkow? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anybody that gave money to Tolkow ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does Mr. Harold Krieger have any interest in Roto- 
Broil? 



4050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None at all ? 

Mr. Jacobson. None at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Direct or indirect { 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than the 3 of you, the 2 Klino;hoffer In-others 
and yourself, and the loans that you have made to the Factoring — 
what is the Factoring Co. ? 

Mr. Jacobson. A. J. Armstrong. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the mortgage that exists with Columbia Uni- 
versity, are there any other loans that you have? 

Mr. Jacobson. We have a secured loan for the first mortgage and 
a secured loan for the second mortgage. At that time, I think we got 
the second mortgage from the original owners of the property, which 
was the Swip Co. I think it was the Olin Mathieson Co. that owned 
the Swip Co. We got a second mortgage from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other than that, there have not been any other 
loans ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Outside of the Armstrong Co. and Sterling Factors. 

Mr. Kennedy. And no individuals have an interest in your com- 
pany outside of the three individuals you mentioned ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had some testimony regarding the fact that 
there have been checkoffs of dues for the years of 1954, 1955, and 1956, 
but all of the money that has been checked off has not been remitted 
to local 355. Is that correct? that testimony ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That may be, according to your books. If our 
books show it, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That totals about $23,000. 

Mr. Jacobson. If the books show it, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have conferences with Mr. Tolkow giving 
you permission to check oft' the dues and not remit them to local 355 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I told Mr. Tolkow at the time, when he asked for 
the dues, that the company had financial difficulties and that we had 
problems meeting our obligations. 

Mr. Kennedy. This starts back in 1954. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jacobson, you said in 1956 you did a $10 
million gross business ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I said approximately $10 million; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In your company income-tax returns for that year, 
did you report a profit or a loss ? 

Mr. Jacobson. From what I think, we did not report a profit. We 
had shown a loss. 

Senator Mundt. You showed a loss in 1956 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. 1956. 

Senator Mundt. How about your income tax for 1955 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. There might have been a very small profit. 

Senator Mundt. Very small ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. How about 1954 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. 1954 showed a little profit. 

Senator Mundt. How much, roughly ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't remember. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4051 

Senator Mundt. Small ? 

Mr. Jacobson. A small profit. 

Senator Mundt. A small profit. 

You had a profit in 1954 and 1955. Why were you not able to remit 
to the union the dues that they claimed that you owed them ? 

iNIr. Jacobson. Well, if I remember correctly, the biggest part of the 
money that was due the union came in 1956, and that money that was 
due the union was just an accumulation of 3 months' dues. It might 
have been aj^proximately whatever the books showed, but it was only 
the question of 3 months' dues. You must remember. Senator, that 
we employ over 1,000 people, that the dues amounted to maybe $1,000 
a week, that it wouldn't take very long to get into a $15,000 obligation. 

Senator Mundt. I can understand that. 

What I am trying to get at is this : Is it your testimony that your 
remittances to the union were up to date and current until the year 
1956? 

Mr. Jacobson. The biggest part of it was in 1956. 

Senator Mundt. Were there some outstanding dues in 1955? 

Mr. Jacobson. That I don't remember. 

Senator Mundt. Your testimony was that you made a profit, a 
small profit. 

Mr. Jacobson. A very small profit. But, of course, in expanding 
our business, whatever profit we did make we expanded our business 
with. 

Senator Mundt. And Mr. Tolkow was agreeable to using that dues 
money and expanding the business ; was he ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I wouldn't say he was agreeable, but it was done. 

Senator Mundt. He had no choice ? 

Mr. Jacobson. We had no choice. 

Senator Mundt. What is your total amount of obligation to the 
union at this time ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Whatever the books show, Senator. I don't know, b ^ 

Senator Mundt. You would not deny the figures that you heard \^^^\jrX', 
morning? -^T*- ?. % \ 

Mr. Jacobson. It may be if the books showed that, I would go-'a^H^o ci: ' 
with those figures. '■-^ ^ :^, o '^?1 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. <^* ^ ^ ^, ii Q 4 

Senator Kennedy. What do you mean if the books s^<^i^^^^ ^ >pi 
would go along with the figures ? Do you not know ? ^ %% o~''^- vi'^ 

Mr. Jacobson. I wouldn't know, I say / '^ ^ o ^ ?= '^'^ 

Senator Kennedy. If the margin profit is so smalfe ym\ ^i^t^.iiow %'^ 
pretty much where all these funds are. Do yow^Mpw it* aS spi:Sl(E ^.® 
yourself? -" f^- , ^ %^ ^ ^ I 

Mr. Jacobson. No, I don't know for the exact f0c^^^^U:^ I ^aj^e^ ^ ^ 
books to show it, and if they show it, that is it. 3^* '^^'^ % ^ >^-% % '^'^ 

Senator Kennedy, But you have known;; dt i^n©<^©:W i|ifor^^ ^ '^' 
tion to you that you have been holdingcibafc'^ so^^(3^hes^ unlori 4.ti- 

funds. i ^ '^^ ^ i^a %■ I "^^ ^ 1 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes; I would go along aK^rtlftJiose'^^c^f^ '^- '5 ^-^ ^ 
Senator Kennedy. But I mean yoif kn^pt^t thale^&^^^mt. "^ "^ ';i o ' 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. "^^ %" r^."^ c; ^ Si?- ^ ~^-^^%j 



Senator Kennedy. As I unde&^nd, ;f^ii^H|d an it^-ge'i^nt ^itlP % 
Mr. Tolkow that you would do thi^?5 that iSofi^t? ^i,^"|r.^- ^ §'5i 









4052 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson. I had no airreement with Mr. Tolkow to do it. My 
company was in financial difficulties. We had no alternative. 

Senator Kennedy. What do you mean you had no alternative? 

Mr. Jacobson. The money wasn't there to pay it. 

Senator Kennedy. Where did the money come from? 

Mr. Jacobson. We had problems to meet our payroll. 

Senator Kennedy. If it came from the union dues, it was not your 
money. You were merely the clearinghouse. You had no right to 
it in any way. 

Mr. Jacobson. It came from the union dues. But we did not exactly 
take it. In other words, instead of a man getting $50 a week, which 
we had to give him, we paid him $49. We didn't take that dollar 
from the individual. We just gave him $1 less. 

Senator Kennedy. That is not what you did at all. That may have 
been the effect of it, but you did not cut his salary. You did not go 
to the union members and say, "Because we are in financial difficul- 
ties, we will pay you a dollar a week less." Instead, you took the 
money out of the union dues without telling them; is that not the 
fact? 

Mr. Jacobson. Without telling them, but they jirobable had knowl- 
edge of it. 

Senator Kennedy. Without telling them ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you took the money which they 

thought was going to the union and, under the law, you are permitted 

^-^ be the clearinghouse of this money, the intermediary, but by no 

" "^^■"'^ imagination or by law do you have title to the money. 

'^ ^o the union. This is money belonging to the 

' -finicalities there that I am 



on 



3ple 

the 

from 



> meet- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4053 

Senator Kennedy. Let iis go into the financial difficulties. How 
much money did yon make last year, personally, from the company, 
either in salary, dividends or in any way ? 

Mr. Jacobson. How much I personally made, how much I drew out 
of the company? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Jacobson. Approximately $15,000. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you get any expenses ? 

Mr. Jacobson. $15,000 is what I drew personally for myself. 

Senator Kennedy. Total ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you get anything in salary ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Tliat is the total amount. 

Senator Kennedy. That is the total amount that you reported on 
your income tax from tliis company ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. You got no expenses beyond the $15,000? 

Mr. Jacobson. There were some expenses that the corporation paid, 
whatever was involved. 

Senator Kennedy. How much did that involve? 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. You must remember what the corporation paid 
in the way of your expenses. 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. You do not remember how much money you got 
last year in the way of expenses ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't remember. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get any dividends? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask the staff on the information 
they have, without going into it precisely, if it amounted to a good 
deal more than $15,000 that this gentleman received in either salary 
or expenses from his company. 

Do you have any other source of income ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. So the total amount declared in your income tax 
would be $15,000 ? 

]\Ir. Jacobson. With additional expenses. Just exactly what it is, 
I don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. Could it be double ; $30,000 ? 

Mr. Jacobson, I don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. You do not remember what your income was, 
or income and expense accounts were ? 

Mr. Jacobson. As far as expenses were concerned, I just don't 
remember. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, they are trivial, maybe $500 or 
$800? 

Mr. Jacobson. I imagine it is more than that. 

Senator Kennedy. Maybe $5,000 more ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Maybe; a possibility. 

Senator Kennedy. Or even more? 

Mr. Jacobson. There was quite a considerable traveling involved. 

Senator Mundt. "NYliat was the salary of the Klinghoffer brotliers ? 



4054 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson". We all drew the same salaries. 

Senator Mundt. They got $15,000 apiece, too ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes ; we all drew the same salaries. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand that in — in 1954, you do not know 
what your salary was in that year, do you? 

Mr. Jacobson. In 1954, 1 just don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. Let us say 1955. Your salary was $15,000 in 
1955? 

Mr. Jacobson. In 1955 it might have been a little higher. 

Senator Kennedy. Twenty ? 

Mr. Jacobson. It might have been tAventy. 

Senator Kennedy. Maybe even higher, with expenses? 

Mr. Jacobson. With expenses ; yes. 

Senator Kennedy. That year your company was in such difficulty 
that you took $4,828.95 from the employees' funds while at the same 
time you were taking over $20,000 in salary for yourself. 

Mr. Jacobson. If the figures show it, Senator, I imagine it is 
correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you think that is proper ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, in financial difficulties at the time, when it 
happens, those things will take place. 

Senator Kennedy. You felt that it was all right to take the em- 
ployees' money, but it does not seem to me that you were making a 
great sacrifice on your part, because you were getting over $20,000 of 
the company while taking over $4,800 of their funds. 

Mr. Jacobson. If the books show that we have taken that money 
from them, I imagine that is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Then the next year it amounted to $16,000. 

The fact of the matter is that you do not have any right at all to 
take those funds. They are not yours in any way. You are merely a 
clearinghouse. The Taft-Hartley Act and other laws permit you to 
enter into an arrangement with the union whereby you deduct a certain 
amount from their wages and then pay it over to the union. You have 
no right to it whatsoever. 

If the union gave you its consent by a vote, that would be one thing. 
But tliere is no evidence that they were even informed of what you 
did. You had no right to do what you did. 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, we intend to take care of those obligations, of 
that obligation, and see that the union is paid the money that is owed 
them. 

At the present time, we cannot do it. 

Senator Kennedy. It is getting bigger every year, No. 1, and you 
did not tell them about it. No. 2. 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, the financial difficulties that the company had 
were tremendous. 

Senator Kennedy. You said you made a profit in 1954 and 1955. 
Your business lias gone from $1 million to $10 million. This year, 
is it ahead or behind last year? 

Mr. Jacobson. I didn't hear you. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it aliead or behind last year ? 

Mr. Jacobson. On what? 

Senator Kennedy. Your business. 

Mv. Jacobson. Yes, the volume is ahead. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4055 

Senator Kennedy. From 1954 to 1957 it has f^one up at least 10 
.times. 

Mr. jAcxmsoN. In 195('), Ave went throut>;h what we call a terrific 
competitive battle in onr own industry, and if you are familiar with the 
Eoto-Broil Kotisseries and items that we manufacture, you will prob- 
ably tind that there were all dili'erent prices from time to time because 
of competitive problems that we encountered. For that main reason, 
the company lost a lot of money in 1956, 

Senator Kennedy. You may have lost some money, but I don't see 
takin<^ the union dues in the amount last year of $1(5,000, taking that 
of the union members' money, the employees' money, without even 
tellino- them about it, and at the same time you are taking salaries 
and expenses of over $:25,000, and your partners are doing likewise. 
It does not seem to me to represent a very sound practice. It is a 
crime. What you did is a crime in California. Are you aware of 
that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I am not. 

Senator Kennedy. I think it should be a crime. I do not think the 
committee has run into this particular practice before. I did not think 
there was any employer that ever imagined that he had any right to 
these funds. 

If you had gone to the membership and explained to them your 
financial difficulties and they agi'eed to it, that is one thing. But 
when you did not even go to them and you just took the funds, with- 
out consent, and at the same time you were getting paid a reasonable 
salary with your partners, obviously that is against the whole inten- 
tion of the check-off system. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Are you prepared now to reimburse this money ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Eventually we expect to take care of it. 

The Chairman. I said right now. 

Mr. Jacobson. Kight now ? No, sir. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Jacobson. I think at this time, gentlemen, I should acquaint 
you with the fact that our Koto-Broil Corporation of America is under 
reorganization because of financial difficulties. 

The Chairman. So you are not prepared now to reimburse them; 
is that right? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

The Chairman, You are not prepared now to reimburse them ? 

Mr, Jacobson, We haven't got the money. 

The Chairman. You only have hopes some day of doing it ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. If the company is being reorganized, does that 
mean that the union members may lose this $16,000 or $25,000 entirely ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Senator, they have filed a claim the same as the 
people that we owe money to, our other creditors; they have filed a 
claim for whatever money is due them. 

Senator Mundt. In the unhappy event that your company went 
through bankruptcy, they would get their proportionate amount ? 

Mr. Jacobson. From what I understand, they have already come 
into the picture as a prior claim. 

Senator Mundt. Like a mechanic's lien? 

89330—57 — pt. 11 4 



4056 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson. Not exactly, but at the time of the meeting they 
brought out the fact that they were entitled to a prior claim as to the 
assets of the company. 

Senator Muxdt. That would not be something for you to deter- 
mine, but it would be something for the courts to determine, whether 
they had a prior claim or not. 

Mr. Jacobson. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Do they have anything in the nature of a note, a 
mortgage, or any documentary proof of the obligation ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Whatever is on the books, Senator. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask how much you invested in 
this company. 

Mr. Jacobson. In the Roto-Broil Co. ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Jacobson. There was an investment carried over from the 
original company of $20,000, and there was another additional in- 
vestment of close to approximately $80,000. 

Senator Kennedy. Those are personal funds? You invested 
$50,000 of your personal funds in this company ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I invested part of it, and the Klinghoeffer Bros, in- 
vested the rest. 

Senator Kennedy. The three of you have a total investment in the 
capital of this company of $50,000? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Of this company doing a $10 million business? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. And yet at the same time that you have the 
total of the 3 of you of $50,000, you have taken for your use to main- 
tain the company $23,000 of the employee's funds? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it not a fact that in 1955 you made more than 
$15,000 with the company? 

Mr. Jacobson. I said approximately 15. Is may be a little more. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it not a fact that it was nearly double that? 

Mr. Jacobson. In 1955? 

Senator Kennedy. More than double that? 

Mr. Jacobson. With expenses, do you mean ? 

Senator Kennedy. Let us take your wages. 

Mr. Jacobson. It was a little more. But approximately $15,000. 

Senator Kennedy. And with expenses ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I imagine with expenses, it might have gone to 
maybe 25. 

Senator Kennedy. More than 30, 

Mr. Jacobson. Approximately 25, with expenses. 

Senator Kennedy. Probably nearer 32, is it not ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't remember. 

Senator Kennedy. I would say it is nearer 32 than 25. 

Did your partners get the same salary ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Now that you and your two partners got in 
1955, salary and expenses of over $30,000 on a total investment for the 
3 of you of $50,000, you each got it, $00,000, at that time you felt 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4057 

tliat your company was in such difficulty that it must take from the 
employees $-1,828? 

Mr. Jacobson. Let me point out one thing, Senator, if I may, that 
l)ecause of the fact of reorganization, the court has now directed that 
the officers of the corporation only draw $250 a week, and that is what 
we are drawing. 

Senator Kennedy. What we are talking about is 1955. You and 
your partners did very well out of the company. You made more out 
of salaries and expenses than you had invested. If the company went 
bankrupt today, if you were through, the tirst and second mortgage 
})eople would be taken care of. Would they not come ahead of the 
employees, as far as their $23,000? At what point would they get 
paid off? After the first and second mortgages had been paid off? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. So now the company is going through reorgani- 
zation, and it owes its employees $23,612, and if it went bankrupt they 
would receive their funds only after first and second mortgages w^ere 
paid off? 

Mr. Jacobson. From my understanding, that would be correct 
Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. In the first place, I am hopeful, as a member of 
the Labor Committee, that the California law will become a national 
law, so this will be a crime, what you have done. I am hopeful also 
that you and your partners will, this year, instead of taking your 
generous salary and expenses, will begin to whittle down this obliga- 
tion. I hope that the members insist on it. 

Xow' that the company is in financial distress, perhaps it is impos- 
sible to do it. Perhaps their $23,000 has gone dow^n the drain. It 
may be too late. But it seems to me that you and your partners 
have done very well out of this company for $50,000, having control 
of a company which has a $10 million business, as of last year, and at 
the same time you were making over $30,000 for the 3 of you, and at the 
same time you were taking from your employees $4,800 and said the 
company was in distress. 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, it was in distress. There is no question about 
that. 

Senator Kennedy. The employees were in distress. It does not 
seem to me that you were. 

Senator Mundt. Who filed a claim on behalf of the union? 

Mr. Jacobson. Local 355. 

Senator Mundt. Did Mr. Tolkow sign the complaint ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. When was that filed ? 

Mr. Jacobson. At the same time the other creditors filed their 
claim. 

Senator Mundt. Wlien was that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. This must have been — I think it was around May. 

Senator Mundt. Up until the time he formally filed his claim, what 
1 epresentations had Mr. Tolkow made to you to try to get you to make 
at least a partial restoration of these funds ? 

Mr. Jacobson. As I say, this accumulation of dues were dues ac- 
cumulated over a period of 3 months. Tolkow at the time would re- 
mind me of the oblisiation I owed the union. I reminded him that the 



4058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

company was in financial difficulties and we were doing the best we 
possibly could. 

Senator Mundt. Does that conform with our records, Mr. Counsel '. 
1 thouglit there were dues longer outstanding than 3 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. The dues are outstanding over a period of 3 years. 
That practice has been going on. The total is $23,612, over the 3 
years, which amounts to about 6 months of dues that they owe at the 
present time. 

Senator Mundt. How do we square that statement? 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't know exactly whether that is the correct 
amount. 

Senator Mundt. To recapitulate the situation, you told me that these 
dues had accumulated over a period of the last 3 months, or over a 
period of 3 months. Counsel has said that this represents a practice 
which has been going on for 3 years. The total accumulation of dues 
whidi you owe the union are accumulations which would require 6 
months. 

Mr. Jacobson. There must be some misunderstanding there, Sena- 
tor. To my knowledge, this accumulation is for a period of 3 months. 
It is a question as to whether we owe the exact amount of $22,000 or 
$23,000 that is in question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you. It is 1,000 employees. Thev pav %\ 
a week. That is $4,000 a month, is that right? $4,000 a month? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes ; over a 3-month period would be about $12,000. 
1 imagine, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you owe $23,000. 

Mr. Jacobson. That is questionable. 

JMr. Kennedy. Look at it. It is either $22,000 or $23,000. It is 
either 5I/2 months or 5% months. 

Mr. Jacobson. If that is the correct amount, I imagine it would 
have taken that period of time. But then again, we might have had 
1,200 or 1,300 employees. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. AVhy, in 1055, when you made a profit, did you not 
clean up your accounts with the union at that time ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I think in 1055 we were pretty clean with the union. 
I think all of this money that was owned, practically 95 percent of it, 
came in 1956. 

Senator Mundt. All I know is what they have reported on the books 
here. It shows that in 1954 you owed the union $1,935, and you made 
a profit in 1954, a small profit, you said. 

Mr. Jacobson. There may be some misunderstanding there as to the 
books and what we actually owed the union. If the books showed we 
owed that kind of money, I imagine that is what it is. 

Senator Mundt. That is wliat the books shoAv. In 1955, the books 
show that vou owed the union not the $1,9;'>5, but an accumulated 
amount of $4,828.95. 

Mr. Jacobson. Is tliat at the end of tlie period of 1955 ? 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr. Jabobson. Well, then, it still brings out tlie fact tliat in 1956 is 
when — 

Senator Mundt. In 1955, you made a profit? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes. Well, if the books show \\\, to 1955 a fi<iinv 
there of $4,000 or $5,000, I would as soon go along with tliose figures. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4059 

But also bring- out the point that if there is a $22,000 or $23,000 ques- 
tion there, the biggest part of it came in 1956. 

Senator Mundt. That is right; but the point I am bringing out is 
that when you were making the profit, when you were operating at a 
profit, you were still retaining for the company use, in 1954, $1,935; in 
1955, $4,828.95; and in 1956, you said you were operating at a loss. 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. The funds due were $16,848.3^:. If you were 
( perating at a loss, that I can understand. There seemed to be some 
difliculty in paying the union the money you owed them. But when 
you are operating at a profit, it does not seem reasonable that you 
would have kept the money. 

Mr. Jacobsox. In 1955, there still was a very small profit in the 
fjperations. 

Senator Mundt. About how big a profit was it? 

]Mr. Jacobson. Very small. I don't think we might have made but 
$25,000. A very small profit. 

Senator Mundt. Just hold it. $25,000. That is a small profit, I 
will admit, on the size company that you run. But if you made a 
$25,000 profit, it seems to me that the $4,882.95 should have gone to the 
unionmen whose money you had taken. 

AVhy did you not ])ay them and cut your profit to $21,000 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. It should have been ])aid. That I can't answer, 
why it was not. 

Senator Mundt. You will agree that it should have been paid ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes; it should have been paid. Why it was not, I 
liaven't got the answer for it. 

Senator Mundt. Since 1956, the fi,gure has been growing. There 
is the concept that you can't drain blood out of a turnip. Maybe you 
Avould not pay them when you were making a profit. 

Senator Kennedy. The fact is in 1955 tlie 3 of you paid a profit of 
$125,000. If your profit was only $25,000, and I think it was probably 
]nore, then you each were getting $32,000, wdiich brings you up to 
nearly $100,000. 

So, actually, the 3 of you took out of that company $125,000 at the 
time when you were taking $4,828 otit of the employees. 

I understand these employees are mostly Puerto Ricans, about 90 
percent ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I wouldn't say it was 90 percent. 

Senator Kennedy. What percent? 

Mr, Jacobson. What year are you referring to ? 1955 ? 

Senator Kennedy. Take 1955 or 1956. 

Mr. Jacobson. Taking 1956, I don't think we have at the present 
time 20 percent Puerto Rican help. 

Senator Kennedy. What was it in 1955? 

Mr. Jacobson. It might have been 50 percent. 

Senator Kennedy. What Avas the lowest salary you paid a begin- 
ner in the company ? 

Mr. Jacobson. In what year? 

Senator Kennedy. 1955. 

Mr. Jacobson. In 1955, we had help there before the minimum that 
we were paying 80 cents. 

Senator Kennedy. Eighty cents? That is the beginning. After 
a year what do they get ? 



4060 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson. Then the minimum came along and they got a 
dollar. 

Senator Kennedy. And how 

Mr. Jacobson. We have a scale, Senator, that runs anywhere from 
$1 to $3 an hour. 

Senator Kennedy. How many employees get $3 an hour ? 

Mr. Jacobson. There at one time we had as many as 15, in the 
skilled part of the business. 

Senator Kennedy. I woiild like to ask you if you would provide 
this committee with a register of what salaries you are paying your 
employees now, the union members? My information is that not 
many get $3 or $2, and that the average wage runs between $1.10 and 
$1.50. If that is contrary, I would like to have you provide that 
information. 

Mr. Jacobson. I understand the committee has a copy of the con- 
tract. 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not think it would show how much his em- 
ployees get paid. 

Mr. Jacobson. You have a breakdown as to what the scaling of the 
employees, in the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. But how many employees are in what grade we 
do not have. 

Mr. Jacobson. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would not have that in the contract, so we 
wouldn't know how much your workers actually get paid. 

Mr. Jacobson. We have a departmental scale, and it shows what 
categoiy the worker is in, and what his scale is. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it possible for you to provide that ? If you 
have 1,000 employees, you must have it divided into grades. Could 
you provide us with how many employees are getting $1.10 and $1.20? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, we can get that for you. We can get up the 
figures of how many are getting $1.10, $1.20, $1.50, $1.75, $2, $3. 

Senator Ivennedy. That is fine. 
Do you know George Baker? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you know if he was a friend of Klinghoff er's ? 

Mr. Jacobson. From what I understand, Mr. Dunne was at our 
office, and in the course of conversation while I was there, my partner, 
Albert Klinghoffer, mentioned the fact that he knew him, of only 
going to school with him. 

Senator Kennedy. Has he seen him since then, do you know ? 

Mr. Jacobson. The conversation that he had given Mr. Dunne, 
while he was in his presence, the question was asked and he said, "No.'' 

Senator Kennedy. Are you stating that your partner stated that 
he did not know Mr. Baker since schooldays ? 

Mr. Jacobson. If I remember correctly, he mentioned the fact that 
he went to school with him. 

Senator Kennedy. I think what is interesting about this is that 
Mr. Tolkow, who is the head of the union, who is tied up with Johnny 
Dio, through a variety of circumstaces, finally got to be the head of 
your union, even though when you started, as I understand, you had 
another union representing your workers. 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 4061 

Senator Kennedy. And that it has been this union, with Mr. Dio's 
friend and associate Mr. Tolkow, the nnion leadersliip, whicli has 
permitted you to engage in this practice wliich we discussed this 
morning, of taking union funds and using them for your own 
purposes. 

Mr. Jacobson. I didn't get the question. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Dio's friend, Mr. Tolkow, permitted you tO' 
do that, is that correct ? He agreed to this procedure ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Tolkow ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Jacobson. Agreed to use 

Senator Kennedy. Agreed to your taking these union dues. 

Mr. Jacobson. You misunderstood. I never said he agreed to it. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not tell him ? 

]Mr. Jacobson. You are asking me a question. I said Mr. Tolkow 
never agreed for us to hold back the union dues. 

Senator Kennedy. He did not know about it ? 

iSIr. Jacobson. He knew about it, but he didn't tell us it was the 
right thing to do. 

Senator Kennedy. It was not the right thing to do. 

Mr, Jacobson. To hold back the miion dues. 

Senator Kennedy. '\'\^iat did he do about it ? 

Mr. Jacobson. There wasn't much he could have done about it. We 
didn't have enough money. 

Senator Kennedy. We already discussed that in 1955 you had 
enough to pay yourselves $125,000. 

What did he say then ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, that I don't think was brought into the ques- 
tion, Senator, as to what we were getting. 

Senator Kennedy. So he never asked you that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. He never asked the profits or if the company 
was making profits ? 

Mr. Jacobson. He asked if the company was making a profit, but 
he didn't get into a personal issue as to what we were drawing out of 
the company. 

Senator Kennedy. "WHien you told the company was making a 
profit, he did not ask you to pay back these funds ? 

Mr, Jacobson, We were not in a position to pay it back. We said 
we would pay it back. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Kjennedy. I think this story he has told us is a disgraceful 
story. I hope Mr. Tolkow can throw more light on it. 

I want to ask the witness to provide this salary schedule, 

I want to see how many of your employees are getting $3 an hour. 

The Chairman. Provide that schedule as of today, the basis of 
their wages as of this date. That will be provided under oath. 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, We will give you a schedule of the workers' 
salaries and what they are getting, how many workers are getting so 
much, and so on, right down the line. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

And that will be part of your testimony here under oath, when sub- 
mitted. 



4062 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. How long will it be before we can get that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Jacobson. I imagine it would take about a week or 10 days, 
Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you have an IBM machine ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlien it comes in, it will be made exhibit No. 48. 

(The document referred to was made exhibit No. 48 for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. In 1955 and 1956, that was the time they were with- 
holding the dues, Mr. Chairman, and I think the breakdown would 
be best for that time. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to get 1955 and 1956, too. 

The Chairman. Do you want 1955 and 1956 ? 

Senator Kennedy. And 1957. 

The Chairman. The 3 years. All right. 

Mr. Mandelker. As of what dates in 1955 and 1956 ? 

We would have to take some particular dates. 

Senator Kennedy. What is your normal year? 

Mr. Mandelker. You can take any date at all, Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. We will take May 1, and then we will get into 
1957. 

Mr. Mandelker. May 1, 1955; May 1, 1956; and the current date, 
today's date in 1957? 

The Chairman. Make it May 1 all the way through. 

Is there anything further? 

Mr. Jacobson, you will stand aside for the present. Further testi- 
mony may be needed from you this afternoon as we progress with other 
witnesses. 

In the meantime, the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 35 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess : Senators McClellan, 
Kennedy, and Mundt. ) 

afternoon session 

The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. 

(Members present at the convening of the session were Senators 
McClellan, Ives, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon we went into 
the granting of the charter for Local 355 of the UAW-AFL, and Mr. 
Krieger testified that Mr. Tolkow and Mr. Damas came over from 
New York to New Jersey and saw him and asked him to get them a 
charter. He contacted Johnny Dio and through the international 
got a charter for Mr. Tolkow and Mr. Damas. 

Thereupon, they started this organization drive on the Koto-Broil 
Co. We have Mr. Tolkow here who will be the next witness and 
who, of course, will be questioned about how he got the charter and 
he will be questioned about the organizational drive of 355, and then 
ultimately he was on the charter application for local 362 of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, and we will want to know what 
information he has about that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4063 

The Chairman, Mr. Tolkow, come around, please, sir. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD TOLKOW, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
ALEXANDER ELTMAN 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. ToLKOw. Bernard Tolkow, 7317 I7lst Street, Flushing, Queens. 

The Chairman. Your business or occupation ? 

Mr. ToLKow. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are another one of them, are you? You have 
your lawyer? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Your lawyer, will you identify yourself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Eltman. Alexander Eltman, member of the bar of the State 
of New York, 350 Fifth Avenue, Borough of Manhattan. 

The Chairman. Do you state under oath that you honestly believe 
that if you gave your business or occupation that the truth would tend 
to incriminate you ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. It might, sir. 

The Chairman. You really believe that ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, it may. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have a little bit of your background, Mr. 
Tolkow ? You were bom in New York City, were you ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tolkow. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. Did you go to school in New York City ? 

Mr. Tolkow. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Wliat was the question ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Whether he went to school in New York City, and 
I question whether he can refuse to answer that question on the 
ground it might incriminate him. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question as to whether you went to school in New York City, that 
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you, and do you so state 
under your oath ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, it might. 

The Chairman. It might? 

Mr. Tolkow. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you know anyone who has been incriminated 
by going to school in New York ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer that question on the ground 
it might tend to incriminate me. 



4064 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Well again, the Chair will put the question. Did 
you attend school in New York City ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
is going to order and direct you to answer that question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer on the ground it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, after Mr. Tolkow grew up, he 
went to work and we understand he also became a member of the 
Communist Party. Is that correct, Mr. Tolkow ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer that question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How long were you in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tolkow. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you still a Communist ? 

Mr. Tolkow. I decline to answer that question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That would not incriminate you, being a Commu- 
nist. You don't mean to imply that, surely, do you ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. We understand he was a member of the East Side 
Club of the New York Communist Political Association in 1945, and 
in 1946 he signed nominating petitions for Benjamin Davis, Com- 
munist Party candidate, in both 1945 and 1946. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you in a labor union at the same time you 
were in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1949, he was a sponsor of demonstrations in Foley 
Square, protesting the trial of the 11 national leaders of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Is that correct, Mr. Tolkow ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator I\'es. I would like to ask the witness if he was ever a mem- 
ber of the American Labor Party up in New York. 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of anything that you will admit 
being a member of ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. May I ask another question. I would like to ask 
the witness if he is a Democrat ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4065 

Mr, ToLKow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. I will be* fair about it, and I would like to ask the 
witness if he is a Republican? 

Mr. ToLKOw. I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It is pretty apparent that you are a fifth-amend- 
ment artist ; you can't deny that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was a signer of a brief amicus curiae in 
the appeal of contempt citation of the lawyers who represented Foster 
and the rest of the Communists. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. I didn't get that question. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you sign a brief amicus curiae, friend of the 
court, in 1949 and 1950, regarding the contempt citation against the 
lawyers who represented the Commmiists, the 11 Communist lead- 
ers ? 

Mr. ToLKow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. If you saw your signature on that petition, would 
3'ou be proud of it? 

Mr. ToLKow. I decline to answer the question on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we understand also Mr. Tolkow contributed 
$500 to the civil rights congress bail fund which was set up to supply 
bail money for the national leaders of the Communist Party. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. ToEKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the groimd it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you take that money out of union dues or 
union funds? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If you did, do you not think the union members 
are entitled to know it? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I am giving you an opportunity now to deny it so 
you can tell them that you did not. Do you want to take advantage 
of the opportunity and deny it? 

Mr. ToEKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also understand that Mr. Tolkow 
became a member of District 65, Distributive, Processing, and Office 
Workers of America, up in New York City. 

Were you a member of district 65 ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there a number of other Communists in dis- 
trict 65 at the time ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 



4066 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And we understand while a member of district 65^ 
Mr. Chairman, he went at the end of 1953 and saw Mr. Harold Krieger 
over in New Jersey, and requested a charter for the UAW-AFL and 
that charter was granted to him, local 355, is that correct? 

Mr. ToLKow. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the charter was granted to you at that time 
for the purpose of organizing the Roto-Broil Co., about which we have 
had some testimony this morning. 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did Judge Krieger know you were a Communist 
when you went to see him ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, according 

The CiiArRMAN. Are you a member of a labor union now? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir^ I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you an officer in any labor union now ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you employed by any labor union or organiza- 
tion now ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What do we have on that. Mr. Counsel? Is he in 
a labor union at this time? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is in local No. 355, independent, Mr. Chairman, 
which was formerly one of the UAW-AFL locals, and whose charter 
was later lifted in the early part of this year. 

He was also, and which is of interest to us, he was one of the charter 
applicants for local No. 362 of the teamsters, and the charter was 
granted to local No. 362. He was one of the charter applicants at 
that time, which, of course, turned out to be a paper local. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we understand from the testimony this morn- 
ing that between January 4, 1954, and November 19, 1954, some $12,850 
was loaned to local No. 355, and this was during the period of time 
you were making the drive on Roto-Broil, attempting to organize 
Roto-Broil. 

Can you tell the committee where that money came from ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not your own money ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we know that all of that money was deposited 
in the bank account in the form of cash, $12,800 in the form of cash. 
Could you tell the committee where you got all of that cash? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did it come from Johnny Dio? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4067 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know who it came from ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, based on testimony this morning, we learned 
that at the end of 1955, for the months of November and December, 
some $3,735 was collected in dues by Roto-Broil, but only $1,800 was 
remitted to local No. 355. 

That left a balance due to the union at that time of $1,935. Mr. 
Tolkow, would you tell the committee what you know about that? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have information that Mr. Tol- 
kow, of course, as an officer of local No. 355, had information about 
this, and he condoned it, and, also, in 1955, he condoned the company, 
keeping $4,828,95 of union members' money, and, in 1956, $16,848.33 
of union members' money, making a total for the 3-year period of 
$23,612.28. 

Can you tell the committee about that ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was that arrangement made so that you officers 
could get a kickback out of that money and not have to account for 
it ? Is that a part of your scheme and racket ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It might, but I am asking you. Do you want to 
take advantage of the opportunity to deny it? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you make a report on this to the union mem- 
bership, on the fact that the company was holding back some of the 
union dues? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(At this point, Senators Curtis and Mundt entered the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you know at the time that the company 
was taking $4,828.95 of union dues in 1955, that the 3 owners together 
were taking in salaries and expenses $100,000, and that they were 
making a profit of at least $25,000, and that nevertheless, they felt 
the company was in such difficulty that they took $4,828.95 for the 
company's use? 

The testimony this morning was that they had informed you of 
this. Did you protest it? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it mav tend to incriminate me. 



4068 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Did you Iviiow what the sahiiies were, the fact 
that they were receiving ahnost $100,000 while they were taking $4,828 
of the members of your union's money for the company use? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. You heard the employer, and he answered all of 
these questions. so that now he has put it all in the record. He in- 
formed us that he had told you about it and you were familiar with 
it and you were the head of the union and so it seems to us that we 
we are entitled to some explanation from you. 

You do not feel you can give it ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand it, he is still the head of the 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, he is now head of local 855, which is independ- 
ent, but he was one of the applicants on the charter for Local 362 of 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Senator Kennedy. You have no affiliation now, of this local? 

Mr. ToLKow. I didn't get the question. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you have any affiliation with the AFL or 
CIO? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ToLKOW. I decline to answer the questions on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand from the counsel, the charter 
of 355 has been lifted by the AFL. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was lifted by the international of UAW-AFL, 
because of pressure brought on them bv the ethical practices com- 
mittee and the AFI^CIO. 

Senator Kennedy. And now this local has no affiliation? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Does it have any other groups associated with 
it other than the Roto-Broil group ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Roto-Broil makes up approximately 90 percent of 
their membership. They have a small number of other shops. 

Senator Kennedy. When do you come up for election again? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Ciiair:man. You never have been elected, have you? It could 
not be "again." 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I didn't get the question. 

The Chairman. You never have been elected, have you ? 

Mr. ToLKOw\ Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, I understand you liave not been elected, 
but you have been appointed. 

He has been appointed by the governing grou}) of the UAW-AFL ( 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand now he is business manager and that 
position is the highest position in the union. Originalh' we believe, 
he was appointed by the executive board of the international, but I do 
not know the details. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4069 

Senator Kenxedy. Since your local was tlirown out of the AFI^- 
CIO. you are still business manager, as I understand. Have you had 
any elections in the union or who made you business manager of the 
new local ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it nniy tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexxedy. We had some infornudion, also on this: You see, 
he was an applicant on the charter for .*H)2 of the teamsters, he and 
the other members of 355. We understand Mr. Tolkow used the 
system of sending in two of the representatives from 355 who had 
come in, Scott and Flatow. 

Scott and Flatow would come into a shop and say they were repre- 
senting the teamsters and demand to organize the shop. Then Mr. 
Tolkow would Avait a couple of days and then he would go into the 
shop and say, "I am representing UAW-AFL. I understand the 
teamsters have been here, but I can give you a better contract than 
they can." 

Senator Kennedy. And less wages. 

]Mr. Kennedy. And it would be an organization from the top down, 
with management, and he would say, "The teamsters are a powerful 
uniori and will cause you trouble, but you sign up with me and it will 
be much easier for you and better for yon." 

Then the management would sign the contract wnth him, and he 
would say, "When the teamsters come back you can tell them you have 
already signed up with the X''AW-AFL." 

We understand he used that system in a number of different shops. 

Senator Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Tolkow, in reference to your attorney, Mr. 
Eltman, I have noticed him here at least on one other occasion repre- 
senting a client in the same occupation that you are in. Could yon 
tell me if ]N[r. Eltman's fees are laeing ])aid by you or by the union? 

Mr. Eltman. Senator, I am perfectly prepared to answer any 
questions. 

Senator Goedwater. I asked Mr. Tolkow, and I will get to you. If 
he takes the fifth, I will come over to you and give you a chance to 
answer it. 

Mr. Tolkow, do you want to tell me about that ? 

Mr. ToLKOw\ Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Noav he passed the ball to you. 

]Mr. Eltman. I would appreciate if you would ask me that question. 

Senator Goldw^\ter. I am interested in whether you are represent- 
ing Mr. Tolkow as an individual or whether you are representing the 
union that he represents in appearing here with him today. 

]\Ir. Eltman. I can answer the question this way: Up until now, 
up until today, I have done certain work for the union, and I have been 
paid by the union. The question of who is going to pay for my appear- 
ance here, and it will be ])aid, has not occurred to me, nor have I as 
yet discussed it with Mr. Tolkow. So, in all honesty, I can tell yon I 
don't know. But up until this point I have received certain fees 
from the union, and I have performed certain services for the union. 



4070 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. That is for the work you have done prior to 
today, 

Mr. Eltman. Prior to appearing here with Mr. Tolkow ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you optimistically thinking you are going 
to get paid for these services ? 

Mr. Eltman. I intend to render a bill, and I hope that the bill will 
be paid. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have any idea whether you will receive 
a check for that bill from Mr. Tolkow and — I forget the other gentle- 
man who was with you this morning — will the check come from their 
individual accounts or will it come from a union? 

Mr. Eltman. Senator, honestly, I hadn't given thought with respect 
to whom I would send the bill, or from whom the check would come. 

Senator Goldwater. I think you can understand the importance of 
it, because what we are trying to do here is to find legislative ways of 
protecting the dues money of these people that belong to the unions. 
Certainly you are entitled to be paid for this, and I am not being 
critical of you in any way at all. Neither would I be critical of you 
if you took the money from the union. But I would certainly be 
critical of the union. Because we have a man here today that only 
understands a part of the fifth amendment and ^^■on't tell us anything, 
1 have to impose on you, and I don't like doing it. 

I am wondering if you would be so kind as to let this committee 
know by letter, when you do get paid, whether it was paid out of the 
pockets of these individuals or whether it came out of the union funds. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Eltman. Will you excuse me a moment ? 

Senator, I assure you that the whispered conversation had nothing 
to do with the manner in which I intend to answer your question. 

Senator Goldwater. Is he going to send you a bill ? 

Mr. Eltman. I had already formulated the response to your ques- 
tion before Mr. Tolkow whispered something to me. I will be very 
happy to inform the committee concerning the manner in which I 
decide to render my bill and who pays it. 

Senator Goldwater. We would appreciate that. You would con- 
tribute quite a bit to the investigation, because we have found other 
cases where the unions have paid the fees ; and, in fact, there was one 
case lately in Washington where they not only paid the attorney's fees, 
but they paid witness fees, and quite a sizable amount. 

Mr. Eltman. If you will forgive me for a moment. 

Senator Goldwater. Your lawyer wants to talk to you a moment, 
Mr. Tolkow. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Tolkow, are you married ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tolkow. I respectfully decline to ansAver on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Is your wife watching this today? Is she 
sitting up in New York with a television set watching you, and you 
don't want to say if you are married to her or not? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4071 

Senator Goldwater. I don't know about you, but I would tliiuk a 
long time before I would deny it if my wife was sitting up someplace 
watching. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you ever receive any fees from the Roto- 
Broil Co. itself, legal fees 'i 

Mr, Eltman. There was a lawsuit instituted by me on behalf of a 
group of employees back in 1954, I believe, the latter part of 1054 or 
early part of 1955. I sued Roto- Broil and I sued Mr. Damas, who was 
the president of the union there. I compelled the repayment to cer- 
tain employees of money that had been taken out of their pay envelopes 
for dues allegedly. 

The company repaid certain sums of money to the employees. As 
part of the settlement, and it is a matter of record — there was a settle- 
ment, and it is a matter of record — there was a stipulation entered 
into, I believe it was filed, under which I received a check for my fee. 

At that time, when the question came up, I insisted that I would take 
no fee from any of the employees. The question was raised that I 
ought to get a percentage of all of the money paid back to the em- 
])loyees, and 1 took the position then that I would have no part of it. 
One of the defendants was going to pay me my fee. One of the 
defendants did. 

Senator Kennedy. You were representing the union employees in 
that case, and the employer paid your fee; is that correct? 

Mr. Eltman. As a statement, that is basically correct. Senator, but 
it doesn't go far enough. 

Senator Kennedy. Go further with me and tell me where I am 
wrong. 

Mr. Eltman. I instituted a class action on behalf of certain em- 
ployees to compel repayment to them of moneys which had been 
deducted from their pay. As I stated, as a result of the action, con- 
ferences were held, and the settlement was entered into. As part of 
that, my fee was paid. It was paid by a check issued to me in my name 
by the Roto-Broil or "J. K.'' — and I don't know what the corporate 
identification was. 

But it is a conmion practice, and there is nothing unusual about it. 
Where lawsuits are settled it is done by the thousands, not only in 
Xew York, but throughout the country, that the defendants will pay 
for the fees of plaintilfs. 

Senator Kennedy. You have been the union's attorney since 1954? 

Mr. Eltman. I will say that on and off I have represented this 
union, and I am not and I have been not on regular retainer with 
them, but on occasion I have been called in. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the total amount that you secured for 
the employees in this case^ 

Mr. Eltman. I don't know, but may I ask Mr. Tolkow? I have no 
idea M'hat the total amount was for this reason : The agreement pro- 
vided that each of the emj^loyees was to go to the personnel office of 
Roto-Broil, and upon presentation and upon signing of a general 
release would get a check for all of the money that had been deducted 
for the particular period and I forget just what the period was. 

Now, the union notified all of the employees who were involved to 
go up to Roto-Broil and I understand when they did go they got this 
check and what the total of that is, I don't know. 

89330— 57— pt. 11 5 



4072 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. What did you do ? 

Mr. Eltman. I beg your pardon? 

Senator Kennedy, What did you do? 

Mr. Eltman. My services was to compel the employer to do this. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you have taken it to court ? 

Mr. Eltman. I instituted the lawsuit and the summons was served 
on Eoto-Broil and the other union and several extensions of time were 
granted for interposing an answer, and the attorneys got together 
and we decided that the action should be settled. 

Senator Kennedy. This was for union dues funds, you say ? 

Mr. Eltman. My recollection is this, that it was for the recoupment 
of dues that were deducted by Koto-Broil and being held in escrow 
by it. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, we have been given some figures, and this 
is in addition, as I understand it. This is in addition to the fund we 
have been talking about in 1954 where the company deducted $1,935. 

Mr. Eltman. This was in relation to the prior union and had 
nothing to do with 355. 

Senator Kennedy. I see. 

Mr. Eltman. This was dues that had been taken out pursuant to 
an agreement between Roto-Broil and the union that had been in there 
previously. It has nothing to do with 355. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you tell your client when he took over this 
union that this company had been doing this in the past and did you 
warn them about it? 

Mr. Eltman. He knew all about it. 

Senator Kennedy. He knew all about it ? 

Mr. Eltman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. He knew all about this practice? This had 
been a practice that Roto-Broil had been going through for some tune 
before and they continued to do it, and you have been the attorney 
for the miion and you collected a substantial fee from the company 
and did you inform the union members that the company was con- 
tinuing to do it? 

Mr. Eltman. Sir, you are confusing one situation with another. 
I must suggest to you that the two are separate and distinct items. 

I was brought into this to institute a lawsuit on behalf of certain 
employees against the company and a union. I have forgotten the 
number of the union. It was 377. 

I was successful in that lawsuit, even though it never went into 
court. I received my fee. The employees received the money that 
was coming to them. As far as I was concerned, that is the end of 
one state of facts. 

I did not become or did not do any work for this union, for 355, 
until sometime thereafter, and it had nothing to do with the ques- 
tion of dues payments. However, I must say to you that I have par- 
ticipated very recently in efforts to recoup money which had been 
held by the company, such as you were discussing today. I appeared 
on behalf of local 355 at the first creditors' meeting held in New 
York of the creditors of Roto-Broil. 

I attended as counsel for local 355. The sum involved as I recall 
it was not anywhere near what was discussed this morning. It is my 
recollection it was less. I put myself on record with all of the creditors 
and I took the position that I would not consider lo^al 35^ iust a^ *»-~ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4073 

ordinary creditor, that this was trust funds held by the company and 
I insisted upon it. 

As a matter of fact, I even threatened a strike at that meeting and 
if I am not mistaJven that threat was published in Retailing Daily. 
I never saw a copy of it, but a reporter did interview me by telephone 
and asked me how it was going, because I told the creditors I was 
not to be put in the same position as every other creditor. 

As a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, these union funds 
with respect to creditors stands in the same position as the United 
States Govermnent. We are prefered creditors and there is no doubt 
but that when the estate is settled, the money will be paid to the 
union. 

Senator Ejennedy. Does the Government have a claim in there for 
back taxes ? Do they have a lien on this company ? 

Mr. Eltman. On the basis of what I have heard, I can say, "Yes," 
and I do not have any independent knowledge. 

Senator Kennedy. Is that a couple of hundred thousand dollars? 
Is the lien for taxes, back taxes 

Mr. Eltman. Again, based upon what I had heard at that meet- 
ing, I believe it was for back taxes. 

Senator Kennedy. You must have looked it up. Representing the 
employees, and they have $25,000 involved, and so you must know 
whether there is a lien of $250,000 by the Federal Government on this 
company. 

Mr. Eltman. Senator, I made no independent search. 

Senator Kennedy. Are you prepared to tell me that you do know 
or you do not know how much is the lien that the Federal Government 
has on this company ? 

Mr. Eltman. That is precisely it. 

Senator Kennedy. You have no idea what the figure was ? 

Mr. Eltman. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. It has been published in Dun & Bradstreet. 

Mr. Eltman. If it has I have not seen it. 

Senator Kennedy. You are not aware of it ? 

Mr. Eltman. I am not aware of it. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a document. 

The Chairjman. The Chair presents to the witness a photostatic 
copy of application for a charter dated November 8, 1955, purportedly 
for charter 362, Warehouse and Processors, on which the witness' name 
appears and I ask that he examine this document and state whether 
or not he identifies it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. ToLKOw. Wliat w^as your question, sir ? 

The Chairman. I directed you to examine the document and state 
whether or not you examined it. 

Mr. ToLKow. I have examined it, sir, and I respectfully decline to 
answer the question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think that document might tend to incrimi- 
nate you? 

Mr. ToLKOW. It might, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, let us look at it, and examine it a 
moment. Your name appears to be on it, does it not ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



4074 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the oround it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you see ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I can decline to answer the question on the ground 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you read l Can you read your own name ? 

Mr. ToLKOW. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, let me have the document. 

That document may be made exhibit No. 49. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 49'' for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4446.) 

Senator Mundt. Before you leave that document, I have a question. 
I will question the man with a glass of water in his hand, as I did not 
get your respective names. 

I am confused because normally when you have a witness who will 
not testify, he gets counsel from his lawyer and it appears to me in this 
case that the lawyer is getting counsel from the witness, because I see 
him whispering to him and I am not sure which is which at the 
moment. 

Mr. Eltman. Senator, I am counsel for the witness, and my name 
is Alexander Eltman, E-1-t-m-a-n. 

Senator Mundt. You have been responsive and I wanted to ask you 
a question. You said you had appeared before the creditors" meeting. 

Mr. Eltman. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. And I was going to ask you this question : At whose 
request did you appear before the creditors' meeting? 

Mr. Eltman. I appeared at the request of the union. 

Senator Mundt. Well, did an officer of the union make the request, 
or was there a meeting held and they requested you to do so? 

Mr. Eltman. Actually, there were several officers who discussed 
this matter with me and as a result of that conversation, I appeared 
at the creditors" meeting. 

Senator Mundt. Would you mind telling the committee who those 
officers were ? 

Mr. Eltman. I ask you, Senator, to bear in mind that an attorney 
always has a problem as to when he violates the confidence that a client 
reposes in him. I am clutyboimd to respect that confidence, and at 
the same time I have no desire to appear uncooperative. 

Senator ^Iundt. It would not seem as if it would be a state secret 
to tell lis who the officers were who asked you to appear. 

Mr. Eltman. It might, for the reason. Senator, that these officers 
could conceivably, although I do not say it would be the fact, say to 
me, "W^ien we told you we were officers of this union, we did not 
want anyone else but you to know it."" 

Now, I don't know whether that is the fact but it is conceivable. 

Again, at the risk of appearing uncooperative, and I have no desire 
to, I must ask you. Senator, not to force me to possibly violate the 
confidence of tlie client. 

Senator Mindt. Maybe you can answer this question without 
violating the interests of your client : Are the officers of the particular 
union whose interests were involved at this creditors" meetinp- in some 
way a secret group unknown to the general })ublic? That disclosure 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4075 

would be a violation of a secret relationship between the lawyer and 
client. 

Mr. Bltman. Frankl}', I don't know^ how to answer that question, 
sir. I can only say this, that I did have a discussion with the officers 
of the union and I did ajjpear at a creditors' meeting for and on behalf 
of the local, and beyond that I am frank enough to tell you I don't 
know. 

Senator Mindt. You do feel that to tell us the names of those 
officers Avoidd be disclosing a secret which had better be kept? 

Mr. Eltmax. I will put it this way, that conceivably it could. I 
am not making the positive statement that it would. But in view of 
the fact that the possibility could exist, I must ask you to let me re- 
spect the confidential relationship of attorney and client. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

The Chairman. Yon may contact those officers and see if they are 
willing for you to disclose them. If they are, then you are under no 
further obligation to withhold it. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, this document that we put in 
is tlie application for local 362, which is one of the paper locals of the 
teamstei-s, and lists as the first name, Bernie Tolkow, and then we have 
Arthur Scott. Murra}' Flatow, which, of course, are the people in 355, 
and you can see them going over into 362, and George Bivens, Allan 
Mengold, and Sandiego Vasquez, 

Do you know any of those other people ? 

Mr. ToLKOw\ Sir, I respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your name "Bernie"? Is that your name? 

Mr. Eltman. Excuse me. The witness has given his name as "Ber- 
nard Tolkow'' to the stenographer. 

The Chairman. I thought so, and I wondered if he went by the 
name "Bernie" as well as "Bernard." That is all I am asking. 

Mr. Tolkow. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground it would tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If it is your name, you are not ashamed of it, are 
you ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Don't you sometimes call "Bernard" "Bernie," and 
"Bernie" "Bernard," and so forth? Do friends call you "Bernie" 
sometimes? Do you have friends? Would that incriminate you, if 
I asked you if you have any friends ? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Now, Mr. Chairman, they received their first char- 
ter through John Dioguardi. Do you know him, Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. ToLKOw\ Sir, I respectfully decline to answer the questions on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are all of you guys coming in here and taking the 
fifth amendment afraid of Johnny Dioguardi? Are you afraid of 
him ? 

Mr. Tolkow. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mi\ Kennedy. Then the charters or these paper locals of the team- 
sters were set up, Mr. Chairman, in order to have people to vote in the 



4076 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

election that was held for the presidency of the joint council, joint 
council 16 in New York City. The request that these charters be 
granted was made to the international by Mr. James Hoffa. 

Do you have any information on that? Do you know how yotir 
name appeared ? Did you talk to Mr. Hoffa about this ? Could you 
tell us what you know about Mr. Hoffa's participation in this? 

Mr. ToLKOw. Sir, I decline to answer the questions on the ground 
it would tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Kennedy. I have a question, Mr. Tolkow, as I under- 
stand, you were informed about these union dues being used by the 
company to the amount of $23,612 which the company now owes to 
the union members, I understand that the Federal Government has 
filed a tax lien on the company for $250,000, approximately, for the 
failure of the company to send down to the Federal Government the 
withholding tax and other taxes. 

Now, I would think that both you, as head of the union, and your 
attorney, as the attorney for the union, should be rather concerned 
about what is going to happen to this $23,000 which the company 
used for its own purposes, which belonged to your members, which 
you evidently permitted them to do. If the Federal Government 
is going to come in and take $250,000 and there are other creditors, 
what are the chances of your members getting the $23,000 back ? 

I would like to ask the witness. He is the head of the union. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tolkow. I decline to answer the question on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you want your counsel to comment on any 
matter? Do you want to comment? 

Mr. Eltman. I would like to comment. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. If the counsel is going to comment on this, I 
would like to have him sworn, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ELT]vrAN. I am happy to be sworn. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question 
to counsel. 

Senator Kennedy. Could I get an answer to my question, and I 
will be through. 

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. Eltman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER ELTMAN 

The Chairman. For the official record, since this other has been 
colloquy, without being under oath, state your name, your place of 
residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Eltman. My name is Alexander Eltman. I am an attorney, 
permitted to practice in the State of New York and other courts. 
My office address is 350 Fifth Avenue. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4077 

Mr. Eltman. With respect to the observation made by Senator 
Kennedy 

The Chairman. Would you ask the question again for the official 
record ? 

Senator Kennedy. I asked your client the question, in view of the 
testimony that has been given that he was aware that money or union 
dues were not turned over to the union, and since the Federal Gov- 
ernment now has a lien against the company for failure to pay their 
taxes of over $250,000 in addition to other creditors, whether he feels 
he has met his responsibility to the union members. 

Then I also asked whether you as the attorney, whether you did not 
feel that there had been negligence in view of the fact that your client 
was in control of information for a period of 4 years as to the disposal 
of these funds. 

Mr. Eltman. I want to confine my answer to activities and events 
with which I am familiar. I cannot discuss anything which I have 
no familiarity with. 

Senator Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact that this $23,000 
had been set aside as union funds ? 

Mr. Eltman. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You were not aware of that ? 

Mr. Eltman. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Then I don't think that probably you have any 
information. 

Mr. Eltman. I can bring you up to date, however. I was made 
aware that a certain figure was due the union, and at no time was the 
figure $23,000. I was given a complete analysis of the moneys due 
the union. My best recollection is that it was around $12,000 or 
$13,000. I am informed that there is now due the union $8,000. 

With respect to our observation concerning 

Senator Kennedy. The Government accounting people who have 
gone through the books hold to the figure of over $23,000. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, according to the certified public accountant 
who made a study of the books, he figured $24,219.85. That is, Roto- 
Broil and a number of other shops where the same practice has taken 
place, but out of that $24,219.85, $22,944.35 is Roto-Broil. 

This is from the union's own books and from a certified public 
accountant who made a study of those books and not our own. 

Mr. Eltman. I am testifying without any records and without my 
file. My best recollection is that the figure did not reach $23,000. 

Senator Kennedy. In view of the fact that the records show it does, 
your testimony is not of much value, and you have not become fully 
familiar with the facts. You say you did not know that these funds 
were being set aside until this year ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Eltman. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. You did not laiow these funds were being set 
aside until this year. 

Mr. Eltman. That the funds were being set aside? 

Senator I^nnedy. Taken by the company and set aside for their 
own use ; you did know that ? 

Mr. Eltman. I had no knowledge of that. 

Senator Kjennedy. Your client did, and that is what we are trying 
to find out, why he permitted it. 



4078 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Eltman, we were discussing a little earlier 
the fact that you had a period before the creditors' meeting in an 
eifort to have the union dues which were held by the Roto-Broil 
Co. put on a preferential basis. 

I tried to elicit from you which officers of the company had asked 
you to intercede for them and you said that you preferred to rely 
on your lawyer-client relationship and not disclose their names. 

Not being a lawyer, I suppose I accept that, and I recognize there 
is a relationship between lawyer and client and it is usually close 
and sometimes curious and also confidential. 

Being a layman I am not going to try to get myself involved in 
that area. I would like to ask you another question on that general 
context. 

Were you here this morning when Mr. Jacobson testified ? 

Mr. Eltman. Yes, I was. 

Senator Mundt. You will recall that he said that the union had 
made certain claims upon them, or filed a complaint to get back this 
money which they had been holding. Do you recall that portion of 
his testimony ? 

Mr. Eltman. I believe I do. 

Senator Mundt. I was wondering whether as an attorney for the 
union, you had prepared that complaint or that letter or that protest 
which had been mailed directly to Mr. Jacobson's organization be- 
fore the time you appeared before the creditors' meeting. 

Mr. Eltman. No, sir, I did not, nor am I aware that any written 
demand was made. I understood it to be a personal demand. 

Senator Mundt. If it were a personal demand, it was not through 
your office ? 

Mr, Eltman. No, sir, it was not. 

Senator Mundt. Your first contact with this money was at the 
time the officers asked you to appear at the creditors' meeting to 
represent them ; is that right ? 

Mr. Eltman. Well, slightly before that, to be accurate. It was 
at the time when I received a call from the union officers to tell me 
that a check w^hich they had deposited of Roto-Broil had been re- 
fused or returned by the bank because there appeared either that day 
or the preceding day, a notice in the newspaper to the effect that 
Roto-Broil had filed a petition for reorganizatiton, under chapter 
11 of the Bankruptcy Act. 

I was told further that the union had in its possession a series of 
postdated checks, in payment of the arrears and that they had en- 
tered into an agreement whereby the company had given them the 
money, but because of the financial condition in which the comj^any 
found itself it could not make the payment at one time. 

So the union had a series of checks that were dated beyond the 
particular date I am talking about. I have not the faintest idea what 
date it was, but that was the first indication that I got that there was 
a claim for witlilield dues, and that led to my appearance at the 
creditors' meeting. 

Senator Mundt. So the arrangements made for this series of post- 
dated checks was made either by the officers of tlie union or by some 
other intermediary, but not by you. 

Mr. Eltman. I had no knowledge of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4079 

Senator Mundt. And this check returned by the bank was returned 
for insufficient funds; was it ^ 

Mr. Eltman. No; the bank took the position that liaving received 
constructive notice of the tiling of a petition, as a matter of hiw it 
coukl not pay out any funds of the corporation and, therefore, stopped 
payment on this check. 

Senator Mundt. The bank must have received some other notice 
than simply something in the newspapers. 

Mr. Elt:\ian. I don't know what the bank received, except that I 
recall telephoning the manager and asking him why he would not 
Y>n}\ and he said, "Well, Roto-Broil is in chapter 11." I argued with 
him and I said, "Have you been served with any notices, and have you 
received any court orders?'* And his position was, "We do not have 
to. If we know it, we are not paying out any money." 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions of either witness ? 

The witness will remain under his present subpena, subject to recall 
at any time that the committee may desire further testimony from him, 
and do you acknowledge that recognizance ? 

^Ir. Eltman. We do, sir. 

The Chairman. You will come back upon reasonable notice being 
given ? 

Mr. Eltman. Yes. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have three witnesses who are 
down here from local 227. They appeared before the Senate Sub- 
committee on Investigations last January and w^ere not very talkative. 

I am wondering if it would be possible perhaps, to have all three of 
them testify at the same time and dispose of it more expeditiously? 

The Chairman. If they have become talkative since, I do not know 
whether it would be a good idea or not. 

Senator ISIundt. As a mathematical formula, three times nothing is 
nothing. 

The Chairman. You may try it. 

INIr. Kennedy. They are Mr. Harry Reiss, Mr. David Cosentino, 
and Mr. Arthur Santa Maria. 

The Chairman. Stand up and be sworn. 

Do you and each of 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. Santa Maria. I do. 

Mr. Cosentino. I do. 

Mr. Reiss. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY REISS, ARTHUR SANTA MARIA, AND 
DAVID COSENTINO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, LEON REICH 

The Chairman, The party on my left, will you give your name, 
your address, and your place of business ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. My name is Arthur Santa Maria. I reside 
at 8218 14th Avenue, Brooklyn, 

On the third question I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you know how to invoke it ? 



4080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You better ask your lawyer. I am not going to 
give you further advice than that. 

Let us take the next one. 

Mr. CosENTiNO. My name is David Cosentino, 209 Bay 20th Street, 
Brooklyn. 

The Chairman. Did you tell me your business or occupation? 

Mr. CosENTiNO. No. I refuse to answer the question. It may 
intend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. May intend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. CosENTiNO. Yes. 

The Chairman. Next? 

Mr. Keiss. My name is Harry Reiss. I live at 201 Avenue I. I 
refuse to answer the third question on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that New York? 

Mr. Reiss. Brooklyn, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a little chart that we used 
in the subcommittee that gives a little background information on 
these individuals, and I would like to have Mr. Tierney explain it, 
if he might. 

The Chairman. Since these witnesses indicate that they do not 
like to talk, we will pick up a little of the record and see if we can 
get something in here that might give us a little information. 

Do you have a lawyer to advise you ? 

Mr. Reiss. Yes. 

Mr. Cosentino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The same lawyer representing all three of you ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you the gentleman representing them ? 

Mr. Reich. Yes. 

The Chairivian. State your name, again. I am sure the reporter 
already has it. 

Mr. Reich. Leon Reich, 141 Broadway, New York 6, N. Y. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, you have been sworn previously in this 
hearing ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have been. 

The Chairman. You are a member of the committee staff ? 

Mr. Tierney. I am. 

The Chairman. We will proceed. I will direct each witness now on. 
the stand to observe and listen because you may be interrogated about 
the testimony of this witness. 

Proceed, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. Tierney. This chart which we formerly used for the Perma- 
nent Subcommittee on Investigations, Mr. Chairman, depicts the 
origin of local 284, the teamster local. It had its origin in Local 496 
of the International Chemical Workers Union, which was chartered 
in 1952. However, because of an indictment of Mr. Harry Reiss, and 
Mr. Cosentino, in Kings County, N. Y., the charter was revoked by 
the international in October of 1953. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4081 

Shortly thereafter, this group, as you see by the names, shifted 
over here to local 227. 

After having their charter revoked, they secured a charter through 
Johnny Dioguardi 

Senator Curtis. Would 3'ou read the list of names that shifted 
over ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The ones that shifted over? 

Yes, Senator. 

President Harry Reiss became president of Local 227, UAW; Arthur 
Santa Maria was secretary-treasurer of local 496 and became secre- 
tary-treasurer of local 227 ; Alfred Petrozza, who was a trustee of local 
496, became a trustee of local 227 ; Fred Virgilio, who was a trustee of 
local 496, became a trustee of local 227. 

Dominick Santa Maria who was a guide in local 496, became a 
trustee in local 227. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that connection in 496, also an officer in 496 was 
Max Chester, or had been ; is that correct ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Max Chester was the former president of 496. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he was succeeded by Harry Reiss, but he re- 
mained with 496 ; is that right ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. He remained with 496. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien 496 's charter was lifted, Max Chester trans- 
ferred to 227 also ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right. He was initially the president of local 
227. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the first president of local 227 ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vlien you give the accounts in the chart, would you 
include what happened to him at the same time, to Max Chester ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes ; as I said, local 227 was chartered in November 
1953, to these individuals, whose charter had been revoked because of 
difficulty some of their officers had gotten into. 

Shortly after local 227 was chartered, Arthur Santa Maria and Max 
Chester, who was a previous witness, became involved in a bribery 
charge. As a result of the bribery charge, Chester was evicted from 
the union, and the minutes of the union show that Arthur Santa 
Maria was freed of all blame in connection with that particular 
bribery charge. He remained as secretary-treasurer. 

As you know, Chester thereafter went to 405 of the Retail Clerks 
International. 

In November of 1955, local 284 was chartered as depicted here by 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters without the knowledge 
of the general organizer of New York, as we previously discussed. 

You can see here many of the officers of 227 came over to 284. They 
are David Cosentino, former vice president of 227 who became presi- 
dent of 284; Harry Reiss, president of local 227 became secretary- 
treasurer of local 284; Dominick Santa Maria, a trustee of 227, be- 
came a vice president of local 284. Fred Virgilio, trustee of local 
227, became a trustee of local 284. 

At the time local 284 was chartered, a review of the records we 
made indicated that they had no membership at all in the local. How- 
ever, in July of 1956, a small group of some shops in local 227 were 
transferred over to local 284. 



4082 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ctjrtis. Was 284 chartered directly by the international? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who handled that in the international office ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Well, the procedure in the international office is that 
the charter was issued upon the authority of the general president's 
office. In that instance, actually it was done by Einar Mohn, acting 
on behalf of the general president. 

Senator Curtis. What was Einar Mohn's title ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. He is a vice president, an international vice president 
of the teamsters and an assistant to the general president. 

Senator Curtis. Is he a regional vice president ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. No, no ; he is not. 

Senator Curttis. Who was the regional vice president for that 
area? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The regional vice president, the general organizer 
and vice president was Thomas Hickey in New York at the time. 
AYlien they issued this charter, it was issued without Mr. Hickey's 
knowledge at all. 

Senator Curtis. Did anyone in the international besides Einar 
Mohn know about it ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. In the international? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who did ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Mr. John English knew about it, and he was secre- 
tary-treasurer at the time. 

Senator Curtis. Who else? 

Mr. TiERNEY. And later on, we are not sure of the circumstances 
there, later on Mr. Beck was aware of the charter. AYliether or not 
he was actually aware of it at the time, we are not certain. 

Senator Curtis. AYlio requested the charter? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Who requested these charters? 

Senator Curtis. This one from the teamsters, 284. 

Mr. TiERNEY. 284? Actually, the charter application shows that 
a group of officers actually applied for charter and requested it. But, 
actually, the charter was requested by John McNamara, who was 
secretary-treasurer of Local 808 of the Teamsters in New York. 

The Chairman. Was there any application? 

Mr. TiERNEY. These charters — of course, this is one of the paper 
local charters which were issued. Senator, upon the reconnnendations 
of James Hoffa. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, that application, whatever 
form it was in, bypassed the usual, regular route that it takes to get up 
to the international ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And it went directly to the international ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And it was issued without going through the nor- 
mal processes? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. The normal process would be 
througli the joint council and the general organizer. 

The Chairman. When it was issued, it was issued to those whose 
names appear there on the board? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4083 

IVIr. TiEUNKY. I am not sure right now. Actually, these were the 
officers and the principals to whom it was issued. That is correct, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. What was the date that was issued ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. November 8, 1955. 

The Chairman. How long was that before the election ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The election was February 14, 1956. Three months. 

Senator Kennedy. May I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you have any information as to who per- 
suaded Mr. Mohn to issue the charter ? What was his interest in it ? 
Why would he be interested in putting in this so-called paper local in 
New York? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Well, it is not clear why he was interested. 

Senator Kennedy. Was he asked by anybody ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes. We interviewed him on it. 

Senator Kennedy. What does he say? 

Mr. TiERNEY. He says actually the charters were issued because of 
the then pending merger of the AFL-CIO, and, according to him, the 
purpose was to beat that merger and include this group of locals in 
the ITAW within the jurisdiction of the teamsters. So far as he was 
concerned, that was the purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, Mr. Tierney, who requested Einar Mohn to 
issue the charters ? 

Mr. Tierney. Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the answer. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Mohn state that to you? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, he did, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

That chart, can it be printed in the record ? 

Mrs. Watt. We will liave it reduced. 

The Chairman. If it can be reduced, let the chart be printed in the 
record at the beginning of the witness' testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney, these individuals appeared before the 
Subcommittee on Investigations in January of 1957; is that right? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what has happened or what has 
occurred since that time? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was developed at that subcommittee hearing? 

Mr. Tierney. During the course of that hearing, we developed 
evidence that certain checks, ostensibly for organizational purposes o^ 
the union, were forged. There were forged endorsements on tliein 
and they were cashed by Arthur Santa Maria, Dominick Santa Mar^a. 
and David Cosentino. As a result of the disclosures before the com- 
mittee, there are presently indictments pending against these tliroe 
individuals for forgery and larcency of union funds in New York. 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY REISS, ARTHUR SANTA MARIA, AND 
DAVID COSENTINO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, LEON REICH— 
Resumed 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 
Senator Kennedy. I will ask the counsel. 



4084 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

'\Yhat positions do you now hold ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. Are you directing that question to me ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We will ask each of them. '\Yliat position do you 
now hold in any labor union or organization? 

Mr. CosENTiNo. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Reiss, I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I thought you were possibly going to give us the 
answer. You hesitated a moment. 

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

Senator Kennedy. I understand that Mr. Eeiss is an official of the 
teamsters now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I believe he is. I thought David Cosentino was 
president and Mr. Dominick Santa Maria is vice president and Mr. 
Harry Reiss is secretary-treasurer of local 284. Then we have Arthur 
Santa Maria who is associated with the local, but in what capacity we 
are not sure. 

Senator Ivennedy. We have three witnesses who are officers of the 
teamsters and who have taken the fifth amendment, and who are under 
indictment for forgery and larceny of union funds. 

I would like to ask the counsel whether he has any information that 
the teamsters in New York or Mr. Beck have moved against them or is 
conducting an investigation in preparation to asking for their resigna- 
tion. 

Mr. I^nnedy. We have no information that any such action has 
been taken by the teamsters. 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me that in view of the ethical prac- 
tices committee report of the AFL-CIO, which requests the resigna- 
tion of any officer of a union who takes the fifth amendment, partic- 
ularly as this involves the use of union funds, and who is also under 
indictment over the misuse of union funds, the teamsters should 
immediately ask for your resignation. I would think it would be a 
test of their willingness to support the AFL-CIO ethical practices 
committee by inunediately, after your appearance here, asking for 
your resignation. 

The Chairman. Mr, Reiss, I believe you testified before the Senate 
Investigating Subcommittee in early January this year; is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Reiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At that time I believe you refused to answer some 
questions; is that correct? 

Mr. Reiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Subsequently you were cited for contempt of the 
Senate and indicted by a grand jury for that offense; is that correct? 

Mr. Reiss. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now I want to give you an opportunity today. 
You have not been tried yet ? 

Mr. Reiss. What was that, sir? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4085 

The Chairmax. You have not been tried on the contempt charge 
yet ; it is still pending ? 

Mr. Reiss. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. I want to give you an opportunity today, now, to 
give us the testimony we requested at that time. 

Do you wish to now take advantage of this opportunity before this 
committee to answer the questions that were propounded to you at 
that time ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. So you are not willing to take any advantage of 
an opportunity possibly to purge yourself of that contempt charge? 
You are still standing on it. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. No matter whether you answer it or not. I am 
giving you the opportunity. You appreciate that. You are bound 
to. You understand the English language. You can say you do not 
want to answer on the groimds it may incriminate you. But the op- 
portunity is now being presented to you, and gives you an opportun- 
ity, if you want to purge yourself of that contempt charge, to make 
some effort to do so, or to do something in mitigation of it. You are 
now being given the opportunity to do it. 

Do you wish to take advantage of the opportunity ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Chairman, the charter that was granted 
to local 227, the UAW, and these gentlemen, was granted through the 
efforts of Mr. Johnny Dioguardi. We have here the charter applica- 
tion. Perhaps we could have it identified. 

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

The Chairman. I send you and have presented to you by the clerk 
of the committee a photostatic copy entitled, "Official Application for 
Charter of Affiliation Under the Jurisdiction of International Union, 
United Automobile Workers of America, Affiliated With the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor." 

The application appears to be undated, but it is stamped, "Received, 
October 27, 1955." It is stamped, apparently by the issuing author- 
ity, "Charter written M. C. November 3, 1955." 

This is for local 227. Apparently, as indicated here, it was sent 
to Johnny Dioguardi. 

This is the union that I understand you witnesses became officers of ; 
is that correct ? 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; it is. 

The Chairman. Present that, Mrs. Watt, to each one of the wit- 
nesses on the stand. 

The Chair directs each one of you to examine that document and 
state whether or not you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witnesses.) 

The Chahiman. Starting on my left, have you examined that 
document ? 



4086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the gi'ounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I asked you if you had examined the document. 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion, because you are doing that right here in the presence of the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answ^er on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question whether you have 
examined that docmnent in accordance with the orders and direction 
of the Chair. 

(The witness Santa Maria conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. Santa Maria. Yes; I examined it. 

Tlie Chairman. Pass it on to the buddy on your left. 

Mr. CosENTiNO. I have examined the document, and I decline to 
answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Let the other one see it. 

Mr. Reiss. I have examined the document and I refuse to answer 
on the groimds that it may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was that charter issued and did you become, the 
three of you become, officers of that union upon the issuance of the 
charter ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the ground it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. CosENTiNO. I refuse to answer the question as it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the gi-ound it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have the documents here on their 
application for the charter of 284, whicli I would like to get into the 
record. Their names are listed as eligible to vote in the election for 
joint council 16. 

The Chairman. Present this document to the witnesses. 

It is an application for a charter for lo<:-al 284. Their names appear 
on it as Harry Reiss, David Cosentino, and Arthur Santa Maria. 

Present it to each one of the witnesses. 

(The document was handed to the witnesses. ) 

The Chairman. The other document just presented to the wit- 
nesses will be made exhibit No. 50. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 50" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the a]i))endix on ]). 4447.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Santa Maria, did you examine the document? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I examined it ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

(The witness Santa Maria conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you see your name on it ? 

(The witness Santa Maria conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4087 

Mr, Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you read your own name ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It is the first time I ever heard of a fellow having 
enough education to read and recognize his own name being something 
that might incriminate him if he admitted it. We are seeing such 
things for the hrst time. 

All right. We will go to Mr. Cosentino. 

Mr. Cosentino. I examined the document, and I refuse to answer 
as it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Has it got your name on it ? 

Mr. Cosentino. I refuse to answer the question as it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you read your own name? 

Mr. Cosentino. I refuse to answer the question as it may trend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you want to go through the same routine, Mr. 
Reiss ? 

Take a look at it. 

Mr. Heiss. I have examined the document, sir. I refuse to answer 
the question on the ground that it may possibly tend to incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. Can you read? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Don't you think that is very ridiculous, to take 
the position that you can't read your own name or would not admit 
that you can? Do you know how to get more ridiculous than that, 
either of you ? 

Mr. Reiss. Is that a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Senator ]\Iundt ? 

Senator Mundt. I have a question for the counsel that Senator 
Goldwater asked me to put because he w'as called over to the floor 
of the Senate. I would like to inquire of the counsel whether he is 
here in the capacity of a lawyer on the retainer of the union or w^hether 
he is up here representing these individuals personally. 

Mr. Reich. Senator, up until a few moments ago, I honestly 
couldn't say. When this investigation began, of course, it began of a 
local union which I represented, and I was called in that connection. 

Insofar as this line of testimony seems to have developed, however, 
it Avould appear to me at this stage to deal with these people as in- 
dividuals, and, as such, any bill which I submit for the services 
rendered in connection with these hearings will be submitted to these 
individuals. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Mundt.) 

Senator Mundt. x\.nd to be paid by them personally rather tlian 
from union funds? 

80330—57—1)1. 11 6 



4088 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reich. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Counsel, were you not representing these same 
individuals when they appeared before the regular Senate Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations? Did I not see you with them at 
that time ? 

Mr. Reich. I believe you did, Senator, but my recollection is that 
only two of them appeared, I believe. 

Senator Mundt. Only two of them ? 

Mr. Reich. That is my present recollection. 

Senator Mundt. I think you are right. The one on the left and 
the one on the right. 

Mr. Reich. That is my recollection. 

Senator Mundt. At that time, did you represent them personally 
or as an attorney for the union ? 

Mr. Reich. At that time the situation was similar. The investiga- 
tion pertained to the union. I have not, however. Senator, received 
1 cent from the union or from any union with which any of them 
at any time were connected in connection with such appearance. 

Senator Mundt. Have you submitted a bill for your services and 
expenses on that trip ? 

Mr. Reich. I have not. My expenses were paid at that time, sir. 

Senator Mundt. By the men individually or by the union? 

Mr. Reich. As to that I couldn't say. I believe my best recollection 
is I was furnished with an airline ticket, and the hotel bill and inci- 
dental expenses, I believe, were on an individual credit card or a 
credit card in the name of one individual. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The application for charter that was presented to 
the witnesses who stated they examined it and then refused to testify 
further, will be made exhibit No. 51. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 51" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4448.) 

The Chairman. The Chair now presents to the witnesses a photo- 
static copy of a letter on stationery of Warehouse and Processing Em- 
ployees Union, Local 284, dated November 29, 1955, addressed to the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Joint Council 16, 205 West 
14th Street, New York City, and signed by the secretary-treasurer of 
that local, whose name is illegible to me here. Apparently it is signed 
by the witness Harry Reiss, as secretary-treasurer. 

I present that to each of the three witnesses and ask them to examine 
it and see if they identify it. 

(Document was handed to the witnesses.) 

The Chairman. Have each of you examined it? 

Have you, Mr. Santa Maria ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Cosentino. 

Mr. Cosentino. I have examined the document. I refuse to answer 
as it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Reiss, let's hear you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4089 

Mr. Eeiss. I have examined the document and I refuse to answer 
the question on the grounds that it may possibly tend to incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. Would either of you like to accommodate the com- 
mittee by reading the letter in the record for us ? 

I give you the opportunities. 

Do either of you care to read the letter into the record ? 

(Witnesses conferred with their counsel.) 

Mr. Eeiss. I will defer to the Senator. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Eeiss. I will defer to you, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. It may incriminate you. I am going 
to read it. 

It may be made exhibit No. 52. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 52" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4449.) 

The Chairsian. As the Chair indicated a moment ago, this is a 
letter on the stationery of Warehouse and Processing Employees 
Union, Local 284, dated November 29, 1955, to International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, Joint Council 16, 205 West 14th Street, New York 
City, N. Y. 

Dear Sir and Brother : Listed below you will find the names of the officers of 
local union 284 and the titles of the offices to which they are assigned. 

Harry Reiss, financial secretary-treasurer ; David Cosentino, president ; Domi- 
nick Santa Maria, vice president ; Milton Linden, recording secretary ; Vito 
Bochicchio, trustee ; Fred Virgilio, trustee ; Harold Culbert, trustee. 
They request to be seated as delegates to joint council 16. 
Fraternally yours, 

Secretary-Treasurer. 

And the best I can tell it is signed by you, Mr. Eeiss. I don't want 
to say it is unless I know it. 

Would you help us ? 

Is this signed by you ? 

Mr. Eeiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. We will let it speak for itself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly afterward, Mr. Chairman, they wrote a 
letter, again signed by Harry Eeiss, secretary-treasurer, wrote a 
letter to joint council 16, giving the names of those eligible to vote 
in the joint council election. 

The Chairman. I present to you the photostatic copy of the letter 
to which counsel just referred, and ask you to examine it and state 
if you identify it. 

That letter should be directed to Mr. Eeiss. Give him the docu- 
ment. It is apparently his signature. 

(A document was handed to witness Eeiss.) 

(Members of the select committee present at this point were, Sen- 
ators McClellan, Ives, Kennedy, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Do you recognize that, Mr. Eeiss ? 

Mr. Eeiss. I have examined the document, sir, and I refuse to 
answer the question on the grounds that it may possibly tend to in- 
criminate me. 



4090 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The document will be made exhibit No. 53. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 53" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4450.) 

The Chairman. The Chair will read it into the record. 

First, present it to the others. They may be more accommodating. 
Maybe they know something about it. 

All right, Mr. Cosentino, you have seen the letter, have you ? 

Mr. Cosentino. I have examined the document and I refuse to an- 
swer. It may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Santa Maria ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Did you stop there ? Did you identify it mentally 
as you examined it ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer the question on the gi'ound 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Let us read it into the record. 

This is on Warehouse and Processing Employees Union Local 284 
stationery, dated February 2, 1956, Joint Council 16, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers 
of America, 365 West 14th Street, Room 709, New York 11, N. Y. : 

Dear Sir and Brother: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1956. 
We give you below a list of the officers of our lo^i-al union who are eligible to 
vote in the joint council election : 

David Cosentino, president; Dominick Santa Maria, vice president; Harry 
Reiss, secretary-treasurer ; Milton I^inden, recording secretary ; Vito Bochicchio, 
trustee; Fred Virgilio, trustee; Harold Culbert, trustee. 
Fraternally yours, 

Harold Reiss, Secretary-Treasurer. 

and it bears a signature purporting to be that of Harry Reiss. 

I am sure you would not mind telling us, each of you, whether you 
attended the joint council in accordance with this eligibility as here 
certified. 

Did you attend the joint council, Mr. Santa Maria ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chaiman. Mr. Cosentino? Would you accommodate us by 
giving us that information? 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Reiss, would you helj) us out ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possiblv tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you attend that meeting of joint council 16; 
either of you ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer as it may tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you attend that meeting and vote under in- 
structions from John O'Rourke? The question is directed to each 
of you. 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4091 

jNIr. CosKNTiNO. 1 decline to answer. It may tend to incriminate me. 

j\fr. Keiss. I refuse to answer on the oround that it may possibly 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I have here a certificate as to David Cosentino and 
Harry Reiss. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just two of them voted, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just two of them voted ? 

I will ])resent you with these two documents, each dated February 
2, 1950, botli addressed to the joint council. They are identical . They 
are sii>ned by Harry Reiss, secretary-treasurer, and they state: 

This will certify that the bearer, David Cosentino, is an executive board mem- 
ber of our local union 284 and is eligible to vote in the joint council election. 

A similar document, identical excei^t it savs that, the — 
bearer, Harry Reiss, is entitled to vote in the joint council election — 

and those are signed by Harry Reiss. 

Examine those documents, Mr. Cosentino and Mr. Reiss, and see 
if you recognize them. 

(The documents were handed to the witnesses.) 

The Chairman. You can start, Mr. Reiss. 

]Mr. Reiss. I have examined the document, and I refuse to answer 
tlie question on the gromid it may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cosentino. I examined the document, and I refuse to answer, 
as it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The one addressed to Mr. Reiss himself by him- 
self may be made exhibit 54, and the other one, to Mr. Cosentino, may 
be made 54r-A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 54 and 
'54— A'" for reference and will be found in the a]:)pendix on pp. 4451- 
4453.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further on these witnesses? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some background information that I would 
like to ])ut into the record in a moment, but we also have the informa- 
tion that we had yesterday, that was developed in the testimony 
yesterday, with the witness Stanley Lehrer, who was the counsel for 
the Auto Glass Dealers Association. 

