(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"

T. 



A"? 



iUlMS^\i>^ 



Bi 




Given By 
U. S. SUFT. or DOCUMENTS 



3^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFOBB THB 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGEESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



JULY 1, AUGUST 14, 15, 16, AND 19, 1957 



PART 12 



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




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 74, 85TH CONGRESS 



^^ 



JULY 1, AUGUST 14, 15, 16, AND 19, 1957 



PART 12 



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




UNITED STATES 
89330 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1957 



Boston Public Library 
Superintondcrit of Documents 

NOV 1 8 1957 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 
MANAGEMENT FIELD 
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman 
IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL B. MUNDT, South Dakota 

SAM J. BRVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

Robert F. Kknxedy, Chief Counsel 
Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk 

n 



CONTENTS 



Arra: New Yokk (Teamster Paper Locals) 

Page 

Appendix 489G 

Testimony of — 

Bilker, George 4532, 4544, 4547, 455& 

]iarbera, Anthony 4554 

Bradley, William' V 478S 

Corallo, Antonio 4625, 4633, 4641, 

4643, 4646, 4652, 4653, 4656, 4663, 4673, 4679, 4697, 4700, 4703 

Curcio, Joseph 4502, 4532, 4544, 4547, 4556 

DavidofT, I larry 4523 

( vleason, Thomas 4788 

Goldstein, Sam 4657, 4663, 4673, 4679, 4697, 4700, 4703 

H;i nlon, Teresa 485 1 

Hickey, Thomas L 4747 

Knapp, Stanley 4617 

Koschel, Basil 4544, 4545 

Lacv, Martin T 4705, 4715, 4726, 4741 

Laurendi, Natale 4632, 4639, 4642, 4645, 4648, 4653, 4671, 4678, 4700 

May, Walter R 4654, 470 1 

McXamara, John 4780 

Mohn, Einar O 4809, 4855 

McKlino, Joseph 455 1 

Miller, Maishall M 4559, 4567 

( )'Ronrke, John 4682 

Rizzo, Thomas A 461 I 

Roman, Jose Lumen 4600 

Schlanfijer, Martin 4549 

Simontucci, Armando 4537 

Tierney, Paul J 4672, 4701, 4724 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

104. Letter to members signed by Harry DavidofT, secretary- 

treasurer, local 258, to b(^ posted on bulletin board re 

change from local 649, UAW AFL to 258 IBT 4526 4869 

105. List of shops that Mr. Davidoff transferred to local 258 of 

the Teamsters, from 649 4530 (*) 

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

Harry Djividoff, secretary-treasurer, local 258 certifying 

Harry Davidoff eligible to vote in joint council election.. 4532 4870 

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

Joseph Curcio, secretary-treasurer of local 269 certifying 
Armondo Simontacci eligible to vote in joint council 
election 4539 4871 

108. Letter dated February 2, 1956, addressed to joint council 16, 

signcfl by Joseph Curcio, s(?cretary-treasurer, local 269, 
certifying Basil Koschel as eligible^ to vot(! in joint council 
election 1 4546 4872 

109. L(!tter dated February 2, 1956, to joint council 16, from 

.\braham Brier, secretary-treasurer, local 362, certifying 
Martin Schlanger as eligible to vote in joint council 
election 4650 4873 

III 

See lootuotes at end of contents. 



IV 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

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

Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer, local 651, certify- 
ing Joseph Migelino eligible to vote in joint council 
election 4555 4874 

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

Harry DavidofF, secretary-treasurer, local 258, certify- 
ing Anthony Barbera eligible to vote in joint council 
election '_ 4555 4875 

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

Joseph Curcio, secretary-treasurer, local 269, certifying 
Joseph Curcio eligible to vote in joint council 16 elec- 
tion ..__ 4557 4876 

113. Letter dated December 8, 1949, to Sol B. Hoffman, presi- 

dent, Upholsterers' International Union, from David 
Scharaga, Scharco Manufacturing Co. re Morris 
Miller 4575 (**) 

114. Letter dated October 4, 1949, to all officers and members 

of the UIU and signed United Furniture Workers of 

America, CIO 4594 (*) 

115. Letter dated April 11, 1949, to Occidental Life Insurance 

Co. of California from Charles Barta, principal auditor, 

department of employment 4599 4877 

116. Clipping and pictures from the El Diario De Nueva York, 

Viernes, November 9, 1956 4602 (*) 

117. Article in the El Diario De Nueva York dated December 

3, 1956 4605 (*) 

118. Letters sent to El Diario by Puerto Rican workers 4609 (*) 

119. Affidavits of Jose B. Morales, Emma Verga, Jesusa Portu- 

guis, dated March 21, 1957 4617 (*) 

120A. Check No. 1040 dated January 7, 1955, payable to Joseph 
Levine in the amount of $50.02 and signed by Jack 
Berger, president, local 875 4655 4878 

120B. Check No. 1050 dated January 14, 1955, payable to Joseph 
Levine in the amount of $50.02, signed by Nathan 
Carmel, vice president, local 875 4655 4879 

120C. Check No. 1067 dated January 21, 1955, payable to Joseph 
Levine in the amount of $50.02, signed by Jack Berger, 
president, local 875 4655 4880 

120D. Check No. 1085 dated January 28, 1955, payable to Joseph 
Levine in the amount of $50.02, signed by Nathan 
Carmel, vice president, local 875 4655 4881 

121. A series of checks Nos. 1256, 1258, 1260, 1262, 1265, 1267, 

dated March 25, 1955, payable to Nathan Carmel in 
the amount of $25; Aaron Kleinman in the amount of 
$25; Jack Berger in the amount of $15; Joseph Levine 
in the amount of $25; Al Mann in the amount of $10; 
and Harriet Wurf in the amount of $10 and signed by 
Aaron Kleinman and Joseph Levine, local 875 4656 4882- 

122. Charts showing criminal records of officers or organizers 4887 

of local unions controlled or dominated by Dioguardi 

or Corallo and persons otherwise involved 4657 (*) 

123. Minutes of meeting of Joint Council 16, IBT Tuesday, 

January 10, 1956 4673 (*) 

124 A. Application for charter dated November 8, 1955, naming 

Harry Davidoff as secretary-treasurer for local 258 4689 4888 

124B. Application for charter dated November 8, 1955, naming 

Sidney Hodes as secretary-treasurer, local 284 4689 4889 

124C. Application for charter dated November 8, 1955, naming 

Joseph Curcio as secretary-treasurer of local 269 4689 4890 

124D. Application for charter dated November 8, 1955, naming 

Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer of local 651 4689 4891 

124E. Application for charter dated November 8, 1955, naming 

Abe Brier as secretary-treasurer of local 362 4689 4892 

•124F. Application for charter dated November 8, 1955, for Air 

Freight Chauffeurs, Handlers, Warehousemen and 

Allied Workers, Local 295 4689 4893 

See footnotes at end of contents. 



CONTENTS V 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

125. Agreement dated July 18, 1955, between International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Eastern Conference 
of Teamsters with International Longshoremen's Asso- 
ciation 4693 (*) 

126. Agreement dated July 18, 1955, between International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters and the International Long- 
shoremen's Association 4693 (*) 

127. Letter dated October 4, 1954, to Sam Goldstein, local 239, 

from Martin T. Lacy, president of joint council 16 4702 4894 

128. Letter dated November 29, 1955, to joint council 16 from 

Harry Reiss, secretary-treasurer, local 284, requesting 

seating of delegates 4709 4895 

128A. Letter dated November 30, 1955, to Martin T. Lacy, 
president joint council 16, from John McNamara, secre- 
tary-treasurer, local 295, requesting seating of delegates. 4709 4896 

129. Letter dated June 16, 1954, to Martin T. Lacy, president, 

joint council 16, from Einar O. Mohn, assistant to 
general president re, among other matters, an under- 
standing on issuance of charters 4710 4897- 

130. Minutes of executive board meeting of Joint Council 16, 4900 

IBT, December 12, 1955 4711 4901- 

131. Minutes of meeting of Joint Council 16, IBT, December 4903 

13, 1955 4712 4904- 

132. Letter dated December 15, 1955, to Dave Beck, president, 4907 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, from Martin 
T. Lacy, president joint council 16, enclosing six copies 
of letters received from locals requesting the seating of 
delegates 4713 (**) 

133. Letter dated December 15, 1955, to Martin T. Lacy, presi- 

dent, joint council 16, from Milton Levine re list of 

officers to be seated at joint council 16 4716 4908 

134. Telegram dated January 9, 1956, to Martin T. Lacy, 

president, joint council 16, from Einar 0. Mohn, as- 
sistant to the general president 4717 (**) 

135. Minutes of special meeting of executive board of joint 

council 16, January 26, 1956 4722 (*) 

136. Telegram dated January 27, 1956, to Dave Beck from 

Leonard Geiger, recording secretary, joint council 16-. 4724 (**) 

137. Letter dated January 27, 1956, to John English, general 

secretary-treasurer, from Leonard R. Geiger, recording 
secretary, joint council 16, appealing decision of Presi- 
dent of joint council 16 4726 4909 

138. Letter dated February 2, 1956, to Dave Beck, president. 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, from Martin 

T. Lacy, president, joint council 16, re seating of locals. 4727 (*) 

139. Letter dated February 1, 1956, to president and officers, 

joint council 16, from Dave Beck re acceptance of locals 

in the joint council 16 4737 (*) 

140. Telegram to Martin T. Lacy, president, joint council 16, 

from Dave Bej k re recognition of locals to joint council 

16 4742 (**) 

141. Newspaper article from the New York Times of April 12, 

1954, "Beck puts old foe (John O'Rourke) in key truck 

post" 4755 4910 

142. Regular form for making application for charter from 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 4758 (*) 

143 A. List of charter members of local 295 dated November 8, 

1955, with the initial RLG 4782 4911 

143B. List of charter members of local 362 dated November 8, 

1955, with initials RLG 4782 4912 

143C. List of charter members of local 269 dated November 8, 

1955, with initials RLG 4782 4913 

143D. List of charter members of local 651 dated November 8, 

1955, with initials RLG 4782 4914 

See footnotes at end of contents. 



VI CONTENTS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

143E. List of charter members of local 258 dated November 8, 

1955, with initials RLG 4782 4915 

143F. List of charter members of local 284 dated November 8, 

1955, with initials RLG 4782 4916 

143G. List of charter members of local 275 dated November 8, 

1955, with initials RLG 4782 4917 

144. Letter dated November 30, 1955, to Martin T. Lacy, pres- 
ident, joint council 16, and signed by John McNamara, 
secretary-treasurer, local 295, re seating of delegates __ 4784 4918 

145A. Letter dated February 6, 1956, to Martin T. Lacy, joint 
council 16 from John McNamara, secretary-treasurer, 
local 295, giving names of officers eligible to vote in 
joint council 16 4786 4919 

145B. Letter dated February 6, 1956, to joint council 16 from 
John McNamara certifying John McNamara eligible to 
vote in joint council 16 election 4786 4920 

145C. Letter dated February 6, 1956, to joint council 16 from 
John McNamara certifying James Costa eligible to 
vote in joint council 16 election 4786 4921 

145D. Letter dated February 6, 1956, to joint council 16 from 
John McNamara certifying Michael Burton eligible to 
vote in joint council election .. 4786 4922 

145E. Letter dated February 6, 1956, to joint council 16 from 
John McNamara certifying Ernest Hogenbirli eligible 
to vote in joint council election 4786 4923 

145F. Letter dated February 6, 1956, to joint council 16 from 
John McNamara certifying Timothy Ring eligible to 
vote in the joint council election J__ 4786 4924 

146. Letter dated Februarj^ 3, 1953, to officers and members of 

the International Longshoremen's Association from the 

executive council, American Federation of Labor 4789 (*) 

147. Report from International Longshoremen's Association 

dated May 15, 1953, to the executive council of the 

American Federation of Labor 4790 (*) 

148. Agreement dated July 18, 1955, between Central Confer- 

ence of Teamsters and the International Longshore- 
men's Association, Independent 4794 (*) 

149. A publication ILA Longshore News, January 4, 1956, with 

pictures and names of people present at signing of agree- 
ment 4795 (*) 

150. Agreement of December 1955 between Central, Eastern, 

and Southern Conferences of Teamsters and the Inter- 
national Longshoremen's Association with attachments. 4796 (*) 

151. Letter dated March 6, 1956, to James Hoffa from Louis 

Waldman re money to certified list of ILA creditors. _ 4796 (**) 

152. Letter dated March 22, 1957, to David Previant from 

Waldman & Waldman, re return of signed notes for 

$491,523.87 4798 4925 

153. Resolution adopted at a meeting of the executive council 

of the International Longshoremen's Association on 
April 26, 1956, dissolving their agreement with the 
teamsters and letters to Dave Beck from William V. 
Bradley dated April 27, 1956, re same subject 4798 (*) 

154. Ledger sheet from the records of the International Broth- 

erhood of Teamsters for local 258 dated November 8, 

1955 4831 (*) 

155A. IBT ledger sheet for local 269 4831 (*) 

155B. IBT ledger sheet for local 284 4831 (*) 

155C. IBT ledger sheet for local 295 4831 (*) 

155D. IBT ledger sheet for local 275 4831 (*) 

155E. IBT ledger sheet for local 362 4831 (*) 

156. Letter dated December 5, 1956, to Einar Mohn from 

Joseph Konowe, regional director 4867 4926 

See footnotes at end of contents. 



CONTENTS Vn 

Proceedings of — Pag» 

July 1, 1957 4501 

August 14, 1957 4523 

August 15, 1957 4623 

August 16, 1957 4715 

August 19, 1957 4809 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
Lx4B0R OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, JULY 1, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Acti^t:ties 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. O. 

The select conimittee met at 4: 10 p. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; John 
F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, 
North ( qrolina; Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Barry Gold- 
water, Republican, Arizona ; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Da- 
kota; Carl T Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome Adler- 
man, assistant counsel ; Paul Tierney, assistant counsel ; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session : 
Senators McClellan, Ervin, McNamara, Goldwater, Mundt, and 
Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Joseph Curcio, come forward, please. 

Gentlemen, be seated. 

Before we proceed, the Chair wishes to make this preliminary state- 
ment for the record. 

The United States Senate, by Resolution No. 74, of the 85th Con- 
gress, on January 30, 1957, established a select committee of the 
Senate which was authorized and directed to conduct an investiga- 
tion and study of the extent to which criminal or other improper 
practices or activities are, or have been, engaged in, in the field of 
labor-management relations or in groups or organizations of em- 
ployees or employers to the detriment of the interests of the public, 
employers, or employees, and to determine whether any changes are 
required in the laws of the United States in order to protect such 
interests against the occurrence of such practices or activities. 

The Chair may state that for quite some time a preliminary inves- 
tigation has been under way by the staff of this committee, by the 
direction of the committee, in the New York area, looking into cer- 
tain activities and practices of certain unions and management in 
the New York area. 

4501 



4502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

I have directed the staff, pnor to this hearing, to give counsel 
for the witness that we shall call a copy of this resolution, together 
with our rules of procedure. 

Mr. Joseph Curcio was at one time an officer of the UAW-AFL 
Amalgamated Local No. 649, in New York City, and was a regional 
director, or acting in such capacity, for the United Auto Workers 
of America-AFL, later known as the Allied Industrial Workers of 
America, AFL-CIO, and that Mr. George Baker, also known as Mr. 
George Semelmacher, was an officer of local 649. We have evidence 
that Mr. Curcio, both as an officer of local 649, and as regional direc- 
tor, filed certain per capita reports with the international union, 
copies of which were retained by the regional office and locals prior 
to the time that the charters of these locals were revoked and the 
regional office discontinued. These records are necessary and essen- 
tial to the committee in the conduct of its investigation to determine 
whether any improper practices were indulged in. It is only by 
ascertaining such facts that the committee and the Congress can de- 
termine whether existing laws are sufficient. Such information is 
required to determine whether further legislation is necessary to pre- 
vent abuses and improprieties and to protect the honest labor mem- 
bers from dishonest officials. 

We have excellent reason to believe that these records are still in 
Mr. Curcio's possession, custody, and control, and we have demanded 
that he produce these records as called for by subpena. 

Mr. Curcio, stand and be sworn, please. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Hold up your right hand. 

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. Curcio. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP JOSEPH CURCIO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

ARNOLD COHEN 

The Chairman. Be seated. State your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Curcio. Joseph Curcio, 137^5 70th Road, Flushing, N. Y. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation, or business? 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the witness asks that the 
camera or television — the cameras and lights not be directed on him. 

The Chairman. That is a matter that addresses itself to the dis- 
cretion of the committee. We would like to cooperate with you, and 
hope, in turn, you will cooperate with us. For the present, without 
objection, the Chair is going to instruct the lights to be turned off the 
witness, and no television pictures will be made of him. We are doing 
that as a courtesy to the witness. 

We hope the witness will, in turn, cooperate with us. 

I ask what is your name, your place of residence, and your busi- 
ness or occupation. You have given me your name and your place 
of residence. Will you state your business or occupation ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I am a union official. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4503 

Mr. CuRCio. A union official. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. Would you tell us what union, Mr. Curcio ? You 
did not tell us what union. 

Mr. CuRCio. Local 269 of the teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. Local 269 of the teamsters ? 

Mr. CuRCio. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

And what is your title ? You said you were an official. 

Mr. Curcio. Secretary-treasurer. 

Senator Mundt. Of that local ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Right. 

The Chairman. I note you have counsel with you. 

You have a right, under the rules of the committee, to have comisel 
present during the time you testify to advise you regarding your legal 
rights. 

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

Mr. Cohen. Arnold Cohen, a member of the New York State bar, 
2 Lafayette Street, New York City, N. Y. 

The Chairman. That is your office address? 

Mr. Cohen. My office address. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohen, may I ask you if you have been supplied with a copy 
of the rules of the committee ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, Mr. Chairman, about 5 minutees before I walked 
into the hearing room, one of the members of the staff, Mr. Kennedy, 
gave me a copy of the rules. 

The Chairman. As soon as you arrived, you received a copy of 
them? 

Mr. Cohen. As soon as I arrived. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You may glance at them, and if there is any question that arises, 
we will both look at them and determine what the rules say. 

All right, Mr. Curcio, I hand you here what purports to be a copy 
of a subpena, and ask you to examine it and state whether you identify 
it as a copy of the subpena that was served on you for this com- 
mittee. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. It is the same, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The subpena will be printed in the record at this point. 

(Subpena referred to follows:) 

I/-758 

United States of America 

Congress of the United States 

To: Joseph Curcio, Local 269, Teamsters, 135-23 Northern Boulevard, Flush- 
ing 54, N. T. 
Greeting : Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear 
before the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Man- 
agement Feld of the Senate of the United States, on, forthwith, , 195 — , 



4504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

at o'clock at their committee room, 101 Senate Office Building, Wash- 
ington, D. C, then and there to testify what you may know relative to the 
subject matters under consideration by said committee, and produce all records 
in your possession, custody, or control, relating to per capita dues payments 
or per capita reports made by any former New York area local of the AFL-CIO 
including but not limited to : Originals or carbon copies of forms 266, 267, 
SS 133, lists of amalgamated units, dues stamps records, oflacial receipts from 
for international aforesaid, records of receipts, transmission, or return of funds 
for per capita dues, all books and records, canceled checks, check stubs and 
bank statements for any subregional account, all correspondence to or from 
John Dioguardi or Joseph Curcio with the international aforesaid or with any 
affiliated local aforesaid for the period July 1, 1950, to February 28, 1957. 

Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties 
in such cases made and provided. 

To to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 11th day of June in the 
year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty-seven. 

( Signed) John L. McClellan, 
Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor 
or Management Field. 

The Chairman. This subpena shows it was served on June 25, 1957. 
The subpena reads that you are, among other things commanded to 
appear at the committee room, 101 Senate Office Building, Washing- 
ton, D. C, and then and there to testify what you may know relative 
to the subject matters under consideration by said committee, and 
produce all records in your possession, custody, or control relating 
to per capita dues payments or per capita reports made by any former 
New York area local of the United Auto Workers of America, AFL, 
and/or all Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, includ- 
ing, but not limited to originals or carbon copies of forms 266, 267, 
SS 133, lists of amalgamated units, dues stamp records, official re- 
ceipts from the international aforesaid, records of receipts, transmis- 
sion or return of funds for per capita dues, all books and records, can- 
celed checks, check stubs, and bank statements for any subregional 
account, all correspondence to or from John Dioguardi or Joseph 
Curcio with the international aforesaid, or with any affiliated local 
aforesaid for the period July 1, 1950, to February 28, 1957. 

That was the order of the subpena. Mr. Curcio, have you brought 
the records as directed ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. Yes, sir. I have brought whatever records are in my 
custody, possession or control. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. May I inquire, were you 
a member of the United Auto Workers of America, AFL, or Allied 
Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. At one time ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long ago? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that I may 
tend to incriminate myself. 

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

The Chairman. You said you were at one time a member of the 
United Auto Workers of America, AFL, and the Allied Industrial 
Workers of America. You answered that in the affirmative. It is 
the Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO. You have 
answered that in the affirmative. 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4505 

The Chair asks you again what period were you a member of those 
organizations, or either organization ? 

Mr. CuRcio. I most respectfully, sir, must refuse to answer on the 
grounds that I may tend to incriminate myself. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, for the record 

Senator Mundt. Has that union been engaged in some illegal ac- 
tivities so that your connection with it might be self-incriminatmg? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. May I, at this time, make the following statement to 
the committee 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Gentlemen, when a witness answers that he has been a membett" of 
that organization, I think we are entitled to know when he was a 
member. I do not think he can take the fifth amendment on that, 
having been a member and acknowledging that he was a member. 

I do not see how the date would incriminate him, the period of time. 
Unless there is objection on the part of the committee, and with the 
committee's consent, the Chair is going to order and direct the witness 
to answer the question. What period of time were you a member of 
such an organization or organizations? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. May I, at this time on behalf of the witness, inform 
the committee that since February or March of 1956, the United 
States attorney for the southern district of New York before the 
grand jury for that district, has been conducting an investigation 
into the practices of certain labor organizations; that Mr. Curcio has 
been subpenaed and has appeared before that grand jury on 
numerous occasions, and he exercised before the grand jury what he 
believed in good conscience to be his constitutional rights. 

The subject matter that is now being inquired into by the chair- 
man's question was a subject matter being inquired into by the in- 
vestigation conducted by the United States attorney. 

The Chairman. Let .me ask you a question, Mr. Attorney. Was 
jour client indicted ? 

Mr. Cohen. My client was indicted for contempt — was held in 
contempt, and appeared before Judge Noonan of the southern dis- 
trict of New York ; was convicted by Judge Noonan. 

An appeal was taken from that conviction and the United States 
Supreme Court, in case. No. 280 of the October determination of 1956, 
in the case of the United States of America against Joseph Curcio 
as the petitioner, reversed that conviction at that time. 

The Chairman. Was the case dismissed or reversed ? 

Mr. Cohen. It was dismissed. 

The Chairman. So there is no indictment pending against your 
client at this time ? 

Mr. Cohen. But my client has been investigated and has been 
brought before this grand jury after these proceedings had been 
initiated. 

The Chairman. That does not answer my question. Is your client 
under indictment at the present time ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, thank God. 

The Chairman. Well, we agree with you, so we will proceed. 

The Chair orders and directs your client, directs the witness, to 
answer the question propounded to him : For what time were you a 
inember of those organizations ? 



4506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you further. You say you brought 
records with you according to this subpena, all that were in your con- 
trol, in your possession, in your control or supervision ; is that correct? 

Mr. Cohen. Possession, custody, or control, sir. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Counsel. I want the witness 
to answer this question. 

Mr. CuRcio. Possession, control and custody. 

The Chairman. Possession, control and custody. Did you bring 
all those records ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where are they, please? 

Mr. CuRCio. They are here in the committee room. 

The Chairman. They are here in the committee room ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have those records been in your custody since their 
inception ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are those records called for here your personal 
records or the records of the union ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that 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. I do so 
order and direct you. 

Mr. CuRCio. Most respectfully, sir, I must refuse to answer on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you prepared now, to deliver the custody of 
those records which you have brought here in response to this sub- 
pena to the committee as directed by the subpena ? 

Mr. CuRGio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. You may make delivery of them. 
Bring them around. 

Set them right up here on the table. 

Thank you. You may take the stand, again. 

Let the record show at this point the witness delivered to the com- 
mittee two boxes of what the witness says are the records that were in 
his possession, custody, or control that were called for by the subpena 
referred to. 

Mr. Witness, let me ask you this question : What are these records 
you have delivered to the committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
The Chairman. What do they consist of ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. They may; I do not know. But you delivered 
them to the committee. You have identified them as the records in 
your possession. Let me ask you this question : 

Are those all of the records that are in your possession, called for by 
the subpena, or in your custody or control ? Is that all of them ? Is 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4507 

what you have delivered here all that are in your possession, control, 
or custody ? 

Mr. CuECio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no others ? 

Mr. CuRcio. No, sir. 

The Chairman. No others as called for by this subpena ? 

Mr. CuRCio. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Curcio, this is a kind of curious situation. 
You can certainly tell us what you put in those boxes. That is all we 
are trying to find out. Did you put those records in the boxes 
yourself ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. Whatever the subpena called for, that is what we have 
been advised to bring, and I am being advised by my attorney. I am 
not a lawyer. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know what is in the boxes? That is a 
simple question. Do you know what is in those boxes? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. What are you bringing us ? Are you bringing us 
a bunch of boxes? Certainly you know whether you have records, 
shoes, or cabbages. "What have you got in the box ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. The records in answer to the subpena. 

Senator Mundt. Did you put them in the box yourself ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the normal filing system in the union office? 
Is that where you keep them ? You prepared them. You transferred 
them into the boxes, did you not, to bring them down here ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. Let me ask you if tliere are any other records of 
these unions referred to in the subpena. Were there other records 
which are not now in your possession, control or custody? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I mi\st refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, are you saying you brought all of the records, 
or just only those that were left in your custody, control and 
possession ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I brought the records that were left in my control, 
possession, and custody. 

The Chairman. Then you have had other records belonging to the 
union, which this subpena called for prior to the time that the subpena 
was served, have you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 



4508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You do not mean to claim that some of them have 
become lost, do you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you claim that they have been stolen or 
misplaced? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. Again, I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Are these records or you 
under the union rules, charter, regulations and so forth, you as sec- 
retary-treasurer, or were you, the custodian, the proper custodian, of 
these records under the laws, bylaws, charter, rules, and regulations of 
the unions to which they refer ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. jNIr. Curcio, who is Harry Davidoff ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. You are bringing us records which are ostensibly 
signed by Harry Davidoff. 

yir. Cohen. INIa}^ I make this statement to the committee 

Senator Mundt. If you can tell me who Harry Davidoff is it will 
be helpful. 

Mr. Cohen. I can advise my client and project those views to the 
committee. The witness in answer to the subpena has produced 
records that were in his possession, custody, and control. He is re- 
lying on his constitutional guaranty and on the opinion as stated by 
the United States Supreme Court in the case of the United States 
against Joseph Curcio, insofar as giving any testimony on any matters 
relating to those records. 

Senator GoLowA-rER. Mv. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Curcio, do these records you have sup- 
plied us contain any correspondence between yourself or the union 
and Mr. Joe Dioguardi? 

(Tlie w^itness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. I nnist refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Do they contain any correspondence between 
yourself or your union and John Dioguardi? 

Mr. Curcio. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may- 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. You stated that you brought the records in 
compliance with this subpena, and one of the requirements of the 
subpena was that you would supply us with correspondence between 
yourself or your union and John Dioguardi. Do you deii}^ that such 
correspondence is in this collection of papers? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Curcio. 1 have produced whatever records were in my posses- 
sion or that was in my custody. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4509 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have knowledge that among these 
jjapers is correspondence between yourself, your union, and Mr. 
Dioguardi ? 

Mr. CrKCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you another question. Are these 
the records that you kept complete between Julv 1, 1950, and February 
28, 1957 ? 

Mr. Cfrcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairmax. The Chair is going to order and direct you to 
answer that question, with the permission of the committee. 

You say you are complying with the subpena. The question is : 
Are there any other records, or were these all of the records, kept 
between the elates of July 1, 1950, and February 28, 1957? That is 
wliat the subpena called for. 

The Chair is going to order and direct you to answer that question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. These are all the records that are in my custody, pos- 
session, and control called for by the subj^ena. 

Senator Goldwater. Does that period 

Mr. Cohen. May I respectfully submit the subpena does cover 
that period, sir, from 1950 to 1957. 

Senator Goldwater. That is what T am asking, and he has not 
answered. 

Mr. Cohen. He is relying upon his constitutional guaranties of 
not being required on the ground it might incriminate him to give 
any testimony relating to any of the records he has produced. He has 
produced all the records, and he has testified here, in compliance w^ith 
this subpena, that were in his possession, custody, or control. Those 
records are now on the committee table. If we had made a receipt, 
we would have given the receipt to the committee. 

But there is no receipt made, because the records are of such a 
nature that we feel that the committee will categorize them and catalog 
them in their own way. 

Senator Goldwater. Cannot Mr. Curcio answer the simple ques- 
tion : Are these all the records between July 1, 1950, and February 
28,1957? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRico. Whatever was in my control or custody or possession 
I have produced according to the subpena. 

The Chairman. That is not an answer to the question. Ask the 
question again and the Chair will order and direct him to answer. 

Senator Goldwater. Are these all the records over which you have 
had custody or control between July 1, 1950, and February 28, 1957, 
as called for by the subpena ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cl'RCio. At the time of the service of the subpena these were 
all the records that were in my custody, possession, or control. 

Senator Goldwater. Covering those dates between July 1, 1950, and 
FebiTiary 28, 1957? 

(The Avitness conferred with his counsel.) 

89.330—57 — pt. 12 2 



4510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CuRCio, In compliance with the subpena, Senator, whatever 
period was called for. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. The Chair wants to make a 
suggestion to counsel. We try to be very indulgent when counsel is 
undertaking to help the witness with the facts or something to re- 
fresh his memory, something in that way, if he is in error about some- 
thing and counsel knows it. But the counsel's privilege in appearing 
here before the committee is for one purpose, and that is to advise 
the witness of his legal rights and not to put words into his mouth in 
that nature of testimony for him to give. 

I think I am observing some action along that line of suggesting 
to the witness what he should say. 

Mr. Cohen. The chairman is in error. The counsel is not suggest- 
ing any answers to the witness. He is advising him of his rights. 

The Chairman. We will be glad for you to advise. But I wanted 
you to know that putting words in his month is not permitted, and if 
you are not doing it, all right. But if I tind counsel is doing that 
in spite of my warning and admonition, the committee will take 
appropriate action. Proceed. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Mr. Chairman, the witness has not answered 
my question, yet. 

The Chairman. Ask it again and let us see whether the Chair and 
committee will order him to answer it. 

Senator Goldwater. All I want to know is : Are these all of the 
records from July 1, 1950, to February 28, 1957, that came under your 
custody and control ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Whatever records were in my possession and control 
I have delivered according to the subpena. 

Senator Goldwater. You still have not answered the question, Mr. 
Curcio. I have asked you a question covering two dates, July 1, 1950, 
to February 28, 1957. Do these boxes that you have turned over 
contain those records, between those dates ? 

Mr Cohen. May I 

Senator Goldwater. Xo ; I have asked the witness. 

Mr. Cohen. I believe the witness has answered. 

Senator Goldw^^ter. The witness has not answered. All it takes 
is a yes or no. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

Mr. Cohen. There are certain parts of that question 

Senator Goldwater. I have asked a question about the completeness 
of this, covering these dates. All I am asking for is a yes or no. 
Please, Mr. Counsel, I am asking the witness. I am asking the witness. 

Mr. Curcio. Senator, I have delivered whatever records were in my 
possession, custody, or control. 

The Chairman. That is not an answer to the question. 

Did you have other records than these in your possession, custody or 
control that are called for by the subpena between the dates of July 1, 
1950, and February 28, 1957 ? 

You stated over and over that you delivered the records that were 
in your possession at the time the subpena was served. The question 
is : Were there other records besides these in your possession called 
for by the subpena prior to the date you were served, and between the 
dates of July 1, 1950, and February 28, 1957 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4511 

I have made the question just as clear as I can. If there is anything 
vou do not understand about it, we will undertake to clarify it. But 
the question calls for an answer. 

Your previous answers are not responsive to the question. 

The Chair orders and directs you to answer the question, unless you 
ask for some clarification of it. 

Mr. CuRCio. I must repeat my same answer, Senator, that I have 
■delivered all records that were in my possession, custody, or control 
according to the subpena. 

The Chairman. The Chair does not accept that as an answer to the 
question. 

I will repeat the question one more time. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Were there other records called for by this sub- 
pena in your possession between the dates of July 1, 1950, to February 
28, 1957, that you have not delivered to the committee, or that were not 
in your possession on the date the subpena was served ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
•orders and directs you to answer that question. 

Do you decline ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I decline, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

There is no misunderstanding about it. 

Let me ask you further: Are the records that you delivered here 
today your personal records or are they records of the unions ? 

Mr. CuRcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the permission of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer that question, whether they are your 
personal records or records of the union. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRcio. I must decline on the grounds of the fifth amendment, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask a couple of questions. You 
indicate that you are currently secretary-treasurer of a teamsters local 
269 ; did I understand correctly ? 

Mr. CuRcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Is that an elected office ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Were you elected at a national convention or a 
:State convention? How do you get this job? 

Mr. CuRcio. At a membership meeting, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You are a local-union officer, then ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Not an international officer? 

Mr. CuRcio. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Nor a regional officer? 



4512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CuRCio. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Your full-time job is secretary-treasurer of 
local 269 of the teamsters, and you were elected at a rank-and-file 
meeting ? 

Mr. CuRcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. How many members do you have in that local ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer that question, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Do you have any in it, besides yourself ? 

Mr. CuRcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Erven. How many ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer that, Senator, on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Do you have as many as 50 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. Do you have as many as 50 members, besides your- 
self? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Do you have as many as a hundred? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I believe there are approximately 950 members, sir. 

Senator Ervin. 950 members ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. You are not stating to this committee that these 
records which you produced are all of the records for that local be- 
tween the 1st of July 1950 and February 28, 1957 ? 

Mr. Cohen. The Senator has the two unions slightly confused. 
Those records do not relate to anything dealing with the Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters. They deal with a former union 
affiliation, the United Auto Workers Union or the Allied Industrial 
Workers, a former association. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. Are you stating to this committee 
that these are all of the records of the union during the period cov- 
ered by the subpena ? 

Mr. CuRCio. These are the records that were called for in the sub- 
pena, that were in my possession, custody, and that I had. 

Senator Ervin. I asked you a very simple question. You are not 
testifying, however, that these are all of the records of that union 
for that particular period of time, are you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the ground that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you know that there are some other 
records that are called for by that subpena in existence or were in 
existence that you are not producing ; do you not ? 

Mr. Curcio. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Cohen. May I respectfully call the Senator's attention to the 
nature of the subpena that was served on the witness? It does not 
call for production of union records. It calls for what is known as 
per capita records and reports. Per capita is a payment from a local 
union to the international. Those are the records that were called 
for in this subpena. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4513 

Senator Emax. What I am trying to ask- 



Mr. Cohen. It is not union or local-union records, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Are those all of the per capita records of those 
organizations described in the subpena for the period beginning on 
July 1, 1950, and ending on February 28, 1957 ? 

Mr. CuRcio. Senator, these are all the records that I had in my 
custody or possession. 

Senator Ervin. That is not an answer. My question is whether 
that is all the records for that period, regardless of whether they 
were in your custody on the date the subpena was issued to you or not. 

Mr. CuRcio. Senator, I refuse to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Might I ask the nature of the 1,950 people? 
Are they generally truckdrivers, or are they warehouse workers? 
What is the nature of the membership of the union ? 

Mr. CuRcio. It is a varied mixture of different workers. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have some truckdrivers? 

Mr. Curcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have some warehousemen? 

Mr. Curcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. The others are miscellaneous groups? 

Mr. Curcio. Different types of workers. 

Senator McNamara. Predominantly what? What industry? 

Mr. Curcio. No particular industry, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Building-trades people ? 

Mr. Curcio. No, sir. Factory people. 

Senator McNamara. Factory ? Industrial ? 

Mr. Curcio. Industrial workers. 

Senator McNamara. The garment industry, for instance? 

Mr. Curcio. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. We are eliminating some things. What is the 
general area of the appointments of your people? Is it in miscel- 
laneous, manufacturing, or what ? 

Mr. Curcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Miscellaneous ? 

Mr. Curcio. Miscellaneous. 

Senator McNamara. Comparatively small plants ? 

Mr. Curcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Considered generally feeder plants, is that it, 
supplying a large industry of some sort ? 

Mr. Curcio. Well, they supply industry. 

Senator McNamara. Do the plants generally have employees of less 
than 100 in number ? 

Mr. Curcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. So it is sort of a catchall local, is that it? 

Mr. Curcio. We are interested in organizing the unorganized, 
Senator. 

Senator McNamara. But not in the building trades? 

Mr. Curcio. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Not in the garment industry ? 

Mr. Curcio. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. But in miscellaneous industries, is that it? 



4514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CuRCio. Wlierever there are plants where the plants are unor- 
ganized and the people wish for organization, we attempt to organ- 
ize them. 

Senator McNamara. Into the teamsters imion ? 

Mr. CuRcio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything involved in that activity that 
might tend to incriminate you in attempting to organize them ? You 
are very solicitous about them, it appears. 

In engaging in understanding to organize them, is there something 
in your activity that if you told it, it might tend to incriminate you I 

Mr. CuRico. I don't believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, then, if it will not, let us ask some ques- 
tions about it. How do you go about organizing them ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. Senator, I don't believe your question is pertinent to- 
the investigation of this committee. 

The Chairman. I will ask you this : What is a per capita tax ? 

Mr. CuRCio. A per capita tax ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. CuRCio. That is so much that goes to the international for each 
dues-paying member that pays dues into a local union. 

Mr. Cohen. Senator, may I call it a levy imposed by the inter- 
national upon the local unions, sir. 

The Chairman. I am going to have you sworn in a minute, if you 
are going to do all of this testifying. 

Mr. Cohen. I am trying to be cooperative with the committee. 

The Chairman. We will ask for your cooperation as we need it. 
I do not want to have to warn you repeatedly. When I question the 
witness, if you want him to take the fifth amendment, advise him to 
take it. That is your privilege. When I question him, I want him 
to give the answers, if he answers. 

You said it was not pertinent to inquire how you go about organiz- 
ing. It may be very pertinent, and the Chair is going to insist that 
you answer, since you said there is nothing in it that might incriminate 
you. You testified to that under oath. I am going to ask you how 
you go about organizing, and do you expect an extortion from it. 

I am going to ask you several questions. 

You said you did not think it would incriminate you. Let us see. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRcio. Senator, I believe that I will — I think I will take the 
fifth amendment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. After the last statement, Senator, I think the fifth 
amendment is best for me. 

The Chairman. It may be. 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are probably a better judge of that than I 
am, though I doubt it. 

Mr. CuRcio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you, in undertaking to organize them, use 
force and violence? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ctjrcio. I must refuse to answer that question. Your Honor. 

The Chairman. In organizing them, after you get them organized, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4515 

do you cheat on their funds and take money that does not belong to 
you and misappropriate it and misuse it, union funds ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. So your first statement that there was nothing in 
organizing them that would tend to incriminate you 

Mr. CuRCio. Senator, I don't believe that anything that I can say 
here will be helpful to me. I think it best if I take the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. You think you better take the fifth amendment. 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You think that is the safest course for j^ou to 
pursue ? 

Mr. Ctjrcio. After the statement that has been made by the Hon- 
orable Senator McClellan, I believe it is the best stand for me to take. 

The Chairman. Which statement do you refer to ? 

Mr. CuRcio. About extortion. Senator. 

The Chairman. You think if you told about that, it might incrim- 
inate you? 

Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. CuRCio. No. I refuse to answer any question. Senator, on the 
grounds that I may be incriminated. 

Senator Ervin. Mr, Chairman, I respectfully submit that the 
chairman has made no statement, that the chairman merely put a ques- 
tion to the witness. Certainly the question of the chairman would 
not tend to incriminate the M^itness. The witness stated that any- 
thing he answered along this line would not tend to incriminate him. 

Mr. CuRcio. I think any statement made. Senator, in the present 
atmosphere, wouldn't tend to do me any good. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, if you were to tell the truth, you 
think it would be harmful to you. Is that your position ? 

Mr, CuRCio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you state that if you told the truth, 
the truthful answer that you gave would tend to incriminate you, 
would show that you were guilty of some offense, is that what you are 
saying ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I wanted to find out a little more about these 
practices, I think the AFL-CIO International now has set up an 
ethical practices code about this taking of the fifth amendment. You 
are, as you have testified today, secretary -treasurer of teamsters local 
No. 269. I believe you said you took the fifth amendment before the 
New York grand jury. Is that true? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Has the AFL-CIO taken any action ? 

Well, they would not know about that. 

They will know about this. 

Is it true that you were convicted in 1944 on 4 different charges, 
sentenced to Danbury for 9 months on the 26th of February 1944; 
convicted again on a later date and sentenced to 9 months on May 
25, 1944 ; on May 25, 1944 you got a writ of habeus corpus ; on June 



4516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

29, 1944 you were sentenced to 9 months and a $100 fine, to run con- 
currently with a sentence then being served ? 

The first of these was for transporting untaxed alcohol, the second 
for possession of untaxed liquor, the third for possession of untaxed 
liquor, and the fourth for possessing a still ? Do you think it might 
incriminate you to testify about that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ctjrico. I must refuse to answer. Senator, on the grounds that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do your union members know of this past record 
of yours? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer. Senator, on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. I see here a charge against you as being a fugitive 
from justice. What happened to that charge? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer. Senator, on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, Mr. Counsel ? 

Senator Mundt. How long have you been 

The Chairman. I just wanted to ask you to see if that is the kind 
of officers that they have in unions, people who have been convicted of 
offenses like that. 

Senator Mundt. How long have you been secretary-treasurer of 
local 269 ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Will you explain to me why telling us you are 
secretary-treasurer of a union is nonincriminating but it gets to be 
incriminating as to how long you have been secretary ? 

Mr. Curcio. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. When did union 269 get its charter ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Is there something illegal about the way you got 
your charter? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. It could not incriminate you unless there was 
something illegal about the procurement of the charter. It is not 
illegal to get a charter. If you got it illegally, fraudulently, then you 
are entitled to take the fifth amendment. But you are certamly not 
entitled to take it if you got it in the normal process. 

Mr. Curcio. Senator, I must claim the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. How much salary are you paid ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do the members of your union laiow how much 
salary you are paid ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must refuse to answer. Senator, on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think the members of your union are 
allowed to Iviiow how much salary you are paid ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4517 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds it 
Jimy tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. When was the last meeting of your union? 

Mr. CuRcio. I must refuse to answer. Senator, by virtue of the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Have you had a meeting in 1957 ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Senator, I must refuse to answer by virtue of tlie 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. A while ago the chairman was inquiring about 
the methods you used to organize. In such organizing practices, do 
you contact the employer? 

Mr. CuRcio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds of the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Do you apply any pressure to the employer ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds of the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Do you threaten the employer that if he does not 
sign up his employees into the union that his place will be picketed ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds of the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Do you advise the employer that if he does not 
sign up his members to the union, that no goods will be delivered to 
his place of business ? 

Mr. CuRCio. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds of the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. What organizing practices do you engage in that 
would not incriminate you ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. I mean just those that would not incriminate 
you. What organizing practices do you engage in ? 

Mr. CuRico. Senator, I am going to take the fifth amendment, 
which is afforded me under the Constitution of the United States. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. I have two short questions, Mr. Curcio. In 
the course of your connection with your union, has your union ever 
contributed money to local politics, to either party ? 

Mr. CuRico. Senator, with all due respect, I must refuse to answer 
on the grounds of the fifth amendment. 

Senator Goldwater. Has your union contributed to politics on the 
Federal level ? 

Mr. CuRico. Once, again, Senator, I must refuse to answer on the 
grounds of the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. What officials in the teamsters international do you 
know? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRico. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment, it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. What politicians do you know ? 

Mr. CuRico. Senator, once again, I must refuse to answer on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. I would assume, Mr. Curcio, that the president 
of the local is a reputable fellow and not a criminal or a crook. I 



4518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

will assume, therefore, that it would not be incriminating to you to 
tell us his name. Who is the president of your local ? 

Mr. CuRico. Senator, I must refuse to answer on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Is he just a crook? You could not possibly pro- 
tect yourself in a court case. I think your counsel will so advise 
you, declining to give us the name of the president of your union, 
unless he, perchance, is involved in some illegal activity. I would not 
think you would want to reflect on him unless, of course, he is a crook. 
I do not know who he is. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CuRCio. The name is Allan Viggiano. 

Senator Mundt. Will you spell it for us ? 

Mr. CuRCio. V-i-g-g-i-a-n-o. 

Senator Mundt. And he is also elected by the local membership 
the same as you axe ? 

Mr. CuRcio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I did not think you should reflect on him need- 
lessly if he was all right. 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Senator Cdrtis. For how long a period are the officers elected? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Have you been elected more than once? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer. Senator, on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

The witness' testimony today is not complete. The primary purpose 
•of having him here today was to determine whether he would produce 
records or whether we would have to take other action to get them. 
His further testimony will be required at a later date. With that 
understanding, and with your consent and agreement, that you re- 
main under your present subpena, subject to call, under the recogni- 
zance of the committee to return when notified within a reasonable 
time — and we will give you reasonable notice, reasonable notice to 
either you or your attorney, when we will need you again — with that 
understanding, the committee will excuse you from further attendance 
today. 

Do 3^ou agree? 

Mr. CuRCio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And counsel also agrees? 

Mr. Cohen. If we could get some adequate notice of the next hear- 
ing, we would appreciate it. 

The Chairman. We will give it to you just as soon as the hearing 
is set. We will be glad to do that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. Cohen a question? 

Mr. Cohen. Surely, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had a conversation on Friday, did we not, you 
:and I, on the telephone? 

Mr. Cohen. Late in the afternoon. 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4519 

Mr. Kennedy. Did we discuss the books and records that we wanted 
Mr. Curcio to produce? 

Mr. Cohen. We discussed the subpena. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we discussed what was in the subpena ? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't recall going into the nature of the subpena. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say that the contents of the subpena, what 
w^as requested, were not available and Mr. Curcio was going to state 
that? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't believe so, Mr. Kennedy. I believe I said that 
whatever answers Mr. Curcio would make would be made before the 
committee. I asked you for a few days adjournment, as I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say to me that the records we had subpenaed 
were not available, that Mr. Curcio would state that before the com- 
mittee, and that if we asked him where the records were, he would 
then take the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Cohen. I did not say that to you. I don't recall of ever saying, 
that to you. I had no way of knowing where those records were. I 
did say this: I referred to the Curcio decision, and I said that he 
would protect his rights under that decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. We discussed other things, but you deny that we 
discussed this? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't recall ever making that statement to you, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it funny, I do recall it and it is vivid in my 
mind. 

Mr. Cohen. I don't recall. The records are here, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chahjman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, are you the attorney for local 269 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am the attorney for local 269. 

Mr. Kjennedy. And you are also the attorney for these gentlemen ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am the attorney for Mr. Curcio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a separate situation or are you here also rep- 
resenting local 269 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am here representing Mr. Curcio today. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are on a fee basis ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am on a very nominal retainer from the union. I am 
representing Mr. Curcio, in answer to this subpena. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are advising him on what is best for the 
union : is that right ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am advising him on his constitutional rights and 
what I believe are the best interests of the union. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. When his rights conflict with the union's 
interests 

Mr. Cohen. I think that is something you and I would be in issue 
on, sir. We might have an honest dispute as to that subject. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not think there is any conflict between the 
members of 269 and Mr. Curcio taking the fifth amendment before 
the committee ? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't believe so, sir. The exercise of a man's consti- 
tutional rights does not reflect on the work he does in his job or in the 
people he represents. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you stolen any money from local 269 ? 

Mr. Cohen. Has he stolen any money ? 



4520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken any money ? Have you stolen any 
money ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must refuse to answer, Mr. Kennedy, on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Bear in mind, gentlemen, Mr. Cohen is not a witness. 

Mr. Cohen. I do not hesitate to answer these questions for the 
Senators. 

Senator Mundt. You heard the witness say that he took the fifth 
amendment on the question of whether he stole any money. To de- 
velop the hypothesis, if it were true that he had stolen some money 
from union 269, would you not think there was a conflict then, be- 
tween his constitutional rights and the interest of the union members ? 

Mr. Cohen. Had he been found guilty, and had he exhausted all 
of his appeals, I think there would be a conflict. 

Senator Mundt. I am saying hypothetically, had he stolen, quite 
regardless of whether he had been fomid guilty, had he stolen any, is 
that a conflict? 

Mr. Cohen. Are you asking me that as an attorney ? 

Senator Mundt. Correct. 

Mr. Cohen. Usually, as an attorney, we wait to see what a jury 
will do. If he is found guilty, whether or not he was found guilty 
properly, whether or not his avenues of appeal have been exhausted. 

I say to this committee, if my client were fomid guilty of stealing 
money, and all of the appeals were exhausted, I might take a different 
attitude. He has not, and he is not before this committee with any 
such charge. 

Senator Mundt. I am engaging purely in a hypothesis, but you are 
leading me now, to believe that had your client stolen the money, and 
your great capacity as a lawyer being able to get him a verdict of inno- 
cent from the jury, there would be no conflict of interest between him 
and the union members. 

Mr. Cohen. I don't think that is a fair statement. Senator. I 
don't think attorneys try to get clients off in the manner you are sug- 
gesting. I think a man is due a trial by his peers. 

Senator Mundt. I am not a lawyer, but you do not think lawyers try 
to get people an innocent verdict if they are actually guilty ? 

Mr. Cohen. I think you should discuss that with counsel closer to 
the interests of this committee. I think we would have conflict there, 
too. I respect the Constitution of the United States. 

Those constitutional guaranties were in those books long before we 
came on the scene and they will be here long after we leave. My life 
has been dedicated and devoted. I have no doubt or hesitancy to tell 
this committee that I have great love for those individual, personal 
guaranties and freedoms. That is the way I have conducted my pro- 
fessional life. 

Senator Mundt. I am glad to hear that. 

Mr. Cohen. And I represent more than 20 unions affiliated with the 
AFL-CIO, not only in New York, but Connecticut, New Jersey, and 
other States, for more than 20 years. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Cohen, are you acquainted with the re- 
cently adopted code of ethics of the CIO-AFL ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4521 

Senator Goldwater. Could you tell me in your interpretation of 
those, if a union official takes the fifth amendment to protect himself, 
is he susceptible to the application of that code ? 

Mr. Cohen, I don't think that has been decided by the ethical 
practices committee as yet. 

Senator Goldwater. It seems to me that it only applies if he is 
taking the fifth amendment to protect himself. If he is taking the 
fifth amendment to protect his union, I understand he is not subject to 
disciplinary action ; is that correct ? 

Mr, Cohen. I think the Senator has given a fair version of one of the 
interpretations of the code. 

Senator Goldwater. So it would be safe to assume that if Mr. 
Curcio here today is taking the fifth amendment to protect the records 
of his union, that he would not be subject to disciplinary action under 
the code of ethics of the AFD-CIO ? 

Mr. Cohen, I can't speak for the ethical practices committee. 
Messrs. Potofsky, Dubinsky, Hayes, Harris — with this counsel — they 
will make their decision. 

Senator Goldwater. I was hoping in your capacity as a lawyer, 
representing 20 different unions, you could tell us, I think I read in 
the papers yesterday or the day before that the case is that, like this 
gentleman, if he comes before us to protect his union and he takes 
the fifth amendment, that the AFL-CIO ethical practices code does 
not apply, 

Mr, Cohen, I believe he has taken it in good conscience and they 
will look at it that way, I believe he is here to protect the interests 
of his members and himself. Certainly, liis members. 

Senator Goldwater. You feel he is pretty safe, then, as far as his 
position goes? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't want to make any statement for the ethical 
practices commission. We believe in autonomy. They have their 
rights and they know what to do to exercise them. 

Anybody who is subject to their jurisdiction would not want to 
make a statement at this time. I think they could very well take care 
■of their own business. 

The Chairman, Are there any other questions ? 

Senator McNamara, Mr, Chairman, along that line, I have a 
question. 

Does not the code of ethical practices apply to local union officers 
as well ? 

Mr, Cohen. I interpret it so, sir, local union officers, too, sir. 

The Chairman. The witness will remain under the recognizance 
that the Chair has given. 

Mr, Cohen. If I may say. Baker at one time, I believe the com- 
mittee knows, was an officer of local 649, and would not have anything 
to do with the international. I am not testifying, but he would 
testifj^ that at no time did he ever have possession custody, or control 
of any records, and certainly, not those records here. 

The Chairman, You may be excused for the present. 

The committee will stand in recess, subject to the call of the 
chairman, 

(Present at the taking of the recess were: Senators McClellan, 
^IrXamara, Ervin, Mundt, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 20 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat- 
rter was recessed, to reconvene, subject to the call of the Chair.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



I 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 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 Build- 
ing, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) 
presiding. 

Present: Senators John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Irving 
M. Ives, Republican, New York; John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Mas- 
sachusetts; Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; 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 counsel : Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel ; 
Walter R. May, assistant counsel ; Robert E. Dunne, assistant counsel; 
P. Kenneth O'Donnell, assistant counsel ; Frank C. Lloyd, investiga- 
tor ; 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, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Today we are going into the election for the presi- 
dency of joint council 16, and the prominent part that local 649 and 
the officers of local 649 played in that. 

The first witness is Mr. Harry Davidoff. 

The Chairman. Mr. Davidoff, will you come around, please? 

You do solemnly swear tliat 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. Davidoff. I dt). 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY DAVIDOFF, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JACaUES M. SCHIFFER 

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

Mr. Davidoff. My name is Harry Davidoff. I reside at 9212 
Avenue B, Brooklyn. 

The Chairman. Have you finished your answer ? 

Mr. Davidoff. That is right. 

The Chairman. What is j'our business or occupation ? 

4523 



4524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I think you fellows coming in here taking the 
lifth amendment on that are convincing every decent American citi- 
zen in this country that it might incriminate you if you told the 
truth. 

Let counsel identify himself. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I am J. M. Schiffer, Rockville Centre, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information we have, Mr. Davidoff 
is now secretary-treasurer of local 258 of the teamsters. His history 
has l^een that he was with the Toy and Doll Workers, CIO, Local 130, 
and that he then transferred to Local 130 of the Toy and Doll Work- 
ers, AFL, and formed his own international with the Toy and Doll 
Workers. 

He is one of those who was the recipient of what we call the "bounc- 
ing charter," local 228, of the UAW, and he had control of that after 
the time that the bouncing charter was supposed to have been with- 
drawn by the international. 

Then on January 1, 1955, local 649, one of Mr. Dio's original locals, 
moved in with 130 and they merged, and he became financial secre- 
tary of 649. 

Then on November 8, 1955, wdien the paper locals were set up, he 
became secretary-treasurer of local 258 of the teamsters, and he is 
presently still there. 

According to the information that we have, he was arrested on 
December 14, 1933, and convicted for burglary at night, received a 
3-year probation sentence. 

In 1931 he was arrested for felonious assault with a knife and dis- 
charged, and in 1936 for having a gun in his possession. He was 
discharged. 

In 1937, for grand larceny, and he was discharged. In 1938 for 
grand larceny of an automobile, and he was discharged. In 1939 for 
robbery, and he was acquitted. 

In 1940, attempted extortion, and he was sent to the penitentiary. 
In 1942, vagrancy, dismissed. 

In 1943, bookmaking, and he was convicted. 

In 1957, it was extortion, and it is still pending. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, how many convictions were there 
before he shows up in the labor movement ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was convicted of burglary, attempted extortion, 
and bookmaking, 3 convictions, and about 7 other arrests. 

He is also known as "Little Gangy," and "Duff" ; isn't that correct? 

Mr. SciiiFFER. You are in error right there. He is not known as 
"Little Gangy," and maybe some of your other information is in 
error. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it in error ? 

The Chairman. I^t the witness testify if it is in error. 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are any of the statements made about your career 
in error? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 



EVIPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4525 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an alias of "Little Gangy" ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an alias of "Duff" ? 

Mr. DAvmoFF. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you now secretary-treasurer of local 258 of the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee the circumstances un- 
der which local 649 became associated with you, and you became 
secretary-treasurer of local 649 on January 1, 1955 ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to the information that 
we have and the testimony before the committee, in late November 
and early December 1955, Mr. Davidoff and Joe Curcio had Mildred 
Warschauer and another secretary prepare the 5 letters, 5 of the 7 
requests for the seating of delegates in the joint council 16. 

Could you tell the committee the circumstances that led up to that ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the five locals whose letters you and Joe Curcio 
prepared were locals 651, 258, 269, 284, and 'M'y'2; is that correct? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee whom you discussed 
this matter with prior to sending the letters into joint council 16 
requesting seating ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, local 258 had no members up until 
July of 1956. And then, according to the information that we have, 
Mr. Davidoff then transferred 38 of the shops from local 649 to his 
local in the teamsters union, local 258. That is a different inter- 
national. They went from local 649 of the UAW-AFL, to 258 of the 
teamstei*s. 

Is that correct, Mr. Davidoff? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that i^ may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this with the membership prior to 
transferring them into the teamsters ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time, were there some shops taken from 
local 649 and transferred into local 269 of the teamsters by Joe Curcio. 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a carbon copy of a letter 
bearing your signature, and on the bottom of the letter it is signed. 



I 



89330- 



4526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I don't believe it is dated. I will ask you to examine this and see 
if you wrote that letter or dictated it and if that is your signature. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I ask you to examine it and state whether you have 
examined it or not. 

Mr. Davidoff. I have examined it. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything you can testify to without in- 
criminating yourself ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Make this exhibit 104. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 104" for 
reference, and will be found in the appendix on p. 4869.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, we understand that Mr. Davi- 
doff was also one of those who participated in the collusive arrange- 
ment with certain businessmen and made contracts, so-called sweet- 
heart contracts, to the detriment of the membership. 

Specifically I am talking about the contract that was made with the 
All-Rite Belt Co., Inc., by local 209, where it was arranged that the 
company would pay $96 to the union every month witli a contract 
that was signed and which was a sweetheart contract, and with eight 
names that were listed, some of the names of people who no longer 
worked at All-Rite Belt Co. 

Is that correct, Mr. Davidoff ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We also have the information that Mr. Davidoff 
participated with his local in making a contract with the Seal-Tight 
Quilting Co., another contract which was a sweetheart contract, and 
at that time the local with whom Mr. Davidoff was associated re- 
quested $1,000 from Mr. Fine to put an ad in the bulletin of local 649. 

Woukl you tell us about that? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The ad only cost $500, and could you tell us what 
happened to the other $500 ? 

Mr. Davidoff, I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how tlie other officers were picked 
for the original teamster paper locals ? 

Mr. Davidoff, I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here is the letter that was signed 
by Mr. Davidoff, dated December 1, 1955. 

The Chairman. This is exhibit 14, and present it to the Avitness, 
please. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. The Chair instructs you to examine that docu- 
ment, and state whether or not you identify it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4527 

Mr. Davidoff. I examined it. 

The Chairman. Can you say whether you identify it ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is the local 258, and Mr. Davidoff 

writes the letter : 

The following are the names and titles of the officers of local 258, and the 
same are requested to be seated as delegates to joint council 16. 

It is signed by Harry Davidoff, secretary-treasurer. 

The president of the local is Sam Getlan. Now, Mr. Getlan ap- 
peared before the committee and he testified that he had never even 
heard of the local, let alone know he was president. 