According to his testimony, the contract was made with local No. 
227, which these gentlemen represent, and, according to his testimony, 
Mr. Reiss, the president of the local, suggested to Mr. Lehrer that he 
contact Johnny Dioguardi, and that Johnny Dio could arrange it for 
him so that there would be no jurisdictional strikes, that no other 
union would come in and interfere with the UAW-AFL. 

I would like to ask Mr. Reiss for any facts or any information that 
he might have on that. 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You think doing Joininy Dio a favor would in- 
criminate you, by sending him some business ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lehrer also testified that it was a "soft'" or 
"sweetheart" contract that was signed by Mr. Reiss and by the gentle- 
man from local No. 227, Mr. Chairman. 



4092 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Do you have any comment on that ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that approximately 50 percent of the shops 
that were signed up at that time were self-owned shops that Mr. Reis& 
and Mr. Santa Maria and Mr. Cosentino went to an organization 
where the shops were self -owned and the people were self-employed. 

Do you have any comment on that ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it 
may possible tend to incriminate me. 

I'he Chairman. He also testified that for a 3-year contract, it 
costs a one-man shop, with no emjDloyees $190. 

Did you exact that much out of them ? 

Mr. Reiss. Sir, would you repeat that question, please ? 

The Chairman. I said he also testified that the very minimum 
for a one-man shop, where he had no employees for the period of 3 
years, including initiation fee and the dues, it cost the shop owner 
$190. Do you want to deny it? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you exact that much out of one shop ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Before I get through with his, I would like to ask 
the attorney some questions. 

Mr. Reich. Now, Senator? 

The Chairman. We will do that in just a moment. Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have information that Mr. Reiss was born in 
Austria on February 7, 1912, is that right, Mr. Reiss? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that you never took out citizenship in this 
country ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the gi'ound it may 
possibly tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. May I ask, were you born somewhere, if not in 
Austria ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
possible tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Article II, section IV of the teamsters national con- 
stitution requires that to hold office in either a local or international, 
the individual must be a citizen of the country in which the local is 
situated. 

Are you familiar with that article of the teamster constitution ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We also have information that you were known by 
2 or 3 other names, Mr. Reiss, is that right ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer tlie question on the ground that it 
might possibly tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4093 

!Mr. KEXNf:DY. On Mr. Cosentino, we have information that he was 
arrested 2 or 3 times on bookmaking prior to the time he came into 
the h\bor field. 

Is that right, Mr. Cosentino ? 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer that question as it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1944, 1949, and 1951 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer as it may tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. For ]\Ir. Santa ]Maria, Mr. Chairman, we have in- 
formation that he was arrested 6 or 7 times for bookmaking prior to 
the time that he became interested in the union deaL 

Is that right, Mr. Santa Maria? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend 
to mcriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Chairman, the procedure that was fol- 
lowed particularly by INIr. Santa Maria and his brother, Dominick 
Santa Maria, was to make out checks while they had local 227, to 
individuals that did not exist or to individuals that never did any 
work and charge it to the books as organizational expenses, forge the 
name of the individual on the checks, have it cashed and put the 
money in their pockets. 

They have been indicted, as was pointed out before, for larceny and 
forgery and the amounts are approximately $22,000 that they took 
from local 227 of the UAW-AFL. 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny that, either of you ? 

Mr. Santa JMaria. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I see. Thank you. 

Does anyone else want to speak ? 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer as it may tend to incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. May I ask you witnesses this question. Mr. Santa 
Maria, do you know Mr. Cosentino sitting to your left and also Mr. 
Reiss ? Do you know those two ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I think each one should be given a chance. 

Mr. Cosentino, would you say that you know Mr. Santa Maria and 
Mr. Reiss ? 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer the question as it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It is your turn, Mr. Reiss. 

Do you know either of the other two ? 

Mr. Reiss. I decline to answer the question on the ground that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt, pardon me, Senator Ives had a 
question. 

Senator Ives. I want to ask the counsel a question. 

The Chairman. Let us finish with the witness first. 

Senator Mundt ? 



4094 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You asked Mr. Reiss whether or not he is an 
American citizen. We know from the record that he is not. He 
said that to answer the question mijjht tend to incriminate him. 

I would like to ask that same question of these other two" witnesses, 
because in the absence of any other information, we have reason to 
believe that they are American citizens. 

I would like to ask Mr. David Cosentino this question: Are you a 
citizen of the United States? 

Mr. Cosentino. I decline to answer as it may tend to incriminate 
me. 

Senator Mundt, Mr. Chairman, I suggest on that one that you or- 
der and direct him to do it, because I would be curious to know how 
the Supreme Court might nde on a question of this kind. 

I have never before believed that being an American citizen is 
grounds for self-incrimination. 

It is a pertinent question because it relates to a position in the labor 
union. If, in fact, he is an American citizen, he has no grounds what- 
soever for declining to answer under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. And also on the basis that the constitution of the 
union requires that. 

Senator Mundt. Precisely. The charter of the union requires it. 
If we can establish the fact that he is an American citizen, he has no 
constitutional grounds to take refuge in the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. The question is directed to you, Mr. Cosentino. 
Are you an American citizen ? 

Mr. Cosentino. Yes; I am. 

The Chairman. The same question is directed to you, Mr. 

Senator Mundt. Arthur Santa Maria, I will ask you the same ques- 
tion. Are you an iVmerican citizen ? 

Mr. Santa Maria. I am ; definitely. 

Senator Mundt. You are? 

Mr. Santa Maria. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I got a couple of answers. I should keep on 
trying. 

The Chairman. Mr. Reiss, do you want to join the folks and tell 
us whether you are an American citizen or not ? 

Mr. Reiss. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it 
may possibly tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, when I spoke about the $22,000 and 
brought these gentlemen's names in, I meant to point out Mr. Arthur 
Santa Maria and Mr. Dominick Santa Maria and Mr. Cosentino. 
but we have no information on Mr. Reiss himself in connection with 
this. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ives, do you wish to interrogate counsel ? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Reich, as I understand, you are the attorney for 
the labor union itself, 227 ; is that correct? 

Mr. Reich. I was. Senator. 

Senator Ives. Are you now or are you not ? 

Mr. Reich. I don't believe at the moment there is any local 227, 
Senator. 

Senator Ives. Are you the attorney for 284 ? 

Mr. Reich. I have so been informed. As far as money is concerned, 
if that is the criterion, then I am not. Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4095 

Senator Ives. What I am driviiio; at is : Are you doing anything 
to represent the workei's, the niembei's of 284 ? 

Mr. IvEicii. Senator, I can answer the question in this manner: All 
the work that I have ever done for local 227 or local 284 consists prin- 
cipally of advising and, on occasion, attending, with respect to matters 
before either the New York State Labor Relations Board or the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board or the New York State Board of Media- 
tion, or with respect to questions which are put to me by officers of this 
union or any other union w^ith respect to the legal aspects of cer- 
tain 

Senator Ives. Then you were representing the members of the 
union itself? 

Mr. Reich. I believe so. Senator. 

Senator Ives. You are also representing these gentlemen that are 
here today, are you not, these officials of the union? 

Mr. Reich. As I pointed out before, and I do not recall whether 
you were in the room or not. Senator, in answer to a question put to 
me by Senator Mundt, that the way matters developed here, I appar- 
ently am representing them, and I so stated individually, here. 

Senator Ives. I don't know whether Senator Mundt asked you the 
question I am about to ask you or not, because apparently these gentle- 
men have records that are not too savory, or at least they are trying 
to cover them up very nicely. 

It occurs to me you liave a conflict of interest, have you not ? You 
are representing the members of the union itself, you have been rep- 
resenting them, and you are, actually speaking, at the same time 
representing tliese officials who are trying to rob tlie members of the 
union, or have been. How do you account for that ? 

Mr. Reich. Senator, I think the question of conflict of interest, 
when, as and if the question arises, is something that each attorney 
must resolve in his own mind, witli the guidance of his own con- 
science. I say to you that in this particular matter, being before a 
senatorial committee, where the obstensible and actual purpose, as the 
law sets forth, is to help the committee to gather whatever facts it 
can in order that this committee may be guided in recommending 
legislation or remedial action — I say that in this forum, sir, as I see 
it, there is no conflict of interest between any witness who appears 
and anyone else. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt you there ? 

Mr. Reich. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Ives. I do not know what information you have lielped 
the committee get prior to now. I was called away this morning and 
was not able to attend most of the session this morning. Were you 
on tlie stand this morning ? 

The Chairman. He was representing someone. 

Senator I\^s. You may have helped the committee give us some 
information tliis morning. I do not know. 

But in advising witnesses to take the fifth amendment, you cer- 
tainly are not helping the committee get any information of any great 
value to it. 

Mr. Reich. Senator, it seems to me tliat my position or that of any 
other attorney is not, in etfect, to advise a witness to take the fifth 
amendment, but to apprise tlie witness of what the fifth amendment 



4096 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

means and when it is applicable, and whether it should be taken in a 
given situation if the witness feels that there is a danger against 
which the Constitution permits him to guard himself by invoking 
the fifth amendment. 

I believe, sir, that I have never gone beyond that point. The deci- 
sion, I think the law requires that decision. 

Senator Ites. I do not want to argue with you about that, but in 
doing that, you are not helping the committee very much. That is 
what I am driving at. 

Mr. Reich. I am not representing the committee, Senator, I am help- 
ing these individuals. 

Senator Ives. You are telling us how you are helping the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Reich. No, I say that all individuals who appear before this 
committee are to some degree helping the committee, because the mere 
appearance of these individuals gives you the opportunity to put into 
the record certain matters, to spread it on the record. 

Senator Ives. And we are taking advantage of that. 

Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. I would hope the CIO-AFL ethical practices 
committee have been attempting to do something about improper 
practices in the union. 

I would hope, too, that the bar association will, and I am not making 
any reference to the present situation, because I do not know all the 
facts. We have seen in a number of cases these lawyers representing 
employers or employees who have not confined themselves to merely 
advising their clients of their legal rights, but have been associated 
in a number of these improper practices. We have had Herman 
Cooper in the bakers, Joe Jacobs in the textile workers, Mr. Bassett, 
with the teamsters, and Mr. Alphonse Landa, representing Fruehauf, 
who was going to make a split with Mr. Beck. 

I do not know if the bar associations in these States have taken action 
in these cases, but I hope that the respective bar associations are getting 
the texts of these hearings and will consider whether the lawyers in 
these cases are meeting their responsibilities to the bar. 

It seems to me that the AFL is attempting to do it under some 
difficulty. 

It seems to me that with the attention that the lawyers receive, tliat 
the bar association should study very carefully whether they are meet- 
ing their responsibility as an officer of the court and as a representa- 
tive of the court in various States. 

The Chairman. The witnesses will remain under their present 
subpena, subject to recall. 

I ask that each one of you acknowledge that recognizance for the 
record. You will be given reasonable notice of time to appear when 
the committee may need your presence again. 

Mr. Santa Maria. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Acknowledge this direction and 
order and agree to comply with it. 

Mr. Santa Maria. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Reiss. Senator, none of us have been subpenaed, but we ap- 
peared liere on a telegram, and we will appear in the future whenever 
you wish to have us here. 



IMPROPER AcrrvrriES est the labor field 4097 

The Chairman. With that understanding, you may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

(Members present at this point : Senators McClellan, Ives, Kennedy, 
and Mundt.) 

Mv. Kennedy. Mr. Hermanson. 

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 noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MERRILL HERMANSON 

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

Mr. Hermanson. Merrill Hermanson. I live at 12 Willow Lane, 
Scarsdale, N. Y. I am associated with Flowerized Presentations, at 
3600 Jerome Avenue, New York. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

I see you do not have counsel. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a company called Flowerized Presenta- 
tions ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere is that? 

Mr. Hermanson. 3600 Jerome Avenue, New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees do you have ? 

Mr. HER3IANS0N. At present? Around 100. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a flower shop ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Actually, we do some flowerwork. We also spe- 
cialize mainly in Christmas home decorations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Christmas home decorations? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

(At this point, the chairman withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had 100 employees for the last 2 or 3 
years ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, we are at the peak of our season now. 

Normally, we run 40 to 50. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of 1954, did you meet Mr. Bitz ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Irving Bitz? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you meet Mr. Irving Bitz ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Through a gentleman who was attempting to sell 
me life insurance. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. What was his name ? 

Mr. Herinianson. Milton Kosen. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Milton Rosen introduced you to Irving Bitz? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did he introduce you to Irving 
Bitz? 



4098 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, at the time he called my home, I had never 
met Mr. Rosen, and he spoke to my wife. He said that he was solicit- 
ing insurance. My wife said, ''Well, I don't think my husband would 
be interested in any life insurance at this time. He has a labor situa- 
tion, and I just think he is too busy." 

So he said, "Well, have your husband get in touch with me. Maybe 
I can be of some help to him." 

At that time, I was interested in any assistance I could get. 

Mr, Kennedy. What period of time w^as this ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I believe it was somewhere around June of 1954. 

(Select committee members present at this point in the proceedings 
were Senators Ives and Kennedy.) 

Mr. Kennedy. June of 1954 or June of 1955 ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Possibly 1955. I guess 1955. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. June of 1955 ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you call Mr. Rosen and talk to him? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he suggest to you ? 

Mr. Hermanson. He said he had a friend who was familiar with 
the labor market, and that possibly he may be able to give me some 
advice. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you met Irving Bitz ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who Irving Bitz was at the time ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, sir ; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you learned since then ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I know very little about Irving Bitz even at this 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Bitz say to you that he could do ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, he asked me the situation as to our business 
and said he would make some inquiries as to what might be done to 
straighten out our situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your situation that needed to be straight- 
ened out? 

Mr. Hermanson. There was an attempt to organize our shop in 
progress, and we were unable to get deliveries, we were unable to ship 
from our factory, and we were having quite a bit of difficulty continu- 
ing our operation because of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did Mr. Bitz say that he could do something 
for you ? 

Mr. Hermanson. He was unable to assist me. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he was unable to assist you? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, who was trying to organize you? 

Mr. Hermanson. I don't know the number or name of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it the doll and toy workers? 

Mr. Hermanson. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 139 ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I don't know that, but I remember a name of 
Milton Gordon. 

Mr, Kennedy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that w^as Local 139 of the 
Doll and Toy Workers Union of America. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4099 

Did you get in touch with Mr. Eitz after that? 

Mr. Hermanson. I believe I saw him a couple of times, but he was 
of no assistance. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Did he introduce you to anyone or arrange for any- 
one else to hel}) you ? 

Mr. Hermanson. At that time he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly afterwards did he ? 

^Ir. Hermanson. No ; not in connection with the organization work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you did not know that Mr. Bitz w^as a notor- 
ious hoodlum and was a member of the Lepke-Gurrah mob ? 

^Ir. Hermanson. I did not. I still don't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that he was an associate of the late Dutch 
Schultz '( Did you know that ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And "Legs'' Diamond? Did you know he was an 
associate of his? 

Mr. Hermanson. I know nothing about Mr. Bitz' background. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. After you had these preliminary talks wnth him, 
did he subsequently introduce you to anyone or arrange for anyone 
to help 3' on out ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. After the labor situation was settled, we 
were having some difficulty getting material from a supplier who 
was doing some work for us and who had some of our material. 
We arranged with the supplier that we pick up the work and mate- 
rial, and we arranged to do this late at night so w^e would not encoun- 
ter any resistance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean one of your suppliers was having 
trouble ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wanted to pick u]) your material and you 
decided to do it late at night so you wouldn't have any trouble? 

Mr. Hermanson. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you speak to Mr. Bitz about that ? 

Mr. HER:\rANS0N. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he could arrange it so you would not 
have any trouble? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, he felt that it would be better if someone 
supervised our work so that we didn't have any trouble. It never 
occurred to me, frankly, that we would. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did he arrange to haA^e somebody supervise 
vou ? 

Mr. Hermanson. He called someone. At the time, the name was 
Johnny. That is the only name I heard. Two men were sent down 
tliat evening and we removed the material without incident. 

Mr. Kennedy. The two men were sent down by Johnny, and you 
were able to get your material out of there without any incident? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody bothered you ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No one bothered me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Johnny after that? Did he come 
down ))ersonally ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No. 



4100 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He sent two people down ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you talk to him ? Did you meet him after- 
ward, this Johnny ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Some several months later I did; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to meet him ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Mr. Bitz thought I may want to thank the man 
who had done us the favor, and he arranged the meeting and intro- 
duced me to Johnny, who later turned out to be Mr. Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Bitz introduced you to him so that you could 
thank him for sending the two fellows down that night ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you thank him ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Did you decide that you would see each other again, 
or what arrangements were made ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, I asked him if I owed anything for the 
favor. I was prepared to pay for the services. He said that there 
was no charge, and that he felt that possibly we might need some 
guidance in dealing with labor in the future, and that he possibly 
could give us some advice and avoid some of the difficulties we had 
encountered because of our inexperience. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were still nonunion at that time ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were anxious not to have any union come in 
during this period of time ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I wouldn't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not anxious to have a union ? You weren't 
looking for a union ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, I think that is a decision of the people in 
our shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign a contract with Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the arrangements of the contract? 

Mr. Hermanson. Mainly that he would represent us if we had any 
labor problems. The contract specified the fee to be paid for this 
representation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that is a copy of the contract. 

The Chairman. Will you examine the document the Chair passes 
to you and state whether you identify it ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

The Chairman. What is it ? 

Mr. Hermanson. This is a copy of the contract, our copy. 

The Chairman. Your copy of the contract between whom? 

Mr. Hermanson. Flowerized Presentations, and Equitable Re- 
search. 

The Chairman. Who signed for Equitable Research ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Johnny Dioguardi, as vice president. 

The Chairman. That document, or a copy of it, may be made ex- 
hibit 55. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4101 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 55," for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4453^454.) 

Mr. Kexnedy. I think the first paragraph ])retty well sums up the 
terms of the contract. May I read that, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is dated March 22, 1956. 

Gentlemen, you are hereby authorized to enter into negotiations on our behalf 
with such local union designated as, or which claims to be the representative 
bargaining agent for, our employees. This organization as aforesaid shall 
constitute you as our sole representative at such negotiations. In connection 
with all such negotiations, you may name, designate, or employ any person or 
persons to operate with you at your own cost or expense, all of which shall 
be considered a part of services to be rendered. In connection with the fore- 
going, we agree to be or have a member of our firm available at all times for 
conferences with your representative, or at such places as are designated by you. 

That is signed by you. 

The contract was to be signed by you as representing Flowerized 
Presentations and it was endorsed by him, Johnny Dioguardi? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the financial arrangements were that you would 
})ay $150 on the first of each and every month? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the understanding that as an alternative you 
would pay 2 percent of your gross payroll, whichever was greater? 

]Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has turned out to be greater ? 

]Mr. Hermanson. Well, on the first year of the contract, the fee was 
just about right. I think we owed Equitable about $35 or $40 that 
day. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you paid them for the first year about $1,800 ? 

Mr. Hermanson. It is about $1,800. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately $1,800? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you signed this contract in 1956, with Equi- 
table, did you have anybody come around to try to organize you? 

Mr. HER3krANS0N. I was told that there were several men who had 
come around; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did 

Mr. Hermanson. I didn't personally see them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat happened to those men who came around ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Our factory manager said that we were being 
represented by Equitable Research, and suggested that they contact 
them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien the representatives of these unions came- 
around, your factory manager told them that you were represented 
by Equitable Research, and suggested that they talk with Johnny Dio ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see them again ? Did they ever come 
back? 

Mr. Hermanson. I didn't ; no. 

JSIr. Kennedy. Do you know if any of these people came back a 
second time? 

Mr. Herman.'ion. I did not hear that they came back. 



4102 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear that they did come back a second 
time ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are still unorfranized ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is rifjht. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he perform any other service for you ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Some minor incident, where we had a problem of 
waste removal from our factory in New Rochelle. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a factory in New Rochelle? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had a oarbage collector? Awaste remover? 

Mr. Hermanson. They prefer that name. 

Mr. Kennedy. A waste remover ? 

Mr. HerMxYnson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what happened on 
that? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, we had started out in New Rochelle with a 
small factory and gradually built up. It seemed that periodically we 
were asked to increase our rate. 

Mr. Kennedy. To the waste remover? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He would come by every month or so to increase 
the rate? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. There had been several increases 
and we felt that it had reached the point where the value exceeded 
the waste. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you try to remove your own garbage, then ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you employ people to remove it ? 

Mr. Hermanson. We tried to have several truckmen who did gen- 
eral hauling for us to take the waste of the New Rochelle 

Mr. Kennedy. Did these independent haulers report back to you 
after they had hauled it for a few days, did they report back to 
you that it had been suggested to them that they not haul it any 
more ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they refused to haul it, is that right ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you borrow a station wagon from the 
neighborhood grocer ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you started to have your own garbage taken 
away? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it then suggested to the neighborhood grocer 
that he not loan his station wagon for those purposes ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

l^Tr. Kennedy. And he refused to do that ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, we didn't want to bring him into our prob- 
lems. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you contact Mr. Dio? Did you have a 
conversation with him and tell him your problem ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4103 

Mr. Hermanson. I phoned him subsequently about it, not that 
^ye were having any too great difficulty. It was costly and quite a 
nuisance for us to be taking our own waste out in a station wagon. 

Mr. IvENNEDY, Did you tell him the name of the company at that 
time ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of the company ? 

]\[r. Hermanson. I tliink it is Queen City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Queen City ? 

Mr. Herjmanson. Yes. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do they do most of the hauling there ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Apparently. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. DeNota ? 

Mr. Hermanson. DeNovio, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you contacted Mr. Dio to tell him of your 
difficulty out there, did you have any difficulty after that? 

]\Ir. Hermanson. Well, we continued to take our own waste. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not have any particular problem after 
that? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, no particular problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been satisfied with the services of Mr. 
Dio during this period of time? 

Mr. Hermanson. He has performed according to the contract. He 
liasn't had much required of him. 

]Mr. Kennedy. That is the point. Were you ready to renew the 
conti'act again this year? 

^Ir. Hermanson. Well, we might have considered it, had not all 
of this difficulty occurred with Equitable. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not decided yet whether you will renew 
it or not? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, we reached a decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. When I talked to you about 3 weeks ago, you hadn't. 

Mr. Hermanson. At the time Mr. Dio hadn't been convicted of 
anything. 

Sir. Ivennedy. In the last week you decided ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you thought you had been pleased with the 
services performed for the prior years? I mean, if he hadn't been 
convicted, you would have contemplated, at least, renewing the con- 
tract ? 

Mr. Hermanson. We would have contemplated it. 

I would like to add this : That it appears I have made an error in 
judgment in this. 

Mr. Kennedy. '\Aniat I am trying to get at is that you paid $1,800 
and you say that the services were very slight. He didn't have to 
negotiate Vv'ith anyone, he didn't perform any j^articular services for 
YOU. yet you are ready to renew the contract again. 

T)id lie do what you expected him to do? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, actually, I had in mind more than what 
he ])erformed. When someone comes around to a small manufacturer 
and attempts to organize them, the average owner of a business who 
sells, designs, buys, and finances isn't really equipped to handle these 
])eople. I guess most of them make the same mistakes I made. I 

^OoSO — 57 — pt. 11 T 



4104 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

felt that I needed someone more as a consultant, and someone avail- 
able at sucli time as I would need them, in the same sense that we keep 
a lawj^er on a retainer. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the experiences that you had, that 
wasn't really necessary, because all you had to tell the people who came 
around and who tried to organize your shop was to go see Equitable 
Research and then they didn't come back again. 

Mr. Hermanson. That was the experience of the past year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was an experience that you wanted to 
continue ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, I wouldn't want to continue it with a firm 
of this caliber. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But up until a week ago ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, I felt in fairness we sliould see if he was 
convicted. 

The Chairman. Tliis is simpl}' money that you paid out for pro- 
tection, was it not, and you so regarded it: did you not ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, I think it could be considered that; yes, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Well, that is all you got out of it, protection? 

Mr. Hermanson. We were able to operate our business. 

The Chairman. That is right. You got protection so you could 
operate your business. 

Mr. Hermanson. In a sense that is true. 

The Chairman. And that is what you paid liini for. 

Mr, Hermanson. In a sense, I agree with you. 

TJie Chairman. You agree with me. 

All right, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand, you did not make up your 
mind until last week wliether you would continue Mr. Dio's services. 
Were you not aware that he was indicted several months ago for 
throwing the acid in Mr. EieseFs eyes ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. How could 3'ou possibly consider continuing to 
employ him ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, I felt that he should be convicted of the 
charges. I didn't feel that I should judge him. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not have the responsibility of judging 
him. You had tlie responsibility, however, when the legal authori- 
ties in New York tliought there was sufficient evidence to indict him, 
you had responsibility to decide whether you wanted him to be the 
man to be your labor consultant. 

Mr. Hermanson. I agree with you that it is bad judgment on my 
part, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Is the situation so difficult in New York that 
vou feel obligated to hire a man like Johnny Dio as your labor con- 
sultant? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, my experience has been pretty rough, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In what way has it been rough? Have you 
had people attempt to hold you up, to get money from you, in ex- 
change for not attempting to organize your plant? Have you had 
any of that ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, we did have this one effort to organize our 
plant; yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4105 

Senator Kexxedy. Yoii say your experience has been rough. In 
Avhat way has it been roughs 

Mr. Hermaxsox. Well, vi-e do get calls occasionally from miion 
magazines or fmid raisings, wanting to know if we will give them 
money for advertising, which I feel is wasted. 

I have, in the past year or so, taken the position that we would 
say "No" to these requests. 

Senator Kexxedy. Do you tell them to call Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Hermaxsox. No; I just say we haven't any money in our 
budget for this kind of expense. 

Senator Kexxedy. You say your experience has been so rough. 
Do you just say "No" and that is the end of it? 

Mr. Hermax^sox^ Well, what I was referring to was the attempt 
to organize our place. "V-N^ien the attempt was made I made certain 
errors, such as discharging some people who had been with us less 
than a week. Thei'e were about 10 of them. Immediately the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board stepped in. 

I was not familiar with the fact that you could or could not do 
that. I was not familiar that you could or could not speak to your 
people. 

Senator Kex'xedy. Did they hold you guilty of an unfair labor 
practice ? 

Mr. IIermansox^. That is right, sir. 

Senator Kexx-^edy. That was in 1954. Then, you were saying that 
your experiences were rough. I want to try to get the details of why 
your experience was so rough that you felt you had to hire Johnny 
Dio. He is not a lawj^er, so he could not have given you legal advice. 

Mr. Hermax-^sox'. I am sorry. Excuse me. 

Senator Kex'x^edy. He could not have given you legal advice as to 
whether you could talk to your employees and all of those details. 
Where was it that it was so rough that you needed his services and 
not a lawyers ? 

Mr. Hermaxsox' . Well, I felt that someone who was more familiar 
with the laljor management could give us better advice. 

Senator Kex^xedy. What yo you mean by that? 

Mr. Hermax'SOX'. He represented that he was an experienced labor 
man. From what Mr. Bitz told me, and what he offered in tlie w'ay 
of advice, I felt that that was our best bet. 

Senator Kexxedy. In other words, you were not looking for a 
lawyer to give you legal advice as to the technicalities of the National 
Labor Relations Act, but you were looking for other kinds of assist- 
ance; were you not? 

Mr. HER:^rAxsox-. Well, when you have a situation as we had in 
1955, you look for almost anything because the average businessman, 
I don't think, knows which way to turn. 

It has been my experience that most lawyers today must be special- 
ists. I have found that true in real estate. I am pretty sure it is 
true in labor from the little experience I have had. 

Senator Kex-^x'edy. Do you have a union now in your plant? 

Mr. HioRMAxsox'^, No, sir; we do not. 

Senator Kexxedy. No union has attempted to organize you in the 
last year? 

Mr. Hermaxsox. To my knowledge, I haven't had any contact with 
them. 



4106 IMPROPER ACrnaTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Do you refer tliem to Mr. Dio ? 

IMr. Hermanson. We would, yes, as long as he represented us. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you ever referred any to Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I didn't personally do it, but I understand in a 
couple of cases they referred to him. 

Senator Kennedy. Then what happens ? Do you hear from them 
again ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You do not hear from them again. So, isn't 
what you hired Mr. Dio for to keep your plant from being unionized? 

Mr. Hermanson. I would not agree with you on that. I think you 
would have to know our plant. I think you would have to know the 
people that work in it and the relationship. 

Senator Kennedy. What you told us is that in 1954 the National 
Labor Relations Board found you guilty of an unfair labor practice, 
that you got in touch with INIr. Bitz, to prevent picketers from pre- 
venting the shipment of your goods. Is that right ? 

ISIr. Hermanson. No, sir. First of all, we were not found guilty 
of unfair labor practices. The charges were dropped. 

Senator Kennedy. You rehired the people ; did you ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Actually, only, I believe, 4 of about 40 regular 
people went out with this group, and 2 of them are still working at 
our factory. 

Senator Kennedy. Let us get into the two men that you got Mr. 
Dio to send down. 

'\: Mr. Hermanson. That is a different situation. 

. Senator Kennedy. I understand. In other words, did you get 
ahold of Mr. Dio to send down two men in order to prevent picketers 
from stopping your goods from coming in and out of an area? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, sir. I didn't meet Mr. Dio at the time we were 
having 

Senator Kennedy. Did you arrange through Mr. Bitz that he would 
have Mr. Dio send two men ? 

]Mr. Hermanson. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not get two men ? 

Mr. Hermanson. No, sir; this was when we removed some mate- 
rial in November from a supplier. 

Senator Kennedy. Who sent the two men ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I was told Johnny. 

Senator Kennedy. Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Hermanson. I later learned it was Johnny Dio. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you had Johnny Dio send two men down. 
Was it not the purpose for sending them to stop the picketers from — 
what was the purpose in sending them down? 

Mr. Her:\eanson. I am sorry. 

Senator Kennedy. It will be easier if you will just tell us what it 
was. 

Mr. Hermanson, We had an attempt to organize our factory work- 
'ers in June of 1955. That was over with. In Novejnber one of our 
.suppliers had a strike, and this supplier had some of our materials 
which we wanted to remove from his premises. 

SeTiator Kennedy. Who was stopping it from being i-emovod ? The 
picketers ? 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4107 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Then Johnny Dio sent down two men at night 
to prevent the picketers from stopping your suppliers' goods, your 
goods, from being removed. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. Herm ANSON. That is correct. I just wanted you to separate 
the two incidents. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you were using one of the 
worst hoodhnns in New York in order to prevent your plant from 
being unionized, is that not a fact, and including strong-arm tactics 
and all the rest. I do not know how you can look at it in any other 
way. 

Then, you did not decide, in spite of the fact that he was indicted 
for throwing acid in Kiesel's eyes, and the fact that he was accused of 
putting pressure on witnesses several months ago, you did not decide 
until the past week to drop his services. 

Mr. Herimanson. It may sound naive to you, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. It does not sound naive at all. That is not what 
it sounds like. I do not want to be unfair to you, Mr. Hermanson, but 
I do not see how you can come before a committee and possibly justify 
having Johnnj^ Dio prevent either jurisdictional strikes or organiza- 
tion for your plant and you are paying him this money, and having 
no other use but that. 

]Mr. Hermanson. I agree with you that I have made an error, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me once you understood who Johnny 
Dio was, and I do not think you were under any ignorance as to his 
influence in the racketeering circles in New York from the beginning, 
but once the Riesel matter came up, I do not see how you did not 
drop him immediately. 

Mr. Hermanson. I discussed it with my attorney. 

Senator Kennedy. What did your attorney advise you? 

Mr. Hermanson. It was his opinion that we had a contract for a 
year and that we were liable for it. 

Senator Kennedy. You were liable for the money, but you were not 
obliged to use his services ? 

Mr. Hermanson. True. 

Senator Kennedy. Did your attorney inform you of that? 

Mr. Her^ianson. True. 

Senator Kennedy. The contract was up, when, in March? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1957 ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you pay him through March ? 

Mr. Hermanson. "VVe paid him for April and May of this yeai-. 

Senator Kennedy. When was the Riesel matter ? 

Mr. Kennedy. June of 1956. 

Mr. Her^ianson. I think we paid him actually about 19, months. 
"N^Hiile the contract was signed in March, I don't think it became effec- 
tive until May. I think we paid him for a month. 

Senator Kennedy. You paid him including 2 months after the con- 
tract ran out, even though for many months he had been under indict- 
ment for aiding in the blinding of Riesel ? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. And you did not decide until last week to dis- 
pense with his services ? 



4108 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hermanson. Well, several Aveeks ago. I saw Mr. Kennedy in 
New York, and at the time Mr. Dio had not been convicted. After 
he was, I arrived at the conclusion. 

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

Senator Kennedy. Did you ask our investigator in July 1957, 
whether it was his advice that you should renew your contract with 
Dio? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, sir; I did. 

Senator Kennedy. That was in July 1957? Last month? 

Mr. Hermanson. That is right, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. We have had some labor racketeers in here 
but what you have done has been just as improper as anything we 
have heard in front of this committee since this New York hearing 
began. 

It seems to me that you used a notorious hoodlum and continued 
to use him in order to assist you in preventing your plant from being 
organized. I do not see how else we can look at it. 

Mr. Hermanson. I believe that if our plants desired to be or- 
ganized, they could at any time. I do want to tell you that we have 
a factory which works about 45 weeks a year and that I think the 
conditions are good. I think the people are satisfied. I believe that 
they get a lot more than they could get otherwise. We have a bonus 
system there where certain employees are paid 8 and 10 weeks x>ay a 
year, and we give them paid holidays. I think most of the people are 
satisfied and want to be left alone. 

Senator Kennedy. The point is, according to the evidence we have, 
you did not give them a fair opportunity to make that decision, be- 
cause whenever a union made an attempt to organize them, you 
referred the union to Dio, and, in effect, the result was instantaneous. 
You do not have a fair picture as to whether your employees desired 
a union or not, because Mr. Dio's services prevented that determina- 
tion. 

Mr. Hermanson. They certainly had the opportunity when the 
doll and toy workers attempted to organize. 

Senator Kennedy. That was prior to Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Hermanson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I might just point out here, Mr. Chairman, and 
though it is not directly connected with Mr. Hermanson, that we 
have the situation as far as Dio is concerned, between 1940 and 1950, 
of him having approximately 10 dress shops, most of which were 
nonunion. He operated these nonunion dress shops in 1950 and 1951, 
while he came into the labor union movement at the same time. 

Then he got into the labor union movement in 1950, and brought 
all of these other people into the labor union, some of whom we 
have had testimony here, and then ostensibly got out in October 1954, 
and set up an organization whose services were to keep other plants, 
such as Mr. Hermanson, from being unionized, or to get a soft con- 
tract, such as was granted to Mr. Lehrer, the witness who appeared 
yesterday. 

It was these people that Mr. Dio brought into the labor-union move- 
ment whose names were used and whose positions were used, and who 
became officers in the locals, the teamster locals, in November and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4109 

December of 1955 and January of 1956, and were to be used to vote 
in the election of February 14, 1956, for the control of Joint Council 
16 of the teamsters up in New York City. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

If not, thank you very much. You may stand aside. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. 

(Thereupon, at 4: 32 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a. m., Thursday, Aug:ust 8, 1957.) 

( Select committee members present at the time of recess were Sen- 
ators McClellan, Kennedy, and Goldwater.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1957 

United Stati.s 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 Januaiy 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select commit- 
tee) presiding. 

Present : Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Irving 
M. Ives, Republican, New York ; John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massa- 
chusetts; Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Pat Mc- 
Namara, Democrat, JNIichigan; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South 
Dakota; Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, chief assistant comisel; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel; 
Walter R. May, assistant counsel; Frank C. Lloyd, investigator; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(]\Iembers of the select committee present at the convening of the 
liearing were Senators McClellan, Ives, Kennedy, Ervin, Goldwater, 
and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as we stated the first day, when Dio 
came into the labor-union movement, he came in through local 102. 
Then local 102 took on the jurisdiction of just the taxicabs, and Dio 
set up a local 649, which is the sort of mother local of all of the other 
locals that operated in New York City for Dio. From that local 
came 6 or 7 others that came into existence and actually operated. 

Today the first 2 or 3 witnesses will be in connection with the con- 
trol that 649 had, the people that Jolinny Dio brought into 649 who 
were his chief lieutenants in the labor-imion movement, and the part 
that 649 played in the establishment of these paper locals, these team- 
ster paper locals in New York City in November of 1955. 

I would like to have Mr. Tierney, of the committee staff, explain 
just for a moment the situation as far as 649 and the paper locals are 
concerned, at least the fii'st part of it. 

The Chairman. IVIr. Tierney has been previously sworn, and he 
may resume. 

4111 



4112 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain this with emphasis on the lieuten- 
ants of Johnny Dio which he had brought into 649 originally and the 
important part they played in the teamster paper locals ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. As you will observe, the principal officers of local 649 
are Joseph Curcio, Harry Davidoff, Sidney Hocles, George Baker, 
and Abe Brier. 

Particular emphasis should be placed on Curcio, Davidoff, Hodes, 
and Brier. As you will see here, these black lines show where these 
officers went to four of the teamster paper locals. Joseph Curcio 
came down to 269, as secretary-treasurer of local 269. Harry David- 
off came over to 258 as secretary-treasurer of local 2'58. Sidney 
Hodes came down originally to 284 as secretary-treasurer of local 
284. Abe Brier came down to 362, as secretary-treasurer of local 362. 
The other paper local, 651, the secretary-treasurer of which was 
Nathan Gordon, and which paper local never actually ever got off 
the ground, we will show exactly came out of 649 through the payment 
of bills and the renting of their office space. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Does any committee member have any question 
of the witness ? 

All right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schneider. 

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. Schneider. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HERMAN SCHNEIDER 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
your business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Schneider. My name is Herman Schneider and my place of 
residence is 534 Maxwell Street, West Hempstead, Long Island, N. Y., 
and my business is president of the New Way Auto School, Inc. 

The Chairman. Have you talked to members of the staff regard- 
ing your testimony ? 

Mr. Schneider. Pardon me, sir ? 

The Chairman. Have you talked to members of the committee staff 
regarding your testimony ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, You know then generally the line of interrogation 
to expect? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. With that knowledge have you chosen to waive 
counsel ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. As president of the New Way Auto School Co., you 
owned the property at 119 West Columbia Street? 

]Mr. Schneider. No, sir ; I leased the property. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4113 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon lesised the property? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Noav, in 195?>, did a certain union official approach 
jon abont renting- that property? 

]\Ir. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who specifically approached you? 

Mr. Schneider. Sidne}' Hodes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sidney Hodes? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

Ml'. Kennedy. You can see, JNIr. Chairman, that he was associated 
with 649 at tliat time. Now, what did Mr. Hodes say to you ? 

Mr. Schneider. He came to rent two rooms which we had avail- 
able in the building for offices for a union. Local 228 was the union 
lie told us he was renting it for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 228? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the UAW-AFL? 

Mr. Schneider. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that local 228 is what we call the 
bouncing charter, and that was the one that was supposed never in 
existence, but actually operated for a period of 2 years and went from 
one group to another. 

Did he come in and did he make arrangements to take over the 
property ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. They actually used that office space? 

Mr. Schneider. To my knowledge, they never had a staff operating 
full-time there. They clid move into the two rooms and they had a 
key to the building and a key to their rooms. 

The Chairman. Did 3'ou make a Avritten contract with them for 
leasing the space? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a document supposedly 
a copy of that contract, or the original, and I w^ish you would examine 
it and state if you recognize it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir : this is the lease they signed. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 56 for reference 
only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 56" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

jSIr. Kennedy. Now, did he give you a card as to where he could 
be reached ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir; during business hours. We had his 
home addi-ess where we could reach him or forward any mail, also. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he gave you a card where he could be reached 
during business hours? 

Mr. Schneider. That is right. 

The Chairman. I present to vou a card and ask you to examine it 
and identify it, if that is the card that he gave you. 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir ; this is the card. 

The Chairman. Eead the card, please, sir. 



4114 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Schneider. It says: 

Harry Davidoff. president, Amalgamated Workers Local 130, AFL, 1780 Broad- 
way, New York 19, N. Y. 

The Chairman-. The card may be made exhibit 57 for reference. 
It need not be printed in the record since it had been read. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 57" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee, ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 130 of the AFL is actually a toy and doll 
workers union, and was a union that Mr. Davidoff and Mr. Hodes 
operated for a number of years. 

Then they had come in under Johnny Dio to local 649, and the 
address that is given on there is the address of local 649. Mr. Harry 
Davidoff, whose card it is, was the chief oiRcer under Johnny Dio 
in local 649. 

Subsequently in 1955, did Mr. Hodes contact you and ask you if 
the office space could be used by certain other locals? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee about that? 

Mr. Schneider. Well, actually he called and asked whether it 
would be all right if he put up another sign in front of the building, 
and he did. 

The Chairman. Did you ever see this before? 

Mr. Schneider. I think this was the sign that they put over there 
originally, local 228 sign. 

The Chairman. They had placed this over the old sign of 228? 

Mr. Schneider. That's right. 

The Chairman. When did that occur ? 

Mr. Schneider. I would say the end of 1955, 1 think it was. 

The Chairman. 1955? 

Mr. Schneider. I think it was the end of the year 1955. 

The Chairman. This may be made exhibit 58 for reference. I do 
not think we can put it in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit ISTo. 58" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is locals 362 and 651, that sign. 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand who local 362 and 651 were 
affiliated with ? 

Mr. Schneider. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, at that period of time, 651 and 362 
were 2 of the teamster paper locals, and so 228 space was then taken 
over by 651 and 362. Actually, 651 operated out of 649 of the UAW. 

Did they occupy that space then? 

Mr. Schneider. There didn't seem to be any change in the occu- 
pancy of the space. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nothing occurred? 

Mr. Schneider. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was never used ? 

Mr. Schneider. Not to my knowledge, not with a staff full-time. 
Occasionally something may have come in but tliere was no full- 
time staff there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4115 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, in May of 1956, did they write a 
letter and did you receive a letter requesting the termination of the 
lease ? 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you what purports to be the 
letter you have testified to, and please examine it and see if you 
identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir; this is the letter we received. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 59, but you may read it. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit Xo. 59" and is 
as follows:) 

Mr. Schneider. This is May 10, 195G, to Nu-Way Auto School : 

Gentlemen : Please be advised that as of May 31, 1956, we wish to terminate 
our lease. Your acknowledgement of the above will be appreciated. 
Yours very truly, 

Harrt Davidoff, 
Secretary-Treasurer. 

That is on the local 649 stationery. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. It has been made an 
exhibit. 

Mr. Kennedy. The lease was ultimately canceled by the chief 
officer of local 649, Mr. Chairman. That is all for this witness. 

Senator Curtis. I have just one question. 

Mr. Schneider, you said that no one occupied this regularly as to 
office hours, Was it a ghost headquarters or was someone in almost 
every few days? 

Mr. Schneider. I wouldn't say anyone was in every few days, that 
would be too frequent. 

Senator Curtis. Maybe once in 2 weeks someone would come in? 

Mr. Schneider. At the beginning I would say possibl}^ once a week 
for a short while and afterwards it was less frequent than that. 

Senator Curtis. And would they appear to stay in there and work 
and meet people? 

Mr. Schneider. Not usually. 

Senator Curtis. Just someone would come in and go out right 
away ? 

Mr. Schneider. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That did not happen more than once every 2 
weeks ? 

Mr. Schneider. Not more than that ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Thank j'ou very much, Mr. Schneider. 

Call the next witness, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank Lloyd. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK C. LLOYD— Resumed 

The Chairman. Were you previously sworn ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir ; I was. 
The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Lloyd, you made an examination of the 
printing that was requested by certain of these so-called teamster 



4116 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

paper locals, and there was certain stationery that they ordered after 
they were set up in Xovember of 1955. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have made an investigation to find out where 
that printing was ordered ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid the bills, and to whom the bills were sent 
for that printing? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what you found, as 
far as that is concerned ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder, please? 

Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Chairman, we visited the Daniel Press, 19 West 
o8th Street, in New York City, and we found that printing orders for 
locals Nos. 258, 269, 362, 651 originated from local No. 649. 

The invoices were made out to the individual locals mentioned above 
and mailed to local No. 649. I believe that is the answer. 

The Chairman. I present you with a document here and ask you to 
examine it and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir; that is one of the invoices we obtained from 
Daniel Press. 

The Chairman. That is one of the invoices you obtained? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, it may be made exhibit No. 60. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 60" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4455.) 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question or two about it. '\\niere 
did you obtain that invoice, out of whose files? 

Mr. Lloyd. We obtained it, ^Ir. Chairman, from the files of Daniel 
Press, and it was made up for us by the bookkeeper. 

The Chairman. It is marked "duplicate,'- is it ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It is charged to local No. 649. 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The entire bill ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Does it identify other locals, the locals for whom 
the material was ordered ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir ; it does. 

The Chairman. Read the names of the locals and the amounts fur- 
nished to each. 

IVlr. Lloyd. Well, it starts off, Mr. Chairman, 145 strike signs 
printed on 2 sides iu red ink, 5 lots. Twenty local 355, 50 local 269, 
25 local 258, 25 local 651, and 25 local 362. 

The total is extended $135, even, with a sales tax of $4.05, making 
the total bill $139.05. 

The Chairman. In other words, that bill for what we have been 
terming the paper locals was sent to the parent group up there of 
local 649. 

^Ir. Lloyd. Tliat is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do vou know whether the bill was paid or not? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4117 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir; the information that we obtained from the 
bookkeeper AA-as that the bill was paid but a portion of it, which she 
called a pro rata share of $39.49, she claims was paid by local 258. 

The Chairman. And the rest of it was paid by whom ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Local 649, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sidney Hodes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hodes, come around, please. 

Will you stand and be sworn ? Do you 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. HoDES. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY HODES, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JACQUES M. SCHIFFER 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

]Slr. Hodes. My name is Sidney Hodes. I reside at 400 New Lots 
Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to answer the rest of the question and 
tell us your business or occupation? 

Mr. Hodes. I respectfully refuse to answer the question on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You know, I have observed that you folks taking 
the fifth amendment here are pretty big fellows to be so easily incrim- 
inated. Let us proceed with it. 

You have counsel here and will you identify yourself ? 

Mr. ScHiFEER. J. M. Schiffer, Rockville Centre, N. Y., associated 
in the matter with the law firm of Duecke & Fields, Greenlawn, N. Y. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as we established, Dio's primary local 
was ()49 and the main officials or people he brought into the labor-union 
movement came down into these teamster paper locals in December of 
1955 and January of 1956. 

The printing that was done for their stationery was all paid out of 
649. and that 649 had control over a number of them more directly 
and their headquarters was in 649, and that the office space on two 
occasions was paid out of 649. 

Now, Mr. Sidney Hodes, according to our information, is a very 
close colleague of Mr. Johnny Dio and he played a very important 
role in the setting up of these paper locals. He came out of 649, but 
he came down as president of 268 of the teamsters, and he was secre- 
tary-treasurer of 284 of the teamsters and he was listed as president 
of local 362 of the teamsters. 

So he played a properly eminent role in three of the teamster paper 
locals that were established in November of 1955, As I say, he was 
close to Johnny Dio. The request for the establishment of these paper 
locals was made originally by Mr. James Hoffa, who was also very 
close to Dio. 

Now, could I ask you, Mr. Hodes, when vou first came in as an 
official of local 649 ^ 



4118 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HoDES. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Dioguardi bring you in as an official of 
649? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, I must respectfully decline to answer the ques- 
tion on the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Dioguardi '? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mr. IIoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfulh' decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you one of his "stooges" ? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you one of his "muscle men" ? 

Mr. IIoDEs. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr, Kennedy. I would like to get in the documents first on the 
teamster paper locals, Mr. Chairman, and here is the application for 
charter for local 284, which lists as the secretary-treasurer, Mr. Sid- 
ney Hodes. 

The Chairman. I present to you a document already admitted in 
evidence, or two documents and one is exhibit 40 and the other is 
exhibit 40-A, in which your name is listed as president of local 362, 
and where you were certified as a delegate to the joint council repre- 
senting local union 362. 

I ask you to examine this document and state if that name, "Sidney 
Hodes," on that document and you are one and the same. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hodes. I have examined the document, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize your name on it? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer tlie 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chair3Tan. You think you might be incriminated to recognize 



your own name 



Mr. Hodes. I might. 

The Chairman. All right, do you want to give us any information 
about your connection with that union and your attending that joint 
council meeting and whether you voted or not? 

Mr. HoDES. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is the reason that you feel that you would be in- 
criminated because you know this was a ])]iony union, and ])liony 
local and that tlie whole purpose of it was primarily to send delegates 
from tliis phony union to that joint council meeting in order to 
conti'ol an election ? 

Is that why you think it would incriminate you ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Cii.MRisrAN. Will .vou agree with me that if that was not the 
reason, or there was not some other ulterior motive in it, that it would 
not incriminate you to tell the truth about it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4119 

Mr. IIoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
(juestion on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

]Mr. Kennedy. In that connection, we have the credentials for Mr. 
Ilodes to vote in the election for the teamsters. 

The Chairman. Present this to the witness. It is a letter of Feb- 
ruary 22, 1956, addressed to the joint council 16, and it is signed by 
Abraham Brier and it certifies that the bearer, Sidney Hodes, is an 
executive board member of local 362 and is eligible to vote in the 
joint council election. 

Take a look at that, please, 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hodes. I have examined the document, sii-. 

The Chairman. l^Hiat do you see? 

]Mr. HoDEs. A document. 

The Chairman. What else? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You see your name there certified as a delegate to 
that meeting, do you not, the joint council 16 ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Maybe you cannot read, can you? Maybe I am 
being unfair to you. Can you read ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 61. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 61'" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4456.) 

The Chairman. You have a brother, do you ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you have a father and mother ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I present you a document here. It is signed by 
Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer of local union 651, addressed to 
the joint council 16, dated November 29, 1955, and ask you to examine 
it and see if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hodes. I have examined the document, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you see anybody's name on there that is related 
to you ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
cjuestion on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think it might incriminate you or your 
brother if you admitted you were kin to him ? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The document may be made exhibit No. 62. 

(The document referred to was marked '"Exliibit No. 62" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4457.) 

89330— 57— pt. 11 8 



4120 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiTAiR^rATsr. Your brother, Abe Hodes, was never a member of a 
union; was he? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. He is certified here as trustee of local 651, and as 
f uch he is ordered to be seated, or requested to be seated as a delegate 
to joint council 16. 

Was he a member of the union at that time within your knowl- 
edge ? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did he attend that convention with you? 

Mr. Hodes. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you vote at that convention, one of these phony 
charter votes? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You don't want to acknowledge your brother ? 

Mr. Hodes. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I hand you another document dated February 2, 
1956, addressed to the joint council 16, from Nathan Gordon, certify- 
i?ig that Abe Hodes is an executive member of that local and as such 
is entitled to vote at this joint council meeting. 

Will you examine that document? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hodes. I have examined the document, sir. 

The Chairman. Did I state the facts about it ? 

Mr. Hodes. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The document speaks for itself. Were you and 
your brother together at that convention ? 

Mr. Hodes. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you think any association with your brother 
might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Hodes. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Are there any further questions? 

That last document may be made exhibit 63. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 63" for 
reference and will be found in the a])pendix on p. 4458.) 

Senator Kennedy. INIr. Hodes, are you president now of teamster 
local 258 ? 

Mr. Hodes. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. Are vou an officer now in the teamster local in 
New York? 

Mr. Hodes. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer tlie ques- 
tion on the ground it miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand tliat you were a member of T^ocal 
('i40 of tlie United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, and that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4121 

rliat cliarter was lifted because of corrupt ion. You then transferred 
over to the teamsters, and first to local 284, and then now to local 258. 
Is that a fact ^ 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the gromid it miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ivexxedy. Did Mr. Hocles vote in the 1956 election? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes; he did. 

Senator Kennedy. No^^• I understand Mr. Getlan, listed as an 
otticer of local 258, that his name was also listed as voting, but that 
he came before the committee and disclaimed any knowledge of that. 
Mr. Kennedy. He was listed as president of that local, and he 
appeared before the committee a day or so ago and testified that not 
only he did not vote, but that he had never even heard of the local 
teamster union. 

Senator Kennedy. The AFTj-CIO Ethical Practices Committee 
calls for the resignation of any officer who takes the fifth amendment, 
I understand that according to the constitution of the teamsters, only 
Mr. Beck can ask for Mr. Hocles' resignation, but it seems to me that 
in view of the position of the AFL-CIO, the teamsters in order to 
clarify their own position should ask for Mr. Hodes' resignation. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Hodes, I think that you could answer 
this question without any danger of incriminating yourself. It has 
to do with your attorney, Mr. Schifi'er, I believe. Is that the name? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. That is the name. 

Senator Goldwater. Does Mr. Schifi'er represent the union that 
you are connected with ? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Then I will ask your attorney, Mr. Schiffer. 

Do vou represent the union, or unions, that Mr. Hocles is connected 
with?"' 

Mr. Schiffer. I have been especially retained just for the purpose 
of these hearings. 

Senator Goldw^vter. You did not represent them before this? 

Mr. Schiffer. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Is the union paying your fee ? 

Mr. Schiffer, They have paid my expenses up to date and I 
expect to charge them a fee for my services. 

Senator Goldwater. You intend to send the bill to the union and 
not to Mr. Hodes ? 

Mr. Schiffer. I expect to address it to the union, and whoever pays 
the bill I am just not interested, so long as I get paid. I think the 
union properly should pay it. 

Senator Goldwater. You feel the union should pay it? 

Mr. Schiffer. There is no question about it in my mind. 

Senator Goldwater. You mean the union should pay out of dues 
collected from the working people, to defend a man who is charged 
with these various crimes? 

Mr. Schiffer. ]\Iay I answer that question ? 

Senator Goldwater. I would like your opinion on it. 

Mr. Schiffer. Up to this point, Senator, we have heard a lot of 
what we call "drivel" about charges being brought against witnesses. 
I am representing this witness at this time. From what I have been 



4122 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

able to determine, as liis attorney, in complete preparation for this 
hearing, we have not found one single, or at least I have not found 
a single iota of evidence to substantiate v^^hat has come from Mr. 
Kennedy, the chief counsel of this committee, with reference to this 
particular witness. 

Those are only charges. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, if you feel that way, you must feel that 
your client is innocent of these charges, and why did you suggest to 
him that he take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr, ScHiFrER. For this reason and only this reason. Senator : The 
Supreme Court has said that the Constitution is the law of this land, 
and it says the fifth amendment is basic law in this country. 

Senator Goldwater. We don't argue that. 

Mr. SciiiFFER. Then, sir, if that is the law, I am going to respect 
that law and so advise my client. 

Senator Goed water. But you just don't take the fifth amendment 
for the fun of it. You are a lawj^er, and you understand the fifth 
amendment and you understand that we all respect it as do all of the 
people of this country, but it is used to prevent self-incrimination. 

Now, what is there that Mr. Hodes has to be afraid of, if you say 
he is innocent of all of these charges ? 

Mr. Schiffer. I will answer that. Senator. By reason of the late 
decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, they have al- 
ready said that a man who pleads the fifth amendment, whatever the 
alleged charge might be, is not necessarily guilty of any crime. If 
he has that right, no inference against him should be drawn should 
he take the fifth amendment. 

Senator Goldwater. One can't help but take an inference in spite 
of what the Supreme Court says. The Supreme Court might say 
that there is no inference, but I think the people around the country 
believe that there is an inference. I do not agi'ee that there should 
be an inference, by the way, but I sat here and listened to this man 
take the fiftli amendment on simple questions, and in fact he would 
not tell me whether his union was hiring you. 

Now, certainly, there could be nothing self-incriminating about Mr. 
Hodes saying to me what you have said yourself, that the union is 
hiring you. 

I can't understand why, if in your opinion, this man is not guilty and 
lily white, he cannot come here and answer simple questions. 

He can't even answer a question about his brother, I don't always 
agree with my brother, and he is a Democrat, but I like him and I will 
admit he is my brother. 

The Chairman, Let us get back on the track. The Chair would like 
to make this observation about the fifth amendment : 

Certainly, any man accused of crime, or brought in to testify in a 
hearing like this, under the Constitution, has a right to invoke the 
fifth amendment in my judgment if, and only when, he honestly be- 
lieves that a trutliful answer to the question might tend to incriminate 
him. 

I do not believe that the Founding Fathers ever intended that tlie 
fiftli amendment should be used capriciously, and I think it is being 
used that wav. 

Insofar as inferences are concerned, if he was charged with a crime., 
the presumption of innocence would attend him throughout that trial. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4123 

But for the purpose of this investigation, and the function of this 
<tomniittee in trying to carry out the assignment given it by the Senate 
of tlie United States, I reserve the right to, and positively will draw 
inferences whenever the conduct of a witness warrants it. 

The taking of the fifth amendment so capriciously certainly war- 
lants me, and I will exercise it, to draw an inference of the character 
of the witness, and his conduct and his unwillingness to cooperate as 
a citizen of this country with his Government in carrying out the 
mission here of trying to clean out these racketeers and thugs and 
crooks and cheats and frauds from the labor-union movement. 

Let us proceed. 

Senator ER\aN. May I make an observation? Counsel has volun- 
tarily stated that he has not found any evidence or anything to indi- 
cate that any of the implications of any of these questions have any 
basis in fact. He has also intimated that from all of his investiga- 
tions, his client is absolutely innocent and has done nothing wrong, if 
I draAv a correct inference. 

Now, I respect the confidential relationship between attorney and 
client, and I would not refer to this if it had not been for the voluntary 
statement of counsel. It is a rather queer thing to me, as a lawyer, for 
-counsel to advise his client as I inferred he did, to plead the fifth 
amendment when the counsel saj^s there is nothing from his investiga- 
tion which would indicate that his client has been guilty of any wrong- 
doing. 

If you would pardon a statement, that is a rather queer basis on 
which the counsel could assume either the right or the duty to advise 
his client to plead the fifth amendment. 

Certainly, I had a lot of experience practicing law, and I never did 
advise my clients to plead the fifth amendment unless there were cir- 
cumstances which would tend to incriminate them regardless of 
whether they were guilty or innocent. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. May I make a brief statement on that, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

The Chairmax. Make it brief. We are going on. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. We are engaged here as I understand it in a dragnet 
investigation. That has been defined by one of the Justices of the 
Supreme Court of the United States with a recognition that it can 
very easily get out of hand and go into fields b-eyond the original 
scope of this investigation. It is the purpose of this hearing. 

As a result, I have advised my client of this constitutional right, 
which is guaranteed to him. 

However, I do not order him to take the fifth amendment, Senator, 
please understand me. That is the man's own right. If he chooses 
to take it, he has a perfect right to take it. 

Senator Er\t:n. That still doesn't explain to me why counsel would 
advise a man to invoke the fifth amendment when counsel says from 
his investigation of the client's case, he hasn't discovered a single 
fact which would tend to incriminate his client. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. If counsel wishes to refer to this as a dragnet in- 
A^estigation my answer to that is that it seems that in this dragnet 
procedure we have caught a sordid assignment of man-eating sharks. 

Let us proceed. 



4124 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hocles, we have some information and there 
has been testimony before the committee that when you were associated 
with local 649, that you went to the AU-Eite Belt Co., and that you 
made an arrangement there that they would pay to the union $96 every 
month in dues and in welfare funds, and that $96 was to be for 8 
individuals who work for the company, that those 8 individuals did 
not have to exist, and that you told the individuals of All-Rite Belt 
Co. that they could use any 8 names, which they proceeded to do for 
a period of 3 years, and just send in the $96 a month. 

Now, I wonder if you could explain to the committee what procedure 
you were following and what your intention was in making such an 
arrangement. 

Mr. HoDES. Counsel, I must respectfully decline to answer the ques- 
tion on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel if you gave a truthful answer and explana- 
tion of that to the committee that a truthful answer might tend to 
incriminate you. 

Mr. HoDES. It might. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you disagree with your attorney on that? 

Mr. SciiiFFER. There is no disagreement, may I point out. 

Mr. Kennedy. He feels that giving answers to questions before this 
committee might incriminate him, and you don't feel that they would. 
I think that there is a disagreement. 

We have also some information that when you were with 649, that 
you made an arrangement with the F & B Novelty Co., where the 
employees were mostly Puerto Eican extraction, and when representa- 
tives of those employees came to you and requested to see the contract, 
you refused to show them the contract ; is that correct ? 

Mr. HoDEs. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it will tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have a registration form with local 228, 
when you were with local 228 of the UAW-AFL, which shows your 
name as secretary-treasurer, and that you were elected to that position. 

Now, this form that is signed and forwarded to the Labor Depart- 
ment is signed by Sidney Hodes, financial secretary-treasurer. Our 
information is that you were never elected, and that therefore this 
statement was untrue. 

I would like to have you examine it and give any explanation that 
you might want to give. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you an exhibit 18 of these 
hearings, which is "Labor Organization Registration Form Under 
Public Law 101, 80th Congress,'' and ask you to examine it and state 
if you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. HoDES. I have examined the document, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you want to make any comment about it ? 

Mr. HoDES. Again I must respectfully decline to answer the ques- 
tion on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wonder if you could just give us a little bit of your 
background in the labor-union movement. We have you within a 
period of 3 or 4 years, in local 130 of the Doll and Toy Workers Union, 
as an officer in local 649, as an officer in local 228 of the UAW-AFL, 
as president of 258 of the teamsters, secretary-treasurer of 284 of the 
teamsters, and president of 362 of the teamsters. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4125 

Could you oive us a little background as to how you were able to 
obtain all of these positions? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must decline to answer the question on the 
giound it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kexnedy. You feel if you told us about that, it might tend to 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer tlie 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRMAiSr. Is one of the reasons why you are taking the fifth 
amendment because you are afraid of Johnny Dio? 

Mr. HoDES. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

Tlie Chair^iax. 1 asked if one of the reasons why you are taking 
the hfth amendment is because you are afraid of Johnny Dio. 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it ina,j tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Do you think it might tend to incriminate yoU for 
you to admit that you are not a physical coward, and not afraid of 
him? 

Mr. HoDES. Again, sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairmax. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the attorney a question? 

After listening to all of these answers to these questions, are you 
so sure that your client is so innocent ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. May I answer that. Senator ? 

Senator I^^es. Yes ; because certainly I am not and I can't see how 
you can be. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Let me explain something with reference to your 
inquiry. Senator. 

Judge Palmiere, of the United States District Court in the Southern 
District of New York, gratuitously offered a statement, as I under- 
stand it, to all media of newspapers, radio, and television, during the 
course of a civil suit, that this local and other locals were "tainted 
with fraud." 

The witness was subpenaed before the United States grand jury in 
the southern district of New York. It was about that time that 
I was retained to represent them at this point. 

He voluntarily appeared every time. 

Senator I\'es. I thought you just came down here today to look 
after his interests. 

Mr. Schiefer. I say for these purposes, and I am bringing out 
what I consider part of this function of this committee, the fact that 
the grand jury was going to assist this committee in securing 
testimony. 

Up to this time this witness is still under that subpena. It is an 
open subpena, and I have made an agreement with the United States 
attorney's office up there that whenever the grand jury is ready to hear 
this witness he will be there. 

Those are two of the main reasons why he is taking the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Ives. You didn't tell us that before. 

The Chairmax. Are there any further questions ? 

The witness will remain under the same subpena and will acknowl- 
edge the recognizance of this committee to be present again for testi- 



4126 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

mony upon reasonable notice of such time as the commitee may require 
further testimony from him. 

IVIr. ScHiFFER. May I inquire ? Does that require his remaining in 
Washinofton ? 

The Chairman. He will remain here the remainder of the day. He 
may be recalled today, but this has reference to when he is excused 
from attendance today. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you acknowledge recognizance ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you agree to appear upon reasonable notice 
without being subpenaed ? 

Mr. HoDES. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abe Brier. 

The Chairman. Mr. Abe Brier, will you come around, please ? 

Will you be sworn? 

Do you solemly 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. Brier. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ABEAHAM BRIER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JACQUES M. SCHIFFER 

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

Mr. Brier. Abraham Brier, 161 West 16th Stret, Manhattan, New 
York. 

The Chairman. Do you have any business ? 

Mr. Brier. I refuse to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any occupation ? 

Mr. Brier. I refuse to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you one of these labor racketeers? Is that 
why you don't answer ? 

Mr. Brier. I refuse to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. I agree with you. 

Senator I\'es. Before you start, may I ask counsel one thing: Has 
this gentleman been subpenaed in New York ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. What occurred here, Mr. Senator. I don"t know. 
What causes my appearance here for this witness is that an attorney, 
Mr. Halpin, who appeared before this committee yesterday, appeared 
in the outside corridor here and became ill. He asked me, would I 
substitute for him and appear before this committee with this witness. 
They had a conference and this witness asked me to sit alongside him. 

Senator Ives. Do you know whether he has been subpenaed up 
there ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I wouldn't know any of his background, sir. 

Senator Ives. Can he trust you enough to tell you? He ought to 
know whether he has been subpenaed or not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4127 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Could I ask liini? 
Senator Ives. Go ahead. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. ScHiFFER. I understand he has been sub]:>enaed before this com- 
mittee, but he has not been served with a subi:)ena from the gi-and 

Senator Ives. That is what I am talking about, the grand jury up 
there in New York. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. He says "No." 

Senator Ives. Then there is no reason why he should not talk. 

Mr. Schiffer. He may b.ave a lot of legal reasons. 

Senator Ives. You would not know what they are? 

Mr. Schiffer. I would not know if he wanted to take the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Counsel may identify yourself for the record again. 
Let the record show it is the same counsel as appeared for the preced- 
ing witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brier is of importance to us be- 
cause initially he came in with Mr. Dio, in local 102, and he assisted ac- 
cording to the information that we have in the taxicab drive in New 
York City, and he transferred over with Mr. Dio into local 649, and 
he played an important role in setting up of the teamster paper locals 
in 1955, because he became an officer of local 362. 

I would like to ask him first about his position in local 102 during 
the taxicab drive. 

Mr. Brier. I didn't get the question. I am sorry. 

ISIr. Kennedy. ^\^iat was your position in the taxicab drive that 
was conducted by local 102 ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Dio bring you into that? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it is our information that when Mr. Dio trans- 
ferred over to local 649 from local 102, that Mr, Brier went with him 
and became an officer in local 649, and he became a trustee of 649.. 
Were you the trustee of local 649 ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a trustee of local 649, were you in charge of the 
funds and the money ? 

Mr, Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Ejennedy, Can you tell us whether there was a complete ac- 
counting of all of the moneys that came into 649 ? 

Mr, Brier, I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me, 

Mr, Kennedy, Could vou tell us anything about your operations 
of local 649? 

Mr, Brier, I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 



4128 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

jNIr. Kennedy. When the discussions took phice about transferring 
or setting up these paper locals, as I have said, Mr. Brier should have 
some information because he became an officer of local 362 of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Now, could you tell the committee what preceded or what events 
preceded the chartering of these paper locals, teamster paper locals? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what conversations 
you had prior to becoming an officer of local 362 ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any conscience at all, and are you 
willing to state your relationship in the trustee position you have held 
with these working people? Do you feel any sense of obligation to 
them at all ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on tlie ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, just going back to 649, evidently you 
did such a good job as a trustee of 649 that they elected you secretary- 
treasurer and as such you had complete control of the funds. Can 
you tell us how the funds were administered ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Can I ask counsel a question? Was there an 
election ? 

Mr. Kennedy. According to our information he was elected, and 
Mr. Ciircio wrote a letter which we have here. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you exhibit 49, to the testi- 
mony previously taken by this committee. It is an application for 
charter to the international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and your name appears on 
it as secretary-treasurer of local 362. I will ask you to examine it and 
state if you identify it. 

(A document was lianded to the witness.) 

Mr. Brier. Mr. Chairman, I have examined this document. 

The Chairman. Can you read? 

Mr. Brier. I refuse to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you see your name on it? 

Mr. Brier. I i-efuse to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Was the statement I made correct, that 3''ou appear 
on it as secretary-treasurer of that local ? 

Mr. Brier. I would refuse to answer on the gi'ound it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. There is a lot of incrimination going on around 
here witli these documents, it seems to me. 

I hand you another one here on Warehouse and Processing Em- 
ployees Union, Local 362, stationery, dated December 1, 1955, and 
it is addressed to Joint Council 16, signed by Abraham Brier. I wish 
you would look at that and see if you identify it, please, sir. 
(A document was handed to the witness.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4129 

Mr. Brier. I see the document. 

The CHAiR:srAx. Do you see your name on it? 

JNIr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairmax. I want everybody to see it. Hold it up there, and 
let them get a look at it. Your name is on it ; is it not ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairmax. Is tliat your signature? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The ChairjMax. It is your letter, is it not ? 

]Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The CiiAiRjMAx. Proceed. That may be made exhibit No. 64. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 64" and fol- 
lows below.) 

The Chairmax. I will read it. 

I don't like to incriminate people, but I think when we present a 
document, we ought to know what is in it. 

As I stated a moment ago, it is on the Warehouse and Processing 
T'nion Local o02 stationery, dated December 1, 1955, to Joint Council 
16, Martin T. Lacey, president, 265 "West 14th Street, New York, 
N. Y. 

Dear Sib and Brother : I am enclosing a listing of titles and officers of our 
local union 362 and requesting that we may be seated as delegates to the Joint 
Council 16 : 

Sidney Ilodes, president : Martin Schlanger, vice president ; Abraham Brier, 
secretary-treasurer ; George Monica, recording secretary; Stanley Seglin, trustee; 
Joseph Infautiuo, trustee; Murray Stein, trustee. 
Fraternally, 

Abraham Brier. 

It is ])rinted, the name Abraham Brier, secretary-treasurer. 

Do you recognize that? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
<'riminate me. 

The Chairmax. Do you feel by reading the letter, it may have 
incriminated you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ivexnedy. It might. 

The Chairmax. I am sorry if I have incriminated you. 

Proceed. 

]VIr. Kennedy. This is another one. 

The Chairman. I hand you another photostatic copy of a letter on 
the same stationery, the same local, dated February 2, 1956, and it bears 
a signature with which I think that you may be familiar. 

Will you please examine that document and state if you recognize 
it? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you complied with the order of the Chair and 
examined the document? 

Mr. Brier. I have seen the documents. 

The Chairmax. You have seen it ? Do you see anything there you 
recognize ? 



4130 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you see your signature, but you do not want 
to admit it ? 

Mr. BrIer. I decline to answer on the ground it. might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. I hate to do it, but I expect I had better read that 
one. That will be made exhibit No. 65. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 65" and fol- 
lows below.) 

The Chairman. May I have the document ? 

It is dated February 2, 1956 to Joint Council 16, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of 
America, 265 West 14th Street, room 709, New York 11, N. Y. 

Dear Sir and Brother : In answer to your letter of January 19, we give you 
the following list of officers who are eligible to vote in the joint council elec- 
tion. 

Sidney Hodes, president; Martin Schlanger, vice president; Abrahan Brier, 
secretary-treasurer ; George Monica, recording secretary ; Stanley Seglin, trustee ; 
and Joseph Infantiuo, trustee ; and Murray Stein, trustee. 
Fraternally yours, 

Abraham Brier, Secretary-Treasurer. 

And the signature of Abraham Brier as such. 

You do not want to acknowledge that you wrote that letter ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground 

The Chairman. Did you attend that meeting of joint council 16? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground 

The Chairman. Did you vote ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You knew at that time that this was a phony 
union ; did you not ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I will hand you another one where you signed 
the letter certifying yourself and it is dated February 2, 1956, to the 
joint council, signed, "Fraternally yours," by 5^ou. 

Apparently your name is there. Examine that document and see 
if you recognize it. 

( The document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Brier. Mr. Chairman, I have seen the document. 

The Chairman. Do you want to make an}^ comment about it ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The document certifies you, and you certify your- 
self as a delegate. Did you attend that meeting ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It might. All right. The document will be made 
exhibit No. 66. 

Proceed. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 66" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the api)endix on p. 4459.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The record we have shows that a vote was cast 
in Mr. Brier's name, and was one of the votes that was impounded. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4131 

Upon our examination we found that all of the votes that were im- 
pounded, includino- this one, were cast for Mr. John O'llourke. 

The Chairman. Was this part of the scheme to unseat Lacey and 
■elect O'Rourke ^ 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You were in on that scheme, were you not? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you not a "stooge" for Johnny Dio and Jimmy 
I lolf a in that transaction ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chaieman. Did you not serve them faithfully ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to the information that 
we have the charter for local 260 of the UAW-AFL was lifted during 
the early part of 1957 because of being racketeer-dominated. 

]Mr. Brier then moved in with local 250, moved his organization in 
wliich did not consist of very much. He erased the number of 250 
on the door and wrote "362" and it became teamster local 362. 

Is that correct, Mr. Brier ? 

^Ir. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. We also have information, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. 
Brier was one of those and this has been testified to before the com- 
inittee, who made a so-called "sweetheart" contract where there 
were employees of Puerto Rican extraction, namely with Eden Aero 
Auto Parts, Inc., of 1760 Morris Avenue, Bronx, N. Y. 

He dealt there with Maurice Ehrlicht, secretary of the corporation. 
The arrangement is that the dues would be paid, amounting to $32 a 
montli by the employees, although there was no mcrease in benefits 
for the employees. 

Could you tell the committee about that? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask Mr. Brier a question or two. 

As secretary-treasurer of local 362 in charge of the dues which are 
})aid by the hard-working men and women of the union in New York 
City, do you faithfully protect the funds of your dues-paying mem- 
be re ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. The question implies that you do not. 

Let me put it another way. If you are unwilling to say that you 
do protect the funds, are you stealing the money and using it "for 
yourself? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 



4132 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. The very answer now incriminates you. I asked 
you if you protected them. Now you will not answer that question, 
because you are afraid that you might be incriminating yourself. 
That clearly imi^lies, virtually admits, that you are stealing the 
money. Are you doing that ? Are you a thief ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Mukdt. In my opinion, that clearly indicates that you 
are taking the money, since you are unwilling to say that you are 
protecting the money, when that is your responsibility. I thought 
you were protecting the money. Now I will ask you deliberately, are 
you stealing the money and using it for yourself? 

You leave the record that way. Do you want to leave the record 
that way? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Are you afraid of Dio? Are you afraid he will 
do something physically to you if you tell the truth ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Are you a scared man ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Are you afraid that your associations with the 
underground world have caught up with you and you are in trouble 
and you are afraid to talk ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. I wonder, Mr. Brier, were you involved in the 
acid-throwing attack on Victor Eiesel ? 

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

Senator Mundt. All you have to say to that not to be incriminated 
is no. If you were involved, if I were j^ou, I would take the fifth 
amendment. I am asking the question. I do not know. 

(The witness conferred with is counsel.) 

Mr. Brier, No. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

You are not incriminated on that one. Now we are making head- 
way. 

Let me ask you another question. Are you a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Brier. No. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Are you an American citizen ? 

Mr. Brier. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. Now would you like to answer that 
other question? Are you really stealing the money of the men and 
women wlio pay the dues, or are you keeping the records the way 
you should ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. All riglit. You have spelled it out pretty clearly 
on stealing the money. "I didn't attack Victor Riesel. I am not a 
Communist. I am an American." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4133 

On this one, you duck and dodi^e because you do not want to be 
caufjht stealing the workinginen's money; is that right? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. That satisfies me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have information that Mr. Brier 
was arrested on August 18, 1952. The charge was assault in the 
third degree and the charges were later withdrawn. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That on January 11, 1954, on Long Island, he was 
once again charged with assault in the third degree on an individual. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that you were convicted on January 13, 1955, 
and sentenced to 80 days in jail and a $500 fine ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brier, according to our infor- 
mation, is presently secretary-treasurer of local 362 of the teamsters. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. In view of the fact that there is a constitutional 
prohibition against double jeopardy, I am at a loss to understand 
how a man could plead the fifth amendment when he is asked whether 
he has been convicted of a criminal offense, because manifestly he can- 
not tend to incriminate himself on something which has already been 
tried and disposed of, because he cannot be tried for the same thing 
twice. 

I respectfully submit that Mr. Brier is trifling with the committee 
wlien he pleads the fifth amendment on a question as to whether or 
not he has been convicted of a criminal offense, for which he cannot 
be tried again. 

The Chairman. "What does the record show — that he has been con- 
victed? 

Mr. Kennedy'. Yes. 

The Chairman. How manj^ times? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was charged in 1952 and the charges were with- 
drawn. They were withdrawn in 1952, Mr. Chairman. 

He was convicted in 1954 and the trial was in 1955. 

The Chairman. For what offense ? 

Mr. Kennedy. For assault in the third degree, both times. 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny it? 

Do you want to let the record stand that way ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you any further questions ? 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 



4134 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you feel like you owe an obligation to the 
people you take this money from ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does your conscience hurt you when you do that? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You will remain under recognizance to reappear 
before this committee at such time as the committee may desire your 
further testimony. You will continue under the same subpena. 

Do you acknowledge this recognizance ? 

Mr. Brier. I do. 

The Chairman. You do agree to reappear on reasonable notice? 

Mr. Brier. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do we have your address ? 

Mr. Brier. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat title shall we put after it? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Sir ? 

Mr. Brier. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We will try to reach you. 

All right. You may stand aside. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Ervin, 
Kennedy, Goldwater, and Mundt. ) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nathan Gordon, Mr. Chairman, who was an 
officer of local 651 of the teamsters. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Gordon. 

You will be sworn, please. You do solemnly swear that the evi- 
dence 5^ou shall give before this Senate Select Committee shall be 
the truth, the whole truth, -and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr, Gordon. I do ? 

TESTIMONY OF NATHAN GORDON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JACQUES M. SCHIFFER 

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

Mr. Gordon. My name is Nathan Gordon. I reside at 276 East 15th 
Street, Far Rockaway, N. Y. 

The Chairman. I see you have a prepared statement. Would you 
like to read it to the committee? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Gordon. I have no statement, Senator. 

The Chairman. You have no statement. It is my mistake. I 
thought maybe you had a prepared statement. 

Will you tell me your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You think it would? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IIST THE LABOR FIELD 4135 

Mr. GoRDOX. I beg your pardon? 

The Chairman. Do 3^011 think it would ? 

Mr. GoRDOx. It niaj^ 

Tlie Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you told the truth 
as to your business or your occupation that it might incriminate you? 

Mr. Gordon. It may. 

The Chairman. Do you believe you are in that kind of a business, 
in that kind of an enterprise, that it would be incriminating to a 
decent American citizen to acknowledge what he is doing? Do you 
honestly believe that? 

Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline to answer 
that question on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I am going to order you to answer the question. I 
do not think you can take this capriciously, make use of the fifth 
amendment capriciously. I am asking you if you honestly believe 
that you are in such a business or engaged in such an enterprise that, 
if you acknowledged your activity therein, you believe that a truth- 
ful answer would tend to incriminate you. I order and direct you 
to answer that question, with the permission of the committee. 

Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, it may. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Chairman, ^Mr. Gordon is of interest to us be- 
cause he was the first secretary-treasurer of local 651. That was one 
of the paper locals that was established. He is the brother of Abe 
Gordon, who is president of local 805 of the teamsters, and who is very 
close to John Dioguardi. 

It was Milton Hodes, secretary-treasurer of local 805, who appeared 
here and was the one from whom Sam Getlan received a charter for 
UAW Local 228. So he has a close tieup. 

According to our information, for 1952, this Mr. Gordon's occu- 
pation was with the Gordon Liquor Store. In 1953 his occupation 
was with the Gordon Liquor Store. In 1954 his only source of income, 
his occupation, was with the Gordon Liquor Store, and in 1955, the 
Gordon Liquor Store, and in 1956, the Gordon Liquor Store. 

However, in November of 1955 he was listed as secretary-treasurer. 

You suddenly became secretary-treasurer of Local 651 of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

We would like to find out first — we haven't been able to get any 
information on him before — we would like to find out what your expe- 
rience has been in the labor field that brought about you getting the 
highest position in the teamster local 651. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what conversations 
preceded your being made secretary-treasurer of teamster local 651 ? 

Mr. Gordon. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the individuals with whom you discussed this 
matter feel somebody who had been working in the liquor store had 
good experience to become a secretary-treasurer of a teamster local? 

89330 — 57 — pt. 11 9 



4136 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gordon. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have a brother ? 

Mr. Gordon. I must respectfully decline to answer that question on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your name Nathan ? 

Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is your brother named Abe ? 

Mr. Gordon. I must respectfully decline to answer that question on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think your brother's name would incrim- 
inate you ? Do you honestly believe that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. I must respectfully decline to answer that question on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you reckon he is as much ashamed of you as 
you are of him? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Senator Mundt. I think we should ask if his brother is a criminal. 

If your brother is a criminal, it may incriminate you. Is your 
brother a criminal 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. You understand, of course, Mr. Gordon, it could 
not conceivably incriminate you unless your brother is a criminal. 
If your brother is a criminal, of course, it might. If he is not a 
criminal, certainly saying "No" would not incriminate you, but by 
saying what you have said, you incriminate your brother. 

I think you should think it over carefully and consult your lawyer. 
If that is what you should do, it is tough on your brother. That is 
all I can say. 

Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline to answer 
the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. I think you should order liim to do that, Mr. 
Chairman, because we may be discovering whether his brother is a 
criminal. This mans is implying very clearly to the world that 
his brother is a crook. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. May I respectfully offer an objection? 

Senator Mundt. No. I am talking, Mr. Counsel. I am not a 
lawyer and I am not going to be confused by you lawyers. I want 
a simple answer for a country boy. I want to find out if this man's 
brother is a criminal. 

Since we know now that he has a brother, I want to ask him a 
simple man to man question. 

Is your brother a criminal ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. If that is the question, Mr. Senator, we offer a re- 
spectful objection to the question on the grounds that it is completely 
impertinent to this inquiry. 

Senator Mundt. You are exactly wrong. Your law education 
cannot confuse me to that degree, sir. I know it is pertinent, be- 
cause we are going to discuss the brother. The brother is involved 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4137 

in this inquiry. I am going to ask the chairman to order the wit- 
ness to answer. 

Mr. ScHiPFER. We offer the same objection. 

The Chairman. The Chair overrules the objection. At any time 
the Chair makes a ruling, the committee members should under- 
stand they can make exception to the Chair. Without a member 
making such a statement, the Chair understands that the committee 
supports him in the ruling that he makes. The Chair overrules the 
objection, and, with tlie permission of the committee, orders and di- 
rects the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Wliat are you scared of ? Who ? 

Mr. Gordon. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you scared of Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Gordon. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are not a physical coward, are you ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Gordon, did you file a Federal income-tax re- 
port in 1956? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the gi'ounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. The Internal Revenue Service will be interested in 
that answer, very much interested in that answer. Tell us that again. 
That is curious. Did you file a Federal income-tax report in 1956, or 
not? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Did you put something in that income-tax report 
with which you endeavored to deceive the Government ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, again I repeat, I must respectfully decline to 
answer the question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate 
me. 

Senator Mundt. Did you file a fictitious income-tax report with the 
Federal Government, a fraudulent one ? Did you lie to the Govern- 
ment in your income-tax report ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the gi'ounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, Mr. Gordon, you did not file an 
honest income-tax report with the Federal Government ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. There are a lot of young men that get in trouble 
for filing fraudulent income-tax reports with the Federal Government, 
Mr. Gordon. You are inviting trouble, if that is going to be your an- 
swer. I am surprised when a citizen stands up and says, "I don't dare 
answer the question whether I file an income tax with the Federal 
Government, because, if I do, I am in trouble. I am incriminating 
myself." 

There is something there that is wrong. That is a tough outfit to 
duck, to be conservative, and so is the FBI. I think you should think 



4138 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR MELD 

that over carefully. Your lawyer, lie is out practicing law tomorrow 
and maybe you are answering questions of the Secret Service. I am 
not trying to get you in trouble. I am trying to get an answer. 

Did you really file a fraudulent income-tax return with the Federal 
Government in 1956 ? Did you lie to them ? Did you try to cheat the 
Government ? And, if so, do you think you are going to get by ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the gi'ounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. You can invite all the trouble you want for your- 
self. I cannot stop you. 

Senator Kennedt. As I understand from the counsel, local 651 was 
a paper local with no membership. Was it used for voting in the 1956 
election ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. In the teamsters election ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it now in existence ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This really never got oif the ground. It got off the 
ground enough to vote, but it never got any members. Although it 
filed a document with the international indicating that it had 285 
members and paid per capita fees in January of 1956 of $114, from 
our investigation and examination of local 651 it never had any mem- 
bers and never operated at all. 