Can you explain that ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee where the name 
Anthony Barbera came from? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is listed as trustee. 

How about David Koch, who was also listed as trustee ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, Mr. Chairman, on February 2, 1956, Mr. 
Davidoff sent a letter to the joint council, giving the names of those 
who were eligible to vote in the election. There were seven names, 
and all seven did vote in the subsequent election for the presidency 
of point council 16. They voted for O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to the witness exhibit 15, photo- 
static copy of a letter bearing his signature, and we will ask him to 
examine it and state whether he identifies it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Davidoff. I examined the document. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you ashamed of it, is that why you won't 
answer the question ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, make a statement for the record here 
of everything that you have against this witness. I want to be very 
fair and I want to give him a chance to deny it. Make a statement 
of all of his criminal record and hoodlum activities and everything 
that we have in this file. 

I want you to make a statement about it and I want to give this 
witness a chance, a fair chance, to deny these charges and accusations. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Schiffer. May I offer an objection, please, to the statt>ment by 
general counsel ? 

The Chairman. You can offer it and the Chair will promptly over- 
rule it. 

Mr, Schiffer, I haven't stated the grounds yet. 



4528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That doesn't matter with me. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Our gromids for the objection respectfully stated 
are simply that it has already gone into the record, and that the pur- 
pose of this committee is to investigate and hear evidence, and then 
come up with a report. The purpose of the present question directed 
by the chairman to this witness is only for the purpose of ridicule and 
scorn. It is already in the record, and now the Chair is going to go 
into the record of this man. 

The Chairman. I have ordered it read and the Chair overrules the 
objections. We are undertaking to get information upon which to 
legislate. I hope that this committee will come up with recommenda- 
tions for legislation and that the Congress will pass them, that will 
liberate the honest working people of this country from hoodlums and 
racketeers. 

I am going to do everything in my power to get the facts and to 
expose the racketeering that is going on, with a yiew that the Con- 
gress then, upon the basis of that information, can enact laws that 
will protect honest working people from some scoundrels that have 
infiltrated the labor movement. 

The objections to the questions are overruled and counsel is in- 
structed to proceed. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. In view of what you have just stated, Mr. Chairman, 
may I offer this additional objection : Part of the statements made by 
chief counsel and alluded to indirectly by your last statement pointed 
toward what we call or what has been called sweetheart contracts. 
The fact remains that those people who were supposed to be the 
laborers who suffered under these sweetheart contracts, as a result of 
the sweetheart contracts, still receive wages higher than those in many 
of the States represented by the distinguished members of this com- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. The Chair doesn't care to hear any more from 
you. If your client is willing to testify, we will be glad to hear him. 

These are matters within his knowledge, and if he wants to take 
the fifth amendment of course that is his privilege. But it is also 
the duty of this committee to present the witnesses with such inter- 
rogation as is necessary or proper to elicit the facts and give them 
an opportunity to answer. 

Senator I^^s. Mr. Chairman, following up your line of thought, 
I would like to point out to the attorney out there that it is the wit- 
ness' own fault if these questions are being asked and going un- 
answered. He has every opportunity to answer them. I cannot for 
the life of me see why he is hiding behind the fifth amendment. Cer- 
tainly he has a right to do it and you don't need to lecture me on 
that, and I understand the Constitution. 

But that doesn't give him an unalterable right to do it under all 
circumstances. 

Now is he under subpena in New York ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I don't believe so. Senator. 

Senator Ixjis. Has he been convicted of anything ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I wouldn't know. 

Senator Ia-es. Is he under indictment ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER, I believe he is facing one indictment vip there in 
New York. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4529 

Senator Ives. Is there anything that he might answer here that is 
going to hurt him where that is concerned ? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. Well, the question is a loaded question, Senator, in 
this sense. 

Senator Ives. It is not loaded at all. It is a perfectly honest 
question. 

Mr. ScHiFFER. I am not questioning the honesty of the question. 
I say it is a loaded question the way it has been put. 

Senator Ives. If that is the way you feel about it, I have no more 
to ask you. 

The Chairman. Proceed and make this record complete and state 
everything that you have in the files here against this witness and 
give him an opportunity to deny it or explain it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here is a letter that was sent over 
Mr. Harry Davidoff's signature, as secretary-treasurer to joint coun- 
cil 16, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The letter is dated February 2, 1956. 

Dear Sir and Brother : This will certify that the bearer, Sam Getlan, is an 
executive-board member of local union 2."i9 and is eligible to vote in the joint 
council election. 

Now Mr. Getlan has testified before this committee, Mr. Chairman, 
that he was not a member of the union and he was not president of 
the union and he did not vote, and yet these credentials were used 
to cast a vote for John O'Rourke in that election. The letter is sent 
over the signature of Harry Davidoff. 

The Chairman. Do you know Sam Getlan ? 

Mr. Da\^doff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on tlie ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is there about that election that woidd 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You know the whole thing was a fraud, do you 
not? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I^ was a rigged election, and you helped rig it, 
didn't you ? 

Mr. Da\tdoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you sign this letter? We will present it to 
you. It is exhibit 16. 

(Document was lianded to the witness.) 

Mr. Davidoff. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Did you sign that document? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the gi'ound that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That is a part of the fraud that you perpetrated, is 
it not? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 



4530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Tlie Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we had some statements about a 
sweetheart contract. Now, based on the facts of the contract at the 
All-Rite Belt Co., there were some 30 messengers. According to the 
arrangements made with the All-Eite Belt Co. by Mr. Davidoff and 
his colleagues, the company was just to select any 8 and send in the 
dues for any 8, and there were a different 8 every week. Some of the 
people we interviewed didn't even know they were members of the 
union. Yet their dues were taken off, and sent in by the company 
to the union every week, and there was no increase, and no benefit 
for the employees. 

Can you explain that to us ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. About when was that contract entered into? 

Mr. Kennedy. Originally by local 130, which Mr. Davidoff' repre- 
sented, and then it was transferred over to local G49, Mr. Dio's union, 
and then it was transferred over to local 258 of the teamsters, with 
which Mr. Davidoff is now associated. Then we have another con- 
tract that was entered into on the 5th of July 1955, where the wage 
scale of $1 is crossed out and $0.85 is written in. This is a contract 
that is signed by Harry Davidoff", and gives a week's vacation after 
you have worked a year, and it is a contract with the Seal-Tight 
Quilting Corp. 

Was there any benefit in that contract for the employees? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any connection between the signing of 
that contract and the $1,000 check that you received for the ad from 
Mr. Fine? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectf idlj^ decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here is a list of the shops that Mr. 
Davidoff transferred over to local 258 of the teamsters, from 649. 

The Chairman. We will present this to the witness, please. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. The Chair presents a document to you and asks 
you to examine it and state if you recognize it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Davidoff. I examined the document. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
upon the ground that it maj^ tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 105. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 105" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are you willing to tell us how much money you 
have robbed union members of during the time you have been asso- 
ciated with unions? 

Mr. Schiffer. May I respectfully object to that question, Mr. 
Chairman ? While it is pertinent to this inquiry, I think it is direct- 
ing the witness to answer to a crime which is beyond the scope of 
this inquiry. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4531 

The Chairman. We are going to inquire into crime right along. 

I ask the witness this question : Are you willing to tell us how much 
money you have robbed working people of since you have been identi- 
fied with the labor movement ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer that question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might read this notice, signed by Harry Davidoff, 
on the stationery of local 258 : 

Dear Members : This is to advise you that effective the 1st day of July 1956, 
your local, Local 649, International Union, United Automobile Worlsers of 
America, AFL has been changed to Warehouse and Processing Employees Union, 
Local 258, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO. Such change, in 
name only, does not involve any change in its officers or membership. 

Our new offices will be located at 2928 41st Avenue, room 301, Long Island City, 
N. Y., telephone Stillwell 4-4092. 

Accordingly, our obligations and rights under our present collective-bargaining 
agreement with our company shall continue unaffected by this change in name. 
Fraternally yours, 

Harry Davidoff, 
Secretary-Treasurer. 
Please post this notice on your bulletin board. 

Wliat were the arrangements that were made for the sending of this 
notification to the various companies? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
upon the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were some of the shops changed on July 1, and 
some more shops changed over when your charter was lifted by the 
UAW-AFL in February ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are you an American citizen ? 

Mr. DA\^D0FF. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are proud of it ? 

Mr. Davidoff. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You want now to discharge your duty to these 
working people and make a disclosure of the facts and the truths 
that affect their welfare ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you feel any obligation to the people who 
worked in your uniofi ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you not think that they are entitled to an ac- 
counting of your stevrardship ? 

Mr. Davidoff. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think one who takes the fifth amendment 
on things like that is worthy and decent enough to be head of a union? 

Mr. Davtldoff. Yes. 

The Chairman. You think so? 

Mr. Davidoff. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am afraid a lot of people do not agree with you. 



4532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am finished with the witness. 

The Chairman. All right, the witness may stand aside. 

Call the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wait a minute, Mr. Davidoff. We have his creden- 
tials for voting in the election. 

The Chairjman. The Chair presents to you another document and 
asks you to examine it and state whether you identify it. 

Mr. Davidoff. I examined the document. 

The Chairman. Will you identify it? 

Mr. Davidoff, I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The document may be made exhibit 106. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 106" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4870.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the records show that that vote was 
cast in the name of Mr. Davidoff, and it was one of those votes that 
was impounded, and the votes that were cast for Mr. John O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

The witness may stand aside. Call the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have now two of the key figures 
from Mr. Dio's local, local 649, and they are Mr. George Baker and 
Mr. Joseph Curcio. It is thought we might have them together. 

The Chairman. Mr. Baker and Mr. Curcio, come around, please. 

TESTIMONY OP JOSEPH CURCIO AND GEORGE BAKER, ACCOMPANIED 
BY THEIR COUNSEL, ARNOLD COHEN 

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

Mr. Curcio. I do. 

Mr. Baker. I do. 

The Chairman. Mr. Baker, identify yourself for the record, please, 
sir. 

Mr. Baker. George Baker, Brooklyn, N. Y., and I must decline to 
answer on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We have not gotten to that yet. Where do you 
live in Brooklyn ? 

Mr. Baker. You mean the address, Senator ? 

The Chairman. I mean your address of the present; yes. 

Mr. Baker. 2662 Western, Brooklyn 23, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Wliat do you do for a living? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We will let the next witness identify himself for 
the record. 

Mr. Curcio. Joseph Curcio, 13745 70th Eoad, Flushing, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Do you want to continue? Do you want to tell 
us what you do for a living ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. You have counsel and will you identify 
yourself for the record ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4533 

Mr. Cohen. Arnold Cohen, 2 Lafayette Street, New York City. 

The Chairman. I want to instruct the counsel now ; it is apparent 
that these are some more fifth-amendment witnesses, and the Chair 
instructs the counsel to make a statement of everything we have in the 
file and in the record about which they should be interrogated. I 
want to be completely fair to them and give them an opportunity to 
deny all or any part of it or to make any explanation they care to with 
regard to this information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Curcio ; Mr. Curcio was an 
organizer for Dio in local 102 of the UAW-AFL from early 1951 to 
March 1952. He was an organizer and officer for local 649, UAW, the 
successor to local 102, up to October of 1954. He was president of 
local 649, UAW, succeeding Jolinny Dio, from October 1954 to 
March of 1957. That is when the charter was revoked. He is secre- 
tary-treasurer of local 269 of the teamsters, one of the paper locals, 
and he has been secretary-treasurer from October 1955 to date. Is 
that correct? 

Mr. Curcio. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that witness 
whether or not he was associated with this union from 1951 to 1952, 
this union 102. 

Mr. Curcio. I decline to answer on the ground that it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, any misconduct that he might have 
been guilty of is barred from any criminal prosecution by the statute 
of limitations. To tell what he has done in the labor movement more 
than 5 years ago could not possibly incriminate him. There would 
not be any chance of bringing an indictment against him in a criminal 
prosecution. 

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

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Curcio, according to our records, was arrested 
and convicted for bootlegging back in 1944; is that correct? 

Mr. CuECio. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Baker, you are also known as Mr. Semel- 
macher ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Baker. I invoke the fifth amendment against self-incrimina- 
tion, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "^-V^e understand that you were formerly with the 
ILGWU. You transferred over and were the regional secretary- 
treasurer of local 102 of UAW. 

M. Baker. I decline to answer on the ground stated in my pre- 
vious answer, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are presently an organizer for local 269 of 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Mr. Baker. Mr. Kennedy, I decline to answer on the ground stated 
in my previous answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were one of those that were originally on 
the charter of local 102 with Sam Zakman ; is that right, Mr. Baker ? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 



4534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJBNNEDY. And you were the one who introduced Dio to Sam 
Zakman. 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were convicted in 1947 for the sale of nar- 
cotics ; is that right ? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question, Mr. Kennedy, 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. ICennedy. And in 1954 you were arrested for felonious assault. 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you feel that you were incriminated when you 
were convicted? 

Mr. Baker. Mr. Senator, I must decline to answer that question on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand, also, Mr. Baker, that you filed an 
income-tax return in 1952, for the year 1952, and one under the name 
of George Baker and one under the name of George Semelmacher and 
split your income between the two ; is that right? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question, Mr. Kennedy, 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have a dual personality ? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on 
the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What other names do you use ? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, also, that for the same year — and you still do 
have two social-security numbers; is that right? 

Mr. Baker. T must decline to answer that question, Mr. Kennedy, 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Curcio, we subpenaed some books and 
records of local 649 on November 8 of 1956 ; the Senate Subcommittee 
on Investigations subpenaed some books and records. Could you 
tell us what happened to those books and records? 

Mr. CuEcio. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand that, according to the story we re- 
ceived, the books and records had also been subpenaed by the grand 
jury. Federal grand jury, on November 6, 2 days before we subpenaed 
them, for appearance, I believe, on November 7. In order to make 
sure that you were down there bright and early with the books, you 
stuck them in your car, in the automobile, and then somebody that 
evening broke into the automobile and stole all of the books and records 
of local 649; is that correct? 

Mr. Curcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was there something in the records that might 
incriminate you? 

Mr. Curcio. I decline to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that the reason they became lost? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4535 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand that these books and records were 
all put in Mr. Baker's automobile, and that the thief broke into your 
automobile and stole the books and records of 649. 

Mr. Baker. Mr. Kennedy, I invoke the fifth amendment against 
self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us any explanation as to why some- 
body would want to steal books and records of local 649, Johnny Dio's 
local? 

Mr, Baker. I decline to answer on the ground stated in my last 
answer. 

The Chairman. You think it would incriminate you to say that a 
thief broke into your car and stole records that you had in there ? 

Mr. Baker. It might. Senator. 

The Chairiman. You were the one that broke in ? 

INIr. Baker. I must decline to answer the question on the ground 
stated in my previous answer. 

The Cjiairmax. In other words, vou would not want to confess 
to it. 

Mr. Baker. I decline to answer on the ground stated in my previous 
answer. 

The CiTAiRMAN. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, after Dio allegedly or supposedly withdrew 
from the UAW, AFL labor movement in New York, Mr. Curcio took 
charge of operations until all of these charters were lifted in February 
and March of 1957. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Curcio, did you in fact take instructions 
from Mr. Dio during this period of time ? 

Mr. CrrRcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you Iniow Mr. Dio? 

Mr. Curcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you associate with him? 

Mr. Curcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you engaged in any enterprises together? 

Mr. Cttecio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you associated with him in any way, in busi- 
ness, or in the labor movement ? 

Mr. Curcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Did you conspire in any way with Dio in connection 
with the acid-throwing attack on Victor Riesel ? 

Mr. Curcio. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy, Could you explain, Mr. Curcio, why Mr. Doria felt 
it was necessary when he wrote you letters during 1955 and 1956, why 
copies of those letters should be sent to Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. Curcio. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 



4536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. When this arrangement was made to set up these 
teamster paper locals, was that discussed with Mr. Dio ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that John McNamara of local 808 of the 
teamsters, came to your office, local 649, and dictated some of the 
letters that went to joint council 16. 

That was according to the testimony that we heard yesterday. 
Could you tell the committee the circumstances under which John 
McNamara would do that ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand Mr. McNamara is a close, personal 
friend of Mr. Hoffa. Did Mr. McNamara tell you what the position 
of Mr. Hoffa was on this matter? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you were an officer in 269 and we understand 
that local 269 of the teamsters did not have any members until July 
of 1956 and that you then transferred 10 of your shops or 10 of the 
shops of local 649 into local 269 of the teamsters. Is that correct? 

Mr. CuRcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the charter was lifted, 1 believe in February 
of 1957 by the UAW-AFL, you transferred 50 more of the shops from 
the local 649 to 269 of the teamsters ; is that right ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any of the membership informed of that? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any of the membership approve of their 
transfer ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we understand, again getting back to some of 
these so-called sweetheart contracts, that there was a contract made 
with the Carnival Spraying Co., and the shop was originally organ- 
ized by "Benny the Bug." Do you know Benny the Bug? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that the arrangements that were made with the 
Carnival Spraying Co. by your union were that all they had to do was 
list 8 employees, and they proceeded to list 8 people whose names often 
were fictitious names, and you approved of this arrangement. 

Would you tell us about that ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no benefit gained for the membership 
under this arrangement. Could you tell us about that ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. We understand also that you participated in the 
dictating of the letters to the teamsters joint council requesting the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4537 

seating of certain of these officers. Could you tell the committee where 
you got the names of these people ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in that? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Armando Simontacci ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the letter that you wrote, he was 
listed as president of local 269. Will you tell us about that? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Simontacci, according to the letter that you 
wrote on the joint council 16 should be seated as a delegate, and then 
a credential was issued to him and he voted in the election. 

Could you tell us the circumstances under which Mr. Simontacci 
became president of local 269 ? 

Mr. CuECio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he had any other previous labor union ex- 
perience ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
miglit tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Simontacci here as a 
witness, and could we call him and perhaps he could sit over here. 

The Chairman. Mr. Simontacci, will you come around, please? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you, is Mr. Simontacci related to you ? 

Mr. Curcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that how he was selected as president of this 
local? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did his wife participate in your marriage? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Is Mr. Simontacci here? 

Mr. Cohen. I haven't heard that name before. 

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. Simontacci. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ARMANDO SIMONTACCI 

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

Mr. Simontacci. Armando Simontacci, 156 Forsythe Street, New 
York City, and I work for Lloyd's Fabricating, 182 Sibley Avenue. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You are advised, I am sure, that you have a right to comisel ? 



4538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. I was advised ; yes. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel? 

Mr. Simojsttacci. I waive counsel. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Proceed. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Simontacci, according to the letter that was 
sent by Joseph Curcio to Joint Counsel 16, International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters, you are listed as president of local 26&. 

Are you familiar with that ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, I am. 

The Chairman. I present to you exhibit No. 20 and ask you to 
examine it, please, sir. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you had any previous knowledge of that 
document ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Simontacci, could you tell the committee 
the circumstances under which you became president of local 269? 
First, who spoke to you about it ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Mr. Curcio. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Curcio say to you? 

Mr. Simontacci. He said that he nominated me for president. 

Mr. Kennedy. And had you been in the Teamsters Union prior to 
that? 

Mr. Simontacci. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been an officer of any union prior to that? 

Mr. Simontacci. No, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Had you known Mr. Curcio ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You lived in the house that he used to live in, is that 
right? 

Mr. Simontacci. Well, I lived in the same neighborhood. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what? 

Mr. Simontacci. In the neighborhood. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the same neighborhood ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the house you now live in — had the Curcio family 
lived in that house ? 

Mr. Simontacci. At one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he told you that you were going to be the 
president of the local ; did he ? 

Mr. Simontacci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the next thing you heard was that there 
was going to be an election ? 

Mr. Simontacci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with a group of people and go down 
to the election? 

Mr. Simontacci. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you there going to the election to vote for 
JohnO'Kourke? 

Mr. Simontacci. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know John O'Rourke? 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES EN THE LABOR FIELD 4539 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. No. 

The Chairman. Was that the election held by joint council 16? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That is right, sir. 

The Chairjman. That is the election that you are speaking of? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That is right. 