Senator Kennedy. In the election to decide who would be the head 
of the teamsters in New York, between O'Rourke and Lacey, this 
local had seven votes ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Did they vote them ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They voted all seven votes. 

Senator Kennedy. Does the staff have a record of where the $114 
came from ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Did it come from union dues ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. It gave them a semblance of respectability 
when they could file that they had members. But they had no 
members. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand that these men are in association 
with Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Dio used the headquarters of 805, of which 
Mr. Gordon is president. 

Senator Kennedy. So, there is an implication that Mr. Dio was 
responsible for setting up Mr. Nathan Gordon as secretary-treasurer 
of local 651 so the seven votes could be used in a close election to 
control the teamster organization of New York, and, once the voting 
was over, then this local went out of existence? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat we know. Senator, is that Mr. Hoffa telephoned 
to the international headquarters here in Washington and requested 
that these locals be seated. Their votes then were cast for Mr. John 
O'Rourke. 

Senator Kennedy. Then this one went out of existence ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand that Mr. Nathan Gordon's brother, 
Abe Gordon, is head of a trucking company. Therefore, he is an em- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4139 

ployer and, at the same time, he is j^resident of h)cal 805 of the 
teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. So he owns trucks and represents employees in 
dealings with employers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. He is president of the Gordon Trucking Co. 
and president of local 805, and is the man whom w^e are interested in 
in connection w'ith another investigation. 

Senator Kennedy. It is forbidden by the ethical practices com- 
mittee of the AFL-CIO to be an employer. I hope that the team- 
sters, now that this matter has been brought to their attention, will 
take action, and have this Abe Gordon end his connection with the 
labor movement. As Mr. Abe Gordon never had any experience, 
we understand, with this, they should make sure that he is not per- 
mitted to hold an office again. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands the witness a photostatic copy of 
an application for a charter for local No. 651, consisting of 2 pages; 
also an invoice reciting an organizational fee of $15, together with an 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, 
and Helpers contract, which bears the name of Nathan Gordon, and 
certifies that Nathan Gordon is secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 
651. That certification is dated December 1, 1955. 

I present the document to the witness, and direct him to examine it, 
and state w^hether or not he identifies it. 

(Document handed to witness.) . 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I have seen the exhibit. 

The Chairman. The document may be made exhibit No. 67 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 67," for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4460-4463.) 

The Chairman. I ask j^ou to look particularly at the fourth page 
of the document, the charter certificate. I ask you to examine it. 

Can you read ? 

Mr. Gordon. I have examined the document, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you read ? 

Mr. Gordon. I must respectfully decline to answer that question on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair orders and directs you to read that 
document. 

Hand it to him. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I did not ask. you to answer a question. 

With the permission of the committee, the Chair is ordering and 
directing you to read the document. 

Let us have order, gentlemen. 

Either get out and stay out or be quiet. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I have read the document. 

The Chairman. I direct you to read the document into the record. 
Read it out loud. 



4140 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gordon. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It is not a question. It is an order. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I respectfully make an objection, Mr. Chairman, to 
the direction. 

The Chairman. Objection is overruled. 

You are ordered and directed to read that document. 

Then you can make any explanation about it that you desire. 

the^'docmZt™.!!;/ ^''" ''' ^''- ^^^^^™' ''' ^^ ^^"^^^^ ^« -^^ 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(Ihe witness conferred with his connsel.) 

The ChaZ;/. tT ''''^""fi'^d the docnmmt, Senator, 
order stin stands ''™ ""^'""^ y°" *° ''^^^ the document. That 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. trORDOjj. Senator, I must respectfully decline to nnswo,. tli„ 
ques ion on the grounds that it may tend to Lrimhiatl me ' ' 

.„i J^- /T"""- ^ '''''™ "ot -''^''cl you a question. I have ordered 

itow yofcJn reldT' ''"'* "*"=""""'• ^'°" ^'^^^"^ '° ^^^" 
(The witness conferred with his counsel ) ' 

nnp!LP''''''.7' ^^^^'^^o^\I ^^^^st i;espectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 
_ Ihe Chairman. The Chair is not asking you a question. There 
IS a pending order and he directs you to read the document. That is 
not a question. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, to comply with the order of the Chair mav 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The order still stands. 

The document speaks for itself. 

Do you want to read it? Do you want to carry out the order and 
direction of the Chair, or do you want to refuse ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I prefer someone on the committee doing it. 

The Chairman. I did not understand you. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I prefer someone on the committee to read it. 

The Chairman. The committee prefers that you read it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I either want you to read it or refuse to do so. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Keep this record straight. There is no question. 
There is an order and direction to you to read the document. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to read the docu- 
ment on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4141 

The Chairman. You refuse, then ? You can answer that question, 
can you not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

:Mr. Gordon. Senator, I refuse to read the document on the grounds 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, gentlemen. 

This matter will be taken up in executive session. 

I want to find out whether a witness can see a document, recognize 
it, and refuse to read it when it bears his own signature. 

' You recognize your signature, do you not? 

Uv Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully declme to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incrimiiiate me. 

The Chairman. This is the International Brotherhood ot ieam- 
sters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, charter contract. 

Know all men bv tliese presents, that I, Nathan Gordon, secretaiT-treasurer 
of teamsters local'651, lockted at 19 West Columbia Street, West Hempstead, 
Lon^ Stand be5ng authorized to act for said local, in consideration of the gen- 
erarsecre^a^y issuing a charter to said local, hereby agree that said charter 
Sll remSn the property of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chaiffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers, and in consideration of the premises 
here n stated agree that when charter is framed, the frame shall immediately 
Sme the property of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 
wSoisemen and Helpers. Said local union shall have custody of said charter 
S it s Sanded by some person authorized to make such demand m writing 
r^n persorand the charter and frame shall then be delivered to the person 
quthoSed to demand and procure the same, or mailed as requested. It is fur- 
Ser a<^?Sd tha?^ny person authorized may enter any premises occupied by said 
IS for any of its m^^^ and take possession and remove said charter. 

There appears a signature here of Nathan Gordon. 

Underneath it says : 

By secretary-treasurer or other authorized person, dated December 1, 1955. 

Mr. Gordon, is that your signature to this document ? 

Mr Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
Question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think being a member ot that union and 
an officer in it, and accepting and receiving a charter under those con- 
ditions, might incriminate you ? 

Mr. Gordon. It may. Senator. . n i 4. 

The Chairman. Do you not think that is a reflection upon all honest 
working union members, for you to take a position that to be associated 
with the union that is supposed to be legitimate, to cast a reflection 
like that, to make a statement like that, do you not think it reflects 
uDon the integrity of the organization and the members thereof i 

Tr GoZn. Senator, I Siust respectfully dechne to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me 

The Chairman. Or do you rather think the membership is hue and 
thev are all right, the only trouble is they are being imposed upon by 
people who find it necessary to take the fifth amendment when inter- 
rogated about whether they are officers of that union ^ 

Sir Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 



4142 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. ]Mr. Gordon, are you under indictment now ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. SciiiFFER. May I answer the question for the witness? 
Senator Goldwater. I wanted the witness to answer. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds tliat it may tend to incriminate me. 
Senator Goldwater. Then I will ask your attorney. 

Is Mr. Gordon under indictment at this time? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Not to my knowledge. He had been under an in- 
dictment, and that was resolved— at least, he was held for contempt 
of an order of the grand jury. That case was resolved in the Circuit 
Court of Appeals in New York, the Second Circuit, and a conviction 
had been unanimously reversed in favor of this witness. The language 
of the court on appeal said, "He need not answer any of the questions 
put to him" and those questions are related to the questions put to 
this witness at this inquiry. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Gordon, are you under subpena by the 
grand jury at the present time? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. I am not, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. You are not. 

Did you contact Mr. Schitfer to come down and present you here? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. I prefer my counsel answer that. 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to ask the counsel the question 
that I would get to ultimately anyway, to save time. 

Mr. Counsel, you have represented men here of 651, 649, 362, and 
284._ Were you contacted by these locals or were you contacted by 
the joint council to represent them ? 

Mr. Schiffer. I was not contacted by any of the individuals or 
locals that you just mentioned. Senator. I was contacted by Mr. 
Hodes personally when he received his original grand- jury subpena 
in New York which I referred to during the course of his testimony, 
and then came down here with him. 

As a matter of fact, until the investigation here commenced, and the 
newspaper publicity began, I knew nothing or had never heard about 
those particular locals. I had no interest in them. 

Senator Goldwater. This has the appearance that you are repre- 
senting the joint council, because you have been here with members of 
locals, four in number. It seems rather strange, or it might be a 
coincidence, that you are so well liked by the people up there that four 
different locals hired you. 

Mr. Schiffer. No four locals, ]Mr. Senator. I tried to set the record 
straight there. Mr. Hodes, individually, is the man I came down 
here to represent, among others. 

Senator Goldwater. You are with Mr. Gordon now. How did that 
come about? 

Mr. Schiffer. I happen to know his family very well. 

Senator Goldwater. How about Mr. Brier ? 

Mr. Schiffer. I explained for the record that his own attorney 
had taken ill this morning. He was going back to New York and 
he asked me to sit in for Brier. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4143 

Senator Goldwater. When you send in your bill, will you send it 
to the joint council, or will you send it to Mr. Hodes ? 

Mr. SciiiFFER. My bill for Mr. Hodes will ao to 258, and my bill 
for this witness goes to him personally. 

Senator Goldwater. How about Mr. Brier ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I sat in for another attorney who took ill and I will 
not charge for that service. 

Senator Goldwater. You are not working for the joint council? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I don't know who they are. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Gordon, how old are you ? 

Mr. Gordon, Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator ER\^^'. Are you married? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. You might reconcile your differences on that answer 
with your wife, if you have one, when you get home. Have you any 
children ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Did vou assist in the operation of the Gordon Liquor 
Store? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Gordon, can you think of a single thing that 
has ever occurred between the time that the morning stars sang 
together for glory and this hour, that you could reveal to us without 
incriminating yourself ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must rsspectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. This is not exactly in the nature of a question, but 
I Avould like to say this, that while I very much doubt that all the 
perfumes of Arabia could erase the stench of this racket-ridden union 
situation in New York City, occasionally something encouraging and 
gratifying does develop. This affords a Kepublican an opportunity 
to say something good about a Democrat in New York City. I notice 
in the paper that Mayor IVagner is calling a conference as a direct 
consequence of tlie hearings of this committee for the purpose of 
exploring the injustices which are being committed by the racketeers 
in the labor union movements in New York City, injustices in the main 
appearing to be against immigrants, Puerto Ricans, uneducated 
Negroes, people who need help, assistance, and protection, and good 
lawyers to protect them. 

I want to commend the mayor on taking that step. 

It seems to me before we clean this thing up it will require the coop- 
eration of public officials and law enforcement agencies. 

I think it requires the cooperation of highminded and proper- 
minded union officials. It certainly is going to require legislative 
action on the part of the Congress of the United States. 



4144 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I simply would like to commend the mayor of New York for having 
started in one particular segment, the mopping up and cleaning up 
process which is so long overdue. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy? 

Senator Kennedy. In addition to the mayor, I would like to also 
say how helpful District Attorney Hogan has been, Frank Hogan, in 
New York, to the committee in preparing its cases and in following 
up the hearings that the committee is now carrying on. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Now if we can get the cooperation of some of the people that pre- 
sumably represent honest working people, we might do some good. 

Would you be willing to cooperate now after these statements ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it ma}^ tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Gordon, are you afraid of Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. He is a pretty rough individual. I understand 
he just hit one of our photographers. 

Do you think he would hit you, too ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt. One other question. I think Senator Ervin asked 
the witness how old he was. If I remember, he declined to answer the 
question on the grounds of self-incrimination. 

Is that right? 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask the witness whether he has ever 
served in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or any of the armed services of 
the United States. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Let us explore that a little bit. Of course, if you 
had served in the armed services of the United States, that could not 
conceivably incriminate you. I am sure you would agree with that. 
I will imagine, though I do not want to bet any money on it, that the 
Supreme Court would also hold that that would not be a reason for 
self-incrimination. 

If, for any reason, you had violated the draft, or had done anything 
of that nature, it would be self-incriminating. There is no incrim- 
ination involved in saying that you have served or have not served 
in the services of the United States, unless, through some illegal pro- 
cedure, you have failed to fulfill the duties usually expected of young 
Americans. 

I simply ask you the question in good faith. Have you ever served 
the colors of your country in any capacity ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4145 

Senator Mundt. INIr. Chairman, I think we should order the wit- 
ness to answer that. It does have some pertinency, it seems to me, in 
these hearings because it would tend to establish the whereabouts of 
this individual during a certain portion of his lifetime. 

The Chairman. State the question again. 

Senator Mundt, The question is: Has Mr. Gordon ever served 
in any of the branches of the armed services of the United States? 

The Chairman. And your answer, Mr. Gordon? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. May we offer a respectful objection, Mr. Chairman, 
on the grounds that the question is not pertinent to this inquiry ? 

Senator Mundt. The question is very pertinent, because we are 
trying to find out something about Mr. Gordon, where he was and 
what he was doing at some particular phase of his lifetime. If we 
can establish his whereabouts in the armed services of the United 
States, it would tend to provide information as to whether or not he 
may have been doing some of these other things we suspect he has 
been doing. 

The Chairman, The Chair just as respectfully overrules the 
objection on the basis that a witness appearing before this commit- 
tee, or any court, questions as to his background are relevant. It goes 
to the credibility of the witness testifying. 

This witness has refused to testify. I see no reason why those 
questions could not be asked so that we might weigh the answer if an 
answer is given, or the refusal to give an answer, in our deliberations 
with respect to determining the kind of characters today that are in 
control of some unions. 

Therefore, the Chair orders and directs you to answer the question, 
with tlie permission of the committee. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any conscience at all with respect to 
a sense of obligation and duty as a citizen, and to the people who are 
working and paying dues to the union that you represent? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to get some documents in. 

No. 1, I would like to point out : In local 651, the stationery that is 
used gives the address of 19 West Columbia Street. That is exhibit 
No. 62. It is 19 West Columbia Street. We have gone to 19 West 
Columbia Street and it is a fictitious address. All it is is an open 
field. 

Would you explain that to us? That is the headquarters of local 
651 of the teamsters. 

The Chairman. This document has been made exhibit No. 62, and 
it was presented to you earlier. It is a letter signed by Nathan 
Gordon, secretary-treasurer, to the joint council, requesting that the 
officials be seated, certain named officials be seated, 

I believe this document was presented to Mr. Hodes. 

It requests that certain officials be seated representing local union 
651. It bears your signature. What do you Imow about the address 
given on this letterhead ? 

I will present it to you. It shows 19 West Columbia Street. 



4146 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE K\BOR FIELD 

Present it to this witness and let him have an opportunity to see 
the address on that letter. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gordon. I have examined the document, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you see the address on it ? 

Mr. Gordon. I do. Senator. 

The Chair]vian. And that address is what? 19 West Columbia 
Street? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Does that address exist? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you ever been to that address? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The information of the committee is that, by per- 
sonal observation of members of the staff, that address is simply a 
field, there is no office, no building, no accommodation for an office. 
Do you want to deny that? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was that a part of the scheme of setting up these 
fictitious locals, to give spurious addresses ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are those facts within your knowledge? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, subsequently, the information we 
have is, as we can tell from the stationery, it was changed from 19 
West Columbia Street to 119 West Columbia Street, which was the 
old address of local 228. It was the same headquarters of 651 and 
362 of the teamsters. Bills on which we have liad testimony were 
paid for out of local 649. 

These show tlie credentials to vote in the election and this document 
is the credential of Mr. Nathan Gordon, specifically. 

The Chairman. I hand you here two documents, one dated Feb- 
ruary 2, 1956, addressed to the Joint Council No. 16 on Warehouse 
Employees Union Local 651 stationary, showing the address has 
been changed to the 119 West Columbia Street by printing over the 
19, as the stationary was originally printed. 

This letter is signed by Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer. 

I ask you to examine it. :. 

It will be made an exhibit. 

Then I present to you anotlier letter dated February 2, 1956, on 
the same stationery, sliowing the same change of address of the local 
or headquarters of the local. It is addressed to joint council and 
certifies that Nathan Gordon is an executive board member of local 
union 651 and is eligible to vote in the joint council election. It is 
signed by Nathan Gordon. 

Examine both documents and state if you identify them, 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4147 

Mr. GoRDox. Senator, I have examined the exhibits. 

Tlie Chairman. The first one that I presented to you will be made 
exhibit No. 68, and the second one will be made exhibit No. 69. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 68 and 69," 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4464-4465.) 

The Chairman. Are you the same Nathan Gordon referred to in 
these documents ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you attend that meetino; and vote ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is the reason you refused to answer that you think 
it might incriminate you because of the fact that you know it is a 
phon}' local and that you were set up solely for the purpose of pro- 
A'iding votes and to control an election ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I just waut to say, Mr. Chairman, that the vote was 
cast with that credential, and the vote cast under the name of Nathan 
Gordon was impounded and was a vote cast for Mr. John O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny that statement ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Will you agree that you have been given every 
opportunity here this morning to tell what you know about these mat- 
ters about which you have been interrogated? You will agree to 
that ; will you not ? 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any suggestion, then, of any questions 
that we have overlooked. 

Mr. Gordon. Senator, I must respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You will remain here during the rest of the day, 
and if you happen to think of any will you let me know ? 

Mr. Gordon. I will. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside. You will re- 
main under the same subpena, under recognizance to return to the 
committee for further testimony at such time as it may desire further 
testimony from you. 

You will acknowledge that recognizance, so it will not be necessary 
for you to be resubpenaed. Do 5^011 acknowledge such recognizance? 

Mr. Gordon. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. You agree to reappear on reasonable notice? 

Mr. Schiffer. Shall this Avitness remain in Washington just for 
this afternoon? 

The Chairman. He will remain here during the remainder of the 
hearings today, yes, sir. He may think of something I have over- 
looked. 



4148 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The committee stands in recess until 2 o'clock 

(Whereupon at 12:03, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 
p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at the takin- of the recess : Senators McClellan. 
Kemiedy, Ervm, Goldwater, and Mundt.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Cpiairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session: Senators McClellan, Ives, Kennedy, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The next witness the committee will hear is Mr. 
Johnny Dioguardi. 

Before we proceed, Mr. Counsel, do you wish to make a brief state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the importance of this witness is not only his 
background, Mr. Chairman, but the people that he brought into the 
labor-union movement starting back in 1950. 

As we have had testimony before, during 1950 he came into local 
102 and at the same time he was operating a nonunion shop. One of 
the first major locals that he established was 649, and he had appointed 
as trustees Topazio, and Mr. Cohen. 

Shortly after he appointed them as trustees they were picked up on 
extortion. Then he established a local down in Philadelphia, local 
138, and he appointed as the head of that local a man by the name 
of Abe Goldberg, who had just been convicted of extortion. 

He established local 198 and Mr. Gasster and Mr. Cohen, took over 
that local. Within 3 weeks of the time they received a charter they 
were picked up on extortion. 

Then local 227 was established and the three individuals including 
Max Chester that came into that local had just been kicked out of an- 
other international for shaking someone down. 

Local 228 was established and it became a bouncing charter. The 
international said it did not exist, but we found out through testi- 
mony here that the charter existed and ultimately was given out by 
a member of the teamsters union. 

In local 224 and local 250 we have had testimony before this com- 
mittee that contracts were made that were "sweetheart" contracts and 
that the officials of those two unions, local 224 and local 250 made these 
sweetheart contracts with management to the detriment of the em- 
ployees who were mostly of Puerto Rican extraction. 

Local 355 was given a charter. The charter was granted through 
Harold Krieger oi New Jersey and it was given to a man with a Com- 
munist background, and that man then proceeded to organize a com- 
pany and made an arrangement, Mr. Tolkow made an arrangement, 
with the company that some $24,000 that had been paid of union mem- 
bers' due were not transmitted to the local. 

Then he established about 7 or 8 other locals that were all paper 

locals and never got going. 

The Chairman. Will you stand and 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. DioGUARDi. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4149 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN DIOGUARDI, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
WILLIAM W. KLEINMAN 

The Chairman, State your name, your age, and place of residence. 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. My name is John Dioguardi, 109 Freeport Avenue, 
Point Lookout, age 43. 

The Chairman. The Chair respectfully announces that Senators 
have other duties besides this investigating assignment. That is a roll- 
call vote and therefore it will be necessary for the committee to recess 
so members can vote. 

Just a moment, the committee has not recessed. Let us have order, 
please. 

During the absence of the chairman of the committee, and the com- 
mittee, I wish the police in charge here to stand near and stand by the 
witness and permit no one to malve personal contact with the witness, 
and keep the crowd back and keep order. 

Any violation of that instruction either on the part of the witness 
or anyone in this audience will be dealt with. This is a proceeding 
that is of some importance and we want to conduct it certainly properly 
and we hope eti'ectively. 

The policemen will take charge. In the meantime, there will be no 
pictures made until the committee returns. 

(Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 

(The hearing resumed at 3 : 25 p. m., Senator McClellan presiding. 
Present at the reconvening of the hearing were Senators McClellan, 
Ives, McNamara, Mundt, Goldwater, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

The Chair makes this observation : We had to recess for the reason 
that there were some 4 or 5 roUcall votes in the Senate. We think 
now there will be no other votes this afternoon, and we are hopeful 
that we can proceed without interruption until we are through with 
this witness, or until it is indicated we cannot conclude with him 
today. 

Mr. Dioguardi, the Chair had asked you a question and requested 
that you state your name, your place of residence, and your business 
or occupation. 

Will you repeat your answer, please, sir ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dioguardi. My name is John Dioguardi. I reside at 109 Free- 
port Avenue, Point Lookout, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Is that all of the answer you intend to give at this 
time ^ 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The reason the Chair asked you that was to make 
certain. 

I had a letter from your counsel dated August 6 

Are you Mr. Kleinman ? 

Mr. Kleinman. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. William W. Kleinman. And you will identify 
yourself for the record ? 



4150 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kleinman. My name is William W. Ivleinman, and I am coun- 
sel to the witness, John Dioguardi. M}' office is at 66 Court Street, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

The Chairmax. Thank yon very much. 

I had yonr letter of August 6, requesting as follows : 

I have been instructed by my client, ^Mr. John Dioguardi, to request that 
during his testimony, television, motion pictures, and other cameras and lights 
shall not be directed at him, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of procedure of your 
committee. 

Then you make other statements in your letter. 

It is the policy of this committee, and has been generally, where a 
witness requests that pictures not be taken of him during the course 
of his testimony, the committee has usually granted it. Under the 
rule it is still left to the discretion of the committee. 

But we have had a kind of rash of hf th-amendment people in latelj', 
and in reviewing that rule and in setting a precedent with respect 
to such requests, the committee has concluded that if all one is going 
to do is take the fifth amendment, pictures and lights cannot be much 
of a distraction. 

Let us have order, please. 

Therefore, I thought just before we recessed that he had failed to 
answer as to his business or occupation. 

Now, I will say to counsel, if you can assure the committee that 
your witness or your client will cooperate and answer all pertinent 
questions that may be directed to him, then the committee will be 
glad to consider the request that lights and motion pictures, and so 
forth, be turned off. 

Mr. Kleinman. I cannot give you such an assurance. Senator. 

The Chairman. I am very sorry, sir, that under those circumstances 
it will be the Chair's ruling that we will not be able to accommodate 
the witness' request. 

Senator Ives. I would like to clear up something at the outset of 
this, and I am sure the witness will be able to answer this question : 

I have heard the witness' name pronounced two different ways, 
"Diogardi" and "Dioguardi," and I thought I understood him to pro- 
nounce it "Diogardi." Is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Im-:s. Do you have to consult your attorney on that ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I pronounce it "Diogardi." 

Senator Ives. Without the "u" being pronounced ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. I am very glad to get that cleared up. 

Now, maybe you can clear up one other thing before I leave you, 
and this ought not to be too difficidt and should in no way incriminate 
you, that I can see. 

Are you acquainted with Mr. John J. O'Rourke? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the gi-ounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. Were you reading that statement ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let us have order, please. 

Mr. Dioguardi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4151 

Senator Ives. ^lay I ask another question? 

"Will the witness please tell me if he is acquainted with Mr. James 
Horta^ 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfull}^ decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Do you think that is very flattering where those two 
gentlemen are concerned ? 

Mr. DiOGUARra. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment to 
tlie Constitution of the United States. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

The Chairman. It becomes apparent that the witness is set on a 
definite course of invoking the fifth amendment. We were unable to 
get assiu'ances from his counsel that he would cooperate and answer 
all pertinent questions that might be directed to him and, therefore, 
for the record and so that the witness himself may understand from 
the very beginning the general information, not all of it, but the 
general information that this committee has with regard to him and 
his background and his activities, the Chair will make the following 
statement as to the information the committee has. 

That is that John Ignatius Dioguardi was born in. New York City 
on April 29, 1914, that he was the oldest of 3 sons born to Dominick 
and Rose Plumeri Dioguardi. 

He completed high school and thereafter attended Stuyvesant High 
School in New York City for approximately 1% years, after which he 
left school and began to work wdth his father in the yeast delivery 
business. 

Dioguardi was married on September 27, 1945, in New York City to 
the former Anne Chrostek. With their adopted children, Dominick 
and Rose, each approximately 16 years of age, the Dioguardis reside 
at 109 Freeport Avenue, Point Lookout, Long Island, N. Y. This 
residence was valued at approximately $25,000 in 1956 and was mort- 
gaged for approximately $8,700 at that time. 

Thomas Dioguardi, with aliases Tommy Dio, Tom Dio, Gaetano 
Dioguardi, Tommy Dioguardi, Thomas Dioguardia, a brother of John 
Dioguardi, was born on October 29, 1915, in New York City. 

His arrests during the period 1931 through 1936 were on charges 
including those of assault and robbery, on which the final charge 
was -changed to juvenile delinquency, possession of a stink bomb and 
vagrancy. 

He was a licensed manager of prizefighters and reportedly has been 
a principal in several garment firms. It has been alleged that Thomas 
Dioguardi is a racketeer in the New York City garment area and is 
engaged in the organized crime setup in Manhattan. 

Frank Dioguardi, the third of the Dioguardi brothers, was born 
on December 13, 1917. He is reportedly the least important of the 
three brothers and lives on the reputation of John and Thomas. He 
has been arrested on charges including those of rape, homicide-shoot- 
ing, concealed weapons, unregistered still, and theft from interstate 
shipment. 

James Plumeri, with alias Jimmy Doyle, is an uncle of the Dio- 
guardi brothers. He is a convicted extortionist, who is reportedly 
associated with the organized crime setup in the New York City area. 

89.S30— 5" — pt. 11 10 



4152 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



It has been reported that John Dioguardi's employment history has 
included the following : 



Employment 



Position 



Period 



Dominick Dioguardi 

Five Boroughs Trucking Association 

L. & D. Automotive Service, Inc., 179 

Ludlow St., New York City. 
Doray Sportswear Co., 519 8th Ave., New 

York City. 
R. X. Laboratory, 118 Forsythe St., New 

York City. 
Guild Sportswear Co., Inc., 519 8th Ave., 

New York City. 

Roma Sports Co 

Gayles, Inc , 519 8th Ave , New York City.. 
United Sportswear Co , 72 Spring St., and 

1715 Broadway, New York City, 
Fashions From New York, 35 Meadow St., 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Victory Sportwear Co., 21-23 Waverly PL, 

and 72 Spring St., New York City. 
Fanfare Fashions Co., 240 West 35th St., 

New York City. 
Rosemary Fashions, Inc., 145 West 27th St. 

and Hotel McAlpin, New York Citv. 
Reed Shoulder Pad Corp., 145 West 27th St., 

New York City. 
Three Brother Dress Corp., 144 North 7th 

St., .\llentowTi, Pa. 

Storkline Fashions, Inc., New York City 

Martm Pinto, Inc., 35 Meadow St., Brook- 
lyn, N. Y. 
Lady Fair Fashion, Inc., 88-90 Forest St., 

Jersey Citv, N. J. 

Local 102, UAW-AFL . 

Welfare fund. Local 102, UAW-AFL 

UAW-AFL . 



Local 649, UAW-AFL 

Equitable Research Associates, Inc., 250 
West 57th St., New York City. 



Yeast delivery 

Membership solicitor 

Secretary-treasurer, incor- 
porator. 
Employee 



do 

Production man_ 



Employee 

Secretary-treasurer- 
Partner 



Proprietor. 

do 

Partner 

President-. 



.do. 



-do 



do 

Employee. 



Production manager. 



Business manager 

President 

Eastern regional representa- 
tive. 

President 

Labor consultant 



Approximately 1929. 
Approximately 1931. 
1936. 

Not known. 

1940. 

May 1940. 

December 1940. 

1940 

1941. 

Jime 1941. 

February 1944. 

May to September, 1945. 

May 1946. 

1947. 

1948. 

1949-50. 
1950. 



1950-52. 

1952. 

1951-53. 

1952-54. 
1955-56. 



John Dioguardi was arrested during his teen-age years for coercion 
and conspiracy. On one charge he was acquitted and the other charge 
was dismissed. In 1936 he was arrested for vagrancy and in 1937 he 
was arrested for extortion. He was discharged in both instances. 

On July 26, 1937, he was sentenced to 3 to 5 years in Sing Sing 
Prison for extortion. He was subsequently paroled on May 5, 1940. 

Dioguardi was arrested on October 30, 1944, in the Newark, N. J., 
area in connection with the possession of a still. 

On April 14, 1953, he was arrested in New York City on two counts, 
charging violation of New York State tax laws. 

On April 5, 1956, in New York City, Victor Riesel, syndicated labor 
columnist, was attacked by Abraham Telvi, who threw sulfuric acid 
upon his face, with the result that Eiesel is blind. 

On August 28, 1956, John Dioguardi was arrested and charged with 
violation of title 18, section 271, United States Code, which charge 
arose out of the attack on Riesel. 

Upon arraignment before a United States commissioner in the 
southern district of New York, New York City, Dioguardi's bail was 
set at $100,000. Trial has been postponed because of the refusal of 
certain key witnesses to testify. 

In connection with this case, Goldolf o Miranti, with alias Shiekie ; 
Joseph P. Cai'line, with alias Joe Pilo; Charles Carlino, with alias 
Woppie; Leo Telvi; Theodore Rij, with alias Teddy Ray; Domenico 
Bando, with alias Nick ; and Charles Tuso were also arrested. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4153 

All were indicted on a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice and 
to cause the unlawful flight of Abraham Telvi from the State of New 
York to avoid prosecution for the crime of maiming. The prosecu- 
tion of Goldolfo Miranti, Leo Telvi, Domenico Bando, and Joseph P. 
Carlino was severed. Carlino pled guilty. The remaining three 
were convicted after a jury trial in the southern district of New York. 

John Dioguardi in 1955 and 1956 was vice president of Equitable 
Research Associates, Inc., formerly of 250 West 57th Street, New 
York City, and now of 7 West 44th Street, New York City. 

Records of the New York County clerk's office reflect Equitable Re- 
search Associates Inc., filed a certificate of incorporation on March 1, 
1955. These records contain no information as to the identity of the 
officials of Equitable Research Associates, but members of the board 
of directors of the corporation, whose addresses were listed as 457 
Fifth Avenue, New York City, as follows : 

Noah Braunstein, Joseph L. Goldfine, Pauline Caplan, Judith 
Kirschenbaum. 

Garment industry connections : 

An article appearing in the New York Times on May 11, 1933, 
captioned, "Trucking Racket Brings Three Arrests," reflected that 
three officers of the Five Boroughs Truckmen's Service Association, 
225 Lafayette Street, were indicted on May 10, 1933, on charges of 
coercion, conspiracy, and assault. 

These officers were James Plumeri, with alias Jimmy Doyle, aged 
31, 170 Forsythe Street, president; and John Dioguardi, aged 22, 
172 Forsythe Street, and Dominick Didato, aged 36, 33-38 102d Street, 
Corona, Queens, both "business organizers." Additional articles in 
the New York Times reflected this indictment was later dismissed. 

John Dioguardi has been reported to have been connected with the 
Garment Center Truck Owners Association, Inc., 202 West 40th 
Street, New York City, prior to 1937 in a capacity whereby he met 
with representatives of certain labor organizations in the garment 
field. 

An article appearing in the New York Times on March 20, 1937, 
captioned, "Two Seized in Drive in Truck Racket," reflected that 
Plumeri and Dioguardi, regarded as important gangsters in racket- 
eering operations in the garment industry, were arrested on March 
19, 1937, for extortion of an unspecified sum, running to thousands 
of dollars from two associations of truck operators. 

The associations were listed as the Garment Center Truck Owners, 
Inc., 1440 Broadway, and the New York and Brooklyn Coat & Suit 
Truckmen's Association, Inc., 303 West 38th Street. 

According to this article, the operations of Plumeri and Dioguardi 
had no connection with unions, and their dominance of the two truck- 
ing associations had been gained only by strong-arm work. The 
method by which the money was extorted was said to have been that 
of threatening physical violence against truck operators, throwing of 
stench bombs into trucks and places of business, placing emery and 
other destructive substances in truck motors, and similar acts or 
threats of violence. 

An article in the New York Times on March 24, 1937, captioned, 
"Truck Racket Case of 1933 Revived," reflected that Plumeri and 
Didato (deceased), and Dioguardi were indicted on March 23, 1937, 



4154 IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

for extortion and assault with business accounts rather tlian money 
being involved in extortion. 

The indictment charoed that Plumeri and Didato took over the Five 
Boroughs Truckmen's Service Association in 1932 and there followed 
a series of assaults, property destruction, and extortion. 

Victims listed in this article were the Dependable Transportation 
Co.. SamaFs Service Delivery, Inc., King Transfer Co., Wolf Pack- 
age Depot, and the (jardner Transportation Co. 

A subsequent article in the New York Times on May 5, 1937, dis- 
closed that Dioguardi and Plumeri were named in an indictment 
charging them with the extortion of $15,000 from the Garment Center 
Truck Owners Association, Inc., 1140 Broadway. 

On eJune 3, 1937, the New York Times reported that the trial of 
Plumeri and Dioguardi, his nephew, both of whom had been con- 
fined in the Tombs in default of $50,000 bail each, since their arrest 
on March 19, 1937, commenced on June 2, 1937. 

Subsequent articles reflected that the trial continued until June 10, 
1937, when Dioguardi and Plumeri pleaded guilty to all charges in 
the indictment after the State had rested its case. 

According to the newspaper articles, during the trial of Dioguardi 
and Plumeri, one William M. Brown, a truckman, testified that he 
was threatened, his brother was beaten, and one of his trucks was 
rendered useless by emery powder in its oil. 

He said Plumeri had bragged that he and liis associates had a system 
"99 percent good," and that 67 complaints had been made against them 
to authorities in the previous year with no resulting convictions. An- 
other witness testified that he had been forced to pay $500 a month 
for the protection of his trucks. 

In 1954, Dioguardi was indicted for violation of New York State 
income-tax laws. The indictment centered upon his failure to report 
$5,400 which he received as additional income from the sale of a cloth- 
ing factory in Pennsylvania. An additional $5,500 was "to assure 
that the shop would remain nonunion." 

There is further information here, but I think that will serve as a 
basis, gentlemen, for us to proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question. 

Mr. Dioguardi, how old are Dominick and Rose, your children? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, there is no way that that answer 
could incriminate him. In what year were they adopted ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Senator Curtis. I know, but children have some rights too. It 
says here they are about 16 years old. That would mean that they 
were born probably about 1940. Some time thereafter you adopted 
them, if this paper is right, and some adoption court O. K.'d that 
proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that you had been sentenced and 
served part of a 3- to 5-year term in Sing Sing for extortion. 

I wonder what kind of adoption proceedings they have up there. 
I would like to know of you if these facts are true. 

Mr. Dioguardi. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4155 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie Chair.aian. All rioht, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

I^t us o"et down into these unions, and maybe he would be glad to 
tell us somethino; about them. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the information that we have, which origi- 
nates back in 1950, Mr. Chairmaji. 

When Mr. Dioguardi came into the labor-union movement, he was 
operating a nonunion dress shop over in New Jersey and he became 
interested in getting a charter. 

We understand, according to the information that we have, that 
he was instrumental in getting the first charter for local 102, but it 
was decided at that time that his name would not appear. The charter 
was originally granted through Mr. Paul Dorfman and Mr, Sam 
Berger of Local 102 of the ILGWU, as well as Dave Previant. 

I was wondering, Mr. Dio, if you could give us any information 
about that. 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Then from there, local 102 began an organization 
of the taxicabs and it was decided to establish another local, local 649, 
and Mr, Dio became president of local 649 and business manager of 
local 102. 

Local 649 was to organize the unorganized. That was what he was 
working on at that time, as well as the organization of the taxicabs. 

I wonder if he could make any comment on that ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

The Chairjvian, Are you now a member of any labor union or 
organization ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

The Chairman. Wliat is that privilege you claim ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground that this answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman, I see. You think that it would incriminate you 
to be a member of a labor union ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you not rather think it would be the other 
way around '( 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman, Do you feel any obligation to these union mem- 
bers ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that this answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you at one time regional director ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY, Mr, Chairman, according to our information, Mr, 
Dio was appointed regional director of region 3-A of the UAW- 
AFL, and he was appointed to that position by Mr, Anthony Doria, 
secretary-treasurer of the UAW-AFL, 

The Chairman. Did you serve in that capacity ? 

Mr, Dioguardi, I respectfully decline to answer that question on 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4156 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you know Anthony Doria? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that this answer may tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. After he had established local 649 and local 102, 
Mr. Chairman, there was a breakoff by a man by the name of Louis 
Lasky, who established a local of his own, and Mr. Dio was anxious 
to bring that group back into the fold, so he brought two other gen- 
tlemen into the labor-union movement, a Mr. Topazio and Mr. 
Cohen. 

Just before they were to take over that local, Mr. Topazio and 
Mr. Cohen whom Mr. Dioguardi brought into the labor movement,, 
were arrested for extortion. 

The Chairman. Ask him direct questions about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us the details on that ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. "Wliat are those names ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Topazio and Mr. Cohen. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Topazio ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you have any labor-union business connec- 
tions with either of them ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dio's chief base of operations was in New York 
City, but he also had some locals that expanded down to Philadelphia. 

The first local charter that he granted was local 138, which he gave 
to Mr. Abe Goldberg; within a year prior to the time he received the 
charter, he had been arrested and convicted for extortion while work- 
ing with the teamsters union. 

Could you tell us the facts about that situation, Mr. Dio? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully^ decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the charter for Local 138, UAW-AFL,. 
that you granted to Mr. Abe Goldberg; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. At that time, were you regional director and had 
authority to grant these charters or to recommend that they be granted,, 
or recommend that they be denied ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4157 

The Chairman. Are you ashamed of your connection with labor 
unions ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I chaim my privilege under the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

The Chairman. What is that privilege ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we then understand that Mr. Dio 
granted another charter, local 198, and he gave this charter to a Mr. 
Cohen, and the husband of his secretary, Mr. Gasster. 

Within 3 weeks of the time that the charter for local 198 had been 
given to Mr. Cohen and Mr. Gasster, they were arrested for extortion. 

The Chairman. I^t me ask, do you know Abe Goldberg? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you the same John Dioguardi that signed these 
and approved these applications for charter ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What did you have to do with the granting of 
charter for local 198 ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answ^er the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you know at the time that you helped secure 
these charters, that the applicants for them were criminal and had 
been convicted of the crime of extortion and other crimes ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Had you known it, would you have recommended 
the charter be granted to them ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Dioguardi, when Mr. Washburn was here 
testifying he was asked a series of questions by Senator Mundt, and 
I want to read Mr, Washburn's answer to one of those questions and 
then ask you a question. 

Mr. Washburn. So Dubinsky got pretty mad at me. He said he didn't even 
know Johnny Dio. I said, "Mr. Dubinsky, I understand that he worked for 
your organization one time on a special assignment." 

"I don't even know the man," he said. 

Then Mr. Washburn went on to say : 

I named the plant and city in which, he worked, and he got very excited. His 
only reply was, "Well, there is sometimes," he says, "we hire people to do certain 
jobs for us, but we don't let them get on the inside of the organization." 

Senator Mundt, You say you named the plant, Wliat plant was 
it, what city ? 

Mr. Washburn. Well, I didn't have the name of the plant, actually. It was 
Roanoke, Va. 

Senator Goldwater, Did you work for Mr, Dubinsky ? 
Mr, Dioguardi, I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4158 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Do you feel certain that an honest answer to 
that question would tend to incriminate you '( 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. It might. 

Senator Goldwater. It can do damage to Mr. Dubinsky by leav- 
ing it in the position you have left it in, taking the fifth amendment. 
Here was a statement made by a man that I presume you knoAV, Mr. 
Washburn, to- the ellect that you worked at one time for Mr. Dubin- 
sky. NoAv you decline to say that you did or you didn't, and you 
take the fifth amendment, which leaves us with the impression that 
you did work for Mr. Dubinsky, and you don't want to say that you did. 

I think Mr. Dubinsky would like you to clear that up. 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't care what it would do to Mr. 
Dubinsky ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Kennedy. On this question of Mr. Dioguardi working for 
Mr. Dubinsky, I understand that an affidavit is on its way from Mr. 
Dubinsky stating that Mr. Dioguardi has never worked for him. 
I wonder if the counsel knows anything about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand from the attorney that is represent- 
ing Mr. Dubinsky, or representing tlie ILGWU, they have written 
a letter or it is on is way to the chairman, stating that Mr. Dubinsky 
is prepared to testify before the committee, and also prior to the time 
he testifies on the particular point of Mr. Johnny Dioguardi, he has 
written in an affidavit that he is furnishing to the chairman of the 
committee that ]\lr. Dioguardi never worked for him or for the 

iLG^n;. 

That is the information we have. 

Senator Goldwatf:r. I ask the counsel, in view of that, is that not 
all the more reason why we should expect an answer from Mr. 
Dioguardi on that, and not the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is possible on some occasions for a witness 
to feel that he cannot answer certain questions, or pick and choose, 
because of the fact that he might waive his rights under the fifth 
amendment. I think Mr. Dio is taking the position that he is going 
to have to, or at least it is beginning to look as if he might not answer 
very many questions. 

Senator Goldwater. I thought we were on safe ground on this 
because it is clear down in Virginia, and we are working up in New 
York, but I will cease my questions. 

The Chairman. The questions are perfectly proper. Mr. Dubin- 
sky's name has been brought into these hearings under some circum- 
stances that might tend to connect him with Icnown racketeers and 
gangsters, and I think it is only proper. This is one of the witnesses, 
or this is one of the persons that I think was mentioned in connection 
with Mr. Dubinsky and, if this witness is a friend of Mr. Dubinsky's 
and he is willing to help clear it up, his testimony will be welcome. 

If he doesn't want to help clear it up, and he wants to take the fifth 
amendment, why then that will l)e the record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4159 

Do you know Mr. Dubinsky, and do you -svant to state whether 
you know him or not ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have any business transactions with 
him ? I am speaking of labor-union business. 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you had any other business or associations 
with him in any way ? 

Mr. DioouARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We will have to get Mr. Dubinsky to clear it up, 
I guess. 

All right, we will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have gone through, Mr. Chairman, local 102, 
and local 649, and Mr. Topazio, and Mr. Cohen, and local 198, Cohen 
and Gasster. 

The Chairman. We didn't ask him if he knew Mr. Gasster. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. There are four individuals involved. In local 649, 
you have two people, Topazio and Cohen, and that was Joe Cohen. 

Then there is a George M. Cohen, and a Mr. Gasster from local 198. 
There are four individuals. 

The Chairman. Ask him if he knows these. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have been through 649 and Topazio and Cohen, 
and local 198 which deals with George M. Cohen and Mr. Gasster. 

Could you give us any information on the fact that 3 weeks after 
you granted the charter to Mr. Gasster and Mr. Cohen, they were 
arrested for extortion ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, Mr. Chairman, there was local 138 down in 
Philadelphia, which was granted to a man who had just been con- 
victed of extortion, Abe Goldberg, and then a charter was granted to 
local 227. The local 227 officials were Max Chester, Arthur Santa 
Maria, and Mr. Cosentino. They had been in the International 
Chemical Workers Union, and their charter had been lifted in that 
union for extortions. Then they came over and were granted a 
charter through Mr. Dioguardi in the UAW-AFL. That is local 227. 

Could you tell us anything about that next charter that you issued ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. At the time you helped them get this charter for 
local 227, did you know that the, charter they had had previously had 
been lifted because they were either convicted or believed to be ex- 
tortionists ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. In weighing the quality of someone that might 
apply for a charter, as to whether he deserves it or whether it would 
be proper to issue it to him, would you take into account the fact 
that a man had been convicted of extortion ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4160 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you have any power or influence or authority 
now over organized labor and union members in New York City ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is the reason for this; that the members 
don't do something about it? Is it because they are afraid of you, 
and do you operate on some sort of a terrorism or fear psychology? 
Is that correct? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the two other charters for local 224 
and local 250 were granted to individuals, according to the sworn 
testimony before this committee. Those individuals were responsible 
and took part in making of "sweetheart" contracts with management. 
Those contracts were made in the cases before the committee where 
the employees of management were for the most part of Puerto 
Rican extraction. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Dio, whether you are familiar with 
the fact that these individuals were making these soft or "sweetheart" 
contracts to the detriment of the employees. 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other information, Mr. Chairman, we have on 
local 228, is that the charter was granted by Mr. Dio, and then, ac- 
cording to the international, it no longer existed. However, accord- 
ing to the sworn testimony again before the committee, that charter 
existed for a period of 2 years, and was active and was given out and 
granted by Milton Holt, an officer of the teamsters union. So, we 
have the situation where an officer of the teamsters union is giving out 
a charter from the UAW-AFL, which charter had originally been 
granted by Mr. Johnny Dio. 

Would you explain that to us, Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Holt ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That charter, I understand, is No. 228. Did you 
ever have any connection with charter No. 228 ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you help to procure that charter for anyone, 
originally ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you help to get it transferred to someone else ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairtnian. Did you make use of it, yourself ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you take that charter yourself, or you and 
others, and use it as a club or an instrument for extortion ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4161 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever operate under that charter in any 
way whatsoever ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. What became of the charter ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know where it is now ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dioguardi, I want to ask you a question about 
union practice ; that is, in the international. It has no relation with 
any act of yours or any transaction that involves you, so I am sure 
you can answer it. 

I have here committee exhibit 38, which was offered yesterday. It 
is an application for a charter, an amalgamated charter. The charter 
was written September 15, 1953, although this is the application for 
the charter. Among the members listed are Frank Easton, Leonard 
Prince, and so on, when this charter was issued on the date I men- 
tioned, and there is a notation on here, in pen, that it was sent to 
John Dio, New York City. This committee has a wide range of re- 
sponsibility to report its findings for legislative purposes. I notice 
that this application, upon which a charter was granted, was neither 
signed nor dated. Nobody ever signed it, yet that international 
issued a charter on it. My question is this : Can you tell me, is that 
a common practice among international unions ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I think you are doing the very 
right thing in having this character and others here to expose before 
the entire world that they will not cooperate and give us the in- 
formation. On the other hand, I think it is too bad that we have to 
dignify this character by having this public show over here for him 
in his behalf. It seems to me it is time that our better class of labor 
leaders, and there are some fine men who know the labor field from 
one end to the other, would come forward with their suggestions for 
changes in the law to keep people like this out of the organizing and 
heading of labor unions. 

The Chairman. I believe you testified you are an Americaji citi- 
zen, have you not ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you do not want to acknowledge 
that you are an American citizen ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is it a fact that you have contempt for your own 
Government ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4162 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. "Would you do anything to cooperate with your 
Government ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the groimd that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you realize the harm you are doing to honest 
organized labor by the position you are taking, and are you willing 
to continue to do this, irrespective of the amount of harm you may 
be doing, to the millions of Avorking people in this country? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Ejennedy. There is just one more charter. It was granted to 
local 355. That was given through Mr. Harold Krieger, of New 
Jersey, It was given to a man with an active Communist background. 
He then went to work and organized a company called Roto-Broil 
and made an arrangement with management or agi'eed with manage- 
ment that management could check otf vuiion members dues and not 
forward them to the union. This charter, local 355, was granted 
through Mr. Johnny Dio and to Mr. Tolkow. 

Could you tell us about that ? 

Mr, DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Tolkow ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the gi'oimd that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dio remained as regional di- 
rector in New York up until the middle of 195-1. Dui'ing this period 
of time, he built up a close relationship and a close friendship with 
Mr. Jimmy Hoffa of the teamsters union. 

I am wondering if you can tell us, Mr. Dio, when you first met 
Mr. James Hoffa of the teamsters. 

Mr, DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Jimmy Hoffa? 

Mr, DiOGUARDi, I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman, It has been charged that you are one of his lieu- 
tenants. Wliat do you say about that ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he give orders to you ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you take orders fi'om him? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to inci'iininate me. 

The Chairman. Do you give orders to Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that an answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he take orders from you ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How often do you confer with him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4163 

Mr. DioGVAHDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the frround that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie (^iiair:max. Did you have a conference with him or conferences 
with him retrarding the org-anizin*!; or issuing of charters to those 6 or 
7 |)hony paper locals in New York ( 

Mr. DioGUAKDi. I res})ectful]y decline to answer the question upon 
the irround that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. In the conversation, did you discuss with him the 
advantage of setting up these phony locals so that each of them 
might have seven votes in the election of joint council 16? 

Mr. DioiiUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you participate in the organizing of those 
locals for the purpose of controlling that election? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
tlie ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you afraid of Jimmy Holla ? 

Mr. DioorARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The CHAiR:\rAN. Proceed. Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. When Mr. Dio was forced to give up the drive on 
the taxis in the UAW-AFL, Mr. Hoffa at that time attempted to 
bring Mr. Dio and the organization that he had set up in New York 
into the teamsters union, according to the information that we have. 
That was in 1953. 

Then in 1954, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Dio resigned from the 
UAW-AFL, Mr. Ploti'a at that time aclniowledged him as his friend 
and said that he could have a job in the teamsters union. 

When Mr. Dio got out of the UAW-AFL in 1954, he established 
the so-called Equitable Research, and at that time he was supposed 
to have ended all of his relationship with labor. 

We haye information that he continued very active interest in 
labor, and that this was known to Mr. Anthony Doria, of the UAW- 
AFL, the secretary-treasurer, and that he continued a close relation- 
ship with Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo in several of the teamster unions 
throughout New York City ; that he had a working relationship with 
Mr. Corallo; that this started prior to the time of the election for 
the control of the joint council 16 in New York, in February of 1956, 
and went back to 1954, 1955, and went into 1956, 

We have some information showing some of the close relationship 
between Mr, Corallo, Mr. Corallo's lieutenants, Mr. Tramunti and 
Mr. Kaminetsky, and the relationship of Mr. Dio with these indi- 
viduals, and also Mr. Dio's relationship with Mr, Hoffa and with Mr, 
Harold Gibbons, who is also a teamster official. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions on that ? 

Mr. Kennedy, If Mr. Dio has any comment on the statements I 
have made 

Mr. DioGUARDi, I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives, I have a question I would like to ask the witness. 
It has a bearing on something else I have here. 



4164 IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I would like to ask him is he is acquainted with Teddy Ray. 

Teddy Ray appeared before this committee and he is the one that 
supposedly drove the getaway car at the time the acid was thrown at 
Victor Riesel. Does the witness know Teddy Ray ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. As I understand, Teddy Ray was supposed to serve 
as your bodyguard ; is that correct ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a statement in the 
light of an article that appears in today's Daily News, of New York. 
It reports a statement made by President Louis Hollander, of the 
State CIO in New York State, to the effect that what we are doing 
here is politically inspired, and is part of an undertaking to hurt 
and injure labor. 

I am not quoting it exactly, but that is the general purport. 

I know JNIr. Hollander very well, indeed, and I have known Mr, 
Hollander a great many years. 

I wish that Mr. Hollander would consult with Mr. Meany, presi- 
dent of the AFL-CIO, the national president, who is cooperating very 
fully with what we are doing, and who believes in what we are doing, 
who knows that we are not playing politics here, who knows that this 
is not an antilabor undertaking in any way, shape, or manner, who 
knows that we are trying to get at the truth of this situation so that 
where legislation may be necessary, we will know what legislation we 
need to have enacted. 

Further than that, the hearings that we have been having in the 
last few days, and particularly with this witness here today, demon- 
strates the need for this particular type of approach. 

The hearings demonstrate the need for some kind of legislation 
which we do not have. 

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Hollander. I think very 
highly of him, but I do wish he would revise his estimate of this 
committee, because I assure him that we are doing the kind of a job 
which I am describing right now. I refer him to President Meany, 
of the American Federation of Labor-CIO. 

The Chairman. Is it not true that Mr. Hollander himself recog- 
nizes the need for cleaning out this matter ? He says so. 

Senator Ives. He certainly does. He recommends labor courts in 
the State, but he does not recommend what power they should have. 
He does not say anything about subpena power or anything else. 

One of the troubles that labor has in cleaning itself up is the lack 
of subpena power. That is one of the services we are rendering to 
labor unions in helping them purge themselves. We have the subpena 
power which they lack. 

The Chairman. Senator ISIundt ? 

Senator Mundt. I was a little bit shocked at the witness' reply to 
one question that the chairman asked him. It was a very pertinent 
question. 

In the constitution of tlie teamsters international, in which you 
have served as an official, there is a provision that no official shall 
serve his union for his area who is not an American citizen. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4165 

The chairman asked you the question : Are you an American citizen ? 

If I understood you correctly, you were ashamed of your citizen- 
ship, if any, because you refused to answer the question. 

I think you must have misunderstood it or not recognized its rele- 
vancy. I want to again ask you the question : Are you an American 
citizen ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, may I say that this, I think, is a 
case on which we should make a test, because the Supreme Court has 
not ruled on whether or not being an American citizen can be self- 
incriminating. 

I certainly cannot see how the Court could rule that. 

If we can establish by independent means, or if the Court can es- 
tablish, that this man is an American citizen, I think we should order 
him to make a reply, and cite him for contempt, and try him in court 
and find out whether or not this type of frivolous reply to serious 
questions by a congressional committee can be engaged in. ^ 

The Chairman. Do we have that provision in the Constitution? 
Do you have it ? 

Senator Mundt. We had it read into the record yesterday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, he was never in the teamsters union. The 
constitutional provision applies to the teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. He had no relationships with the teamsters? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; a relationship, a close relationship. But so 
far as we know, he was never an official of the teamsters. 

The Chairman. I will ask him. 

Were you ever an official of the teamsters union ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We have a right to inquire and we shall inquire, 
since you take the position that you admit it might tend to incrimi- 
nate you. So if you were then it is in violation of the articles of the 
Constitution unless you were an American citizen. 

For that reason, the Chair regards evidence solicited by the ques- 
tion, the effort to determine whether you are an American citizen, 
that information, I tliink, is pertinent to this inquiry. Therefore, the 
Chair again asks you the question. Are you an American citizen? 
Upon your failure to answer, then the Chair will direct you to answer. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer that question. I cannot conceive 
that being an American citizen could possibly incriminate a citizen 
of this country, for him to admit it. 

If he is not, I do not see how our courts could ever hold that that 
would incriminate you, the fact that you say you were not. 

You are ordered and directed to answer the question. 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundp. Thank you, 'Mr. Chairman. That buttons that 
down and makes this witness clearly in contempt of this committee. 



4166 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

I am sure that the committee and the Senate will act accordingly. 
It is quite unusual for anybody who is an American citizen to be 
ashamed of his citizenship of this country, or to want to conceal it. 

I want to pursue with you a few questions to see if we can deter- 
mine why, if, in fact, you are an American citizen, you take refuge 
in the fifth amendment and try to conceal that fact. Are you a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Is it not actually true that you are a card-carrying 
member of the Communist Party of New York State today? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Have you ever been engaged in espionage for the 
Soviet Union ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Max Chester ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Abraham Brier ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know William Kleinman? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. Do you mean my counsel, Senator? 

Senator Mundt. I mean William Kleinman. I only know one 
William Kleinman. 

Mr. Klein3ian. May I suggest you ask him whether he knows Wil- 
liam W. Kleinman ? 

Senator Mundt. Very well. Do you know William W. Kleinman? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respect — I do. 

Senator Mundt. Your counsel escapes by a very narrow margin, 
I believe. Do you know Mr. Leo Telvi ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the gi'ounds that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Were you one of the incorporators of Equitable 
Research Associates'? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. In fact, are you not vice president of Equitable 
Research Associates ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Equitable Research Associates is incorporated in 
the city of New York. You were one of the incorporators. Indeed, 
you are one of the officers of it. Is that a legitimate, economic enter- 
prise, or is that a racket ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer tlie question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. In fact, was not Equitable Research Associates just 
a group of people gotten together for the purpose of extorting, some- 
times from labor and sometimes from management, funds and fees 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4167 

for protection against pickets and goon squads and labor disturb- 

inces ' 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the crround that the answer may tend to incriminate me. ^ 

Senator Mundt. I note from your age bracket that you were ]ust 
of the proper age during World War II when most of the men of your 
age were off to war. Did you serve in the armed services of your 

country^ . ,, 

:Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the o-round that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
is going to order and direct the witness to answer that question. You 
are so ordered and directed to answer. 

:Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the o-round that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I just cannot under- 
stand how a man can be so tough in New York City and so timid m 
Washington. I cannot answer that. 
The Chairman. Senator McNamara? 

Senator McNamara. Pursuing the line of questioning of Senator 
Mundt, it would appear that this witness, when no longer able to 
operate on a charter issued by the labor unions, has now been able 
to operate on a charter issued by the State of New York. That is 
rather a peculiar circumstance. 

The Chairman. Well, I do not know what the situation is with 
respect to this organization, this compaiij. A company may be 
organized in a legal way, apparently for legitimate purposes, ]ust 
as labor unions are organized for legitimate purposes. Someone 
operating a company can become a crook, or maybe he was when he 
started, and operate it as a crook. 

Senator MgNamara. The information furnished the committee says 
Equitable Kesearch Associates are incorporated. It appears they 
are incorporated by the State of New York. I think, if we are going 
into charters, we ought to look into charters that are issued m various 
manners, and whether or not it is a nonprofit charter, or whether it 
is a profit corporation. 

The Chairman. We are asking this witness everything we can 
think of about it. If we have not covered everything, the Senator 
may proceed to ask him some questions. 

Senator McNamara. It ought to be more logical at this point to 
ask the staff if they can get me the information. I do not believe the 
witness will answer the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe, Senator, what happened was that these 
individuals, Noah Braunstein, Goldfine, Caplan, and Kirschenbaum, 
got the charter from the State of New York, and included m the 
officers were Noah Braunstein and Teddy Kay. After their first meet- 
ing, everybody resigned and Mr. Dio took over Equitable Research, 
the' day following their first meeting of incorporation. I tliink Mr. 
Dio testified to that before the Subcommittee on Investigations last 
year. The day after the incorporation, they all resigned, and he took 
over complete responsibility for Equitable Research. 

Senator McNamara. Should not a question be raised with the au- 
lliorities of the State of New York who issue these charters as to 

89330— 57— pt. 11 11 



4168 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

whether or not it should be lifted? I would seem to think at this 
point it might be well to do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not familiar with the law. 

Senator Kennedy. I might say, in line with what Senator McNa- 
mara was asking about, was not Noah Braunstein the attorney for 
Mr. Dio in his appearance before the investigating subcommittee ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. And he took part in the incorporation and the 
next day resigned ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. Mr. Braunstein also represents 
Mr. Dio up in New York City in connection with the acid tlirowing 
regarding Mr. Riesel. 

Senator Kennedy. I do not have any criticism of Mr. Braunstein 
for representing Mr. Dio in any way as an attorney, but on this ques- 
tion of the part he played in setting up Equitable Eesearch Associates, 
which has been used as an organization to prevent unionization, and 
which has been used to extort some money from employers, it seems to 
me that his practices in that case would be worthy of some study by 
the New York bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. He also, I might say, took an active part according 
to the testimony before the committee, Mr. Braunstein himself took 
an active part in the negotiations of one of these contracts with Mr. 
Lehrer. So he acted in more than the capacity of just advising 
Mr. Dio. 

Senator Kennedy. Counsel does not know whether that has been 
a subject of investigation by the New York bar, the committee on 
ethical practices of the New York bar? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; I do not. 

Senator Mundt. On the point that Senator McNamara raised, I 
think he raised a very interesting and very significant point. Once 
a government body assumes the authority to grant charters of incor- 
poration, it also assumes some responsibility of followthrough. Most 
of the incorporations of which I know anytliing require annual mem- 
bership meetings, require records of minutes, require reports from 
officers. 

I suggest that our staff call to the attention of the New York County 
clerk's office in New York that here they have an incorporation, the 
Equitable Research Associates, Inc., apparently incorporated for one 
purpose, and following an altogether different practice, incorporated 
by one set of individuals who promptly step out and who let some 
racketeer step in. 

I think they, too, have some responsibility to tighten up their con- 
trol of incorporations that they grant to racketeers in New York 
County. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I might point out, before I raise the question I liave 
to raise with the witness, that the office in New York State that you 
wish to get in toucli with in a matter like that is that of the secretary 
of state. 

Senator Mi ndt. The paper we have says the records of the New 
York Comity clerk's office. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4169 

Senator I^'ES. That miglit be true down there, bnt if it is incorpo- 
rated in the State of New York it is incorporated in the secretary of 
stute's office. 

Senator JSIundt. I am in favor, also, of the staff contacting the 
secretary of state's office of the State of New York. Certainly they 
cannot just stand there entirely oblivious to the fact that they have set 
in motion a racket which results in the extortion of funds from busi- 
ness institutions and labor unions in the State of New York. 

Senator Ives. I am very sure that nothing like that was ever done^ 
deliberately by the secretary of state's office in New York State, no 
matter who was Governor. 

Senator Muxdt. Of course it was not done deliberately. I do not 
contend that. But they have some responsibility to follow through 
and see what happens to tlie charters that they grant. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I want to ask the 
witness. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Dioguardi if there is any- 
thing he ever did from the time he was born until the present mo- 
ment that would not incriminate him. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question uport 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The Chairmax. ^Ir. Dioguardi, would you recognize your voice 
if you heard a recording of it ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would it incriminate you, do you think, if we 
played a record, a recording, with your voice on it ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. ^laybe you can answer it better after you have 
heard the recording. The Chair is going to direct the staff now to 
play a tape recording. Let us see if you recognize your voice. Then 
we will liave any comments you might care to make afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, first we might explain that this 
recording was made prior to the time that we got into the investiga- 
tion. It was made through the efforts of District Attorney Hogan's 
office, which, of course, has been of great assistance and help to us 
in this investigation. 

The Chairman. For the information of those interested and listen- 
ing, this recording was made in New York under orders and author- 
ity of a court. It is legal testimony in the State of New York. This 
recording has been procured b}^ order of the court, so that it may be 
used as evidence in tliis hearing. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I hand you the order from the court 
giving permission for the district attorney to give those recordings 
to this committee. 

The CiixYiRMAN. For use as evidence at this hearing? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 



4170 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiKMAN. This order of the court will be printed in full in 
the record at this point, so those who read may know the authority 
for our use of this character of testimony. 

(The court order follows :) 

CouiiT OF Gekeral Sessions, County of New York 

In the Matter of Intercepting Telephonic Communications Transmitted 
Over ALgonquin 4-7424, 7425, 7426, 7427, and 7428 

It appearing from the affidavit of Alfred J. Scotti, Chief Assistant District 
Attorney of the County of New York, sworn to on July 1, that it is in the public 
interest to furnish to the United States Senate Select Commitee on Improper 
Activities in the Labor of Management Field, of which the Honorable John L. 
McClellan of Arkansas is Chairman, and Robert F. Kennedy is Chief Counsel, 
certain transcripts and information with respect to the interception of telephonic 
communications during the periods September 21, 1954, to March 21, 1955, 
March 21, 1955, to September 15, 1955, and September 20, 1955, to March 20, 1956. 
which were transmitted over the telephone intruments designated as ALgon- 
quin 4-7424, 7425, 7426, 7427, and 7428, listed in the name of United Textile 
Workers of America, American Federation of Labor, Local 229, located at prem- 
ises 325 Fourth Avenue, County of New York, City and State of New York, it is 

Ordered, That the District Attorney of New York County be, and he hereby Is, 
authorized and empowered to furnish said Committee with the transcripts and 
Information with respect to the interception of telephonic communications trans- 
mitted over each of the above identified telephone instruments during the periods 
set forth hereinabove, for the use of said Committee in connection with and in 
the course of its said investigation. 

(s) John A. Mullen, .7. G. G. -Sf. 

Dated New York, N. Y., July 1, 1957. 



Court of General Sessions, County of New York 

In the Matter of Intercepting Telephonic Communications Transmitted 
Over ALgonquin 4-7424, 7425, 7426, 7427. and 7428 

State of New York, 

County of New York, ss: 

Alfred J. Scotti, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am the Chief Assistant District Attorney in and for the County of New York 
and in charge of the Rackets Bureau of the District Attorney's Office. 

This is an application for an order permitting the District Attorney of New 
York County to furnish to the United States Senate Select Committee on Im- 
proper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, of which the Honorable 
John L. McClellan, of Arkansas, is Chairman, and Robert F. Kennedy is Chief 
Counsel, certain transcripts and information with respect to the interception of 
telephonic communications transmitted over ALgonquin 4-7424, 7425, 7426, 7427, 
and 7428, listed in the name of United Textile Workers of America, American 
Federation of Labor, Local 229, located at premises 325 Fourth Avenue, County 
of New York, City and State of New York, during the periods liereinbelow set 
forth. 

On January 30, 1957, the Senate of the United States duly adopted a reso- 
lution by which the said Committee was authorized to investigate improper ac- 
tivities in the labor or management field, with the purpose of obtaining infor- 
mation upon which the United States Senate could consider the advisability of 
adopting new legislation or modifying or amending present statutes. 

The said Committee thereafter conducted both public and private hearings 
with this end in view, and has subpenaed and interrogated numerous witnesses 
from various localities and States of the United States. 

The Committee is now planning to extend its investigation to the area of 
New York State and in this connection has issued, or contemplates the issuance 
of a subpena to persons who used the telephones of said local, for interi-oga- 
tion in connection with said investigation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4171 

In Augrust 1956, and again subsequent to January 30, 1957, the date the said 
resolution above referred to was adopted, said Chief Counsel of said Committee 
requested that this office be furnished him, for the use of the said Committee, all 
transcripts and information reflecting the interception of all telephonic communi- 
cations transmitted over the telephone instruments hereinabove described. 

The records of this office reveal that the telephonic communications trans- 
mitted over said instruments were intercepted during the periods hereinbelow 
set forth. All of the said interceptions were pursuant to orders issued by 
Judges of the Court of General Sessions under Section 813a of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure. 

The dates during which the said telephonic communications were intercepted 
were September 21, 1954, to March 21, 1955 ; March 21, 1955, to September 15, 
1955 ; and September 20, 1955, to March 20, 1956. 

It is respectfully submitted that the District Attorney of New York County 
be authorized, in the public interest, to furnish to the United States Senate 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field the 
said transcripts and other information for the use of said Committee in connec- 
tion with and in the course of its said investigation. 

No previous application has been made for this order herein requested. 

(s) Alfred J. Scotti. 

Sworn to before me this day of July 1957. 

Robert F. Ward, 
Notary PuUic, State of New York, No. 41-55500. 

Qualified in Queens County. Certificate filed in New York County. Commis- 
sion expires March 30, 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say that the important ele- 
ment, in our estimation, is Mr. Dio's activities after he got out of the 
labor-union movement. We are of the opinion, and we feel that this 
evidence that we are about to present will help to establish it, that Mr. 
Dio was actually very active in the labor-union movement after he 
got out in 1954, was active in 1955. 

The Chairman. You mean after he was supposed to have gotten 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy. After he was supposed to have gotten out in 1964. 

I will explain in a minute the individuals that were involved in this 
conversation. 

I might say he was active in 1955. Then his people, whom I have 
discussed in the last week or so in these hearings, and will continue 
to discuss, his people were the ones that made up the officers and 
charter members that transferred over to the teamsters union in 1955 
and were prepared to vote in the election for the control of the joint 
council in New York on February 14, 1956. 

First, these charters were granted at the request of Mr. Hoffa to 
the international. Behind the efforts to have Mr. 0'E,ourke elected 
president of joint council 16 was Mr. Dioguardi and Mr. Tony 
"Ducks" Corallo. 

I might describe Tony "Ducks" Corallo. He is vice president of 
local 239 of the teamsters, but his effect and autliority have stretched 
far beyond that. He has two lieutenants by the name of Carmine 
Tramunti and Dick Kaminetsky. It was through Tramunti and 
Kaminetsky that Mr. Corallo controlled certain other labor unions, 
including certain teamster unions. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask the witness this question : Do 
you know Carmine Tramunti ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the groimd that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4172 IMPROPER ACTIVrriElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Are you a cousin of his ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer maj^ tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. In conversations with you, does he sometimes call 
you "Cousin" ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Tony "Ducks" Corallo? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you ever had any telephone conversations 
with him ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think you will recognize his voice if you 
hear it ? 

Mr. DioGuARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might identify the individuals further that are 
mentioned in the telephone conversation. 

George Baldanzi is mentioned. 

The Chairman. Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Kennedy. George Baldanzi at that time was an international 
organizer working for the Eastern Conference of Teamsters. He has 
an important position. 

The Chairman. Do you know him ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that Flynn is president of the Eastern Con- 
ference of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Do you know Tom Flynn ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Gibbons is Mr. Harold Gibbons, who is from 
St. Louis. I believe he is secretary of the Central Conference of 
Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Do you know Harold Gibbons ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. According to the press reports as of today, he is 
Jimmy Hoffa's adviser. 

Do you know anything about that ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that one of the things to watch that is im- 
portant is the relationship that exists between Mr. Dioguardi and Mr. 
Corallo, although Mr. Dio is important in New York I think you will 
notice from the telephone conversation that perhaps Mr. Corallo was 
even more important. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, do we have any information as to 
whether or not Mr. Corallo has a criminal record? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, he does. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4173 

Senator Curtis. Briefly, what is it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Primarily in the field of narcotics. He has been 
arrested 6 or 7 times. 

He has had one conviction on narcotics. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever been in the narcotics business ? 

j\Ir. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Dick Kaminetsky ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You may hear his voice on this recording. 

Do you think you will recognize it ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. Can we get the recording now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the date of the first recording ? 

Mr. Kennedy. February 18, 1955. 

Mr. Chairman, I might say in addition there have been some words 
that have been taken out, and when the words are taken out there 
will be a "beep." It just means that it is profanity ; no other words. 

The Chairman. In other words, indecent words of the conversation 
have been removed from it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is all that will detract from the full import 
of the recording ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is February 18, 1955. We might remember 
that in this period of time, Mr. Dio allegedly was out of the labor 
imion movement. 

The Chairman. We will have to have quiet. 

If you are interested and want to be an observer, give us your 
cooperation. 

(Transcript of telephone conversation between John Dioguardi, 
Carmine Tramunti, Anthony "Ducks" Corallo, and Dick Kaminetsky 
on February 18, 1955, follows :) 

Woman's Voice. Hello? 

Man's Voice. Carmine, please. 

Woman's Voice. One moment. 

Carmine. Hello. 

Dio. Hello, cousin. 

Carmine (inaudible). 

Dio. How are you? 

Carmine. Fine. 

Dio. What's new? 

Carmine. Just a minute — come up here, Johnny. 

Dio. What? 

Carmine. Come up here. 

Dio. I'm all the way out the beach. You want me to come in? 

Carmine. Oh, just a moment. 

Dio. I'm not doing anything. 

Tony Corallo. Hello 

Dio. Hello. 

Corallo. Listen, Johnny 

Did. I didn't have no intention to come in, but I could come in, Tony. 



4174 IMPROPER ACTivrriEis m the labor field 

CoRALLO. No? All right, you don't have to come in. Listen 

Dio. What? 

CoRALLO. Find out what's all this talk about Gibbons and Flynn and knocking: 
Baldanzi, huh? 

Dio. That dirty, rotten son of a . 

CoRALLO. Who? 

Dio. I was with Jimmy last night. 

CORALLO. Who? 

Dio. Jimmy Hoffa. 

CoRALLO. You was with Jimmy Hoffa? 

Dio. Yeah. 

CoRALLo. Yeah. 

Dio. That dirty, rotten son of a has been here for 3 days ; nobody 

knows where to contact him 

CORALLO. Who 

Dio. Flynn. He's been meeting with Lacey 

CoRALLO. He's been meeting with Lacey? 

Dio. Yeah, and he's been drinking and Hoffa looked for him all day yesterday. 
Now, as far as Gibbons knocking Baldanzi, that's not true. 

CoRALLO. That's not true 

Dio. That's definitely not true. Gibbons is a guy trying to straighten him 
out. 

CoRALLO. You tell me Gibbons is trying to straighten him out and he's knock- 
ing 

Dio. Gibbons is the guy that brought him there and Gibbons is the guy that's 
trying to straighten him out 

CoRALLo. He says Gibbons is knocking his brains out. 

Dio. Who said that? 

CJoRALLO. He says it. 

Dio. Who? Baldanzi? 

Dick Kaminetsky. Hello, John? This is 

Dio. Hello. 

Kaminetsky. I was up to Baldanzi's tonight and it seems that, you know, 
the story came back to him that you were the one that was knocking Baldanzi's 
brains out 

Dio. Oh, that a lot of . 

Kaminetsky. Huh? 

Dio. That's away back. This- 



Kaminetsky. No; he said the other day this happened. 

Dio. This was before I ever knew you had anything to do with him. That's 

a lot of . 

Kaminetsky. It is, huh? 
Dio. That's a lot of . 



Kaminetsky. All right. 

Dio. Anytime he wants to make a date with all the principals involved, I'll 
be there. 

Kaminetsky. Well, he don't want — ^he don't want to do that, but he just 
wondering why it's happening 

Dio. Did you hear what I just said? 

Kaminetsky. Yeah, I heard what you just said. 

Dio. First of all, the first few months when you were mixed up with him 

Kaminetsky. Yeah? 

Dio. Nobody knew anything 

Kaminetsky. I know that ; I know that. 

Dio. That's the trouble 

Kaminetsky. I know that. 

Dio. So, I had n perfect right to do what I did. 

Kaminetsky. Yeah, yeah ; right you did. 

Dig. But since then, since the time that I knew the whole complete picture 
has changed. 

Kaminetsky. All right. 

Dio. Fly is the cuy that's been belting his brains out. 

Kaminetsky. Who? 

Dio. Flynn. 

Kaminetsky. Flynn? 

Dio. Flynn. 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4175 

Kaminktsky. Look, I called Sam this aft — Sam — me — and I called him and 
he called me back. Anyway, and I asked Sam to get hold of Paul to try to do 
something with that drunken . 

Dio. Well, if he could do something, brother; I'm going to go out and get 

drunk myself. That dirty miserable is drunk every day. Jimmy Hoffa 

couldn't get him last night. 

Kaminetsky. Uh-huh. 

Dio. But Jimmy Hoffa le — got in yesterday morning and he left last night. 

Kaminetsky. I see. All right, John. 

Dio. As far as Baldanzi and as far as Gibbons is concerned, that's not true. 

Kaminetsky. All right. 

Dio. Because Gibbons and I were only talking about him last night. 

Kaminetsky. O. K. 

Dio. So 

Kaminetsky. Tony want to talk to you. 

Dio. Yeah. 

Kaminetsky. Take care, John. Have a nice weekend. 

Dio. Yeah ; all right. 

CoRALLo. Hello, Johnny. 

Dio. Tony. See, at the beginning, Tony, before anybody ever knew who was 
connected with him 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Dio. I did do — I and other people did 

CoRALi,o. All right ; all ri — ■. Now, listen— — - 

Dio. But you know how long ago that is 

CoKALLO. Let's don't even discuss it. 

Dio. You know what the story goes now? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Dig. I understand Delurey got a taxi charter. Now, listen ; they gave Delurey 
a taxi charter. 

CoRALLO. They gave it to Delurey? 

Did. That's what I understand ; last night. You understand — that's Mr. Plynn 
and Mr. Lacey. 

CoRALLO. Look, I wanted to wait with you on that there. If we brought up 
all the paraphernalias we would have got it — if you took all the equipment they 
give you to use, we would have got it. 

Dio. I gave you everything that I had. 

CoRALLO. That ain't enough 

Dio. Well, that all I had. Tony left. The other stuff they got back ; I tried 
to get it back, Tony 

CoRALi.o. Listen- — — 

Dig. On the way down. 

CoRALLG. Hello. 

Dig. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. See if you can find that drunken — and see if we can keep this 

guy in there ; it will be good for all of us. 

Dig. Tony, I just called up Washington, because — I called you from outside. 
I just called Washington up, and they said he's still in New York. 

CoRALLO. All right ; see if you can make some calls. 

Dig. All right. Listen ; I'll be home. I'll be home in about 15 minutes. 

CoRALLO. See if you can that drunken . Listen, why don't you or him 

go hurry up and call up Russ and leave a number where Russ could get you. He 
wants to talk to you important. He's in that hotel, you know, on 49th. 

Dig. Russ. Can I call him there? 

CoRALLG. Call there and leave a number where he can call you if he's not there. 

Dig. All right. 

CoRALLo. Now, let's hear you call him. 

Dig. All right. 

CoRALLG. All right. So long. 

The Chairman. Mr. Dioguardi, this conversation is supposed to 
have taken place, according to the recording, on February 18, 1955. 
Do you wish to comment about it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



4176 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. According to this recording, you were in contact 
with Mr. Hoffa at that time ; is that correct ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. And, apparently, in this conversation you were dis- 
cussing the labor-union situation in New York ; is that correct ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. This refers to Mr. Lacey, who, at that time, I 
believe, was president of joint council 16 in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Were you in conversation with Mr. Lacey at that 
time ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
tlie ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That is the time when you were beginning to or- 
ganize to elect John O'Eourke and throw Lacey out with these phony- 
ballots or these ballots of these phony locals ? 

Mr. DiocxUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. You don't think you have been incriminated by the 
playing of the record, do you ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Play the next one, Mr. Counsel. 

Senator Mundt. Before he does, I think we should give the wit- 
ness the chance to affirm or deny that the recording we just heard is hi& 
voice. 

Do you want to deny that that was your voice that we just listened 
to, that was identified in the telephone call as Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. DioGiTARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. If the present answer is incriminating, I am giv- 
ing you a chance to disincriminate yourself, to say, "No, this is a phony 
call. It is somebody else." Was it you ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do you want to deny now, while you are under 
oath, before a congressional committee, surrounded by newspapermen 
and radio and television photographers who can hear you, to say, 
"No, that wasn't my voice" ? Do you want to deny it ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. That is just admitting it. That does incriminate 
you. I am giving you the chance to deny it, if you want to. You 
don't want to do it? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I understand we have a witness here who can identi- 
fy these voices, who is familiar with this recording. 

Call the witness. We will get his comment about it. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ives, McNamara, Mundt, and Curtis.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4177 

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

Mr. Laurendi. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF NATALE LAURENDI 

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

Mr. Laurendi. Detective Natale Laurendi, shield No. 2021, New 
York City Police Department, assigned to the district attorney's office 
squad. New York County. 

The Chairman. How long have you served in that capacity ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have been a police officer for 6 years ; 1 year in uni- 
form and 5 years assigned as a police officer and detective to District 
Attorney Frank Hogan's office. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with this record just made? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify any voices ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I identify the voice of Johnny Dioguardi. 

The Chairman. Do you know his voice ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Have you compared this transcript of that testi- 
mony ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Does his voice appear wherever the name "Dio" 
appears on this recording? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it does. 

The Chairman. Then the transcript of the recording may be made 
exhibit No. 70. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 70," for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. I will instruct the reporter that, if he had any 
trouble following the recording, this may be substituted in the record 
for it. 

You testify to it as a fact that you recognize it and that this trans- 
script is correct ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Will you stand by while we play the second recording, please? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

If not, you may stand aside for -the present. 

The second recording, Mr. Counsel, is of what date ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, on the first recording, Mr. 
Chairman, once again it shows the activity that Mr. Corallo and Mr. 
Dio had in the activities of the teamsters union in New York ; that the 
people who were taking part in this conversation, Tramunti and 
Kaminetsky, both have very long police records, both of them starting 
back in 1930 and 1931. It shows their intimate connection with the 
teamster activities in New York City, and this at a time when Dio 
supposedly was out of the labor-union movement. 



4178 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEIS EST THE LABOR FIETiD 

The next conversation took place on August 17, 1955, and the point 
of this second conversation, Mr. Chairman, is once again to show Mr. 
Dio's active participation in the labor-union movement. The first 
part of the conversation is unclear, but the second part you can under- 
stand. Although he was working for Equitable Research, he states 
in the conversation that he was responsible for putting pickets on a 
place and for taking pickets off a place. 

We have checked with Rockaway Metals, which is the shop that is 
mentioned, and they had pickets put on and taken off at this period of 
time. 

Once again, the conversation is between Johnny Dio and Carmine 
Tramunti. Carmine Tramunti also was not connected with any labor 
union at that period of time. 

The Chatrman. Let us play it. 

(The transcript of a telephone conversation between John Dio- 
guardi and Carmine Tramimti on August 17, 1955, follows:) 

Johnny Dio. Hello ; is Carmine there? 

Man's Voice. One minute, please. 

Carmine Teamtjnti. Hello. 

Dio. Hello. 

Tramunti. How are you? 

Dio. All right. Listen; remember that place I was telling you about with 
that number yesterday, that that kid didn't know who it was? 

Tramunti. Yeah. 

Dio. Well, No. 1; Joey knows about it — your Joey; you know, from that 
outfit 

Tramunti. Yeah. 

Dio. So, now, all of a sudden, the other Joey got a call to go downtown. You 
know where, downtown? 

Tramunti. Ah, Joey's — yes. 

Dio. No ; to go down and see ah — by the Parkside Cafe. You know where the 
ParksideCafeis? 

Tramunti. No. 

Dio. Lessi's. 

Tramunti. Who? 

Dio. Lessi's. 

Tramunti. Lessi's? 

Dio. Yeah. 

Tramunti. Who the is he ? 

Dio. Don't you know who he is? 

Tramunti. No. 

Dio. O'Neill knows him. 

Tramunti. Oh. Yeah? 

Dio. So, I told him not to go, see, and he took the pickets ofC. I'm telling 
him to put the pickets on again. 

Tramunti. Yeah. 

Dio. You understand? 

Tramunti. Ah. Listen 

Dio. Yeah? 

Tramunti. Wait a minute; wait a minute, will you? Wait a minute — 
listen 

Dio. Yeah. 

Tamunti. What are you talking about? You mean they had pickets on? 

Dio. We did. 

Tramunti. Oh 

Dio. And we took 'em off until we talked. Now, this guy called 'em up and, 
after other things, he says, "You got to come downtown and meet me." 

Tramunti. Yeah. 

Did. And he told him where. 

Tramunti. Yeah. Well, he's not going, is he? 

Dio. Put the pickets on again? 

Tramunti. Yeah. 

Dio, That's what I'm going to do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES m THE LABOR FIELD 4179 

Tramitnti. Oh 

Dio. You * * * You understand me what I mean? 

Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. What I was talking about yesterday. 

Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. But Joey Levine knows this guy. 

Tkamunti. Uhuh. 

Dio. He's been working with him. 

Tkamunti. Uhuh 

Did. I told Joey, "So what?" 

Tkamunti. Uhuh 

Did. I said, "We don't know nothing about it." 

Tkamunti. No. 

Dio. So let him see what happens. 

Tkamunti. Listen 

Did. What? 

Tkamunti. Do you know the name of the place? 

Dio. Rockaway Metals. 

Tkamunti. Rockaway Metals? 

Dio. That's right. 

Tkamunti. O. K. 

Dio. So, that's what I'm going to do, Carmine. Will you tell him that? 

Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. And I don't know how this guy settled it. 

Tkamunti, Yeah, yeah. You took 'em off 

Dio. Yeah. 

Tkamunti. And now this guy settled it the 10th of June? 
Dio. He made a date with them. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. To talk with them at Joey's oflBce. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 
Dio. So he gave them a call. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. He says, "Look, I can't make it uptown. If you want to meet me yoa 
meet me down at — ah, this place. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 
Dio. Joey realized where it was. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 
Dio. You understand? 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 
Dio. So, I say, "Forget about it." 

Tkamunti. That's right. Are you putting the pickets back? 
Dio. That's right. 
Tkamunti. Good. 

Dio. Will you please tell the other * * * your Joey * * * that? 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. Find out off him what it's all about. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. He seems to know what's it's all about. 

Tkamunti. Yeah ; because we called up there and there was nobody there. 
Dio. And he seems to know what it's aU about. 
Tkamunti. All right. 
Dio. He talked with Joey. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. Yeah ; that's what I'm going to do and they're with me. 
Tkamunti. O. K. 

Dio. You just follow it to me and you'll meet him sometime. 
Tkamunti. O. K. 
Dio. All right. 
Tkamunti. Yeah. 

Dio. O. K. * * * ah, listen * » » tomorrow around 12 : .30, I want to see you. 
Tkamunti. All right ; I'll be here. 
Dio. All right. 
Tkamunti. 0. K. 
Dio. Fine. 

The Chairman. Let's recall that witness. 
Will yon take the stand, please ? 



4180 EVrPROPER ACTIVrriES in the labor FIEIiD 

TESTIMONY OF NATALE LAURENDI— Eesumed 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings; Senator McClellan, Ives, McNamara, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Did you hear the playing of this second recording? 

Mr. Laurexdi, Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman. Do you identify the voices ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I could identify the voice of Johnny Dioguardi. 
The other voice I have not heard the person speaking in person. 

The Chairman. How long have you know Johnny Dioguardi? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have known of him for the past 2 years. 

The Chairman. Is this recording correct as transcribed? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. Have you examined the transcribed document ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This transcribed document may be made exhibit 

No. 71. ;" 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 71" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. The reporter is instructed to print it in the record, 
if you were unable to take down the actual recording as you heard it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might add on to that that the local 
they are talking about is local 224. that Mr. Dio in August of 19.55 was 
putting the pickets on and then taking them off Rockaway Metals. 
This is some 8 or 9 months after he resigned from the labor-union 
movement, and he was then with Equitable Research. He was putting 
on pickets and taking them off. 

Local 224 you see up here, UAW-AFL, those officials came down 
and were on the charter application of local 269 of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters. It shows and demonstrates ]VIr. Dio's 
active participation in labor affairs of LTAW-AFL after he allegedly 
resigned, and his conti-ol over the locals with whom he had been asso- 
ciated during 19.51, 1952, 1953, and 19.54. 

This is, of course, important, because of the fact that these people 
ultimately ended up as applicants and officers for these teamster 
unions in 1955 and 1956. 

TESTIMONY OP JOHN DIOGUARDI, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
WILLIAM W. KLEINMAN— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Do you know Joey, referred to in this conver- 
sation ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. AVliat kind of a fellow is Joey ? WTiat does he do ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anybody else in there that you want to 
identify ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. There are two Joeys mentioned. Johnny Dio's 
Joey would be Joe Curcio, or at least that is what we understand. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4181 

The Chairman. Do you want to tell us whether it was Joe Curcio 
or not ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

jNlr. Kennedy. Your "Joey," Senator, would be Joey Levine, and 
Joey Levine came out of local 875, a teamster local controlled by Tony 
"Ducks" and came in as one of the active participants in local 275, 
which was one of the original so-called paper locals of the teamsters 
for the purpose of voting in the election. 

The Chairman. Do you have any comment? 

JNIr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Just one more item. 

No, that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions from any member 
•of the committee ? 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were: Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, Mr. Chairman, as we 
will develop later, and we have had some information and testimony 
already, there was an active friendship between Mr. Dio and Mr. 
James Hoffa. You will not make any comment on that ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to inciiriiinate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand that Mr. Ploifa was doing some fa- 
vors for you, such as attempting to get you a teamster charter but 
that you were also doing some favors for him; is that correct? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

]\lr. Kennedy. You would not discuss any of the conversations that 
yon might have had with Mr. Hoffa prior to the time that your people 
became members and applicants on the charter in 1955 ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Do you know ]\Ir. Victor Riesel ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Cilvirman. You would not want to tell us, I suppose, whether 
you know anything about the incident that resulted in his blindness? 
Would you want to comment on that or tell us anything about it? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

.The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator ]\Iundt. In the absence of Senator Gold water, T Avant to 
ask the Goldwater question of Mr. Kleinman. 

The Chairman. Let us finish just 1 or 2 more questions with the 
witness. If none of you has any further questions of the witness, 
the Chair wishes to ask this : 

I want to ask whether we have failed to ask any question that you 
might be glad to answer to give us a little information, either from 



4182 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

your point of view or in answer to anything that may have been im- 
plied here from the questions that have been directed to you today. 

Have we overlooked anything that you think of ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We want to be very fair. If we have overlooked 
anything that you would like to answer that might put your situation 
in any better light, or give us any explanation or anything that you 
think might be helpful to the committee, we will be very glad for you 
to tell us. 

Mr. DiOGuARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr, Ivleinman, this is a question we have been ask- 
ing other lawyers in the hearing. It is simply whether, in appearing 
in your capacity as counsel for Mr. Dioguardi, your fees are being paid 
for by Mr. Dioguardi personally or by a labor union. 

Mr. Kleinman. Well, if you press for the answer. Senator, I sup- 
pose I should be cooperative, as the term goes, and attempt to answer 
it. I doubt very seriously that a lawyer should discuss by whom 
fees are paid. 

I may say that I know nobody else in this matter except Mr. John 
Dioguardi. Does that answer your question, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. I^t me interpret your answer as I understand it,, 
and then you can tell me whether you are answering it or not. 

It is a question which all other counsel have answered. The reason 
we ask it is because we are interested in knowing whether labor union 
money from the dues-paying members is being used to employ counsel 
to protect or to counsel the Avitnesses that we feel compelled to call in. 
As I interpret your answer, it is that you are receiving no compensa- 
tion from any labor union for representing Mr. Dioguardi here ? 

Mr. Kleinman. Your interpretation is correct, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Then we understand each other. 

The Chairman. The Chair overlooked one matter that I think 
maybe we should bring to the witness' attention. Pie might want tO' 
comment about it. 

The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a check dated Sep- 
tember 3, 1954, made payable to you in the amount of $16,000, drawn 
on the International Union, United Automobile Workers of Ajnerica, 
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, No. 3597, signed by 
Anthony Doria, international secretary and treasurer. 

We also have the endorsement of that check, a photostatic copy of it^ 
on the reversed side, which appears to have the endorsement of John 
Dioguardi. 

Will you examine tliis document, please, and state whether or not 
you identify it ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. Dioguardi. I have. 

The Chairinian. That document may be made exhibit No. 72. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 72" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4466.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 418S 

The Chairman. Will you tell us what the check was for ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Did you receive it and get the money? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that fhe answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I ask you to examine the photostatic copy of the 
endorsement. Have you examined it ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I have. 

The Chairman. I believe you told me you could read ; is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the gi'ound that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Can you write your name ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I I'espectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that tlie answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature on the reverse side of the 
check ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you endorse the check and get the money on it ? 

Mr. DioGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that tlie answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say that the reason given 
publicly for that check, for giving Mr. Dio a check for $16,000, the 
i-eason given publicly by Mr. Anthony Doria Avas the fact that Mr. 
Dio had invested in local 102, had invested his own money, and he was 
paying him back. However, when Mr. Dio appeared before the Senate 
Subcommittee on Investigations in executive session on May 17, 1956, 
he was specifically asked whetlier he helped Sam Zakman finance local 
102, and he answered negatively. 

The Chairman. According to the transcript of the testimony before 
tlie Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on May I7y 
1956, Mr. Dioguardi, you were asked the following questions and gave 
tlie following answers : 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know William Zakuian? 

Mr. Dioguardi. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You uever met bim? 

Mr. Dioguardi. No, sir. 

:Mr. Kennedy. Former president of local .102 of the UAW? 

Mr. Dioguardi. Samuel Zakman? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know him V 

Mr. Dioguardi. Yes, sir. and I do not know William. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you help Sam Zakman finance local 102 of UAW? 

Mr. Dioguardi. No. sir. 

;Mr. Kennedy. You never gave him any money? 

Mr. Dioguardi. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never took over from Sam Zakman; is that correct? 

Mr. Dioguardi. No, sir. 

(At this point Senators Mundt and Curtis withdrew from the hear- 
ing room.) 

The Chairman. You got that check, and it is represented to the 
committee now that it was to pay you back for money that you had 
invested or loaned or made available to local 102 of the UAW-AFL. 

89.^.30— 57— pt. 11 12 



4184 IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

You testified at that time that you did not advance any money, that you 
did not finance that union. Do you want to tell us now wliat this 
check is for ? 

Mr. DiOGUARDi. I respectfully decline to answer the question upon 
the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We had a witness here that I asked to think about 
something. What was his name ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hodes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gordon. He has not volunteered any informa- 
tion, has he, or indicated that he would like to give us some informa- 
tion ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He has not informed me of that. 

The Chairman. The Chair has been placing witn&sses under recog- 
nizance to reappear at such time as the committee may need their 
further testimony. I think there is a little peculiar circumstance 
here, and I doubt if such an order would be very effective under the 
circumstances. 

The Chair does want to thank on behalf of the committee. Judge 
Mullen, of general sessions court of New York, and Mr. Frank Hogan, 
district attorney of New York, for the splendid cooperation they have 
given, and particularly in helping to make this witness available for 
this interrogation today. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Chairman, Capt. Fred W. Hains has co- 
operated very well with the committee. 

The Chairman. Captain Haines, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Alfred J. Scotti, chief assistant attorney, 
rackets bureau. 

The Chairman. To all of those, we are very grateful. 

The witness is excused. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

(Wliereupon, at 5 : 12 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., of the following day.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1957 

UxiTED 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 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Irving 
M. Ives, Republican, New York; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South 
Dakota ; Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, chief assistant counsel ; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel ; Wal- 
ter R. May, assistant counsel; Frank C. Lloyd, investigator; Ruth 
Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Morris Weintraub, please. 

The Chairman. Will Mr. Weintraub come around, please? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I want to just raise a question or 
two about Mr. Dio. Would you like to have it in the record before this 
man appears? 

The Chairman. No ; he can 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. Weintraub. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, yesterday when Mr. Dioguardi was 
here, I do not think anything was placed in the record concerning 
whether or not he was an officer in a welfare fund. I understand that 
■other investigations indicate that that is true. I merely raise that 
■question for the committee hoping that at a future time, if it has not 
already been done, it might be stated. 

In that connection, could they ascertain what, if any, insurance 
agencies or insurance brokers were controlled by the Dioguardi out- 
fit, and whether or not there is any evidence of requiring companies 
to do business with that brokerage as a further means of shakedown. 

The Chairman. The Chair will state that there is still an investi- 
gation in process, and the staff will take note of your suggestion. Sena- 
tor, and they can bear that in mind as they proceed with further 

4185 



4186 IMPROPER ACTIVrriEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

investigation. We may have sometliing already, but it is difficult to 
get all of this together at one time. I think your suggestion is cer- 
tainly very good. We may have something on it a little later. 

TESTIMONY OF MOERIS WEINTRATJB 

The Chairman. Mr. Weintraub, will you state your name, your 
place of residence, and your business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Weintraup.. My name is Morris Weintraub. I reside at 133- 
Kentucky Drive. South Newport, Ky., and I am engaged in the prac- 
tice of law in the State of Kentucky. 

The Chairman. All right. Being a lawyer, I assume you waive 
counsel. 

Mr, Weintraub. Well, I have always heard that a lawyer for him- 
self has a fool for a client, and so I will just be here myself today. 

The Chairman. If that saying is true, you have some company on 
the committee. 

Proceed, Mv. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Weintraub, you were associated with the UAW- 
AFL for a period of time ? 

Mr. WEINTR.VUB. I became associated with the UAW-AFL when 
I was appointed by the former president, Lester Washburn, as acting 
regional director of region 4, some time in the latter part of 1951. I 
think it may have been August or perhaps September, and I don't 
remember the exact date. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is region 4 ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Region 4 is a region, geographical region of the 
international union, which primarily comprises the western part of 
the State of Ohio from the Great Lakes on down, and the entire State 
of Kentucky, Tennessee, and portions of the South. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the responsibilities of a regional director? 

Mr. Weintraub. To supervise the activities of the region, see that 
there is proper organizational work, and see to it that the contracts 
are properly negotiated, and that the local unions are properly serv- 
iced and to generally supervise the activities of the local unions and 
the business in that particular area and region. 

As a regional director you are also ex officio a member of the inter- 
national executive board. 

I might say that I served in that capacity for several years by ap- 
pointment, and at my request I requested that a regional convention 
be held because I didn't feel I should continue on any further without 
giving the people a chance to vote on who their regional director 
should be. 

I think it was in the year 1953 — and I don't want to be bound by 
that exactly. There was a regional convention held in Cincinnati for 
region 4 and I was unanimously elected as the regional director and 
I served until I think it was July, when I resigned. 

Mr. Kennedy. You resigned in July of 1956? 

Mr. Weintraub. I think that was the date, and again I don't want 
to be bound by that. 

Mr. Kennedy. That Avas because of a dispute that you had with 
Mr. Doria? 

Mr. Weintraitb. No, tliat was not the result of a dispute with Mr.. 
Doria. It was a combination of factors involved. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4187 

Mr. KJBNNEDY. Wliich you will develop in your testimony? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you came in in 1951, were you familiar or did 
you know Mr. Johnny Dioguardi ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what position he held ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1952 or 1953, did you know anything about him 
then? 

Mr. Weintraub. I don't recall. It was some year, and it may have 
been in 1953 or the early part of 1954, I heard when I was on the 
executive board. I heard something about Johnny Dio, and if my 
recollection serves me correctly I think at one time he came in to visit 
the international headquarters in Milwaukee. My recollection is that 
he did not enter the board meeting, and I think that I was introduced 
to him at that particular time and that is the only time I ever met him, 
to my recollection until we held the hearings on his expulsion from 
the union, in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know or understand that he was in charge 
^of region 3 A, of the UAW-AFL? 

Mr. Weintraub. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you held the hearing in New York, was this 
following Mr. Lester Washburn's action against Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Against these locals? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. Mr. Washburn had issued an order ex- 
pelling him and also revoking charters, and I assume the committee 
has heard that testimony. 

An immediate meeting was called of the international executive 
board, and they rescinded the action of Mr. Washburn. The record 
will show that Mr. Donohue and I were the two board members who 
supported the action of Washburn because we felt that under the in- 
terenational constitution he had the authority to do what he did. 

Of course as you know, Mr. Washburn resigned in protest because 
he didn't have the cooperation of the board. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Now, did you have a hearing in New York in con- 
nection with Dio ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir ; there was a hearing set in New York in 
connection with the Dio matter. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Had there been any investigation made of Dio's 
activities in New York ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Only from what I heard, because I recall I sent 
a letter to Mr. Heaton when the matter was set for hearing in New 
York and I sent a letter to Mr. Heaton and I sent copies to all regional 
directors, pointing out to him that I didn't think it was fair to have 
a hearing in New York and go in without any facts whatsoever, and 
that someone ought to be sent to New York upon behalf of the inter- 
national union to look into the matter so that when the executive board 
arrived there they would be able to have some information to present 
to him or question him about. 

I think it was Mr. Goldberg, I can look at my record and tell you 
his first name, and it may have been Arthur Goldberg of the firm 
of Padway, Goldberg & Previant, of Milwaukee, Wis. A. G. Gold- 



4188 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

berg of that firm, I understand, went to New York, and on June 30, 
1954, made a written report to the UAW-AFL, attention of President 
Earl Heaton, and Secretary-Treasurer Anthony Doria. 

We then went to New York, and I felt that the report insofar as I 
was concerned didn't set out too many facts or information that we 
hadn't heard of or read in the newspaper up to that time. I insisted 
that we make some independent investigation of our own. 

Of course, the comment was made that we had sent out telegrams 
to the various crime committee chairman and members, and to vari- 
ous officials in the labor movement in New York, and the central labor 
body. Of course, I told them that we had no power of subpena, and 
it was a ridiculous thing to send them a telegram and invite them to 
a hearing in New York at which Dio would be present. I told them 
I thought it was incumbent upon us to do it ourselves. 

I then said that I would go over to the New York — I think they call 
it the racket committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. The anticrime committee. 

Mr. Weintraub. Regardless of whether the executive board wanted 
me to, as a private individual I would go. 

Upon that the president, Heaton, then appointed me, Brother Dono- 
hue and Frank Evans as a committee to go over. We went over and 
talked to, I think, a Mr. Green. Mr. Green was very, very cooperative 
with us, and, as a matter of fact, he had voluminous files there and 
he gave us all of the information we wanted. I don't think that he 
held back anything. 

That was the sum and substance of that conversation. We then came 
back and reported that information to the international executive 
board. 

Senator Cuetis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

This report of Mr. Goldberg, did that make a recommendation ? 

Mr. Weintraub. No ; I have the report in front of me, Senator, and 
it makes absolutely no recommendation. It speaks about who he con- 
tacted and gives some of the record of Dioguardi and others, and I 
have the mimeographed letter, copies of which were sent to each mem- 
ber of the executive board, if you like. 

Senator Curtis. Tell me this : Did it support the expulsion ? 

Mr. Weintraub. In my opinion. Senator, and I want to be fair and 
frank, I told the members of the staff that in my opinion as a lawyer, 
while I may have had my particular personal views concerning the 
activities, I came to the conclusion that all of this was merely, as far 
as we were concerned, hearsay, and I even pointed out that up to sev- 
eral weeks ago even the State of New York and the Federal Govern- 
ment were unable to convict Dio of anything. I said, based upon that, 
that I felt that the executive board perhaps didn't have the right to 
expel him, but I then argued very vigorously, and my notes support 
this, that I thought he should have been expelled from the international 
union based on the fact of his conduct just generally. 

Aside from the specific charges of racketeering and extortion and 
income-tax evasion and things of that kind, he should have been ex- 
pelled for conduct unbecoming a union member, and for activities 
which tend to bring the international union into disrepute, and for 
such acts and conduct inconsistent with the duties and obligations of 
a member of a labor union, and for violation of sound labor union 
principles. 



IMPROPER ACTH'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4189 

Those things, Senator, are violations of the international constitu- 
tion and I felt did not require specific proof such as a charge of ex- 
tortion or things of that kind. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you looked at it as a matter of 
})olicy and ethics and protection to the international union, and did 
not base it upon the pi-oof tliat ayouIcI be required in a court of law? 

]\Ir. Weintraub. I can't follow you. Senator, that it was protec- 
tion of the international union. I didn't look at it that way. I felt 
that the evidence before us was such at that time, we were so handi- 
capped by lack of evidence that I felt it was not fair to expel a man 
on a particular charge, let us say, for the court. If I bring an indict- 
ment against you, I can't convict you on something else if the evidence 
doesn't support that charge. It was based on that, that I felt that he 
shouldn't be expelled. I felt that he should be expelled for these other 
reasons, but then he offered to resign and that was the end of that. 

Senator Curtis. Well, what sort of information did you get from the 
crime commission? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, that was replete with his activities and his 
supposed approaches. As I say, I have my notes, and it has been 3 
or 4 years ago, and it was a record, of his past convictions and supposed 
associations with others whose reputations were very, very bad, and 
things of that kind. 

Senator Curtis. When the executive board actually assembled to 
determine this matter, how long were they in session ? 

Mr. Weintraub. My recollection. Senator, is that we were in session 
for a number of days. I would say, if my recollection serves me cor- 
rectly, we may have been in New York possibly a week, and maj'be 
longer. 

Senator Curtis. Did you hear witnesses ? 

Mr. Weintraub. The only witness we heard was Joluiny Dio, and 
we couldn't get any other witnesses to appear. 

Senator Curtis. There were no witnesses presented to support Mr. 
Washburn ? 

Mr. Weintraub. None, other than what I and Mr. Donohue had re- 
ported to the international executive board, of our discussion with 
the New York rackets committee. 

Senator Curtis. Who presided over that ? 

Mr. Weintraub. President Earl Heaton. 

Senator Curtis. Did he vote on this matter ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, there was no vote on the matter then. 

Senator Curtis. I see, but did he take a position on whether or not 
he should be expelled? 

Mr. Weintraub. There was discussion back and forth, and I might 
say, with all due respect, I think the one on the board who was most 
vociferous against the actions of the international executive board 
was Anthony Doria, who stated that we ourselves were breaking up 
the labor movement because the people in the labor movement were 
going to be accused by accusations of employers, because you must 
realize that a lot of these things that Mr. Green told me were accusa- 
tions made by the employers in the New York situation ; he thought it 
was very, very unfair to accuse Johnny Dio of these things based upon 
the accusations of employers. I also pointed out to them that he had 
a record of convictions, felonies, I believe, but it got into a hassle back 
and forth. 



4190 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Who else spoke up on behalf of Dioguardi ? 

Mr. Weintraub. In that meeting room, you mean? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Weintraub. In the executive board, I don't recall anybody 
spoke up directly for him, other than I would say that his chief 
advocate there was possibly Anthony Doria. I don't recall anybody 
speaking directly in his favor, other than the general discussion that 
we ought not to expel a man from an international imion based upon 
hearsay evidence. That was the general discussion, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Well, what part did Mr. Washburn have in that? 

Mr. Weintraub. Mr. Washburn had absolutely no part. He had 
already been out, and he had resigned, and Mr. Earl Heaton was then 
president. 

Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Washburn get to appear there and state 
his case ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I don't think that Mr. Washburn was invited to 
appear. 

Senator Curtis. This was passed upon without hearing Washburn, 
who had taken the action? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. There was no action, in my opinion, 
taken. There was no action taken. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Washburn had taken action. 

Mr. Weintraub. But Mr. Washburn had failed to file charges 
against him. You have to remember that, when the international 
executive board met and rescinded Washburn's action, they asked 
Mr. Washburn if he felt Johnny Dio had done anything for him as 
president to file charges, and Washburn resigned and there were no 
charges filed. I believe then it was President Heaton who filed the 
charges against him. But why Mr. Washburn wasn't invited, Sena- 
tor, I can't tell you. 

Senator Curtis. Dioguardi did come before the group ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes ; he did. 

Senator Curtis. How much of the time was he there ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I think Dioguardi spent maybe a day or maybe 
a little longer there. 

Senator Curtis. Did he come alone ? 

Mr. Weintraub. He came alone ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator I^^:s. I would like to ask Mr. Weintraub what these accusa- 
tions by the employers were. 

Mr. Weintraub. There were some accusations, I recall, by some 
kind of a taxi employers' group to the effect that, if some contract 
could be worked out between the taxi groups, they would then be given 
favorable consideration, and it was my recollection. Senator, that 
there were some offers made back and forth that if they would volun- 
tarily submit to union organization, and would turn over, I think, 
all of their tire business and gas and oil business and insurance busi- 
ness, at that a favorable contract could be worked out. That was in 
Mr. Green's file, and, of course, it was vigorously denied by all parties 
on the side of the union. 

Senator Ives. Did they give any indication of extortion where they 
were concerned ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Oh, yes ; the files of Mr. Green, insofar as he told 
us, because we never actually saw the files in front of him, in my 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4191 

opinion, tended very much toward extortion on the part of somebody. 

Senator I^^ES. What do you mean, "somebody" ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, Johnny Dio ; he was the man. 

Senator Ives. He was the somebody ; you had him there, and he was 
there while all of these accusations were being made ? 

]\Ir. Weintraub. He was present at the international executive 
board when we discussed these things with him, but, Senator, you 
must remember that even Mr. Green had no evidence against him, 
because if they had evidence, I assume, he would have been indicted. 

Senator Ia\es. I would think these accusations by the employers 
constituted some kind of evidence. 

Mr. Weintraub. We had no power to bring the employers there 
before an international miion. 

Senator Ives. They weren't there ? 

Mr. Weintraub. No. 

Senator Ives. I thought you said the employers gave you evidence. 

Mr. Weintraub. No ; I said 

Senator Ives. Accusations ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I said, Senator, that all of the information that 
we got came from Mr. Green, of the New York Rackets Committee. 
We had absolutely no other evidence, except the statement of Mr. 
Green to us, and he was taking those statements out of a file, and we 
asked him if he could substantiate them, and I think, in general, the 
answer was, well, up to then they haven't been able to do it. Of course, 
as you know, up to then he had not been indicted by any court, and 
never had been convicted on those particular charges. 

Senator Iv'es. He has been an awfully hard guy to convict. 

Mr. Weintraub. I agi-ee with you. 

Senator Curtis. What did he say about the charges ? 

Mr. Weintraub. He vigorously denied them. I will say this, Sena- 
tor ; he didn't take the fifth amendment there, but we couldn't get any 
information out of him. He spoke about everything else, and, of 
course, as you can see from the stand, he is a very voluble fellow. He 
wasn't here, but there, he was, and we talked about everything else 
except the matter that we had in front of us. 

Senator I\t:s. Didn't his appearance cause you to have some doubt ? 

Mr. Weintraub. What do you mean ; his appearance ? 

Senator Ives. Exactly what I say; did he make an impression on 
you as an individual having a very wholesome appearance ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Certainly I told you that he did not, but that was 
not the charge before us. Senator. The charge on him was not 
whether he had a wholesome appearance. The charge against him at 
that time was of acts of extortion and other crimes. I certainly 
wasn't going to vote to expel a man, although we never got to a vote 
on the thing, I wasn't going to vote to expel a man merely on his 
appearance. 

Senator I^'ES. I wasn't suggesting that you vote to expel a man on 
his appearance, but it all entered into the situation, I would think. 

Mr. Weintraub. Certainly it did, and I recognized that fact, and 
I said that he should be expelled, based upon conduct unbecoming a 
member of a union, and the next day he offered to resign. I think 
that I made that clear. Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Our record shows that Mr. Weintraub has been 
one of the most vigorous against any kind of improper activities in 



4192 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

the union, and also he was one of the ones that led the fight against 
Die. As a matter of fact, although they couldn't come up with specific 
evidence, I understand you moved to have him expelled. 

Senator Ives. I am not accusing Mr. Weintraub of anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know that, but I want to make sure the record 
is clear. 

Senator I\^s, The group might have taken some action, more than 
it did take. 

Mr. Weintpu\.ub. Under the circumstances, it is always easy to look 
back and see what you should have done. 

Senator Ives. Hindsight is always a good deal better than fore- 
sight. 

Mr. Weintraub. Under the circumstances there, I don't think that 
you would have expelled him there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You moved to expel him. 

Mr. Weintraub. Based upon charges unbecoming a union officer, 
and bringing the international into ill repute, but that would have 
required the filing of new charges against him, under the international 
constitution ; before we had a chance to do that, he offered to resign, 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what Senator Ives meant on his appearance. 
And he didn't strike you as someone who was forthright in his 
answers ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, when you asked him about how much 
money he put into the union, what did he say on that? 

Mr. Weintraub. He smiled, and his inference was that I was a 
lawyer and wouldn't advise a client to answer that either. 

Mr. Ejennedy. "WTiat did he say to you ; did he say anything to you 
when you asked him how much money, after Anthony Doria had 
said that this man has contributed his own personal money to the 
union ? 

Mr. WeintRx\.ub. I don't recall exactly his inference was, and he 
said, that you wouldn't advise a client of yours to answer that ques- 
tion, and the matter was dropped, because I knew we couldn't get 
him to answer it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you look into the type of people that he had 
brought into the labor-union movement? 

Mr. Weintraub. No, I knew none of them, except from the infor- 
mation that I have gotten from Mr. Green, of the racketeering com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anyone make an investigation into that? 

Mr. Weintraub. The only investigation that was made was in the 
report of A. G. Goldberg, and on some of the people who were 
supposed to have been associated with him. 

There was Johnny DeFore, Arthur Santa Maria, David Cosentino, 
Paul Apaposky, Max Chester, Dominic Santa Maria, George Sama- 
loctor, Joseph Cohen, and a Sam Smith, and those were set forth 
in some of the records given in the report that A. G. Goldberg gave 
to the international executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time he brought an incomplete list, Gold- 
berg who had been convicted of extortion, Joe Curcio had a police 
record, and Topazio, and George Cohen, and Joe Cohen, and Gasster, 
Davidoff, Baker, Arthur Santa Maria, Dominic Santa Maria, Cosen- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4193 

tino, Harry Reiss, Teddy Ray, Nat Carmel, and Max Chester, and all 
of these people either had police records, and there are 13 or 14 of 
them, and all of them had police records, or were convicted of ex- 
tortion within a few months after they got their charters. 

Wasn't that sufficient to cause you people some concern ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, as I say, we didn't have that complete list, 
and I don't have as many on my list as you have, Mr. Kennedy. But 
as I said to you before, it did cause me considerable concern. I might 
say that I was, myself, and Mr. Donohue, were very strongly in 
favor of doing something about it. But then as I say to you, he had 
resigned, and we didn't have time, or couldn't bring charges against 
him after he had left the international union. 

The Chairmax. Let me stop you there just a moment to see if I 
undei-stand you correctly. 

At this meeting you had no specific evidence and all you had was 
statements regarding tlie specific act or statements from Mr. Green 
from the crime commission in New York. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is his statement and his summary of what 
;that investigation had been able to find out. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

The Chairman. Therefore, you felt on the basis of that, you could 
not expel him as being guilty of those charges or those accusations. 
But you did feel, and you were joined by Mr. Donohue in the belief 
that his general conduct with what information you had, was sufficient 
to convince you that he had acted in a manner unbecoming an official 
of a labor union. 

Mr. Weintraub. Definitely, Senator, and I so expressed myself. 

The Chairman. And therefore, some action should be taken on 
that basis. That was your position. 

Mr. Weintraub. That was my unalterable position and I stated that 
in no uncertain terms and I might say that I believe, and I may be 
in error, but I believe it was based upon that contention that he of- 
fered to resign either the next day or a few days later before charges 
could be brought against him. 

The Chairman. I was coming to that. You said charges would 
have to be brought, even if the committee felt that way, under your 
constitution. 

In the meantime, before the meeting ended he offered to resign. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And so that would have for all practical purposes 
the same effect as expulsion. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

The Chairman. That would get him out. 

Mr. Weintraub, That is right. 

The Chairman. So he offered to resign. 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he did resign as I understand it. 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, he did subsequently resign. 

The Chairman. Insofar as you folks knew, he was resigning. 

Mr. Weintraub. As far as we were concerned, outwardly, he was 
out of the union. Inwardly, I believe, Senator, I did not know it 
until I heard some of the things come out at the hearings here and I 



4194 miPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

read about them in the newspaper, I assume he still had some inter- 
est or connection with those local unions up there. Of course, they 
were already out of the union. Their charters had been revoked. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a few sentences 
from this letter of Mr. Goldberg to which the witness has referred. 
That letter was dated June 30, 1954, and it was addressed to the 
UAW-AFL at Milwaukee. 

The feeling expressed by the various parties with whom I met is that John 
Dioguardi has not reformed, nor that he is presently trying to go straight, nor 
that he is genuinely prounion. 

We asked for concrete evidence. They say, "What do you need more than 
to look to the record of the men whom he has surrounded himself with in the 
UAW local unions and the company which he has been keeping?" 

They say that, in their opinion, he is not trying to go straight. Otherwise, 
he would not be seen so much in the company of racketeers and individuals of 
questionable character. 

And, to demonstrate that he is not prounion, they point to the fact that he 
operated several enterprises in the garment manufacturing industry nonunion 
at the same time he represented the UAW international union. 

The representatives of the New York City Anticrime Committee with whom 
I met state that they maintain a constant check on Johnny Dioguardi, and they 
brought out a file at least 5 inches thick which they claim contains material 
on Dioguardi. 

Mr. Kennedy. '\^Tien these matters were brought before your group, 
what position did Anthony Doria take ? 

Mr, Weintraub. Anthony Doria took a violent position, and more 
or less stated that he thought we were persecuting Dio because, if we 
were going to proceed on hearsay evidence and expel people from 
an international union, the labor movement was done for because that 
would always be the charge by employers. 

Of course, I violently disagreed with Anthony Doria, and I recall 
we got into a very heated discussion which became very violent at 
times. But I want to answer the Senator who read that. 

I was cognizant of everything. Senator, in that report. But again 
I say, as the record will show, Mr. Green, of the crime committee, 
just gave him those statements and we had no proof whatsoever be- 
fore the hearing there. 

As I said, the charge was not substantiated, and the charge brought 
against him was not substantiated but, based upon the statements 
that we later received and his general conduct and general character 
and general reputation, if the charge was brought against him we 
would have expelled him as a member of the international union 
under the fact that he was bringing the international to ill repute. 
I want to make that definitely clear. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that, and I can see your reason for 
it. I think it was a sound course to follow. 

Mr. Weintraub. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Doria was violently in favor of Dio, and he 
was the secretary-treasurer of the union at the time, and what posi- 
tion did Earl Heaton take, who was president of the union. 

Mr. Weintraub. My recollection is I don't think Earl Heaton took 
a positive position one way or the other. We listened to the evidence 
and we discussed it, and we talked about hearsay evidence and things 
of that kind. 

I don't think that there was a definite position taken, because I 
think that maybe when I expressed myself that I did not think there 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4195 

■was enough evidence from a legal standpoint to expel him, and then 
I argued that these charges should be brought against him under 
the other provisions of the constitution, I think that more or less 
put the matter at ease for the time being, and then, as I say, he 
offered to resign, and that ended the entire thing. 

Mr. IvEXNEDY. Did you have a call from Earl Heaton after that, 
regarding the payment to Dio ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir ; I received a long-distance call from Earl 
Heaton a short time after that in which he then, in pursuance to Mr. 
Dioguardi's offer to resign, stated that he had spent considerable sums 
of money, and he said that he had made the offer that if he would be 
reimbursed for these sums, that he would resign without any further 
difficulty. 

I asked Earl Heaton how much it was, and he said $10,000. After 
a lengthy discussion with Heaton over the telephone, he said he had 
contacted other members of the international executive board and we 
had been through quite a lot of unfavorable publicity and we had 
been through a lot of things that I think was not doing the labor 
movement any good and we felt, if we could get rid of him for that 
amount of money, lock, stock and barrel, I was in favor of it. 

Earl Heaton said that any payment that would be made to him 
would be substantiated by actual receipts showing that he actually 
•expended that money upon behalf of organizational work in the New 
York area. 

I later understand that, instead of being $10,000 and, of course, I 
was critical of Mr. Heaton for paying him any more than we had 
■authorized, but I understood that the receipts amounted to $16,000, 
and he was paid tlie sum of $16,000, and I did not know that particular 
thing until a conversation I had with a member of your staff; up 
until then I thought he had been paid $10,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Heaton actually had any re- 
ceipts for the payment that was made ? 

Mr. Weintkaub. I do not. INIr. Heaton made the representation, 
and I assumed that he would act in accordance with it as president, 
and before any moneys were paid out that he would actually see the 
receipted bills. 

Senator Curtis. Where did that $16,000 come from ? 

Mr. Weintraub. It came from the fund of the international union. 

Senator Curtis. Paid in by the working people ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I assume that is where it came from. They don't 
liave any other investments. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, subsequently, did you have another dispute 
with Doria, namely, at the convention that was held in 1955 ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Oh, yes ; that is a matter of public record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what happened at the 
convention of 1955 in connection with Anthony Doria? 

Mr. Weintraub. I may have to go a little bit before that. Prior 
to that, I had met with two other members of the international ex- 
ecutive board, and namely that was Edward T. Donohue and Carl 
Griepentrog, and we came to the conclusion that something must be 
done to shape tlie union up, and put it in a better position and make 
ats relations with the public a little better. 



4196 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We felt the only way to accomplish that at that time was a com- 
plete change in the officers of the international union. We recognized 
the fact that, if we had made that pnblic at that time, we would have 
had absolutely no chance of winning, as you can see later on in my 
testimony, so we agreed to keep that very, very quiet among ourselves, 
and we did that. 

I might say that one of — I think it was one of the members of Mr. 
Donohue's staff let the cat out of the bag, so called, while we were 
having an executive board meeting which are alwa5's held prior tO' 
the time of an international convention. 

Then, I might say to you, Senator, all hell broke loose when it 
came out. Then motions were made and efforts were made to stack 
the convention in order that they may not be ousted and that we may 
be defeated. 

I might say at that time I was a candidate for president and Mr. 
Donohue was a candidate for vice president and Carl Griepentrog 
was a candidate for secretary-treasurer, and we were defeated, and 
defeated by the vote, I may say, of Angelo Inciso, of Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. I^t us get the details of it. That was the convention 
that was held in Cleveland ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Cleveland ; yes, in November of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was anticipated, or it was very possible, that your 
slate would have won against Anthony Doria? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir ; I think, at that time, we figured that our 
complaint would win. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that Doria tried to stack the convention. 
Now, tell the committee what steps Anthony Doria took at this 
convention. 

iSIr. Weintraub. We were in executive session prior to the conven- 
tion, and a week prior to that, and I think we went along fine, a,nd 
there were resolutions made for the welfare of the international union 
and various routine matters. I recall, I think it was on a Wednesday. 
We met on Monday and Tuesday and, Wednesday, when we came back 
for lunch, I could notice that things weren't normal and Presi- 
dent Heaton then said that he had heard there was a ticket against him. 
He wanted to know if that was so. 

Mr. Kennedy. This would be on October 31, 1955 ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I think it was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The convention was to be held in November? 

Mr. Weintrai^b. Yes : that is right. And in no uncomplimentary 
terms, he went around the table and, of course, those of us who said 
that we were opposed to the present regime, we were called every name, 
unprintable name, and we told him that notwithstanding that we were 
going to proceed with it because we thought that the international 
union ought to be cleaned up, that there had been enough disgrace 
brought upon it, and not only it but the labor movement as a whole, 
which we thought was unfounded, and insofar as the general condi- 
tions were concerned and we thought that this was the time for it to 
be cleaned up. 

I recall at that time, a motion was made by one of the members of 
the board, it was Doria, that it be left to the discretion of the inter- 
national president to assist local unions in need with minimum funds 
necessary to have delegates at the convention, and that any expendi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4197 

ture that may be so made or hereby approved by the international 
executive board, and the purpose of that as I will relate to you, was to 
stack the convention and then use international funds to bring in 
members of the New York locals so that they could outvote us. 

INIr. Kknxedy. Would you just give how that was going to be done, 
and what the procedure was that was going to be followed, based on 
the resolutions that were offered. 

]VIr. Weintraub. Do you want me to go through the resolutions or 
generally? 

Mr. Kennedy. The first resolution as I understand it was a motion 
to increase the size of the credentials committee by adding an addi- 
tional five members. 

Mr. Weintraub. In order that they could control the credentials 
committee, because in regular routine each region is entitled to a mem- 
ber of the credentials committee, but before they had discovered that 
we had a slate against them, as I said. 

Everything went in routine fashion up to then. Those who were 
in sympathy to our cause had a majority on the credentials committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. So then they wanted to increase that ? 

Mr. Weintraub. They stacked the credentials committee by increas- 
ing it by five members. 

Mr. Kennedy. That resolution passed; did it? 

Mr. Weintraub. That resolution passed 6 to 4. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because the incumbent at that time had a majority 
of the executive board ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that resolution passed 6 to 4 ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, in the resolution that the minutes of the meet- 
ing be prepared and distributed 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, we had never been able to receive minutes of 
any meetings of the international executive board, altliough we made 
repeated and repeated demands for it, so I again made a motion that 
written minutes be prepared and furnished by the international 
executive secretary so we could have a record of what went on, so it 
could not be changed. 

To my amazement that was defeated 6 to 4 and they did not want 
minutes of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then tlie third one, there are about 7 or 8 of them. 

Mr. Weintraub. I will go through them as rapidly as I can. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get them numbered so we understand them. 

Mr. Weintraub. The next one was that Doria made a motion that 
the executive board interpret the constitution because there is a pro- 
vision of the international constitution that in between conventions 
the international executive board has a right to interpret the constitu- 
ion, so he moved we interpret the constitution to mean that the appli- 
cation for the issuance of a charter to a local union, may be made in 
any formal or informal manner, because they were then issuing 
charters to local unions which had never been chartered before, in 
order that they may have a delegate to be brought in at this convention 
to outvote us. That was passed 6 to 4. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't go too rapidly. 



4198 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Now, on that, the purpose of that was — or the 
purpose of the viewpoint that your group represented was to make 
for more responsibility in issuing charters. 

Mr. Weintraub. No ; the purpose of our group was to take over the 
local union and to put it on a sound ethical basis, so that it could be 
run with a credit to the labor movement and to the working people of 
America, Senator, and that was our only aim and our only purpose. 

But you can see that we then had the votes or at least it was ap- 
parent that w^e had the votes and in order for them to gain control 
they had to stack the convention, at that particular point, and this 
was their method in attempting to stack the convention. 

This is one of the early steps in stacking the convention. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. This last resolution that we were discussing, was 
that the constitution be interpreted so that the executive board may 
issue charters in any formal or informal manner. 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that would allow the executive board, which 
was then controlled by Doria then to issue charters indiscriminately ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. Then, the next motion was another 
interpretation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the next motion was filed right on top of that 
one? 

Mr. Weintraub. I am giving them to you in order, as I have them. 

Doria then made a motion that the executive board interpret the 
constitution to mean that the executive board in its sole discretion may 
require and direct the issuance of local charters to plant units of an 
amalgamated local unit at any time, and that carried by 6 to 4 and 
maybe it requires a little explanation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the very important one; is it not? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the most important one of the ones we have 
discussed. 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. So that the members of the committee 
can understand, an amalgamated local is where they take a number of 
plants in one local union, rather than set up a separate local for each 
particular plant. 

That is called an amalgamated union and I might say to you that 
that has a very good purpose and it is very good if properly carried 
out. 

Now, those amalgamated local unions, under the constitution that 
then existed, had so many votes and the votes that they had were not 
o.qual to the number of plants in that amalgamated union, so you can 
readily see that if they would disregard the fiction of an amalgama- 
tion and issue a charter to each one of those plants, instead of having 
1 or 2 votes, the fact is that out of one of those amalgamated unions, 
they could have maybe 10 or 15 or 20 votes as the record will bear out, 
so this was the first step in increasing their delegate strength to that 
1955 convention. 

By disregarding the established delegate strength that they had 
under amalgamated local unions, and issuing separate charters for 
«ach plant unit in the amalgamated local union, instead of so many 
votes, they had so many more votes, overnight, you might say. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4199 

Senator Curtis. Doria is the man that spearheaded this? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He had six votes ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Six to four. 

Senator Curtis. All of the way through ? 

Mr. Weintkaltb. There were 6 to 4 all the way there. 

Senator Curtis. Who cast the six votes ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, I can tell you easier, that it was Mr. Luplow, 
a member of the board, and Mr. Greipentrog, Mr. Donohue and my- 
self, and we voted against them and all of the other members voted 
for them. 

Senator CumTis. Who are the other members ? 

Mr. Weintraub. The other members are Mr. Heaton, Mr. Doria, 
Mr. Evans, and Mr. Gabe Jewel. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have their first names ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Earl Heaton, who was president ; Anthony Doria, 
who was secretary-treasurer ; Frank Evans, who was executive board 
member at large ; Gabe Jewel, wlio was regional director of region 8 ; 
Ira Luplow, who was regional director of region 6, and Carl Smigel, 
who was regional director of region 8. I think that is the six. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Heaton w^as in the six ; is that right ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, for instance, over here, you had local 250. 
Now, local 250 over there had three votes, under the old system. 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the new system, they would have a vote for 
the dog-food makers, for the ball-point pens, for the optical company, 
another vote for the printer, and another vote for the notebook manu- 
facturer, and another vote for the crucifix plater, and all of the way 
down ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, under the setup, if you say it is 3, but if it 
was 3, if all of those you have listed on the chart are separate plants, 
they would have a vote for each one of those separate plants. 

Mr. Kennedy. So their votes on local 250 went from 3 votes to 24 
votes, because at that time, they had 24 different shops ? 

Mr. Weintraub. If they had 24 shops, they would get 24 votes under 
that system. You can see we didn't have a chinaman's chance under 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. These w^ere all of the locals, the locals that would 
gain by this with the amalgamated locals that Johnny Dio had set 
up in New York ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, and I might incidentally say, Mr. Kennedy, 
there were locals that I found out, some of them just had 1 or 2 
people in. 

Now, those locals that you say, I doubt whether they had a member- 
ship in excess of maybe 100 or so, and the strange thing was that one 
local union alone, in region 4, Owensboro, Ky., which had I would say 
close to 5,000 members, only had 10 votes in the convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say about this? These would all be 
new votes, or new locals that would be in there. Now, they had to pass 
another resolution to insure that they could vote; is that not right? 

Mr. Weintraub. Then Doria moved that we interpret the constitu- 
tion to mean that if a local union charter is issued to a plant unit of 

89330— 57— pt. 11 13 



4200 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES Ds THE LABOR MELD 

an amalgamated local union, such local union so chartered and its 
members shall be entitled to all rights and privileges as it and its 
members would be entitled to if it had been a chartered local union 
from the time it became a plant unit of the amalgamated local union, 
and such a local union and its members shall be so treated, and that 
passed 6 to 4. 

This was a plan in keeping with the provisions of the constitution 
to make the interpretations. 

Mr. Kennedy. What that provided in effect was that the plant 
should be considered to have been a member of the union, a local 
in the union having a vote, back to the time that the original local 
received its charter. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the amalgamated received its charter. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that it would be in time to vote in the election. 

Mr, Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say then, and then there would be a 
question of how all of these new votes, how all of these new people were 
going to get to Milwaukee, or get to Cleveland from New York, and 
w^as there a resolution passed on that ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is the one I read to you first. 

Mr. Kennedy. About paying the expenses? 

Mr. Weintraub. They voted the international president authority 
to use the funds of the international constitution to bring them there. 

Senator Curtis. To bring which delegates ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Senator, honestly I can't tell you. whichever one 
they were going to stack the convention with, I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, did it appear to give the interna- 
tional president discretion as to who he was going to give expense 
money to? 

Mr. Weintraub. Not to that extent, Senator. I assume that the 
local unions would tell him who their delegate was, from that par- 
ticular union, where a new charter was issued, and of course the 
strange thing was that that local union didn't have time to have an 
election and so somebody had to appoint them, and who did that, I 
don't know. 

Senator Curtis. But, was the intent to pay the convention expenses 
of delegates from all over ? 

Mr. Weintraub. From whichever area they could find an amalga- 
mated local union, and increase their delegation voting strength, and 
that was principally in New York. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, only pay the expenses of those 
delegates that became delegates by reason of their proposal. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. I assume they were from New 
York, because the talk I made at the convention when it first opened 
up, and when I brought this to the attention of the delegates, I sort 
of slipped and talked about them trying to stack the convention with 
goons from the New York Bowery, and I was almost mobbed there, 
and I left the convention hall. 

Mr. Kennedy. That w^ould give an increase in voting strength to 
locals and the people that Dio had brought into the labor union move- 
ment, and Doria had handled for the international. That would give 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4201 

them an increase in voting strength of from 100 votes for that area, 
to 282 : is that not correct ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I don't have the figures, and if that is what you 
say, you have the record, and I will accept your statement. I know 
it increased their strength sufficient so that we didn't have a China- 
man's chance of winning the election. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what steps did you take then ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, there wasn't any steps we could take. As 
a matter of fact, before the convention opened, there was a general 
rumor that they were going to abandon all of this, and that they 
weren't going to do this at all and my information is, it is only hearsay, 
that strangely enough they did this because Angelo Inciso, of Chicago, 
he couldn't even stomach it, and he vigorously opposed the stacking of 
the convention, and he told them that under those circumstances, he 
wouldn't permit it and he had the balance of power with his 37 
votes. His 37 cast votes elected the other slate 

Mr. Kennedy. He was against it. 

Now, from a selfish point of view, would he have stood to gain 
any votes under this system ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Oh, no ; he stood to gain nothing under it because 
his 37 votes was the balance of power, and as a result of his balance 
of power he w^as voted a region by the convention, and he was made 
regional director, and then several weeks later they even removed him, 
and so they accepted his votes under a false premise. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said that he wouldn't be in favor of this, but 
ultimately he voted in favor of it, or he cast his 37 votes in favor of 
Heaton and Doria. 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They took over these chief offices in the union, and 
thereafter he was made a regional director? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes; and the convention, and I might say that 
they had enough votes, the convention set up the Chicago area as a 
separate region, or something which they had never wanted to do 
before, and they set that up, and I understand again this is hearsay, 
based upon his promise that he would not run for regional director. 

But under the international constitution, international officers are 
voted first, and after they are elected then they have the election for 
the directors of the individual regions. After the officers were all 
elected, and all of this plan went through, then he went into the 
convention and he came out as the director of his particular region. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^^io was advising Doria during this period of time ? 
Who Avas the attorney giving him advice as to how it was to be 
handled ? 

jNIr. Weintraub. That I don't know. There was no attorney there 
that I know of. Do you mean at the convention? 

]\[r. Kennedy. Well, during the events that preceded that. 

Mr. ^Veintraub. There was no attorney there at the executive board. 
I Avill say I think that Tony Doria is a most resourceful fellow and I 
don't think that anybody had to give Tony Doria advice on how to 
do this. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not need any help ? 

Mr. Wetnii^aub. I think he is perfectly capable of doing it, and I 
congratulated him on doing a most excellent, efficient job. 



4202 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What it amounted to was that the resolutions were 
passed to give each plant, these Amalgamated locals in New York, 
give each one of the plants a vote. Where they might have had 2 or 
3 votes before they suddenly had maybe 20 or 25 votes ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And another resolution was passed to pay the ex- 
penses of these people to Cleveland ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And a resolution was passed that they should be 
accepted and their votes accepted at the convention ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was ultimately defeated because of Angelo 
Inciso's opposition on the floor? 

Mr. Weintraub. No, Mr. Kennedy. He had no opposition to it 
on the floor. I said to you very emphatically that it was my informa- 
tion from hearsay around the convention, before the convention 
opened, that lie couldn't stomach it and that he was going to be against 
it. Of course, if he was going to be against all of this, it couldn't 
work. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he ultimately cast his 37 votes for Dona and he 
was made regional director in Chicago? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, after the hearings that were held before 
Senator Ives and the Douglas committee, there were some allegations 
made concerning the mishandling of welfare funds by Angelo In- 
ciso ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes ; I read about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the case of Angelo Inciso brought up before 
the board ? 

Mr. WEiNiTiAUB. Yes, I received a call once from Earl Heaton to 
the effect that he wanted to expel Inciso. He said he was making 
a poll of the members of the executive board to se« if that met with 
their approval. I said, "Absolutely, it certainly did." Of course I 
did remind him that it was the same Angelo Inciso with whom they 
had teamed up just about a month before that, and with whom they 
had banded together to carry the election. I did tell him, I said, "It 
is a strange thing that we just go through a convention, where the 
people, the delegates, so-called, have spoken, and now you are going 
to countermand everything the convention does." 

I did tell him that nevertheless I was going to go along with him 
and expel Angelo Inciso. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ultimately have a meeting at your head- 
quarters on the question of the expulsion of Angelo Inciso? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes ; there was a meeting there. 

Mr. Kennedy'. That was held on February 1, 1956, at the new head- 
quarters, in Beverly Hills? 

Mr. AVeintraub. If that is the date you have, INIr. Kennedy — I have 
no recollection or record on it at all — if you say that is the date I will 
accept it. 

Mr. Kennedy*. At that convention, was a resolution passed ex- 
pelling Angelo Inciso from tlie international ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes; there was a resolution or motion made, 
whatever it is, I don't recall the technical term, expelling him. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4203 

JNIr. Kenn?:dy. Mr. Chairman, we have a copy of that, of that 
resolution. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you what appears to be a photo- 
static copy of excerpts from the minutes of the international executive 
board meeting held at international headquarters, Beverly Hills, 
Calif., Wednesday, February 1, 195G, I ask that you examine it and 
state if you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Weintraub. Senator, without even looking at it, I can tell 
you that if this is the excerpts of minutes of an international executive 
board meeting, whether they be originals or copies, it is the first 
minutes I have ever seen, because I never could get any. 

The Chairman. You w^ere never able to get any ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

The Chairman. Were you at that meeting ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, I was. 

The Chairman. Glance at that and see if there are some facts 
in there that you recall. 

]\Ir. Weintraub. Of course these are not the full — well, it says 
excerpts. They are not the full minutes. Senator. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

You cannot identify it? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes, I can identify them. These are, in my 
opinion, correct excerpts of wdiat went on at a portion of the meeting. 

The Chairman. I see. But it is not complete ? 

Mr. Weintraub. No; it is not complete. It says at the top, "Ex- 
cerpts from minutes." 

The Chairman. But you do identify the excerpts as being sub- 
stantially corect? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 73, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 73" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Weintraub. I would like to explain something. There is in 
these minutes the fact — and there is attached to them a resolution. 
The minutes show that I moved to strike the "Whereas" or the re- 
solves — no, the whereas from that resolution, and it died for the 
lack of a second. The reason I did that. Senator, was because there 
were some statements made in there against Inciso, and I had heard, 
indirectly and again by rumor, that Inciso was going to sue the in- 
ternational union. There were statements made concerning his ac- 
tivities and things of that kind that I didn't know Avhether we could 
actually substantiate. I thought they could exj^el him just by saying 
that he was expelled, without reciting all of those facts. But I didn't 
receive a second for that, and it died for lack of a second. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew, or it was developed before the Douglas 
committee, that he had set up his own insurance company ? 

Mr. WiENTRAUB. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That there has been quite a large insurance fund; 
that he had transferred the insurance fund into his own insurance 
company ; that he had used welfare funds to buy large or expensive 
gifts, diamond watches, a diamond ring, things of that kind ? 



4204 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Weintraub. I have read that in the newspaper ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, it was decided, based on this information, al- 
though you did not want to get into particulars in the resolution, 
based on this information it was decided to expel him ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. To expel Inciso from the union ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The following day, did he make an arrangement 
with Anthony Doria to resign from the union, and to take his local 
with him ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, I don't know if he made an arrangement, 
Mr. Kennedy, but it was reported that Inciso had offered to resign, 
and the announcement of his resignation was to be delayed, I don't 
know, some future date, 30 or 60 days in the future. There was an- 
other general discussion had on that, on discharging him, the fact 
that he may go to court, and things of that kind. There was oppo- 
sition to rescinding the motion to expel him. They thought he should 
be expired, but 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think he should be expelled ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I felt that he should be expelled, but, if my recol- 
lection serves me correctly, I did not vote on the order rescinding the 
thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was, however, allowed to resign? 

Mr. Weintraub. He was allowed to resign. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was allowed to take his union with him, and 
the assets of the union ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I will put it this way : They revoked the charter 
of the local and, of course, they went with him. 

Mr, Kennedy. But the treasury of the union ? 

Mr. Weintraub. The treasury of the union and everything went 
with the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the value of what he took with liim at that 
time was over $300,000 ? 

Mr. Weintraub, That, I do not know. I have heard that sum 
mentioned through the hearings. 

Mr. Kennedy. The ethical practices committee points out that the 
international voluntarily consented to the departure of the local with 
a treasury of approximately $300,000, and with 4,200 union members. 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, I don't think they had that much in the 
treasury. I think that was the value. It later became the fact, 
through the ethical practices committee, of course, which is months 
and months later, that there was probably that amount of net worth 
to that particular local union. 

Mr. Kennedy, The ethical practices committee describes it by 
saying : 

This voluntary self-infliction of major surgery is extraordinary. 

The whole union at that time was worth about $1,500,000, 
Mr, Weintraub, That was an overexaggeration. That is another 
reason why Tony Doria was elected, because, if you will read the 
report of the national union, who I think have just completed their 
convention in St. Louis, you will find that they didn't even have 
enough money to pay for tlie banquet, and Ed Donahue, I think of 
region 7, had to pay for the banquet that they had. It was a fictitious 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4205 

building up of the assets of the international union, and Doria kept 
the records in such a shape that he also included all of the assets of the 
local unions and the regions as part of the assets of the entire inter- 
national. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it makes it even worse. 

Mr. Weintraub. I agree with you ; it was very bad. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Johnny Dio went with $16,000, Angelo Inciso 
went with over $300,000. Ultimately, did you have any dispute and 
resign yourself ? You were not around when Doria resigned himself, 
were you ? 

Mr. Weintraub. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You resigned prior to him ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. Doria just resigned, you may say, recently, 
and my resignation has been more than a year ago. I have had nothing 
to do with the union since last July, I think it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were present when the union building was sold 
in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I absolutely knew nothing whatsoever about that 
until I was apprised of that fact several months before the 1955 con- 
vention. I knew nothing about it whatsoever. That was one of the 
disputes at the last international convention, because I wanted to 
know why a building was sold, why a holding company was dissolved, 
without the knowledge of the international executive board. And I 
have never been able to get an answer to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know or understand that Mr. Doria had 
an interest in a real estate 

Mr. Weintraub. Oh, yes; it was known by everyone that he and 
a fellow by the name of Kallas were partners in, I think it was called, 
the Badger Realty Co., in Milwaukee, Wis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the building was sold? 
You say you were never consulted about selling the building? 

Mr. Weintraub. I was never consulted. In fact, I never found out 
about it until months and months afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Doria resigned, or 
allegedly resigned, from the Badger Realty Co., and that the building 
was then sold to the Badger Realty Co., the union building ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I don't know whether he resigned for that reason, 
but I recall at the executive-board meeting I specifically brought the 
matter to his attention and asked him to explain why he did this, and 
I asked him if he wasn't a member of the Badger Realty Co. at that 
time, and wasn't his position inconsistent. He said, no, he wasn't a 
member of the Badger Realty Co. Of course, I had no way of forcing 
him to answer the question. 

Senator Curtis. What does the union constitution provide with re- 
spect to transferring real estate belonging to the union ? 

Mr. Weintraub. In this union, sir, at that time, there was what was 
called the UAW-AFL Holding Co. That was set up years ago. I 
know nothing about it. 

The union building in Milwaukee was in the name of the UAW- 
AFL Holding Co., and the members of the international executive 
board are ex officio members of that. To be frank with you, I never 
heard of the UAW-AFL Holding Co. until that transaction came in, 
and then I wondered how it was dissolved. 



4206 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Inasmuch as I was a member of it, an officer, ex officio, I wanted to 
know, and I have never been able to find out to this day. I know 
who dissolved it, but I wanted to know under what authority they 
dissolved it. 

Senator Curtis. The holding company held the title. Were they 
the real owners or was this an asset of the international union? 

Mr. Weintraub. I assume. Senator, that through the holding com- 
pany it belonged to the international union. It was bought with in- 
ternational union funds and, as you say, came out of the pockets of 
the dues-paying members of the various local unions. 

Senator Curtis. I want to clear up something that I think I under- 
stand, but I want it correctly. By an international union, do you 
operate outside of the United States ? 

Mr. Weintraub. To my knowledge, I will say as a matter of fact 
we have no local union outside of the United States, with the excep- 
tion of one that I heard of that Angelo Inciso, at the time he belonged 
to the union, had somewhere in Cuba, Puerto Rico, or somewhere. I 
don't know. I hate to say, because I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. In the general terms, when we speak of a union 
organization, the international union means the headquarters of their 
activity in the United States ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Senator, I can't tell you. I have always wondered 
why they say international union. I can't answer that. Your guess 
is as good as mine. 

Senator Curtis. An international union is not a bargaining agent ; 
is it? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, since the adoption, or since the passage of 
certain Federal laws by the Congress in various circumstances, I 
deemed it necessary at times to actually contract with employers in 
the name of the international union rather than the local union, and 
I might say that various employers insisted that contracts be signed 
by the international union so that if anything went wrong they could 
sue the international union for damages rather than a small local 
union, which T thought was unfair. 

Senator Curtis. Is that the practice in most cases? 

Mr. Weintraub. The practice in most cases is for the local union 
to sign the contract, and the international union directly has nothing 
to do with it. 

But, as I say, we were forced in a position at times, by virtue of 
certain Federal laws, and by virtue of the fact that we were in no 
economic position to contest with the company, to sign contracts with 
the company in the name of the international union, as much as I 
hated it. 

Senator Curtis. That leads me to this question : "\^niat Federal laws 
are there, if any, governing international unions, assuming that they 
are both bargaining agents? 

Mr. Weintraub. I don't follow you. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Our Federal laws, the Taft-Hartley laws, pri- 
marily, deal with bargaining agents, the relation between employer 
and employee. Now, suppose in a union the international union does 
not enter into contracts with employers, so it does not have to meet 
the qualifications of a bargaining agent. Then my question is : In 
such cases, wliat Federal laws are there, if any, that govern the actions 
of an international union? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4207 

^fr. Weintr.vi'r. They still have to comply with Taft-PIartley. 
The international has to file a financial report, it has to file non-Com- 
munist affidavits. Otherwise, the local union that affiliates itself with 
an international can't g-o before the NLEB. 

Senator Curtis. They have to file certain reports. "What other 
control. Federal control, if any, is there? 

Mr. WetntrxVub. I have never made a study of it, Senator. I 
wouldn't know. But, as I say, if the international isn't in compliance 
Avith certain Federal laws, the local union has no right to exercise 
its j)rerogatives, advantages or disadvantages before the NLRB, and 
a lot of companies will not deal with it. Of course, it cannot have an 
NLRB election until the international union complies. Of course, 
every year our international union complied with all of the provisions. 
We filed non-Communist affidavits regularly and did everything we 
could to keep in compliance with the Federal laws. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Whatever became of the money, if any was re- 
ceived, from the sale price of the building? 

Mr. Weintrauk. I didn't hear that, Senator McClellan. 

The Chair^man. I understand the building was sold in Milwaukee. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. The building was sold in Milwaukee. 

The Chairman. "\^^io got the money for it when it was sold ? 

Mr. Weintraub. My recollection is, and again — ^I think the build- 
ing sold for $80,000. The purchaser of the building, Mr. and Mrs. 
Kallas, made a loan at a building and loan association, or a banking 
institution, for $54,000. My understanding is that $50,000 of it went 
to the international union, strangely enough, the international union 
took a mortgage, a second mortgage, for $30,000 on the very building 
that it had just a moment or second before that had owned outright 
in its own name. 

The Chairman. "Wliere did the money go ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I guess it went into the funds. 

Senator, I have never been able to say. I have never seen the 
records of the international. 

The Chairman. Let us see. 

Who did you say purchased the building ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Let me refer, if I have any 

The Chairman. Who purchased the building? You gave the name 
before. 

Mr. Weintraub. A Mr. Spros AV. Kallas, and a Victoria M. Kallas. 

The Chairman. Who are they? Do you know anything about 
them ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, my understanding is that Spros W. Kallas 
had been, according to Mr. Doria's statement, his former associate 
in the Badger Realty. 

The Chairman. He was the Badger Realty Co. ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. Whether he was then or not, I 
don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, he might have been in business. 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 

The Chairman. And who had been his partner? Doria? 

Mr. Weintraub. He and Mr. Doria had been partners in that 
Badger Realty ; that is right. 



4208 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. It looks like somebody lost some money in that 
transaction. 

Mr. Weintraub. Well, that is just the beginning of it, Senator. On 
May 3, Kallas sold it under a land contract, the very property that 
he had not one dime invested in and had already made $4,000 on by 
virtue of his $54,000 loan and on which the union carried a second 
mortgage. He sold that under a land contract for $115,000, and the 
strange thing is he didn't come and pay off the second mortgage. 

Wliether it is paid off now or not, I don't know. 

The Chairman. How long after he purchased it for 80 did he sell 
it for 115? 

Mr. Weintraub. I think it was sold to him on March 16, 1955, for 
80 and the land contract, according to my information, was recorded 
on May 3, 1955, a month and a half later, for $115,000. 

The Chairman. And the union onl}^ got $50,000 out of the whole 
transaction ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. It may have been paid off by this 
time. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Initially it only got $50,000 out of the $80,000 sale? 

Mr. Weintraub. And the second mortgage on its own property. 

The Chairman. A second mortgage for 30 ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then, a few weeks afterward, it sold for $115,000, 
and the second mortgage was not paid off ? 

Mr. Weintraub. My information is that it has not been paid off. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether it has been paid yet or 
not? 

Mr. Weintraub. I do not know. 

The Chairman. The executive board had no control over it, or no 
authority, or did nothing ? 

Mr. Weintraub. As a matter of fact, Senator, as I said before, the 
executive board absolutely knew nothing about it, or at least I didn't 
know anything about it, and I have talked to other members of the 
executive board and they said they didn't know anything about it. 
The sale was made 

The Chairman. The executive-board members were ex officio direc- 
tors of the company that had title to the building ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. I tried to explain that before. That hold- 
ing company was a corporation under the laws of Wisconsin. That 
was dissolved and title placed back in the name of the international 
union and then the international union sold it. 

The Chairman. Who had the authority to sign the deed ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Senator, I hate to say. I was under the impres- 
sion that as far as a business transaction that the executive board 
should have been apprised of it and either approved or disapproved. 
If they approved it, they would have given authority to tlie president 
and secretary to sign it.' But, as I say, to my knowledge and recollec- 
tion that was never done and it wasn't until months and months later 
that we even found out tliat the building was sold. 

I assume if you have Mr. Doria on the stand Monday 

The Chairman. Does this international union have a regularly re- 
tained lawyer ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4209 

The Chairman, He has some business to attend to, in my judgment. 

Mr. Weintraub. I would like to say, if you want an explanation 
of how the international union made money on this transaction, I think 
he will give a logical, to liim, explanation of how the union made 
money out of this. T can't see it. But I think he will try to convince 
you, or maybe even convince you, that the union made money out of 
it. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You say you did not know anything about this 
transaction. Were you present every time '^ 

Mr. Weixtraub. No ; I was not. There were many meetings. I 
was operated on, and I became ill ; but I can say. Senator, that as far 
as this meeting concerning the sale of the property, I understand that 
it was never brouijht before the executive board. 

Senator Curtis. You liave had some discussion with other executive 
board members ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And you have endeavored to find out how it was 
brought about, and vou could not get that information 'i 

Mr. Weintraub. I questioned Mr. Doria, at one of our executive 
board meetings. As I say, he went up to the blackboard. He had 
elaborate charts, such as you have here, and he tried to convince me 
that it was for the good and welfare of the union. I told him I could 
not understand it. He said, "Well, the convention will take place next 
week, and I will convince the delegates." 

He had the delegates, and the record shows that he convinced the 
delegates because they voted for him. That is the only explanation 
I can give. It doesn't make sense mathematically, but that is the 
answer. If you can pursue it further, why 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any suggestions on proposed laws that 
might be enacted that would prevent abuses, such as have been dis- 
cussed here, from occurring in unions ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Senator, I have never made an investigation, but 
inasmuch as you asked me that question, I might say to you that the 
only way that you will ever be able to curb bad activities in unions, 
or, for that matter, bad activities in companies on the side of man- 
agement — I might say, by the way, I was just coming on the plane 
here from St. Louis, yesterday. I saw where Mr. McElroy, of the 
Procter & Gamble Co., took the Procter & Gamble Co. plane from 
Washington to Cincinnati. I can imagine if a union had a plane 
and one of the officers happened to use that for personal, private 
flights there would be a big hullabaloo about it. 

I want to say this, that I think the only way you will curb this is 
by having honest, decent people, who are interested in the trade-union 
movement. I don't know who said it but there is a saying which says 
that "O're forms of government, let fools contest, what're admin- 
istered, best is best." 

You can pass all the laws you want. If you have thieves and 
crooks, it is not going to alter the situation, 

I think it requires a long process of educating the American worker. 
Up to this time, he has not been educated in the labor movement. It 
is the same as the politicians have been unable to educate the Ameri- 
can people to vote in political fights, because the record of American 
voting is very, very poor. I have seen a sign in my home community, 
it says "Vote in November, don't growl in December." 



4210 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You can't get the people to attend union meetings. They don't 
care about it. I daresay that at our convention 

Senator Curtis. But the things that you have described here, all 
of these things that were voted 6 to 4, the union members did not have 
anything to do with that? 

Mr. Weintraub. They were all apprised of every one of those 
things, Senator, because the record that Mr. Kennedy has gives ver- 
batim reports of the convention. I brought it to the attention of 
the delegates. I told them that Doria has no business in that in- 
ternational union, that he ought not to be voted in, and they voted 
him in. 

Senator Curtis. He had stacked the convention. 

Mr. Weintraub. The convention was not stacked at that time. 
I just told you that Inciso wouldn't stand for the stacking of the 
convention. 

Senator Curtis. I know^, but they made a deal with them. 

Mr. Weintraub. That I can't help. Politicians make deals, too, 
to get in office. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you are advocating no change 
in the law ? 

Mr. Weintraub. No; I didn't say that. Senator. I say I am not 
familiar. I have said this, you can pass all the laws you want. If 
the people who are in charge of business or labor are dishonest, the 
things will continue to go on. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I disagree with you totally. 

Mr. Weintratt?. That is your privilege, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Our Founding Fathers, when they were laying 
out the organization of government, they realized that bad men 
would come along, men who would be given power who could not 
handle it, but they provided certain checks and balances. They 
vested authority to execute laws in some agencies. They gave the 
purse to somebody else. There are things in free government, 
whether it is in a voluntary society or any other place, that are more 
conducive to control for the rank and file, and a great/eir check on 
that small minority that comes along sometimes that are dishonest. 

I do not think that we have discharged our responsibility to the 
workers of the country when we merely say "The solution of your 
problem is driving out bad men." 

Those things that can be done — and I hope that friends of labor 
and union leaders will come forward and suggest some of them for 
consideration — those things that can be done, that will put some 
checks on these things, ought to be done. 

The Chairman. Are you saying the situation is hopeless? 

Mr. Weintraub. No; I am not saying it is hopeless. I say when 
the Senator asks me do I have any suggestions, I haven't studied 
the matter. I assume that neither or any of the Members of Con- 
gress studied it thoroughly. Otherwise, there would be no need for 
this. There would have been legislation enacted. But I say in the 
last analysis. Senator, that whatever you come up with I assume will 
be for the good of the country as a wliole, and I hope you do come 
up with legislation that is good for the country as a w^iole, including 
labor. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4211 

But I say tliis, no matter what laws you pass, if you have dishonest 
men administering, you are going to have to i^ass more legislation 
to tighten up the loopholes. 

The Chairman. Of course, we will always have crime committed, 
I am sure of tliat. You can never completely eradicate crime. But 
we can make an etfort to do so, and the more successful the effort, 
of course, the better it is for this country. 

In this instance, I think it is the function of this committee, and 
it is charged with the duty, of trying to investigate and determine 
what conditions now prevail and what legislation may be needed 
to remedy those conditions where it is developed that they are not 
wholesome. 

Mr. "Weintraub. I think you are doing a good job, Senator. I 
think bringing these facts before the American public is a good, 
wholesome thing. I know some of the facts that have come out have 
caused a lot of corrections, particularly in the international union at 
the convention just completed. They passed a lot of reforms and 
changed their constitution, which I think would not have been done 
had not certain facts been brought forth in this hearing. 

The Chairman. I think the first source for us to go to, at least that 
is the way I feel about it, is to the element of labor, and the leadership 
of that element that want these conditions cleaned up, that want to 
have hone-st unions to carry out their mission and purpose of serving 
the welfare of the laboring people of this country. I think they not 
only should be given the opportunity, but this committee, I am sure, 
will solicit their counsel to suggest to us, and they are possibly more 
familiar with it than anyone else with what goes on, suggest to us 
so that we may consider it in making recommendations to Congress 
as to what legislation might help them in their purpose to keep union- 
ism on a high plane. 

Mr. Weintraub. I think. Senator, I agree with you. 

I think that some legislation is necessary, but when the Senator 
asked me what, I have never made that detailed a study. That is what 
I mean to imply. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of the accumulation of all these things going 
on, the Dio business and then the stacking of the convention or attempt 
to stack it, the move to California, which I understand you opposed 
also 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. I didn't think an international 
office ought to be in Hollywood. It ought to be in the heart of the 
people. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any activity out there in California. 

]Mr. Weintraub. None whfitsoever, or very little. 

Mr. Kennedy. The center was in the Midwest? 

Mr. Weintraub. In the Midwest ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. As an accumulation of all these things, you ulti- 
mately resigned in 1956, in the middle of 1956 ? 

Mr. Weintraub. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have words with Mr. Heaton or Doria at 
that time ? 

Mr. Weintraub. I had no words with Mr. Doria. I had a discus- 
sion with Mr. Heaton. 



4212 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest you resign ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest that you would be expelled if you did 
not resign ? 

Mr. Weintraub. Yes ; he did. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

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

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Mvnidt, and 
Curtis.) 

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. Heaton. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF EARL HEATON 

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

Mr. Heaton. Earl Heaton. 13101 Nimrod Place, Los Angeles, 
Calif., ex-president of the AIW-CIO 

The Chairman. Ex-president of what union ? 

Mr. Heaton. Allied Industrial Workers, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. Did that succeed the UAW? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Your term of presidency was since it became the 
industrial workers ; was it? 

Mr. Heaton. Part of it was under the UAW-AFL. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. You succeeded Mr. Lester Washburn as president 
of the UAW-AFL? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had you been in what used to be the UAW- 
AFL ? How long were you in that organization ? 

Mr. Heaton. Approximately 20 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Back to what, 1930 ? 

Mr. Heaton. 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just the UAW at that time ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then when it broke into two factions, you went 
with the UAW-AFL? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been with them ever since? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you decided not to run for office of the presi- 
dency in this past convention that was just held this week? 

Mr, Heaton. That is right. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Going back to 1950, the period of time in which we 
are inter-ested, what position did you hold in 1950? 

Mr. Heaton. I was regional director for the eighth region. 

Mr. Kennedy. \^'Tiat area does that include ? 

Mr. Heaton. Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri. 



IMPROPEB ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4213 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any connection with New York at that 
time? 

Mr. Heaton. No, sir. 

Mv. Kennedy. When the charter was <T:ranted to local 102, and Sam 
Zakman and ultimately John Dioguardi coming into that local, were 
you familiar with the facts surrounding that? 

Mr. IIeaton. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any connection with it? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I can add that we were told that they had issued 
a charter in New York and that there was going to be a big organiza- 
tional drive, but that is the extent of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any personal contact with the people 
in New York, namely Johnny Dio, during this period of 1951-52? 

]\Ir. Heaton. I am not sure of that. They brought him into the 
international headquarters, or he came in, and we all met him there. 
That possibly was in 1952. I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand he was in charge of the New 
York area operations? 

Mr. Heaton. I understood he was in charge of the taxicab drive, 
I believe it was, as that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, when 649 was set up and these other 
locals, did you understand that he was in charge of that operation? 

Mr. Heaton. I understood that they used him for what they called 
a general contact man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know or have any information about 
whether any of the locals under Johnny Dio paid any per capita dues 
payments, made any payments to the international ? 

Mr. Heaton. The only thing I knew about that was that President 
Washburn and Anthony Doria told us that they were not investing 
any money in it, and that the per capita tax would be kept in the 
local union to help defray the expenses. In other words, they would 
be exonerated for a certain period of time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that that all was being handled 
in New York by Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I don't believe I had the details on how they 
were handling it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that the locals were paying their per 
capita tax dues, payments, to Johnny Dio, rather than to the inter- 
national during this period of time? 

Mr. Heaton. No, I didn't understand that. I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was handling the operation in New York? 
"\Ylio was responsible? Mr. Doria? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he would have all of the details on this matter ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. Or Mr. Washburn, I guess. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are familiar, are you not, with the period of 
time when Mr. Dio resigned and the charges that preceded that by 
Mr. Washburn against Mr. Dio and the locals ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. You came to New York and participated in the 
hearing ? 

Mr. Heaton. I did. 



4214 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, were you familiar with the individuals 
that Dio had brought into the labor movement, the Santa Marias, 
and Cosentino and Cohen ? 

Mr. Heaton. No, I wasn't familiar with those individuals. 
, Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an investigation of that ? 

Mr. Heaton. I had the attorney, who was going to New York, 
see what they could find out about them, and he brought back the 
documents entered in evidence here this morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president of the union at that time ; were 
you not? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Was it a complete investigation ? Did you attempt 
to have the employers consulted with whom these locals had contracts, 
for instance? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you examine or have examined any of the 
contracts that existed? 

Mr. Heaton. We spot-checked some of the contracts at the hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. But beyond that you did not go ? 

Mr. Heaton. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, after the hearing, or during the hearing, 
charges were made against Mr. Dio and, as I understand it, he was 
cleared by the executive board but agreed to resign, is that right, 
subsequently ? 

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

Mr. Heaton. Sometime later he resigned. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand you made telephone calls to the various 
members of the board suggesting that Dio be paid $10,000? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the basis for that ? 

Mr. Heaton. The basis of that was— well, frankly, I called Mr. 
Dio in, after we couldn't substantiate our position as far as the charge 
was concerned, and told him I still thought he should resign. Of 
course, it got into the matter then where he said that this money he had 
spent of his own, and he said the understanding was with the former 
officers that that would be charged to the local union, and when it 
got financially able, the local union was to pay him back. 

Well, I told him I wasn't sure of those arrangements. However, 
it was obvious from all the conversation that I had heard that he 
had spent some of his own money. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean he had said that he had made 
arrangements about that? Who had he made arrangements with? 

Mr. Heaton. As I understood it, with Doria and possibly Washburn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Washburn said he knew nothing about it. 

Mr. Heaton. I am not sure he did. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you something. If he made claims 
that he had advanced money to a union, could you not check the union 
books and find out whether there was any record of it? 

Mr. Heaton. Pie said there were vouchers on it 

The Chairman. I am not talking about what he said. I am talking 
about your checking. Could you not have checked and found out ? . ' 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't check it first. 

The Chairman. You just took his word? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4215 

Mr. IIeaton. I assumed he had it, because that was the understand- 
ing, that he would have to produce them. 

The Chairman. Did he ever produce them ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes; he did. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom did he produce them ? 

Mr. Heaton. He produced them to Doria. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you know ? Did you ever see them ? 

JSIr. Heaton. He had a folder and said they were in there. I didn't 
check them; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the one that made the telephone call to 
the board members. 

]\Ir. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that telephone call, did you not tell the board 
members that you had seen the documents? 

Mr. Heaton. No; I didn't. I said he was supposed to produce 
them. 

Mr. Kennedy. To what ? 

Mr. Heaton. He was to provide them to us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you make a telephone call to the board mem- 
bers, urging them to pay Dio $10,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't urge them. I told them what the circum- 
stances were. 

Mr. Kennedy Did you do all that without even looking at the 
vouchers to see if you actually should pay him $10,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. I had just come into office. Doria was not there. He 
was in California. I clidn't know anything about the situation at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president of the union. Without looking 
or examining the vouchers, you made these telephone calls to the 
various board members ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, ultimately, you paid him $16,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see any vouchers showing that he had in- 
vested that amount of money in the local union ? 

Mr. Heaton. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took Mr. Doria's word for it ? 

Mr. Heaton. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he give you an itemized statement, even ? 

Mr. Heaton. The vouchers were supposed to be the total amount. 

The Chairman. Well, you never saw the vouchers. 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't ; no. 

The Chairman. Are you sure anyone else saw them ? 

Mr. Heaton. Mr. Doria says he had them, and I think they are in 
the possession of the committee, even. We turned over all the files, 
and they were supposed to be in. If you will pardon me, I might 
correct that statement. We turned tliem over to, I believe it is, the 
grand jury of the State of New York, Mr. Goldstein, and I told them 
if you people wanted them just to take them from there. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have examined those vouchers, and the most 
vou can come up with, from an examination of those, Mr. Chairman, 
is 172 vouchers, totaling $5,138.83. 

89330— 57— pt. 11 14 



4216 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Heaton. Well, that is all I could find in the files. I didn't ex- 
amine them, even when I turned them over. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could you pay somebody $16,000 when the most 
vouchers that you could come up with, possibly, was $5,138.83 and 
there was no proof, even there, that this was Mr. Dio's money ? 

Mr. Heaton. Mr. Doria told me that there were vouchers that would 
substantiate that, and I didn't question him any further. 

The Chairman. That is kind of a loose practice, is it not? 

Mr. ECeaton. Well, after all, the secretary-treasurer does keep the 
records and so forth, and I assumed he was telling the truth. 

The Chairman. Is there any doubt about it now^ ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, if there aren't vouchers anywhere to support 
that, certainly, there is some doubt about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had an exchange of letters with Johnny Dio on 
his resignation ? 

Mr. HJEATON. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Before you go into that resignation, I have a ques- 
tion. Did you honestly believe that Johnny Dio had advanced $16,000 
of his own money to promote unionism in New York for the benefit 
of the workers and the union ? 

Mr. Heaton. I had heard it stated by Doria that he advanced a 
considerable amount more than that. What amount, I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Now, answer my question. 

Mr. Heaton. Did I believe it ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Heaton. Well, at that time I had no reason to doubt it. There 
was no reason for anybody to lie to me about it. 

Senator Curtis. Do you believe it now? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, now, I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. What was the date of that check? 

Mr. Kennedy. The date is September 3, 1954. 

Senator Curtis. This check was given to him after all the revela- 
tions were made in a weeklong session over whether or not Washburn's 
action in expelling him should be upheld, was it not ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. So, everybody knew they were dealing with an ex- 
convict, and the report of Mr. Goldberg said that he had not been 
in these ways, that he was not prounion, and that he was surrounded 
by hoodlums and thugs and convicts. 

Mr. Heaton. If I remember Mr. Goldberg's report, he was stating 
the opinion of the people he had contacted in New York. 

Senator Curtis. But that was at least a warning, was it not, if it 
was not proof ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. But, as previously stated here, we 
had him up on a particular charge. You cannot try a man on one 
charge and convict him of something else. 

Senator Curtis. No; I am talking about giving him $16,000. 

Mr. Heaton. In that case, it might have been reasonable enough, 
anyway. 

Senator Curtis. You think he was quite a philanthropist, helped 
out the cause of unionism, perhaps, to a greater extent than $16,000? 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't say what I thought. I said that is what I 
hold. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4217 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator INIundt. What do you mean by "in that case that might 
have been reasonable enough anyhow"? Do you mean it is worth 
$16,000 to the union to be rid of that kind of character ? 

Mr. Heaton. If we couldn't prove a charge. 

Senator Mundt. That is wliat you meant by that ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You had a man you had reason to believe was a 
convict and a crook but you did not have the evidence at hand to call 
him before a board or a committee, so if you could buy him off for 
$16,000 you thought it was still a good deal for the union, to get rid of 
him ? 

Mr. Heatox. If he was doing great damage to the union. It was 
a matter of relative values, in my opinion. 

Senator Mundt. How well did you know Mr. Dio personally ? 

Mr. Heaton. Personally I didn't know him very well. I think I 
had only met him once or twice up to that point. 

Senator Mundt. You sat in on conferences with him and things of 
that kind? 

Mr. Heaton. No ; I never sat on any conferences with him. 

Senator Mundt. How did you know him? Socially, do you mean ? 

Mr. Heaton. No. 

Senator Mundt. Socially ? I thought you knew him in union con- 
tacts. 

Mr. Heaton. He appeared at our international headquarters, and 
we were introduced to him by Washburn and Doria. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Jimmy Hoifa, personally? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did Dio know Jimmy Hoifa personally, to your 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I don't know that he did at that time. I don't 
know when he got acquainted with Jimmy Holfa. 

Senator Mundt. Let me put it in the present tense. To your knowl- 
edge, does Dio know Jimmy Hoffa? 

Mr. Heaton. I should certainly think so. I would say yes. 

Senator Mundt. Would you tell us on what basis you say that? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I have seen him at the teamsters office, conven- 
tions, and things like that. I assume he must be acquainted with him. 

Senator Mundt. You saw Hoffa and Dio together at teamsters 
conventions ? 

Mr. Heaton. Along with other teamsters, yes. 

Senator Mundt. If you were to classify their relationship or con- 
tact, would you say that in j^our opinion Jimmy Hoffa and Dio are 
friends ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, that is strictly an assumption or a matter of 
degree. 

Senator Mundt. I am just asking for whatever it was, to try to 
determine that. 

Mr. Heaton. I assume if they associate with each other, they must 
be somewhat. However, that wouldn't necessarily be true. 

Senator Mundt. You would certainly say they are more than speak- 
ing acquaintances. 



4218 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Heaton. That is the way I would rather put it. As I say, it 
is a matter of degree. 

Senator Mundt. All right. You have seen them together. You 
have probably never sat in on any conferences where both of them 
were part of a committee, or the three of you, or something of that 
kind? 