The Chairman. I present to you a document dated February 2, 
1956, which is a letter to joint council 16, signed by Joseph Curcio, 
secretary-treasurer of local 269, in which it names you as a member 
of the executive board of local 269 and certifies that you are eligible 
to vote in that election. 

Will you examine the document, please? Will you state if you 
identify it? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Are you familiar with that, and did vou ever see 
that? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. I never saw this. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No. 107. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 107" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4871.) 

The Chairman, Did you know that you had been certified as 
eligible to vote in that election ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Well, it must have been, because I voted. 

The Chairman. I understand. Did they tell you that they had 
certified you as a delegate, or as eligible to vote ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Well, I don't grasp the (juestion. Would you 
mind repeating it? 

The Chahjman. Before you went over there to vote — you said you 
did attend the meeting, and you voted, as I understood you. 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That is right. 

The Chairman. Now, prior to that, did they tell you that they 
had certified you as a member of that executive board and that you 
were entitled to vote ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Well, no, I guess the question was omitted or 
maybe it was told to me, but I don't recollect. 

The Chairman. You don't recall ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. No. 

The Chairman, l^^lo may have told you i 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. No. 

The Chairman. Who asked you to go over there and vote? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Mr. Curcio. 

The Chairman. How long before you voted did he ask you to go 
over there ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Well, it could have been a couple of days, or a 
week, and I don't remember. 

The Chairman. Some day or two beforehand? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. It might have been. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you go up to his office on 57th Street, and he 
said, "We are all going over to vote" ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. He didn't say, "We are all going over to vote." 
He just told me to come over to the office, and I went. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was a group there ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. There were many people walking in and out and 
J am not familiar with the procedures in the local. 



4540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, So you went to the auditorium at that time and you 
voted ? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. That is right. 

The Chairman. Let me ask a question there. Had you at that 
time paid any dues or initiation fees to any union ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. To this particular union or to any union, you 
mean ? 

The Chairman. Well, I will ask you first, to any union. 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. I belonged to another union, yes. 

The Chairman. You belonged to other unions ? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. That is right. 

The Chairman. But as to this union, had you paid any dues or 
initiation fee? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You actually were not a member of it, were you ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Well, if I was nominated for president, I guess 
it is the beginning of a membership. 

Senator Curtis. Did you receive a salary as president? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you serve as president ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. I might be still serving as president to my 
knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever preside over any meetings as pres- 
ident ? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever appoint any committees ? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever transact any business for them? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever meet any of the members who elected 
you? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You never attended any meeting at all ? 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Could you name any of the members of the union ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Can I name any of the members of the union ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. SiMONTACci. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do they have any collective bargaining contracts ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. The man that set you up in that is the man over 
here at the witness stand, Mr, Curcio ? 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is the last exhibit. Exhibit 
107 states that : 

This will certify that the bearer, Armando Simontacci, is an executive board 
member of our local union, 269, and is eli.uible to vote in the joint council elec- 
tion. 

• It is signed by Joseph Curcio. You say you never saw this letter 
before ? 

Mr. Simontacci. No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the credentials tliat are used to vote in the 
election. How were you able to vote witliout any credentials? 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4541 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. I might have seen it now, and don't misunder- 
stand me. Is my signature on it ? 

Mr. IVENNEDY. No. 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Then I didn't sign anything. It might have been 
passed to me, and I might have read it and placed it back. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you go about voting ? Did they hand you 
something, and you just put a mark down on it? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. A piece of paper ? How did you vote ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Vote where ? 

Mr. Kennedy. At the joint council election. 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. They handed me a slip of paper. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you wrote a name in ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. You went into a ballot place and you cast your 
ballot. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Curcio tell you that you were to be for 
John O'Rourke. 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. How would I say ? That is politics. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is politics ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Frank Longey ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he related to you ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Yes ; he is. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a cousin, is he ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Through marriage. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is listed as vice president of local 651. Do you 
know if he voted in the election ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. He might have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he still president or vice president of local 651 ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Not to my knowledge ; I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how he became vice president ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same way you did ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Yes ; I informed him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You informed him that he was president ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. I don't know if he was vice president or secretary, 
but I informed him, and I don't recall right now. 

Senator Mundt. Did you pick him out ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. No, sir; I didn't pick him out. 

Senator Mundt. You were told he was to be the man, and you simply 
carried the message to him ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Who told you that he was to be that ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Mr. Curcio. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he came back, and you met him coming back 
from the election ; did you not ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you walked home together? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he has taken any active participa- 
tion in the teamsters local union, local 651, since that time? 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. I don't know. 

89330— 57— pt. 12 4 



4542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Talking about the fact that you were in another 
local, you were in the Cement and Concrete Workers Union? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was back m 1950? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You haven't been active in the union since that time ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Not active in any union. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Not since 1950? Have you been a member of any 
union ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Well, yes ; I worked in another plant where there 
was a union, and I joined. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat union was that? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That was the United Mine Workers, and I believe 
it was local 50. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You were never an officer of any local up to this 
time? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, didn't Mr. Curcio tell you that you were no 
longer an officer and no longer president of this local 269? 

Mr, SiMONTACCI. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you after the election? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. I believe it was after the election, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say someone else is now president of local 
269? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. He said, "You're out"? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Not in those words. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did he say? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. He said there was an election, and I wasn't elected. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you disappointed? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI, Well, I don't know if I was or wasn't. 

Senator Goldwater, I would like to ask the witness, in view of the 
fact that he mentioned local 50 of the United Mine Workers, were 
there any miners in that local? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you ever a miner? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. That is, I believe, another branch of the United 
Mine Workers. They were organizing shops and factories and so on. 

It had nothing to do with miners. I was a carpenter, and now we 
bring Mr. Lewis into the picture. 

Senator Goldwater. Did Mr. Curcio know you were coming down 
to testify ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. He did ? 

Mr. SiMONTACCI. Yes, sir; and I told him I was approached by a 
Mr. Ready, whom no one has ever heard of, supposed to be connected 
with the district attorney, and he said, "Well, tell them the truth," 
and so I did. 

Senator Goldwater, That is all, Mr, Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Why didn't you suggest the same thing to Mr. 
Curcio? If he advised you to tell tlie truth, why didn't you suggest 
that to him? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4543 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. I ac<3epted advice from elders, and I doubt if 
■elders accept advice from young people. 

Senator Mu^^dt. I would like to clear my own mind as to how you 
were advised in the first place. 

Mr. SiMONTACci. Word of mouth or telephone, and I don't recall. 

Senator Mundt. You were surprised, of course. 

Mr. SiMONTACci. Well, yes ; it came as a small shock. 

Senator Mundt. Did you offer any resistance, or did you say, 
"Goody, goody ; I am glad I am president" ? 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. I didn't think Mr. Curcio would do me any harm, 
and I didn't think anything of it. 

Senator Muistdt. Did he offer to do you any good if you would be- 
come the president? 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. There were no offers made, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did he suggest that this would be something that 
would lead to something worthwhile ? 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. He didn't make any suggestions and we more or 
less dropped the subject. 

Senator Mundt. He said, "Will you be president?" and you said, 
"Yes." 

Mr. SiMONTAcci. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And he said, "Will you vote for Mr. O'Eourke?" 
and you said "Yes." 

Mr. SiMONTACci. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So you went over and voted for Mr. O'Rourke, 
and that was the sum and substance of your activities. 

Mr. SiMONTACCi. I didn't say whether I voted for O'Eourke or not. 

Senator Mundt. I will ask you : Did you vote for Mr. O'Eourke ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now that you have voted for Mr. O'Eourke, that 
was the sum and substance of your function as president ? 

Mr. Simontacci. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And you just did this out of friendship for Mr. 
•Curcio and because he had asked you, and you didn't think he would 
get you in any trouble. 

Mr. Simontacci. More or less. 

Senator Mundt. What more? 

Mr. Simontacci. Well, should I answer "Yes"? All right — yes. 

Senator Mundt. If there is any more, I would like to get the "more." 

Mr. Simontacci. That is all. 

Senator Mundt*. That is all there was ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Had you known Mr. Curcio pretty well ? 

Mr. Simontacci. I have known him very well. 

Senator Mundt. You have known him very well ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Your wife was maid of honor when Joe Curcio got 
married ? 

Mr. Simontacci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for this witness. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did Joseph Curcio's sister marry, do vou know ? 

Mr. Simontacci. Yes, Basil Koschel. 



4544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. If you wouldn't mind, even though Curcio is older 
than you are and you followed his advice, I wish you would give him 
the same advice that he gave you, and maybe he would follow it 
anyhow. 

You are not going to get into any trouble by answering these 
questions, and it is helpful to the committee and we appreciate it, and 
thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Basil Koschel. 

The Chairman. You will 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. Koschel. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BASIL KOSCHEL 

Mr. Koschel. Senator, before we get imderway, may I ask a ban on 
photographs while I am testifying ? 

The Chairman. All right. No photographs for the present. 

Will you state your name, your place of residence, and your business 
or occupation, please, sir ? 

Mr. Koschel. The name is Basil Koschel. I live at 1220 Sutter 
Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. I am a production-control clerk. I work 
for Hoeven Letters, Inc., 352 Fourth Avenue, New York City. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You have elected to waive counsel ; have you ? 

Mr. Koschel. Well, I haven't signed anything, but I do understand 
that I may or may not have counsel. 

The Chairman. That is right. You are willing to proceed without 
counsel ? 

Mr. Koschel. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. The position that you now hold, is that what you 
would call a union position, or are you in a managerial position or do 
you belong to a union ? 

Mr. Koschel. It is difficult to say. The position is supervisory. 
However, the organization is unionized, district 65, I believe it is. 
However, the production people and the supervisory people are not 
union help. The balance of the people are. 

Senator ]\Iundt. You are not in the union? 

]Mr. Koschel. I am not a member of 65 at all. 

Senator Mundt. I see. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CURCIO AND GEORGE BAKER; ACCOM- 
PANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, ARNOLD COHEN, NEW YORK CITY— 

Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask Mr. Curcio. Do you know Mr. Koschel ? 

Mr. Curcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. INIr. Chairman, we have here a letter written on 
local 269 of the teamsters, to joint council 16, stating: 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4545 

Dear Sir and Brother : We are submitting the names and titles of the oflBcers 
of our local union 269 and respectfully request the same names be seated as 
delegates to point council 16. 

Listed as vice president of local 269 is Basil Koschel. 

Did you know him at that time, Mr. Curcio? 

Mr. CuRCio. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to witness Curcio exhibit 42 
and asks him to examine it and state if he identijEies it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Will you read the signature on it? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must decline to do so, Senator, on the ground that it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Your own name might incriminate you? 

Mr. CuRCio. It might. 

The Chairman. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF BASIL KOSCHEL— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Koschel, you are listed here as vice president of 
local 269. Did you know that you were vice president of local 269 of 
the teamsters ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. Well, I was informed. I really can't tell you the 
date. I was informed by Mr. Simontacci that my name had been put 
forth for nomination as an official of an union. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know anything more about it than that? 

Mr. KoscHEL. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you think it was at that time? Did you 
think it was teamsters, or what ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. To understand what I thought of it at that time you 
must understand the relationship between myself and Mr. Simontacci. 
We were fairly close friends, he was always joking and I put it off as 
a joke, which I thought it actually was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever realize that you actually became vice 
president? 

Mr. KoscHEL. I did realize, sometime in the beginning of this 
year, I believe, when we started to receive phone calls from investigat- 
ing organizations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were listed as vice president 

Mr. Koschel. It*became to me that it must be so. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were listed as vice president back in November 
of 1955. You didn't realize you were vice president until about 14 
months afterward ? 

Mr. Koschel. Well, not that I didn't realize it. I took no stock in 
'what Mr. Simontacci had said. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever asked to vote in the election? 

Mr. Koschel. Not that I recall. I attended no meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you related to Mr. Curcio ? 

Mr. Koschel. I am his brother-in-law. 

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



4546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some credentials for Mr. Koschel, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairjnian. The Chair presents to you a letter dated February 
2, 1956, addi-essed to joint council 16, signed by Joseph Curcio, secre- 
tary -tre;i surer of local 269. 

I ask you to examine the document and state whether or not you 
identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Koschel. Yes ; I see the document. 

The Chairman. Have you seen that document before? 

Mr. Koschel. No ; this is the first I have seen of this letter. 

The Chairman. You never knew about it ? 

Mr. Koschel. Well, only by word of mouth from Mr. Simontacci. 

Of the document itself ; no. 

The Chairman. Did you know that you had been certified as 
eligible to vote in that election ? 

Mr. Koschel. Beyond being informed by Mr. Simontacci, I have 
no other information regarding the union activities. 

The Chairman. All he told you, I believe, was that you had been 
selected as vice president or as an officer 't 

Mr.' Koschel. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But you took no part in it ? 

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

The Chairman. Did you attend that meeting of joint council 16 ( 

Mr. Koschel. No, sir, I attended no meeting. 

The Chairman. You attended no meeting and you did not vote? 

Mr. Koschel. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And you did not know that you had been certified 
as eligible to vote? 

Mr. Koschel. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit 108. 

The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 108," for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 4872. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, under those credentials of Mr. Kos- 
chel, a vote was cast. The vote was impounded and we have found 
that that vote was cast for Mr. John O'Kourke. 

The Chairman. Did you cast that vote ? 

Mr. Koschel. I cast no vote. 

The Chairman. You did not even attend the meeting ? 

Mr. Koschel. T did not attend the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Curcio, could you explain to the committee how 
a vote was cast under the name of Mr. Koschel ? 

Mr. Cttrcio. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Koschel, have you had any prior union exper- 
ience ? 

Mr. Koschel. I -vNas a member of district 65 at one time and I am 
currently a member of local 24910, a blueprint and photo employees 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been an officer of a union ? 

Mr. Koschel. No, sir ; I have not been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tl«is is the first time you were an officer ? 

Mr. Koschel. Apparently so. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4547 

Mr. Kennedy. And 3^011 apparently came right up to vice president ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. Of that I have no idea. Whatever is in the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know the recording secretary, Philip 
Kazansky ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. No. The name is foreign to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Frank Easton, the trustee ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Frank Korsizor ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. It is not familiar. 

Mr. Kennedy. Kosario Catalano ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know that name ? 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Curcio ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Mundt. Would you tell us something about how you came 
to know him and of his background in union work ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. Well, I married his sister and I came to know Mr. 
Curcio. 

Senator Mundt. There was no contact with him in union activities ? 

Mr. KoscHEL. As to union activities ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. KoscHEL. No, sir. 

Do you mean previous to the current goings-on or what ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. Had you served in a union with him? 

Mr. KoscHEL. No, sir, I have not. I haven't had any union activities 
connected with Mr. Curcio. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I meant. Your connections with 
him have been purely as a consequence of the fact that you married his 
sister ? 

Mr. KosoiiEL. I believe so. 

Senator Mundt. There have been no union activities with him since 
you were vice president, either? 

Mr. KoscHEL. No, sir ; not at all. 

The Chapman. Thank you very much. 

You may stand aside. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CURCIO AND GEORGE BAKER, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, ARNOLD COHEN— Resumed 

Senator Mundt. Pid I understand, Mr. Curcio, that you refused to 
acknowledge the identity of this young man that married your sister, 
because you were afraid that it might incriminate you ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must stand on my answer. 

Senator Mundt. "WTiat was your answer ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. That is something less than flattering to your 
sister. 

Mr. CuTvCio. Senator, I am only protecting my rights by invoking 
the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. I understand, but you are protecting your rights 
much better than you are protecting the reputation of your sister by 
takino; an attitude like that. 



4548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This young man has freely admitted that he knows yon, that he mar- 
ried your sister. Certainly on the basis of his testimony he seems to 
be a very respectable and responsible yomig man, a man who answered 
questions forthrightly. Do you not really think that you owe it to 
your sister to at least say that you recognize him and know him? 

I am listening. 

Mr. CiTKCio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

(x\t this point, Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Mundt. The fifth amendment ]:)rivilege extends only to 
those instances where an honest answer might tend to incriminate you. 
So by talring that attitude, you seriously reflect on this young man 
who has married your sister. 

Are you sure that an honest answer to that question would tend to 
incriminate you, or that you really think it might tend to incriminate 
you? Is that what you want to tell the committee? Is that the way 
you want the record to read in the archives of history? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Muxdt. Tliis is probably more important to you and to 
your sister than to your counsel, but you may confer with your comisel 
if you want to. I want an answer. 

Mr. CuRGio. I must insist upon protecting my rights. 

Senator IMundt. You know Avhat that im])lies. Do you laiow what 
that implies ? Do you know what your rights are ? 

Your rights are tliat if an honest answer would tend to incriminate 
you 3'ou certainly have the right under the fifth amendment to take 
recourse in it, but only under those circumstances. 

So I ask you again, do you know Mr. Koschel ? 

Mr. Ctjecio. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Muxdt. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this, Mr. Curcio. Do you have an- 
other brother-in-law ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the gromids 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also become an officer in one of these unions, 
teamster unions ? 

Mr. CuEGio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the gromids 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you l^now Martin Schl anger ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is not Martin Schlanger a brother-in-law of j^ours? 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Martin Schlanger, whom we understand is a brother- 
in-law of yours, is listed as a vice president of local ?S2. Would you 
tell us about that ? It is in the teamsters. 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we call Mr. Martin Schlanger? 

The Chairman. Mr. Schlanger, come forward, please, sir. 

(Members present at this point : Senators McClellan, MclSTamara, 
and Mundt.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4549 

The Chatr^nean. You will be sworn, please, sir. 

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. SCHLANGER. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN SCHLANGER 

The CriAiRMAN. State your name, your place of residence and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. ScHLANGER. Martin Schlanger, 125 Stanton Street, New York 
City ; foreman of a beds]3read f actorj'^ in New York Cit3^ 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Schlanger. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schlanger, do you know Mr. Joseph Curcio? 

Mr. Schlanger. I refuse to answer the question on the groimds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you Mr. Curcio's brother-in-law ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you married to Lela Curcio ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Koschel who just testified pre- 
ceding you ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am mixed up. As we understand it, Joe Curcio 
is married to Lela Schlanger. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how you became vice president of local 
362? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You cannot give any explanation of that ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I^must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. As we understand it, you voted in the election of 
February 14. % 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been arrested a number of times, have 
you, Mr. Schlanger ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were arrested for devices and for possession of 
stolen mail ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 



4550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Within a week of the time that you voted in the 
election, were you arrested for the possession of stolen mail ? 

Mr. ScHLANGER, I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what your experience 
has been that M^arranted your being made a vice president of a team- 
ster local ? 

Mr. ScHLANGER. I must refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here is a document showing Martin 
Schlanger as vice president, ancl this is a document certifying Mar- 
tin Schlanger as eligible to vote in the joint council election. The 
vote was cast with these credentials and the vote was cast for John 
O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. I present to the witness exhibit 65 and ask him to 
examine that document and state if he identifies it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Schlanger. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I present to you another document, dated February 
2, 1956, a letter from Abraham Brier to joint council 16 on the sta- 
tionery of local 362. I will ask you to examine that and state if you 
identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Schlanger. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. Schlanger. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit 109. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 109'', for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4873.) 

The Chairman. Is that your name on the document ? 

Mr. Schlanger. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is there about it that would incriminate you ? 

Mr. Schlanger. It might. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us what there is about it that might 
incriminate you? 

Mr. Schlanger. Again, I must refuse to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, when we first interviewed Mr. 
Schlanger, he was more cooperative, and at that time he told us that 
he had never heard of local 362 of the teamsters, that he had never 
been elected an officer nor attended any meetings of local 362, that 
he had never heard of Roosevelt Auditorium where the election was 
held and where the vote was cast in his name, and he never partici- 
pated in any union election. We learned that he had been arrested 
on February 20, 1956, by postal inspectors, and pleaded guilty and 
was sentenced to 9 months for the possession of stolen mail. He was 
arrested three times in 1955 for gambling with a device and in 1956 
for bribery. 

Would you make any comment on that, Mr. Schlanger ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4551 

Mr. ScHLANGER. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairmajst. Is there any statement here reported by the in- 
vestigators of the committee that has been read to you, is there any- 
thing in that statement that is untrue ? 