Mr, Heaton. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Do I understand from your testimony that what 
you did was just decide to pay Dio the least you could get him for to 
get him out? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I was trying to pay the least I could. I did take 
this position, Senator : If our officers had made such an obligation to 
him, and he had put the money in, then I felt that there was a certain 
amount of obligation there. 

The Chairman. But you never determined that, you never looked 
into it. You just took somebody else's word. 

Mr. Heaton. That is true. 

The Chairman. As I understand, the implication of your testi- 
mony is that even if you did not OAve him $16,000, it was better to pay 
him that and get rid of him. 

Mr. Heaton. I said it might have been worth it. 

The Chairman. Well, worth it. You must have not thought it had 
some value to get rid of him. What it actually amounted to was just 
a form, maybe a mild form, of extortion out of your international 
union; was it not? 

Mr. Heaton. I wouldn't agree with that at all. 

The Chairman. You w^ould not ? 

Mr. Heaton. No. 

The Chairman. Well, if you pay somebody something you do not 
owe him to get rid of him, what is it ? 

Mr. Heaton. I was going on the assumption we did, and possibly 
that he had spent more than that, with the understanding that he was 
to get it back. 

The Chairman. You had some correspondence with him about it, 
did you? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't recollect it. I probabl}^ did. 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of a letter dated 
September 3, 1954, addressed to you, apparently having the signature 
of Johnny Dio. Would you examine it and see if you identify it? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Heaton. I identify it. 

The Chairman. You identify it ? 

That may be made exhibit No. 74. 

I hand you wdiat purports to be a photostatic copy of a carbon copy 
of a reply to that letter by you, to Dioguardi, dated September 17, 1954. 
Will you examine that and state if that is the copy of the reply you 
sent to him ? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Heaton. I recognize that, sir. 

The Chairman. The witness says he recognizes that as a carbon 
copy of the reply he sent Mr. Dioguardi, to his letter of September 
3. That may be made exhibit No. 75. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4219 

Mr, IvENNEDY. Could I read them quickly into the record? 

The CiiAiR3iAN. You may. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 74" and is as 
follows:) 

Mr. IvENNEDY. September 3, to Earl Heaton, and it is on the sta- 
tionery of Amalgamated Union Local 649, signed John Dioguardi, 
president. 

Dear President Heaton : I have your letter infonuiug me that the interna- 
tional executive board is satisfied from its investigation that I have not en- 
gaged in any illegal activities as an officer and member of our local union, and 
that none of the adverse allegations made against me involving my activities 
in the local union, whether made by individuals, anonymous informants, the 
press, etc., have in any instance been sustained against me. 

Let me first express my appreciation to the executive board for having 
given me the opportunity to answer, to the best of my ability, completely and 
fairly all questions which the union attorney and members of the executive 
board asked, bearing upon all phases of the adverse publicity and allegations 
of improper activities directed against me. 

This was the first chance I had to know all the accusations made against me 
and to make a complete answer and accounting to the entire board. I have 
recognized for a long time that the attacks made against me, althovigh untrue, 
not supported by i:»roof, and in instances not even related to my union activities 
have provided enemies of our union with a basis for attack against the union 
itself. 

That the executive board of the international union did not allow itself to be 
stampeded into punitive action against me as a result of these attacks and 
pressure against it, based on false and untrue attacks against me, must forever 
remain to the credit of the international union. The insistence of the executive 
board that our constitution be followed and that I be given a fair opportunity 
to defend myself, is proof that our organization is built on a solid foundation 
and it will be here serving workers long after our enemies are gone and for- 
gotten. 

I have been considering for some time the advisability of resigning from 
the UAW-AFL, however I had not done so up to now because I felt that 
it would not be fair to either the membership of the local union, the interna- 
tional union, my family, or myself, if I did so while I was under fire because of 
my conduct while an elected officer of local 649. I believed that if I resigned 
or accepted expulsion without protest under such circumstances, it would be 
considered an admission on my part that there was some basis for the untrue 
and unjust accusations which have been made against me. 

Now that I have been completely cleared after a thorough and complete in- 
vestigation by the executive board, I would like to bring to an end the continued 
use of me as the medium through which attacks have been directed against the 
international union. I think too highly of our local union membership and the 
international union to permit myself to be used in this way, and I therefore sub- 
mit my resignation. 

I hope that you will tell the other members of the executive board how much 
I appreciate the opportunity they gave me of clearing myself, and assure them 
that I will be always ready to help the union in any way that I can, if they 
call upon me to do so. 

Fraternally yours, 

John Dioguardi, President. 

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

Senator Mundt. I would like to check the signature, Mr. Chairman, 

against the signature on the check for $16,000. This seems to be an 

amazingly eloquent letter from a man who takes the fifth amendment 

on the question of whether he can read and write. 

I have them both before me, and unquestionably the signatures 
appear to be the same. So regardless of who wrote or dictated the 
letter, it seems obvious that it was the signature of John Dioguardi 
because this was the signature he placed on the check when he cashed 
the $16,000 check. 



4220 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. Then you wrote back a letter to him on September 7, 
1954. Was this letter written by Doria, although signed by you? 

Mr. Heaton. And signed by me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Earl Heaton? Was this letter actually written, 
composed, by Anthony Doria ? 

Mr. Heaton. No, it wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was composed by you ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is written to John Dioguardi, September 7, 1954. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 75" and is as 
follows : ) 

Dear John : I have received your letter of resignation and I shall, of course, 
honor your request and accept it. However, I feel that you are entitled to know 
how I and the executive board feel about this entire situation. 

As I have already advised you, the executive board has found that you did 
not engage in any illegal activities as an officer or member of our local union. 
Based upon our investigation and on our recent hearing in New York, we could 
come to no other conclusion. 

For one thing, the New York Crime Commission advised us frankly that it 
had no evidence of improper activities on your part as a union officer, and that 
the only complaint against you which it had on file were from former officers 
of a local union who had been removed from such union because of their own 
improper activities. Similarly, other officers or official organizations were unable 
to present us with any evidence that your conduct as a member and officer of a 
local union of the UAW-AFL was in any manner inconsistent with your duties 
and obligations. 

Some of these public agencies which were questioned in our investigations 
were the district attorney of New York, the New York State Crime Commission, 
the New York attorney general, the New York State Department of Labor, and 
the Central Trades and Labor Council of Greater New York. 

Our own investigation of your personal financial records, the financial records 
of the local union, and the local union's collective-l)argaining contracts con- 
vinced us that the attacks upon you were based upon events which occurred long 
before you were elected to your present position. We, too, realize that the 
attacks on you were in great measure merely an instrument for attacking our 
union. 

It is unfortunate that today there is a growing tendency to ignore some of 
our basic constitutional rights, and to abandon the principles of fair play which 
have always characterized our American democracy. I, for one, am proud of 
our international executive board for having insisted that you have an oppor- 
tunity to tell your story, and for having insisted on your right to be judged 
on your record as a labor- union representative, and not on something that has 
gone before. 

I am also proud of our membership for having recognized the real issue and 
for having supported their officers in their determination to keep the Inter- 
national Union, U. A. W., A. F. of L., functioning not only within the requirements 
of its international constitution, but also within the spirit of American justice. 
Fraternally yours. 

Earl Heaton, 
International President. 

In that connection, were you familiar, in your investigation and in 
your writing of this letter, were you familiar with the record of Abe 
Goldberg, who Mr. Dio had given a charter to down in Philadelphia, 
and the fact that he had just been convicted of extortion? 

Mr. Heaton. No, I don't believe I was familiar with that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Joe Curcio, his police record, and the fact that 
he was working for Dio ? 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't know he had a police record. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Topazio, who had just been convicted? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4221 

Mr. Heaton. I might answer this way, that in Mr. Goldberg's re- 
port, I think he had a list of these people, and somehow or other I 
asked him to get the information of what kind of records they had, 

Mr. IvjENNEDY. I would think that Teddy Ray, Joe Curcio, George 
Baker, Nat Carmel, Arthur Santa Maria, Dominick Santa Maria, 
David Cosentino, Anthony Topazio, Joe Cohen, George Cohen, Henry 
Gasster, Harry Reiss, and Max Chester, who were either convicted of 
extortion from the time that Dio brought them into the labor-union 
movement or had just been convicted prior to getting the job, I think 
that would have made some impression on you ? 

Mr. Heaton. I believe I checked that list with Mr. Doria, and he 
said they had all been discharged as soon as those things happened. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. Many of them not only weren't discharged but they 
are still active in the labor-union movement. 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't check to see how many of them are still there. 

Senator ^Iundt. Let me ask you a few questions about your letter, 
Mr. Heaton. 

This could be interpreted, it seems to me, in any one of several ways. 
To interpret this one way, it is quite a eulogy for Johnny Dioguardi, 
and he could use it, I suppose, to get a job as secretary of a YIVICA 
someplace. But you could also read it from a different corner, and it 
appears to me to be a lot of gilded guff' that you are putting in there 
as one of the reasons to get him out of the miion, to sort of encourage 
him to withdraw. 

Some of this language is pretty cautiously conceived. 

You say for one thing, "The New York Crime Committee advises 
frankly it has no evidence of improper activities on your part as a 
union officer.'' 

That is quite different from a complete whitewash or a complete 
recommendation. 

Another place you talk about "The complaint against you dealt 
with previous activities." 

I would like to have you tell the committee now, and you are under 
oath and testifjang freely, as to whether you intended this to be a 
carte blanche endorsement, whether tliis was conceived with the 
thought in mind that if you wrote, him the proper kind of letter you 
might be rid of him for once and for all and get him off your backs, or 
whether you specifically used the kind of language I mentioned in 
order not to say too much or go too far in your clearing of him, but 
simply point out that as a union officer he maybe hadn't stolen any 
money or hadn't gone around with the finances, as against a whole 
series of illegal activities in which he appears to have been engaged. 

Since you can read it through different kinds of glasses, I wish you 
Avould tell us, as the author of the letter, what you were trying to con- 
vey and what you had in mind. 

INIr. Heaton. The letter is based upon what, in my opinion, was the 
result of the hearing. I tried to stick as close to that as possible and 
not convey anything either way. I tried to keep it on the basis of 
the opinion of the board and upon the basis of the facts as we assumed 
they were. 

I think that is what I did. I didn't endorse him and neither did I 
convict him of anything. I tried to keep in line with what the reason- 
ing of the executive board was and not express my personal opinion 
either pro or con. 



4222 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator IMundt. Can you put on the back of a playing card now in 
a few short words what the opmion of the board was at the hearing, 
how it was summarized ? 

Mr. Heaton. In the findings, that we didn't have sufficient evidence 
of any conduct as a union officer, or since he had been in the union, 
that we could substantiate. 

Senator Mundt. Did you also find that while you didn't have suffi- 
cient evidence to kick him out as a union officer, you did find suffi- 
cient evidence or reports or statements so that you wished you had 
him out of there, that you didn't want him ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I wouldn't testify 

Senator Mundt. Well, it cost $16,000. 

Mr. Heaton. I wouldn't testify that we found sufficient evidence 
of that. However, there was quite a publicity campaign against Dio, 
and I thought he certainly was a detriment to the union. 

Senator Mundt. You are probably right about the evidence, but 
you did find sufficient reasons, let us say, that you wanted to get rid of 
him, and you wished he weren't there, and maybe to the extent of 
$16,000 thought the union was better off without him and without 
$16,000, than they would be with him and $16,000. Is that about 
what it amounted to? 

Mr. Heaton. $16,000, again, I will say, was paid on the assumption 
that that is actually what he put into it, or more, and on his agreement 
with the former officers. 

Senator Mundt. I was talking about evidence. There wasn't very 
much evidence he had put in $16,000. In fact, all we can find is 
$5,000. It seems to me that the fact that you shoved him the check 
so quickly was pretty good evidence that you thought you were 
better off^ without him and the $16,000 and no arguments and no 
account and no bookkeeping than you were to keep him and your 
$16,000 and have him hung on the union. 

How about it ? Is that a fair statement of fact ? 

Mr. Heaton, Not according to my testimony. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't try very hard to determine whether 
you owed him $16,000 ; did you ? 

Mr. Heaton. I checked with the secretary-treasurer and was in- 
formed that there was vouchers to substantiate that and more. 

Senator Mundt. And you never found the vouchers. We haven't 
found the vouchers. You don't know where the vouchers are? 

Mr. Heaton. They are supposed to be there. 

Senator Mundt. We found $5,000 in vouchers- 
Mr. Heaton. As I say, I didn't check them. 

Senator Mundt. You reimbursed him for $5,000 worth of vouchers 
and paid him $11,000 to get rid of the ill will that he had. I mean, 
it was the opposite of good will. You were paying him the ill will 
by paying him $11,000. 

Mr. Heaton. Senator, I testified that I felt there was that many 
there or more, for that amount or more. 

Senator Mundt. I don't suppose the usual practice of a secretary- 
treasurer is to pay out checks on what he thinks might be developed. 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I am not the secretary- treasurer. 

Senator Mundt. You were the president. Did you have to sign the 
check ? 



IMPROPEB ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4223 

]\Ir. Heaton. I am the ex-president. 

Senator Mundt. You are the ex-president. Anthony Doria signed 
tlie check. You didn't sign the check. Did you countersign it? 

Mr. Heaton. I should have. 

Senator ISIundt. You did. Your name is on the side. Did you ever 
hear Mr. Doria say anything about the relationship of Mr. Dioguardi 
and Mr. Hoffa? 

i\Ir. Heaton. About the most I ever heard was, he said they were 
friends. 

Senator Mundt. Doria said that Hoffa and Dioguardi were friends ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Senator Mundt- O. K. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Prior to the time he wrote 
the letter of his resignation, had you agreed to pay him the $16,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You had wired other members of the executive 
board, soliciting them to send you wires authorizing you to pay him 
$10,000? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

The Chairman. And when you finally paid the $16,000, the board 
knew nothing about it; is that correct? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't say that is correct. 

Well, yes, at that moment; yes. 

The Chairman. At that point. 

Mr. Heaton. I would like to point out that in our constitution, 
the president does have a right to use his judgment and the authority 
of the board in between sessions, and I exercised that authority. 

The Chairman. I^t me ask you if this is not a fact. Vouchers have 
been found, assuming they are authentic — just assuming that — that 
Dio had put in some $5,000 plus into the union and maybe the union 
should reimburse him for it. 

What you were wiring for here and asking these executive mem- 
bers to send you a wire for, was so that you could raise the amount to 
$16,000 because you are asking them to authorize you to pay $10,000. 

So you take the vouchers, they ran between $5,000 and $6,000, and 
then this authority from the board to pay 10 and then you pay 16; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Heaton. No, it is not. 

The Chairman. That is the way it appears here. You wired them 
asking for authority to pay 10. 

Mr. Heaton. I might explain it this way, Senator; I have already 
testified that I assumed the vouchers were there for an amount that 
would exceed that. 

The Chairman. I know, but that is a pretty reckless assumption; 
is it not ? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't think so. 

The Chairman. It appears to be. There is only $5,000 there. It 
seems to be reckless two-thirds of the way at least, 

Mr. Heaton. I checked with the secretary-treasurer and he said 
there were vouchers to substantiate it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Heaton. In this discussion, he indicated that possibly he might 
accept the $10,000, but he came back — it took about 3 days — he came 



4224 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

back and said that lie had checked and that this certainly would not 
cover it. 

The Chairman. So before he sent you the letter of September 3, he 
not only knew he was going to get the $16,000, but he had a check for 
it. You had already made the check out and given it to him, had 
you not, before he wrote the letter ? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't remember whether it was before or afterward. 

The Chairman. The check is dated the same day as the letter is 
dated. 

Senator Mundt. The check is dated September 3, 1954. 

The Chairman. And the letter from Dioguardi to you as president 
is dated September 3, 1954. 

Actually he had the check in his possession at the time he wrote 
the letter. You know that to be the fact ; do you not ? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't remember whether it was before or after the 
letter. 

The Chairman. It all happened on the same day ? 

Mr. Heaton. He got it immediately ; that is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Mttndt. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this in his behalf. 

If that is what you had to pay to get rid of Dioguardi, and if your 
board of examiners or jurors could not find anything sufficiently pro- 
bative to get him removed under your constitution, I still thiiik you 
made a pretty good deal to get him out of your hair for $10,000 if he 
got himself out of your hair. I do not know about that. 

But if you got rid of him and got a bad apple out of the way for 
$10,000, I think if he stuck with you he would have gotten a lot more 
than that. 

You w^ere talking earlier about Mr. Dioguardi and Mr. Hoff a. You 
said you had seen them at the teamsters convention. At about how 
many conventions did you see them? 

Mr. Heaton. I did not say teamsters convention. I did not say 
that. It was the AFL-CIO conventions. I think it was two. 

Senator Mundt. Wliere were they ? What cities ? 

Mr. Heaton. Once in Los Angeles and once in New York. 

Senator Mundt. Do you remember what years those were ? 

Mr. Heaton. I believe the one in Los Angeles was 1954. 

Senator Mundt. 1954 in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Heaton. And I guess the other one was 1955 in New York. 

Senator Mundt. 1955 in New York City. Those are the only two 
that you can remember? 

Mr. Heaton. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. They are rather recent conventions, 1954 and 1955. 

I hope if Jimmy goes through with his ambition to run for inter- 
national president of the teamsters he does not have Johnny Dio as 
his campaign manager. I think that would not be good. Or maybe 
it would, I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. He supposedly got out after the payment of $16,000. 
Do you know if he took part in any union affairs after that time? 

]\fr. Heaton. Not to my knowledge. 

]Mr. Kennedy. We had some information and evidence yesterday 
that he was taking the pickets of Local 224, UAW, taking pickets from 
that local and putting them on a compan}'^ and taking them off. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4225 

Do you know anything about that? That was in 1955 some 6 or 8 
months after he was supposed to have gotten out of the union. 

Mr. Heaton. No, sir, I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose responsibility was New York at that time? 

Mr. Heaton. Those locals more or less assumed their own respon- 
sibility. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Doria taking charge of that, also? 

Mr. Heaton. He looked after it primarily because he knew more 
about them. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had the primary contact with this New York 
situation ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do you know after Dio got out he worked through 
Joe Curcio ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joe Curcio was the man who succeeded Dio as being 
the one sort of in charge of that area ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had some testimony this morning regard- 
ing the stacking of the convention or the attempt to do so in 1955. 
Was tliat also on the recommendation of Mr. Doria? 

Mr. Heaton. It was discussed generally. It was his idea, of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria's idea. Ultimately, Mr. Doria because of 
charges by the ethical practices committee, Mr. Doria's resignation 
was requested ; is that right ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To Mr. Doria at that time, you made an arrange- 
ment with him to pay him $80,000? 

Mr. Heaton. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was discussion of $80,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. Not at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, was there a discussion after that, subsequently, 
of the payment of $80,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. I might go from that meeting and bring it up to 
that. There seems to be some confusion here. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer my question if you made an 
arrangement on his resignation to pay him $80,000 ? 

Mr.^HEATON. No. It was $50,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was never anv document stating you were 
going to pay him $80,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. Not at that meeting, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just anytime. Was an arrangement made whereby 
the union was going to pay Anthony Doria $80,000? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, at the executive council it was obvious that 
their objection was to Anthony Doria. 

Mr. Kennedy. The AFL-CIO ethical practices committee's pri- 
mary objection during this period of time was to Anthony Doria? 

Mr. Heaton. That was their recommendation to the council. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you get rid of him ? 

Mr. Heaton. That's right. 



4226 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. They said there were improper activities Avithin the 
union and they liad in mind at that time Antiiony Doria specifically; 
did they not ? 

Mr. Heaton. I think so, from their recommendation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Heaton. Our international executive board was meeting there 
at the same time. When this thing occurred there was a directive that 
gave us 90 days in which to do 

Mr. Kennedy. What period are we talking about? Tlie end of 
1956, is that right, December of 1956 ? 

Mr. Heaton. No. It was in February of 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. February of 1957? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. And as a result of the directive, it was obvious 
that they were referring to Doria. Of course, some of them said that. 
Our board did not particularly know which way to go. The charges 
were somewhat veiled and there was nobody on the board who wanted 
to accept the responsibility for filing the cliarge. 

Finally, Mr. Doria made a proposition that his unexpired term — 
he wanted $50,000 as a settlement for his getting out without a trial 
and so on and so forth. The board considered that to be equal to his 
unexpired term, the amount, and they voted to accept it. 

Then we left there and went back to the international headquarters. 
When he got back he had changed his mind and we got into quite a 
hassle for several days. 

Finally, he indicated that he would accept — no. Then he turned in 
his resignation. It was over the membership. We had that on the 
officers' part, but the membership resignation is what we wanted, too. 
He turned that in, and I assume, obeyed the constitution itself, and 
then sued or had his lawyer file a complaint for a million dollars. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the complaint going to be ? 

Mr. Heaton. Damaged liis reputation and impaired his chances 
of getting another job, and any number of things of that kind. 

]Mr. Kennedy. You knew he had prepared to sue, is that right? 

Mr. Heaton, Yes, from his lawyers. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had threatened to file suit? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came in and said, "I am going to sue the AFL- 
CIO for the things said about me." 

Mr. Heaton. And that his attorneys were preparing the complaint. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt that in his threatening to sue the AFL-CIO 
you should pay him more money ? 

Mr. Heaton. He was threatening to sue us, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. He threatened to sue you for some remarks that you 
made about him ? 

Mr. Heaton. That's right, and for threatening his job. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do? 

Mr. Heaton. I thought it over and thought about the harassment 
this organization had been through for about 3 years and if we could 
stop the publicity and harassment, and if we had ourselves cleared so 
far as the AFI^CIO would be satisfied, that it would be worth it 
and it was a settlement out of court, so to speak. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you settle for ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4227 

Mr. Heaton. Eighty thousand dolhirs, $30,000 more than the board 
origmally approved. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you sign an agreement to that effect? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also take along a Cadillac car with him? 

Mr. Heaton. That is correct. The board had already approved 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in the past, you had given Johnny Dio, when he 
resigned, $16,000, Angelo Inciso a little over $300,000 when he got 
out and Anthony Doria $80,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. That is right, although he did not get it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has not gotten it all yet ? 

Mr. Heaton, Not nearly that. 

Senator Mundt, What did you do about Washburn ? Did you give 
Washburn anything? 

Mr. Heaton, Washburn resigned and left. He didn't say anything 
to anybody. 

Senator Mundt. He seemed to be the one fellow who was trying 
to clean it up. He didn't get paid very well according to the fellows 
that dirtied it up. 

Mr. Heaton. He resigned and left. He made no complaints. 

Senator Mundt. He was a gentleman ? 

Mr. Heaton. I would say so. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Heaton. I think he was wrong in resigning. 

Senator Mundt. You think he was wrong in resigning ? 

Mr Heaton. I do. 

Senator Mundt, In other words, you think if he stayed there and 
helped to fight it through, he might have cleaned it up more quickly 
than by resigning? 

Mr, Heaton, I think so, yes. 

Senator Mundt. He was not asked to resign ? 

Mr. Heaton. Not by me or anybody that I know of. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, your interpretation of his resigna- 
tion is that he wanted to get something done and the board did not 
do it, so he quit. 

If he had stayed there and fought at a further meeting of some 
kind — is that what you are trying to tell me ? 

Mr, Heaton, That is what I am saying. 

Senator JMundt, Where did all of this money come from ? 

Mr, Heaton. From out of the treasury of the international union. 

Senator Mundt, How much does it all add up to, Mr. Heaton, that 
you had to pay these crooks to get rid of them ? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't want to— — 



Senator Mundt, Three hundred eighty 

Mr. Heaton. First of all, Doria only got $25,000 and the car. The 
board did not approve — it was subject to the approval of the board, 
the $80,000, but they did not approve it. They took the position as 
they had before, it is $50,000 and if he does not want that, let him sue. 

Senator Mundt. How much did he finally get ? 

Mr. Heaton. He only got $25,000 and the car. 

Senator Mundt. And the car ? 



4228 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Heaton. That is right. And he has attached our funds and 
building and has sued. 

Senator Mundt. He has sued ? So this is now in court ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy 
of the settlement agreement and release, apparently signed by both 
you and Mr. Doria. It is dated the 6th day of March 1957. I will 
ask you to examine it and state if that is a photostatic copy of the 
settlement agreed to. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Heaton. I recognize it. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 76. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 76" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4467^469.) 

The Chairman. There is attached to thai, also, a receipt for some 
money he paid him ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Heaton. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What is attached to the agreement ? 

Mr. Heaton. It is a promissory 

The Chairman. It is a what? 

Mr. Heaton. It is a promissory note. 

The Chairman. You executed a note to him for part of the 
consideration ? 

Mr. Heaton. A non-interest-bearing note. 

The Chairman. For how much ? 

Mr. Heaton. $25,000. Pardon me; $30,000. 

The Chairman. $30,000. That may be made exhibit No. 76-A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 76-A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4470. ) 

The Chairman. You also took a receipt from him for $25,000 ; did 
you? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that attached ? 

Mr. Heaton. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I believe it is. Check and see. 

Mr. Heaton. That is a promissory note for $25,000. 

The Chairman. The receipt for the $25,000 is not attached ? 

Mr. Heaton. This is a promissory note for $25,000. 

The Chairman. Were there two promissory notes for $25,000 ? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. No ; one for 25 and one for 30. 

The Chairman. One for 25 and one for 30 ? 

Mr. Heaton. And he was paid 25. 

The Chairman. The second promissory note may be made exhibit 
No.76-B. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 76-B" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 4470. ) 

The Chairman. The Cliair may have made a mistake. I just 
glanced at it, but I thought I saw a receipt for 25. 

You gave him $55,000 in notes. How much cash did you give him ? 

Mr. Heaton. Twenty-five thousand dollars. 

The Chairman. $25*,000. That made $80,000? 

Mr. Heaton. That is ti'ue. 

The Chairman. Now he is suing on the promissory notes; is that 
correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4229 

Mr. Heaton. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does il say anyplace in here that this has to be 
approved by the executive board ^ 

Mr. Heaton. It is clear in our constitution. He knows that as well 
as I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. He does, but there is nothing in this contract that 
you signed with him that has to be approved by the executive board. 

Mr. Heaton. Yes, tliere is. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this contract i 

]Mr. Heaton. Do you mean written in there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Heaton. Xo, it is not written. But our constitution is clear. 
That is the opinion of our attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inform the execvitive board that you had 
done this ? 

Mr. Heaton. At the next board meeting ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you inform or consult with them prior to the 
time of the promissory 

Mr. Heaton. I didn't take a poll on it because I wanted them to 
discuss it in a regular meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you think it would have been better to discuss 
it prior to the time that you agreed to pay him $80,000 rather than 
afterward? 

Mr. Heaton. I would rather have gone through the details. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the details of signing the contract ? 

Mr. Heaton. And the circumstances leading up to it, and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't understand. There is a charge of corrup- 
tion in New York, and Johnny Dio gets out with $16,000. There are 
charges of corruption in Chicago, and the man gets out with $300,000. 
There are charges of corruption against Anthony Doria, and he gets 
out with $80,000. Washburn resigns and there are no charges against 
him, and he gets nothing. 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I had the same experience with Washburn. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is just one last item. 

The situation as far as the issuance of charters, in your union have 
you followed the practice of having charters signed in blank? 

Mr. Heaton. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Doria has a group of charters signed in blank 
that he can just issue; is that right; and send out to the people who 
request charters ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, I shouldn't have said yes, really, to that, since 
T have been in office. What I thought you were referring to was the 
board members' names are written on there, but they are not signed in 
blank now, since I have been there, because, every time they issue one 
now, it is signed by each officer. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, at least prior to the time you came in, the board 
members would sign the charters in blank and then Doria could 
issue them ; is that right ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, if I remember correctly, even then the names 
were printed on there somehow, of the board members. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it wouldn't have to go through the executive 
board prior to the time the charter was issued ? 



4230 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Heaton. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under your constitution, aren't you required to 
have a concurrence of the executive board prior to issuing a charter ? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, there has been considerable discussion about 
that. The practice has been, and I think permissible under the con- 
stitution — and I am not sure — that the officers did issue the charters, 
but they were supposed to present them to us on the executive board 
for approval. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to these charters being issued to any individual 
or group of individuals, did they have the approval, in all cases, of 
the executive board ? 

Mr. Heaton. Prior to their issuance ? No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't that required under the constitution? 

Mr. Heaton. Well, it has always been questionable. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVl^at ? 

Mr. Heaton. It has been questionable. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that a requirement under the constitution ? 

Mr. Heaton. They must have the approval of the executive board. 
But it doesn't say they can go ahead and do it, or, if they don't approve 
it, that they can pick it up, that it must be clone before they issue it. 
However, that has been the practice in the past. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what? 

Mr. Heaton. That has been the practice in the past. They went 
ahead and issued the charters, and sometimes they forgot to even bring 
them up before the board. It has been a loose operation, which has 
been corrected. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Heaton, on April 12, 1956, you issued a news 
bulletin, discussing, apparently, some disclosures Life magazine, 
Salute to Life, had made in this connection. It says : 

Life magazine says that local 228 has been dead for approximately 2 years with 
their headquarters abandoned. Life attempts to make it appear that local 649 
of the teamsters union is one and the same. Local 640 is a live union and doing 
very well. However, they do have an office in the same building and their sign 
is on the entrance door along with the teamstei's. The magazine further states 
that the president of local 649 has a criminal record. As most of you know, Joe 
Curcio, whom some of you met at our last convention, has been president of local 
649 for 2 years. He does not have a criminal record, and is doing a good job for 
his local union. 

The issue of your news bulletin was April 12, 1056. If you were 
issuing that news bulletin in August of 1957, would you change it in 
any way ? 

Mr. Heaton. I think I would have to revise it some. Not as far as 
Look magazine is concerned, according to my information. 

Senator Mundt. Life magazine. 

Mr. Heaton. But I have learned since that he does have a criminal 
record. 

Senator Mundt. You did not know it at that time? 

Mr. Heaton. I did not. 

Senator Mundt. As a matter of fact, he has been at Danbury Peni- 
tentiary for several terms. 

Mr. Heaton. That, I still didn't know. 

Senator Mundt. According to our information, he was convicted 
and sentenced to 9 months in 1944. He was a one-time loser, at least, 
as far as that is concerned. So you tell us that you now know what 
you did not know in 1956? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4231 

Mr. Hkatox. The fact is that I didn't know what the record was 
until noAY. l^iit I was told by one of your investigators that he did 
have a criminal record. 

Senator ]\Iundt. In that same connection — a tie-in between locals 
'2'28 and 649 — did you knoAv about that at the time you issued this 
news release, or did you find it out later ? 

Mr. Heaton. The tie-in what ? 

Senator Muxdt. Between locals ;228 and 640. 

]N[r. Heaton. It is my understanding that '228 was dead. 

Senator ^NUndt. It just kind of rolled over and stood up, with a 
different number on it, local 649? 

Mr. Heaton. I don't understand it. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony before the committee, 
although you thought it was dead, stated it was dead, 228 was very 
active for a period of 2 years. 

Mr. Heaton. Not according to our records; it wasn't 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Well, according to the testimony before the com- 
mittee, the charter got into the hands of Mr. Milton Holt, of the 
teamsters, and he gave it out to Sam Getlan, under 228, and they filed 
financial statements with the Department of Labor. He was operat- 
ing through 1956, and then it went into Philip Kazansky's hands and 
was o])erating in 1956. It was operating for 3 years. 

Mr. Heaton. That, I wasn't aware of. 

Senator Mundt. When it died, you did not go and pick up the 
charter and keep it, did you ? 

Mr. Heaton. It was my understanding that it died before I even 
got there, for that matter, as president. 

Senator Mundt. This occurred before you were president? 

Mr. Heaton. That was my understanding of it; yes. There were 
a number of those charters that were dead. 

Senator Mindt. When a charter dies or a union dies, what do you 
do to get the charter back? Do you have a procedure? 

Mr. Heaton. We do not always get the charter back. If we do 
not get it back, we void all the records and so forth, and remove them. 

Senator Mundt. That, apparently, is a loophole in your organiza- 
tion system, because, taking everything across the table as you see it 
now, from what you said, you thought this charter died, but the 
charter was still framed and bouncing around from one fellow to 
another. Some used it for a little while and some used it for a longer 
while, but they used it to sandbag various employers with, as a paper 
union. 

Do you not think a charter is a pretty important piece of mer- 
chandise, something that, once you have issued, if it falls into im- 
[)roper hands, if the union dies, you should have some procedure for 
getting it back, to void it, for tearing it up, or something ? 

Mr. Heaton. Normally, they would have difficulty, I assume, getting 
before the board and so forth for elections and that sort of thing, 
unless they could show that they were affiliated with the international 
union. I do not know if they made out reports or not that they were 
affiliated with the international union. 

Senator Mundt. I do not think so. They said, "We have a charter, 
and we are a union," and the poor local man paid the dues, and they 
kept the money. They did not bother about elections, did not care 

89330— 57— pt. 11 15 



4232 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

about officers. They did not want to contact you, and they did not 
want to contact them. It was perfectly agreeable to have an iron 
curtain between you and this floating charter. I would think you 
would have some procedure for picking up a charter. 

Mr. Heaton. Well, we haven't done too good on that score, appar- 
ently. That is the first time I ever laiew of that happening. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I think it is conceivable that you would not 
know about it. . 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Not now. 

The Chairman. This will conclude this week's hearing. The com- 
mittee will resume its hearings at 10 : 30 next Monday morning, 
August 12. The committee stands in recess. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m., Monday, August 12, 1957.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan 
and Mundt. ) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR 3IANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1957 

Uxu'ed States Senate, 
Select CoM^inTEE on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

Tlie select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 74, agi'eed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

l^resent: Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Irving 
M. Ives, Republican, New York; Sam J. Ervin, Democrat, Nortli 
Carolina; Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Karl E. Mundt, Re- 
publican, South Dakota; Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; 
Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, chief assistant counsel; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel; 
Walter R. May, assistant counsel; Carmine S. Bellino, investigator; 
Frank C. Lloyd, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Ives, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Before we proceed with witnesses scheduled to 
testify this morning, the Chair wishes to announce that he has re- 
ceived the following letter from Mr. David Dubinsky, August 9, 1957 : 

Hon. John L. McClellan, 

Chuirmon, Select Committee on Improper Activities in Lahor or Management, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Senator McClellan : The name of the International Ladies' Garment 
AVorlcers' Union and my name as president have been mentioned in testimony 
given before your committee in its current hearings. 

In order tliat I may clarify the record before your committee with respect 
to the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and myself, I am enclosing 
my sworn affidavit relating to this testimony. I respectfully request that the 
affidavit be made a part of the committee's record. 

I shall be in Chicago all of next week for the regularly scheduled meeting 
of the AFL-CIO executive council. Following my return from Chicago, I wilj 
be available to testify before your committee at any time convenient to you 
and the committee, should you deem it necessary for me to supplement my 
sworn affidavit. 

Sincerely yours, 

David Dubinsky. 

The Chair has conferred with other members of the committee 
regarding Mr. Dubinsky 's request and, in view of the fact that he 
states he will be available after this week to testify before the commit- 

4233 



4234 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tee at any time convenient to the committee, tlie Chair feels, and other 
members of the committee agree, that the affidavit may be placed in 
the record at this point. 

The Chair is not going to take time to read it, but it may be printed 
in the record. The substance of the affidavit denies categorically the 
testimony given last week to vrhich he referred. It is quite probable, 
and this is not a positive announcement, but it is quite probable that 
the committee will require Mr. Dubinsky to appear in pei-son and be 
subjected to cross-examination and further interrogation with respect 
to the statements contained in his affidavit. 

(The affidavit is as follows:) 

State of New Youk, 

County of Nciv York, ss: 

David Dubinsky, being dnly sworn, deposes and says : 

I am tbe president of the International Ladies' Garment Worlvers Union, AFL- 
CIO, with its headquarters at 1710 Broadway, New York 19, N. Y. I reside at 
201 West 16th Street, New York. N. Y. 

In the course of tlie current hearings before the Senate Select Committee on 
Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, references were made 
to the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and to me. I submit 
this affidavit to clarify the record with respect to this testimony. 
■ There is testimony before the committee that I know .Johnny Dio. This is 
not true. I do not know Dio. I have never met him. I have never talked with 
him. I have never dealt with him. So far as I know, I have never laid eyes on 
him. 

There is testimony before the committee that Dio was employed by the Inter- 
national Ladies' Garment Workers Union in 1950. To the l)est of my knowledge, 
this is completely untrue. It is untrue for 19.j0 and for any other year. 

I have never employed Dio in any capacity, nor did I ever autliorize anyone 
else to hire him. I have checked and rec-hecked our records and questioned our 
officers. I have not found the slightest indication that Dio was ever employed 
by the international or by any of its local unions. 

There is testimony before the committee about my role in forcing Dio's ouster 
from any connection with the labor movement. These are the facts : 

In the spring of 1952. a number of newspaper articles appeared concerning 
certain racketeer-infested paper unions which had cropped up in New York. 
Typical was the New York Times story headline : "Worst Invasion by Gangsters 
Since 1988." 

Almost all the articles referred to Johnny Dio's control of Local 102 of the 
United Automobile Workers, AFL. 

As a member of the executive council of the AFL, I immediately placed this 
matter before its very next meeting on May 22, 1952. I did so because I felt 
then, as I do now, that paper and racket-infested locals constitute a serious 
menace. 

Acting on my recommendation, the executive council of the AFL appointed a 
three-man committee to explore the invasion of labor by the underworld through 
the device of paper locals. 

Mr. George Meany, who was then secretary-treasurer of the federation, was 
chairman of the conunittee and Mr. William L. McFetridge, president of the 
Building Service Employees Union, and I were the other two members. 

At the August 14, 1952, meeting of the executive council Mr. Meany reported 
that the allegations about the paper charters were well founded, that charters 
had been given to persons who were not workers or in any other way connected 
with the labor movement, and that such paper locals were "organizing" all over 
the field. 

The next day, Mr. ISIeany informed the council that in a letter to him, Lester 
Washburn, then president of the UAW-AFL, had strongly defended the issuance 
of such charters and had charged that the executive council's investigation of 
Local 102, UAW-AFL, was in effect aiding and assisting the CIO. 

However, because the UAW-AFL representative did not keep his promise 
to appear before the committee no final action was taken at that time. 

About 2 weeks later — my calendar shows that it was August 27, 1952, at 12 
noon — Washburn came to my office to discuss this situation with me. I told 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4235 

Washburn about the recent disclosures made by the New York City Anticrime 
Coniuiittee concerning Dio. I showed him the newspaper reports about Dio's 
backsirouud and reputation and told him how serious a threat to labor Dio was. 

Washburn insisted that he needed more than the anticrime committee's reports, 
more than Dio's police record, more than Dio's unsavory reputation before he 
could oust Dio. 

When Washburn testified before your committee that I then became very 
angry with him. he told the truth. I certainly did become angry with Washburn. 
I told him — in no uncertain language — that Dio was not fit to be in the labor 
movement, that he should get rid of him, and that any union which tolerated a 
Dio itself had no place in the labor movement. 

In Februnry 1953, the AFL executive council ordered the UAW-AFL to revoke 
local 102's charter. It did not comply. In May 1953, President Meany warned 
that if the local's charter were not revoked, the AFL would suspend the entire 
international union. Then and only then was the charter withdrawn. 

As I have indicated earlier, there is absolutel.y no basis for the allegation 
that I know Johnny Dio nor any basis for the allegation that Dio was employed 
by the International Ladies" Garment Workers Ijiion. 

There is further testimony before the committee that at my oflSce Washburn 
"proved" to me that E)io had once worked for the ILGWU on a special assign- 
ment from an ILGWU vice president to help the union organize a plant in Roa- 
noke in 1950. I categorically deny that there was any discussion or any refer- 
ence at all to Dio's alleged employment by the ILGWU. 

As for the so-called proof I was never shown any proof of such alleged em- 
ployment. Again I repeat emphatically that to the best of my knowledge no 
such employment existed. 

I have conferred at length both with the ILGWU vice president and with the 
district manager in charge of the Roanoke organizing campaign. The facts are 
that the Roanoke shop was organized by our union in 1945, not in 1950 and that 
Dio was the very opposite of a union representative. 

He was held out by the management of the firm to be one of its partners and 
the union dealt with him as such. He was the firm's representative, not ours ; 
he was on the firm's payroll and not on ours. 

In fact, as the employer, Dio was so opposed to our union even after the agree- 
ment was signed, that the workers were compelled to go out on strike before 
the firm would abide by its agrement. 

There is testimony before the committee that Washburn had allegedly been 
told that a vice president of the International Ladles' Garment Workers Union 
had said that Dio was O. K. This information was purportedly given to Wash- 
burn by Mr. Francis A. Henson then educational director of the UAW-AFL. 

We have since contacted Mr. Henson. He told us that he never spoke to any 
vice president of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union about Dio 
at Washburn's request but that he did speak over the phone to an official of 
one of our smaller locals — who had no authority to speak for the ILGWU — who 
expressed his personal opinion that perhaps Dio should be given a chance to 
redeem himself. 

In addition, Mr. Henson told us that on his own initiative, he had indeed 
discussed Dio with one of our New York vice presidents on a number of oc- 
casions and that the vice president had roundly denounced Dio and had de- 
nounced the UAW-AFL for giving him a charter. 

Moreover, Mr. Henson told us that he had reported these conversations to 
Washburn, too. Washburn therefore knew that in the eyes of the one ILGWU 
vice president who had discussed Dio with Henson, Dio was by no means O. K. 

And if Washburn really had any doubts about that, they must certainly have 
been dispelled by my role in initiating the investigation of Dio and in urging 
that the AFL order both Dio and his paper locals ousted from the labor move- 
ment. Indeed, before this very committee, Washburn finally conceded that I 
"moved heaven and earth" to have Dio ousted from the union. 

There was testimony before the committee that Sam Berger, then an officer 
of a local union of the ILGWU, had used his good offices to get the UAW-AFL 
to issue a charter to one Zakman for Local 102 of the UAW-AFL in October 
1950. 

This was the local subsequently taken over by Dio. The implication has been 
created in this testimony before the committee that I knew at the time of 
Berger's efforts to get a charter from UAW^-AFL and that I did nothing to stop 
Berger before the charter was issued. 



4236 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

There is absolutely nothing to this implication. I had not the slightest knowl- 
edge that Sam Berger had had anything to do with obtaining the charter for 
local 102, UAW-AFL, nntil more than a year after the charter was issued. 

The first time I learned of Berger's role in this connection was when I read 
about it in the newspapers at the end of 1951 or the beginning of 1952. As soon 
as I read this report I requested Berger to appear before me. 

He admitted that he had intervened with the leaders of the UAW-AFL to ob- 
tain a charter for Zakman. I told him he had not business seeking a charter foi 
anybody from another international union. 

He explained that he had merel.v intervened on l)ehalf of his friend. I told 
him that I did not accept this explanation and reprimanded him severely. I re- 
ported this reprimand to the general executive board of the ILGWU and re- 
peated this reprimand publicly and in print to the delegates of our 19.53 convention 
as follows : 

"Manager Berger's intervention in behalf of a "professional organizer' who 
sought and obtained a charter from the AFL Auto Workers I'nion was contrary 
to the tradition and spirit of our luiion and was. therefore, severely criticized 
by President Dubinsky and by the GEB." Report and record of the 2Sth Con- 
vention of ILGWU, May 18-25, 1953, p. 200. 

I am proud of what organized lal)or has done and is doing under the leader- 
ship of George ]Meany to keep the labor movement free from corruption. I am 
proud that labor's new concept of its responsibilities has given me, together with 
other leaders of labor, the opportunity to translate our opposition to racketeer- 
ing into practical reality. 

That reality — the action taken against the T'AW-AFL, the laundry workers, 
the distillery workers, the waste handlers, and others — surely is a milestone in 
labor's history and of momentous importance to its future. 

I am likewise proud of the part I played in the introduction of the resolu- 
tion at the 1940 AFL convention against lai)or racketeering, the resolution which 
was the cornerstone for the entire drive against racketeers and their paper 
locals 12 years later; in raising the question (»f racketeers and paper locals in 
1952 at the executive council of the AFL: in the AFL committee on paper locals 
which ultimately led to the expulsion of Dio and other labor racketeers; in the 
ouster of the racketeer-infested ILA ; in the formation and work of the AFL-CIO 
ethical practices committee; in the fornnition (»f the codes of ethical practice 
adopted by the AFI^CIO, including the code against paper locals : and in being 
the first to propose to the organized labor movement that we must support legis- 
lation to insure that racketeers shall have no place in our employee welfare 
funds. 

In sum, my record is clear that far from having had even the remotest con- 
nection with Dio or his ilk, I am a sworn enemy of his and of every racketeer 
in the labor movement. 

We know that w^e have a tough fight on our hands. We know we can expect 
that as the racketeers and their dupes are exposed they will attempt to divert 
attention from themselves by accusing their accusers. We know we can expect 
that they will stop at nothing to discredit the many labor leaders in the AFL- 
CIO who are determined to drive them out of the labor movement. 

I have faith that the American public, and the committee, will not he taken 
in by such tactics. I have faith that those of us who are determined to rid 
the labor movement of any vestige of racketeering will emerge victorious. 

And as for myself, I can assure the committee that I will no more be 
stopped by the smears of the underworld and their fellow-travelers in 1957 than 
I was stopped by their fists in 1940. 

(Signed) David Dubinsky. 

Sworn to before me this 9th day of August 1957. 

(Signed) Wilber Daniels, 
Notary Public, State of Neiv York, No. 31-5911,950. 

Qualified in New York County. Commission expires March 30, 1958. 

The Chairman. Call the first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Anthony Doria. 

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 nothino: but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4237 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DORIA 

The Chairman. Mr. Doria, be seated. 

Will you state your name, and your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. DoRiA. My name is Anthony Doria, and my residence is Encino, 
Calif., and I am presently involved in the development of mining 
properties in Arizona. 

The Chairman. Mr. Doria, you are familiar with the rules of the 
committee, which grant you the privilege of counsel as you testify, 
to advise you regarding your legal rights ? 

JNIr. Doria. Yes, I am familiar with the rules, but I am not request- 
ing counsel. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel ? 

Mr. Doria. I am waiving counsel ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was your previous occupation, Mr. Doria? 

Mr. Doria. I was formerly the international secretary-treasurer of 
the United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, and later was 
changed to the Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you with the AFL-CIO ? 

Mr. Doria. I was with the labor organization that changed its 
name to UIW for approximately 20 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I became secretary-treasurer in December, I believe 
it was, 1943. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you held that position until this year ? 

Mr. Doria. I held that position until March of this year, when I 
resigned that position. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were also connected with local 286 in Chicago ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact I was in Chicago in 1941 
while acting as vice president of the organization, and the original 
work in the development of local 286 was carried on then. I became 
originally associated with the activities of 286 and continued them 
throughout my career in the labor movement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, from 1950 on, what was your con- 
nection with 286 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. In the administering of the affairs of local 286, I acted 
from the standpoint of an organizer of the international union. I 
acted as assistant to the vice president of the international and from 
time to time I was secretary -treasurer of that local union, and again 
changed over between administratorship and the treasurership of the 
local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You always were connected with it in some capacity 
then ? 

Mr. Doria. Not always. There were many times where I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just talking now from 1950 on. What was 
your position, and from what periods of time were you secretary- 
treasurer ? 

Mr. Doria. Mr. Kennedy, I don't believe I could give you exact 
dates, and I don't have records on that, but I last resigned my posi- 
tion with local 286, I believe it was immediately prior to the 1955 
convention of the international union, which was held in November, 



4238 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and therefore tlie resignation must have been some time during tlie 
period of possibly August of 1955. 

Now, that was a recollection, and I can't pinpoint it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have anything to do with it after August 
of 1955? 

Mr. DoRiA. When the last resignation too place, prior to — and the 
only way I can peg it is by referring to the convention, the 1955 con- 
vention of the international union. Then I had nothing to do with 
the local union thereafter, that is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be the end of 1955, or August of 1955 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It would be prior to November of 1955, and that period 
when I resigned, and if I had records I could, possibly, give you the 
exact date, because there was a communication of the time that I did 
make my resignation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have anything to do with the union once 
you went to California ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. The fact is that, when I went to California, I 
was still connected with it, and retained my connection with the local 
union for some period. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VYliat year was that? 

Mr. DoRiA. After I was in California. We moved to California, I 
believe it was in 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you secretary-treasurer of local 286 in Chicago 
while you were in California? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, for a period of time. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. And you received a salary for that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much salary ? 

Mr. DoRiA. $150 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. For being secretary-treasurer of a local in Chicago 
while you were in Los Angeles, Calif. ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I handled all of the records at that time, of the local 
union, and I handled all of the contract work, and I handled all of 
the organizational literature, and I did a lot of the work, and I han- 
dled all of the appearances before the National Labor Relations Board 
f oi' our local union. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Were you secretary-treasurer during the time An- 
gel o Incisco was president of the local ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, Angelo Incisco was removed 
from the international. First it was voted that he should be removed, 
and then he withdrew from the international. 

Mr. DoRiA. That's right, and I think you have the order in the 
proper sequence. 

Senator Mundt. Before we get too far into the matters you want 
to interrogate Mr. Doria about, I wonder if we could get a little more 
background about Mr. Doria, the man. 

Are you a lawyer ? 

]\Ir. iDoRiA. No; definitely not. 

Senator Mundt. Could you give us a rundown on where you were 
born and where you went to school and what you did until you got 
to be in the labor movement ? 

Mr. DoRTA. To the extent I can ; yes. I will be glad to give it to you 
if you require it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4239 

Senator ]\IuxDT. I don't require it, but I can evaluate your activities 
better if I know sometliing about it. 

Mr. DoRiA. I was born in Widatch, 111., and my father was a coal 
miner. He worked in the coal-mining fields in and about Herrin, 
111. I went to school during my grade school in Herrin, and I moved 
to Milwaukee, Wis. I finished high school in Milwaukee, Wis. 
Thereafter, as far as education is concerned, I continued after leav- 
ing school with various courses in engineering, mechanical, electrical, 
and I took a little prelegal work to prepare for real estate, and I 
completed auditing. As a matter of fact, when I came into the labor 
field I was preparing to be a certified public accountant, which I gave 
up because of the interest T developed in tlie labor movement. During 
the time that I was associated, then, with the labor movement, I was 
originally the educational director of my local union, in Milwaukee, 
Wis., because I joined this union as a worker out of the Briggs & 
Stratton plant. 

Senator Muxdt. "Wliere? 

Mr. DoRiA. At the Briggs & Stratton plant, in Milwaukee, Wis. 

Senator Mundt. You were a worker ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I was employed there for 4 years. 

Senator Mundt. As an engineer ? 

Mr. DoKiA. No; I was working in an office, in the shipping office, 
in the Briggs & Stratton plant. I think that I was employed there, 
approximately, in 1933, to continue tliroughout until, approximately, 
1937, and I am just giving those dates from memory. 

Senator Muxdt. That union was what union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. At that time I joined the United Automobile Workers 
Union, AFL. Following the split in the labor movement, by virtue 
of that split, there developed tlie first bit of rivalry between UAW- 
AFL and UAW-CIO. 

I became associated with the union approximately in 1936 out of the 
Briggs & Stratton plant, as a worker out at that plant. I went on 
voluntary organizational work for the union in 1936 without pay. I 
continued in that capacity until approximately the beginning of 
1939, or a little bit prior to that. At the convention that was held in 
Detroit, I tlien, following that convention, by virtue of my activities, 
became associated as a full-time employee of the international union. 

Along that same period of time I became chairman of the district 
council of the district in Wisconsin. I followed that up by becoming 
tlien a full-time organizer in 1941, and, in the convention in Cincin- 
nati, I was elected vice president of the international union, and I 
was assigned to activities in Chicago on organizational work, as vice 
president for the international union. I continued in that capacity 
for a period of approximately 2 years until the next convention, which 
was held in Chicago and at that time I was elected secretary -treasurer. 

I continued my position as secretary-treasurer until March of this 
year, when I resigned my position from the international union. 
During that period of time, liowever, I was active 

Senator Mundt. Of this year, Mr. Doria ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir, of this year, when I resigned; March of this 
year. 

Senator Mundt. At this time, you were living not in Milwaukee 
but in Chicago ? 

Mr. DoRiA. In 1941, you mean ? 



4240 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Muxdt. In 1941 and from then on. 

Mr. DoRiA. From 19-11 to 1943, I lived, in Chicago. As vice presi- 
dent of the international union ; yes, sir. 

In 1943, when I became elected secretary-treasurer, we then moved 
our headquarters to Milwaukee, Wis., from Detroit. Our headquarters 
were then in Detroit, Mich. 

So, approximately January of 1944, we established our headquarters 
in Milwaukee, Wis., and they remained in Milwaukee, Wis., until 
such time as they were then moved to California in, approximately, 
and I think it was, 1954. 

During" that time, for the union, I set up an accounting system tor 
them, and I handled practically all of the work that pertained to 
industrial engineering for the union, and I handled all of the matter 
of publicity related to industrial engineering and contacts with the 
various labor organizations as well as labor schools. 

I had extensive teaching at tlie University of Wisconsin within the 
labor school, taking classes there in conjunction with the industry 
group that controlled the industry schools in the university, as well 
as with the labor school, and tried to coordinate activities to give a 
better understanding to both groups of what each was trying to do. 

Generally, I participated in practically every activity in the organi- 
zation, to the detriment, of course, of the time that I could spend as 
secretary-treasurer, by virtue of the fact that the organization was 
not a large organization. 

Senator Mundt. I think we might summarize it by saying that the 
major part of your active career in labor, insofar as you have served 
as a full-time employee of labor, you have been either international 
vice president or international secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. DoRiA. With all of the duties that might go along with that 
office, as well as others ; that is right. 

Senator Mundt. During that period of time, would you give me 
the names of whoever was president of your international organiza- 
tion ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. When I originally became vice president of the 
organization, and was an international officer for the first time, the 
international president at that time was a man by the name of Irving 
Carey. Following the presidency of Irving Carey, then the next man 
to succeed him was Lester Washburn, and following Lester Washburn 
it was Earl Heaton. 

Senator Mundt. You served under three different presidents ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. Actually 

Senator Mundt. Is that the same Mr. Washburn who was before 
our committee last week ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. Actually, as an organizer, I even served under 
Homer Martin, the original president of this particular international 
union. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. What was your compensation as secretary-treasurer 
of the international union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. At what time, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. When did you say you resigned as such ? 

Mr. DoRiA. In March of this year. 

Senator Curtis. At the time of resiffnine;. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4241 

Mv. DoRiA. $15,000 per year. 

Senator Curtis. And that was all '^ 

Mr. DoRiA. That is ritjht. 

Senator Curtis. Xo expense allowance ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, that was my salary. As to the expense allowance, 
there were no allowances, as such, and the only thing that we had was 
that expenses that were incurred on assio-nment for and on behalf of 
the international union vxoukl, naturally, be paid by the international 
union. 

Senator Curtis. Xow, in the year or two just preceding your res- 
ignation, you Avere also on the payroll of this local union? 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. How much did that amount to ? 

Mr. DoRiA. $150 per week. 

Senator Curtis. That is about $8,000 a year. 

Mr. DoRiA. $7,800, exactly, I believe. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have an expense allowance there ? 

Mr. Doria. Xo. There we had no expenses of any kind, nor was I 
handling any expenses there, of any kind. 

Senator Curtis. Then, did you have any other union income be- 
sides those two items { 

Mr. DoRiA. X^o; not that I can r.ecall, at all. That would be the 
income that I had as a union representative. It was either from 
international union or from local 286. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, for now\ 

Mr. Kexnedy. X^ow, you were secretary-treasurer at the time that 
Angelo Inciso was president of the union? 

Mr. DoRiA. I was secretary-treasurer on various occasions. That 
is when Angelo Inciso was president of the union. 

Mr. Kexnedy. There Avas a resolution ofl'ered to expel Angelo 
Inciso from the international, was there not, on February 1, 1956? 

Mr. Doria. "Would you like to liave the entire story on that? I can- 
not pick it up on the basis of getting it out of the middle, Mr. Kennedy, 
but I will give you the whole story on it, if you are interested in it. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Might I ask you a few questions and we will see 
how Ave come along. Was there a resolution offered at that time, in 
February of 1956, that he should be removed from the union? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, there was a resolution presented to the board. 
There Avas, as I recall this, a resolution presented to the board with 
respect to Inciso and the local in Chicago. However, do you want me 
to just answer your question, and let you handle it, or do you want 
me to elaborate upon it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have heard you elaborate before. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, it is perfectly O. K., and I will do it either Avay 
that you want to. Very frankly, I think a more coordinated story 
Avill come from my elaboration. 

(At this point Senator Goldw^ater entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. If we could find out if there was a resolution offered. 

Mr. DoRiA. There was a resolution offered; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on the f olloAving day he Avas allowed to resign, 
as I understand it. That is according to the testimony before the 
committee. 



4242 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. I can't tell you on clays, but it was during that same 
board meeting that he was allowed to resign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, one of the charges against him, and I read the 
resolution, is that he brought the union into disrepute, and it says 
here — 

by his expeuditiires of local-union funds, which expenditures do not bear a 
reasonable I'elationship to the purposes for which such local union was chartered. 

Mr. DoRiA, Yes; that was the resolution. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you secretary-treasurer of the local at 
that time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. At the time that this resolution was offered? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. Were you secretary-treasurer of the local when 
Mr. Inciso, supposedly, was misusing union funds ? 

Mr. DoRiA. When he was allegedly misusing them ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was he misusing them ? 

Mr. DoRiA. To my knowledge, no. Because Inciso, at all times that 
I checked his records, had not only the approval of his joint board, 
which was the highest authority in his local union, for the expendi- 
ture of those funds, but he was sufficiently well entrenched in his posi- 
tion and liked by his people, very frankly, that he could not only get 
approval before spending it but could get ratification in writing after 
he spent it. 

Senator Citrtis. That does not answer my question. I asked you if 
his spending was unreasonable, and you answer me and say that his 
board approved it. I want to know whether he was guilty of 

Mr. DoRiA. That is asking for my own conclusion, and I could give 
you whatever feelings I have in the matter, if you are satisfied with 
them, but I don't believe it would establish any fact. 

Senator Curtis. It does not establish anything, that his board ap- 
proved it. Klenert and Valente got their board to approve every- 
thing, too, but the workers' money was gone. 

Mr. DoRiA. Would you say if this Congress api^roved an expendi- 
ture and you spent it according to the approval of Congress, you 
would be doing something wrong? 

Senator Curtis. You were not only secretary-treasurer, but you 
have qualified yourself as an accountant, and an auditor. 

Mr. DoRiA. I was not in any capacity as an accountant or auditor. 
I merely said I studied accounting and auditing. 

Senator Curtis. And you were headed toward getting your CPA, 
when you decided to go into labor work. 

Mr.^DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now, were all of his expenditures proper expendi- 
tures to charge to the union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. They were proper to the extent that they were properly 
approved by his board, and that is the only control that the inter- 
national had. After all, the international had a constitution, and 
had rules to abide by. The expenditures were predicated upon fol- 
loAving those rules. When a local chose to follow those rules, and 
spend the money in accordance with those rules, there was nothing 
that the international could do about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 4243 

The CiiAiRMAx. Do I iiiulerstand you to say that notwithstanding 
the money might have been spent for purposes other than promote 
the interest of the union and the working people, if his board ap- 
pi'oved it, either approved the expenditure in advance or ratified it 
afterward, the international union then could not do anything about 
it even though it knew the funds were for an improper purpose? 

jNlr. DoRiA. If tlie international knew that the funds were for an 
improper purpose, and the international had evidence of the fact that 
funds were expended for an improper purpose, then the individual 
that would have had knowledge of those facts as a member of the 
union would have been in a position to prefer charges against the 
individual so expending the funds, or the organization so expending 
the funds, and ask them to be removed. 

The CiiAiKMAx. Let us assume that he used the money for a bribe. 
Would you call that a proper ])urpose? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know how you would define a "bribe."' 

The CiiAiRMAx. How would you define it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I know a little about the history of Angelo Inciso, 
everything connected Avith him over a long period of time, and I have 
been in a few hearings before, where I have recounted the stories over 
and over again. 

But let us take for example an expenditure to spend money, the 
famous Douglas committee hearings, we might go back to for a mom- 
ent. They criticized him for the expenditure of fmids for buying 
diamond rings. Diamond rings that cost approximately $1,000 were 
on those records. Angelo stated that he gave the diamond rings to 
people that liad assisted him in organizational work. 

Tlie Chairman. That is a pretty good coverup; isn't it? 

Mr, DoRiA. No, it isn't ; because to me there is nothing new. 

The ChairmaiV. We found a lot of things covered up in organiza- 
tional work. 

JSIr, DoRiA. I think you do ; but the mere fact that you find things 
that are covered up does not indicate that all fall under the same 
category. 

The Chairman. They fall under a category that requires explana- 
tion at least. 

Mr. DoRL\. Definitely; I think the explanations ought to be made. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is what I am attempting now. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. DoRiA. But if in buying a diamond ring for $1,000 to give to 
someone that can assist you in a local union, Avith respect to the activi- 
ties that are the proper activities of the local union, you can save an 
expenditure of $10,000 in cash, then I w^ould have to say that the indi- 
vidual handled it quite shrewdly, and advantageously for the local 
union, rather than dissipating the funds of the local union. 

The Chairman. That would reverse everything we have found 
here in this investigation, if you can show where they bought a dia- 
mond ring for $1,000, and saved $10,000 in cash. We have not found 
anything that looks like tliat. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, if you haven't found it, you probabl}' haven't run 
into it. But T do know that Angelo Inciso 

The Chairman. We sure haven't run into it. 



4244 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRTA. I do know that Angelo Inciso in the expenditure of his 
funds in local union, developed the richest as well as the largest local 
union in tlie international union. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I want to ask you this: Who got this $1,000 
diamond ring? 

Mr. DoRTA. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You were secretary-treasurer, were you not? 

Mr. DoRiA. As secretary-treasurer, let us clear tliat matter, so that 
we don't 

Senator Curtis, You were secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; but let us clear the duties and responsibilities of a 
secretaiy -treasurer of any local union. 

The secretary-treasurer of a local union in an amalgamated local 
union does nothing moi-e than to merely disburse the funds that are 
approved by the joint board of that local union. The secretaiy- 
treasurer does not have the right to nullify any acts of the joint board. 
Once the joint board has approved the expenditures of those funds, 
the secretary-treasurer merely disburees those funds in accordance 
with the instructions and the orders of that joint board. 

Senator Curtis. Was any receipt ever placed in the records for 
this diamond ring? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, how did the Douglas committee discover it ? Had 
it not been that a complete record was kept, not only of the amount 

Senator Curtis. I mean a receipt from the man who got it. 

Mr. Doria. Well, I had never heard that you give a man a gift and 
you ask him for a receipt. 

Senator Cinrns. Well, this is one to save $10,000, and this was some- 
body else's money. This was workers' money. 

Mr. Doria. Let us not be naive. In industry today every purchasing 
agent, I think, can better explain the very thing that we are discussing 
now than I can. If a purchasing agent by virtue of certain con- 
siderations is given a gift, he does not give receipts for it. 

I don't think labor was obligated to give receipts for the same type 
of a transaction. 

Senator Curtis. At least, some knowledge as to who got it. That 
is what I mean. 

Mr. Doria. There was a complete record, as I stated, not only of the 
amount of the purchase, not only the individual from whom it was 
purchased, but also the individuals to whom it went, the time of the 
purchase and how it was paid for, as a record. 

Senator Curtis. Who did it go to ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't remember that. It was testified to at a previous 
hearing before a committee. I did not handle that. 

Senator Curtis. Was there an expensive watch or something else 
involved ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes. At the time I was in the hearing room when this 
testimony came out, there was a watch, I believe, and there was prob- 
ably another ring. I don't recall the exact items that were involved. 

Senator Curtis. That was the first you knew about it? 

Mr. Doria. No. I knew about that before, at the time that the 
vouchers came through, when I checked with Angelo, and he told me 
that these were gifts that were given to people that had assisted the 
local union and had been approved by the local union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4245 

Senator Curtis. Does Inciso have a criminal record? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; I understand that Inciso does have a criminal 
record. 

Senator Curtis. You knew this all this time ? 

j\Ir. DoRiA. Well, I knew it from the very first day that he started 
with the union. That is why I opposed Inciso coming into the union. 

Senator Cuuns. That is all, Mr, Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that I get it straight, you say it has been testi- 
fied who got the two diamond dial watches and watch bands, the 
$1,000 diamond ring and the other $1,200 diamond ring. You say 
that was testified to i 

]Mr. DoRiA. That was testified to before the Douglas committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was in the records as to who received those 
items? 

]Mr. DoRiA. INIy understanding on that was that the records came 
right out of the union records, and that tlie committee asked Angelo 
these questions on the basis of the records that already existed. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time you approved these expenditures, you 
say you were receiving some $8,000 every year during this period of 
time for being secretary-treasurer. At the time you were approving 
tliese expenditures, did you know^ where this money was going? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes: I checked with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew it was being used for these purposes? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. Let me tell you how I followed that through. I 
Mould not disburse a penny until a voucher came to me that had been 
previously approved by the local union and by the authority that had 
been established hy the joint board. 

Mr. Kennedy. They do not have every voucher approved by the 
local union ; do they ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, they don't, because they authorize Angelo or the 
executive board to do it. 

]Mr. Kennedy. So you knew how this money was being expended ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. As a matter of fact, one time I asked him about 
these expenditures. He told me how they were made, and I said, 
"Are they approved?" and he said, "'Certainly." So, as long as they 
Avere ap]:)i-oved, we disbursed them. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the purchases of these diamond rings were 
approved ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. He tells me that the joint board even approves 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking what he tells you. What do you 
know ? Were they approved ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I ]iave to go on the basis that he was an authority. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were a secretary-treasurer, getting paid $8,000 
a year. Did you find out where this money was going? How it was 
being used ^ 

Mr. DoRiA. Yps; by virtue of checking with him, since he would 
be in authority to make that disbursement through tlie joint board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you Mere checking M'ith the man M^ho was 
buying diamond rings as to whether it M^as proper to buy the diamond 
rinofs ? 



4246 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. I was checking with him because, after all, he was the 
man that was the highest authority in tliat local union between meet- 
ings of tlie board. 

Mr. Kexnedy. If he had been misusing union funds, you were check- 
ing with him as to wliether it was pro])er for him to do so? 

Mr. DoRiA. If he was misusing union funds and any kind of an 
examination on my part indicated that there was a danger of misuse of 
union funds, I certainly'- would not have followed it through him. I 
would have made mv investigation through other sources. But I knew 
the situation in Cliicago. I knew the relationships that he held with 
other organizations that might assist him. To me there was nothing 
novel about the fact that he miglit give somebody a gift for assistance 
in organizational work. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. So you approved it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. I didn't approve it. I didn't have to 
approve it. As a matter of fact, let me put it this way : I would have 
had no right to deny it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would not? 
. Mr. DoRiA. No ; I would not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You couldn't have taken it up with anybody else? 

Mr. DoRiA. I could not have canceled it; no. The only thing I 

could have done is check it further to the point where I would have 

carried it to the point where I would file charges under an affidaA^t. 

If I couldn't do that, I could not deny it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever look into any of these matters? Did 
you ever find out whether they were being approved or any of the 
board knew about them ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. As a matter of fact, when I returned from the 
Douglas committee — ■ — 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about when you returned from the 
Douglas committee. I am talking about the time you were getting 
paid $150 a week. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; I at many times appeared before the joint board 
of that local union. I found definitely they were well satisfied and 
pleased with the activities of Inciso. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out whether or not they knew about the 
expenditures of this money for these purposes ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, the only thing I could do on that is file my report, 
and that is all I could do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. DoRiA. I couldn't check with the joint board to find out wliether, 
on every expenditure, they knew about the expenditure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Did you or did you not? 
Did you check ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; I didn't, and it was not part of the procedure; nor 
was it expected of me; nor was it part of my responsibility. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to get on with the Xew York situation 
that was set up in 1950 and 1951. 

Mr. DoRiA. I hope I remember all of that. I recited that story so 
often, I think that one of these days I will write it for Hollywood. 
Let us pi'oceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are familiar with Local 102 of the UAW? 
Mr. DoRiA. Yes; I am very familiar with that, Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4247 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee the cireunistaiices under 
Avhich the charter was granted to local 102 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. The charter for local 102, that caused so much 
turmoil in Xew York, was originally granted on the basis of an ap- 
plication that had been made by what I believed was an independent 
group of ai)]n-oximately 410 people in the State of New York, and I 
think within the environs of the city of New York, 

The approach to the international' union at that time was made by 
our counsel, David Previant, out of the office of Padway, Goldberg 
& Previant, a felloAv by the name of Sam Berger, whom I had not met 
before but later found was an officer of a local union in the ILGWU, 
and a fellow by the name of Paul Dorfman, with whom I had become 
acquainted during the time I served as vice president of the interna- 
tional union and was operating in the city of Chicago, 111. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean "operating'' ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I was operating as vice president for the international 
union on organizational work. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Dorfman's position? 

Mr. DoRiA. Dorfman was connected wath another AFL union. 

Mr. Kennedy, lAHiat type of union? 

Mr. DoRiA. I really don't recall. I met him in the conventions and 
labor functions that were carried on in the city of Chicago. I think 
he had a Federal labor union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Federal labor union? 

My. Doria. In the city of Chicago, yes. 

The application was made for and on behalf of the people that I 
mentionecl. At the time the application was made, we were not 
prepared to go into New York for the purpose of conducting organi- 
zational work. I therefore called in Lester AYashburn, since the 
approach had been made directly to me, and asked him whether or 
not he was interested in issuing this charter, and at the time it was 
agi-eed that as long as a local union has sufficient membership to be 
able to finance its OAvn activities in the New York area, and if the 
understanding was clear that the charter would be issued on that basis., 
that the international union would proceed to issue the charter. 

It was accepted on that basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the charter being issued to ? 

Mr. Doria. The charter was issued to the names that appeared on 
that application. I think you people have a photostatic copy of the 
names that originally appeared on that charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Somebody has to take the responsibility. Who did 
3^ou look to for the responsibility for that charter? 

Mr. Doria. Well, there was no individual that ever takes the 
responsibility on a charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you look into the background of any of the 
peo])le on that charter, then? 

Mr. Doria. No; we had no means of checking backgi-ound exten- 
sively. The only thing we did know was this : we certainlj- did not 
fj[uestion our own general counsel, David Previant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make an investigation of those who were^ 
going to have the leadership of local 102? 

89330 — 57 — pt. 11— — 16 



4248 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. Xo. We made no such investigation that was an in- 
vestigation beyond the recommendation of the people that made the 
application for the charter. 

Now, normally that takes place in this manner, so the committee 
might be aware of it : 

If a charter is applied for by a director of our union, a member of 
the board, w^e naturally go along with the confidence we have in the 
director. If the charter is applied for and recommended by someone 
outside our own board, it is the relationship that we normally hold 
with that individual or group of individuals tliat determines 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you holding responsible for this 102 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. We were holding nobody responsible, but it was on the 
credit of David Previant and Paul Dorfman that I knew, and Sam 
Berger being a friend of theirs I accepted. I had not met Sam Berger 
until that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was going to have the leadership in the local 
union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. They told us — well, the leadership of the local union, 
since the charter was issued as amalgamated local union would be, 
again, a joint board made up of representatives of each plant repre- 
sented under the charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you understand was going to hav^ <"he lead- 
ership to conduct the aft'airs of local 102 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. At that time, they told us a fellow by the name of Sam 
Zakman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are they ? 

Mr. DoRTA. 1 can't recall this. It was either Dorfman or Berger. 
I don't think it was Previant, because Previant was not sufficiently 
acquainted with these people. But I believe it was either Sam Berger 
or Paul Dorfman that told us that a fellow by the name of Sam Zak- 
man would be the fellow that was acting then as president of that 
group and would undoubtedly be president. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did vou make an investigation of Sam Zakman? 

Mr. DoRiA. Xo; we made no investigation of Sam Zakman. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time — in this period of time, was the name 
of Johnny Dioguardi mentioned ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. John Dioguardi was not known to me at all at that 
time or known to anybody in our international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Paul Dorfman recommend Johnny Dio at that 
time? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think he knew Johnny Dio at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did David Previant? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think David Previant knew Johnny Dio at that 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Dorfnum ever recommend Dio? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, not that I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Dave Previant recommend John Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. I don't think he met him until after I met liim. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Sam Berger ever recommend Dio? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think there was ever a recommendation of Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Sam Berger recommend Dio? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think Sam Berger recommended Dio at nil. I 
met him in the local offices in New York, and I think I was introduced 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4249 

to liim by eitlier Sain Zakman or some other official working in local 
102 in New York City. 

Senator Mi ndt. Can yon date that meeting? 

Mr. DoRiA. AVhat is that? 

Senator Mundt. Can yon date the meeting where yon first met 
• Folmny l)io ? Not by month or day, bnt by year ? 

Mv. DoRiA. All I can tell yon is that it was some time prior to 1952. 

Senator Mundt. That was before charter 102 was granted, then? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. It was after charter 102 was granted. 

Senator Mundt. March 22, 1952, 1 believe, is when the charter was 
granted. 

Mr. DoRuv. As I say, I am taking a stab at this. I do know it had 
to be prior to the end of 1952, becanse, as I recall it, the taxicab organi- 
zational drive started in 1952, and Johnny Dio was a part of the tax- 
icab organizational drive. 

Senator Mundt. "Was it at that time that you met him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was sometime prior to that, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon say that they had some 400 people that wanted 
to be organized ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, they were already organized, and my understanding 
at the time was that they were in some form of an independent union. 
As a matter of fact, I believe that the name that they operated under 
at the time was United Auto Workers local something, independent. 
( )r United Auto Workers or United Auto Mechanics or something of 
that nature. But my understanding was they had approximately 
400 people and they were looking for a charter that would give them 
affiliation with an international union. 

Senator Mundt. I want to correct the record. I was talking about 
the second charter of 102. The first charter was granted on September 
18, 1950. 

Mr, Doria, when did yon first learn that the first charter of 102 had 
been financed by Dio, the one they originally granted to Zakman? 

Mr. DoRiA. What is your question, again ? 

Senator Mundt. When did you first learn that that charter, that 
tluit union initially was financed by Johnny Dio? 

Mr. Doria. Well, I never learned that the local union was financed 
by Johnny Dio. Johnny Dio may have assisted the local union, but I 
at no time had knowledge that Johnny Dio financed the local union. 

Senator Mundt, When did you first learn that he was in at the 
horning of the union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That he was in where ? 

Senator Mundt. At the horning of the union, 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, when I first contacted Johnny Dio, as I stated 
before, I recall it being in the offices of local 102 in New York City. 
At that time, however, I was not dealing with Johnny Dio; I did 
not know him, I was dealing with Sam Zakman, as the titular head 
of the local union, and carriecT on ni}^ activities through Sam Zakman. 
But John Dio was introduced to me in one of those early meetings 
at that time. 

Senator Mundt. Under what circumstances ? That is, what sort • 

Mr. DoRiA, That he was one of the organizers that they had acquired 
to work in the local union that they thought could be of assistance 
in the organizational development. 



4250 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. They introduced him to you in his capacity as an 
organizer ? 

Air. DoRiA. As an organizer for the local imion ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. Did they say, "He has been with us a long time'" ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; he had been there 

Senator Mundt. "He is one of the grandfathers of the union; he 
helped finance it ; that is a 'sugar daddy' that we ought to hug up 
close"? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. They didn't give those details at the time I met 
him. It was that he was only an organizer that was supposed to con- 
tribute substantially to the organizational activity in the local union. 
At that time, very frankly, I was not too much taken up by the idea, 
because he was not the head. I recognized him, just as I would have 
recognized any other organizer that they also had in that same office. 
He had not taken over the position of leadership at that time. So- 
I continued to deal with Sam Zakman. As a matter of fact, even 
so far as the original meeting that we had with the taxi drivers in 
New York, the meeting was handled by me and Sam Zakman, and, I 
believe, another of the organizers that came out of local 102. But 
Johnny Dio at that time was not prominent in the activities of the 
local union. 

Senator Mundt. I yield. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Doria, how long had you known Mr. 
Dioguardi when you appointed him president of local 102? 

Mr. Doria. I did not appoint Mr. Dioguardi president of local 102, 
but at the time that the breakup took place in local 102 with the 
difference between Sam Zakman and Johnny Dioguardi, we were 
having our convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and that must have been 
in 1951: November, I believe, of 1951. It was during that convention 
that Johnny Dio was designated by the president on the basis of 
Zakman's leaving the local union as the head of local 102, I believe, 
at the time. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you tell one of our staff that j-ou a])pointed 
him president? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; I never appointed him president. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Mr. DoRiA. I did not appoint him president. He was appointed 
as a result of the activity — I would have had no authority to a])point 
a president, to begin with, as secretary-treasurer ; the constitution never 
gave me any such authority. Had I done it, it would have been 
absolutely invalid. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you have known Mr. Dioguaidi 
since about 1952, for 5 years? 

Mr. Doria. I have known Mr. Dioguardi since the time that I met 
him in that office. I think it was in 1952. I can't peg the date, but 
it was at the beginning of local 102. 

Senator Mundt. From that time on, until your resignation as secre- 
tary-treasui'er, you have had dealings witli him as a union official in 
one capacity or another ? 

Mr. Doria. No, because Johnny Dio resigned following our — I 
don't remember the exact date of the resignation. I think you have 
some papers that indicate his exact date of resignation. But I dealt 



nvrPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4251 

with him during that period of time that he was associated with our 
international union. 

Senator IMuxdt. During the time that you dealt with him, Mr. 
Doria, did you ever hear him talk? 

]\Ir. Doria. Yes. 

Senator Muxdt. Did he ever hear you talk ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes. 

Senator Muxdt. May I express the wish that, somehow or other, 
lie absorbed half of your articulate ability. It would have been much 
better for the committee, I am sure, if half of your capacity had been 
loaned to him. 

Mr. Doria. Well, I will tell you, very frankly, I don't know how 
much of this you want ; you stop me when you don't w\ant it. But, as 
far as Johnny Dio was concerned, I don't Ivnow for what purpose he 
came into the movement originally, before I knew him. 

Senator JNIuxdt. If you were going to make an educated guess, 
what would you think it was ? 

Mr. Doria. If I had to make an educated guess ? 

Senator MuNDT. Yes. 

Mr. Doria. On the basis of what I know now, and it is the only 
opinion that I can express, Johnny Dio, I think, had become tired of 
the part that he played in the New York area in and about the fringe 
of labor and he had determined that at all costs he wanted to attempt, 
at least, to become an individual that could be respected in labor. I 
think that, if Johnny Dio had ]:)ossessed a tremendous fortune, he 
would have gladly giA-en it up for that kind of a title and to be so 
recognized. I told him at the time he came in 

Senator Mundt. You got the concept he was at the wrong end of 
the formula 

Mr. Doria. No ; I sincerely cannot say that. I would absolutely be 
doing an injustice to him if I told you anything other than his own 
words to me after about 6 months of associating with me, "Doria, you 
are making me a real labor square." 

Senator Muxdt. That implies that he had not been a real "labor 
square" sometime at an earlier time ; is that right ? 

Mr. Doria. It implies this: that the concept of the average indi- 
A'idual in labor, that has not been in labor, is that you have to kill 
about 3 people in the morning for breakfast, 2 of them for lunch, 
and maybe about dozen at night for supper, which is so ridiculous 
and completely discordant with the facts that it shouldn't even be 
discussed. But a lot of people that get inside the labor movement, 
and become actually imbued with the spirit of doing something within 
it to make it grow, as I think Johnny Dio ultimately did 

Senator Muxdt. To put it quickly and in brief summation, you 
are trying to tell me that you think Mr. Dio made a good, construc- 
tive contribution to the labor movement ? 

Mr. Doria. Dio never had a chance to do it. 

Senator jNIuxdt. Why not ? 

Mr. Doria. Because, as I told him when he came into tlie move- 
ment, and he came to me and told me about his background, I told 
him, I says, "Johnny, you have to understand one thing. The first 
organization drive that we get into that becomes difficult, you are 



4252 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

going to be attacked on, regardless of wliat you may have done when 
you were 2 years old. 

"Unless you and your family are prepared to take the brunt of 
the smear and mud that will be thrown at you the first time you enter 
into a drive of that kind, don't get into it." 

Senator Mundt. That does not quite answer the question as to 
whether you are trying to tell me that ISlv. Dio made a good, con- 
structive contribution to the labor movement. 

Mr. DoRiA. I answered that question. He couldn't have. He 
wanted to, but he couldn't have. He didn't get a chance to. 

Senator Mundt. Would you say that he was an innocent victim 
of a smear? 

Mr. DoRiA. I would say that, if society had treated Johnny Dio 
riglit and if society had acted in the manner in which it gives a lot 
of lipservice to the rehabilitation of an individual, rather than con- 
demn him and convict him at every move, Johnny Dio would have 
had, in my opinion, the opportunity of becoming an outstanding 
leader in labor. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think he treated society right? 

Mr. DoRiA. I said tliat Johnny Dio in his youth may have made 
the mistakes that a lot of people have made. But I don't believe that 
the mere fact that he made that mistake should stand as a permanent 
conviction and put him in the category of a second-class citizen for 
the rest of his life. I don't believe that about anybody. 

Senator Mundt. We agree on that; neither do I. I would like to 
have you detail what you think society did, that was wrong, that denied 
Mr. Dio til is opportunity to live straight. 

Mr. DoRiA. I think what society does, not only with respect to 
Dio 

Senator Mundt. No, no. I am not interested in a great philosophi- 
cal discussion of society in general. I am interested somewhat in Dio. 
in Doria, and this particular problem. Just what did society do. 
vis-a-vis Dio, to deny him the opportunity you had given him, ap- 
parently, to go straight ? 

Mr. Doria. The thing that society did that was wrong is that it tried 
to pass judgment upon Dio, not upon the basis of wliat he was doing 
and on the basis of what he did as a member of his union. And, if 
you look at your own record, you will find tliat there is not one con- 
viction to this date against Dio for any activity that he performed 
while he was a member of this union. The thing they did wrong was 
continually judge him on the basis of a past that he had already paid 
for, instead of giving him the opportunity, which I think any citizen 
deserves in this country, to rehabilitate himself, and that is what I 
was trying to do for Dio. I would do it again if I had the opportunity 
to repeat it. 

Senator Mundt. That brings us right down to one of Dio's specific 
activities in the labor movement, liis Equitable Associates organization. 

Mr. Doria. That was after he was in our organization. That may 
have been the result of his frustration in not having attained the posi- 
tion that he sought. That had nothing to do with his activities in 
the union. Those were extracurricular activities beyond the date that 
he was associated with our union. 



nUPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4253 

Senator Mundt. Do you think it is true that society put him into 
that one, too 'i 

Mr. DoRiA. "Well, I think that, if an individual would have done 
what Dio did, to obtain good, clean recognition in the movement, and 
liad been removed in the manner that he was removed, a lot of people 
that did not have the resistance mentally that I know Dio had would 
have gone farther astray than Dio has. That is my honest opinion. 

Senator Mundt. "We will develop a little more detail on that later 
in the hearings. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Doria a question, in the light 
of what he has been saying, 

Mr. Doria, do you think persons with criminal records should hold 
official positions in labor organizations ? 

Mr. Doria. "Well, let me answer that question in this manner : A man 
that has had a criminal record and has paid his penalty is either an 
equal citizen with everybody else or he is not. If he is not, I think the 
Congress of this country ought to say that, once you have been con- 
victed, you're a second-class citizen, you are automatically disbarred 
from certain rights of citizenship. 

Senator Ives. I heard you on all of that, Mr. Doria. The fact re- 
mains, however, that we may be faced with an amendment to the laws, 
one of these days, in which that matter may be before us. 

Mr. Doria. If the people that have made mistakes and have been 
convicted are going to be denied certain rights for the rest of their 
lives, and that becomes the law, I tell you, very frankly, I would pi-efer 
that it be that way, if that is the way they are going to be treated, so 
that other people will, in their association with them, know how to 
conduct themselves, than to have it as it is today, and after you do what 
society gives lipservice to in trying to help these people, you are 
criticized for the association today. 

Senator Ives. It is a very peculiar thing, Mr. Doria. We run into 
quite a number of situations where those who have had criminal 
records and subsequently have become officials in labor organizations 
have proceeded to follow their criminal activities as members of labor 
organizations. 

How do you account for that if all these people are so pure after they 
have paid their penalty ? 

Mr. Doria. There is no one making any claim for purity. Nor am 
I making any brief for the fact that the labor representatives ought to 
be chosen from the criminal element. I am not saying that. I abhor 
criminality and racketeering in labor as much as anybody does, and I 
don't condone it. 

I don't want anything I say as meaning that I condone that. I am 
merely saying what can we do 

Senator Ives. Do you mean to reform the criminal element by 
putting them in positions in labor organizations, positions of 
responsibility ? 

jVIr. Doria. They are in industry, today, and many have succeeded. 

Senator Ives. They are what? 

Mr. Doria. Many people who have had criminal records are in in- 
dustry today and are very successful. 



4254 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about that. I am talking about 
officials in labor organizations. 

Mr. DoRiA. What difference does it make ? 

Senator Ives. It makes all the difference in the world. I am not 
talking about industry. I am talking about labor. I do not think 
they should be in industry, as far as that is concerned. 

We are not talking about laws for industry. We are talking about 
laws for labor, such as in the Taft-Hartley Act. That is what I am 
talking about. 

Mr. DoRTA. If you are laying down laws for labor, the participa- 
tion in labor, which is one of the free institutions in this country, I 
think becomes available to any citizen that is free enough to partici- 
pate. Now, if thei'e is going to be ■ 

Senator Ives. Let me get something straight with you on the Taft- 
Hartley Act. 

The Taft-Hartley Act's primary purpose was to protect the work- 
ers against their bosses in labor. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I will tell you 

Senator Ives. The Wagner Act was to protect the workers against 
tlieir bosses in industry. We have an obligation here where the Taft- 
Hartley Act is concerned. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I will tell you very frankly tliat with respect 
to protecting the employees from their bosses in labor and let's stay 
on tliat subject for a moment, if you will, that I think that any free 
society that attempts to take the control out of the people who can 
determine who the leaders ought to be, under the guise that they 
are going to protect them and liberate them, to me sounds too much 
like what Hitler did to the countries that he tried to liberate and 
protect. 

Senator Ives. All right, but under the type of society you are 
talking about, we have had this racketeering occur. 

Mr. DoRiA. There are sufficient laws to cope with any rackets. 

Senator Ives. Wait a moment. If this society is so free and so 
able to take care of itself as you maintain, then we would not be hav- 
ing racketeering in labor. But we are having it. 

Mr. DoRTA. No. The thing is that if tlie laws that exist with 
respect to racketeering were enforced, I maintain that you have got 
more than all the adequate laws that you need to eradicate racketeering 
from any organization, not only labor. 

I don't think labor needs any special laws to eradicate racketeering 
from labor or communism or any other "ism"' or any other "eering.'' 

Senator Ives. That is not our experience. 

Senator Mundt. Do I understand from that that you think it was 
incorrect for the Taft-Hartley Act to deny Communists the right to be 
in labor offices? 

Mr. DoRTA. I don't know whether it was a mistnike or not. I think 
the history will show that. I fought communism and my office in 
Milwaukee was known as the strongest bulwark against the success- 
ful infiltration of connnunism in the labor movement. I just want 
to give you my background. 

Senator Mundt. I am not accusing you of being sympatlietic to 
communism. 

Mr. DoRiA. Ivet us not ffet into that area. 



mPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4255 

Senator Mundt. I thouiiht you said you thouglit it was a mistake 
to include in the Taft-Hartley bill that any labor union with Com- 
munist officials could not negotiate with the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

I think it was. a mistake not to make the law applicable to industry 
and labor both, but I certainly think it was a good half-way step 
to give them that kind of protection. 

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

Mr. DoRiA. Gentlemen, when you can legislate to make people 
change their way of thinking, I would like to be the first one to be 
apprised of how that is accomplished. 

Senator Mundt. We are not trying to do that. But we are trying 
to legislate to change their way of action. 

Mr. DoRiA. All you are doing is changing their Avay of going 
undei'ground, is all you are doing, by that kind of legislation. You 
are not eradicating. They are merely going to be there without being 
seen, which I think is a bigger danger than the one that existed 
before. 

Under the previous act, when there was no such provision, you 
could spot the Communists in the labor movement and if you were 
capable of taking care of them, you eliminated them. 

But today, you may not even be able to see them under this present 
legislation. It was a mistake. It should never have been. It should 
not apply to industry because I think it will be equally ineffective 
with respect to industry. 

I think Avhen people are going along on a wrong trend of thought, 
such as communism, that the sooner the general public knows about 
it and the sooner they are exposed, the more in a position the society 
is going to be to take care of the conditions that are breeding them. 

You are not going to do it by driving them underground. 

Senator Mundt. We have exposed a lot of them, and a lot of them 
who have been exposed have been kicked out of labor positions by 
good, honest, patriotic labor chiefs. 

Mr. DoRiA. And what knowledge do we have since they have that 
said experience with respect to their objectives that they might not 
have been replaced with a smarter one that will not disclose them- 
selves ? 

The CiiAiRMAisr. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask this question : Was there any labor 
racketeering in New York Tuider Johnny Dio? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, what do jou mean by labor racketeering? I will 
give you a couple of instances wdiere I personally removed individuals 
because I did not like their practices. You can call it racketeering. 

I think that you have a charter where it indicates that during the 
administration of Johnny Dio, four people were eliminated from the 
representative positions with respect to the locals in New York. 

I eliminated those people. I eliminated them on the basis of 
charges, that there was collusion between them and employers, on the 
basis of accusations that had been made that they were shaking down 
employers, and I eliminated them within 48 hours of the act. 

But what I want to bring to this committee, since I am before it 
and I have had my share of the smear in this matter, is that every time 
that I was successful in eliminating someone that was undesirable. 



4256 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

instead of being associated in the press with the correction of an act, 
I was associated with the wrongdoing, rather than the correction of 
it tliat I had accomplished. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I have heard you. I wish yon wonkl an- 
swer my question. Was there racketeering in hibor circles under 
Johnny Dio in New York ^ 

Mr. DoRiA. I can't testify to that because I don't have the facts 
that would permit me to. 

Senator Curtis. You have expressed your confidence in him. You 
have expressed your confidence in him at the time you resigned. 

You have defended him all the way through here. Now, I want 
to know this : Was he engaged in racketeering practices in the labor 
movement in New York? 

Mr. DoRiA. Johnny Dio engaged in racketeering practices in New 
York while he was with our union? I positively have not the first 
iota of knowledge of that. To my knowledge, no. Johnny Dio was 
not interested in anything other than the building of a union. 

Senator Curtis. That includes the time that he withdrew as an 
officer, but was still influencing the union? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know to what extent he exercised influence after 
he withdrew, because once Johnny Dio withdrew and the taxicab 
union was eliminated, and we were asked by the AFL to give up the 
taxi union, my interest in New York practically ceased, and I was 
active very little in New York after that. 

Senator Curtis. So you want to stand on the record that he was 
not engaged in labor racketeering? 

Mr. DoRiA. To my knowledge, I know of not one single act that I 
would characterize as racketeering in labor that I knew, of Johnny 
Dio ; not one single act. I was never aware of any act that involved 
Johnny Dio in any capacity with the union that even approached 
what might be considered racketeering. 

Senator Curtis. You knew he surrounded himself with racketeers 
and hoodlums. 

Mr. DoRiA. No one criticized him more than I did for the people 
he surrounded himself with. 

Senator Curtis. You know since then that a number of them have 
been down here and have refused to testify on the grounds that it 
might incriminate themselves. 

Mr, DoRiA. Yes, I have read all about that. 

Senator Curtis. You have read about the blinding of Victor Riesel ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes; I introduced Johnny Dio and Victor Riesel. 

Senator Curtis. You know about Dio's charge in connection with 
that? 

Mr. DoRiA. I have read about it ; yes, and I have talked to him about 
it. 

Senator Curtis. You have talked to who ? 

Mr. DoRiA. To John Dio. 

Senator Curtis. What does he say ? 

Mr. DoRiA. He says it is absolutely a farce. He is not involved. He 
is not implicated. 

Senator Curtis. What else did he say ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know. There was a lot of general discussion. I 
can't recall it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4257 

Senator Curtis. Where was this conversation ? 

Mv. DoRiA. I appeared before the grand jury in New York a couple 
of weeks ago oi- months, I don't recall the time, and at that time I saw 
John Dio and discussed the matter with him. 

Senator Curtis. At the grand jury? 

Mr. DoRiA. I mean I appeared before the grand jury in New York 
and while I was in New York I saw John Dio. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you see him? 

Mr. DoRiA. I saw him at his home. 

Senator Curtis. At his home? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Where is his home? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think it is on Long Island. I don't know. I usually 
get a cab. 

Senator Cirtis. Who else was out there? 

Mr. DoRiA. Just lie and I at the time. His family was in the house. 

Senator Ciktis. And he had nothing to do with the charges? 

]\rr. DoRiA. That is his position. 

Senator Curtis. Did he tell you who was responsible ? 

Mr. DoRiA. If he knew who was responsible he undoubtedly would 
liave told me, or maybe he wouldn't have told me. I don't know. We 
didn't discuss who was responsible. 

Senator Curtis. What did he say about the witnesses? 

Mr. DoRiA. Which witnesses? 

Senator Curtis. The witnesses for the prosecution. 

Mr. DoRiA. He told me with respect to the witnesses for the prosecu- 
tion he wasn't concerned about the witnesses, because how could they 
implicate him on anything that he had not done. 

Senator Curtis. But they did; didn't they? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Well, on the basis of their testimony, the indict- 
ment was brought ; wasn't it? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, if the indictment was brought on the basis of their 
testimony, I assume the indictment would proceed to a successful con- 
clusion with a conviction if their testimony was good. 

Senator Curtis. Apparently they wouldn't talk now. 

Mr. DoRiA. Let me state to you that I personally have been inter- 
viewed on the Riesel situation not less than four times by representa- 
T ives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by virtue of the fact that 
I know John Dio. If I had to pass my own judgment or form my 
conclusion on the basis of the questions asked me, to me it is quite 
evident that there is no evidence against John Dio. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you are still defending him. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Doria, getting back to your interest in 
communism in the labor movement, it has been testified to here that 
the UAW-CIO used quite a number of Communists in their original 
organizational etforts back in the middle 19;^0's. The inference has 
often been made that they have not been too successful in completely 
lidding themselves of these people. 

In view of the fact that the Internal Security Subcommittee has 
turned up, I believe, 12 or 13 Communists in that organization, and a 



4258 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

similar number in the Electrical Workers Union of the CIO, in view 
of the fact that we have acciclently stumbled on 1 admitted Com- 
munist here, and, I believe, found 1 other who refused to answer the 
$64 question, do you think that that particular part of the labor move- 
ment has successf ull}' cleansed themselves of Communists ? 

Mr, DoRiA. I don't know. I don't know. I frankly would be givin<r 
you wrong- information if I tried to take a ]^ositive position. I do 
know the era in which you speak about, the 1930's. 1 was engaged in 
a very strong fight with the C^ommunist element in the movement. At 
that time there was no question that the very strong attempt to infil- 
trate the movement was being made. We carried on that fight, 
and that is what resulted in the split that created the two UAW 
organizations. 

Senator Goldwater. Was that one of the fundamental reasons why 
there are two UAW's today ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. The fundamental reason why there are two 
UxVW's was the fight over communism which we did not want to 
accept in our organization. And we sjjlit at the time by virtue of the 
fact that we could not write a contract that meant anything because, 
as you know, communism thrives only on disruption and dissatisfac- 
tion. So the procedure at that time was, for example, to go out and 
ask for $1 an hour, at the time a contract had to be negotiated. 
Everyone knew you couldn't get it. But it did this, that even though 
you made a reasonable settlement, the Communists could use that by 
going back and say, "See, they didn't give you the dollar; your bosses 
are no good,'' and create the class conflict that I think we will either 
work out one of these days or destroy this entire Nation. 

Senator Goldwater. You have had responsible positions in labor,, 
probably from the locals, and probably the international. Would you 
say that a leader of labor, whether it be a local organization, a State 
organization, or an international organization, would know if he 
had Conmiunists working in his organization? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think that a good, competent, qualified leader will 
spot a Communist the minute he gets up to make the first motion on 
the floor of their local union. 

Senator Goldwater. There have been a lot of them missed, evi- 
dently, because we are turning up more and more of them as the 
Internal Security Committee works in that field, in that particular 
branch of labor. 

Mr. DoRiA. They are not necessarily missed, Senator. It is a case 
where a lot of people that have come into the movement today, that 
did not have the advantage of the fights that went on Avhen the infil- 
tration attempt was really being made and made in a strong fashion, 
don't have the 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you i-ight there, this question : 
Do you agree with the witnesses who testified, and partly with Mr. 
Washburn, do vou agree with him, that thev were successful in 
infiltrating the CIO element of the UAW ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I do believe that in many local unions — you can't make 
the statement with respect to all people. For example, there were 
areas where they were more successful than they were in other areas. 
But generally there was no question in our minds at that time that 
they had succeeded in taking over certain local areas and certain local 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4259 

i.iiions, and that their policies were the doiniiuiiit policies of the 
(>ri»:aiiization that they had been snccessful in infiltrating and 
controlling. 

Senator Goldwatek. Were those areas generally in Michigan ? 

Mr. DoRTA. Well, jNIichigan had a very strong influence, yes. They 
had a partial influence in Wisconsin at that time. They had an in- 
fluence in Ohio. I don't know how strong it was in Illinois. I don't 
think Illinois had too strong an influence at the time, outside of pos- 
sibly the innnediate Chicago area. But there was an influence, and 
Ave Avere fighting it all the time, and that resulted in the split. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kenxedy. Noav Ave are coming back to Avhen Dio first came into 
the labor-union moA^ement. You sav that Dio Avas not originally in 
local 102? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. Dio came into the labor moA^ement, as far as our 
international was concerned, through local 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, you say that he Avas not recom- 
mended by Paul Dorf man or anybody from the local ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; Dio was not a part 

Mr. Kennedy, Just ansAver the question. 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; he was not. I want to get one thing clear. He Avas 
]iot a part of the creation of local 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not make any investigation at that time? 

Mr. DoRiA. What time? 

Mr. Kennedy. When he came into the labor-union moA^ement. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, Dio came to me and told me about his background, 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you make any iiiA^estigation of him ? 

Mr, DoRiA. No, 

Mr. Kennedy, I Avould like to, Mr. Doria, in view of your testimony 
here, read excerpts from minutes of hearing dated February 13, 1952, 
in connection Avith Gertrude Bertorelli and Frank Bertorelli, which is 
directly contradictory to the testimony you haA^e given. 

Mr. DoRiA. Who are they? 

Mr, Kennedy. You testified, and you testified under oath. It is 
in the United Automobile Workers Local 102, Eoom 1134, 250 West 
o7th Street, New York, N. Y., February 13, 1952. 

You testified before a group, before a trial examiner, under oath. 
You were asked this question on page 525 : 

Question. Mr. Doria, bringing you down to local 102, are you familiar with 
the circumstances under Avhich it Avas affiliated with the international V 

Answer. Yes, I issued the charter to local 102 personally. Local 102 Avas 
chartered by our organization on the basis of recommendations that we re- 
ceived from friends that we have operating in the American Federation of Labor, 
tlu-ough the Federal labor unions, as one example. Those are direct affiliates 
of the American Federation of Labor and upon the recommendation of people 
coming from the Federal labor v;nion that Ave are in close contact with, it was 
recommended that a charter to cover the NeAV York area be issued. 

There was an application on tliat charter that included about 16 people which 
of course are listed on the charter and I AA'Ould not remember all their names. 

The charter Avas issued as a result of an application and the people coming 
into our office to make the application for the charter and upon investigation 
that we conducted through members of the Federal labor unions in the American 
Federation of Labor, Ave finally issued the charter and established the jurisdiction 
for that charter here in the metropolitan area. 

Question. And your investigations include an investigation of the applicants? 

Answer. Yes. Our investigati<m naturally included an inA'estigation of the 



4260 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

individuals that would be more involved in the actual leadership of the union. 
Among them was Johnny Dioguardi, as his name is, and he was investigated by 
our union and we found in the investigation although there had been some 
reference to a past record, that his conduct since the time he had paid his debt 
to society had been Hne. We could not, being cognizant of the fact that we 
recognized that it could be used from the standpoint of organization work from 
time to time, not take note of that. AVe felt that he was clean prior to our 
issuing the charter to him and others that applied for that charter, and we 
issued it to him. 

Since issuing tiiat charter, I have been investigating this local and have been 
concerned with supervising its activities by virtue of the type of information 
that has been disseminated through the newspapers in the city. We have 
probably made a more careful investigation of the operation of this union simply 
because of that and of our general interest, and our international union has 
never had any such issue. We have found, as a result of the investigation, which 
I personally conducted, I conducted here in New York having been in New York 
approximately five times since the charter was issued for that purpose, the result 
being that we found everything as it should be. 

Then you go on and discuss the finances. 

Then you state on ])age 535, discl^ssing who you were investigating : 

Question. Who were the people who had the important positions and who were 
those thoroughly investigated by you? 

Answer. Primarily, by virtue of the type of information we got, the heaviest 
investigation was conducted with Johnny Dioguardi. 

Question. Who else? 

Answer. Then there were approximately 15 other members that we merel.v 
checked from the standpoint of names and what their previous associations had 
been with the union and nothing too important came out of that for the reason 
that we finally resolved that we charged the responsibility of running the local 
to one individual and we found that the most capable of the group was John 
Dioguardi and he seemed to be most qualified and therefore under him we felt we 
could remove anyone else. 

Then on the question of Mr. Dio being in from the beginning, at 
page 537 : 

Question. Was Zakman one of the original members ; one of the original charter 
members ? 

Answer. l"es ; he was. 

Question. Did you make an investigation of Mr. Zakman V 

Answer. Yes ; but the investigation however did not disclose all the informa- 
tion we wanted by virtue of the fact we looked every place except one. That 
came out later. 

Question. Did the Federal labor unions recommend Mr. Zakman V 

Answer. The F'ederal labor unions did not i-ecommend Mr. Zakman. 

Question. Did the Federal labor unions recommend Mr. DioV 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. Wliat was tlie answer again ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The answer was "Yes," 

Mr. DoRiA. The Federal Labor unions? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Tliat is it. 

Mr. DoRiA. No; but here, the first thing is you are now talking of at 
least a second or third issuance of tlie charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. No; it is before the third issue, Mr. Doria. It was 
prior to the third issue. You were in there to explain the issuance 
of how^ this charter came into being. 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Kennedy, I have testified repeatedly and will testify 
again, and I refer you to your records, Dio was never a part of the 
first charter in 102. 

Mr Kennedy. That is certainly not w^hat you said here in 1952. 

Mr. DoRiA. That testimony refers to the second charter under taxi- 
cabs. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4261 

Mr. Kkxxedy. If that is true 



Mr. DoRiA. That is not the first charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, the second charter wasn't on taxicabs. 

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

Mr. DoRiA. I know the second charter was not on taxicabs. 

Mr. Kennedy. This did not have anything to do with tlie charter on 
taxicabs. 

Mr. Doria. Let me give you the routine again, because I ran into 
the same question before the grand jury in Xew York; the same identi- 
cal question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mv. Doria, this was before the charter was issued on 
the taxicabs. 

Mr. Doria. That is right; and I ran into identically the same 
question. 

Is that the transcript before the New York State board? If you 
will refer to the testimony before the grand jury 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; this is under oath. 

Mr. Doria. I want to correct this whole implication here. You will 
find that the same question was asked of me, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, I am not interested in what you said 
before the grand jury. I am interested in what you said under oath 
before this board, and what you say under oath before this committee. 

Mr. Doria. If you will go back in those same minutes, Mr. 
Kennedy 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The Chair wants to put this in 
the proper perspective, so there is no question about what we are 
talking about. 

This is titled, "The State of New York, before the State labor rela- 
tions board, in the matter of Gertrude Bertorelli and Frank Bertorelli, 
and United Automobile Workers, Local 102, AFL, case No. 20809." 

This is entitled "Excerpts from minutes of hearing, February 13, 
1952, before Lyell Grewer and James L. Denike, official reporters. New 
York State Labor Relations Board.'- 

This transcript, this testimony that has been read to you, according 
to this transcript, was given on that date, February 13, 1952. 

So, get your bearings with respect to time as you testify. 

Mr. Doria. Yes. Now, that testimony pertained to a taxicab organ- 
ization. The thing that I want to clear up 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this, in connection with that : Was 
a charter granted on that local on the recommendation of Paul Dorf- 
man and the Federal labor unions ? 

Mr. Doria. No ; not that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you tell this trial examiner before whom 
you appeared that this charter had been granted on the recommenda- 
tion of Paul Dorfman ? 

Mr. Doria. The charter of local 102 was, but, again, I want to re- 
mind you, and I have given you this in photostats, 102 was originally 
issued industrially. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know all that 

Mr. Doria. That was issued to one set of people. If you will just 
refer to the photostats, you will find this. John Dioguardi was not 
in the original issue of the charter. 



4262 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. 

Mr. DoRiA. I do believe, and I don't have these records before me, 
but if you give me the photostats I can give it to you, that Johnny 
Dio did appear on the second charter of 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. Now, when the taxicab organization 
started, Mr. Kennedy, it was originally started under the industrial 
charter of local 102. This case came up before the New York State 
board, apparently, after the second charter had been issued, but prior 
to the time that the taxi charter had been issued. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is interesting. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. The references that are made there are 
a reference to both the original charter as well as to the subsequent 
charter in 102, again prior, however, to the time that the taxi charter 
was issued, because that was not issued until 649 was issued, and the 
industrial turned over to 640. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all very interesting, but it doesn't answer any 
question at all. 

Mr. DoRiA. I know, but those are the facts, regardless of the 
question that it might answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. That has nothing to do with answering tliis. 

Mr. DoRiA. I did answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a very interesting discussion, but you didn't 
answer the question. 

Mr. DoRiA. I am answering the question, because I am stating to 
you now, as I stated a moment ago, that my references there cover 
two situations. They cover the original issuance of 102, the subse- 
quent issue after — I don't know whether Zakman left there or not, 
but when John Dio got out of the charter, and a new grouping of 
names was entered on the charter, and that testimony covers both. 
Now, before the State board 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, just answer that question. Why did you 
say that this charter had been issued on the recommendation of the 
Federal labor union? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because — 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. Then you were asked whether that 
was a recommendation of Sam Zakman, and you said no; was it a 
recommendation of the Federal labor unions of Johnny Dio, and 
you said yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. Not the Federal labor unions of Johnny Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just read your testimony, Mr. Doria. 

Mr. DoRiA. For i02, yes. Don't forget, you are still talking al)out 
102. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know. 

Mr. DoRiA. You are talking about a reissue of 102. When you say 
the cliarter issued, 102 was originally issued on the recommendation 
of Paul Dorfman and Sam Berger. Paul Dorfman is a reference 
to the Federal labor unions in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say in there that Dorfman recommended John 
Dio? 

Mr. DoRiA. No : T don't say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you say the Federal labor unions recommended 
John Dio? 



IIMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4263 

Ml: DoRiA. No ; I don't say that. 
]N[r. Kennedy. I will read it to you. 

]Mr. DoHiA. Let's take them one at a time and separate thean. 
]Mr. Kennedy. I know yon want to get the facts, the truth. Let me 
read this to you : 

Did the Federal labor unions recommend Mr. Zakman? 

Answer. The Federal labor unions did not recommend Mr. Zakman. 

Did the Federal labor unions recommend Mr. Dio? 

Answer. Yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is in reverse. If the testimony is that way, it is 
in reverse. 

]Mr. Kennedy. It is in reverse? 

Mr. DoiiiA. Sure, for this reason, Mr. Kennedy : Zakman was the 
man who was the officer of the independent group when Paul Dorf- 
man came in to demand the charter. It could not have recommended 
Dio, because Dio was not in the picture. I did not know Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Zakman didn't know Dorfman? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know about that or not. But I say that Zak- 
man, regardless of whether Dorfman knew him or not, knew Berger. 
Berger came in with Dorfman. When I speak of the recommenda- 
tion, ]Mr. Kennedy, I am speaking of the recommendation for the 
issuance of the charter. Dio was not in the picture. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that this testimony that you gave before 
the labor board is incorrect ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; there is either one or two things — I can't recall it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Is it incorrect? 

jVIr. DoRiA. I can't say that, either. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this correct ? 

The Federal labor unions recommended Mr. Dio. 

Did they or did they not ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Later on, I did get a recommendation. That is why, if 
I can tell the story, I can give this to you. Later on, John Dio was 
known by Paul Dorfman when we were in taxicabs. This was a taxi- 
cab situation. Dorfman did tell me Dio was O. K. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. That is not the taxicab situation. 

INIr. DoRTA. What are the two names involved in that case, Mr. 
Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is prior to the third charter. 

Mr. DoRiA. Wait a minute. What are the two names involved? 

Mr. Kennedy. Bertarelli. 

Mr. DoRiA. Bertarelli is a taxicab driver. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know it is connected with taxicab drivers, but it 
is not connected with the taxicab unions. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; it is connected. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not the third charter you granted. 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Kennedy, the third charter was only granted, 
and I will state this again, and I think you have this many, many 
times, when the taxicab organization became sufficiently large that we 
did not want the taxicab organization mixed up with the industrial 
organization. We then issued charter 649 to put in the industrial 
organization although the taxicab drive had been continuing for some 

89330 — 57 — pt. 11 IT 



4264 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

time, and then we issued the charter to 102 exclusively for taxicabs, and 
that was prior to this instance. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, again, very interesting, but it has nothing 
to do with it. 

Mr. DoRiA. But that is the real case. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not the real case, because that took place 2 
months after this. You say in here that the Federal labor unions 
recommended Johnny Dio. 

Mr. DoRiA. They did, at the time the taxicab drive was going on. I 
am trying to keep my story straight. The issuance of the charter did 
not involve Dio. Dio was not known to me or to anybody in the union. 
The taxicab drive started after Dio came into the local union. Dio 
then becomes in a position of leadership. Dio then is recommended 
by everybody that 1 met in the AFL. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, you testified here that you made no in- 
vestigation of Mr. Dio, and that he wasn't recommended 

Mr. Doria. No ; let us get our terms straight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a minute. You said you made no investigation 
of him, and he wasn't recommended by Mr. Dorfman. Before their 
board, you said, in connection with this whole matter, there was nobody 
who was more thoroughly investigated than Mr. Dio, and then you go 
on to say he was recommended by Mr. Dorfman. 

Mr. Doria. Let us get our time straight, because, if we are speaking 
of one time, one testimony applies. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't separate. The question is : 

Mr. Doria, bringing you down to local 102, are you familiar with the circum- 
stances under which it was affiliated? 

Mr. Doria. But that was a case before the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board of the State of New York, and that covered both situa- 
tions, Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to bring that out. What I am 
trying to do is follow chronologically the issuance of charter 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your testimony now is that Dio became affiliated 
with local 102, the second charter, based on the recommendation of 
Paul Dorfman ? 

Mr. Doria. No. His recommendation as a man in the union was 
not for the purpose of the charter. Dio was already in there when he 
became an individual whose name was listed on the charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you say that in this testimony ? 

Mr. Doria. Because, if the recommendation liad anything to do 
with the recommendation with respect to Dio's ability but not for the 
purpose of putting him on the charter, because Dio was already in the 
organization at that time, Dio would not have required any recom- 
mendation to be on the charter. That would have been merely the 
action of that local union. Dio was already in the organization at 
that time. 

]Mr. Kennedy. I understand. 

Mr. Doria. So, no recommendation would be needed to put him on 
the charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is what I don't understand. 

Mr. Doria. I don't understand what you are driving at. The whole 
situation is impossible. It doesn't follow. 

The Chairman. At the time you gave this testimony, the third 
charter had not been granted ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4265 

Mr. DoRiA. No. 

The Chairman. The first and second liad ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Apparently, because if Dio- 



Tlie CnAiR3iAN. Not apparently. One of them was the 18th of 
September 1950, the first one ; the next one was the 23d of April 1951. 

Mr. DoRiA. All it takes to settle that is 

The Chairman. This transcript is of what date ? 

Mr. Kennedy. February 1952. 

Mr. DoRiA. What date do you have on the issuance of the first 
charter ? 

The Chairman. September 18, 1950 

Mr. DoRiA. What is the date of the testimony ? 

The Chairman. The first one is September 18, 1950. The second 
was issued April 23, 1951, and the date of the testimony is in February 
1952. 

Mr. DoRiA. Therefore, the first two charters were issued. 

The Chairman. Yes ; they were issued. That is what you are talk- 
ing about, then, because the third one had not been issued. 

jMr. DoRiA, That is right. Everything applied to the first two 
charters. Originally, however, you people were talking to me about 
the issuance of local charter 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what the question is here, jMr. Doria. You 
never bring out the fact there are two charters. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. No place in this transcript do you mention there are 
two charters. 

Mr. DoRiA. I know, we don't, because it was not in issue. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. They ask you : 

Mr. Doria, bringing you clown to local 102, are you familiar with the circum- 
stances under which it was affiliated with the international? 

Then you go on to explain. 

You explain Dio came in on it, Zakman came in on it, it was recom- 
mended by the Federal labor unions, and Zakman wasn't recom- 
mended by the Federal labor unions but Dio was recommended by the 
Federal labor unions. That is how you explain this drive got started, 
which is entirely contrary to how you testify here. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, it isn't. Can I go through it once more ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't take me on a trip that has nothing to do with 
it. 

Mr. DoRiA. Can I go through it briefly ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the questions about this. 

Mr. DoRiA. All you want is what happened; is that right? 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened on this. 

Mr. DoRiA. In 1950, we had a charter issued and Johnny Dio is not 
known. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not mentioned ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not mentioned, not known to anybody. Between 1950 
and August 23, 1951, Dio comes into the local union. Dio operates in 
the local union and assumes a position of leadership. In August 1951, 
the second charter was issued. Dio, I think, appears on the second 
charter that was issued to 102. In between that 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he recommended by the Federal labor unions ? 



4266 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. Let me give you this- 



Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me this. 

Mr. DoRiA. If you are going to stop me in between telling these 
stories 

Mr. Kennedy. Telling these stories is right. 

Mr. DoRiA. He was recommended by a lot of j)eople in the AFL, 
once he became active. But he was not recommended for the purpose 
of appearing on the charter. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. 

You did know Johnny Dio when the second charter was issued ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

The Chairman. You testified awhile ago you never met him until 
1952. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. Yes, you did. 

Mr. DoRiA. I told him that I met Johnny Dio in the offices of 
local 

The Chairman. You repeated it, sir. You said you never met him 
until some time in 1952. 

Mr. DoRiA. I said the taxicab organization 

The Chairman. Nobody mentioned that. 

Mr. DoRiA. Will you read my testimony, Senator? You will find 
no positive statement that I met him in 1952. 

Senator Mundt. I think you will. I asked the question about it. 

Mr. DoRiA. Wliat purpose is there in me trying to fool you as to 
when I met Dio, if I can keep my dates straight on this whole situa- 
tion ? I am testifying from memory here and without the advantage 
of the records. But I met Dio as I stated 10 times, I think, already, 
in the offices of local 102 after the original charter had been issued, 
prior to the time that the second charter was issued. 

Tlie Chairman. That is not what you testified. You testified that 
it was in 1952. 

Mr. DoRiA. How in the world could I not meet Dio prior to the 
time that his name appeared on the charter when he was already 
active in the local union. 

The Chairman. If you answer a question or two, we may help you. 

Mr. DoRiA. I appreciate that. 

The Chairman. You are not helping the committee much with this 
rambling. 

Mr. DoRiA. You go ahead, Senator. I want to get it straight as 
much as you do. 

The Chairman. I will give it to you straight. The first charter 
was issued September 18, 1950. On April 23, 1951, a second charter 
was issued to local 102, and the original charter was canceled. Now, 
did you know Dio before the second charter was issued? Did you 
personally know him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is not according to your testimony of awhile 
ago? 

Mr. DoRiA. Then we are getting mixed up on the dates so I cannot 
testify to them. But I certainly had to know him. 

The Chairman. All right. Then the third charter was not issued 
until when ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4267 

Mr. DoRiA. It was not issued until the same date when charter 649 
was mentioned and I don't know the date. 

The Chairman. That was some 2 montlis after your testimony here 
before this board. So you could not have been talking about the third 
charter at that time because it had not been issued. 

Mr. DoRiA. If that testimony before the board, Senator McClellan, 
is after the issuance of the charter of 649 I was then talking about 
the three charters because I was talking about 102. It has to be, 
because they all apply to the taxicab. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Doria, I hand you exhibit 1 in the testimony 
in these hearings, and I ask you to examine it and see if you recognize 
it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Doria. Yes, I believe this is the photostatic of the first charter 
application in local No. 102. 

The Chairman. That is correct. Wliat date does it show it was 
issued ? 

Mr. Doria. September 12, 1950. 

The Chairman. That is the date of the application. Will you 
look at the date of issuance ? 

Mr. Doria. 9-18-50. 

The Chairman. That would be September 18, 1950 ? 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 

The Chairman. Thereafter, that charter was canceled, was it not ? 

Mr. Doria. Well, I can't refer to it as a cancellation. The idea is 
that the charter was then, again, modified. It was the same 102 
charter but it was modified because the local requested a change in the 
names that appeared on their original charter, so some of those people 
that are indicated on this first charter left the organization. 

The Chairman. What did you do with the first charter ? 

Mr. Doria. The first charter, I believe, was destroyed. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Now will you look at exhibit No. 2 to the hearings, and state if you 
identify it? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Doria. This is what I recall was the issuance of the change of 
names on charter 102 after that had been canceled out and those 
names no longer applied. Then these names applied, but it was again 
102. 

The Chairman. It is still 102 ; is it not ? 

Mr. Doria. It is still 102. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize your signature ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature ? 

Mr. Doria (speaking) : 

Charter for local 102 reissued today listing names on attached letterhead of 
local 102. Old charter destroyed by Anthony Doria and this charter issued to 
cover the area of greater New York City. 

That is right. 

The Chairman. The old one was destroyed? 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 



4268 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Will you look at this document and examine the 
handwriting on it? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. Whose handwriting is it? 

Mr. DoRiA. All except the last line is my handwriting. 

The Chairman. Including the handwriting "All correspondence 
to John Dioguardi"? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

The Chairman. So you did know him personally at that time? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, I stated that I knew him at the time he became 
associated as an organizer. 

The Chairman. And he became a charter member of the second 
charter ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Of the second charter, that is right. 

The Chairman. You investigated him prior to that time? 

Mr. DoRiA. At that time I was with him and I was able to talk 
about investigation since I had been with him. 

The Chairman. So you had been investigating him prior to that 
time, and that is the testimony you were giving before that board, 
because the third charter had not been issued ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, but I had not, on the September 18, 1950, 
charter. 

The Chairman. I did not say you had. 

Mr. DoRiA. Then we are in agreement. 

The Chairman. I said between the first and second one you had, 
and you had testified you did not know him until 1952. There- 
fore 

Mr. DoRiA. Wait a moment. Senator McClellan. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Therefore, your testimony here at that board hearing was relating 
to the second charter that you issued- 

Mr. DoRiA. And the first. And the first. 

The Chairman. It was not related to the third. 

Mr, DoRiA. No, but it was the second and the first. And prior to 
the second charter issuance, I knew John Dio personally. I was 
working with him on organizational work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : When did local 102 become affiliated 
with your international ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, apparently the date is September 18, 1950, on 
the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us just consider that. The question is, and I 
will read this once again : 

Mr. Doria, bringing you down to local 102, are you familiar with the cir- 
cumstances under which it was affiliated with the international, which affilia- 
tion took place in September 1950? 

Mr. DoRiA, There were two questions before that board, Mr. Ken- 
nedy, which is what I am trying to get to. Is the questioning on 
that by a Mr, Friedlander? 

Mr, Kennedy, No, 

Mr, Doria, It is not by Mr, Friedlander ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us go back. You said the affiliation took place 
in 1950. Your answer is — 

Yes, I issued the charter to 102 personally. Local 102 was chartered by our 
organization on the basis of recommendations that we received from friends 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4269 

that we have operating in the American Federation of Labor, through the Fed- 
eral labor unions, as one example. Those are direct affiliates of the American 
Federation of Labor and upon the recommendation of people coming from the 
Federal labor union that we are in close contact with, it was recommended that 
a charter to cover the New York area be issued. There was an application on 
that charter that concluded about 10 people which of course are listed on the 
charter and I would not remember all their names. The charter was issued 
as a result of an application, and the people coming into our office to make the 
application for the charter and upon investigation that we conducted through 
members of the Federal labor unions in the American Federation of Labor, we 
finally issued the charter and established the jurisdiction for that charter here 
in the metropolitan area. 

Then over here — 

Did the Federal labor unions recommend Mr. Zakman? 
Answer. The Federal labor unions did not recommend Mv. Zakman. 
Question. Did the Federal labor unions recommend Johnny Die? 
Answer. Yes. 

Is it not true that Mr. Dio was in from the beginning, that the 
charter was granted originally so that Dio could operate in New York, 
and you finally decided to legalize that by making a second charter 
by putting his name on it, but that Paul Dorfman had recommended 
Johnny Dio right from the beginning? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. That is completely wrong, I am telling you about 
the first part of the testimony, and it is still a correct bit of testimony. 
"What I am trying to point out to you is that since the charter was 
issued on the 18th, reissued on tlie 23d 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't say anything with that. 

Mr. Doria. I don't say anything with that, because it was under- 
stood to those people before whom I was testifying. They knew about 
it. They knew our cases had gone before that board. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are talking about how the charters were issued, 
how Dio was recommended. 

Mr. Doria. Yes. Dio was recommended after Dio was in the 
organization and after I knew Dio in the organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : Did Dio act as your regional director 
in New York? 

Mr. Doria. No; he did not. Dio was never a regional director. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a director of the New York activities? 

Mr. Doria. Pie was a director of the activities in New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. District 3-A ? 

Mr. Doria. District 3-A, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When it was decided to abandon the taxicab charter 
in 1953, was there a movement at that time to take the organization, 
the taxicab organization, into the teamsters? 

Mr. Doria. On the basis of the experience we just had, Mr. Ken- 
nedy, unless I have records, I will not testify to dates that I don't 
remember any more. But I will say this, that there was a movement 
at the time that we were asked by the AFL to stop our organizational 
Avork in taxicabs, to turn this charter over, not the charter but the 
organization, over to the teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, did you have meetings with Jimmy 
Hofta? 

Mr. Doria. I met Jimmy Hoffa with respect to the matter — I don't 
recall — I think it was as early as the convention that was held in 
New York City at the Commodore Hotel, and I don't remember what 
year that was, the AFL Convention. 



4270 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kenistedy. ^Vhere? 

Mr. DoRiA. New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. When there was discussion of the taxicab- 



Mr. DoRiA, It was during the taxicab drive, but there was a con- 
vention held, and I think we could establish the date of it because 
they change cities every year, in New York City at the Commodore 
Hotel and I discussed the matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it not true that prior to this Dio had a number 
of conversations with Jimmy Hoffa about bringing his organization 
and himself into the teamsters? 

Mr. DoRiA. Here is what I can give you on tliat, as I recall it. When 
the position was taken by the council of the AFL, that our organiza- 
tion had to get out of the taxicab organization in New York City, at 
that time there was a meeting, I believe, going on in Florida of the 
executive council or of the teamsters, I don't recall which. "Wlien 
this letter came in, Johnny Dio went to Florida for the purpose of 
meeting with teamster representatives for the purpose of attempting 
to take the membership in taxicabs and turning them over to the 
teamsters who normally claim jurisdiction. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go with him to Florida? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet in Florida with him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I don't think I was on that trip at all. As a matter 
of fact, I think he went alone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go to Florida with him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; I have been to Florida with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Jimmy Hoffa in Florida ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I met with Jimmy Hoffa in Florida, yes, but I don't 
remember the occasion. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I met with Dio in Florida, I have been with him all 
over the country. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Dio and Hoffa in Florida ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't remember if I did or not. I think if they were 
both there, I undoubtedly Avould and did, but I don't recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not at any time remember meeting with 
Hoffa and Dio in Florida ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall any just now, but it seems to me that 
we might have if we had been present at the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Dio and Hoffa in Florida and 
discuss the taxicabs ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall that. I know Dio was sent down, and 
I did not go with him, to Florida. The thing I don't recall is whether 
I subsequently went down to Florida, to help conclude that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think you might have ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The reason I don't recall it is that I actually recall meet- 
ing in Washington with Einar Mohn, the vice president, I believe it 
was, of the teamsters, with respect to the matter, and whether I 
came in from Florida, or whether I went there from Wisconsin, I do 
not recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember ever meeting with Dio and 
Hoffa in Florida on the taxicabs? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall it, Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4271 

Mr. Kennedy. In February 1953 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall it. I don't say that I did not, but I 
merely say that I cannot recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. In March 1953, did you come from Milwaukee to 
meet with HoU'a and Dio and Mickey and others in New York? 

Mr. DoRiA, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And didn't Mr. Hoffa 

Mr. DoRiA. Wait a minute. While I am testifying to these things, 
I don't remember the dates, but I did meet with Hoffa and I did 
meet with Hickey and 

Mr. Kennedy. Did not Hoffa at that time make a strong recom- 
mendation about bringing Dio and the taxicab organization into the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. DoRiA. At that time, Hoffa, I think, was interested in taking 
over the taxicab organization. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Just answer the question. Did he or did he not? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall any statements that Hoff'a made; it is 
too long ago. 

Mr. ICennedy. I thought you said he was interested in taking them 
over. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; he was interested. That I can testify to. But 
I don't recall any statements that he made with respect to it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You just remember that he was strongly in favor 
of it? 

Mr. DoRiA. I remember that he was strongly in favor of it; yes. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you what purports to be a photo- 
static copy of a check in the amount of $1,000, dated February 11, 
1953, made payable to you and drawn on the account of the inter- 
national union, United Automobile Workers of America. The check 
is signed by you as international secretary-treasurer, and it appears 
on the back to be endorsed by you. It is in payment of a voucher 
No, 1168, dated February 11, 1953. There are certain notations on 
the voucher of what it is for. The Chair asks you to examine the 
check, the photostatic copy of it, and also of the voucher attached, 
and state if you identify them and recognize them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. DoRiA. This, apparently, Mr. Chairman, is a check that was 
cashed for expenses to this Florida meeting of the executive council 
at which time the discussions were being carried on for the purpose 
of transferring the membership of the taxicabs that we had in New 
York to the teamsters. 

On the basis of this, it appears that I was in Florida, and that I 
must have followed John ]3io to Florida after he had gone down 
there, if this is the same time. 

The Chairman. That helps to refresh your recollection ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. It does help to refresh my memory of 
the situation. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 77. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 77" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4171-41:72.) 

Mr. DoRiA. Let me state, so that the record is clear and we don't 
get into another hassel, that I am testifying on the basis of what this 
indicates to me as a record. 



4272 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, Just read it. 
Mr. DoRiA. It says : 

Organizational expenses, meeting, Florida, during executive council session, 
Beck of teamsters, Hoffa and J. Dio of UAW-AFL. 

This is around the February 11 date. 

The Chairman. That is a voucher you submitted upon which to 
have the clieck issued to yourself for the $1,000 expense? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. At wliose invitation had you gone to Florida? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think I went to Florida on any invitation other 
than that Johnny Dio was there, to discuss the possibility of turning 
over the taxi membership and, if this is indicative of the fact that I 
had to follow on down, as I certainly believe that it is, that I went 
down there as a result of any complications that might have arisen 
with respect to effecting the transfer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there discussion prior to that time, between 
Dio and Hoffa, regarding the financing of your taxicab drive by 
Hoffa? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I don't recall any discussions about the financing 
of our taxicab drive by Hofta or by anybody else. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss that with Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Financing of the taxicab drive with Dio ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; or Hoffa ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall discussing it with Hoffa, either. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with Dio the financing of the 
taxicab drive by Hoffa ? 

Mr. DoRiA. What period are you talking about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Early 1953. 

Mr. DoRiA. I cannot give it to you on the basis of dates, but I can 
tell you this : The discussion that we had with respect to the financing 
of the drive in taxicabs, the major discussion, I had with Dave Beck 
himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you answer the question ? 

Mr. DoRiA. But I don't recall, as I stated before, I don't recall any- 
thing right now. If there is anything that you have that might tie 
this together somewhat — this is some time ago and I cannot recall it. 

I do recall the one with Beck, but I don't recall any others. I also 
recall one with Einar ]\Iohn. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Dio keep you advised as to tlie negotiations that 
he was conducting witli Hoffa on the taxicab drive ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I think he kept us both advised. At that time 
he was advising both me and President Washburn, who was then the 
president of the international union. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But these negotiations originally were being con- 
ducted between Hoffa and Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know who they were being 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he kept you advised of what he was doing, Mr. 
Doria. Did he not advise you that he was keeping in touch with Mr. 
Hoffa at that time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4273 

Mr. DoRiA. The only thino; I can recall is that we were publishing the 
Taxi Tattler as an org-anizational medium. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, just answer the question. 

Mr. DoRiA. I am giving tlie background. He advised me of the fact 
that Beck or the teamsters, I don't know who, had stated that we ought 
to continue the Taxi Tattler, because, if they took over the drive, 
they wanted a continuation of the paper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now will you answer the question ? 

Mr. DoRiA. What is your question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The question was : Were the negotiations that were 
conducted regarding the taxicab drive of Johnny Dio, negotiations 
that were conducted with the teamsters, conducted with Jimmy Hoffa? 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall that. I later undertook that myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did discuss it with you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I discussed it with Einar Molni and Dave Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say the original negotiations were conducted and 
you were not advised that the negotiations were conducted with Jimmy 
Hoffa by Jolinny Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Kennedy, I must have been advised; I must have 
maintained contact. Certainly we were interested. It would be 
ridiculous for me to say that during that time I did not receive com- 
munications from Dio as to the progress of the negotiations. But 
what I am trying to tell you is that I don't recall them. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom were those negotiations being conducted ? 

Mr. DoRiA. . I don't recall that, either. 

Mr. Kennedy. You remember who they were being conducted with. 

Mr. DoRiA. If I remembered, I would tell you. You have not found 
me being bashful about giving information that I possess. That is 
many years ago, and I cannot recall it. I will say if it is important 
to you to know with whom the negotiations were carried on 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot remember who was conducting the 
negotiations ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I wasn't there. I can't tell you who was conducting the 
negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't Dio keep you advised ? 

Mr. DoRiA, Not to that extent. As I stated, ultimately I took them 
over myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about that. I am talking about 
March of 1953, when you went to New York. Prior to that time, who 
was conducting the negotiations ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The negotiations originally were being conducted by 
Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom ? 

Mr. DoRiA. And Dio was sent to meet Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Tlie Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled 
matter was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., of the same day.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 



4274 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 
(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DORIA— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in New York, Mr. Doria, Mr. Dio was in charge 
of the New York City area ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; at one time he finally became and was placed in 
charge of the New York City area, associated with our union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was also granted a couple of charters down 
in Philadelphia; is that right? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; Dio did not grant the charters. Dio made appli- 
cation for the charters, and they were granted from our union. 

Mr. Kennedy. I said "through him." 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had charge of that area in New York and 
Philadelphia. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I wouldn't say he had charge of it. He was the 
man that we looked to for our contracts in that area, but he was not 
what you might say in charge. The board was in charge of all the 
areas. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were saying about society, this morning, 
throwing mud and dirt at Johnny Dio who was trying to make good. 
I was wondering, was it any concern to you at all as to the type of 
people that he was sponsoring in the labor union movement ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, I helped to remove about 4 or 6 of them myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, don't we judge people also by the type of 
people that they associate with, and tliey bring into the movement? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I also like to add the purpose for which they 
do it to that, in trying to pass judgment upon an individual. I know 
that Johnny Dio, when he did contact these people, thought he was 
going to help them, and I was present on many of these occasions where 
these people went wrong and were removed, where they didn't even 
have to follow the procedures in our constitution because, frankly, 
when these incidents occurred, I just told them, either they remove 
themselves or we would prefer the charges. And they ordinarily left. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had sort of an organization in New York then 
to help rehabilitate criminals ? 

Mr. DoRiA, It was not for that purpose, and I don't think you want 
to be facetious about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not. I just have a list here, for instance, of the 
people that he brought in, and were brought in with your assistance. 

George Baker and all of these people had prior records, and got 
into difficulty and got mdicted ultimately themselves for their own 
activities. George Baker, Paul Cabot, Nathan Carmel, Max Chester, 
George Cohen, Joseph Cohen, David Cosentino, Joseph Curcio, Harry 
Davidoff, Heni-y Gasster, Abraham Goldberg, Theodore Ray, Harry 
Reiss, Benny the Bug Ross, Dominick Santa INIaria, Arthur Santa 
Maria, Anthony Topazio. That is just a brief list of those that Mr. 
Dio and you brought into the labor-miion movement. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4275 

Mr. DoRiA. We didn't bring those people into the labor movement 
as yoii say. I brought nobody into the labor movement. We have 
got to understand one thing again and go back to fundamentals, and 
that is that a local union that is an autonomous local union after a 
charter has been issued to it, has the right within itself to employ 
people in the service of that local union. 

Then, once those people are employed by that local union, the only 
prerogative that we had and still have mider the constitution of our 
international miion would have been to prefer charges against them on 
the basis of acts which they performed while in the local miion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, these are approximately 17 people to 
whom charters w^ere granted. Now you had specific jurisdiction over 
New York and Mr. Dio was the one that was handling New York and 
Philadelphia for you. 

These are people who had charge of locals, and they were not just 
employees of locals. 

Mr. Doria. Most of those people that you mentioned w^ere employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Oh, no, Dominick Santa Maria and Arthur Santa 
Maria and Anthony Topazio were appointed. 

Mr. Doria. He worked for 649. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was appointed as secretary-treasurer of 649 
and he was also appointed as an administrator of 136. 

Mr. DoRii^. Yes, but Anthony Topazio and Cohen, who were the 
two people who got involved together, w^ere originally hired by local 
No. 649, I believe, and they might have had some history with 102. 
But once they were hired in 649 and later became officers of 649, the 
only prerogative that we could have exercised in that case would have 
been to prefer charges against them on the basis of acts committed 
while in the service of the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. All I am saying is that these people for the most 
part had criminal records prior to the time they came in or when they 
were brought into the labor movement, whether as employees orig- 
inally, but ultimately as officers, they got into greater difficulty and 
more difficulty. 

]Mr. DoRiA. Yes, and they were removed as a result of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had 17 that you and Dio brought in. 

Mr. Doria. Don't say me and Dio brought them in. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dio brought them in and you were the one that 
had particular charge over New York, as I understand. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, I didn't have particular charge over it. That is 
another thing we ought to straighten out. I think there are some 
ghosts that ought to be buried here before we go much further. 

I was secretary-treasurer, and the organizational activities of my 
international union came under the direction of the president. I, as 
secretary-treasurer, if you will examine our constitution, had no 
authority with respect to organizational work other than if I would be 
under special assignment by the board on organizational work. 

It was only wiien those problems arose that the president did not 
want to take care of, or could not take care of, that I would be assigned 
to supervise organizational work. It was not my authority. 

]Mr. Kennedy. As a practical matter, Mr. Doria, did you not have 
charge of the organizational work in New York ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I didn't have charge of it. I worked directly with 
the president on the organizational work. 



4276 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Directly under the president, but didn't you have a 
particular interest in the organizational work in Xew York? 

Mr. DoRiA. I have had a particular interest in all of the organiza- 
tional work of the international union, whether it was New York or 
not, and at the same time it was going on in New York I was carrying 
on other activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. Exactly the same type of activities ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; organizational. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we had some testimony regarding the so-called 
bouncing charter, for instance. You notihed this committee that the 
charter for local 228 was not active, after it was granted in 1953. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And yet the testimony before this committee indi- 
cates that it was very active for a period of time. 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Kennedy, I can say it was not active with the knowl- 
edge of the international union. The first that I heard about the bounc- 
ing charter was in the press. I did not know, and I did not know until 
practically a few days before I came here, that there was such a thing 
as a bouncing charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how Milton Holt was able to get a hold 
of that charter? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Milton Holt ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; he is with teamster local 805 in New York, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your relationship with him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Just friends, knowing him in the normal course of 
events that we met each other. As a matter of fact, Milton Holt and I 
are part of the same joint venture in a mining property that he got 
interested in once he came to California and the relationship is just 
casual. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that? 

Mr. DoRiA. The mining property I am working with right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the name of it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The Roxey Enter]3rise. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Milton Holt has an interest in that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, he has a very minor interest in that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But a iinancial interest? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, he has an investment in it from the standpoint of 
development of the properties. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V\nien did he invest that money ? 

Mr. DoRTA. Quite some time ago. 

Senator Curtis. Is that a corporation? 

Mr. DoRTA. A joint venture. 

Senator Cxjrtis. ^-^Tio are the other people in it? 

Mr. DoRiA. Frankly, I can't tell you all of them, because I don't 
know them all. There are about 10 or 11 people involved in it. 

Senator Curtis. Will you tell me as many as you know ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I Imew Lew Sirotta, who was a fellow origmally inter- 
ested in it, and I joined with him. I Icnow a Peter Lentenni and I 
know Nick Narty. 

Senator CuitTis. Where do those last two men live? 

Mr. DoRiA. In California. And Irvinsr Berkenblitz. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4277 

Senator Curtis. Wliere is lie from? 

Mv. DoRiA. He has a relationship with Lew Sirotta, and there may- 
be more, and I can't recall their names just now. 

Senator CifRTis. Is there anybody else from outside of California 
interested in it besides those ? 

JMr. DoRiA, Yes, my former business partner in Milwaukee, a fellow 
by the name of Spros Kallas is also interested in it. 

Senator Curtis. Is there anybody else from New York? 

Mv. Kennedy. You had forgotten his name? 

iMr. DoRiA. I should have remembered his first, because I really 
have been in close contact with him all of the time. 

Senator Curtis. Is there anybody else from New York ? 

jNIr. Dorta. Not that I know of, from New York, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are there any other labor-union officials? 

Mr. DoRiA. "Well, Lentenni and Narty are not labor officials, but 
they belone: to a local union in California that I used to be with 
before I resigned. 

]\[r. Kennedy. What was that? 

j\Ir. DoRiA. Local No. 976. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of what ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Of the UIW. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of your union? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, the union I was in. 

JMr. Kennedy. Allied Industrial Workers? 

JMr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. 

;Mr. Kennedy. ^Yhat did ^Milton Holt do? Did he invest? 

Mr. DoRiA. He invested in the mining venture. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he invest ? 

Mr. DoRiA. $5,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did that money go directly to the mining ven- 
ture ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He sent a $5,000 check to the mining venture? 

Mr. DoRiA. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you handle it for him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; I handled it for him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he send the money to the mining venture or 
to you ? 

JMr. DoRiA. He sent it to me, because I was going into the venture. 

Mr. I&nnedy. I thought you said he sent it directly to the mining 
venture. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, it wouldn't have made any difference, because 
Sirotta was the leaseholder on the mining property. He and I worked 
together, and anything that was handled on the mining property 
has been handled between me and Sirotta. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, he sent the $5,000 check to you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were discussing going into this venture 
together, you never discussed his having a charter of the UAW-AFL ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I never knew that Milton Holt w^as involved in the 
handling of any charters of the UAW-AFL, 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a teamster official and you had gone into 
business with him and he never mentioned about it ? 



4278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. I didn't go into business with him. It is like he would 
have bought a couple of American Telephone & Telegraph and I 
would have bought some. I wouldn't say we were in business together. 
The mining venture is not controlled by us. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he sent the money to you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, because I was making the investment for him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you hold any stock for him now ? 

Mr. DoRiA. We all have royalty interests, and there is no stock 
because it is not a corporation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he have a royalty interest. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; he has a royalty interest. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the power of attorney for him ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall whether I do or not. I may have. I 
really don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is rather a coincidence that there is a $5,000 check 
just about the same time that he was granting the charter out of local 
228? 

Mr. DoRiA. He was never granted a charter from our international 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, at the time he was giving a charter out of your 
local to Sam Getlan, it was just about the time he sent a $5,000 check 
to you. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know the dates on it, and I am not going to say 
to you that it was not at that time. But I will say this to you, frankly 
and completely, that the clieck had nothing to do with union activities. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
a check dated June 27, 1955, made out to you, "Anthony Doria, special 
account," $5,000, signed "Milton Holt," and ask you to examine it and 
state if that is the check you received. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Doria. Yes ; I think this is an accurate photostat of the check 
I received, with my endorsement for the special account, and this was 
for the investment in the mining proj)erty, which was Holt's. 

The Chairman. The check may be made exhibit 78. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 78" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 4473.) 

The Chairman. AVliile we are on this, what is the date of that char- 
ter, or when Holt transferred the charter? What is the date of that? 
Let us see if we can relate it. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The testimony before the committee, ]\Ir. Chairman, 
is that it was issued in the summer of 1955, and we can't get it more 
specific than just the summer of 1955. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this check is dated June 27, 1955. He had a 
charter of the UAW, as a teamster official, and he had a charter of 
the UAW. Do you have any explanation of how tliat charter would 
get into his hands? 

Mr. Doria. If the charter got into the hands of Milton Holt, it might 
have gotten into his hands through the New York local, but, certainly, 
it was never authorized. I don't believe Milton Holt has ever ap- 
peared even on an application for a charter from the international 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a teamster union official. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4279 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, and that is the way I knew him. 

IVIr. Kennedy. And he o;ave out a charter of the UAW-AFL. 

Mr. DoRiA, If he gave out a charter of the UAW-AFL, it was not, 
to my knowledge, at least, with the knowledge of anyone in inter- 
national headquarters. 

The Chairman. What do you think about such a transaction, now 
that you know about it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think the transaction is a correct one at all be- 
cause the charters of the international union were not to be bandied 
around by anybody and should have been issued originally from our 
office at all times. 

The Chairman, Apparently it was issued originally, and then 
transferred. 

Mr. DoRiA. Here, Mr. McClellan, is what may happen to charters: 
When a local union becomes defunct, we request the return of the 
charter. Many times we are given the advice that the charter has been 
lost. We try to follow up those charters wdien we can, but, when we 
can't, of course, the only thing we do is remove the number and then 
we hold the number open for a wliile, not to create a conilict with the 
same charter number being reissued again. 

Xow, if those charters are withheld, for whatever the purpose might 
be, it is quite possible that they will find their place again in circula- 
tion. But it will not be with the knowledge and approval of the inter- 
national union when such a thing happens, nor is it consistent with 
the operations of the international union. 

The Chairman. Had you known about this charter transaction, you 
probably would not have welcomed him as a business associate, 

Mr. DoRiA. If I had known about the charter transaction to begin 
with, I would have notified the State board, as I usually did, that any 
application that would have come to the board under that number 
was to be reported to our office, and to ignore it because there was no 
such charter in existence. 

Senator Curtis, Did you know about the issuance of the charter of 
local 224? 

Mr. DoRiA. Only from the standpoint that I was involved in the 
issuance of all charters from the international union. I can't pinpoint 
the time and the circumstances surrounding it. 

Senator Curtis, That was issued on September 15, 1953, and Mr. 
Easton and Mr. Seglin were interested. 

Mr. DoRiA. I recall the fact that the charter was issued, yes ; but I 
don't recall the circumstances under which it was issued. 

Senator Curtis, Wliat did Dioguardi have to do with that ? 

Mr, DoRiA, I, frankly, don't recall that, either, I don't know 
whether there was a recommendation from him at the time that the 
charter would be issued to those people or whether there was not. 

Senator Curtis. The charter was sent to him ; was it not ? 

Mr, DoRiA, Well, every charter that we sent out into the New York 
area, once he became the individual we looked to for the leadership in 
the New York area, normally went through John Dio to be forwarded 
to the individual that had applied for it. 

Senator Curtis. But you, as secretary-treasurer, would be the one 
that would receive the application for a charter, and examine it and 
find out if it was in order ; w^ould you not ? 

89330—57— pt. 11 18 



4280 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever issue a charter on an application tliat 
was neither dated nor signed ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not unless there might have been an accompanying 
letter, or a confirmation by telephone with respect to it. We would 
have probably checked through that. Normally, we dated every 
charter as to an issuance date in order to establish our records in the 
international office. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the application. 

Mr. DoRiA. It is quite possible that a charter would have been issued 
on an application without a date. The important date was always 
the issuance date. 

Senator Curtis. Would you require somebody to sign it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Would it require what ? 

Senator Curtis. Somebody to sign it. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, the only thing it would require would be either 
the approval of the president or my approval to give it to the clerks 
in the office that would actually perform the issuance of the charter. 

Senator Curtis. Isn't someone supposed to sign an application for 
a charter ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Normally, yes ; the director would sign the application 
for a charter, but we didn't have a director in the area. Tlie signature 
of the director, normally, is indicating approval for the issuance of the 
charter. 

Senator Curtis. That is the regional director ? 

]Mr. DoKiA. That is right. But we didn't have a regional director. 

Senator Curtis. Now, he signs his approval, but doesn't someone 
sign an application for a charter' 

]\Ir. Doria. No; the normal procedure in our international union 
for 20 years was that the signatures on the applications themselves 
were the application for the cliarter. The signature on an application 
of any other individual would merely have been an approval indica- 
tion on that sheet. 

Senator Curtis. I hold in my hand exhibit No. 38, which is the 
application for charter 224, and it has a list of typewritten names 
on there, and nowhere did anybody ever sign it. 

Mr. DoRiA. If it is a typewritten list, there must also have been 
an application with signatures, and probably the application with 
signatures is not available to you or you do not have it, but there 
might have been both. 

Senator Curtis. This appears to be the official one, because it is 
stamped here as to the time you received it and it says, "Charter 
written September 15, 1953," and then it says, "Send to John Dio 
in New York." 

Mr. DoRiA. That is due to the fact that the clerks, in making out 
a charter, in order to get spellings correct on the charter, usually 
prefer the typwritten copies, and made their notations on the type- 
written copies. But there might also have been a signature appli- 
cation. I don't recall the exact situation. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Goldavater. In connection with these applications we have 
been discussing, is there not a provision in your constitution that 
requires 15 signatures to an application? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4281 

Mr. DoRiA. No. ... 

Senator Goldwater. Is there not such a provision m yonr con- 
stitution? „ „., .-. .• -11 

Mr DoRLv. Not tliat I know of. The constitution provided, as 
a matter of fact— for the last 5 or 7 years— that cliarters could have 
been issued even to individuals, as I recall. The constitution has 
been chanired since. . . 

Senator Goldwater. Are you certain there is no provision ? 

Mr. DoRL^. If I had a copv, if you have a copy of our constitution 
that was aj^proved in 1951, I could better answer that question. 

Senator Goldwater. The reason I ask that is that it occurs to me 
that during the testimony of Mr. Washburn or the developing of 
his record, he made statements to the effect that you were constantly 
interested in making that part of your constitution. 

Mr. DoRL\. It was changed. 

Senator Goldw^^ter. To change it from 15 to a lesser number. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; and it was changed many years ago. 

Senator GoldWxVTEr. How many years ago ? 

Mr. DoRiA. We originally had a provision, I think, for 18 names 
on the charter. 

Senator Goldwater. Fifteen names ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Fifteen or eighteen— I don't recall the exact number. 

Senator Goldwater. But there was a provision to that effect? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. I believe it was in our 1951 convention 
that the convention amended that portion of the constitution and 
deleted the requirement of the 15 names, since by that time we were 
beginning to develop the amalgamated type of a local union. In 
developing the amalgamated type of a local union the required number 
of names on the charter that we had been adhering to under previous 
constitutions was no longer practicable by virtue of the fact that 
many other plants wouktcome in under that same charter, once an 
amalgamated-type charter would be issued. 

Senator Goldwater. At how many conventions that you attended 
did you attempt to make this change before you finally got it changed? 

Mr. DoRiA. The change was made in the first convention that I 
attended where we considered the changes, as I recall it. 

Senator Goldwater. But you had made several efforts to get that 

change made. r. ^ 

Mr. DoRL4. No. I think we succeeded on the first effort, when the 
issue was brought up. As a matter of fact it was approved by the 
board, and it was submitted as a resolution by our board to the con- 
vention, as I recall it, and it was adopted by the convention. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, what investigations do you make of the 
names that appear on these applications ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, now this word "investigations," let us clear it up. 
I don't want to get into another routine like we got into this morning. 
The investigations that are made are normally made by the people 
out in the field that obtain the applications. In the cases where 
regional directors are involved, the regional directors merely approve 
that. 

In the case where a regional director would not have been involved, 
such as in the New York area, we made our own on the basis of the 
individual that we did know, and we were at no time in a position to 



4282 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

make extensive investigations with respect to them. For 20 years it 
was never the policy. We always considered ourselves quite fortunate 
when somebody applied for a charter that meant the establishment 
of a local union. 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you think that you should have made 
more thorough investigations than that into the applicants? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think there should have been a lot of things. 

Senator Goldw.vter. How do you do it today ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Before I left, just before I left as a result of all of the 
issues that developed in New York, we were very, very critical about 
the issuance of charters. As a matter of fact, unless directors were 
involved, I don't think any more charters were issued. 

Senator Goldwater. Getting away from that, have you ever made 
an effort to join up with the UAW-CIO? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. I made many efforts not to, however. 

Senator Goldwater. Back in about 1952, did you discuss with 
Emil Mazie or Walter Eeuther the possibilities of your union joining 
his? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I can't answer that question with one word, and 
I will give you the story. 

Senator Goldwater. You can't answer any question with one word, 
but let us keep it down, because I know the other Senators want to ask 
questions. 

Mr. DoRiA. Here is the thing, I would like to give you the complete 
story, because a partial answer is not going to indicate anything at all. 

Senator Goldwater. Can you make it a short partial answer ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I will make it as short as I can. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. 

Mr. DoRiA. We were invited to meet with Emil Mazie and Walter 
Reuther on the basis of considering a no-raid agreement. The meet- 
ing was held for the purpose of discussing a no-raid agreement. When 
we finally met with them in Detroit, because we happened to meet at 
the airport, the meeting was scheduled for Cleveland, they brought 
up the issue of amalgamation. 

Very simply to give it to your briefly, at that time I told Walter 
Reuther, I said, "You are seeking unity by virtue of our amalgama- 
tion?" And he said, "Yes," and I said, "If you are sincere about 
seeking unity, since the majority of the membership of the American 
labor movement is in the AFL, why don't you come in with us, because 
then you are making a move in the right direction. It would hardly 
be cori-ect for us to come into the smaller organization, if you seek 
unity." 

Then other discussions went ahead, from the standpoint of their 
offer to us to amalgamate with them, and nothing came of it. 

Senator Goldwater. Was that your last meeting with Mr. Reuther ? 

Mr. DoRL\. As I recall, it was the last meeting that I had with them. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. NoM', in the situation in New York, we are trying to 
get through that now, what were the ari-angements as far as the per 
capita taxes were concerned? 

Mr. Dorlv. As I stated earlier this morning, we had not contem- 
plated going into New York, and therefore we gave practically all of 
these local unions exoneration from the payment of per capita taxes, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4283 

to defray their own expenses since we were not subsidizing them as 
we subsidized the reguhir local unions. 

:Sh\ Kennedy. Now, the per capita tax stamps that were sent out, 
were sent out to Dio; is that not correct? 

Mr. DoRi A. While Dio was in office ; yes, sir. . , ^ . . 

Mr. Kennedy. So that would be for 1952, 1953, and part ot 1954, 
he would oet those. , , • -r 

Mr DoRiA. I will ao-ree to those dates on the basis I assume you 
have checked them and they are correct, and I don't have records 

Mr Kennedy. He would get the per capita stamp, the dues stamps; 
is that right? They would be sent to him for all of the locals m 
New York ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, they were primarily used as receipts for local union 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, he in turn would dispense them to the locals, 
and tiiey would pay the taxes in to him; is that right? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not exactly. When the stamps were dispensed to the 
local unions, they were under complete exoneration. There was no 
payment to anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand. 

Mr DoRiA. But when the local unions ultimately were changed to a 
degree, and they were paying per capita taxes, subject to refunds to 
them, then the checks for per capita tax payments were made out to 
the international and given to him to collect and to mail to the 

international. , . m^T . 

Mr Kennedy. Let me understand that again. The stamps were 
sent to Johnny Dio in New York, and he has maybe 6 or 8 locals under 
him. Now, he dispenses those stamps to the various locals to collect 
their dues. They in turn pay him the money ; is that not correct i 

Mr. DoRiA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They don't? . i • a j? 

Mr DoRiA. No; the stamps. No. 1, were given to him. bay, tor 
example, we had local 200 as an example, that needed 200 stamps. A 
bulk envelope with 200 stamps and the necessary reporting mediums 
was made up for local 200. i j- 

Mr Kennedy. You say "need" and wasn't it arranged as tar as 
Dio was concerned, and the locals in New York, that he would get 
1,500 every month anyway? . <? ^ ^i, x 

Mr. DoRiA. Not anyway. It was only on the basis ot the tact that 
they would have use for those stamps. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you give those instructions to your secretary, 

to send 1,500? , ^ ..-,..• 

Mr. DoRiA. There may have been, if the order at that time was 

for 1,500, and these were ordered by local unions, and if the order was 

1,500 we gave an order to send 1,500 stamps. If it had been 2,000, 

we would have sent 2,000. ^ j 

Mr. Kennedy. Were not there instructions that she was to send 

1,500 to Dio every month ? • . • 

Mr DoRiA. Not all of the way through. There were instructions 

during the time they were using 1,500. They might have used 

more or less. 



4284 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KejVnedy. So 1,500 stamps went out every month to liim. Now, 
did he ever make any accountino- as to what he did with the money 
that was raised with those stamps '^ 

Mr. DoRiA. Now. Mr, Kennedy, the 1,500 applied exclusively to local 
649. 

Mr. Kejv'Nedt. He also received 1,500 for the other locals under his 
jurisdiction ? 

Mr. DoRiA.No; the 1,500, if there was an order from a local union 
for a given numl^er of stamps, it applied to that 1 local union. If other 
local unions needed stamps they would have a special order of their 
own, and so many would fio to that local union, and he would get them 
all. 

Mr. Kennedt. That is different from what you had in other areas, 
where the stam]:)s would be sent to the local director ; is that not cor- 
rect ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here you had a system where the stamps would be 
sent to Johnnv Dio. 

Mr. DoRiA. 'That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Johnny Dio in turn would be the one to collect 
the money from tlie other locals. 

INIr. DoRiA. He never collected. When you say "collect the money,'' 
he collected the checks made out to the international union and there 
was no cash transaction. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you know that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because of the fact that if there were reports that were 
made 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the point. 

Were there any reports that were made during this period ? 

Mr. DoRiA. From time to time, cei-tain local unions ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. T]iere was not an accounting. Mr. Dio never re- 
turned the stam]i!-' that he did not use to the international ? 

Mr. DoRTA. Well, if he didn't return them, he got a notice every 
month to return them, and I don't recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you testify that he got a notice that he should 
return those stamps ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Let me tell you on what basis I testify to that, and bring 
it to the attention of this committee, that we had an automaic pro- 
vision whereby say the January per capita tax had been reported, and 
tlie balance of unused stamps had not been sent in with the report. 
The clerks were instructed normally to notify the local union to return 
the stamps because we kept a regular record of the stamps issued. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was your secretary or the clerk you would 
notify? 

Mr, DoRTA. Tliat would have been one of the bookkeeping clerks, 
and it all de]:)ends on who was there at the time. I don't recall who 
it might have been because we had quite a few changes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Was it Miss Clatworthy ? Did you have her ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; I think we had a Miss Clatworthy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you instruct her not to send out the notice 
to Dio, that he was handling this matter by himself? 

Mr. DoRiA. There could have been occasions, if Dio called me by 
phone and explained the situation to me, where I might have instructed 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4285 

her not to send a note by virtue of the fact that I ah'eady knew what 
was happenine; ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that the general instruction that you gave 
to Miss Chit worthy during this period of time? 

Mr. DoRiA. It might have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you testify when I asked you the ques- 
tion originally ? Why don't you testify as to what the complete facts 

are ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because you have got notes there that you have checked 
on that can refresh your memory, and I haven't. It is just that simple. 
If I asked, "What did you have for breakfast in 1952, on January 4?" 
you wouldn't know. , • i tit- 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember having a conversation with Miss 
Clatworthy that Dio would handle these per capita taxes and that 
they would be handled by his local in New York ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; I had a lot of conversations with the clerks in the 
oflice with respect to that, and they were always pertinent to what- 
ever was developing in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he had control over the moneys of the locals m 

New York? • i i i 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; he did not, because there was not one single check 
ever made out to Dio. Any money paid by the New York locals had 
to come into the international office, not to Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that on many occasions this money was 
paid in cash? 

Mr. DoRiA. None that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you never got an accounting from him as to 
what happened to the stamps, and how do you know what happened 

to them? -, ^ . 1 1 -J. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, now, there is confusion here dennitely, and it you 
want to go through it, I will go through it with you. 

But local 649, for example, just to pick a local as an example of the 
procedure, would give out a certain number of stamps on a given 
month, that were exonerated for the payment of per capita tax. They 
would be given out to the membership and the local union would col- 
lect the money in cash. 

Now, with respect to Dio, if it was a local union of which he was not 
an officer, the officers of that local union collected the cash for the 
stamps., and then the officers of that local union, if they were paying 
per ca])ita taxes, would make out a monthly per capita tax report and 
issue a check in payment of the per capita taxes. Dio was then desig- 
nated durins; the time he was there to collect these reports and the 
check from the local unions of which he was not an officer, and remit 
it to the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was this handled differently m New 1 ork than 
it was handled in any other section of the country ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because I found it extremely difficult to get the right 
kind of people in charge of the handling of the afl'airs of local unions 
in New York, with respect to the keeping of records, and I wanted 
somebody there to supervise them and try to keep tab on them, if it 
was at all possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the best person you could possibly find m ^New 
York, the most honest man, the man that knew most about accounting 
and money, was Johnny Dio ; is that right? 



4286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, DoRiA. It was not done on that basis. John Dio happened to 
be in a position of leadership, on a relative basis, let us put it that 
way. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was better than the rest ? 

Mr. DoRiA. He was better than anyone else I could have gotten. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the UAW-AFL, you mean. Now, you had your 
meeting in New York regarding Dio's activities, and the pressure was 
being brought by Mr. Meaney and others for the ouster of Johnny 
Dioguardi. Ultimately it was decided to pay him or make a payment 
of $16,000 to him; is that right? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. As a matter of fact, I originally found out about 
the $16,000 agreement from John Dio himself, I did not come into 
that meeting until late, and I was coming in from Los Angeles. 

When I got into New York, John Dio notified me that he had agreed 
to resign and that a settlement had been made to pay him $16,000 for 
the vouchers that he had that he was still holding from local 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest that is how much he should be 
paid ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I did not suggest that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you review the vouchers? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think, this is going back some time, and John Dio as 
I recall it, submitted at that time a whole stack of vouchers. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you review them ? 

Mr, DoRiA. No ; I did not review them and I did not make the deal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio made the deal with him ? 

Mr. DoRiA, My understanding was it was made either by the board 
or with Mr. Heaton and I don't recall now. But the first I found out 
about it — as I told you before, and I didn't like the idea, and I was 
not for it, I resented the whole thing. They all knew about it. 

It was the board together or Mr. Heaton alone, or with other mem- 
bers of the board. But I first found out about it from Dio himself, 
and then I went to Heaton and asked him if it was true. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were against it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, don't let me mislead you. I was against it from 
the standpoint I didn't want Dio out of the union. I felt he should not 
have resigned under the circumstances. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were not against paying him the $16,000 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; I made no objection to paying the $16,000. I was 
against the whole thing, and the $16,000 to me did not represent any 
payment to Dio in the first place, and it was merely for vouchers and 
expenditures incurred by the local union, 

Mr, Kennedy, How did you know that he incurred expenses of 
$16,000? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because on many, many occasions I was there when he 
paid people, and he had signed these vouchers, and these were the type 
of vouchers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you review the vouchers ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I did not review the vouchers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who reviewed the vouchers ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know who reviewed them. He was paid when he 
got in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a very interesting thing, because Mr. Heaton 
testified before the committee on Friday that he did not review the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4287 

vouchers, and that this deal was made by you, and that you told hiui 
that there were $16,000 worth of vouchers. 

Mr DoRiA. I don't care what anybody else testihed to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You testified that you did not review the vouchers 
andthat itwasMr. Heaton'sidea. nxi vi 

Mr DoKiA. I didn't say it was Mr. Heaton s idea and I don t know 
whose idea it was. My point is that everybody on the board and m the 
international knew I was not in favor of the removal of Johnny Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are not talking about that. 

Mr. DoRiA. And no one came to me. 

Mr Kennedy. We are not talking about that. We are talking about 
the pavment of $16,000 by the union; $16,000 of union members dues 
were taken out and paid to Johnny Dio, and iMr. Heaton said this was 
because you had verified the vouchers and found $16,000 worth of 

^^YouTestified before the committee that you had not even looked at 

^ MrSoRit I didn't say I hadn't looked at them. I had not reviewed 

them for the exactness of the amount, but I knew Johnny Dio had 

more than $16,000 worth of vouchers. 

Mr. Kennedy. How? t ^„o 

Mr. DoRiA. By virtue of being as close to the activities as i was 

in the organizational progress in New York. -, . ^i 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money had he invested m the union, 

approximately? , . , , ,i 

Mr DoRiA. I don't know, and I wouldn't know whether it was an 
investment. I don't know if that is a proper description ot it, o± the 
monev that went into the union, but I do know that more money went 
into defraying the expenses of handling local 102 than was ever col- 
lected by 102. . 1 . -i 1 i-i. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, again, that is very interesting, but it has noth- 
ing to do with the facts on this. 

Mr.DoRiA. What you are seeking, I don't know. • , ., 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know how much money he put into the 
union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I do not. , ,t, cti a aaa 2 

Mr. Kennedy. But you say it is more than 5t.lb,0UU i 

Mr. DoRiA. I think it was far more than $16,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. $30,000? 

Mr. DoRiA. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't hazard a guess and i 
know it is more than $16,000. _ ^ . ,-, i- i^ 

Mr Kennedy. He was just very interested m the working people 
of New York City and wanted them to have a union, and so he invested 

over $16,000? . . , i • i j i 

Mr DoRiv No He expected that. When the local union would be 
functioning and established, he would have returned to him whatever 
vouchers he had to indicate expenditures for which he had not been 

paid. - -x • Q 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yliere did he get the money to put it m i 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know about that. 

Mr Kennedy. You were not interested in that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No: because I couldn't have done anything about it 
anyway. 



4288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think this is a local that is under the juris- 
diction of the international, and you have this man who has been 
convicted of extortion, and he comes in ; he is putting a lot of money 
in the local. 

Mr. DoRiA. But will you please remember that, during the time I 
was watching the afi'airs of local 649, 1 was in exactly the same capacity 
with respect to 460 other locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, you are the one who said that you knew 
all about this. 

Mr. Doria. I didn't say I knew all about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said j^ou were watching the affairs. 

Mr. Doria. I don't know how much money he got, and I told you 
I don't know how much money he spent. 

Mr. Kennedy. JNIr. Doria, you said you were watching the affairs 
of this local very carefully. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, organizationally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was this money coming from that you say 
Dio put in ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't know where the money came from, and he might 
have borrowed it. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. "Where was he borrowing it from ? 

jMr. Doria. Don't ask me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't it concern you? You said you were con- 
cerned about his relationship with other people. 

Mr. Doria. Any local union in this international union, even after 
they have just gotten through with their conventions, is in a position 
to go out and borrow all of the money that people will trust them with. 
The international constitution specifically provides that the interna- 
tional union is not to be bound by any of the financial transactions of 
a local union. Therefore, their autonomy is tliere, and it is a right 
of self-rule. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not care who finances one of the locals? 

Mr. Doria. I would not say I don't care, and I would certainly care 
if I felt that they were being financed for purposes other than the 
building of a union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you not think it was interesting to find out 
where this money was coming from ? 

Mr. Doria. I was only aware of one thing, and that was that Johnny 
would have done a lot to obtain a respectable position in the labor 
movement, and to me it was not surprising if he would have gone out 
to borrow money to put it into the union in the hope of establishing 
it and being paid back later. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never asked about that, and you never asked 
him where 

Mr. Doria. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did he say it came from? 

Mr. Doria. I did ask him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is that? > 

Mr. Doria. He didn't say where the mone}' came from, and he said, 
"Doria,'* that is one thing that is best that you always will never know 
because,'' he said, "why should you get involved with it, too?" 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that not arouse vour suspicions ? 

Mr. Doria. Wliat is that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4289 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that not arouse your suspicions a bit ? 

]Mr. DoRiA. No. , , 1 • • 

Mr. Kennedy. You lilved liim and you thought he was coming m 
liere and he was getting a chance, and he was bringing m 18 or W 
other fellows, and everybody was getting a chance to do good? 

Mr. DoRiA. As far as I am concerned, I had hoped they would do 
good.' That is the way I tried to help them. . i • ^ 

The (^lAiR.^iAN. As I understood you, the international is not re- 
sponsible for the debts of a local. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. . 

The Chairman. That is true, under your constitution i 

Mr. DoRiA. That's right. . i -i i ,i <t^anmi>^h 

The Chairman. But your international picked up the ^lb,UOU tab 

that Dio claimed that he had advanced to a local. i o Tf 

Mr. DoRiA. That's right ; and you know why that was done ? it 

was done for this reason, Mr. McClellan 

The Chairman. It had no liability. n • ^ i • -f 

Mr DoRiA. No. It could never have been forced into doing it 
in court. But it was done on the basis of the fact that when local 102 
was started, it was contemplated that they would be allowed to hnish 
the work in New York, and when the international union went along 
with the idea of canceling local 102, naturally, we precluded any pos- 
sibility of Dio or anybody else who might have advanced funds to be 
paid back. To that extent, they accepted the $16,000. It could -never 
have been enforced in court. 

The Chairman. I believe you said a moment ago there weie more 
than $16,000 worth of vouchers. 

The Cmrman! So far, we have been able to find only $5,138.83 
worth of vouchers. Do you know what became of the others . 

Mr DoRiA. No; I don't. I know there were three m the interna- 
tional union headquarters and I understand they were picked up by 
one committee, and I don't know whether some o^ /hem went to the 
ethical practices committee at the time we appeared before them, but 
I don't know what happened to the remainder of the vouchers. 

Mr iSnnedy. We list have the facts ; that, according to the record 
Mr HeSon said he did not examine the vouchers, that he depended 
on whafyou sa d. You say you did not examine the vouchers m 
detan-wl?t a minut^and $16,000 was then paid to Johnny Dio, 
and we h^Je eVZned the vouchers and the most [hat the^ come to 
and there is no evidence that this money was put m by Dio, but the 

"^MV^KTBu'til^^^^^^^ question in the minds of any member 
of tl e board of the Allied Industrial Workers that Dio had not spent 
in excess of $16,000. I don't believe you could get one of them that 
would give you any other testimony than that. 

Mr Kennedy. We have had testimony before the committee, be- 
causeMr. Weintraub and Mr. Donohue say they were telephoned and 
they were told Mr. Dio was going to be paid $10,000 .^^Hinlv 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know anything aboiit that. They certainly 
didn't o-et such a telephone call from me. They might have gotten 
it f?oiirsomebody else, but not from me. I knew nothing of the deal 
until after it had been consummated. 



4290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. After the payment of $16,000 to Dio, in 1954, did he 
have anything to do with the union after that time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not in any official capacity. I, of course, personally, 
as a result of the work that I had done close to Johnny Dio, continued 
to be a friend of Dio's, and met Dio on many occasions at labor 
functions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the union's affairs with him and get 
his advice on things ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I used to discuss union affairs with him, and, naturally, 
it was impossible to meet him without discussing union affairs. We 
did ; we discussed many of the people that he had been directly asso- 
ciated with before lie left the movement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have any position with the union after that 
time? 

Mr. DoRiA. He had no official position that I know of at all with the 
miion at that time, or any other union that I knew of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you request him to do anything for you, with 
the unions, at that time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall. I might, in discussions with him, gen- 
eral type of discussions you have with a fellow I was as friendly with 
as 1 was with him. I would ask him questions about the individuals 
and how the locals were getting along, or whether or not they needed 
any assistance, and I might have discussed anything with him because, 
after all, he was in at one time, and I would not have withheld 
anything from him. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he had no connection with the union after that 
time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No official connection that I knew about. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, what do you mean by official connection? 