Mr. ScHLAisTGER. I must refuse to answer on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Did you discuss with Mr. Curcio your testimony 
before this committee? 

Mr. ScHLANGER. I must refuse to answer on the grounds it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, there is an indication that our 
records show that the witness voted in the election and voted for a 
certain individual. 

O'Rourke, was that? 

Mr. Kennedy. The vote was cast for John O'Kourke, with his 
credentials. 

Senator McNamara. Was this a recorded vote ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. It was 1 of the 42 votes that was impounded. 

Senator McNamara. Then it was not a secret ballot ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a secret ballot, yes. These votes were 
segregated. 

Senator McNamara. How do we identify the individual with the 
vote? 

Mr. Kennedy. The way we can do it is by the fact that there were 
42 credentials and 42 votes cast with the credentials, and the 42 votes 
matched up and were cast for John O'Kourke. There were 42 that 
were questioned, and the 42 votes that were cast with these credentials 
were all cast for John O'Rourke. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all of Mr. Schlanger. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Are there more questions of these witnesses ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

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

(Members present at this point: Senators McNamara and Mundt.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the next witness in connection with 
this matter is Mr. Joseph Meglino. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Meglino, please. 

Will you raise your right hand ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Meglino. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH MEGLINO 

Senator McNamara. State your name, address, place of business or 
occupation. 

Mr. Meglino. Joseph Meglino, 135 Eidge Street, New York, N. Y. 
Senator McNamara. Your business or occupation? 



4552 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that 
the question asked me may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is not really any reason — we are not going- 
into your whole career. ]Mr. Meglino. I just want to find out about 
the voting in the election as you told the investigators, and there is 
nothing that could possibly incriminate you. 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an attorney? 

Mr. Meglino. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no reason for you to take the fifth amend- 
ment as far as we have any information. You can answer the ques- 
tions as the first two witnesses did. We are not going into any of the 
other of the rest of your career. 

Do you want to advise with your attorney and we will call someone 
else first ? 

Mr. Meglino. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Meglino appeared on the original charter of 
Local 102, UAW-AFL. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the' 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time you knew" nothing about local 102, did 
you, Mr. Meglino ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true that you told the committe that at the 
time this charter was issued 3^011 were on a traveling crap game and 
could not have been around ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Meglino, you appear as recording secretary of 
local 651 of the teamsters. Could you tell us how you became re- 
cording secretary ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Were you not standing outside of Joe Sand's Bar 
and Grill one day, and either Ciircio or Baker — did you not tell our 
investigator that either Mr. Curcio or Mr. Baker came by and said, 
"Come on down, we are going to vote for John O'Rourke" ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you knew nothing about John O'Eourke at the 
time ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And that you knew nothing about local 651 or tlie 
fact that you w^ere recording secretary :' 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4553 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you not tell us also that this was the only 
participation that you had in any union affairs, in casting a vote for 
John O'Rourke in this election? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, here in exhibit 62 it lists Mr. Meglino 
as recording secretary for local 6.51, and the letter requests that he 
be seated as a delegate. 

Here is the credential for Mr. Joseph Meglino, which states that he 
iis an executive board member. 

The Chairman. I present to you this document. It is dated Febru- 
ary 2, 1956, from Nathan Gordon, secretary-treasurer, local 651, ad- 
dressed to the Joint Council No. 16. I ask you to examine that docu- 
ment and state if you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Meglino. I have examined the paper. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The truth is you never heard of that document be- 
fore, did you ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you under some intimidation ? Are you afraid 
of some of these folks over here? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you been threatened ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. What happened since the time that you talked to 
our investigators? You talked to them freely, frankly, fully, and 
honestly. Now you are afraid to talk. What happened between the 
time that you talked to our investigators and now that you are mi- 
willing to talk now and were willing to talk then ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. It is quite obvious that something happened to 
change your mind. 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that it mayjtend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. How long ago was it that you were interviewed 
by our investigators ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. If this committee can relieve you of the fear or 
the threats which have been made against you, would you then be will- 
ing to talk again as you did then ? 

Mr. Meglino. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Stand aside. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, McNamara, 
and Mundt.) 



4554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, KJENNEDT. We have another witness, Mr. Chairman, on this 
same matter, Mr. Anthony Barbera. 

The Chairman. You will 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. Barbera. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY BAHBERA 

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

Mr. Barbera. Anthony Barbera, 208 Stanton Street, New York 
City. I drive a truck for Eapture, Inc., in Long Island. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

You have elected to waive counsel ? 

Mr. Barbera. Yes. I don't need no counsel, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barbera, according to the documents we have, 
you are listed as a trustee for local 258 in the election that was held 
for the election of the president of joint council 16. Could you tell 
the committee the circumstances under which you became the trustee 
for local 258 ? 

Mr. Barbera. Well, some time ago, Mr. George Baker, a friend of 
mine, asked me if it is all right to use my name on the charter. He 
was going to secure a charter. So I says "O. K." 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was the end of it? 

Mr. Barbera. No. Sometime later they said something about an 
election. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Where were you at the time ? 

Mr. Barbera. I was in bad shape. I was drunk at the time, and I 
don't know whether I went with them or didn't go with them. It is 
a funny coincidence, but that is just the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were outside of Joe Sand's 

Mr. Barbera. I was in the bar drinking and I heard them talking 
about an election and I went up some place and I don't know whether 
I voted or not. That is the truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did a whole group go up to vote? 

Mr. Barbera. I can't say how many, but there were some people. 

Mr. Kennedy. They sort of cleared out the bar and everybody 
went up and voted ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, there were still plenty of customers at the bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^^iat bar was this ? 

Mr. Barbera. Joe Sand's. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know whether you voted or not? 

Mr. Barbera. No. I couldn't give you a correct answer. I don't 
want to say yes or no, as I may be lying. I want to tell you the truth. 
I i-emember going to the place where they vote. 

Mr. Kennedy. You remember going to the place? 

Mr. Barbera. We went somewhere, on 14th Street somewhere. I 
don't know exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you vote for? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4555 

Mr. Barbera. I don't know if I voted, so I don't know who I voted 
for. 

The Chairman. The document that was presented to Joseph 
Meglino will be made exhibit No. 110. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 110," for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4874.) 

The Chairman. I hand you exhibit No. 15, and ask you to examine 
it and state whether you are familiar with this document, please, 
sir. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Barbera. Well, the first time I saw this document was when 
Mr. Tierney, from the subcommittee, showed it to me and I told him 
that is the time, probably, I was asked to be a charter member, and 
that must be it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not a charter member. That makes you 
an officer. 

Mr. Barbera. Well, I didn't know that. 

The Chairman. Now I present to you a letter dated February 2, 
signed by Plarry Davidoif, secretary-treasurer of local 258, and ask 
you to examine it and state whether you know anything about it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Barbera. I have no knowledge about this document, gentleman. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 111. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 111," for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 4875.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That last document, Mr. Chairman, is the creden- 
tial of Mr. Barbera. A vote was cast based on these credentials and 
the vote was impounded, and it was found to be cast for Mr. Jolin 
O'Rourke. 

Do you know John O'Rourke ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what kind of an election you were 
going to ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, I didn't have no knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think it might have been a political elec- 
tion ? Did you know" it was a union election ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, it wasn't political. I knew it was pertaining to 
a union. That is, some officer. That is all I remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you Imow what kind of a union ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know it was teamsters ? 

Mr. Barbera. No* sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever do anything else in your capacity as 
trustee aside from leaving the bar that day to go up and vote ? 

Mr, Barbera. I don't get what you want to ask me, sir. 

Senatotr Mundt. Did you ever do anything else as trustee, fulfill 
any other functions or assume any other responsibility ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, sir. I never heard from it no more and don't 
know what happened. 

Senator Mundt. Your career as trustee was limited to leaving 
Sand's bar and going with a bunch of fellows and you do not know 
what happened? 

Mr. Barbera. No, sir, I don't know what happened. 

Senator IMundt. Who went with you? 



4556 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bakbera. I don't know. A few people went up. Mr. Baker, 
1 don't think, even was with me. 

Senator Mundt. He was not with you ? 

Mr. Barbera. No. A few people went up. I was embarrassed, 
that it all. I can't remember that particular instance. I don't know 
who was with me, and I don't know if I was with anybody at all. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot remember who suggested you go to 
vote ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, sir. I just heard people talking about voting and 
I went somewheres and that is all I remember. 

Senator Mundt. Going back now to a happier day when you were 
cold sober and Mr. Baker, your friend, said "Do you mind being a 
trustee of a union" 

Mr. B.VRBERA. No, he never approached me as being a trustee. He 
said, "I want to use your name as a charter member" and that is all. 
I didn't know what capacity or what. I said it was O. K. I know 
him as a reputable union official for years, and I couldn't see any 
harm in it, so I gave him permission. 

Senator Mundt. He did not tell you why he wanted to use your 
name and you did not ask him ? 

Mr. Barbera. No, I didn't ask him. I knew he wouldn't do any- 
thing to hurt me. 

Senator Mundt. Did you belong to his union l 

Mr. Barbera. I didn't know the union, he said the charter 

Senator Mundt. You said you knew him in the union. 

Mr. Barbera. No, I knew him in the neighborhood, '\^^len I came 
out of the Navy, that is when I knew him. 

Senator Mundt. You knew he was in a union. 

Mr. Barbera. Well, I knew he had the job, I didn't know what kind. 
He was a union official of some kind. 

Senator Mundt. You are a miion member as a truckdriver; are 
you not ? 

Mr. Barbera. Well, it is not a truckdriver. I am a union member 
of the shop where I am now. I am the only one that drives a truck. 
The whole shop has a truck and I am a member. 

Senator Mundt. Which union is that ? 

Mr. Barbera. Local 362 of the teamsters. 

Senator Mundt. Of the teamsters ? 

Mr. Barbera. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

You may stand aside. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Barbera. Thank you. 

(Members present at this i)oint: Senators McClellan, McNamara, 
and Mundt.) 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CURCIO AND GEORGE BAKER, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, ARNOLD COHEN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Curcio, could you give the committee any ex- 
planation as to how this was handled, the election ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have your certification, a certification for Joseph 
Curcio to vote in the election, also. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4557 

The Chairman. I present to you a document dated February 2, 
1956, signed by Joseph Curcio, addressed to jomt council No. 16, and 
it is on local 269 stationery. 

I ask you to examine the documents and state if you recognize it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. CuRCio. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it ? 

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

The Chairman. Whose signature is on it ? 

Mr. CuRCio. I must decline to answer on the ground it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who certified you as entitled to vote in that elec- 
tion ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must decline to answer on the grounds that it might 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 112, that document. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 112" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4876.) 

Mr. Kennedy. These teamster paper locals were all set up in order 
to influence the election, to decide the election in favor of John 
O'lvourke in New York; were they not? 

^Ir. Curcio. I must decline to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you discussed that with Johnny Dio, did you ? 

Mr. Curcio. I must decline to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And John McNamara ? 

jMr. Curcio. I must decline to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you know that M)-. Hoila was behind all 
of this? 

JMr. Curcio. I must decline to answer on the grounds it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. I^nnedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Baker, Mr. Barbera has said — I am not sure 
whether he said he knew you in the Navy or knew you when you came 
out of the Navy. Were you in the Navy? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question on the grounds 
that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think we should insist on an 
answer to that question. This is one that can place him directly in 
contempt of Congress because there is nothing incriminating about 
being in the Navy. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. This is just not a traveling road show we are 
running or vaudeville. There are certain times when you can use 
the fifth amendment and other times when you can obviously not 
use the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohen. Would Senator Mundt ask the question again? 

Senator Mundt. Were you in the Navy? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, Mr. Senator, I enlisted. 



89330— 57— pt. 12- 



4558 IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES ES^ THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. And did you receive an honorable discharge from 
the Navy? 

Mr. Baker. An honorable medical discharge. 

Senator Mundt. What year? 

Mr. Baker. Somewhere between 1944—1 don't know. Somewhere 
around that year. 

Senator MuNDT. Approximately 1944? 

Mr. Baker. Approximately. 

Senator Mundt. At that time you went back into union activities ; 
did you? 

Mr. Baker. I must decline to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you wounded in the w^ar? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. I was not wounded, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We put in your criminal record. Is there anything 
about your Navj^ record that you want to put in, also ? 

Mr. Baker. Nothing, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

The witnesses may stand aside. Call the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. For this morning? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 11 :45 a. m., the hearing in the above-entitled 
matter was recessed to reconvene at 2 p. m., of the same day.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess : Senators McClellan, 
McNamara, and Mundt.) 

aeternoon session 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. Some few days ago, on August 3, I received a 
telegram from IMr. Marshall M. Miller, of 1790 Broadway, New York 
City, who addressed me as chairman of the committee and said that 
he was shocked at certain testimony that had been given before the 
committee and demanded: 

That your committee afford me the opportunity to refute these charges and 
clear my name and permit me to give testimony about the true facts and in- 
formation which will aid the committee in its problem to eliminate racketeering 
and slave labor. 

I understand Mr. Miller is here today. Is he present? Is Mr. 
Marshall Miller here? 

Will you come around, please? 

The Chair makes this observation : We are giving Mr. Miller the 
opportunity to testify. It will be out of order of the general trend 
of tlie investigation now underway. But this was as early as we 
could accommodate him very well. 

So if Mr. Miller wishes to testify at this time, we will gi-ant him 
that opportunity. 

Mr. Miller, do you wish to testify? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4559 

APPEARANCE OF MARSHALL M. MILLER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JACOB P. LEPKOWITZ 

Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Chairman, I am counsel to Mr, Miller. 

The Chairman. Will you identify yourself , E>lease, sir ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. My name is Jacob P. Lefkowitz, of 150 Broadway, 
New York City. 

On behalf of Mr. Miller I want to thank the committee for thiy 
opportunity extended to him pursuant to the telegram which he sent 
to you and which you have read at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I didn't read all of it. I just referred to it. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. And to which you had made reference Monday 
directly after receipt of the telegram. 

As a member of the bar, I wish to certainly express my gratitude 
because it is in the best traditions of American justice. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to apprise you of this fact, that 
after the testimony before this committee on August 2 last, on Au- 
gust 3 Mr. Miller, who was the consultant to the Joint Legislative 
Committee of the State of New York, on labor and industry, was 
summarily fired. In his indignation at that time he immediately sent 
a telegram to your committee and requested and demanded that he be 
heard, and made the same request to the joint legislative committee. 

But Mr. Chairman, after these days of calm and a certain amount 
of serene quiet, Mr. Miller has received a letter from the chairman 
of the committee which expressed the possibility of beinir heard at a 
subsequent date before that committee. At this time, Mr. Miller re- 
spectfully asks to withdraw his request of being heard before this 
committee. He is doing that with the understanding and it is his 
intention to present and have aired any and all of these charges be- 
fore the joint legislative committee of the State of New York. 

The Chairman. He does expect to testify before the Joint Legis- 
lative Committee of the State of New York ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. He wishes now, as I understand you, to withdraw 
his request to be heard by this committee? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. The telegram demanded, and he withdraws the 
"demand" too ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. That is right, we withdraw the demand as well as 
the request. In the interest of Mr. Miller's career, in which he is 
engaged, and thes» charges, and after all he lost his job, and he is 
seeking to have the possibility of continuance, and that would be 
the more proper place to have such a hearing. 

The Chairman. Let us understand this. The request addresses 
itself to the committee and I will submit it to the committee. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. It is an unqualified request, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That would mean that possibly other testimony 
will be heard and I don't know whether you think you would want 
to renew the request again or not. But when we accommodate some- 
one, we hope they have their mind made up as to what they wish 
to do. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I appreciate every word you are saying. In the 
same vein I submit to you the chronological order of these events and 



4560 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

1 respectfully ask that you permit the withdrawal of the demand 
heretofore made. 

The CiiAiRMAiSr. What does the committee think ? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I know something about the situa- 
tion there in New York State to which the counsel has referred. In 
the first place, there is no such committee as the counsel specified. I 
wish you would name it correctly. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I will be happy to. Senator. I have here a letter, 
Senator Ives, which bears the caption, "State of New York, Joint 
Legislative Committee on Industrial and Labor Conditions." 

Senator Ites. That is quite a different title from the one you used. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I am sorry, sir, this is the committee I have ref- 
erence to. 

Senator Ives. There is that committee, and that I am acquainted 
with it. I would suggest as far as I am concerned, that this is a 
legislative matter primarilj^ dealing with the State of New York. 

I would suggest to the distinguished chairman of this committee 
that if Mr. Miller is excused, and I have some very pertinent ques- 
tions I would like to ask Miller that might be very embarrassing to 
him if I did, he be excused with the understanding that he is not 
to be allowed to come back here for any purpose again unless we 
call him. 

The Chairman. The Chair has conferred with counsel and it is my 
purpose to subpena Mr. Miller to return at such time as we may need 
him. I am advised that his testimony may become important to 
this committee, whether it is voluntarily given or whether his pres- 
ence is required by a subpena, so the Chair has ordered the subpena 
prepared. 

We will make the subpena returnable forthwith and then I will 
place the witness under recognizance to appear at a later date. 

The Chair is advised — and this makes it a little more complicated — 
that Mr. Miller submitted under the rules of the Senate, a prepared 
statement which he intended to read and which was in conformity 
with the rules of the Senate. 

On the strength of that, counsel advises we have subpenaed some 
witnesses here from New York for the purpose of following up on 
this testimony. How many witnesses have we ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Since Mr. Miller sent the telegram about a week 
ago, we have conferred with Mr. Miller and we have gone through 
his books and records and we have had a number of investigators 
consulting with him and some of his clients and we have had these 

2 or 3 investigators working for a period of a week. 

We have about 4 or 5 affidavits and we have 3 or 4 witnesses who 
are prepared to testify in connection with the statements that Mr. 
Miller is going to, or was going to, make before the committee under 
oath. I have advised the attorney that the testimony that these 
witnesses will give and the affidavits are somewhat contradictory to 
the statements that Mr. Miller was prepared to make under oath be- 
fore the committee. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Miller has 
voluntarily cooperated and submitted any and all records requested 
of him by your duly designated investigators and, furthermore, that 
I am not at all prepared, and neither is Mr. Miller, to know what 
any of these witnesses may have. As you have outlined, Mr. Ken- 



IRiPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4561 

necly, in view of all of these circumstances, that is why I am making 
this request, 

Mr. IvENNEDT. I would like to say that the attorney for Mr. Miller 
has been most cooperative, and we have had a conversation about this 
before. But we have done this work in the period of the past week, 
and we do have this information that, perliaps, does reflect adversely 
on Mr. Miller. In fact, witliout any question, it reflects adversely, 
as I have advised you. They are in connection, I might say, both 
with his duties or his work as an attorney and also in connection 
with his duties as an investigator to the legislative committee in New 
York. 

The Chairman". Well, the Chair is going to let the witness stand 
aside for the present. In the meantime, we will proceed with what- 
ever we have. You come down here to testify voluntarily, and, if 
you do not want to testify voluntarily, of course, that is your privi- 
lege. I am going to grant the request to withdraw the demand and 
request to be heard, but I want to place the witness under subpena 
and under recognizance to reappear and give your testimony at such 
time as this committee may desire it. If you will agree to do that 
without being resubpenaed, upon reasonable request of time and notice 
to him or to his counsel, I am going to let him stand aside. Otherwise, 
we will proceed to swear him and take his testimony. 

Is that satisfactory. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. It is all right with me. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Mr. Chairman, I have heard your statement and, 
on behalf of Mr. Miller, my client, he certainly, of course, accedes and 
consents to the request you make, and will stand ready to comply with 
3^our request. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Mrs. Watt, deliver that subpena 
to the witness, please, here in the presence of the committee. 

(The document was handed to Mr. Miller by the chief clerk.) 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Miller, you will be placed under recog- 
nizance to reappear at such time as the committee may desire to hear 
you, and that will be upon reasonable notice of the time, and without 
further subpena; do you agree? 