Mr. DoRiA. I mean, by that, that he was not recognized as being a 
member of our international union or a member of any local union. 
Now, if he still retained certain relationships with the individuals he 
dealt with, just like, for example, I resigned 6 months ago and there 
are many occasions when I met with some of the people of the inter- 
national union and I discussed union affairs with them. We would 
discuss things like selling a building or anything else they might be 
interested in. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, as far as coming to him, to administer any of 
the locals, for instance, or make decisions for any of the locals, he 
didn't have that position ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I clon't recall any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it possible ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I was very close with him and I would have discussed 
a lot of things with him, even after he left, but I don't recall anything 
like that; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is is possible that the international would pay him 
$16,000 and say that they were rid of him completely, and then have 
some sub rosa connection with Johnny Dio when he was with manage- 
ment, then ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Management? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know of any ; no. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4291 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we had some information and evidence that 
he was the one who called off or placed some pickets on a shop in 1955 
for local 224. 

JNIr. DoRiA. Whom was he representing at the time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was placing the pickets, and he put the pickets on 
for local 224, and he took them off, Rockaway Motors. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know, unless he was working with the officers of 
that local union that he knew, and he thought he might have been 
helpful to them in participating. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would he be, in 1955, when he was associated 
with Equitable Research, which is a management consultant firm, why 
would he be placing pickets of local 224 on an establishment? 

Mr. DoRiA. I certainly have no idea, and I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you surprised to hear that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I am surprised to the extent that he would have par- 
ticipated, but I am not surprised when I consider the fact that they 
might have been friends of his, that he still carried over from the 
standpoint of having been with the union at one time and might have 
worked with them. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is quite an advantage, is it not, for somebody 
who is in labor-management advisory position, that he can put pickets 
on and take them off for a union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. You mean as an adviser to management ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes, and he is the one who makes decisions as to 
whether pickets will be put on a place. 

Mr. DoRiA. I would say that would be a beautiful arrangement if 
you wanted to exploit it ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he wasn't the type ? 

Mr. DoRiA. He wasn't the type that would do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Exploit it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think so. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Who was in charge of the New York area after Dio 
retired in 1954? 

Mr. Dorm.. Well, as I say again, there was never anybody really in 
charge of it, but tlie man that we looked to after Dio terminated his 
association with the union, I think, was a fellow by the name of Joe 
Curcio. 

Mr. Kennedy, Is this a letter that you wrote to Joe Curcio ? 

The Chairman. Let me ask you: When was it that you got Dio 
out of the union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't remember the date. 

The Chairman. What was the date of that $16,000 check ? 

Mr. Kennedy. September 3, 1954. 

The Chairman. September 3, 1954? I hand you a carbon copy of 
a letter dated July 13, 1955, addressed to Joseph Curcio, president of 
UAW-AFL, Amalgamated Local 649, New York, and the letter bears 
the typewritten author of Anthony Doria, international secretary- 
treasurer. I will ask you to examine the letter and see if you recog- 
nize that as a photostatic copy of the letter you wrote to Mr. Curcio 
regarding the affairs of that union. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Do you recognize the letter ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir. 



4292 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, It will be made exhibit No. 79, 

(The document referred to was marked "Exliibit No. 79" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The CnxViRMAKT. I noticed this letter dated July 13, 1955, some 
9 months after Mr, Dioguardi was paid $10,000 to get rid of him, I 
understood you to say he had no further official interest or authority 
in connection with the locals after that time. 

Mr. DoRiA. 1 know of none that he had from the standpoint of an 
official interest in the local unions. I certainly continued to talk to 
him about the unions beyond the date he left. 

The Chairman. I am sure you did that, but I wondered why, if he 
had no authority or no connection with the unions after that time, you 
felt it advisable or desirable to send him copies of your correspondence. 

Mr. DoRiA. On that letter, he was interested in the situation and 
I wanted him to do one tiling, and that is, with respect to the people 
that still went to him on any of these matters, he might at least be 
advised of what went on. 

The Chairman. Did you so write him ? And you apparently sent 
him a copy of this letter, 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; because, if you will notice, that is a new procedure. 
That was developed in the international union, wherein I made up a 
completely new reporting manual for all of the local unions. 

The Chairman. But he was out ? 

Mr, DoRiA. Sure he was out. 

The Chairman. And he did not have anything to do with the new 
procedure. 

Mr. Doria. I was not unaware of the fact that he was a friend of 
the movement, and I still went with him and talked with him. 

The Chairman. He was still pretty much in command up there. 

Mr, DoRTA, I won't say that he was in command ; no. 

The Chairman, You thought he had enough influence. You were 
keeping him advised of all of the changes, apparently, 

Mr, Doria. Let me state, if I thought that, by virtue of talking to a 
friend of his, and having him approach him, to straighten out the 
affairs, as that letter would indicate, there were many things to be 
straightened out, and I could have used him to help me as a friend, 
and I would have used him. 

The Chairman. You did not instruct in this letter; you did not 
instruct Curcio to get in touch with John Dio, did you ? 

Mr. Doria. No ; I did not. 

The Chairman, He was not mentioned, other than you sent him a 
copy? 

Mr, Doria. That is right. 

The Chairman. That was a signal to Curcio that John Dio knew 
what was going on, that you were keeping him informed? 

Mr, Doria, A signal to Curcio for what? 

The Chairman. "Wlien you sent him a copy of the letter you are 
sending to Curcio, you are telling John Dio ; that was a signal that 
Dio was being advised ? 

Mr. Doria. He didn't need a signal from me. 

The Chairman, If he needed one, that provided it, 

Mr. Doria. He certainly didn't need one, Curcio knew Dio better 
than I did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4293 

The Chairman. And Curcio knew he was running the show up 
there, too. 

Mr. DoRiA. No; he did not. I don't think he did. John Dio was 
no longer rumiing the aifairs. 

The Chairman. I am very sorry, but the committee will have to 
take a recess. There is a rollcall vote in the Senate. We will return 
as soon as convenient to do so. We will stand in recess temporarily. 

(Present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan, Gold- 
water, and Mundt.) 

(Brief recess.) 

(Present after the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan, Mc- 
Namara, Goldwater, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria, Mr. Dio supposedly resigned from the 
union in September of 1954, but you were keeping him advised as to 
the various plants that were being organized, the per capita dues pay- 
ments, through 1955; is that right? 

]\Ir. DoRiA. As a matter of fact, I met with Dio as recently as a few 
weeks ago, and still talked union matters over with him. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But you were sending him correspondence? 

Mr. DoRiA. If he told me he was interested in that, I would send it 
to him ; sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time, he was working for Equitable Re- 
search, and he was being retained by some of the companies with 
whom these unions did business or had contracts. Did you know- 
that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I don't know anything about his Equitable ope- 
rations, other than that he was in that business. But I don't know 
anything about his operations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are the facts. You were keeping him ad- 
vised as to what was going on in the union, sending him copies of the 
correspondence, and at the same time he had a company called Equi- 
table Research which was being employed by companies that had con- 
tracts with these unions. 

Mr. Doria. I don't know that, either, Mr. Kennedy, whether he 
had contracts with any of the employers that were part of the ground 
under any of the Allied Industrial Workers contracts. That I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony before this committee by 
Mr. Lehrer, for instance, and he made a contract in September of 
1955 with Equitable Research, and, during this same period of time, 
you were writing letters, copies of which were sent to Johnny Dio 
regarding the activities of local 227. 

Mr. Doria. I don't know if Johnny knew about letters. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat ? 

INIr. Doria. Frankly, I don't know of any other letter that he got 
besides the one we are talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will help you with them, 

Mr. Doria. If there are any more, I would like to see them. I don't 
recall any. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was on 227, the one that had the contract. 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 



4294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And Equitable Research had a contract with Mr. 
Lehrer. 

Mr. DoRiA. Was Mr. Lehrer connected with local 227 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. Mr. Lehrer was representing the Glass Deal- 
ers Association. The Glass Dealers Association bargained with local 
227 and, at the suggestion of the president of local 227, Harry Reiss, 
they went to Equitable Research, Johnny Dio, and made a contract 
with Johnny Dio, and paid him what was equivalent to about $2,500 
over a 3-year period during this exact same period of time. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I don't know about those operations at all. 

The Chairman. I will hand you another letter of the same date, 
July 13, 1955. This is an original letter addressed to Joseph Curcio, 
president, UAW-AFL, Amalgamated Local 649. It appears to bear 
your signature as international secretary-treasurer. I will ask you 
to examine it and state if that is your letter, the original that you 
sent to Mr. Curcio on that date. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; I can identify this letter. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 80. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 80," for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4474.) 

The Chairman. I hand you another letter dated July 6, 1955. But 
I notice, first, on that letter of exhibit 80, you sent a copy of that, the 
letter of July 13, to John Dioguardi. 

Mr. Doria. Right. 

The Chairman. I hand you another one dated July 6, to Joseph 
Curcio as president, signed by you as international secretary-treasurer, 
and I ask you to examine that and state if you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. McClellan, I can tell you the nature of the letters 
that have this attached to them. This is a report showing unit num- 
bers, plant names, per capita tax payments not made and so forth. 
They were written to all the locals, and in all those cases I sent a copy 
to John Dioguardi. I don't know whether you have tliem all or not. 

The reason for that was, if you will look back into this record right 
here, you will find that the questions with respect to per capita tax 
payments in some cases even go back to the time that Dioguardi was 
representing us in the east. 

The Chairman. But he was not in the union any longer. You said 
he never collected them or sent them ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; they didn't. But from the standpoint of what the 
locals did since he was the original supervisor, I might have sent him 
copies of it, because Joseph Curcio might have had to go back to 
Dio 

The Chairman. You did not "might have" ; did you ? 

Mr. Doria. Joseph Curcio might have had to go back to John Dio. 
There is one other 

The Chairman. I notice in these three letters when you send a copy 
to Johnny Dioguardi, you call it bookkeeping department. Wliat 
kind of a bookkeeping 

Mr. DoRiA. No. That is another copy on the bookkeeping depart- 
ment. That is within our own office. 

The Chairman. So he was not in the bookkeeping department? 

Mr. Doria. No ; Johnny Dio was not a bookkeeper. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4295 

The Chairman. He rejilly was not in any department? 

Mr. DoRiA. He was not a bookkeeper. 

The Chairman. Not officially ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Or unofficially he wasn't a bookkeeper. 

The Chairman. He was not in a department officially? 

Mr. Doria. Not in the bookkeeping department. We can establish 
that and get rid of that ghost. 

The Chairman. You would not recommend him as a bookkeeper? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; frankly, no. I can think of other bookkeepers that 
I could recommend. 

The Chairman. This may be made exhibit No. 81. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 81,'' for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember writing him any other letters, 
keeping him informed and requesting other information from him? 

Mr. Doria. No ; I don't recall, Mr. Kennedy. I am not going to say 
to you there was no other correspondence between us, but I don't recall 
any specific letters. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here a letter that you wrote directly to him 
about the activities of the locals in New York at the end of 1955. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I would like to see it. I will certainly identify it, 
if I can be refreshed with respect to my memory on it. 

The Chairman. This, possibly, is not an authentic copy. The au- 
thentic copy will be available. I will ask you about it, assuming we 
have or will secure either the original or a copy of a letter from you 
to Johnny Dio. It reads like this, dated October 21, 1955 : 

Mr. ,TonN Dio, 

109 Freeport, Point Lookout, N. Y. 
Dear Johnny : Here is the report on the per capita tax report which I have 
so far received from the New York local union : 

Local 224 : 

•Tune 19.5.^, 555 members, at 25 cents $138. 75 

July 1955, 605 members, at 25 cents 151. 25 

.$290 

Local 250 : 

May 19.55, 272 members, at 25 cents 68. 00 

June 19.55, 768 members, at 25 cents 92. 00 

July 19.55, 762 members, at 25 cents 190. ,50 

August 1955, 770 members, at 25 cents 192. ,50 

64,3 

I^ocal o55 : 

January 19,55, 2 members, at 25 cents .50 

February 1955. 2 members, at 25 cents .50 

March 19.55, 100 members, at 25 cents 25. 00 

April 19,55, 100 members, at 25 cents 2,5. 00 

May 1955, 100 aiembers, at 25 cents 25. 00 

June 1955, 100 members, at 25 cents 25. 00 

July 1955, 100 members, at 25 cents 25. 00 

126 

Local 649 only paid 75 cents per member, which will be adjusted when the 
full payment is made. 

Local 227, Sant Maria has not paid since February, but will be in t'te new 
report, which has been mailed according to you. 

This does not include the reports whicli you said were mailed recently, and 
as soon as the new reports are checked, I will give you another report including 
tl e payments made on the last per capita report from the New York locals. 
You can send me proper billings for the ,$1,059 at your earliest convenience. 
J^raternally yours. 

Anthony Doria. 
International Secretary-Treasurer. 
89830 — 5" — pt. 11 m 



4296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. May I see that ? 

The Chairman. It is a copy of it, copied from the telephone. I 
do not have the original as yet or the carbon copy of it, but we 
expect to procure it. You may testify Avith that in mind. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. DoRiA. I would have to have more on it, I think, sir, before I 
could give you too much on this. This is a letter that undoubtedly 
came out of my office, without question. 

But just exactlv what it refers to, I don't know, from this. 

The Cj I AIRMAN. Well, obviously, you have given him a report on 
the whole activities of the union, to keep him advised. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, but the reason for it, I don't know. 

The Chairman. If that letter is in existence, if it was issued, if 
you authored that letter, obviously you felt under some obligation 
to keep Jolmny Dio fully advised of everything you were doing. 

Ml". DoRiA. Yes. The only thing I don't recall is the circumstances 
under which I issued it. The letter undoubtedly came out of my 
office, whether you liave an original of it or not. What it refers to 
is local per capita tax payments. 

The Chairman. That was 13 months after you paid him off, after 
you got rid of him. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. I will have that made exhibit No. 82, subject to 
being replaced by tlie carbon copy or the original. That will be 
substituted for it when it arrives. But tliat will be attached, since 
it is the one exhibited to you, to the carbon copy or the original of it 
wlien you receive it, so they may be compared at any time. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 82'" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the a])pendix on p. 4475.) 

Mr. Kennkdy. Let me read the hist two paragra])hs again, after 
going through tlie figures. Tliis is the letter directly to Johnny Dio, 
from you, international secretary-treasurer. It says : 

This does not inchule the reiwrts which you said were mailed recently, and 
as soon as the new reports are checked. 1 will give you another report including 
the payments made on the last per capita reiMJrt from the New York locals. 

Mr. DoRiA. Tliat rould liave happened under these circumstances. 
I don't recall it. But th.ere is a i)<)ssibility as to how that could come 
about, either on a visit that Johnny Dio might have made to the 
west coast, or either on a visit that I might have made to Xew York 
where I talked with John Dio and retjuested him either to con- 
tact (^ircio or somebody, that the rej^orts were not coming through, 
and if he saw them to please advise them of it. 

As I said. I have never stated to you and will never state to you 
that I com])letely blocked out Johnny Dio when he resigned. I was 
in contact with him all the time, as a friend. Socially we have been 
in contact. His family has visited my family on the coast. I visited 
his family as recently as a few weeks ago. We didn't i)art company 
fom7>lctelv. 

Tb.eiefore, I would have, as I stated before, not hesitated if I 
thought he could have been of any help, to invoke himself in dealing 
with the ])eople that he originally dealt with. It is quite possible 
that it might have happened. 

I wish I had more detail on it that I could give you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4297 

Mr. Kennedy. And — 
You can send me proper billings for the $1,059 at your earliest convenience. 

What would that be? 

Mr. DoRiA. That was either a reference to Joseph Curcio sending 
it and 

Mr. Kennedy. This is from Johnny Dio to you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Johnny Dio, as such, could not have sent me a billing 
for anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I don't understand. 

Mr. DoRiA. If I did state it, it might have applied to one of the local 
unions. I wish I had what surrounded that, but that letter cannot 
give me the information. 

The Chairman. What would he have to do with the information? 

Mr. DoRiA. He could tell them to send me the information. 

The Chairman. You could send him a wire or call him and do the 
same thing; couldn't you? 

Mr. DoRiA. Sure. But if I was in New York, for example, and dis- 
cussed something with him, and I went back to Los Angeles, or he 
was in Los Angeles and I discussed something with him, and he went 
ba^k to New York, I could conceivably have written to him. 

The Chairman. Let me suggest something. I don't want to be 
critical. But when I am trying to talk, I hope you will listen. 

Mr. Doria. I am sorry if I interrupted you. I w411 do the same 
thing. 

The Chairman. What I am saying is that here is a man that you 
say is your friend. That is all right. But he has been in the union. 
You paid him $16,000 to ^et rid of him. 

Now the only explanation you have of such communication is that 
you have him to look after the other union officials to get them to re- 
port, tx) send them what you could call on for yourself or should have 
done. 

Mr. Doria. Certainly I should have done it myself. But if I rai\ 
into John Dio, I wouldn't hesitate to say, "Look, when you see Joey 
Curcio, have him call me,*' or tell Joey Curcio tliis or the other thing. 
I wouldn't hesitate to do that. 

The Chairman. You did not wait to run into him. You sent him 
correspondence on it. 

Mr. Doria. That followed discussions between us. That was not 
original correspondence. 

The Chairman. I don't believe it states so. 

Mr. Doria. It doesn't state so, but that is the obvious reason for writ- 
ing to him. There nnist have been some understanding that we 
readied, or he liad agi-eed to do something for me; and then I wrote 
to him and gave him the report. John Dio was in no capacity with 
our union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was representing management at this time. 

Mr. DoRiA. He might have been. But whether he represented man- 
agement or agriculture or anything else, if he was a friend of mine, I 
would have talked to him about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were giving him instructions to give to your 
people, tlie heads of locals in the New York area, and at the same {>eriod 
of time he was re])resenting manngomen' . 



4298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA, Mr. Kennedy, I wouldn't hesitate to give the same kind 
of advice to management. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not a question of management. You are asking 
him to carry out instructions for the international union in New York, 
control over 6 or 7 different locals, at the same time Johnny Dio is 
representing management. According to the testimony before our 
committee, he was selling protection. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, that I know nothing about. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were keeping in touch with him. You must 
have known something. 

Mr. DoRiA. Not that he was selling protection. I have never had 
any evidence given to me that he was selling protection. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew he was representing management and one 
■of the things he was selling was keeping unions outi 

Mr. DoRiA. He was not keeping our union out, was he ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; he liked your union. I agree. 

Generally, what he was selling was keeping unions out. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know that. That is something that was foreign 
completely to any relationship that we had in our union. But my rela- 
tionship so far as management is concerned has always been, and I am 
sure your investigators w^ere quite thorough in my investigation, and I 
think they can approach any management that I have dealt with, once 
the initial organizational phase was over, and I can honestly say that I 
have been friendly with every management I have dealt with. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can somebody represent management and the local 
at the same time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I will say that in American labor, if management gets 
down on the right basis there will be absolutely no area of difference 
with respect to it, and they could. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could somebody represent the Q department store 
and the local bargaining with that department store 

Mr. DoRiA. If they were honest ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They can ? 

Mr. DoRiA. If tliey were honest. 

Mr. Kennedy. They can be paid by management and the local at 
the same time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. If it is merely technical advice they are seeking in their 
relationship and if they are perfectly honest, I say they can. 

Mr. Kennedy. Like Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I know I could do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Johnny Dio was the only person you would trust 
with your funds, the only person you would put in charge of your 
locals and the only person you would have to represent union and 
management at the same time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Kennedy, I think we have to start with the premise 
that you and I don't look at Johnny Dio the same way. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. I hope not. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. We have to start with the premise that 
I absolutely believe that Johnny Dio was sincere and honest. I 
had absolutely nothing else to indicate anything else to me. I did not 
follow Johnny Dio throughout his life. I cannot vouch for all his 
actions. But in his relationship witli me, I had reason to trust Johnny 
Dio. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4299 

Mr. Kennedy. You have as much confidence in him as you have in 
your own inte^^rity and honesty ? 

Mr. DoRiA. With respect to our acts, yes, where we both participated. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. That sort of leads us back to the colloquy we had 
this mornino;, Mr. Doria, where we discussed the impact of Johnny 
Dio on society and the impact of society upon Johnny Dio, at which 
time you said that you were convinced that Johnny Dio had nothing 
to do with this acid throwing. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, no, I don't believe it. 

Senator Mundt. You said that in your opinion you thought he 
didn't do it. 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And you also said that in your opinion Johnny 
Dio did not engage in labor racketeering when he was associated with 
the union. 

Mr. Doria. That is right. I don't believe that, either. 

Senator Mundt. Wliy do you suppose it was, then, that Johnny 
Dio took the fifth amendment when he came before our committee? 

Mr. Doria. I don't know. I have no powers to be able to penetrate 
the innermost recesses of his mind and determine how he functions 
internally. 

Senator Mundt. He told us that he couldn't answer the question 
because he was afraid of self-incrimination. 

Mr. Doria. Well, I know, but if a fellow takes a position that he 
cannot answer a question because of possible incrimination, he may 
have his own reasons for it. "VVliat they may be are not necessarily 
conveyed to me. I wouldn't be able to testify as to why he did it. 

Senator Mundt. If you were sitting on this side of the table and 
you asked a man some questions and he said, "I cannot answer them 
because of the possible fear of self-incrimination," how would that 
active mind of yours react ? 

Mr. Doria. The active mind of mine would take this position, 
Senator, that I believe he is exercising his rights under the Constitu- 
tion. 

Senator Mundt. I wouldn't deny that. 

Mr. Doria. And I believe he is entitled to them. I think you know 
as well as I, that under the extremely lax laws with respect to con- 
spiracies, the mere mention of your name can implicate you and in- 
criminate you. If those people fear that they may be associated in 
such a manner, even though they know they are not guilty of wrong- 
doing, they might take the fifth amendment to avoid such possible 
incrimination. 

Senator Mundt. Pursuing that a little further, we asked him some 
specific questions to which had he said "Yes," he would have definitely 
implicated himself. But if he had answered those questions by saying 
"No," he would have pretty well exonerated himself had he told the 
truth. 

How can a man say "No" to a question of 

Mr. Doria. I think you are as well aware of the rules with respect 
to appearances before committees as I am. He might have opened 
up a line of questioning that would have no longer permitted him to 



4300 IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

take the fifth amendment on other questions that you miglit have 
pursued, and probably he refused to answer a question where he was 
completely in the clear, simply because he was not sure that he was not 
opening up a line of questioning that would have required him to con- 
tinue further, and, therefore, took that position. 

Senator Mundt. Turning to another phase, do you know Max 
Chester? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know whether I know Max Chester or not. The 
name is a name that was associated with our locals in New York, 
but I frankly do not recall meeting Max Chester. 

Senator Mundt. You are aware of the fact that Johnny Dio brought 
him into the labor movement ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, he operated there during the time that Johnny 
Dio did. Whether he brought him into the movement or not, I 
don't know. 

Senator Muxdt. We have had witnesses who came here and told 
us of how Max Chester had intimidated him and sandbagged him 
over the head for money, and made him cash checks that bounced. 

Mr. DoRiA. I would be the first one to condemn the practice. 

Senator Mundt. What is that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I would be the first one to condemn it. I have never 
had those experiences. 

Senator Mundt. We had Max Chester before us, and he took the 
fifth amendment. He didn't deny he had done that, but he took the 
fifth amendment. Whether he was worried about question No. 2 when 
he ducked on question No. 1, I don't know. But he took the fifth 
amendment. 

Do you know Mr. David Cosentino ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, again, you see I dealt with the leaders there and 
although the names are very familiar with me, I honestly can't tell you 
whether or not I met them. 

Senator Mundt. You are aware of the fact that he was brought 
into the labor movement by Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, not that he was brought into it, but that he was 
associated, yes. 

Senator INIundt. The records will show that he was brought in. 
He was brought down to our committee and he took the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Do you know Theodore Ray ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, I know Theodore Ray. 

Senator Mundt. Are you aware of the fact that he came into the 
labor union under Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And he was brought down before our committee 
and took the fifth amendment. 

Mr. DoRTA. Yes, I read about that. 

Senator Mitndt. Do you know Harry Reiss ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know whether I have met Harry Reiss per- 
sonally or not. Possibly I have. Again, that is in the same category 
as the people you mentioned. 

Senator Mundt. People that were brought into the labor-union 
movement by Johnny Dio and who came down here on the evidence 
that we had. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4301 

He took the fif tli amendment. 

Do you know Dominick Santa jNIaria ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I know one Santa Maria, M-liether it is Dominick Santa 
Maria or Arthur Santa Maria I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Well, they both seem to "et involved in the same 
troubles in the labor movement. They were brought into the labor 
movement by Johnny Dio and were brought down before our com- 
mittee and took the fifth amendment. 

That also holds true of Sidne}' Ilodes, Bernard Tolkow, and Abra- 
ham Brier. 

Now, if Ave were to accept your thesis that Johnny Dio was really 
trying to get into the labor movement and go straight and improve 
working conditions for the American workingman, and rehabilitate 
himself into society, why do you suppose he brought into the move- 
ment so many of these characters that went wrong and who had to 
come down here and take refuge in the fifth amendment ? 

Mr, DoRiA. Senator, I think if all of those cases would be checked 
out, it would probably be determined — I don't know this, but I know 
Johnny Dio — that they requested the opportunity of getting into the 
labor and if Johnny Dio had one failing, it was later on to just deprive 
him of his own opportunities in the labor field, it was the inability to 
say '"No" to anybody. 

Senator Muxdt. That leads to a great Pandora's box. 

Mr. DoRiA. That's right. I told him at one time that he should go 
to a school on the various languages and learn how to say "no" m 
every language that he could possibly know it, that that would be the 
best thing he could do. 

Senator Mundt. You were discussing with Senator Goldwater this 
morning whether or not it was wise, either in management or in labor, 
to bring into positions of responsibility former convicts and people 
with a police record. 

You said that you thought probably the same thing that applied to 
industry should apply to labor. That sort of makes sense. But would 
you say that with your experience now, in trying to rehabilitate 
Johnny Dio and finding that he had this failing, that he had to tell all 
the other friends of his that had been in trouble, "You can come into 
the union with me,'' that maybe that represents a danger in putting 
people with a record into positions of responsibility because they, in 
turn, have to say "j^es" to everybody else with a record and, finally, 
you have nothing but a gang of Avould-be reformers running the union. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, sir. Senator, I think it indicates this : If it indicates 
anything at all to me it indicates that there ought to be better enforce- 
ment at the time the wrongdoing takes place. 

I cannot very quickly abandon the idea upon which all American 
legal jurisprudence has been predicated, that it has normally been 
recognized that we let 100 wrongdoers escape if we can't get the goods 
on them, so to speak, rather than convict 1 innocent person. 

I still believe that we ought to hold to that, and I believe that the 
stress should be placed upon enforcement and one thing that the record 
will indicate is this : 

Throughout the entire AIW, which I believe has been maligned 
absolutely without i-eason. never did an act take place where the people 
remained in the organization and nobody can do any better than that. 



4302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Whether it be a banker that mishires a teller that steals money, 
whether it be industry that mishires an accountant, regardless of what 
it may be, the best thev can do is remove him when they find him guilty 
of wrongdoing after he has come into the organization. 

I don't think that ought to be abandoned under any condition. 

Senator Mundt. AVe have a list of some 20 people who were brought 
into the labor movement by Johnny Dio. They all got into trouble. 
They all got into conflict with the laws, enforcement agencies, or with 
committees making investigations. 

Charges of one kind or another, all serious, were leveled against all 
of them. All of them were taking the fifth amendment ; none of them 
willing to come in here and say no. None of them were like you, and 
I commend you on that, to come in and answer the question, sometimes 
too wholesomely, but answering the question. 

Mr. DoRiA. I can give you only my opinion, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. You are entitled to it. We are glad to get it. 
But it occurs to me that this being the sweet society of reformation 
and lightness that you picture it to be, there might be something a 
little more insidious about this whole thing. 

We see the case where, in the trials in New York City, in the acid- 
throwing, scandalous attack on Victor Riesel, that these associates 
of Dio refused to talk ; they took the fifth amendment. 

We see the same associates of Dio coming down before our com- 
mittee on these charges and allegations and they refuse to talk. It 
occurs to me that there might be some intimidation or coercion on the 
part of Dio and his associates which is making these people clam up 
and protect each other like a Chinese tong. 

It does not give mucli verification to your concept of well-doing and 
good intentions wlien the people involved, without exception, refuse 
to speak out before the courts of law and before the congressional 
committees. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, Senator, I believe that the testimony this morning 
has indicated one thing, that nobody knew Dio and worked with him 
much closer than I did. 

How come that same intimidation did not work with respect to me ? 

Senator Mundt. Well, you have not said very much to hurt Johnny 
Dio. 

Mr. DoRiA. No; but I am giving you the answers on everything I 
know about it. I haven't stopped talking. 

Senator Mundt. But the people who might say something deroga- 
tory to him for some reason or another have either been intimidated 
or have been conscience stricken or have clammed up or have some- 
thing to protect, because we get nothing but the fifth amendment 
from them. 

Mr. DoRiA. Senator, there is one thing to be considered. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think Johnny Dio would want to keep you 
quiet yet, because you are doing a pretty good job of presenting his 
side of the case. 

Mr. DoRiA. May I state that no one will keep me quiet. 

Senator Mundt. I believe that is right. 

Mr. DoRiA. There is another thing to be considered. Senator, and 
that is this : If you go into these people that you mentioned, if you go 
into their background, you will find that some did not get out of the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4303 

third grade, some did not get out of the fourth grade, some did not 
complete grammar school. They are fearful of a situation of this 
kind. 

Kegardless of Johnny Dio or not, those people do not want to come 
in here and, so to speak, pit themselves against questions that might 
be asked them. They do know that they can find refuge in their 
constitutional protection. 

Therefore, rather than get involved in something they know they 
cannot carry out, you will find a lot of those poeple are doing it for 
that reason, 

I am not trying to predict to you that that is the only reason, but 
that is a big factor. 

Senator Muxdt. Do you propose now as a labor leader of some 
prominence, some distinction, and some experience, since you oppose 
apparently, having the criterion of Communist associations included 
in the Taft-Hartley Act, for the reasons you put up this morning, 
since you object to having anything in legislation which would pro- 
hibit the appointment and selection of former criminals in positions 
of responsibility in the labor unon, would you suggest that perhaps 
we should put in some educational standards to be sure that labor 
leaders do have the capacity ? 

Mr. DoRiA. You took them out. You took them out when you legis- 
lated on Taft-Hartley. We had them, but you took them out. 

Senator Mundt. What did you have that we took out ? 

Mr. DoRiA. There is no racketeer and there is no Conununist that 
can retain his position in an American labor union if the American 
labor unions have the means of getting the membership to those 
meetings. 

No one, a racketeer cannot go out for conditions because if he goes 
out for conditions he is blocked out. 

Senator Mundt. Are you trying to say that if the membership of a 
union knows that one of its officials is a racketeer, or a Communist, 
and has a chance to vote on him they would vote him out? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. I agree to that. 

Mr. DoRiA. Provided, however, that those people are sufficiently 
conversant with what is going on in their local union to be aware of 

1 • • o to 

what IS going on. 

But under the Taft-Hartley Act, w^e in the labor unions — I don't 
say "we*' anymore. As a matter of fact, let's straighten this out. I 
am not in labor any more. You are questioning a member of industry 
today. 

The labor unions no longer have the opportunity of requiring local 
union attendance at meetings. Therefore, the majority of the people 
that take the easy way out hardly if ever know what is going on in 
their local unions. 

But when the unions had the opportunity of forcing the member- 
ship there, these issues were resolves. They were resolved in our union 
over communism. We have never had a racketeer take over any of 
our local unions and control it, with racketeering practices in the local 
union. 

He might have had a bad record to begin with, but he had to be 



4304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You are getting around to where I think you are 
going to say that Congress is responsible for Johnny Dio being in the 
Jabor movement. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, now, Senator, if I as a mere officer of a local union 
was responsible for 85,000 people and all the officers in it, I think that 
Congress ought to at least be responsible for the United States, the 
citizens that are under Congress. 

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

Mr. DoRiA. In other words, I am not questioning you on how many 
criminals there are in your State and how come you let them get away 
with it. I didn't ask you that. Are your jails empty in your State, 
Senator ? How come those people went to jail ? Why didn't you keep 
the people out of your State ? 

I had the same opportunities, Senator, to keep them out of the local 
unions and out of the labor movement. I have no power to do it, nor 
does any other union man have it. 

The Chairman. Maybe that is a good suggestion, to pass laws to 
keep them out. 

Let us get back to the questioning. 

Mr. Kennedy. In that connection, could you name anybody that 
came into the labor-union movement under Dio as an officer that did 
not get into difficulty ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, during the time that 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; just anybody. 

Any time during that period, can you name one person that came 
into the labor-union movements ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know the people that well. I can tell you the 
reverse. I can tell you the people who came in under Dio, while Dio 
was there, and while I helped administer the affairs of the locals, that 
I personally saw to it got out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you name one person that he brought into the 
labor union in the UAW locals in New York that you helped adminis- 
ter that did not get into difficulty with the law ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I could not answer that, Mr. Kennedy, because I couldn't 
even give you a list of those he brought in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Let us have the others. You said you could give 
us the list of the ones he brought in 

Mr. DoRiA. I am looking at the list right behind you. Senator. 
There is the name of Anthony Topazio. Topazio got in trouble while 
I was still active with the local union. 

Senator Mundt. He was brought in while Dio was there ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, while Dio was there. I gave him the 
option of getting out or having charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was in Jail, so you would have difficulty admin- 
istering that. 

Mr. DoRiA. No; he was not. He went to jail after he left the local 
union. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get him out before July 1952 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; he was kicked out before he was convicted. He 
was convicted on the issue that I kicked him out on. 

Senator Mundt. Did you kick him out before his indictment or 
after ? The indictment was July 1952 ? 



IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4305 

Mr. DoRiA. Before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he arrested prior to the time that you took up 
this charge? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; he was arrested and then was taken out, following 
his arrest. The same thing is true about Joseph Cohen. The same 
thing is true of Henry Gasster. 

There is no man that you have on that list who was either arrested 
or convicted for wrongdoing in the union that remained in the union 
while 1 was associated with it. That is the thing that I am smarting 
under. 

Senator Mundt. All these people that were brought in that were so 
bad you liad to kick them out, that were brought in by Johnny Dio, 
did not create any suspicion in your mind about the good intention or 
good judgment of Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Let us look at it this way. Senator : Nothing hurt Johnny 
Dio more than the acts of these people, because who would, with 
Jolmny Dio's past record, assume anything other than if they did this, 
they did so at the instruction of Johnny Dio? I told him that. He 
says, "Yes," he says, "they are murdering me." I saw him in the 
offices crying about some of the acts that these people got into. You 
don't believe that about Johnny Dio. But I saw Johnny Dio cry 
when he couldn't stop a strike, because he thought they were going to 
go out ;ind cut their throats by going on a strike. 

I knew he was sincere, and I knew these people were directly respon- 
sible. We got directly at the source of it. I can say to you now, and 
the record can be checked, that not one single man, where there was 
a good strong suspicion of wrongdoing, remained even in New York, 
whether Johnny Dio brought him in or not, during my administration. 

Senator Mundt. Let us look at the situation from a different view- 
point. You have explained how this hurt Johnny Dio, and how so- 
ciety hurt Johnny Dio, and how Congress, passing the Taft-Hartley 
Act, made it impossible to get rid of Johnny Dio. Looking at it from 
the standpoint of the workingmen of this country who pay dues to 
unions, do you not think it is a pretty bad thing for them to have 
people like Topazio and these other fellows getting charge of their 
unions ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. I certainly don't condone that. I wouldn't 
have any part of it. But I say that the answer to it is to put the 
unions in this country in a position where they can at least endorse 
participation by the membership. That cannot be done imder Taft- 
Hartley, because all those people, or any others that may come in in 
the future that cannot produce for the rank and file, are not going 
to stay in a union very long. 

Senator Mundt. Let us take up the case of Henry Gasster, who 
was dismissed from the union because of extortion. I suppose you 
and Johnny Dio got him kicked out, or you got him kicked out. 

Mr. DoRiA. I went there the day it happened and gave him the 
option of getting out. 

Senator Mundt. Suppose you gave Henry Gasster power to force 
people to attend union meetings. Are you really sure that he would 
invoke that power to bring the membership together for the purpose 
of kicking him out ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; he would not have to invoke it himself, Senator. 
The only thing is that no one man can very long set himself up as 



4306 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELd 

a dictator over a local union that is permitted meetiiigs, aiid there 
are always enough interested to at least form the core of the coiitrol 
of a union. 

Senator Mundt. There is nothing in the Taft-Hartley Act that 
denies them the right to have a meeting. 

Mr. DoRiA. No; but the thing is that the miajority of them that 
could be brought into a meeting by the people who want to tun that 
union right even against 1 or 2 wrong leaders, would have the means 
of getting that kind of a regulation within that local union. 

I still maintain that the salvation of the local unions and the labor 
movement in America is no different than the salvation of this country. 

If the people just stay home and don't vote, anybody can get into 
public office. But it is the participation of the citizens that is going 
to prevent it. What will we do if the citizens of a certain State choose 
to elect a man that had a criminal record but is now free? What 
recourse do we have ? 

Senator INIundt. I do not see where you get around to convincing 
us that the president of a local would have to enforce the rules, if 
he is a crook trying to stay in, and the fact that you had to kick him 
out from above rather than from below. I agree with you that the 
rank and file of American labor given the facts would kick out the 
Communists, the racketeers, and the crooks. There is no question 
about that. 

Mr. DoRiA. I believe they would. 

Senator Mundt. But I do not believe that a crook who is president 
of a union is going to require the attendance of membership at a meet- 
ing for the purpose of kicking him out. I am not quite that gullible. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, what is our choice. Senator? Is it a choice that 
because someone has developed a malignant tumor that we imme- 
diately proscribe death? The local unions that develop this small 
malignant tumor of a racketeer or a Communist or some other wrong- 
doer, in trying to get rid of him, do we wreck the entire economy of 
country? Do we pass legislation that jeopardizes everyone's free- 
dom ? Or do we apply those laws that we have with sufficient investi- 
gation to get to them ? 

Senator Mundt. That is what we are trying to do, trying to get 
more people to answer questions so we can get the facts. 

Mr. DoRiA. I still maintain that the thing is this : We have investi- 
gation agencies. They ought to be used to the extreme when some- 
thing wrong is suspected. But the action ought to be directed against 
the wrongdoer and not a complete smear of the entire movement or 
the local union that is involved. 

Senator Mundt. Do you believe that an ounce of prevention is worth 
a pound of cure ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; but if the ounce of prevention will mean the death 
of the one that developed the malignant tumor, I cannot go for it. 
It all pends on what you construe to be the ounce of prevention. 

Senator Mundt. What this committee has been trying to find out 
is what we can do legislatively, or any other way, to protect the work- 
ing families of this country against this kind of racketeering control 
of labor unions. That is what we are trying to solve. 

Mr. DoRiA. I think what this country can do legislatively to curb 
that is this : That they ought to advise every law-enforcement agency 



IMPppPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4307 

or put laws on the statute books, if necessary, requiring them to do a 
little bit of their own investigation, and coming up with the facts 
instead of calling people in and asking them questions and hoping 
they will perjure or convict themselves, and then say, "Well, if he 
won't convict himself, we need legislation." The European law bodies 
would never accept anything like that, Scotland Yard would not accept 
that. They take pride in being able to bring a criminal to justice. 

Why is it that the enforcement agencies and investigating agencies 
in this country want it served to them on a silver platter or they need 
more legislation? 

Senator Mundt. I think they have done a pretty good job by the 
looks of these 20 

^Ir. DoRiA. If a good job has been done, why do we need more legis- 
lation, if a good job has been done? 

Senator Mundt. To keep them out of the union before they go in. 

Mr. DoRiA. Then you are saying that we will pick any individual 
at random and say, "Because we believe you will not straighten out, 
we will impose a penalty on you." That is the price that I said we 
should not pay. 

Senator Mundt. That is not what I was saying. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the representative of man- 
agement a couple of questions. 

Mr. DoRiA, Thank you. 

Senator McNamara. You indicate that from your past experience 
in organized labor that there should be enforced attendance by the 
membership at union meetings. Is that correct ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; I do believe they ought to have the option in the 
majority to decide that. 

Senator McNamara. As one who has had some experience as an 
officer of unions, how would you force them to attend? I do not 
undei-stand. 

]\Ir. DoRiA. The only thing you can do is prescribe minimum fines 
for nonattendance at meetings, which used to prevail. 

Senator McNamara. Twenty-five cents? 

Mr. IktfiiA. Twenty-five cents, fifty cents, whatever the case might 
be. 

Senator McNamara. Do you think if a fellow wanted to go bowling, 
he would I'ather pay the quarter than come to a meeting? 

Mr. Doria. It isn't that, but the idea is when he hasn't anything else 
to do, he would rather not give up the dollar. Once he becomes 
interested, then he would rather give up bowling because of his in- 
terest. It isn't the idea that he will give up the dollar for one meet- 
ing, but the idea is when he liasn't anything to do, he will not give 
up the dollar but will come to the meeting and find out, and maybe 
some night come when he otherwise has an opportunity to go bowling. 

Senator McNamar.\. You indicated you have great zeal for the 
freedom of individuals. 

Mr. Doria. I think when that is gone, we are giving it up in this 
country. 

Senator McNamara. Would that not be done, when you are forcing 
a man to do something in his spare time? 



4308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. No, there is just a price being placed on it, like taxes, 
for example. 

Senator McNamara. The term you vised was force him to attend 
a meeting. You said force. That is quite different from what you 
' say now. 

Mr. DoRiA, Please don't take my statements other than applying 
to the normal practices that were prevalent in labor prior to Taft- 
Hartley. 

Senator McNamara. Then I take it you would encourage him 
rather than force him. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. AVith that I would agree. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. That is my only point, Senator, 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell me what the last paragraph in this 
letter means? 

You can send me proper billings for the $1,059 at your earliest convenience. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, Mr. Kennedy, as I told you before, before we got 
off on this other little dissertation, I don't know what that means now 
unless I have something to support it. I haven't got enough in that, 
as I told you before, to indicate whether I was speaking to him, or 
whether it was a message to be conveyed to one of the local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he handling the finances for the union at that 
period of time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy, It would certainly seem to indicate that from this 
letter, would it not ? 

You can send me proper billings for the $1,059 at your earliest convenience. 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; it would not necessarily mean that. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a letter to Johnny Dio from you. 

Mr, DoRiA. That is right. It would not necessarily mean that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would it mean ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I told you before. I have answered that question about 
4 or 5 times now. I don't have enough information on what you have 
there to refresh my memory as to just what were the circumstances 
surrounding that letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. What could it mean other than if he wasn't handling 
the finances of all of these local unions ? At least he had an important 
role? 

Mr. DoRiA. It could have meant that a refund in that amount was 
due to a local union, and, if the local union would send us the necessary 
records, we might have made the refund. 

Mr, Kennedy, And this letter was being sent to him, Johnny Dio ? 

Mr, DoRiA. Possibly as a result of a previous discussion I might 
have had with him ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he still was an important figure in these locals, 
even at this period of time? 

]Mr. D(iRiA. Well, to my knowledge, he was not, but he was cer- 
tainly friendly with all the people, because he was with them before 
he left, and I don't believe they gave up their social relationships 
l)ecause he left the union. I say they were always in contact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that he had an important role, an im- 
portant position, with these locals? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4309 

Mr. DoRiA. To my knowledge, there is no basis for assuming that 
he had an important 

Mr. Kexnedy. Yet you would write him these letters ? 

ISIr. DoRiA. That is right. Whether or not, in the eyes of the people 
tliat were still connected with the locals, he held an important role, 
that would have to be determined by questioning them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Obviously, he must have, or you would not have 
written these types of letters to him, Mr. Doria. There can't be any 
other explanation. 

Mr. Doria. No; that is not necessarily true, because of the fact that 
I did know that the relationship between Jolmny Dio and many of the 
people that he worked with prior to leaving the union was still good, 
and he could have exercised influence. If I requested him to "contact 
,Toey Curcio and tell him I w^ant this. I am coming through. I don't 
liave time to talk to Joey, would you do it for me," I think he would 
do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a detailed letter. You give him all the 
figures. In the other letters, you sent him all of the plants. Here you 
are telling him how much you collect from each union, and you are 
telling him to send the proper billings for the $1,059, "at your 
convenience." 

Mr. Doria. Right 

^Ir. Kennedy. It looks like he is collecting the money for the inter- 
national, or has a very important role. 

Mr. Doria. And as I stated before, it could be a refund to a local 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, he played an important role in 1955 in the con- 
duct of these local unions, or at least one union. 

Mr. Doria. I cannot consider it an important role. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you cannot explain this letter ? 

Mr. Doria. No. I need more detailed information on that letter. 
I think I can give it to you, if I had the facts that surround it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the system that you used when a local 
becomes defunct and doesn't operate any more? What happens? 

Mr. Doria. Well, there were a lot of things that happened. It was 
one of the things that was never formally regulated in the interna- 
tional union. We had all kinds of cases on that. '\^nien a local be- 
came defunct, sometimes the funds of the local union and the books 
were picked up by the regional offices. Sometimes they were picked 
up by an organizer and forwarded to an international union. Some- 
times the funds were forwarded to an int-ernational union directly. 
Sometimes tlie cluirters were not picked up. The thing was somewhat 
haphazard, and it was a difficult thing to administer. There was no 
real, i^atent method. The constitution provided specifically what 
should have been done, but in practice we found that it was almost 
impossible to absolutely follow the letter of the constitution on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the funds and the moneys of a 
defunct local ? 

Mr. Doria. As I say, some of them were disbursed by the rr^'ons 
out of their own areas, because our thought always was that, if f uids 
came in, for example, from region No. 8, and there was a defunct local 
tliere, and there was no opportunity of returning the local union to 
active status, tlie funds could have been disbursed in organizational 



4310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

work in that area to assist that region. If they came into the inter- 
national union, they would have been disbursed through the inter- 
national union for the same purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean they would not have gone into the treasury 
of the international union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not always; no. A lot of times they were disbursed 
directly as funds of a local union. That was not brought into the 
international treasury. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about money brought into international 
union. 

Mr. DoRiA. Sometimes they were set up as cash funds outside of 
the international. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Wliat do you mean ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Let's say, for example, a check comes in from a local 
union for a given amount of money and the local union is defunct; the 
condition under which the local union was operating was such that 
there was no opportunity to reestablish that local union; it was 
through. The funds could have come in and, under that local union's 
designation, placed in cash-reserve funds outside of the treasury of 
the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's slow down now. The money comes in. I^t's 
say it is $5,000; local A has gone out of business, and $5,000 comfis 
in. Wliat do you do with the $5,000 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, as I say, if it came into the international union 
now, so we keep ourselves straight from the region, in the interna- 
tional union that $5,000, the check might have been cashed and put 
into cash reserves for the international union. It would not have 
been a part of the treasury. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it would be entered in your books and records ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; not until such time as the board would have taken 
over tlie money of the local union and totally and com])letely it be- 
came international property. But it might have been disbursed di- 
rectly from the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's start over again. Local A sends in $5,000. 
Five thousand dollars arrives at the international union. What do 
you do with the $5,000 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The $5,000 itself 

Mr. Kennedy. Just slow down. Tell me what you do. 

_Mr. DoRiA. The $5,000, if it arrived at the international union, it 
might have been held for a while 

Mr. Kennedy. I liave given you all of the particulars. 

Mr. DoRiA. Is it cash? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just listen. Don't put an "if" in there. You have 
$5,000. Local A goes out of business and sends $5,000 to the inter- 
national. What do you do with the $5,000 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Normally, that would be cashed and put in the cash 
reserves. 

]Mr. Kennedy. What does that mean? 

Mr. DoRiA. That means that the cash-reserve fund would be estab- 
lished, unless one was already established. 

Mr. Kennedy. And entered on the books and records ? 

Mr. DdRiA. Not on the books and records; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would know about the $5,000? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4311 

Mr. DoRiA. Earl Heaton would know, because he automatically 
becomes the administrator in that case, and I would know, because I 
was handling the funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, the only people that would know that the $5,000 
came in were Earl Heaton and you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Plus the organizer that sent it in, plus the director in 
the region where it took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local A goes out of business and sends iii $5,000 to 
the international. The only people that know that $5,000 is in the 
international is Heaton and Doria. Is that ri^ht ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, because a local representative would have to know 
that the local went out of business, and he would have to notify us. 

Mr. Kennedy. I realize that. But they have gone out of business 
and sent the $5,000 in. The only people that have control and know 
what happened to the $5,000 after that are Anthony Doria and Earl 
Heaton ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, if Anthony Doria or Earl Heaton were dishon- 
est, they could put that in their pockets, could they not ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. "We could put the whole treasury in our pockets, 
if we wanted to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever take any money from a local and put 
it in your own bank account ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. Not in my own bank account. 

Mr. Kennedy. You intrigue me. 

Mr. Doria. You are intriguing me with your questions, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think it would interest you. 

Mr. DoRiA. It does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take any of the money from any local 
union, defunct, any of the funds of any local, defunct union and use 
them for your own personal purposes ? 

Mr. Doria. No. They were put in cash reserves to be used through 
the cash-reserve accounts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that money ever go into your own personal 
purpose ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I did not spend and keep any of the international's 
money or any of the local union's money. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never used any of this money for your own 
personal purposes ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Ivet's get that question, because I don't want to lead up 
to another hassle like this morning. Let's say that a $2,000 check 
came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's keep it five. 

IVIr. DoRiA. Yes. If I cashed that check with my funds 

Tlie Chairman. Let's be a little quiet. 

Mr. DoRiA. If I cashed that check with my funds, and put the funds 
into the casli-reserve accounts, and then cashed a check and kept it, we 
will understand that is a transaction that involves a cash exchange. 
I don't want to get technical here, but, after what happened this morn- 
ing, I may have to. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only problem is what hap])ens to the $5,000. 

Mr. Doria. Then it is put into the cash-reserve funds. 

80330 — 57 — pt. 11 20 



4312 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever used any of the cash from the cash- 
reserve funds for your own personal purposes ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever make an accounting to anybody how 
you use that money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, To whom? 

Mr. DoRiA. I made the accounting to Heaton. As a matter of fact, 
Heaton and I have to approve the expenditures made from that fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any sort of a book that is kept, showing that 
this money came into the international ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, during the time that tlie fund is active, during the 
time the fund is active, we keep a regular balance sheet in the fund. 

(At this point vSenator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. $5,000 comes in from local A. Is that ever entered 
in any book or record at all ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, because it is not international money, under the con- 
stitution. So, the thing, when there is, we open up a cash fund and 
put in a record in the cash fund, the date, so much money was received, 
and this is the balance in this cash fund. 

The Chairman. You say it is not international money wlien it 
comes in? 

Mr. DorixV. No. The constitution has been interpreted to mean that, 
until specific action b: taken 

The ChiAiRMAN. I am not talking about interpretations. 

Mr. DoRiA. That lias been the practice for 20 years. It was the 
practice I found when I went into the international. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about practices. I am talking 
about the constitution. This reads : 

So long as said union adheres to these conditions, this charter shall remain in 
full force. 

That is part of your charter. 

Mr. DoRiA. Right. 

The Chairman (i-eading) : 

But upon the infraction thereof, the International Union, United Automobile 
Workers of America, may revoke or suspend this charter, thereby annulling all 
[)rivileses secured thereunder, and upon the revocation or suspension of any such 
charter, or the dissolution, cessation, or withdrawal of this union, all records, 
property, and funds of said union, including collective-bargaining agreements, 
shall become and remain the property of the International Union, United Automo- 
bile Workers of America. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

The Chairman. So, those funds, when they came in from local A, 
whose charter was revoked, or which became inactive, those funds, 
when tliey were received, belonged to the international union. 

Mr. DoRi.v. But tliere is anotlier provision in that constitution. Sen- 
ator, if you will chpck it, tliat I think specifically deals with the matter 
of what ]iapi)ens to the funds upon a local union becoming defunct. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: You liave $r),()()() that comes 
in from a defunct union. You say you make no record of it when it 
comes in, on any of the books of the company. 

Mr. Doria. Of the union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4313 

The Chairman. You make no record of it. Nobody knows that 
that money is there but you, as secretary, and the president; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. DoRiA. And, as I say, the organizer that sends it in or the direc- 
tor that sends it in. 

The Chairman. He is not in there. He is out in the field. 

Mr. DoRiA. I know, but he knows about it. 

The Chairman. The fellow that sent it knows he sent it. 

Mr. Dqria. That is right. 

The Chairman. But the union members don't know that it has come 
in, and no other officials, from the records, know that it comes in. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chair^ian. It is just money that is there in trustee, without any 
record of it, between you and the president? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. That is the practice this union had for 
a period of over 20 years. 

The Chairman. Let's follow up. When you get that check, you 
get a check for $5,000, or it is $5,000 in cash, it does not make any 
difference, that comes in from local A that is defunct, and you have 
taken up the charter or it has gone out of business. That constitution 
says that money is the property of the international. What do you 
do with it when it comes in ? 

Mr. DoRiA. We put that in a cash fund, as I stated before, and keep 
a record of the receipt in the cash fund. 

The Chairman. Put it in a cash fund ? Wliere ? 

Mr. Dqria. In the international office. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you just cash it and put it in the 
office? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. You don't put it in the bank ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; unless it is a safety-deposit box. It is never added 
to the treasury, is what I am trying to point out to you. 

The Chairman. It is not added to the treasuiy, although it is treas- 
ury money ? 

Mr. Dqria. We never construed it to be treasury money. 

The Chairman. Wliose money did you construe it to be ? 

Mr. Dqria. We construed that to be funds outside the normal oper- 
ating funds of the union at all times. 

The Chairman. You construed it to be money outside of the oper- 
ating money of the union at all times ? 

Mr. Dqria. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is what you said ? 

Mr. Dqria. Yes. I^t's bear a little relationship to what we are 
talking about, though. What I am saying is about the taking, physi- 
cally, of the money and putting it into the operating funds of the 
union. 

The Chairman. All right. I am trying to find out whatever be- 
comes of it. You first take it and segregate it ? 

Mr. Dqria. That is right. 

The Chair]man. Don't make any record of it ? 

Mr. Dqria. There is a record made in the cash fund. 

The Chairman. Where is that record kept? 



4314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. That is kept right with the casli fund. It v^as kept 
with the cash fund. 

The Chairman. You put it in a box and the record is inside and 
nobody can see it ? 

]Mr. DoRiA. I don't think so, as long as it is together. It cannot be 
public property. 

Tlie Chairman. Nobody can see it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. Nobody would know it is there except you and 
the president 'i 

Mr. DoRiA. The board would certainly know it is there. 

The Chairman. How would they know it? There is no record of 
it. 

Mr. DoRiA. The board certainly knows what local unions are be- 
coming defunct. We have meetings every 4 months. 

The Chairman. They don't know whetlier you have any money 
left unless you have a record of it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It is certainly reported to the board when a local union 
goes defunct. 

The Chairman. Where is it reported ? 

Mr. DoRiA. At the meetings of tlie board. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you make a record to them of how 
much money is sent in ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Certainly, if there is any money sent in. 

The Chairman. Then the board knows it '( 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. It is kept separately, not put in the bank, not put 
in an account, but kept in cash? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. What becomes of it? 

Mr. DoRiA, That is disbursed in a regional, for regional organiza- 
tional purposes, and in the international for international organiza- 
tional purposes. 

The CiTAiRMAN. When did it get on the record so tliat the treasurer 
would have an account of it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. In some cases, those funds never got on the records. 

The Chairman. That is what I thought. 

Senator Ervin. How did you disburse it for organizational pur- 
poses if you never put it in the bank ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was disbursed in cash. 

Senator Er\t:n. Disbursed in cash? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. If you have an organizing drive going on at Dan- 
ville, Va., or Emporia, Kans., how did you get the cash out there to 
your organizers? 

Mr. DoRiA. If you were organizing there, you would either use a 
local fund from that union or, if it was in the international, you 
would disburse it directly out of the international where tlie office is 
located. 

Setiator Ervin. I am talking about the cash you kept in the interna- 
tional oflicc. 

Mr. DoHiA. The cash in the international office is disbursed almost 
exclusively for international organizational work in and about the- 
area where the international headquarters were located. 



IHtPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4315 

Senator ERV^N. And no record whatever made of the disbursements ? 

Mr, DoRiA. Yes; every disbursement was recorded and tlie bahmce 
maintained. 

Senator Ervin. Where did you keep other union funds 'i 

Mr. DoRiA. In the bank. 

Senator Ervix. Why did you not put this fund in the bank ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because of the fact that there was always a distinction 
between funds so brought into the international office, a practice that 
had been established long before I became secretary-treasurer and was 
continued, and it was not voted to dispose of these funds until, I would 
say, approximately a year ao^o. 

Senator Ervin. And nobody except the man that disbursed the 
money in cash would know how to disburse it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; except the two men that had charge of the fund. 

Senator Ervtln. And they would disburse a part to one man and a 
part to another and a part to a third and so on, and there would be no 
way, under God's heaven, that anybody could call on them to account 
for the funds and there is no way they can find out what happened to 
the funds, is there ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; there was a record, as I stated, in that cash fund of 
all the disbursements made from it. When that cash fund woidd be 
depleted, a report was made and then the fund was closed out. 

Senator Ervin. And nobody, after it was closed out, could trace it? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. I have been studying the letter of October 21, 
1955, and the significance of that last sentence — 

You can send me proper billings for the $1,059 at your earliest convenience. 

The $1,059 represents the per capita tax report which has been received 
in the New York locals, specifying local 224, local 250, local 355, 1 for 
$290, 1 for $643, and 1 for $126. 

So you are talking about the total of those per capita tax returns. 
I cannot read this letter any other way than to assume that that money 
was to be sent to Johnny Dio, that $1,059 ; is that correct? 

Mr, DoRiA. We had no obligation to Johnny Dio to send him any- 
thing. The only thing that I can 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this question : As a matter of fact, 
did you send him the $1,059 ? 

Mr, DoRiA. I don't recall 

The Chairman, Just a moment, please. 

Proceed. 

Senator Mundt, The question was not whether you had any obli- 
gation or not, the question was. Did you send him a check for $1,059 
to reimburse him for those per capita taxes ? 

Mr, DoRiA, I do not recall any such check being sent to Johnny Dio. 
I do not recall the incidents. As I testified before 

Senator Mundt, Let me put it this way : Will you testify here today 
under oath and deny, will you deny the fact that a check was sent to 
Johnny Dio for $1,,059 for union activities as late as October or No- 
vember of 1955 ? 

Mr, DoRiA, I can neither deny it nor affirm it. As I told you before, 
if I knew about it, I would give you what I know about it. But I 
cannot deny it or I cannot affirm it. 



4316 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. So, from this letter, from what we know and from 
what you can recall, it seems quite obvious that instead of being en- 
tirely divorced from union activities in 1955, in all likelihood, and 
there is no evidence to the contrary, you are unable to deny it under 
oath, he received at least the $1,059 after October 21, 1955. 

Mr. DoRiA. Senator, since when does evidence in the negative estab- 
lish a positive fact ? 

Senator MuNiyr. Because as secretary -treasurer you should know. 

Mr. DoRiA. I know, but I told you that I don't recall it, and now you 
are telling me that the mere fact that I don't recall it automatically 
brings into acceptance your construction. 

Senator Mundt. There is a positive fact here that you have said 
earlier that he was entirely divorced from all official connection and 
all official activities and any reimbursements from your international 
headquarters. 

Mr. DoRiA. They were not on an official basis as far as John Dio was 
concerned. 

Senator Mundt. If this was under the table, we are more curious 
about it than if it was official. 

Mr. DoRiA. I assume you would be. 

Senator Mundt. It would be helpful if you could deny the fact that 
you did not send him the $1,059. 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; the only thing I can do is get more records. 

Senator Mundt. If you cannot deny it, and the letter seems to 
affirm it, it seems that this committee would have to continue to believe 
that you did send him this money after October 21, 1955, and that you 
had not entirely divorced your financial arrangements and your union 
connection with Johnny Dio, even though the name on the stationery 
had been changed and actually he was no longer the front name as a 
union official. 

Mr. DoRiA. AYell, Senator, certainly whatever construction the com- 
mittee wants to place upon any fact that is established here is beyond 
my control. I am stating again for the record, however, that there is 
not sufficient background there to permit me to go back to that time 
and tell you exactly what that was. other than that I believe that it 
was a refund to a local union. 

Senator Mundt. But you do not believe it sufficiently strong so that 
you are willing to deny it under oath ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; I cannot, because I don't have it clearly enough 
established in my mind. 

Senator Mundt. So it could have been a refund to a local union 
and could have been a check directed to Johnny Dio; is that correct? 

Mr. DoRiA. I doubt very, very much that it could have been. I can 
neither deny it or affirm it. 

Senator Mundt. If you cannot deny it or affirm it, it is correct to 
say that it could have been one or the other. 

Mr. DoRiA. We can say that, and we can also say that it was sent 
for charity. We can say that it was sent to pay off some individual. 
We can say it was sent there for ])olitical action. All those things 
are possible. 

Senator Mi:ndt. The only tiling is that there is no correspondence 
to give any validity to any other deduction except the one we are 
making, and that is tlie payoff' to Johnny Dio. We liave correspond- 
ence on that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4317 

There is correspondence about this eleemosynary activity. 

i\Ir. DoRiA. Let nie state, Senator, that I can positively say that that 
was not a payoff to Johnny Dio. 

Senator Mundt. And you cannot deny that it was a payoff ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I do not believe that that is what it was at all. 

Senator Mundt, But you are not able to deny it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't have enough facts to give you the details of it. 
T think that if I could check that record I could determine just what 
that was, going back into the international office. 

Senator Mundt. Any time after checking the record you are able to 
make a denial, the committee will be glad to hear it. 

Mr. DoRiA. I will be very glad to send it to you. 

The Chairman. Let us get into this other matter before we close. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the matter that intrigued you, Mr. Doria. I 
am interested in a few of the locals that became defunct and what 
happened to the money. For instance, the Eversharp local out in 
Chicago, 111., 1800 West Koscoe Street. It had about $10,000 in the 
treasury. Can you tell the committee what happened to that $10,000 ? 

Mr. Doria. I am afraid I can't go that far back. 

]Mr. Ivisnnedy. It is not too far back. 

Mr. Doria. What was the year of that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. About 1952. 

Mr. Doria. I didn't think it was even that recent a date. The Ever- 
sharp local was a former AFL local that came into local 286. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to know what happened to the local. I 
want to know what happened to the $10,000. 

Mr. Doria. I do not know what the thing was. The Eversharp 
local, as I recall, and that is going back pretty far for me 

Mr. Kennedy. That is $10,000. Did you cash that and stick it in 
your little box ? 

Mr. Doria. What was the amount that was involved ? 

Mr. Kennedy. About $10,000. 

Mr. Doria. You are going back pretty far. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; it is not too far. 

Mr. DoRLv. You are only going back 5 years. If the local became 
defunct; it was not a local. That was a part of 286 as I recall it. 
There was no Eversharp local as such that I ever knew anything about. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know that the local that was handling the Ever- 
sharp plant became defunct. 

Mr. Doria. It was 286. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; it was a separate branch and it became defunct 
and it had about $10,000 in its treasury. 

Mr. Doria. The only thing that I recall about that is that at one 
time a portion of the money of the Eversharp local went into 286 to 
help defray the expenses and salaries of the organizers that were 
taking over from Eversharp plant. 

The Eversharp plant then went down from around over 1,000 I 
believe it was, to less than IT people. It could no longer maintain 
them. 

How much money, how much of the money was disbursed in pay- 
ment of salaries and expenses for the organizers taking over from 
Eversharp, or how much wasn't, I do not recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any of that money — did any of that money ever 
go into your bank accounts ? 



4318 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. And — and this I don't recall — whether it was all utilized 
or not, I cannot recall that either. But I do believe this, that there was 
a balance in the Eversharp AFL treasury that was })rouglit into 286, 
when the Eversharp local came in, and I believe a portion, a portion of 
it, and I don't recall the amount, was at the time that the local became 
defunct turned over to the international. 

I certainly can't recall those figures. If you have them, I will be 
glad to take look at them. If the money came into the international, 
as it might have come in, then it went into a cash fund, just as I stated 
before. If it stayed in local 286, it was then disbursed through local 
286. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the money that came into the 
international ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I can't go back that far. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot tell us what happened to any of that 
money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I do know that a portion of it was used for the pur- 
pose of defraying the salaries and expenses, I think of two organizers 
that worked for 286 out of Eversharp. There was a balance beyond 
that that I think came into the international union, but I can't -v'ouch 
for it because I just don't recall the incident that well. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot tell the committee what happened to 
tliat money that came into the international ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; the only thing that I can tell you is that I do know 
how I would have handled it, and in 1952 I was treasurer and I can 
tell you how I would have handled it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking what happened to the money. I am 
not asking what you would have done. I am asking what happened to 
it when it came into tlie international. 

Mr. DoRiA. I cannot recall that it came into the international to 
begin with. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any of that go into your personal bank account? 

Mr. DoRiA. No money of the union at any time has gone into my 
personal bank account to be used for me and by me unless it was an 
advance to me from the union. I would like to establish that once 
and for all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any of this money go into j^our personal bank 
account ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No money of the union has ever gone into my personal 
account that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any of this money used for any business in 
which you were interested? 

Mr. DoRiA. No union money has ever been used for businesses that 
I have been in. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am interested in a couple of other locals. There 
are a couple of locals in Meriden, Conn., local 110 in Meriden, Conn.? 

Mr. DoRiA. That was the New Departure plant of General Motors. 

Mr. Kennedy. And local 790 at Meriden, Conn. ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I recall the numbers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you recall that they had some money, too? 

Mr. Doria. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to that money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The local 110 money 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much that was ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4319 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I don't recall the amount at the moment. I recall 
tliat we had a lease outstandino: at Meriden, Conn., and I believe a por- 
tion of those funds, and as I can recall it was one bond that amounted 
to around $10,000, was caslied and that was placed under the admin- 
istratorshi]) of Washburn, at that time, and it was disbursed in meet- 
ing the obligations under the lease that the local union had on a meet- 
ins: hall in Meriden, Conn,, over a period of time. 

There was also a balance in local No. 110 of another bond, I believe 
it was, or whether it was a series F bond, I don't recall. Those were 
cashed and put into cash funds out of local 110. 

Local 790 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's stay in 110 for a moment. 

Mr. DoRiA. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the first bond? There were bonds and 
cash, were there, or what ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall any cash. I think it was bonds. 

Mr. Kennedy. The $10,000 bond was cashed. What happened? 

Mr. DoRiA. A bank account was opened up on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was the bank account ? 

Mr. DoRiA. In Milwaukee. I think that was administered exclu- 
sively by Lester Washburn at the time, who was then the president 
and the money was used to defray the expenses of maintaining the 
meeting hall in Meriden, Conn., that one bond. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought the local went out of business. 

Mr. DoRiA. It had, but they had a lease. There was an obligation 
under the lease. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had to spend all this money for that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, what happened was that the meeting hall in Meri- 
den was then taken over by the other local unions and they held the 
meeting hall for their own meetings, and the international continued 
to pay the lease rental on that, as I recall it, until the funds were 
exhausted on that one bond. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the other bond ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The other bond was cashed and the money was placed 
in cash reserves for the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that money used ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That money was used in organizational work on the 
coast, I believe. As a matter of fact, I think that bond w^as cashed 
sometime 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was that bond worth ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, it was a face value bond of $10,000, but I don't 
think it had quite reached maturity. It was $9,000 and something 
in funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were two $10,000 bonds ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; the first one, as I told you, was cashed and utilized 
to pay off the expenses of the meeting hall in Meriden. The second 
one was cashed sometime after the moving of the headquarters to 
Los Angeles or to Beverly Hills, and that was used for organizational 
purposes and generally cash expenditures out of the cash fund the 
same way that the original was used. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would you do that? You cashed the bond or 
what? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was this done ? 



4320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA, I don't remember the date. I think it was immediately 
after our movino; to the west coast. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 1954, or 1955 ^ 

Mr. DoRiA. Possibly around that area. I can't peg the date. But 
it was immediately after our moving out there sometime. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get currency for the bonds ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

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

Mr. DoRiA. That was placed in a cash fund. 

Mr. Kennedy, You are sure of that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who clisbursed that? 

Mr. DoRiA. That was dispensed in the same manner or for organiza- 
tional work that we had a lot of on the west coast, in establishing 
the three amalgamated unions that we established on the coast. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid that in cash ? 

Mr. DoRiA. We paid a lot of it in cash. 

Mr, Kennedy. Who did you give that to, for example? 

Mr, DoRiA. I can't recall. That fund became defunct as early as 
July, I believe, of either 1954 or 1955. I don't remember when. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. But none of this money ended up in your bank 
accounts ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; none of the money. Let me say this to you about 
that. There may have been some cash transactions or cash exchanges 
where I cashed bonds and placed the money in the fund that we were 
carrying. But no money that was the money of the international 
union, that is, their property, ever ended up in any of my funds at 
any time, 

Mr, Kennedy, What does that mean? Did you have some trans- 
action with any of these bonds ? 

Mr, DoRiA, Well, there were instances where, for example, I would 
cash either checks or would cash bonds, 

Mr, Kennedy. I am not asking a general history of the instances 
where you cashed checks. We are now talking about some bonds, 

Mr, DoRiA, The bonds were cashed, I don't recall how the bond 
was cashed or where, 

Mr. Kj:nnedy, You brought up something about an excliange. 

Mr, DoRiA. Yes; because it would have been possible, for exam- 
ple 

Mr, Kennedy. Not would it have been possible. We are talking 
about the bond that you say was cashed and the $10,000 or whatever it 
was was put in the fund. 

Mr. DoRiA. The bond was converted into cash and the cash was 
placed in the cash fund of the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any personal transaction with that? 

Mr, DoRiA, With the bonds ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, 

Mr. DoRiA, I had no personal transactions other than converting it 
into cash, 

Mr. Kennedy. Plow did you convert it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall that. I don't recall whether it was cashed 
at a bank, whether we cashed it at the office where we had funds avail- 
able, or what happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would you cash it in the office ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4321 

Mr. DoKiA. Many times we did that in order not to expose the amount 
of money that we carried in the international office. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't understand that. AVhat would you do, trans- 
fer money from where to where, one box to another? 

Mr. DoKiA. Let us say, for example, that a check came in from a 
local union, to give you the practice. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to stay right here. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall this one, unless I have more information. 
I have told you that I know the bond was cashed. The funds were 
put in the cash fund of the international union. The procedure that 
was followed in casing the bond, whether it was through the bank or 
through the office itself, individuals that cashed the bond and then 
recashed the bond, I don't recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anj' personal connection with this at 
all? 

Mr. DoRiA. In what way do you mean personal ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know. Did any of the money end up in your 
bank account ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not unless I cashed a bond for the international union 
and took over the check for the bonds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would you get the money to cash that bond ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I am not exactly completely broke. I keep all 
my funds in cash. Because I have been sned so many times and under 
very peculiar circumstances I have never kept any bank accounts since 
the harassment started 5 years ago with respect to the New York 
situation. All of my funds are practically in cash. 

IVIr. Kennedy. Do you think that you did cash this ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It could have happened. I know that I did it on many 
instances. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave the international $10,000 in cash? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall giving the international any $10,000. 
But if there had been any transaction where I was involved, where 
$10,000 was involved, it is quite possible that it might have happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have more "ifs" in there. 

Mr. DoRL\. You are asking me about a situation that you are not 
giving me too many facts on. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is a local in Meriden, Conn., which has 2 bonds, 
each worth $10,000. You have given an explanation that one bond 
was cashed and the money used to pay the lease. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are interested in the second bond. 

Mr. DoRiA. The second bond was converted into cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking what happened to the second bond. 

Mr. DoRiA. It was converted into cash and the cash put in the cash 
fund of the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you convert that check or bond into cash for 
them ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I never gave them $10,000 of cash of my money that I 
recall; no. But it is quite possible that it might have been cashed 
right in the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you never had anything to do with it. 

Mr. DoRiA. Certainly ; I would be the one cashing it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never converted this bond into cash yourself? 



4322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE' LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA, The bond was not converted into cash as such. The 
thing that happened was that the bond was turned over to a bank and 
the bank issued a check, ultimately, after they checked out the bond. 
I think it took about 90 days to cash it. 

And the check was cashed. I believe that check was cashed in our 
office. Then the check was used after that. 

I don't know. I would have to have some facts on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the check ? 

Mr. DoRiA. If the check was cashed, whoever cashed it took over 
possession of the check. If I cashed it, I would have taken possession 
of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you cash it? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall whether I cashed that check or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot remember that? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; I can't recall that. But I do think the check was 
cashed and I think the check was cashed in the office because the 
amount involved was great enough. To give it to one of the clerks 
to cash it and bring the cash in would have left the opening there 
that cash in heavy amounts might have been kept in the international 
headquarters. 

The Chairman. Is there any record of that transaction on the books 
of the international ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; there was no record. That was handled in the way 
the cash funds were customarily handled. 

The Chairman. Wliat is the name of that company of yours ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The Eoxey Enterprises. 

The Chairman. Eoxey Enterprises? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there another company in which you are 
interested ? 

Mr. Kennedy. International Procurement Enterprises? 

Mr. DoRiA. Oh, International Procurement Enterprises ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is a d. b. a. of a friend of mine by the name of Mr. 
Loomis. He does business as International Procurement Enterprises. 
I think we can get to some of the stuff you are talking about now. 

I think that refreshes my memory. 

The Chairman. We will start now. 

Mr. DoRiA. I think I have a record here which probably will help 
that, which you can have if you want. Does the date of that 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. DoRiA. Come around December 14, 1956 ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. 

Mr. Doria. Well, then, probably we are off base again. 

Mr, Kennedy. Maybe that is another one. 

Mr. DoRiA. Maybe it is at that. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
a check dated November 24, 1954, made out to United Automobile 
Workers Local No. 110, in the amount of $9,020, a cashier's check on 
the California bank, the Beverly Hills office. I ask you to examine 
it and state if you remember that check and if you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. DoRiA. Can we establish the date that this che<?k was cashed, 
by the endorsement ? I don't see it on here. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4323 

I think it would be helpful. If we could establish the date that this 
check was cashed or deposited, I think I can give you what you are 
looking for. 

The Chairman. I believe it shows the date it was cashed. The 
cancellation should show it. 

Mr. DoRiA. Is this January 22, or something, 1953? I can't make 
it out. But that does conform to this record that I have. I think 
I can tell you about it. 

The Chairm^an. Is that the union record ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No: this is strictly a business relationship that I had 
with Loomis doing business as International Procurement. 

The Chairman. The check may be made exhibit No. 83. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 83," for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4476.) 

The Chairman. It appears on the face of it that the check was 
made to your union, the United Automobile Workers Local 110, in 
the amount of $9,620. You endorsed the check for that local ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then it shows it was deposited to the account of 
the International Procurement Enterprises, Bank of Ameri<;a, branch 
No. 662. 

Mr. DoRiA. It is the main branch of tlie Bank of America in Los 
Angeles. 

The Chairman. It is stamped on here January 24, 1955, which 
Avould be exactly 2 months from the date it was issued. 

Mr. DoRiA. The date there is the 24th. I can give you all of that. 

The Chairman. The check is dated November 24, 1954. 

Mr. DoRiA. But the deposit date is January. 

The Chairman. It is stamped here January 24, 1955. 

Mr. DoRiA. Right. 

I will tell you what that was. I have the records here and I think 
you have a photostatic copy of these if you want to go to them. 

The Chairman. Any explanation you care to give, we will be glad 
to hear. 

Mr. Doria. The explanation of that is this: I, at that time, lent 
Richard Loomis, doing business as International Procurement Enter- 
prises, $25,000, and Earl Heaton lent him $5,000. That was on a 
venture to undertake the creation of a company for the purpose of 
doing photogrammatric work for the United States Map Service. 

Senator Mundt. Is this a personal loan or a union loan ? 

Mr. Doria. A personal loan, my own personal money. Heaton at 
that time turned over $5,000 in cash, on January 21. I turned over 
$25,000. either in cash or checks, because I had just disposed of my 
interest in a real-estate company that I was connected with in Mil- 
waukee. Loomis then issued us, under International Procurement 
Enterprises, a note dated January 21, for $30,000. Quite evidently, 
and tliis is the only thing that I can give you on it, the check'Was cashed 
in our office as a result of the funds that were turned over to I^oomis. 

The funds were put into the cash reserve of the international union. 
The check then was taken over and made part of the dej)osit to In- 
ternational Procurement Enterprises on the loan that was made to 
I^oomis, and deposited in the account of International Procurement 
Enterprises. 



4324 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CHAHiMAN. How did this check and the money ever become 



j'^oiirs 



Mr. DoRiA. What is that? By virtue of the fact that there was at 
least $5,000 that I know of of H6aton's money in that, and I think 
$4,000- 

The (yHAiRMAN. This is not Heaton's money. This is part of the 
$25,000 that yon 

Mr. DoRiA, ^Ir. McCleHan, as I explained before, the proceeds that 
came from that check would go into the cash fund. When that check 
was cashed, it quite clearly, to me, was cashed by $5,000 from Earl 
Heaton's part of the loan, later deposited to the account of Interna- 
tional Procurement Enterprises, and $4,600 and something of Loomis 
money that was later deposited to International Procurement. 

The Chairman. If you have a record there, may we see it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; you may see it. 

I don't have a recoi'd of all of that, but I have a record of the note, 
the repayment, the date of the note, and my withdrawal from the 
transworld organization that I went into. 

(Document handed to connnittee.) 

Mr. DoRiA. I think you have copies of all of that, Senator. 

The CiiAiRMAx. The start' will check and see if they have a copy 
of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Noav could you explain how the union check of $9,600 
ended up in your business ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I will tell you not from recollection or memory but from 
what to me is obvious on the basis of the record, and that is that the 
check was cashed, the funds were put into the cash fund 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute. The check was cashed ? 

Mr. DoRiA. This check, as I stated before, I suppose quite early, 
was cashed in the union office. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does that mean ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That means that I took $5,000 from Heaton, $4,000 and 
some from Loomis, and turned that over into the cash fund, and took 
that check instead of the cash to open up the international-procure- 
ment account on the loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere did Heaton get his $5,000 ? 

Mr. I>)RiA. That was his own money. 

Mr. Kennedy. His own money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not loan him that money? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just walked into the building one day with 
i^5,000 in cash ? 

Mr. DoRLA. No; he did it on Ihe basis that he wanted to be a part 
of tliis aerial-ma))ping service. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the point. I understand that. Whj was 
the transaction handled in that way? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because if you will look at the dates you will find that 
we were cashing the check and opening up the account probably 
on the same day, and rather than cart our cash downtown, where 
International Procurement Enterprises banked, since we banked in 
Beverly Hills, a half hour away, we cashed the check as an expedient 
manner of putting the funds into the cash fund and then took 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 4325 

tJie check in place of the cash and de])osited it to the account of tlie 
International Procurement Enterprises. 

Is that difficult to understand? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, very. 

]Mr. Dora. I don't know what is so difficult about it. 

Senator Goldwater. Where was this check between November 24, 
when it was issued, and January 24, when it was cashed ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was kept in the international headquartei*s. 

Senator GoijDwater. Did you make any record of it? 

Mr. DoRiA. Only in the funds to which we assigned it. I think we 
call that cash reserve fund No. 2. 

Senator Goldwater. You kept this in the Los Angeles office ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Why did you not cash the check as soon as 
you got it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because of the fact that we were supposed to convert 
that into cash for the fund and I never had the opportunity of doing 
it. 

Senator Goldwater. In 2 months ? 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not get a chance to cash it? 

Mr. Doria. No. 1, I didn't want to give a girl a check for that 
amount, and have them understand that that was for cash funds, and 
let them undersetand that that w^as for cash in the office. We had one 
robbery there on the basis of supposition that we had a lot of cash. 
We didn't want to repeat it. 

Senator Goldwater. You were in violation of your constitution all 
tlie time you were operating ; were you not ? 

Mr. Doria. On what basis? 

Senator Goldwater. On the basis that the money returned from 
defunct locals becomes property of the international union and viola- 
tion of section 13 which says you are the custodian of the international 
union. 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. How could I be a better custodian than 
to be holding it under bond? 

Senator Goldwater. You were in violation of this constitution all 
the time, were you not ? You have to admit that ; do you not ? 

Mr. Doria. No; I don't admit that, because of the fact that the 
constitution is interpreted by the board, because the board has to 
approve these, and I have to go along with the board. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the board approve the way you were 
holding this money? 

Mr. Doria. They approved the way I was holding that money in 
every case. 

Senator Goldwater. The board did ? 

Mr. Doria. Certainly. They held it in the same way themselves. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that in the records ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't know whether it is in the records or not. 

Senator Goldwater. Could we see the records? 

Mr. Doria. I don't have the records with me. 

Senator Goldwater. Are there records of where this action was 
approved ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't know. You might check with the minutes of 
tlie meetings. When I left, I took no records with me. 



4326 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. You took records ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I didn't take any records. 

Senator Goldwater. You see nothing wrong in handling union 
money in the way that you handled it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Senator, I was under a $100,000 bond which I had 
imposed upon me to assure proper handling of union funds. 

Senator Goldwater. The union would put the bond up for you, if 
you were the treasurer. 

Mr. DoRL\. The union put me up. 

Senator Goldwater. You said you were under bond provided by 
yourself. 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I did not. I said I was under bond. 

Senator Goldwater. Provided by yourself. 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I didn't say that. 

Senator Mundt. In regard to those records, you told the committee, 
I believe, in your cash reserve record you disbursed for organization 
purposes 

Mr. DoRiA. Organizational and any other purpose that might have 
been approved by the president. 

Senator Mundt. But you kept a record of those disbursements. 

Mr. DoRTA. Certainly, we had to keep our record balance. 

Senator Mundt. That was kept in the same box or kept in the same 
place where you kept your money. 

My question is : After the money had been spent, what happened 
to the records that had been kept showing it had been disbursed 
properly? 

Mr. i)oRiA. We had many of those records in the dead files of the 
international union. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, there should be a record someplace 
in the files of the international union, is that true ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not necessarily ; no. 

Senator Mundt. What happened ? 

Mr. DoRiA. When the name of the organization was changed from 
the United Automobile Workers to the Allied Industrial Workers of 
America as a result of the merger 

Senator Mundt. What year was that? 

Mr. DoRiA. That was in 1955, I think. I am not sure. We did get 
a new charter. You can check the charter. I can't give you the date. 
Then it was decided to destroy the old automobile-workers' records, 
and we had started to destroy the automobile- workers' records when 
this committee made their first investigation with respect to our office. 

Then after that date no further records were destroyed, because we 
felt they might be pertinent, but we had destroyed many of the old 
records. 

Senator Mundt. Wliy was it decided to destroy the records? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because we had records there, I think, from as early 
as, I don't know, 1940-something, and all they had been doing is gath- 
ering dust. As a matter of fact, we paid to even have them moved. 
There was no object in keeping them. They had gone through the 
audits. The convention had already approved the audits, and every- 
thing that had been provided under the constitution from the stand- 
point of a])])roval of expenditures liad been comi)lied witli. There was 
no further purpose in keeping them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4327 

Senator Mundt. So, you don't know, then, whether the records of 
this particular transaction have been destroyed or not ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; I don't. You would have to check that with the 
international headquarters. 

Senator Mundt. If they had not been destroyed, there would be 
someplace in the union files a record that this $10,000 was disbursed, 
that you gave $5,000 in currency to organizer B, and this, and that? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. You kept that kind of record ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, showing the dates and amounts taken 
from those funds. 

Senator Mundt. This all occurred about a year ago, is all, and 2 
years at the outside ; is that right ? 

Mr. DoRiA. This is what? This is August of 1957. I would say 
approximately 2 years ago, roughly. 

Senator Mundt. You must remember, then, the names of some of 
the organizers who would have gotten parts of that money. 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I don't remember — I don't remember the condition 
under which the individual disbursements were made, because during 
the time 

Senator Mundt. You would remember, Mr. Doria, of course, that 
John Smith got $1,000. 

Mr. DoRiA. If anyone ever got an amount of that size, I would re- 
member it, probably. 