Mr. Miller. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have this information, based on what Mr. 
Miller was going to say, and it is just a question of what you want to do 
with it. * 

The Chairman. I have not read what he was going to say, and I 
cannot pass snap judgment on it. We will have to wait a few minutes, 
at least. Let us proceed with the other testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do joii want to have the witnesses and the informa- 
tion we have on Miller presented to the committee, including the affi- 
davits and the witnesses regarding Mr. Miller's activities in New 
York? 

The Chairman. The Chair is ready to proceed. Call the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, first, Mr. Chairman, we have two 
affidavits. Mr. Miller gave a little of his background, in which he 
stated how he moved from one union to another. We have some affi- 
davits here that tell a little bit of his career. I will get those. 



4562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Now, the Chair feels that Mr. Miller has put this 
committee and the Government to some trouble and expense, I am 
going to permit the affidavits to be read, and it will give him further 
notice of information the committee has. 

I am going to permit them to be read. Do you have witnesses here 
to call? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman ; we are just trying to get organ- 
ized here. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Could we have 3 minutes of recess, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. We will take a 3-minute recess. 

(Recess.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is now advised that Mr. Miller has 
changed his mind, and he is willing to testify. 

Come around, Mr. Miller. 

Let us have order, please. 

Mr. Miller, will you be sworn, please ? 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. Miller. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAESHALL M. MILLER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JACOB P. LEFKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Mr. Miller, you submitted a statement, under the 
rules of the committee, which you said, I believe, you would like to 
read. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. You may identify yourself for the 
record. 

Mr. Miller. My name is Marshall M. Miller. I reside in the com- 
munity of Lawrence, N. Y. I have a labor relations consultant firm 
located at 1790 Broadway, New York City. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

C'ounsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question there ? 

The Chairman. Let me get the name of the counsel. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Jacob P. Lefkowitz, 150 Broadway, New York 
City. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator I\tes. Mr. Miller, I have befor me a letterhead dated Feb- 
ruary 15, 1950, which reads, "Morris Miller, labor-relations consultant, 
401 Broadway, New York 13, N. Y." Is that any relative of yours ? 

Mr. Miller. Senator, I was bom in the Borough of Brooklyn, N. Y., 
on March 9, 1912, under the name of Morris Miller. The name was 
changed officially in the courts of the city of New York about a couple 
of years ago, under the name of Marshall M. Miller. 

Senator Ives. Will you be so kind as to tell me why you had it 
changed "Morris" is a perfectly good name. 

Mr. Miller. Senator Ives, I felt that "Marshall M. Miller" wai^ a 
very good name, also. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4563 

Senator I^'es. I am not denying that, but I am just curious. What 
is the middle initial for ? 

Mr. Miller. It isn't so much the initial, but I like the name "Mar- 
shall" in preference to "Morris." 

Senator Ives. You know, I am named "Irving," and there are names 
I can think of that I might like to have. I would like to know what 
your real reason was for changing your name. 

Mr. Miller. I might say that that is the only reason. Senator. I 
have used the name "Marshall" at times going back to 1949 or 1948, 
when I was a director of organization for the American Federation 
of Labor ; that is, one of its affiliates. I had used the name, depend- 
ing on the climatic conditions as to what part of the country I was 
in. 

Senator Ives. You mean "Morris" didn't fit some parts of the coun- 
try very well ? 

Mr. Miller. That is true, sir. 

Senator I\tes. Now tell me honestly, what parts of the country don't 
like "Morris"? 

Mr. Miller. I might say some of the southern parts that I have 
visited. 

Senator Ives. What parts ? 

Mr. Miller. Some of the southern parts of the country that I have 
visited. 

Senator Ives. Southern parts? 

Mr. Miller. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. I never knew that the southern part of the United 
States objected to the name "Morris." 

Mr. Miller, Well, they even objected to organizers, and I recall 
a beating 

Senator Ives. That has nothing to do with the name. I am talking 
about the name of a person. "Morris" is a perfectly good name. 

Mr. Miller. I agree with you. 

Senator I\'es. Well I am trying to find out why you changed it. 
You say you like "Marshall" better? 

Mr. Miller. I answered that. Senator. 

Senator I\^es. I know, but you didn't answer it to suit me. 

Go ahead. I don't want to interrupt any further, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, let us let the witness proceed. If you 
would like to read your statement, Mr. Miller, you may do so. 

Mr. Miller. This statement is made under oath, pursuant to rule 12 
of the rules of procedure of the Select Committee on Improper Ac- 
tivities in the Labor or Management Field. 

As soon as I learned of testimony before this committee by a witness 
named John McNiff on Friday, August 2, 1957, I immediately re- 
quested that this honorable committee afford me the opportunity of 
appearing before it and answering under oath what I consider to be 
one-sided and false statements about my name, character, and repu- 
tation. I have voluntarily submitted myself and my records and tax 
returns since 1949 to the investigators of this committee and have co- 
operated with their investigation fully. 

I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my very sincere grati- 
tude to this committee for this opportunity which is in the true tradi- 
tion of American justice. 



4564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I am 45 years of age, married, and reside with my wife and three 
children in Lawrence, N. Y, I maintain offices at 1790 Broadway, 
New York City, wherein I am engaged in the practice of labor rela- 
tions consultant. I have been thus engaged for the past 7 years. 

I am fortunate enough to have many companies who retain my 
services as a labor adviser and I enjoy the respect of many honest and 
truly representative labor officials. I do my utmost to carry forth my 
duties in behalf of the companies I represent to negotiate terms and 
conditions in behalf of the employers that I represent most suitable 
to them and, at the same time, consonant with proper and legitimate 
union demands and generally reach agreements that are predicated on 
ability to pay on the part of the employer and the demands that 
labor's representatives are able to extract from management. 

Prior to 1950 and for about 9 years I was employed as a rep- 
resentative of labor unions and have held various and sundry positions 
in different labor unions throughout the United States. To the best 
of my knowledge I can certify that when I represented the side of 
labor I exhausted every legal means with propriety and diligence in 
the campaign in which I was engaged in behalf of labor and, to 
attest to the truth of this statement, I can submit the following record 
which I believe speaks for itself : 

My first position with labor was that of national representative of 
the Industrial Union of Marine and Ship Building Workers, CIO, in 
or about 1941. I thereafter was elevated to the position of adminis- 
trator working directly under the then secretary-treasurer of the 
union, Philip Van Gelder. 

Thereafter I was hired as the regional director for the United 
Furniture Workers, CIO, by Morris Muster, its president, assigned to 
the Michigan area. During this period I was elected as the president 
of the Kent County, Mich., Industrial Council, and also became a 
labor panel member of the War Labor Board working out of the 
Detroit area. 

Thereafter I denounced the Communist infiltration of the union 
and resigned my position as president of the council and as regional 
director of the Furniture Workers Union, CIO, and went to work for 
the upholsterers union as a regional director. 

Also in 1946 I was the Democratic candidate for State senator of 
Michigan, under the slogan, "The only candidate openly fighting the 
Communists." 

I was elevated to assistant director of organization, and on or about 
January 1948 I was elevated to international director of organization 
for said union. In this capacity I continued until December 1949. 

When I resigned in 1946 I had no reluctance in leaving because at 
that time communism was rife in the union. As a result of my 
constant and forceful opposition to communism throughout my life, 
I suffered physical harm and, at one time, my automobile was wired 
with a bomb. 

In the latter part of 1949 the union with which I was connected was 
not permeated with communism, but this time this union was con- 
trolled and dominated with a stronger dictatorship than prevails in 
Russia. When I fired several men who were supposed to be organizers 
but were, in fact, underworld characters, I was threatened and told I 
could not fire them. When I persisted, I was framed and fired. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4565 

By that time I had enough of all union activity. My wife had just 
come out of a tubercular sanitarium and I decided to engage ni what 
I thought to be a more peaceful pursuit in the field where I could utilize 
the best of my talents, experience, and knowledge to the best advantage 
and for the most good. I commenced the practice of labor-relations 
consultant. 

I had hardly opened my office when I was visited by the resident 
counsel of the upholsterers union, who tried in every which way to 
exact a promise from me that I would not represent any employers 
under contract to the said union. 

When I refused, he said, "You know the chief with his connections 
and power. You may be sorry." My reply was, "My door will be 
open as a businessman to any employer." 

The Chairman. Would you tell us who "the chief" was ? 

Mr. Miller. The chief was Sol B. Hoffman. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller. In 1954, 1 had the good fortune to be named consultant 
to the New York State Joint Legislative Committee on Industry and 
Labor. I have served this position with dignity and honor, and have 
betrayed no trust at any time. 

Senator Ives. I would like to interrupt him there, Mr. Chairman. 
You evidently did not have very much to do with this committee or you 
would know its title. That is not the New York State Joint Legisla- 
tive Committee on Industry and Labor. It is the New York State 
Joint Legislative Committee on Industrial and Labor Conditions. 

Mr. Miller. I just shortened the terminology. 

Senator Ives. You don't do that when you are talking about the title 
of a committee. 

Mr. Miller. I am sorry. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Miller. I was fired on August 3, 1957, as a result of the testi- 
mony given before this honorable committee on August 2, 1957, by 
Mr.McNiff. 

I deny the accusations made against me. The Textile Trades Asso- 
ciation, Inc., of which I am executive director, has been made a subject 
of criticism. This association has a membership of about 25 or 26 out 
of approximately 100 shops under contract with Local 229, United 
Textile Workers of America, who are engaged in more or less the 
similar industry. Nothing contained in the mast agreement, bylaws, 
or certificate of incorporation is in anywise prejudicial or detrimental 
to our citizens of Puerto Rican origin or any other origin. And the 
purpose of this association is to maintain freedom from unjust exac- 
tions, regular conditions of employment, and maintain industrial 
peace. 

As a representative of management, I try to do the best job possible 
within the confines of propriety, law, good taste, and Judgment, to 
secure for my employer the best possible terms in any contract that 
I am called upon to negotiate. And by the same token, the union, I 
have found, tries to exact the most that the employer stands ready to 
yield to in its demands in behalf of the employees that it represents. 

On page 439 of the official stenographic minutes of the proceedings 
before this committee, on August 2, 1957, Mr. McNiff said : 

Miller has appeared to represent the Keystone Garter Co. recently. This 
company — 



4566 IMPROPER ACTnaTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and I am quoting, by the way — 

employed 60 Puerto Rican workers, and for the past 4 years has paid the dues 
of all the employees to local 138 of the distillery workers union. What the 
garter shop was doing with the distillery workers union, I don't know. 

The true facts are that I have never represented the Keystone Garter 
Co. in any contract negotiations or decertification proceedings except 
in one singular proceeding, and that was a mediation proceeding before 
the New York State Mediaton Board after a union had taken the 
workers of this shop out on strike, and I am refering to the 60 Puerto 
Rican workers who were working for the Keystone Garter Co. and the 
union which took them out on strike was Local 485 of the Industrial 
Union of Electrical Workers, CIO. 

And Mr. McNiff did not say, ""V^Hiat did the electrical workers have 
to do with a garter shop ?"' And I daresay he did not say that, because 
it was the ACTU, which he represents, which led these 60 Puerto 
Rican garter workers from Local 138 of the Distillery Workers Union 
to Local 485 of the Electrical Workers Union. 

In practically all the contracts of employei's whom I have repre- 
sented, or represent, the workers have received welfare funds, holi- 
days, vacations, and all other benefits that are generally found in good 
labor contracts. 

At page 433 of the stenographic record of the proceedings before this 
committee, on August 2, 1957, much is made about a worker from 
the Macon Umbrella Corp. who rose and stated that he had been in 
the union since 1952 and was earning only $42 weekly and, by in- 
nuendo, that I was responsible one way or another for that lowly 
salary that this worker was receiving. 

Well, at the outset, let me set the record straight : I never represented 
the Macon Umbrella Corp. in any negotiations of contract except in 
union-decertification proceedings, which was much later to the execu- 
tion of the contract. I might further state that the charge which was 
filed against the company that the worker referred to was dismissed 
for attempting to lead the workers to decertify the union, and that 
he was unjustly fired for his activity. This complaint was thoroughly 
investigated and dismissed by the National Labor Relations Board. 
And the petition which was filed in the proceedings for decertification 
was not granted, in that only 15 workers voted to decertify, and those 
did not comprise a majority. 

I wish to state at this time that, I for one, have never set myself 
up as a champion of any particular class or creed of our citizenry. I 
have always believed, and believe nov7, in equal opportunity for all at 
all times. 

Mr. McNiff makes it appear, by his testimony, that members of 
unions are kept from meetings or are not informed of the need to 
participate in meetings or are deprived of their right to be present 
at meetings. The truth of the matter is that many union members 
do not take the trouble to learn the need of attending union meetings 
and participating with their fellow workers in the best interests for 
themselves. 

Victor Riessel wrote a whole column recently on the failure of union 
members to attend meetings and participating in union activities. 

At page 438 of the official stenographic minutes of August 2, 1957^ 
of this committee, the charge is made by Mr. McNiff : 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4567 

He was fired by the union for making collusive deals with employers in 1949. 
Immediately, he went into business as a management consultant. Approached 
and was hired by many of the employers with whom he had made deals in the 
past. 

This is wholly untrue. 

The truth is that I did not represent in any manner, shape, or form, 
directly, indirectly, or otherwise, any employer who had any dealings 
whatsoever with the Upholsters International Union. It wasn't until 
about 5 years after engaging in my present business of labor-relations 
consultant that I obtained my first client, who had contract relations 
with the Upholsterers International Union. And, to this very day, 
I have had a total of one client who has relations with such union. 

In any event, I don't represent unions; I don't receive any com- 
pensation from any union, directly or otherwise. My interests and 
my income is derived solely from employers. In my work as a labor 
consultant, I represent an employer with whatever union he may have 
have dealings. 

I know many labor officials. With those that I know and, in par- 
ticular, the ones mentioned by ]\Ii\ McNili' in his testimony before the 
committee, there has never been any collusion between myself and 
them and I have never i-eceived any compensation from them nor 
have I, in return, given them any compensation, directly or indirectly. 
I have never had any dealings with Dio or any of the paper locals 
stemming from him or through him, to the best of my knowledge. 

I must, however, for the record, state that consonant with existing 
social and business practices, I have from time to time, been called 
upon for advertisements in souvenir journals at union affairs, none 
of which, I believe, have exceeded $100, and have been invited on 
occasion to union dimiers for which I had to purchase tickets and at 
other times have been the invited guest to the celebration of some 
family function of some labor official or clients, at which time I would 
give an appropriate gift.. I also have, on 1 or 2 instances, spent a 
holiday weekend with labor officials at a resort hotel at my expense. 

Also, on 1 or 2 occasions I was called by a labor organization for the 
purpose of endeavoring to mediate a long drawn out and stalemated 
labor strike and was paid the expense for travel to and from the loca- 
tion where the strike was taking place, plus my day's expense. 

Further, insofar as the aspersion of any possible collusion between 
myself and Mr. Katz of Local 229, United Textile Workers of America, 
I have no continuing retainer with any employers who have contracts 
with Mr. Katz' union, Local 229, United Textile Workers of America, 
and that the fees that I have charged for representation was not on a 
retainer basis, but on a one matter representation at a low fee. 

There is only one company with which I have had a retainer for 
about 4 years at $100 a month. I was hired by the company after an 
interview by its attorney, and that is the only and singular client on 
a retainer basis with Katz' union, local 229. 

My new position as executive director of United Textile Trade 
Association, Inc., wliich has contract relations with local 229, com- 
menced in Janiiary 3957, and consists of a membership, 26 in number, 
at a retainer Avith the association predicated at $100 a year per member 
which includes, however, secretarial, mailing, and office facilities to 
be furnished at my expense. 



4568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

By the same tokeii I have other clients on regular retainer basis for 
many years whose fees run from $60 a month to over $500 per month 
with other unions. 

In the New York Journal- American of August 7, 1957, Mr. McNiff 
is quoted as saying : 

We try to get 30 percent of the workers to sign a petition to stop paying union 
dues. Once that's done, we can start working to get a legitimate union into the 
shop. 

Mr. McNiff, to my knowledge, has been using Local 485, lUE, to 
so-call liberate the workers. Apparently he is unaware that three 
of the union officers of this local were cited by the Senate Internal 
Security Committee as being Communists as recently as several days 

From the overall picture of his testimony before the committee, it 
is made to appear that I have in some way been instrumental in creat- 
ing or maintaining a condition whereby dishonest labor officials can 
create labor strife at the cost and expense of the poor worker and/or 
em])loyer. 

The facts are these : In the State of New York the law provides no 
means for enjoining or preventing organizational picketing, commonly 
known as educational picketing, as long as it is conducted in a peaceful 
manner. 

This is a condition that has existed, is existing, and will continue to 
exist until such time as the law is amended. It is a maxim that almost 
any employer would much rather his shop be without a union than 
with a union. 

The law, being such as it is, any union, good or evil, honest or dis- 
honest, can come along even before the employer has commenced opera- 
tions and demand a contract with his union and if his demands are 
not met he can throw a picket line around the employer's premises. 

In most instances the mere threat of a picket line is fatal to the con- 
tinuance of a business. This is sufficient to have the employer capitu- 
late to the union's request for a contract. 

Some unions do not even afford the opportunity to negotiate and 
they present outrageous demands and an employer would rather close 
his business if he had to sign with them. And it must be noted that 
when said union make such demands in almost all instances they do not 
have any representation whatsoever of the employees of the shop. 

Yet, the employer is utterly helpless except for proceedings before 
the labor boards which cannot enjoin the threatened trouble. The 
employer faces almost certain extinction unless he signs. 

Faced with such a dilemma, the employer is compelled to seek out 
some union w^ho will give him a greater consideration in its demands 
and sign with them. The niceties, the legalities are brushed aside 
by such employer and by such union and that applies to all unions, 
good or bad, because in this dilema the employer has no choice or 
remedy at law. 

Since the law provides no means of recourse against such acts he 
is compelled to seek refuge. 

On this cesspool of economic strife, the honest labor union moves 
forward with ever greater strength because it is so much easier for 
them to sign up new and greater members of shops via this very 
convenient but paradoxical painful method to the employer of educa- 
tion and/or organizational picketing. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4569 

And this same route provides the widest avenue and the most 
wonderful approach for the dishonest, unethical and criminal ele- 
ment in the labor movement to rush in and fill this vacuum of law by 
providing succor and obvious assistance to the employer who is help- 
less in the light of absence of law. 

On this same subject, the law provides no relief to an employer 
who suddenly finds himself with demands from a wholly foreign or 
strange union who makes demands upon him when actually such 
union has no representation whatsoever amongst the employees. 

Actually, there is no dispute of any nature or kind possible between 
such employer and such union, but, nevertheless, on the morning 
thereafter, lo and behold, pickets appear with signs reading, "This 
shop unfair to organized labor," and even though such miion knows 
that the legend carried on the sign is false, that the demands made 
upon the employer are groundless and that they, the union, represent 
no one or perhaps a small minority in the shop of such employer, 
they are nevertheless certain about the law. 

The law provides no means of enjoining such strife. And these 
same labor officials know that if the employer shall retain a lawyer 
or a labor-relations consultant to take steps before the Labor Rela- 
tions Board, these cases will linger on the calendar of the labor boards 
indefinitely and, at the same time, sufficient time is gained for them 
to slowly but surely throttle the employer and force him to his knees. 

As consultant to the New York State Joint Legislative Committee 
on Industrial and Labor Conditions, I have time and again cham- 
pioned and urged the amendment of the civil practice act of the State 
of New York to eliminate thereby, this evil practice of educational 
and organizational picketing, the very vehicle which is used so success- 
fully by any and all unions to the detriment of management and law 
and the general welfare of the community. 

The organization of commerce and industry has appeared before 
the committee and urged the same thing. As recent as July 16-17, 
1957, at a conference of the committee held in Lake Placid, N. Y., No. 
5 of the agenda before the conunittee had : 

Proposed amendments to the civil practice act in relation to the definition of 
a labor dispute. 

At this conference I again urged the change of the law to eliminate 
this evil practice which fosters evil and upon which the criminal ele- 
ment in the labor unions thrive and grow fat. 