Senator Mundt. You would surely remember the names of some of 
the people you were utilizing at that time to do the organizing, quite 
apart from the amount. I am simply asking you : Who were some of 
the individuals who have gotten some of the money ? 

Mr. Doria. Amounts were never disbursed in amounts of that size. 
They were small amounts. 

Senator Mundt. Wlio were some of the people that got some of the 
money? You didn't distribute it willy-nilly. You had a certain 
group of organizers who were to get the money, and you would not 
give it to just any Tom, Dick, or Harry that came along. 

Mr. DoRiA. The expenditures would be approved by the president 
and paid out, and that was final with respect to approval provided 
under our constitution. 

Senator Mundt. "WTio were some of the men or women who were 
eligible to receive that money, just a short 2 years ago ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I couldn't possibly recall that to you. I handled all the 
transactions of the international union. For me to try to peg any of 
them and say this individual got this or this individual got any, it 
would be impossible. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat were the physical circumstances by which 
this money left the little black box and went into the hands of the 
organizers ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Either through me or Mr. Heaton. 

Senator Mundt. You would take the bills and give him the cash? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, and make a record of the balances out- 
standing in the account, and indicate the date of the expenditure and 
the purpose. 

89330— 57— pt. 11 21 



4328 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me that, just 2 years ago, you would 
be able to recall at least 1 of the individuals that might have been 
eligible to get $10,000. 

Mr. DoRiA. In the last 2 years I disbursed, Senator, I think over $2 
million, in varying amounts. 

Senator Mundt. In cash ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. As a matter of fact, the cash disbursements of our 
union, I think, add up to eight-tenths of 1 percent of the disbursements. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. They are not substantial. 

Senator Mundt. It is much easier to remember, I think, to whom 
you handed the money, as long as you did it personally. 

Mr, DoRiA. Senator, my answer is I cannot recall, and cannot give 
you the minute details of individuals to whom the payments were 
made. 

Senator Mundt. I am not asking you that. I am asking you whether 
you can recall out of that good, strong memory of yours, any one indi- 
vidual who might have been eligible to get any one single dollar out of 
the $10,000. 

Mr. DoRiA. I thank you for the compliment for my memory, but 
I cannot do it. I couldn't be in a position, nor do I think anybody 
else that was handling the accounts as I was could have remembered 
that. I don't believe Heaton could have remembered that, and he 
was not handling all of the other funds like I was. I think, certainly, 
too much time has elapsed for that. 

Senator INIudt. You would be very helpful for the committee. 

Mr. DoRiA. I wish I could be. I wish I had the record before me. 

Senator Mundt. What kind of people got the money ? Were they 
organizers ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; they could have been individuals in plants when 
you are organizing a plant ; they could have been people whose expenses 
and gasoline you pay to solicit the plant. They could have been people 
at whose homes gatherings were held. They could have been all kinds 
of individuals that got those funds. 

Incidentally, I might state again, since we are talking about law in 
this whole hearing, and it is probably aimed at law, one of the reasons 
why an operation of that kind had to be midertaken is the absolute 
refusal on the part of individuals participating in an organizational 
drive to accept a check, because, in spite of all that has been said and 
all of the laws that have been passed, they do not feel safe enough 
from their employers from being fired if connected to an organiza- 
tional drive. We always had to pay in cash. 

Senator Mundt. Were any of these funds used to pay organizers on 
salary? 

Mr. DoRTA. No ; the expenses of organizers on salary normally would 
be taken care of through the regular international methods of paying 
organizers. 

Senator Mundt. You said earlier that some of it might have been 
spent for political activity. Was it? That is when you were in the 
"might have" field. 

Mr. DoRL\. I don't know, to any extent, but, if there was participa- 
tion on a State level, there might have been expenditures made that 
way. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4329 

Senator Mundt. Ordinarily, when a union makes expenditures in 
any campaign. State or local, they would have it taken out of that 
casli-reserve fund rather than the funds of the union ? 

Mv. DoRiA. No. This, of course, is one of the issues upon which I 
got into a lot of trouble. If the expenditures were for Federal offices, 
coming under the restrictions imposed under Taft-Hartley, naturally, 
they handle those through the political education committee, and those 
are not part of the union deal. If they are small participations on 
either the city level or the State level, there would have been meet- 
ings, attendance at conventions, and things of that nature, that might 
hav been defrayed from those accounts. 

Senator Goldwater. To carry on this discussion that Senator Mundt 
started with 3'ou, regarding political funds, from what you said about 
the political education committee, would you say that that is a coverup 
for political funds? 

Mr. DoRiA. The political education committee? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. If you want to get around the Taft- 
Hartley Act, would you say that it would be a political education 
fmid? 

Mr. DoRiA. Maybe by answering that question I can prove at least 
my independence from most of the labor people. I don't believe in 
political education funds. I refused to collect them. I refused to 
pay them. And where I had anything to do with them, I dis- 
couraged them. I did not win the favor of the AFL by so doing, 
and don't particularly care that I didn't. But, to me, it did not make 
any sense that political funds ought to be taken from people that 
are working in plants who may be Democrats, Republicans, and 
everything else, and then to be handed over to somebody else who 
will tie their future to the tail of one political party and say that 
all the funds are going to go there. So, political funds were not taste- 
ful to me at all. 

Senator Goldwater. That is the nicest thing you have said all day. 
Thank you. 

Mr. DoRTA. I don't care about it, and I never participated. The 
reason I am here, I will tell you frankly, is because of that. 

Senator Mundt. Would you say that again? The reason you are 
here is because of political activity ? 

]Mr. DoRiA. Primarily; 90 percent of the reason I am here is be- 
cause of that. 

Senator IMundt. Because you refused to participate in political 
activities ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because I not only refused to participate in it, but I 
condemned it. 

Senator Mundt. That brought you here ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Will you explain how? I do not quite under- 
stand it. 

Mr. DoRiA. You are asking these questions, and, if I get lengthy, 
please don't blame me, because I want to answer your question. 

Senator Mundt. I do not care how lengthy you get. I want this. 

Mr. DoRiA. In our activity in New York City with respect to the 
organization of the taxicab drivers, when we got into New York City, 
the organization, had it been accomplished, would have represented 
the largest single local union in the city of New York. 



4330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 

In the city of New York, as you people well know by testimony 
that has come before this committee, was one of the stalwarts of labor, 
and, I understand by the papers, a very clean individual, by the name 
of Dubmsky. 

Dubinsky opposed our operation in the city of New York, and 
Dubinsky made the original request that the organizational work in 
New York be stopped. 

As a result of tlie request that was made by Dubinsky, and I didn't 
know why he made it, I was originally called, along with Lester 
Washburn, the former president, before the so-called racket-busting 
connnittee of the AFL, prior to the merger. Tliere I met with David 
Dubinsky, George Meany, and McFetridge. 

With iDubinsky, at that time, and I later determined that the real 
reason behind it, as was given to me, and I am giving vou hearsay 
now, not proof, it was that he feared that the organization in taxi- 
cabs might become a political factor in the city of New York and, 
therefore, should be discouraged for that reason and, also, for the 
reason that there were no local unions of the UAW-AFL in the State 
of New York and that, in contemplation of the coming merger, the 
coalition between Dubinsky and Walter Eeuther was to dominate the 
merged movement and, therefore, they ought to completely disinte- 
grate our efforts in the State of New York. 

However, they had reason to attack it, as I predicted to Dio when 
he came into the movement, by alleging that their attack was aimed 
at us only because of the influence of an individual like Dio. 

So, we got before this committee and I asked Dubinsky very 
frankly, I said, "Dave, what is your real objective?"' And he said, 
"Well, Doria, why do we need all the bad publicity that Dio attracts 
to the movement ?" 

I said, "Look, if the AFL is willing to establish a condition or 
policy whereby bad publicity is justification for taking somebody out 
of tlie movement, you will find me the first to go along with it." 

"Well, that is what we ought to do," he said. 

I said, "Fine." 

I had 11 articles that a columnist by the name of Pegler had written 
about Dubinsky, and I had 2 of them there, which were the only 
articles that had appeared against Johnny Dio. 

I said, "On the basis of this, I am sure that, if you mean what you 
say, you will resign first, and I guarantee you we will follow it with 
the resignation of Johnny Dio." 

His answer was, "What are you reading that kind of stuff for?" 

He said, "He is only mad because I am trying to take over Europe." 

I don't know what that meant, but that was the answer given by 
Dubinsky. 

Meany at tliat time asked us to get out of taxicabs. I don't know 
whether it has been brought before this committee, but we had a 
clearance from botli the joint council of teamsters in New York as 
well as Dan Tobin, the president of the teamsters. There was no 
claim against us. 

But George Meany insisted tliat the organization be given up. 

These people were worried. No. 1, politically, as it came out later. 
No. 2, they had an individual in my presence that was not going along 
with a lot of the so-called established AFL policy that I think should 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4331 

have been buried 20 years ago ; and, as a result, they were using this 
as a guise. 

When I refused to cooperate, I naturally got on a list, as all people 
do wlien they refuse to cooperate, and then the attacks started against 
me first by association, later on by pressure against the board members. 

I invited them both to file charges against me, and both refused. 

There were never any charges filed. 

Finally, when they could not get me to hew to their line, they put 
the pressure on my board members. When I say "my board members," 
I mean the board members of the international union to which I 
belonged, and ultimately threatened them with expulsion unless they 
took action. 

This finally culminated in the Florida meeting. Even then I re- 
fused and I invited Meany at that time, and Dubinsky, to meet with 
me before the press under oath with no questions barred, and let the 
press report it and turn over the transcript to the Justice Department 
to prosecute anyone that had lied. They refused to come up with 
that. 

But the question that has never been answered to me is this : Why 
was it George Meany, if he was really interested in the taxicab em- 
ployees, allowed the union to be destroyed, and left those people out 
on the street with nowhere to turn, and never made any arrangement 
for the organized people that had won elections legitimately through 
the New York State board, to find a place where they could operate 
as a union, which I tried to do through the teamsters, and failed ? 

Now, the pressure then continued into our convention in 1955, just 
like they did in this convention recently held, and George Meany 
sent his representative, a fellow by the name of Pete McGaffin, for 
the purpose of stirring up the delegates to defeat me in that con- 
vention. I sent word to Pete McGafRn, which information had come 
to me through Frank Evans, one of our board members, that he was 
in the hotel, to either bring McGafRn on the platform and I would 
debate him under oath, or he had better leave the hotel because I 
would challenge him the next morning. 

I understand he left the hotel. 

Now, all of this pressure continued to build up because of my refusal 
to be a part of many of the programs within the AFL, and my only 
point is that if I had it to do over again I would do it in identically 
the same manner that I have done in the past. 

The pressure continued with the accusations and the allegations, and 
I think we are going to get into the buying of a building later on. 

All of those things were picked up from employees that were dis- 
charged, that reported it to them, and merely used as convenience and 
expediency to continue the pressure. 

Senator Mundt. Your difficulty now with Mr. Dubinsky and with 
the AFL originally stemmed from the fact that you ojjposed the prac- 
tice of imposing assessments on labor union members for use in politi- 
cal campaigns ? 

Mr. DoRTA. I didn't say that. I said that is one of the reasons why I 
am here. I said the reason why, not to be misquoted or misunderstood, 
was my constant objection and challenge of the policies of the AFL. 

Senator Mundt. That was one of the policies to which you objected ? 



4332 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA, That is one of the policies about which I complained. 
Another one which they corrected was in the Chicago convention, I 
wanted all unions in the AFL to pay the same per capita tax. We 
couldn't get through anything, and so finally I decided to make the 
amendment directly from the floor, and they recessed the convention 
for 2l^ hours and held caucuses and practically threatened everybody 
not to vote for the amendment that I had made that had won popular- 
ity on the floor. I was always in that position. 

Senator Mundt. Did your ultimate resignation grow out of this 
disagreement, and was it made at the suggestion of the board, or did 
you just tire of the fight and voluntarily leave? 

jVIr. DoRiA. My resignation actually stemmed from my refusal to 
continue to jeopardize the welfare of my family with the kind of smear 
that I was getting as a result of having people like that opposed to me. 

I didn't mind it when I was alone and when I was single. It was 
my prerogative to decide how much I wanted to gamble in the labor 
movement. But when it started adversely aflecting my family, then 
I had to give up a fight that I hated to give up, and for that reason I 
resigned. 

Senator Mundt. It was a voluntary resignation on your part ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. This colloquy you have just had with Senator 
Mundt indicates that there were assessments levied on the membership 
for political purposes. I know of no such assessments. Were there 
assessments ? 

Mr. Doria. No ; there couldn't be. 

Senator McNamara. The colloquy you just had indicated there were 
assessments, and you agree there were none ? 

Mr. DoRiA. There was merely a request to participate in political 
education. 

Senator McNamara. By voluntary means ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, and criticism if you did not come up with 
a good showing, which of course I very frankly state now, and stated 
then, that I made no effort. 

Senator McNamara. Now tell me this : Do you have the same feel- 
ing now that you represent management against contributions for 
political purposes on the part of management? 

Mr. DoRiA. On the part of management ? I think that management 
if they want to spend their own money, can go ahead and spend their 
own money as long as they don't say to their employees, "Look, if you 
want a job, you had better contribute, too." 

Senator McNamara. You think that management should be able to 
get voluntary assessments but you don't think that the workers should 
be allowed to make voluntary assessments or contributions? I used 
the word "assessments" erroneously. 

Mr. DoRiA. I didn't rebel against voluntary contributions ; let us not 
misunderstand me. 

Senator McNamara. We are back now where we started. Were 
they assessments or were they contributions ? 

Mr. Doria. My point was, that the request was to solicit voluntary 
contributions, and when they were not forthcoming, strictly volun- 
tarily, to go out and apply pressure to see to it that people could be 
convinced to make voluntary contributions. To me, people don't 



IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4333 

have to be convinced to make voluntary contributions. They make 
those automatically. If it requires going back, it is no longer volun- 
tary. There is an application, in case you don't do it. 

Senator McNamara. You feel the same rule should apply, however, 
to management? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think labor and management should have the same 
rules on both sides of the table. 

Senator McNamara. That is what I trying to get at. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to be able to close up this one transac- 
tion before the evening is over. 

Going back a second, you gave the money to whom? Two people 
came into your office ? 

Mr. Doria. I believe, Mr. Kennedy, as I stated before, that that was 
a cashing of that check right in our office. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave $5,000 to Earl Heaton; is that right? 

Mr. Doria. No ; Earl Heaton gave me $5,000. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He gave you $5,000 ? 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who gave you the rest of it ? 

Mr. Doria. I think it was Dick Loomis who gave me the rest of it. 

JNIr. Kennedy. He gave you $4,600 in cash? 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir ; I think that is the amount. I am not sure of 
that part of the transaction, because in this I had $25,000 of my own 
money to make up the total of $30,000. 

Mr. IsjENNEDY. We are talking about you cashing the check, and I 
am not interested in what you ultimately invested. 

Mr. Doria. All I can tell you is what I remember, and beyond that 
I can't go. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't expect you to. You got $5,000 from Earl 
Heaton and $4,000 in cash — four-thousand-odd dollars in cash — from 
Dick Loomis. 

Mr. Doria. It is not that simple. You can talk about him, because 
I know what Heaton put in. He and I together put in $30,000, and 
I put in 25, but I can't say the same thing about Loomis. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking about how much he invested. I 
am asking aliout this one transaction, when the check was cashed, 
and where did you get the money. 

Mr. Doria. Five thousand dollars of the money came from Heaton, 
and I believe, and I don't know what other cash transaction there 
might have been there, but I believe the total amount 

Mr. Kennedy. You said Loomis gave it to you, Mr. Doria. Now 
tell the truth. Where did you get the money ? 

Mr. Doria. How do you want me to do ? Do you want to tell me 
what to say, Mr. Kennedy? 

Mr. Kennedy. You tell me where you got the money. 

Mr. Doria. I told you that $5,000 came from EarrHeaton. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Doria. But I am trying to explain to you, and which is very 
pertinent, that this was a total of the entire deposit made that day 
in international procurement enterprises. Whether the total of $4,- 
620 came from Loomis or in that was involved part of my $25,000, I 
don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that you put cash in yours, then ? 



4334 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' Ll\BOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I put in checks, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did the $4,600 in cash come from? From 
you, or from Loomis? 

Mr. DoRiA. Am I talking to nobodv ? I said that the $5,000 came 
from Heaton, and that the $4,620 — y 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am interested in. 

Mr. DoRiA. Could have come partly from my $25,000, and partly 
from Loomis, or possibly all from Loomis. I do not recall that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you say that part of the $4,600, you now testify 
part of that might have been your own money ; is that right ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. This didn't happen that long ago. 

Mr. DoRiA, It certainly did. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were telling Senator Mundt about the 
conversation that you had about Dave Dubinsky, you remembered 
every detail of that. 

Mr. DoRiA. I will never forget that one as long as I live. 

Mr. Kennedy. It seems to me that you can remember some things 
really down to the most minute detail, but when it comes to trans- 
actions as to how you handled the funds of the union, you have a 
very bad memory. 

Mr. DoRiA. A'V^ien I am stimulated, yes, on something, I can remem- 
ber, because it leaves that much more of an impression. But this was 
nothing but an ordinary business deal, and it wasn't that significant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are there any records in the union that show what 
happened to this money ; any records at all ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know that. I have been out of the union since 
March. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, will you come around, please ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Doria, you may remain seated for a moment. 

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. Bellino. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO 

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

Mr. Bellino. Carmine S. Bellmo, Bethesda, Md., certified public 
accountant. 

The Chairman. How long have you been working for this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Bellino. Since the inception in March of this year. 

The Chairman. And how long had you worked for the Senate 
Permanent Investigating Subcommittee ? 

Mr. Bellino. Since 1947. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Bellino, you have made a study of certain 
of the locals that became defunct in the UAW-AFL? — and what 
happened to certain of the funds ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4335 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I want to direct your attention, particularly 
and specifically right now, to local 790. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the UAW in Connecticut. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

JNlr. Kennedy. Now, there was a bond whose face value was $10,000. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you trace for the committee or tell the com- 
mittee what happened to that bond ? 

Mr. Belling. The bond which was payable 

Mr. Kennedy. What year was this ? 

Mr. Belling. It was purchased in September of 1943. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the local went out of existence ? 

Mr. Belling. In 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the bond ? 

]\Ir. Belling. The boncls were turned over to the international 
office, and in November 1954, a cashier's check was purchased by 
Anthony Doria and the bond was endorsed, "Local 790, Anthony 
Doria, secretary-treasurer of the international union," and he re- 
ceived the cashier's check in the amount of $9,620, which check was 
l^art of the deposit in the International Procurement Enterprises of 
some thirty-four-thousand-and-some-ocld dollars. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, from a review^ of the records of the interna- 
tional tliat you have made personally, or people under your direction 
have made, is there anything or any place at all in those records 
which show anything about this transaction or that the union ever got 
this money ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir ; there is no record of the money ever coming 
into the union and no record of the moneys that were subsequently 
disbursed either in cash or any other way, as Mr. Doria claims. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, based on a review of the records of the local, the 
one that went defunct, plus a review of the records of the interna- 
tional, it Avould appear that this bond was taken from the local 
and was deposited or cashed and the money was deposited in a busi- 
ness enterprise in which Mr. Doria had an interest. 

Mr. Belling. The funds were so deposited ; yes, sir. I might fur- 
ther explain that the cash-reserve fund that Mr. Doria talks about, 
is tlie desk drawer in his office where I understand he kept this cash 
from defunct locals. 

There is no such account for the defunct locals such as the cash 
reserve as he testified. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is absolutely no record available showing 
that this money was ever made available to the international ? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is there any record to show that they had this 
cash account as a separate account? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir; not insofar as these bonds are concerned. 
They did have a cash-reserve account whereby they would make 
journal entries, just journal entries for possible cash advances, or 
revolving funds, and it would all go together. 

The Chairman. Did you find any record of the bond ever becom- 
ing the property of the union ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 



4336 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. There is no record that it came in from the local? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir ; nothing but the letter transmitting the bonds. 
We might find some of those, a letter of that nature. 

The Chairman. Was it carried as an asset of the union, of the 
international ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it carried in any of its financial reports? 

Mr. Belling. It does not appear in any of the accountants' state- 
ments which we have and I might further say that the records in 
1954, a good number of them are missing. The files appear to have 
been stripped and some of the pertinent documents are gone. 

Senator Mundt. How about the first bond ? You head Mr. Doria's 
description of the separate bank account established in Milwaukee 
to pay the lease of the building. 

Did you find evidence to verify that ? 

Mr. Belling. We subpenaed all of the bank accomits in Milwaukee, 
and I do not recall seeing such a bank account. 

Senator Mundt. Did you find any evidence at all of this lease trans- 
action which he described ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. We talked, I believe, to the representatives 
of those locals and none of them as yet mentioned such a transaction. 
We don't know whether that could be true or not. 

Senator Mundt. Nobody up in Connecticut verified the fact that 
they did have a union hall? 

Mr. Belling. They didn't tell us about that at any rate. Now, 
maybe we didn't know enough to ask them. 

Senator Mundt. You had not heard that explanation up to today ? 

Mr. Belling. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the bond here somewhere. 

Mr. Belling. It is right there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you, what would be the proper procedure 
on handling this kind of a transaction? 

Mr. Belling. The proper procedure on receiving bonds in the first 
place would have been to set it Up at least through a journal entry 
as an asset of the union. It was turned over to the union and it became 
funds of the union and then it should have been set up as an asset and 
shown as "funds from defunct locals." 

Mr. Kennedy. From your experience, how would you describe the 
way that this matter was handled ? 

Mr. Belling. I would say it is very, very bad way of handling it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And improper? 

Mr. Belling. It would be improper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the bond ? 

Mr. Belling. It is a $10,000 bond dated September 1943, registered 
in the name of the United Automobile Workers, Local 110, American 
Federation of Labor, 31 State Street, Meriden, Conn. 

That is endorsed by Anthony Doria, signed, "United Automobile 
Workers, Local 110, American Federation of Labor, Unincorporated, 
an Association, by Anthony Doria, Secretary." 

In otlier words, it is secretary of this local. 

Mr. Kennedy. He endorsed the bonds as secretary of that local? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And was he secretary of that local ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4337 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 

Mr, IvENNEDT. Now, you have the check, and the check was de- 
posited, and do you have the deposit slip ? 

The Chairman. That photostatic copy of the bond may be made 
exhibit No. 84. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 84" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Belling. The deposit ticket is on the Bank of America, a new 
account, in the name of the International Procurement Enterprises, 
1300 Airway, Greendale, Calif., dated January 24, 1955, and the total 
amount is $34,620, and there are 6 checks listed, among which is one 
shown as 90-1221, which is the Bank of California, in the amount of 
$9,620. 

The Chairman. That deposit slip may be made exhibit No. 85. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 85" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4477.) 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Are there any further questions ? 

The Chairjman. You may stand aside. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DOEIA— Resumed 

Mr. DoRiA. May I comment on that, on evidence just given by Mr. 
Bellino? 

The Chairman. You may comment briefly and the Cliair is going 
to recess it pretty quickly for the night. 

Mr. Dgria. I would like to clear this. I would like to bring out. 
No. 1, that if there was a cashier's check involved it was not a purchase 
but it was the payment for the bond, given in cashier's check form 
by the bank. It was not an asset of the international union under the 
construction that had always been given by the board and could not 
be solicited because of the fact that unless specific action had been 
taken to make it an asset we were not permitted to list it as an asset. 

The Chairman. On that point, your constitution says that it is. 
The board does not have to take any action to make it an asset. 

Mr. DoRiA. The board should interpret the constitution that way 
and did for 20 years and that was the practice. 

The Chaiman. That is an interpretation, I may say, for somebody's 
convenience because the constitution says otherwise. 

Mr. DoRiA. Regardless of what it was 

The Chairman. The constitution does not read that way. 

Mr. DoRiA. You still have not gone back to the section where — I 
could not tell you by section what it is — on what happened to the funds 
of defunct local unions. 

The Chairman. It says : "They shall become and remain the prop- 
erty of the international union," and it does not say the board takes 
any action whatsoever. 

Mr. Doria. Tliere is a conflict in that constitution, how it is to 
become the property of the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything in the constitution that says you 
can't set this up at all, and can't have any books or records at all on 
this money coming in ? 

Mr. Doria. We couldn't because of the fact it could not be made an 
asset of the international union, and it could not be incorporated. 



4338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That does not make any sense. 

Mr. Doria. What doesn't make any sense? To me, who worked 
with it for 20 years 

Mr. Kennedy. If you get $10,000 the only thing you are allowed to 
do is stick it in your drawer ? 

Mr. Doria. We are holding it for the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You, a great friend of Johnny Dio and with equal 
trust in him as you have in yourself, take the $10,000 and the only 
thing you think you can do is stick it in your drawer. That just does 
not make any sense. 

Mr. Doria. Heaton was the one, under the constitution, who super- 
vised all of tlie expenditures of the international union. 

The Chairman. You were a trustee as secretary-treasurer, and a 
direct trustee. 

Mr. Doria. And he could spend it all tomorrow. 

The Chairman. . He could not unless he could get it away from you. 

Mr. Doria. But he could tell me, and I could be subject to being 
expelled from the union by not complying with that request between 
board meetings. I think you gentlemen are forgetting that we also 
have rules to go by in our union. 

The Chairman. Some of them are not very much in the way of rules. 

Mr. Doria. I can't help that, but the people voted it. Just because 
the laws are not good 

The Chairman. Under the leadership of such leaders that wanted 
them that way. 

Mr. Doria. I wouldn't say that because the people I think voiced 
their own opinions. 

Now, the lease transaction that Mr. Bellino says there is no record 
of, I think can be determined by checking the records of either the 
City Bank & Trust Co., or the First Wisconsin National Bank, 
where you will find an account under the listing of Lester Washburn, 
that disbursed the funds of the first bond. Those were disbursed by 
check since they had to be sent to Meriden. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino did not say there was not such a fund. 
He said he was not aware of it. 

Mr. Doria. In the event the committee wants to verify it they can 
do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine. 

Mr. Doria. He says the standards under which we kept our ac- 
counting were very bad. When I started in the international union, 
I want to point out that they never even had a ledger. I took over 
the entire funds of this international union in a small tin box, $1,687. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what year ? 

Mr. Doria. 1943 and later by these bad methods, we got up to $11^ 
million instead of being defunct. 

Now, the endorsement as secretary on the bond is not a local union 
endorsement. The endorsement as "secretary" came by virtue of the 
fact that the bond was under administratorship upon the local 110 
becoming defunct. As a result, the administratorship accrued to the 
president. It was under the instruction of the president, as adminis- 
trator for the fund, that I signed that bond. I did not sign as a local 
union treasurer at all. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4339 

Mr. Kennedy. You ended with the money. 

Mr. DoRiA. What is that? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You ended up with the money. 

Mr. DoRiA. What do you mean ? I ended up with all of the money 
of the international, I was treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Speaking of that, they had a banquet last week and 
they couldn't even pay the bill. 

Mr. DoRiA. I left 6 months ago, and they were broke when I 
started and they were 6 months after I left, and I think it speaks for 
my administration rather than against it. 

Also, let me say this, that in the entries, upon closing the accounts 
that I submitted to the international union, as recently as July 29 
the balance from the fund of that bond was $210.90 in cash reserve 
fund No. 2. They are in the hands of the auditors now and when 
the accounts were to be closed out, these were ones that could not be 
completed and I was there. 

I could give you much more on that if we start this hearing again 
tomorrow. I think everybody is anxious to leave and I don't want 
to hold it up. I have had my share. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a subpena and you may ac- 
cept and comply with it in the morning, if you can. 

Let the record show that the Chair passes him this subpena and 
the return will be made. 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Chairman, may I state I have access to no records 
other than what I have here. You are welcome to these. 

The Chairman. You will have to answer to that. If you have 
them, we want them. You may not have them here right now, but 
if you have them in your possession at any time we will want them. 

All right, the committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomor- 
row morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 45 p. m., the hearing in the above- entitled mat- 
ter was recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., on the following day.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 

Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 a, m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Irving 
M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North 
Carolina ; Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan ; Karl E. Mundt, Re- 
publican, South Dakota; Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; 
Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, chief assistant counsel; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel; 
Walter R. May, assistant counsel; Robert E. Dunne, assistant counsel; 
Carmine S. Bellino, accounting consultant; Frank C. Lloyd, investi- 
gator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

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

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DOSIA— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Yesterday, when we w^ere closing, we were talking 
about a bond from local No. 790, in Meriden, Conn., Mr. Doria. 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you stated, as I understand it, that Mr. Heaton 
came into the office with $5,000 and Mr. Loomis came in with some 
money. 

Mr. Doria. Well, yes. Mr. Heaton had $5,000 that was part of the 
loan that he made to Loomis, for a total of $30,000, which I made, and 
then Loomis had his own funds in that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they just happen to arrive at the office with this 
money, and you put the money in your drawer and exchanged the 
check for it ? 

Mr. Doria. We were meeting in the office for the purpose of making 
the loan to Loomis, and it was during the same time that we held the 
check on the bond. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Heaton just happen to have $5,000? 

4341 



4342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. No. He had $5,000 there for the purpose of the agree- 
ment we made to loan Loomis $30,000, to start this photogrammetry. 

Mr. Kennedy. What occurred ? 

Mr, DoRiA. What occurred was that instead of going to the bank 
and cashing the check and putting in the cash and taking this cash 
and going to the other bank and opening up a deposit, what we did 
was put the cash into the cash fund and made 1 deposit and made 
only 1 trip. The difference Avas this : One of the banks where we 
banked is in Beverly Hills. The bank where this had to be banked 
for international procurement is in downtown Los Angeles, a good 
45-minute ride. Instead of making them both, by this transaction 
we made only one trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was about 3 weeks later, was it not, or was it 
on the same day ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The exchange took place on the same day. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Tell me this: Was there another bond at the same 
time that you cashed ? 

Mr. DoRiA. There were bonds of local 110 and local 790. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the bond of local 110? 

Mr. DoRiA. AVell, I think that is what we have been talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about 790, what did you do with tliat bond? 

Mr. DoRiA. That was also in cash and it was cashed, and put in the 
cash reserves, cash reserve account Xo. 2, 1 believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you explain what happened on that bond? 
That was, again, a local in Meriden, Conn., that was defunct in 1951 
and you kept the bond until when ? 

Mr, DoRiA. Any of those bonds that we are talking about were 
cashed. Those funds went into the cash fund of the international 
union, 

Mr, Kennedy, Wait a minute. The cash fund of the international 
union; meaning your desk drawer? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not my desk drawer, 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought that is what you said you did with the 
money — you put this in a little box in your drawer. 

Mr. DoRiA. Not in my drawer ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that ? 

Mr. DoRiA, That was Mr. Bellino's testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was the box, then ? 

Mr. DoRiA. What is that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was the box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I kept it in the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you keep it, if you did not keep it in 
your drawer? 

Mr. DoRiA. I kept it in another room, right next to my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said you kept it in your office. 

Mr. DoRTA. That was my whole suite. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Wiere did you keep it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I have two rooms. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you keep it in the other room? 

Mr. DoRiA. Wiat is that? 

Mr. Kennedy. You heard me. 

Mr. DoRiA. I did not hear you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you keep it in the other room? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4343 

]\Ir. DoRiA. There is one thing we have got to do. We have got 
to start clicking the cameras or talk, one or the other, and I can't get 
through to you. 

If you want to take pictures, I have no objection to pictures, but 
we ought to finish one and then do the other. 

The Chairman. A request is sufficient without a lecture to the 
committee. 

You gentlemen with your cameras, now, be careful and do not 
interrupt. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't mind the cameras. 

The Chairman. Does the M'itness prefer to have no pictures taken? 

Mr. DoEiA. I don't object to it, Mr. McClellan. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. DoRiA. As long as we don't have this clicking at the same mo- 
ment a question is coming through, and I can't break through. 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 
. Mr. Kennedy. lYliat did you do with this money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I kept it in a cashbox we had specially for the money, 
in one of the rooms right adjoining my own private office. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVliereabouts in that room ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Eight to the left as I sit at my desk, within the suite 
I had. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the room right next to yours ? 

Mr. DoRiA. You were in my office, and it was as you entered. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where the secretary is ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, in the room to your left as you entered my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was in a little box there ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where was the box kept? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was kept in a special shelf that was made for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. A special shelf was made for the box with the 
money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It wasn't made for that, but it was used for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you just stuck the box up there on the shelf and 
put the money in, and put the $10,000 in and stuck it up on the shelf ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was not so it could be easily seen, believe me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You hid it? 

Mr. DoRiA. We had a robbery and no one touched it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hide it? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you hide it? 

Mr. DoRiA, I hid it as best as I could, under the circumstances there, 
of where I was placing it. It was not a logical spot for anybody to 
look for a cashbox. 

Mr. Kennedy. Describe just how you hid it; would you? 

Mr. DoRiA. I hid it with papers. 

Mr. Kennedy. You put paper on top of the box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. On a shelf ; that is right. It was a very easy and acces- 
sible thing, but it would never be looked for. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just a box with tens of thousands of dollars 
in it? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not tens of thousands of dollars. There were never tens 
of thousands. Where do we have testimony about it? 

80330— 57— pt. 11 22 



4344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you where you got $10,000. I will tell 
yon right here, with these 2 defunct locals and there were approxi- 
matel}^ 100 defunct locals and you had one of $9,620. 

Mr. DoRiA. Tliere was no cash of 100 defunct locals that I ever 
handled. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just discuss two that we know about — $9,620 and 
$4,727 makes a total of about $13,000 or $14,000 in cash? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kenedy. Now you stuck this in the box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went into your office room and put it on 
a shelf and put papers over it ; is that right ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; there was a shelf there where we would keep it. 

Mr. Kenedy. How high is the shelf ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I would say about, to me, elbow height, as I stand. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just walked in there and you got a little box. 
Was it a little tin box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; it was a pretty heavy box. 

Mr. Kennedy. A wooden box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Not a wooden box, no ; it was a fireproof box. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you put the box there and you put papers 
over it, or what ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, I put regular papers around it. 

Mr. Kennedy. All around it, on both sides of it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. Kennedy, I can't describe to you that I took 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is very interesting as to what happened to 
the cash. I am just trying to get a description. 

Mr. DoRiA. We are not going to find out what happened to the cash 
by discussing the way the box was hidden. I think you know that as 
well as I, because whether it was in a box or not the cash could have 
been disposed of. I think we all will agree with that. 

The Chairman. Let us get down to the issue here, or the facts, and 
just answer the questions. 

Ask the questions now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us just where the box was? 

Mr. DoRiA. In the room to the left of my office, as I sat at my desk. 
You entered that office and it was to your left as you entered it, and 
you would not have even gone in the room and you wouldn't have 
known there was a room. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody know the box was there ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Nobody knew besides me and Heaton. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the secretary ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The secretary never knew anything about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Only you and Pleaton knew the box was there? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And only you and Heaton knew what was in the 
box? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you just hid it with all of these papers so that 
nobody would see it ? 

]\Ir. DoRiA. Not a lot of paper ; it was a very simple thing to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Miat if you needed some of the papers to do work 
with ? 



mrPROPER ACTIVmES m THE LABOR FIELD 4345 

IVIr. DoRTA. Those are not the type of papers that we used. We 
didn't use those papers to do work with. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were not working papers ? 

Mr. DoRLv. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just old papers that you had? 

Mr. DoRiA. Things that were not used ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much, exactly, was in it at all times? Did you 
keep any books or records ? 

Mr. DoRiA. We kept a record right in the box, as I testified. 

Mr. Ivt^NNEDY. Do you have that record ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; I do not have that record. 

Mr Kennedy. "\^niat happened to that record? 

Mr. DoRiA. That record is over a year and a half old now, and it 
was with the records of the international miion. As I testified yester- 
day, at the time the United Automobile Workers name was changed 
to the Allied Industrial Workers, we were destroying many of the 
records, and whether that record was destroyed along with those, I 
don't know, but I do not have the record. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Who would know, other than you and Heaton ? You 
were the only ones that knew you had all of this money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. But once the records were completed 
and chargeoffs were made on that 

Mr. IvENNEDY. There wasn't any chargeoff to be made. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; every time there was an expenditure there was a 
chargeoff. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was just put in your little note, and stuck back 
in the box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was just a debit and credit column, showing the 
amount of money that you start with, and the entries of every amount 
of cash that went in there, and the entries showing the cash disburse- 
ments from it. 

The Chairman. That record, the only record you kept of it, was 
kept and placed in the box with the money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. As you put money in, you entered it on whatever 
record you kept in there ? And as you took money out, you entered 
it there? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is that your testimony? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

The Chairman. But no one knew about that record, and no one 
knew about the money ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Heaton and I both knew about it. 

The Chairman. Except you two? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is all the constitution provided. 

The Chairman. All right. Getting back to the constitution now; 
this is a lame constitution, I would call it, if that is all you required. 

Mr. DoRiA. You had better see the members on that, because they 
made it. 

The Chairman. I am saying it to you. 

Mr. DoRiA. I know, but the members made the constitution. 

The Chairman. And you kept no other record of it, and no one 
knew about it, and there has never been an accounting of that money 
to your union, has there? 



4346 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; there has been an accounting to the people I was 
supposed to make it to, which was Heaton. If you will read the con-* 
stitution, you will find he was authorized to make the expenditure. 

The Chairman, I do not care about your lame constitution; I am 
asking you questions for an answer. It is not to lecture me on your 
constitution. 

Mr. DoRiA. Mr. McClellan, the lame constitution you refer to was 
the only regulation I could go by, and I didn't make it. 

The Chairman. You could go by a sense of obligation to your mem- 
bers, and a duty you owed to them, whether you had a constitution 
or not. Now, whatever kind of constitution you had, I think they were 
entitled to an accounting. They were entitled, first, to know that the 
money was there, and they were entitled to an accounting of its ex- 
penditure. According to you, that was never made, because you said 
the constitution did not require it. I am pointing out to you, notwith- 
standing a constitution or lack of constitution, there is a moral obliga- 
tion to account to these union members for their dues and for their 
money. All right; proceed. 

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

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

Mr. Doria. Before we proceed, may I again point out, Mr. Mc- 
Clellan, that the constitution that we went by I had to comply with. 
There was no object in me instituting more closely procedures than 
the membership would accept. Let us not forget that in granting a 
constitution the membership also binds itself with respect to all of 
the local unions 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. DoRiA. To go along with that. 

The Chairman. You know that is plain silly. 

Mr. Doria. It is not plain silly. 

The Chairman. Everybody else knows it. Proceed. 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know it is silly. 

Senator Goldwater. I think we can clear a point up here relative 
to the constitution. Did you ever consider the money that came in 
from these defunct unions or locals as union funds ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; not as international union funds. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you consider them as union property? 

Mr. Doria. Yes; they were general union property, certainly. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, the constitution, under section 13, 1 think 
it is, about the fourth article on page 36, says that you are responsible 
for all of the union property and you must keep records of it. 

Mr. Doria. And I did, and accounted to the people who were au- 
thorized under the constitution to clear those records. 

Senator Goldwait^r. Now the constitution, as I remember it, does 
not say anything about anybody else having authority to make any 
rules as to what funds are accounted for. 

Mr. Doria. But the constitution did explicitly direct me 

Senator Goldwater. Where did it say that? 

Mr. Doria. To see Heaton. Just read the constitution with respect 
to the approval of expenditures and you will find two things. You 
will find that between meetings of the board, the highest authority 
is the international president. You will then find, also under the 
duties of the president, that the president was the only individual that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4347 

was empowered to make approval of expenditures between meetings 
of the board. 

That is all I had to go by. 

Senator Goldwater. Let us get back to this union fund. Several 
times yesterday, in response to questions put to you by the comisel, 
as to whether or not you had ever used union funds for your own 
personal use, you said, no, you had not. Now, did you consider these 
f imds as union funds ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Certainly I considered these as union funds, and when 
I say that I did not use them for my personal use at any time I am 
stating it under oath, contrary to the implications made under im- 
munity here. I am stating again that any of those funds, local union 
defunct funds, and international funds, were not used for my per- 
sonal use. 

Senator Goldwater. Then the funds that were in the little box, 
hidden up among the papers 

Mr. DoRiA. Those were not used for my personal use. 

Senator Goldwater. Those in your mind were union funds? 

Mr. DoRiA. And were union property, that is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, as the constitution construed it- 



Mr. DoRiA. Not union international property, but union property. 

Senator Goldwater. It was union property ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, under which I was covered by my bond, 
paid for by my international union, which I imposed upon myself 
to the extent of $100,000. 

Senator Goldwater. Now the constitution says that all profits of 
a defunct union, or defunct local shall become the property of the 
international. 

Mr. Dorm.. Yes, but there was a procedure for that. 

Senator Goldwater. That is very true, and now the procedure we 
are following winds up in a little box. What I want to find out is 
whether or not you considered the money in that box as union property 
or union funds. 

Mr. DoRiA. I considered the money in that box as being the property 
of the def mict local unions under the custodianship of the president 
and myself. 

Senator Goldwater. But the constitution did not say that, and I 
just want you to tell me, Did you consider that as the property of the 
union, and, as such, did it come under your powers as secretary- 
treasurer ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It came under my ])owers as supervising the fund, but as 
I tried to point out part of the afternoon yesterday, before these funds 
could actually be transferred into the treasury of the international 
union it took specific action of the board. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever take that action ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, to my knowledge I don't remember taking any of 
that action, because in the 20 years that I served this union that pro- 
cedure was very much the same at all times. I don't recall any such 
action. 

Senator Goldwater. What action did it take to get the money out of 
that box ? You had to get it out sometime, because the box would not 
hold too much. 

Mr. DoRLv. It took the approval of Earl Heaton. 



4348 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. That is all it took ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Did lie give this often to you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, yes; every time there were expenditures made 
from it for organizational purposes, or otherwise. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Who owned this box? Was it your personal 
property ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The box? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; it was. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you buy it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall where I bought it. I had it for quite some 
time and I brought it in from Milwaukee. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you had it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know how long I had that, I mean how long I 
did have it, and I haven't got it any more, but I don't know how long I 
did have it. 

Senator Curtis. How long after this money from this defunct local 
came into your hands did you bring it to your office. 

Mr. DoRiA. Did I bring what to my office ? 

Senator Curtis. The box. 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, I had the box with me in my office at the time wfe^ 
moved from Milwaukee. 

Senator Curtis. What did you keep in it? 

Mr. DoRiA. Wliy did I keep it ? 

Senator Curtis. What did you keep in it ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't understand your question. 

Senator Curtis. What did you put in the box? 

Mr. DoRiA. Money. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, did you have money in there besides this 
$9,600 that we are talking about or these items Mr. Kennedy men- 
tioned ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; there were times when if I had to leave in a hurry, 
because of the fact I did not keep checking accounts to guard myself 
against suits, which for the last years have been plaguing me as a result 
of the activities of the smear that I have gotten in the newspapers — 
many times I would leave my personal money in that box in separate 
envelopes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you do that at the time that you had this local 
union money in there? 

Mr. Doria. There might have been some times when that happened ; 
yes. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you intermingled your own money 
and this union money in the same box. 

Mr. Doria. Oh, no ; I told you I had that in separate envelopes with 
my own record of my own money. Because if I had gotten killed in 
an airplane crash during travel, and that box had been opened, I 
wanted a clear designation of what was mine and what was not. 

Senator Curtis. How many keys did you have for this box ? 

Mr. Doria. There were no keys to the box. 

Senator Curtis. It didn't lock ? 

Mr. Doria. No. There was a combination on the thins:. 



IMPROPER ACTI^'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4349 

Senator Curtis. How many people knew the combination ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The combination of the box, only I knew the combina- 
tion of the box. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Heaton didn't know the combination ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; he always came to me when he wanted to make dis- 
bursements from that fund. 

Senator Curtis. When he wanted to make what? 

Mr, DoRiA. Make disbursements from the fund, and he came to me. 

Senator Curtis. You made disbursements from this fund? 

Mr. DoRiA. That's right. 

Senator Curtis. What did you buy with it? 

Dr. DoRiA. Usually it was used in organizational work, on fast trips 
where we had no opportunity over weekends for example, to obtain 
checks, because we never wrote our own checks and we had the clerks 
write them, and things of that nature. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, when this money came into your hands^ 
what entries did you make in the books? 

Mr. DoRiA. There were no entries, because as I have explained abotit 
half a dozen times or more, those were not considered international 
properties as such when they came in from a defunct local. 

Senator Curtis. You made no entries in the books ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; only with respect to the fund in the box and with 
respect to the funds that came in from the local union, to establish 
a recorcl in the fund box. 

Senator Curtis. Where was that ? On the envelopes ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. That was on a record that I kept of a debit and 
credit entry to establish my balances that were current with respect to 
the account number. 

Senator Curtis. ^'\niere is that record now ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know. I left the union in March, and I have 
no idea where that record is, and it has been 6 months since I have 
been in the international. 

Senator Curtis. Where is the box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't know where the box is any more, because I used 
the box when I went down to Arizona, and I had it in my car with 
some mine papers and the box was lost out in the mountains of 
Arizona. 

Senator Curtis. ^'NHiat was in it when it was lost? 

Mr. DoRiA. Nothing very important, just some papers that I had on 
drawings of a mine mill. 

Senator Curtis. Who was with you when you lost it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Nobody. I had it in my own car. 

Senator Curtis. Was your car moving when it fell out? 

Mr. DoRiA. I didn't say it fell out of the car. We had a lot of 
equipment and we had an accident, that wrecked a lot of mine equip- 
ment. We were out there, and we were working with it, and the box 
simply disappeared, and whether somebody picked it up or what hap- 
pened to it, I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did it have any money in it at that time ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; there was no cash. As I told you, all it had was 
some drawings on the erection of our mine mill. 

Senator Curtis. Did it have any name or identification ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No ; the box never had any identification. 



4350 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And the contents didn't either ? 

Mr. DoRiA, The contents were not that important, because all it 
was was sketches of a mine mill, a processing mill for a mine. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, in reference to the ownership of this 
money, would this be a correct statement: That the money belonged 
to the local union, but when they went out of business, the international 
was custodian of it, but not the owner in the sense that its regular 
funds belonged to it. 

Mr, DoRiA. It w^ould not be a correct statement. What we con- 
strued those funds to be in the 20 years that I was with the union was 
if the local union became defunct with no opportunity of rehabilitat- 
ing the local union, the funds were then held as an administrator, 
under administratorship of the president of the international union. 
Those funds then were subject to disbursements. As I pointed out 
yesterday, when that happened in a geographical area, where we had 
a director, in many, many instances, and in the majority of instances, 
those were turned over to that area for organizational work in that 
area. When they came into the international union, they were used 
for disbursement out of the international office. 

That was the practice that I found, that continued throughout my 
entire administration as secretary-treasurer. 

Senator Curtis. During your administration as secretary-treasurer, 
were organizational expenditures usually made in cash? 

Mr. DoRiA, There are a lot of organizational expenditures made in 
cash; yes. 

Senator Curtis. About how much would those expenditures run 
in a year's time? 

Mr, DoRiA. It all depends upon the nature of the activity. They 
have run sometimes as high as $50,000 and $60,000 in 8 weeks. 

Senator Curtis. And what record would be kept of those cash 
expenditures ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The record would be kept, if the expenditures were all 
made in cash ; the record would be in that fund. In other words, every 
time there was a disbursement, if it applied to a particular organiza- 
tional drive, or whatever the case may be, it would be recorded. 

In other words, so much was taken out for organizational work, say 
air products corporation, so many dollars. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, the only records in the book would 
be for lump sums, and then identified with a particular organizational 
drive ; is that correct ? 

Mr. DoRiA. They would be for lump sums on the basis of the so- 
called sporadic instances when they would be taken from the fund. 

Senator Curtis, Well now, coming back to this box that had this 
local union-money funds in it, and also from time to time some of 
your own, I want you to tell me what was the largest amount of money 
that you ever had in that box ? 

Mr, DoRiA. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. At any one time. 

Mr. Doria. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Give me an estimate. 

Mr, DoRiA, I would be guessing, and we are only going to get into 
another lengthy discussion if I make a guess and don't hit it. 

Senator Curtis, "Wliat was the smallest amount you ever had ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4351 

Mr. DoRTA. The smallest amount we had in it was, naturally, noth- 
ing. 

Senator Curtis. About when was that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Well, when the accounts were closed out specifically, 
I can definitely vouch for the fact there was nothing in tliere. 

Senator Curtis. Now, can you give me the name of any person or 
persons who recei^-ed money out of that box ? 

jNIr. Doria. No ; I cannot. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. May I ask you this question : Surely, you will be able 
to give us some estimate. I would not expect you possibly to know 
the exact amount, but, say since 1950, how many thousands of dollars 
from defunct unions and other sources of money that you received 
did you place into that box over that period of time? How many 
thousands of dollars would you have put in there and disbursed in 
the manner you have been testifying about ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't think that I could make a guess on that, Senator. 

The Chairman. A hundred thousand dollars ? 

Mr. Doria. No ; definitely not. 

The Chairman. Fifty thousand dollars ? 

Mr. Doria. No ; I don't know whether it would approximate $50,000 
or not. The only figure that I ever had that might give an indication 
is that the cash disbursements that were made from funds such as 
these I think were below eight-tenths of 1 percent of the disburse- 
ments of the international union. 

The Chairman. That is a kind of a problem in mathematics. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Is it $80,000 a year? 

Mr. Doria. I don't think there was $80,000 in the whole thing. One 
of the considerations was this: Throughout my administration as 
secretary-treasurer, if Ave had established an auditing system for those 
funds I computed that the clerk and the auditor necessary to super- 
vise those would have cost the union $250,000. 

Let us not laugh about it. I can give it to you in figures. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doria 

Mr. Doria. Take some figures down, and I will not carry it beyond 
eighth-grade arithmetic and establish it for you. 

The Chairman. It is too ridiculous even to pay attention to. 

Let us proceed. Ask the questions. 

Mr. Doria. If it is going to be ridiculous, I would suggest that we 
not ask the questions. 

The Chairman. It would not cost $250,000 to audit a little money 
in a box. 

Mr. Doria. Over the period I was secretary-treasurer ; yes. I was 
secretary -treasurer since 1944. 

Senator Curtis. How much money went through that box that it 
would take $250,000 to audit ? 

Mr. Doria. Not to audit that box, but there would be no object in 
auditing that box without auditing the sources, and the minute you 
audit the sources you have got a traveling auditor, and when you have 
a traveling auditor you need a clerk, and just take the salaries of the 
two over the period since 1944 and see if you come up with any other 
answer. 

Senator Curtis. Well 



4352 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoEiA. You would have to do that, because if I had come before 
this committee and said, "Gentlemen, I only audited $40,000 or $50,000 
in a period of 15 years," you would say, "Doria, if you had enough in- 
telligence to audit it for 14 years, the $50,000 that you may have spent, 
how come you didn't finish the rest of it?" I would have been in the 
same position. 

Senator Curtis. I want to read you something from your own con- 
stitution. This is from section 12 : 

All expenditures shall be made by checks countersigned by the president when 
the latter is satisfied of the correctness. 

Section 13 : 

The international secretary-treasurer shall be the custodian of funds of the 
international union, and at the direction of the international executive board 
shall deposit all funds of the international union in some responsible bank or 
banks. 

Mr. DoRiA. What does that refer to, Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. That refers to the funds of the international union. 

Mr. DoRiA. The operating funds of the international union ? 

Senator Curtis. It doesn't say anything about that. 

Mr. Doria. And that is the way they were handled. 

Senator Curtis. It doesn't say anything about the operating fund. 

Mr. DoRiA. The funds we are talking about this morning are not in 
that category and I am repeating that now for about the 20th time. 

Senator Curtis. The defunct locals' funds are the funds of the 
international. 

Mr. DoRiA. Then the board should have interpreted the constitution 
differently, because I had to depend upon the interpretations of the 
board and not upon the ideas of any outsiders. That is what bound 
me. And the board never interpreted it that way. 

The funds of the defunct local unions, in most instances, practically 
without exception, were expended directly and sometimes even by the 
geographical area where the defunct local was present. 

Senator Curtis. I still contend that if there was money in and out 
of this box, the extent to which it would require $250,000 to audit, in- 
cluding auditing its sources, that that is so fantastic that you owe it 
to those union members and to this committee to disclose the total 
amount of money that went through that box. 

Mr. DoRiA. Those approvals. Senator, were made the way I was 
authorized to seek approvals under the constitution of this union, and 
that merely required the approval of the administrator, the president. 
There was no other requirement. 

Senator Curtis. You are talking about something else. 

Mr. DoRiA. I am not talking about anything else. 

Senator Curtis. But any transaction, even if you trace it back to 
your sources, if it requires $250,000 to audit it, it is bigger money 
than you have disclosed here. 

Mr. DoRiA. Certainly, it is bigger money than is involved. 

Senator Curtis. Well, how much is involved ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't think that you will come out with all of the fig- 
ures, and I have made no attempt to get them, but I don't think that 
you will hit $50,000 in the entire 1944 to 1957, in the entire 13 years 
that I was secretary -treasurer. 

Seinitor Curtis. A sum total of $50,000? 



IlVrPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4353 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't believe that you will, and I have never computed 
it, and that is why I hesitate to get into totals. 

Senator Curtis. And it would cost 5 to 1 to audit it. 

JSIr. DoRiA, Because of auditing the sources. The thing that is for- 
gotten before this committee is that this was a new union, and the com- 
pletion of the auditing system and of the accounting system would not 
have been completed until sometime in 1958. You couldn't change 
every day, because every time you changed the system of keeping rec- 
ords you had to change the printing of the records that went to the 
local unions, and the last time we attempted that merely to bring about 
1 change, it cost in excess of $50,000. 

I also want to point out to you that when I went into the con- 
vention in 1955 and attempted to bring about a system of auditing 
and asked the delegates to adopt it, if you will check the proceedings 
of that convention the delegates were so against it that they practi- 
cally defeated me for office for suggesting the idea. 

Senator Curtis. All right. That is all. We don't get any answers, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Mr. Doria, just if you could answer this briefly: 
How much more would it have cost the union to put this money in 
a bank rather than in your box ? 

Mr. Doria. It isn't the cost. That was a matter of procedure that 
had been established, and that was not the cost that determined the 
idea of separating those funds. It was the procedure that had been 
established. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you answer the question ? 

Mr. Doria. To me, there would have been no cost involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Now, you were responsible to Mr. 
Heaton, and now Mr. Heaton and you were both interested in this 
International Procurement Enterprises, with Mr. Loomis, about 
January of 1955? 

Mr. Doria. No ; that is not a true statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, let me rephrase it. You both loaned money 
to Mr. Loomis ? 

Mr. DoEiA. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with the International Procurement? 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You came up with some money, and you came up 
with this check for $9,620, which happened to be the same check that 
came out of this local in Meriden, Conn., and, at the same time this 
other local's bonds were cashed, amounting to $4,727 in cash, and 
Mr. Heaton came up with $5,000 in cash at the same time. Do you 
know where he got his $5,000 in cash ? 

Mr. Doria, That was his money, and I didn't ask him where he got 
his $5,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't get that $5,000 in cash out of the box ? 

Mr. Doria. No, because all of the funds that went into this were 
cash funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just a coincidence that this happened ? 

Mr. Doria. There was no coincidence to it. Heaton came up with 
$5,000 because he wanted to have a future interest in a photogram- 
metry company, had it been developed. 

Mr. Kennedy. He happened to come up with $5,000 in cash. 



4354 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. He didn't happen to come up with it. He had $5,000 
of his own money. 
Mr. Kennedy. Could we put Mr. Bellino on, just to trace this bond ? 
The Chairman. All right; Mr. Bellino, take the stand. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, you were sworn yesterday, and proceed 
with your testimony. Wliat bond are you talking about now ? 

Mr. Bellino. These are bonds of local 790, Meriden, Conn., and 
there are 5 bonds of $1,000 each, payable to the UAW, American 
Federation of Labor, Local 790, an unincorporated association, 31 
State Street, Meriden, Conn. 

The Chairman. Do you have photostatic copies of the bonds ? 

Mr. Bellino. Of each bond, of $1,000. 

The Chairman. Those bonds may be made exhibit 86. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 86" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bellino. They are endorsed on the back: "UAW, American 
Federation of Labor, 790, an unincorporated association, by Anthony 
Doria, secretary." These 5 bonds had cash value of $5,727, and were 
turned in to the California bank and a cashiers' check was received, 
payable to the United Auto Workers, Local 790, in the amount of 
$4,727, and the check was endorsed, "United Auto Workers, Local 
790, Anthony Doria." It was cashed on December 20, 1954. 

The Chairman. Where were they cashed ? 

Mr. Bellino. At the same bank, the California bank. 

Senator Curtis. Was that union in existence on that date ? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir ; this union was out of existence in 1951. 

Senator Curtis. And it was out of existence when the bonds were 
turned in, and the bank issued the check to them? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, the bank issued the check to a non- 
existent organization ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Doria endorsed the check for a nonexistent 
organization ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kenedy. Are there any books or records, Mr. Bellino, that 
indicate that the union ever got control of this money ? 

Mr. Bellino. There is no record that we could find to indicate that 
the union in any way had knowledge of these funds, except some of 
the employees who talked to us about them. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that the last source of this money, or the last 
place that you can trace this money to, is to Mr. Anthony Doria; is 
that right?' 

Mr. Bellino. That is correct. 

Tlie Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. The check will be made exhibit No. 87. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 87" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4478.) 

Mr. Doria. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that testimony ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4355 

The Chairman. Do you have something else, Mr. Bellino? 

Just one moment. . ■, -, ^ • 4. 

Mr Belling. We have a compilation based on the income-tax 
returns wiiich Mr. Doria turned over to us last evening for the period 
from 1948 to 1952, March 12, 1952. We took that period because on 
March 12, 1952, Mr. Doria issued a financial statement m which he 
showed that he had $11,500 in the bank and he had $9,500 cash on hand 
and in January of that same year he had deposited $18,000 m cash m 
an enterprise knoAvn as Panoramic Enterprise Co., or a total o± $o9,000 
iust cash that he had to his credit about March 12, 1952. 

His n-ross earninivs from 1948 to the middle of March 1952 amounted 
to $51^687. He Imd a profit on the sale of certain securities of 
$2,228.38, or a gross earnings income for all of those years ot 

^6i tiiat, he had cash substantially on hand, on March 1952, ^of 
$39,000 so 'he used for living expenses and other expenses $14,915.38. 

Now the deductible expenses on his income tax, on his Wisconsin 
income' tax for those years amounted to $4,904.63, leaving $10,000 
for living expenses. 

Senator CiTRns. For how long a period? 

Mr Belling. For 4 years and 21/9 months. In addition, he paid 
out principle on his mortgage from 1948 on, of $2,970.86, leaving for 
living expenses about $7,000 for 4 years and 21/2 months. 

Mr Kennedy. How many are there in the family? 

Mr Belling. For part of the time there were 2 children and his 
wife, and later on in 1951 and 1952 he had another child, 3 children. 
There were 3 children and his wife and himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is less than $2,000 each year. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. . 

Mr. IvENNEDY. For living expenses, for Mr. Dona « 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the figures. 

Mr. Belling. According to his own figures, and his own financial 
statement and his own income-tax return. 

Mr. Doria. May I comment on that now ? 

The Chairman. Is that all? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. , 

The Chairman. Do you want to put that compilation m the rec- 
ord? 

That compilation may be made exhibit No. 88. 

(The document referred to was made exlnbit No. 88 lor refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4479.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Doria, you may comment. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DOKIA— Resumed 

Mr. Doria. No. 1, with respect to the endorsement by a nonexistent 
organization, I again want to recall the testimony that I have been 
giving consistently here, that these funds, once they came m, were 
under'' the administratorship of the international union, through the 
president, and through the secretary-treasurer, and those endorsements 
are not for and on behalf of that local union, but by me, under the 
instructions of the administrator, who had the authority. 



4356 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ctjrtis. I want to ask you right there, why did you have- 
the check made to the local union when it did not exist ? 

Mr. DoRiA, Because the bank required it to be made in that manner 
and to be designated in such a fashion. We asked the bank as to the 
procedure that had to be used to cash that and they required it on that 
basis. 

When we pointed out to them that the funds were being held under 
administratorship, they asked that those signatures appear and that 
was the only method we could use to cash them. 

Now, the bank issued a check not to a nonexistent organization, but 
to the organization under administratorship, which was under Heaton. 
There was no such thing as issuing to a nonexistent organization. 

Now, Mr. Bellino brings up my income, and chooses to take the 
period from 1948 to 1952. I think that is a 3-year period of income. 
It so happens that I have been working and earning money since 
1927, Any money that I would have expended I think would also 
reflect what I expended from my earnings since 1927. 

I also want to point out that I was married in 1954 after working 
since 1927. I want to point out in addition to that, that practically 
my entire time until I moved to Milwaukee in 1941 was spent on the 
road. My expenses for living on the road were paid for by the inter- 
national union. 

I had no home to maintain. I had nothing other than the union 
work to which I devoted from 8 to 24 hours a day throughout the 
period of time that I worked for this union. My money was not saved 
from 1948 to 1952. It was saved from 1927 to 1952. 

The Chairmak. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your salary prior to 1948 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall that, Mr. Kennedy, and I think we 
have a record of it, 

Mr. Kennedy. You can remember so many things, Mr. Doria, and 
can't you remember how much your salary was ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't remember that. We started out at $4,000 and 
we went to five and six and $7,800 and then to $15,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you making in 1948 ? 

Mr. Doria. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you making in 1943? 

Mr. Doria. Haven't you got any income-tax report? My income 
report will indicate what I made in 1948. I gave it to you this 
morning. 

Mr. Kennedy, Your total income in 1946 was $5,874,96. You could 
hardly save much out of that, 

Mr. Doria. In 1946, I think that I could save quite a bit in 1946. 

Mr. Kennedy, In 1947 you made $6,500, 

Mr, Doria, That's right. I think that is right, if that is what my 
income-tax i-eport indicates. 

Mr, Kennedy. Still you have not answered the question of the fact 
that you and your family and 2 or 3 children were able to live on 
less than $2,000 a year for a 4-year period. 

Mr. Doria. We did not live on any $2,000 a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know you didn't. I did not say you did. I said 
you have not been able to explain it, 

Mr. Doria. I did explain to you that my income started in 1927 
and throughout the period up until 1944 a period of 17 years, I was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4357 

alone. I lived at home. When I traveled, I had nothmg to pay. My 
expenses were paid for. My lodginrr was paid for. I was out on 
international business sometimes for a year at a time when my own 
funds did not have to be touched. . . 

Mv. Kennedy. You made a financial statement, Mr. Dona, in 1952, 
which o;ave the amount of monev that you had. 

Mr. DoRiA. That was a financial statement that I made for the 
American State Bank, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was supposed to be accurate. 

]Mr. DoRiA. Yes, but I told the the bank at that time that I was 
not disclosing my total income, and they said, "Disclose enough to 
iustifv the loan,'' and that is all I disclosed to them. 

:Mr.' Kennedy. Do you remember in 1954 when you were m Mil- 
waukee, having an argument with Earl Heaton about the money com- 
ing from some of these defunct locals? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, I don't recall that. 

Mv. Kennedy. Do you recall a local became defunct m region 8, 
which was then under Mr. Heaton, and do you remember that this 
was brought to jNIr. Heaton's attention by Miss Clatworthy? Do 
you remember haviuir an argument with Earl Heaton about that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, I don't recall. I don't say it did not happen, but 

I don't recall. i , -^ 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember having a big argument about it, 
and Heaton saying to you, "You're making your money and I am 
going to make mine." <. tit- 

Mr. DoRiA. That is ridiculous. ^V\\o did that come from, Miss 

Clatworthv? . , ^. „ 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember having that conversation « 

Mr. DoRLV. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny that ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I say I do not recall it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not deny it ? . 

Mr. DoRiA. I can't deny it. If I don't recall anything about it, 
how can I affirm it or deny it ? , • o 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember having an argument about it? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall having an argument about it. 

The Chairman. What year was that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 1954. 

You cannot remember anything about it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, but I wish you would check the source of that in- 
formation, however, because that represents one of the so-called inter- 
nal feuds at the time the headquarters was being moved to California. 

Sides were taken in the office and a lot of those people were elimi- 
nated as a result of the arguments that took place with respect to the 
moving of the headquarters. The people that you are getting the 
information from are disgruntled people that have left the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us go on to something here regarding your in- 
come, and your source of funds. You had an expense account, did 
you. from the union ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I had no expense account, and I had merely a revolving 

fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that? 

Mr. DoRiA. Where the disbursements were made for and on behalf 
of the international union, and I would not take an expense account 



4358 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

because it would have meant I would have had to advance money and 
a treasurer of an international union today can't advance that kind of 
money to operate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because sometimes the amounts are excessive, and you 
have to carr}^ your own funds and what if they are lost or something 
happens when you are going over the country? 

Mr. Kennedy. Like the box ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I am talking about personally holding funds on your 
person while you are traveling for the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on the question of the box, where did you keep 
the box when you went to Beverly Hills ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Can I have those answers read from the record, please, 
so that we don't have to go through the same thing again ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I was just wondering when you went to Beverly 
Hills where you kept the box. 

Mr. DoRiA. I answered that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said in a hotel. Did you keep the box in your 
hotel room? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, when I said in the hotel, before I came in — no, I 
still had it. For a portion of the time I had it in Milwaukee and then 
picked it up from Milwaukee and brought it into Los Angeles. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your hotel room ? 

Mr. DoRiA. For a while I did have it in my hotel room. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the union provide an automobile for you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. The international union in the later years, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did that start? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think that started after 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time, they did not ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't believe so, no. I think that the first automobile 
the union provided for me was on or about 1954 sometime. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have the use of an automobile prior to that 
time? 

Mr. DoRiA. Prior to that time, the local union that I worked with in 
Chicago used to provide me with an automobile. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that their automobile? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir ; that's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1951 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. In 1951 1 had an automobile from the local union which 
later I purchased from the local union when I terminated my associa- 
tion one of those times from the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was an Oldsmobile? 

Mr. DoRiA. No, the Oldsmobile was my personal car and it was a 
Cadillac. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a Cadillac in 1951 ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, a 1951 Cadillac Fleetwood. 

Mr, Kennedy. Wliat did you do with that Cadillac? 

Mr. DoRiA. I ultimately purchased it from the local union and later 
on I traded that Cadillac in on another Cadillac. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not leave the local union. You were secre- 
tary of the local union. 

Mr. DoRiA. I did not stay with the local union continuously, and 
there were periods when the thing reverted back to the local union. 
Angelo in Chicago wanted to handle it, and I left the local union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4359 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do? 

Mr. DoRiA. Wlien I left I bouaht that CadiHac. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay for the Cadillac? 

Mr. DoRiA. At that time we made an adjustment on the basis of the 
services and expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. DoRiA. And I paid them in a check, $1,200. 

Mr. Ivennedy. $1,200? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You paid $1,200 in what year? 

Mr. DoRiA. I don't recall what year it was, but it must been around 
1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1953? 

Mr. DoRiA. I believe, and I am not sure of that date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have discussed this automobile with Mr. 
Incisco and he said he never even heard about the automobile. 

Mr. DoRiA. He never heard about it? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; let alone purchasing it. 

Mr. DoRiA. I can't vouch for Incisco's testimony, but I do know this, 
that i purchased the automobile from him and gave him a check 
and the check ought to clear through the City Bank & Trust Co., if you 
will check the City Bank & Trust Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who assessed the automobile at $1,200 « 

Mr. DoRiA. Assessed? It was not assessed. There was ]ust a 
certain amount of expenditures on my maintenance of the automo- 
bile and when I deducted that, the adjustment came to $1,200 even, or 
$1,200 and something dollars, and I turned the title over to myselt. 

Mr. Kennedy. When again was that? ^ . 

Mr DoRiA. I don't recall. I think it was approximately m 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we^ ask to put Mr. Bellmo 
on again to trace the automobile for Mr. Doria ? 

The Chairman. All right. ,, ^i . 

Mr. DoRiA. If he can give some facts ; I don't recall that. 

TESTIMONY OF CAEMINE S. BELLING— Kesumed 

Mr Kennedy Would vou tell us what happened to the automobile ? 

Mr'. Belling. I might 'first mention that in talking to Mr. Incisco, 
he gave me a copy of the minutes of local 286 in September of 1948, 
and he pointed to a paragraph which read: 

\fter considerable discussion, the executive board members unanimously 
approved the authorization of the president of the lo^'^^"^^^"^? "the sum ol 
on the local union automobiles to the officers of the local unnm for the sum of 
il and Xr good and valuable considerations, thereby relieving the loca union 
of any responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of said automobiles. 

He said after that date, the union was not supposed to buy any more 
cars for any official at all. He could not explain unde^r any ciijum- 
stances an automobile purchased on September 12, 1951, a Cadillac 
purchased from the Kavam Motor Co. in Milwaukee, K-a-v-a-m, ^o. 
5160-82325 at which time we traced a deposit to Kavam Automobile 
Motor Co. of $3,202.95, and that item was charged to local 28b banls 
account on September 14, 1951. r lo-.'^ nf 

That automobile was subsequently traded m on October o, lJ.i.3, at 
which time Anthony Doria purchased another Cadillac bearing ^o. 

89330— 57— pt. 11 2.3 



4360 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L-\BOR FIELD 

5362-88348, in the name of the Badger Realty Corp. The automobile 
was subsequently titled in the name of Anthony Doria accordinor to 
the motor vehicle records. 

The 1951 Cadillac was traded in for this second, at the time of the 
purchase of the second Cadillac at which time a credit of $2,893.36 
was granted. 

Mr. Inciso had made no mention at all of the sale of an automobile 
to Anthony Doria for $1,200 or anything of the kind and he said it 
was completely strange to him. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DORIA— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Doria, you said that you gave a check for 
$1,200. 

Mr. Doria. Yes. 

The Chairman. And it should have cleared through the bank? 

Mr. Doria. Yes, sir; and it will show in the record of my account 
through that bank and I believe that they have a s^'stem there where 
they photograph all checks. 

The Chairman. What bank is that ? 

Mr. Doria. The City Bank & Trust Co., or the First Wisconsin 
National Bank, one of the two, and I don't recall which. 

The Chairman. Make a check of that and do you remember about 
the date of the check? 

Mr. Doria. It had to be approximately, I think it is approximately 
in 1953 and I can't tell you any better than that. But the check was 
right tlirough my personal account and the check was made out to 
UAW-AFL, Local No. 286. 

The Chairman. That can be traced if they have a record of it. All 
right. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

Mr. Belling. I might mention when he purchased the 1951 Cadillac, 
it was paid for by the union and he had a monogram on the front 
doors of "A. D.'" and it was Anthony Doria. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the other thing, Mr. Bellino, is that the Cadil- 
lac, as it was traded in, was valued bv the motor company at some 
$2,800 ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Doria says he paid the union $1,200 for it. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY DORIA— Resumed 

Mr. Doria. That's riglit, but there was an adjustment as I pointed 
out, Mr. Kennedy, along with that. 

The Chairman. There Avere some other expenses adjusted at the 
time, and you owed a balance then, of $1,200 ? 

Mr. Doria. May I comment on that ? 

The Chairman. Will you state what the car Avas valued at, at the 
time of the transaction? 

Mr. DoRLv. If it was traded in for $2,800, Mr. Kennedy, you can 
appreciate that the resale value of that car was from $7bo\o $800 
below that, because that is customary on all trade-ins. You will find 
that value will hold prettj^ good, to begin with. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4361 

The next tliinp; is that there was an adjustment on expenses that 
had been hicurred in the maintenance of that car, and since I was 
ir(rin<i to take it over there was no object in crediting the imion with it. 
'" Xmv, 1 might point out that the 1951 car came as a result of the 
trade-in of a 1948 car whicli also belonged to the union. It was ac- 
quired on the basis that the 1948 Cadillac which the union liad traded 

I would also like to point out that the excerpts Mr. Bellino read 
from the minutes of local No. 286 applied to the organizers m the 
Chica^-o area. That was never conveyed to me, and the approval on 
the ]iurchase of the 1951 car was with the full knowledge of Angelo 
Inciso and the local union, and the monogram was a gift from Kavam 
Motor Co. to me. alonir with a kev at the time that Cadillac was issu- 
ing the crest keys, and' I also got that, Mr. Bellino, so the record might 
be complete. 

The Chairman. Let us move along. 

Mr. Kennedy. They decided to put your monogram on it ? 

Mr. I>ORiA. That's right. It was a free thing that I received from 
Kavam. 

Mr. Kennedy. Rather than local No. 286, they decided to put 

"A. D.'* on ? 

Mr. DoRiA. It was a small thing, this monogram, and I don't know 
Avhat it was worth, but just a small silver letter, "A. D."; that is all it 

was. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is nice. 

Mr. DoRiA. I think it was a very nice car. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you now, Mr. Doria, about the 
convention in 1955. 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes ; it was very hectic. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me? 

Mr. Doria. It was a very hectic proceedings. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was held in Cleveland ; was it ? 

Mr. Doria. In Cleveland, Ohio ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was some testimony before the committee re- 
garding the events that preceded the election on the question of chang- 
ing the method of voting, and that you had offered some resolutions 
that would have given to Mr. Dio's area in New York City some 182 
more votes in the election. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Doria. Well, that is not the only area. Any area that had an 
amalgamated was affected bv those decisions. i t v i 

Mr Kennedy. Let me tell you what was affected. In the New 1 ork 
area, it was affected. It went from the 100 votes before, and they 
went up to 282 votes. Tliev were affected : right ? 

Mr. Doria. I thought they even had more than that, but go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. Region 4 "went from 59 votes to 59 votes. There 
wasn't much effect there. 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Region 6 went from 38 votes to 38 votes. Ihere 
wasn't much change there. 

Mr. Doria. No amalgamateds in those regions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Region 7 went from 108 votes to 108 votes. No 
chanije there. 

Mr. Doria. That is right. 



4362 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Region 8 went from 119 votes to 119 votes. No 
change there. 

Mr. DoRiA. No amfilgamateds in region 8. 

Mr. Kennedy. Region 9 went from 116 votes to 116 votes. There 
^vasn't any change there. 

]\Ir. DoRiA. That is not exactly right, I don't believe. There was 
an amalgamated in region No. 9 and region No. 9 would have been 
affected by the change in the voting power, and the voting power 
wonld have increased in region 9 by reason of the amalgamated in 
Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the western area going from 7 votes to 11 
votes. That is your area ; isn't it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is the area I came from. 

Mr. Kennedy. So your area changed and Johnny Dio's changed, 
and according to the records we have here no other area changed, 
except your area, which had four more votes. 

Mr. DoRiA. Any area that had an amalgamated 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. But this is the only change that 
was made. 

Mr. DoRiA. No, no, no. 

INIr. Kennedy. It is not a question of no, no, no. 

]Mr. DoRiA. I compiled a comj^lete record showing the complete 
voting power by converting the amalgamateds into individual char- 
ters, and every area that had an amalgamated local union would have 
increased its voting povrer, and the areas that at that time had amal- 
gamated local unions were the New York area, the Chicago area, the 
west coast area, and I don't know whether or not the Cleveland area 
had any amalgamateds. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the records here. 

Mr. DoRiA. Have you both of the voting powers? 

Mr. Kennedy. On both, before and after. In the old vote there 
would have been 547 votes and under the new vote there would have 
been 733 votes. That is an increase of 186 votes, and 182 were in 
Johnny Dio's area. 

Mr. DoRiA. Johnny Dio's area? Johnny Dio was not connected 
with the union at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were writing him all the time. 

]\Ir. DoRiA. Yes, but it was not Johnny Dio's area. Let's get that 
straight for the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. It certainly appears so from the recoixl. The vote 
there increased 182 and your area increased 4, making a total increase 
of 186 votes. 

]\Ir. DoRiA. Yes. Well, anyhow, I don't want to quibble about the 
voting ]:>ower. What are you driving at? I will give you the answers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those facts are correct? 

Mr. DoRiA. The facts are correct to the extent that every amalga- 
mated would have increased their voting power; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were trying to get the area that had been con- 
trolled by Dio increased from 100 votes to 282 votes. 

Mr. DoKiA. Yes, I was trying to increase the voting power of every 
amalgamated, not only that one. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time, did you draw a check from the 
union or write out a check for $130,000, Mr. Doria ? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think it was $139,000. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4363 

Mr. Kennedy. $139,000? 

Mr. DoRiA. I tliink tliat is Avliat it was, 

Mr. KKXNEny. AVliat Avas the $189,000 for? 

Mr. DoKiA. Tliat was a certified check which I requested when I 
found that the convention was in a hectic position with respect to 
conflict. I had been tlirough these situations before, and I do know 
that they uhiniately result in the tying up of the funds to prevent 
people from operating. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you wanted $139,000 

Mr. DoRiA. So I took a $139,000 certified check. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you would be sure of operating? 

Mr. DoRiA. So I would be sure of operating and completing that 
convention ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whose approval did you have? The board? Did 
30U take it up with the board i 

Mr. DoRiA. Certainly I took it up with the board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the board you had the $139,000? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes. They all knew I had the $139,000. I showed it 
to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. AA^hen you were out there? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, at the convention. That is when I re- 
ceived it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time, Avhen you had it certified, did you 
tell the board prior to that time that you had the check, that you were 
making the check out? 

Mr. DoRiA. I told the majority of the board, because half of the 
board was not talking to the other half at that convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told the half? 

Mr. DoRiA. I told them, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was six? 

Mr. DoRiA. I think it was, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was the out of 10 that voted for the 
change in the voting ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. AA'ould you explain to the committee why it is not 
mentioned in any of the minutes of the U AAA'^-AFL that this $130,000 
check was available to you ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because of the fact that the convention was in session 
at that time and there was no object in preparing any minutes dur- 
ing that period of time. AA^hen the convention finally adjourned, and 
the board went into a session, at that time the check was returned to 
be redeposited so that it could not be tied up in the funds of the 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, prior to the time, to this time, you had a meet- 
ing on October 31, 1955. There is no mention in the minutes there. 

Mr. DoRiA. Xo, because, at that time, there was no indication that 
that would be necessary. But, following that meeting 

Mr. Kennedy. You had the check at that time, had you not? 

Mr. DoRL\. No; I don't think so. I think the check came in later, 
if you will check the records, if you will find the check. I remem- 
ber the details on that. I remember it quite well. 

Mr. Kennedy. That date was October 31, 1955. 

Mr. DoRiA. That the check was written ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



4364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRiA. Then that was the day that tlie board meeting ad- 
journed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not tell the board that you were 
planning to do this ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Because of the fact that in that board meeting we got 
an indication that an injunction was going to be issued against the 
officers, the incumbents, at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you not think the board was entitled to know 
tliat you liad written out a check for $loO,000 to Anthony Doria, spe- 
cial account ? 

Mr. DoHiA. The board members in the majority were all aware 
of the fact that I had that check written, and approved it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the 6 people, the 6 votes, that were ready 
to stack the convention. 

Mr. Doria. Tliere was no stacking of the convention. It was all 
legitimately done. 

Mr. Kennedy. All legitimately ? 

Mr. Doria. Tliat is riglit: in accordance Avitli the constitution, 
again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me tliis: Why did you not tell tlie members of 
the board, even the opposition, that you had written a check to An- 
thony Doria, special account, for $180,000 ? 

Mr. Doria. Mr. Kennedy, I told you the opposition was no longer 
meeting with the majority at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You met with them on October 31. 

Mr. Doria. Yes; they met in tlie morning, and this is what hap- 
pened: The morning meeting was called to order and we were in 
the process of selecting committees. While we were selecting the 
committees, I mentioned an individual to be placed on one of the com- 
mittees. I don't remember which. The individual that I mentioned, 
that should have been placed on the committee, came from the Globe- 
Werniecke plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. T^et me ask you this. Maybe we will cut it short. 
Do you think it is tlie proper procedure that, if you have opposition 
in the union to the officers, the incumbents, the incumbents should 
just do what they want and not tell tlie opposition ? 

Mr. Doria. Mr. Kennedy, let me assure you that was a convention 
where everybody did what they wanted to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do vou advocate that? 

Mr. Doria. What?" 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you advocate that? 

Mr. Doria. 1 advocate this; that, if I am in a position of control 
and I see a tight coming up, they better get their best hold because 
they are not going to win by forfeit. 

Mr. Kennedy. And one of the best holds would be to take $130,000 
out of union funds and make out a check to yourself? 

Mr. Doria. It would be better than let them get an injunction and 
let them hold $130,000. As long as somebody is going to hold it, and I 
am involved, let me assure you that I would use every means at my 
disposal to be the one that holds it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that, Mr. Doria. 

Mr. Doria. I hope there is no question about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4365 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : How were the clelejiates that had to 
come in New York, or were going to come in from New York in this 
special arrangement that yon had, how were they going to be hnanced? 

Mr. DoiuA. They were going to be financed by the international 
nnion, becanse the board had taken a position with respect to all dele- 
gates, that they conld be snbsidized to come to the convention. Every 
region did it. 

Mr. Kennedy. That same six men? 

Mr. DoRiA. No; all of them approved this. All of them approved 
this. 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; it was a vote of six to 

Mr. DoRiA. No; all of them ai)proved the idea of delegates being 
snbsidized. and that was, again, ratihed and approved after the con- 
vention, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did yon plan to nse this $lo(),0()0 for that? 

Mr. DoRiA. No. The $130,000 that I had was merely to protect the 
f nnds from attachment, becanse three attempts were made to obtain 
an injnnction against the officers and tie np the fnnds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon were the one that sort of wonld be the honest 
one to make snre that nothing happened to the fnnds? 

Mr. DoRiA. I have always been honest abont the handling of the 
nnion funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. As you say, you and Johnny Die. 

Mr. DoRiA. Not me and Johnny Dio. That was me, alone. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Dio was honest in New York and you were 
lionest in Milwaukee? 

Mr. DoRiA. Dio has always been honest with me ; yes. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents this photostatic copy of the 
check for $130,000, dated October 31, 1955. Is that the check you 
have been discussing ? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 89. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 89" for ref- 
erence, and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4480-4481.) 

The Chairman. The check, apparently, was for $130,000 instead 
of $139,000. 

Mr. Doria. I did not recall the amount. 

The Chairman. But that is the check ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Yes; I had less money than I thought I had in that 
situation. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Whose money was it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That was the international union's money. 

Senator Curtis. Where did they get it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. Wliere the international gets all of its money ; from dues. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. The men and women that work. Suppose 
the court action would have ensued, and the court would have found 
that this money paid in by these working people should be in the 
hands of the court or of a trustee, or certain officers. It would not 
have been there ; would it ? 

Mr. DoRiA. That is right. 



4366 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. DoRiA. And that was the advice of counsel on it, too. 

And I might explain, in order to clarify the matter even more: 
that on a previous situation when that happened in the union, the 
early days in the fights, we ran into that situation in reverse, and when 
we attempted to get control of it by the courts we were told by the 
attorneys, "You better grab the guy tliat has it and until you get 
ahold of that check, we can do very little about it." I wasn't going 
to let that happen to me, since I represented the majority and the 
control of the international union. 

It was because of the experience that we undertook that little pro- 
cedure. 

Mr. Kennedy. At this same time 

The Chairman. For my information, and for the record, was the 
resolution passed increasing the voting strength of the convention? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was passed by the board. They approved it. 

The Chairman. I mean, it was approved that these other unions 
that were brought in, these shops, or whate^'er they were, that their 
delegates attended and voted ? 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, after it was passed by the board, as 
Mr. Doria says, six of the members approved of all these things. It 
was then opposed by Angelo Inciso, who had some ?>7 votes and stood 
not to gain any votes by this method. Pie opposed it, and he then 
voted for Mr. Doria and his slate and they won the election and Mr. 
Inciso then was placed on the executive board and given his own 
region. 

Mr. Doria. That was not opposed, jNIr. Kennedy. What happened 
was this: that after the board liad interpreted the constitution, in 
accordance with whatever would have been required to bring in these 
votes, it clearly established the fact that a lot of the propaganda that 
had been brought into the convention was not going to do them any 
good. Then the truth came out. 

That was one of the stories that involved — I tliink we are going to 
get into it — the sale of the building. But, fortunately, and I did 
not expect this, the letter that was supposed to carry this smear into 
the convention was brought to my attention. At that time, the Jour- 
nal, in Milwaukee, carried a story of it, but they called me before they 
wrote the story, and by virtue of being able to correct it, the whole 
thing blew up. 

We no longer needed those votes. 

As a result, we compromised the issue on the board. The peo