Eliminate this type of labor strife, namely, the fiction or "Unfair 
to organized labor" picketing, organizational and/or educational 
picketing and you can with one stroke eliminate the avenue through 
which the criminal elements in labor march within the full light of 
the law and to the utter detriment of the good and welfare of society. 

Time and again I have urged the removal of unions from the in- 
surance business. I firmly believe in welfare benefit plans for all 
workers. And I further believe that the employer shall pay for 
same. 

His payments, however, should be made directly to the insurance 
companies and not to the unions. In so doing, every dollar the em- 
ployer contributes would buy one dollar's worth of the maximum 
benefits available. When the union buys it, the union retains the 
di\ddends and only 40 to 70 cents of the dollar is spent to buy these 
benefits for the workers. 



4570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The balance remains in the union treasuries, thus amassing mil- 
lions of dollars, creating fat union bank accounts but not fat welfare 
benefits for the workers which the employer is paying for. 

In all my years as a labor-relations consultant to management, I 
have always tried to secure the maximum in wages and working con- 
ditions for the employees of my clients within the employer's ability 
to pay for the maintenance of maximum production and industrial 
peace. 

The Chairman". All right, sir, is there anything you wish to add to 
it? 

Mr. Miller. I have nothing to add, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Counsel, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a couple of questions on the United Textile 
Trade Association. You represent them, do you ? 

Mr. Miller. As executive director, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that association is made up of how many 
shops ? 

Mr. Miller. Twenty-five or twenty-six. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they have a contract with local 229 ? 

Mr. Miller. They have a master contract with local 229. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who is the head of local 229 ? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Archie Katz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, have you ever represented Mr. Katz? 

Mr. Miller. I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever held yourself out as a representative 
of Mr. Katz? 

Mr. Miller. I have never held myself out to represent Mr. Katz. 
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Katz has an attorney who is on an 
annual retainer with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have never held yourself out as representing 
Mr. Katz. 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Kennedy, if you are referring to my appearance 
on the TV program, I will say to you that I did appear on a Spanish 
TV program. 

Mr. Kennedy. xVs a representative of Mr. Katz ? 

Mr. Miller. Not as a representative of Mr. Katz. I appeared 
there. I was asked to appear and I appeared. 

Mr. Kennedy. But not representing Mr. Katz ? 

Mr. Miller. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know. 

Mr. Miller. I went there with a couple of doctors. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hold yourself out as a representative of 
Mr. Katz at that time ? 

Mr. Miller. Not to my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know whether you liad or not. 

Mr. Miller. No, I don't, not to my recollection. 

INIr. Kennedy. Did you hold yourself out as a representative of 
local 229 at that time ? 

Mr. Miller. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that you might have ? 

Mr. Miller. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, you were representing the employers 
with that local and I would think you would know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4571 

Mr. Miller. I did not go down there to represent employers either. 
I was asked to appear on TV and I appeared. If George Meany 
would ask me to appear on TV tomorrow, I would appear with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who asked you to appear ? 

Mr. Miller. I think Mr. Katz asked me to go down there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What fee do you receive from these employers ? 

Mr. Miller. The members of the association, you are talking 
about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. $100 per member for the year. 

Mr. Kennedy. $2,400 for the year ? 

Mr. Miller. There are 26 members and I would get $2,600 for the 
year, and I have been retained just for 1 year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have just a few more ques- 
tions on this. We have a number of affidavits. Starting on j)age 2, 
on Mr. Miller's statement he said : 

Therefore, I was hired as regional director for the United Furniture Workers, 
CIO, by Morris Muster, its president, assigned to the Michigan area. During 
this period I was elected as president of tlie Kent County, Mich., Industrial 
Council, and also became a labor panel member of the War Labor Board work- 
ing out of the Detroit area. 

Thereafter, I denounced the Communist infdtration of the union and I re- 
signed my position as president of the council and as regional director of the 
Furniture Workers, CIO, and I went to work for the upholsterers union as a 
regional director. 

Also in 1946 I was the Democratic candidate for State senator of Michigan, 
under the slogan, "The only candidate openly fighting the Communists." 

We have an affidavit on this first statement of Mr. Miller's, Mr. 
Chairman. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Stephen Dunn. 

The Chairman. I am going to ask counsel to read the affidavit, Mr. 
Miller. You may pay attention to it. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

I, Stephen F. Dunn, being first duly sworn 

The Chairman. Do you know Stephen F. Dunn ? 

Mr. Miller. I recall the name of Stephen F. Dunn. Stephen F. 
Dunn was an attorney to the best of my recollection, representing 
furniture manufacturers at the time that I was in charge of the or- 
ganizational campaign in his area, and I have known him to be op- 
posed to every conceivable paragraph in a labor agreement. 

The Chairman.*! just wanted to know if you knew him just as a 
way of checking to see whether he knows anything or not. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

I, Stephen F. Dunn, being first duly sworn, depose and say : 

While practicing law in Grand Rapids, Mich., I was acquainted with one 
Morris Miller, whom I am informed now is known as Marshall Miller. 

When he first arrived in Grand Rapids, 2 or 3 years prior to 1946, he held an 
office with the United Furniture Workers of America, CIO. I represented 
certain employers in the furniture industry in Grand Rapids, having union 
contracts with the United Furniture Workers, CIO. 

Therefore, I had a course of dealings with said Miller continuously over a 
period of 2 or 3 years. 

In 1946, I heard that Miller was leaving the United Furniture Workers. CIO, 
and was going to work for the Upholsterers International Union, AFL. Shortly 
after I heard this rumor, said Miller came to my law office. He told me that 



4572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

he had deliberately left the United Furniture Workers, CIO, without giving 
them any notice, as he thought he could make more money if he could make a 
deal with the Upholsterers International Union, AFL. 

He told me that he had pomised the president of said UIU-AFL union 
that, if that union would "make it worth his while" that he, Miller, could 
deliver all the furniture plants having UFW-CIO contracts, as he, Miller, 
controlled the situation and would deliver the plants regardless of the wishes 
of the workers. 

He did not then say to me that he was leaving the CIO because of alleged 
communism within that organization. 

Miller then said, in effect, that he had the employers just where he wanted 
them. He said that "muscle men" and "trigger men" would be brought into 
Grand Rapids and western Michigan would see the bloodiest and worst juris- 
dictional union tight which ever occurred. 

He indicated that he knew he could not make good on his promise to the 
UIU-AFL, that he knew there would be jurisdictional disputes, but that he 
had left the UFW-CIO, and was now on the payroll of the UIU-AFL. 

He said that it would be worth a lot to the employers for him to leave town 
so as to "avoid all this trouble" and he asked me, in effect, "how much it would 
be worth to the employers to get him out of town." 
I, in effect, asked him how long it would take him to get out of my oflSce. 
A short time thereafter, after unsuccessfully trying to deliver all the CIO 
furniture plants to the AFL, Miller left Grand Rapids. I then heard that he 
was discharged by the UIU-AFL, and no longer was connected with the labor- 
union movement. 
Further, I say not. 

(Signed) Stephen F. Dunn. 
Washington, 

District of Columbia, ss: 
The foregoing affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th 
day of August 1957. 

[seal] (Signed) Virginia Talbott, Notary Public. 

My commission expires on December 15, 1957. 

Mr. Chairman, we then have some affidavits. Mr. Miller states over 
here : 

I was elevated to assistant director or organization, and on or about .lanuary 
1948 I was elevated to international director of organization for said union. 
In this capacity, I continued until December 1949. In the latter part of 1949, 
the union with which I was connected was not permeated with Communists, 
but this time this union was controlled and dominated with a stronger dictator- 
ship than prevailed in Russia. When I fired several men who were supposed to 
be organizers, but who were, in fact, underworld characters, when they per- 
sisted, I was framed and fired. 

Mr. Chairman, we have 2 or 3 affidavits and some letters in con- 
nection with Mr. Miller's next employment, where he says he was 
framed and fired. 

The Chairman. You may read this affidavit. 

Mr. Kenxedy. This, Mr. Chairman, is the next employment of Mr. 
Miller. It is from Arthur G. McDowell, director of civic education. 

[Reads :] 

Mr. Arthur G. McDowell, director of civic education and governmental affairs 
for the Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFI^CIO, duly 
sworn, deposes and states : 

I make this statement at the request of Mr. Leo C. Nulty, known to me to 
be an investigator for the United States Senate select committee investigating 
into the improper activities of labor and management. 

Senator Mundt. Let us find out, first, whether Mr. Miller knows 
Arthur G. McDowell. 

Mr. Miller. Arthur G. McDowell is the man I replaced, who, at 
the time I was working for the union, was director of organization. 
I had taken his place. I do know him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4573 

Senator Mundt. You knew him at that time ? 
Mr. Miller. I do, Senator. 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

This statement is made of my own free will, without any promise of favor 
or immunity. I have been informed and realize that this statement may be 
used and introduced into evidence in a public hearing before the United States 
Senate select committee investigating the improper activities of labor and man- 
agement, and swear that the statements contained herein are true. 

Morris Miller, who is also known as Marshall M. Miller, was employed by the 
upholsterers union as an organizer under my direct supervision from 1946 until 
about January 1948, from January 1948 until December 12, 1949. Miller was 
organization director of the union, at which time I was administrative assistant 
to the president, Mr. Sal B. Hoffman. The last few months of Miller's employ- 
ment in this capacity by the union, he was engaged in organization work for the 
union in New York, N. Y. 

Miller was dismissed on December 12, 1949, from our union because of evi- 
dence obtained that he had solicited a bribe from officials of the Sharco Co., 
of New York. Mr. Sal B. Hoffman, president, and JNIr. George Bucher, vice- 
president of our union, confronted Miller with the charges against him in the 
presence of Mr. David Scharaga, of the Sharco Co., and Mr. Arthur Ortner, 
counsel for the same concern. Miller would not deny the charges against him, 
and was, therefore, dismissed from the union at that time, December 12, 1949. 

Any allegation that Miller was discharged for any other reason than that 
set forth above is false. 

Miller was not dismissed because he fired anyone from the union's employ. 
Neither Miller nor any other executive of the union, save President Sal B. 
Hoffman has the authority or has exercised the authority of dismissal. 

Sworn to before me this 9th day of August 1957. 

[seal] John Knoell 3d, 'Notary PuMic. 

Arthur G. McDowell, 

Affiant. 

We have another affidavit. Mr. Chairman. 

This is a letter that was written at that time, December 8, 1949. 

The Chairman. The Chair does not permit the letter to go into 
the record unless it is identified. It was obtained from what files ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was obtained from the files of Mr. Scharaga 
from whom we have the affidavit. 

The Chairman. Read the affidavit first, and, if it identifies the 
letter, that will be all right. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

State of New York, 

County of Westchester: 

David Scharaga, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

That I reside at 295 East Lincoln Avenue, Mount Vernon, N. Y. 

That I am a principal in Sharco Manufacturing Co., Inc., and was a principal 
in 1949, with offices at 8^ East 149th Street, Bronx. N. Y. 

That we were negotiating with Local 601 of the Upholsterers' International 
Union regarding wage increases under the terms of the contract with the union 
during the summer of 1949, having had numerous meetings with Morris Miller 
(also known as Marshall Miller) , director of organization of local 601, and Harold 
Newton. 

That we could not arrive at an agreement because Arthur Ortner had not com- 
pleted negotiations with CIO Local 140 for the balance of the bedding industry. 

That it was agreed by those present at the meeting (namely, Morris Miller, 
Arthur Ortner, Harold Newton, Sam Marion, Abe Kline, Bill Summers, myself, 
and the shop committee, which included Lillian Colton, Robert Fumia, and 
others) that there would be a cessation of negotiations until Arthur Ortner 
negotiated a contract with local 140. 

That negotiations were reopened the week of September 19, 1949, with Morris 
Miller, Harold Newton, Sam Marion, Bill Summers, Arthur Ortner, Lillian 
Colton, and her committee. 

80.".30— 57— pt. 12 6 



4574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES Dn THE LABOR FIELD 

That, during this meeting, Morris "iMillev requested and obtained a private inter- 
view with Mr. Ortner in my private office over the objections of Mr. Newton. 

That, approximately one-half hour later, Mr. Artner asked me to come into my 
office, and told Miller to repeat to me what jllller had told to him. 

That Mr. Miller said to me, in substance, the following : 

"The retroactive increases from September 1 to date would amount to approxi- 
mately $600. Instead of giving the $600 to the employees of Sharco, give it to 
me, and I will then have a meeting with the employees and tell them that Sharco 
is working under a hardship and cannot pay back wages to September 1 and that 
the effective date of the increase will be October 1." 

That I recall addressing myself to Mr. Ortner, saying, in substance, the 
following : 

"I don't think it would be fair to the employees to sell them down the river 
and not give them their increases as we promised, retroactive to September 1. 
I made this promise to the employees, and under no circumstances will I fail 
to keep that promise." 

I then said to Miller, "I intend to keep my promise to the employees ; however, 
I will give you $200, which is the most I can afford to give you." 

That Mr. Miller said he expected at least $400, but I remained firm in my 
offer ; that Miller bargained further, lowering his demand to $300, but I con- 
tinued to stand on my original offer of $200, which he finally agreed to accept. 

That I told Miller that I do uot have the money with me and that, unless he 
was willing to accept a check, he fShould come back at a later date. Miller 
agreed to the acceptance of cash, but declined receiving payment of the $200 in 
the f onn of a check. 

That approximately 1 week later Miller called me on the telephone and in- 
quired concerning arrangements for the payment of the $200. Miller came to 
the office about noon, and I liad Miss Roslyn Werber, bookkeeper for the firm, 
prepare a check for $200 payable to cash and which I signed. 

That I instructed Miss Werber to have the check cashed at the bank. When 
Miss Werber returend from the bank she gave me the $200 in cash. 

That I then turned over the $200 in cash over to Miller. 

That on September 29, 1949, the employees of Sharco were paid the agreed 
increase retroactive to September 1, 1949. 

David Schaeaga. 

Sworn to and subscribed to before me this 13th day of August 1957. 

Harry Levy, Notary Piihlic. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a letter signed by David 
Scharaga, addressed to Sol B. Hoffman, president, Upholsterers' 
International Union, dated December 8, 1949. I ask you to examine 
that letter and see if you identify it. 

(Document handed to v/itness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Mr. Chairman, the witness has examined the letter. 

The Chairman, Let the witness answer. 

Have yow examined the letter ? 

Mr. Miller. I have never seen this letter prior to this moment, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. You cannot, then, identify it ? 

Mr. Miller. I have never seen this letter. 

The Chairman. Did you know about it prior to this ? 

]Mr. Miller. I knew about it. Senator. 

The Chairman. You had heard of this letter ? 

Mr. Miller. I have heard of the letter. 

The Chairman. And heard of its contents? 

Mr. Miller. I have heard of its contents. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Was that procured under subpena ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4575 

The Chairman. The letter may be made exhibit 113. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 113," and is as 
follows:) 

The Chairman. You may read the letter, if you like. 

Mr. O'DoNNELL (reading) : This is addressed to Mr. Sol B. Hoff- 
man, president, Upholsterers' International Union, 1500 North Broad 
Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Dear Mk. Hoffman : In reply to your request for detailed information regard- 
ing the recent incident of Mr. Morris Miller, your director of organization, 
please be advised that the events occurred as follows : 

We were negotiating with your union, local 601, regarding wage increases 
under the terms of our contract with you. We had numerous meetings with 
your Mr. Morris Miller and Mr. Harold Newton regarding the proposed wage 
increases requested by your union. However, we could not reach an agreement 
because negotiations were then going on between Mr. Ortner and the CIO Local 
140. 

It was then agreed at a meeting attended by Mr. Morris Miller, Mr. Harold 
Newton, Mr. Abe Kline, Mr. Dave Scharaga, Mr. Bill Summers, Mr. Sam Marion, 
Mr. Arthur Ortner, and the shop committee consisting of Mrs. Lillian Colton, 
Mr. Robert Fumia, Mr. Gilbert Awale, Mr. John Russo, that there would be no 
further meetings until Mr. Ortner finished his negotiations and reached a final 
agreement with local 140 for the rest of the bedding industry. 

It was further agreed, at the request of Mr. Morris Miller and Mr. Harold 
Newton and the shop committee, that if any wage increases were to be granted 
by my firm, they would be retroactive to September 1, 1949. 

Negotiations were resumed the week of September 19 with Mr. Morris Miller, 
Mr. Harold Newton, Mr. Bill Summers, Mr. Sam Marion, Mr. Dave Scharaga, 
Mr. Arthur Ortner, and Mrs. Colton and her committee. 

During the conference, Mr. Morris Miller requested a private interview with 
Mr. Ortner in my private office. Despite Mr. Newton's objections, this private 
conference was held. About half an hour later, Mr. Ortner requested that I come 
into my office. He closed the door behind me and said to Morris Miller, "Now, 
tell Dave what you just told me." 

Mr. IMiller said, "Now, look, Dave, the retroactive increases from September 1 
to date will amount to approximately $600. Now, instead of giving this $600 
to the employees of Sharco, give it to me ; and I will then have a meeting with 
the employees and will tell them that Sharco is working under a hardship and 
cannot pay the increases retroactive to September 1 and that they will receive 
their increases as of the 1st of October — and instead of giving it to the em- 
ployees, give it to me." 

I then returned to Mr. Ortner and said. "I don't think it would be fair to the 
employees to sell them down the river and not .give them their increase as we 
promised, retroactive to September 1. I made the promise to the employees and 
I intednd to live up to any promise I made. Under no circumstances will I fail 
to keep that promise. Every promise that I have made in the past, I always 
kept, and I don't think it would be proper not to keep my promise regarding the 
pay retroactive to September 1." 

I then said to Miller, "Look, Miller, I intend to keep my promise to the em- 
ployees, but if you want money, I will give you $200, which is the most I can 
afford to give you." 

Mr. Miller then said the least he expected was $400. 

I then said, "Morris, I am sorry, but $200 is the most I can afford to give you." 

Miller then said he would take $300 as the least I could give him. 

I said, "Morris, $200 is the most I can afford. As a matter of fact, I don't 
even have the money with me. You will have to come back at a later date, 
unless you want to take a check." 

Mr. Miller finally agreed to accept $200, but declined a check, saying he would 
rather have it in cash. 

About a week later, Mr. Miller called me up and asked me about the $200. 
I told him he could come up, but he must come before 3 o'clock when the banks 
elo.sed, as I didn't have any cash and would have to get a check cashed to give 
him the money. Mr. Miller came around noon time, and I had our bookkeeper. 
Miss Roslyn Werber, make out a check for $200, which I signed, made out to 
cash. Then Miss Werber went to the bank to have this check cashed. She 



4576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

returned, gave me the cash, which I then handed over to Mr. Miller, who 
thanked me very much and left. 

On September 29, 1949, we paid to all the employees of Scharco the agreed-upoa 
increase retroactive to September 1, 1949, which amounted to $678.17. 
The above information is a true and correct account of what occurred. 
I remain, 

Sincerely yours, 

David Scharaga. 
Copy to Mr. Arthur J. Ortner. 

The Chaikmax. Was it on account of this letter that you were 
discharged ? 

Mr. Miller. I have answered that question in my submission, Sena- 
tor, that I was framed and I was discharged. 

The Chairman. Tiiis is what you said was a frameup against you? 

Mr. Miller. That is right, Senator. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I raised a question to start with about the changing 
of Mr. Miller's name from Morris to Marshall. What was the date 
when your name was changed from Morris to Marshall ? 

Mr. Miller. Senator, I may have it here to give you the exact date, 
but I think it is only about 2 years ago that I changed it officially in. 
court. 

Senator Ives. How many years ago ? 

Mr. Miller. Two, that I changed it officially in court. 

Senator Ives. I would like to get the date exactly. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miller. We don't have it here, Senator, but I would say it is 
approximately 2 years that it was officially changed. However, I have 
used the name 

Senator Ives. Wlien you became a consultant, as I understand, you. 
were an unpaid consultant and have been at all times for the New York. 
State Legislative Committee on Industrial Labor Conditions 

Mr. Miller. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. Your name had been changed, had it not, from Morris 
to Marshall ? 

Mr. Miller. I stated, Senator, that I have been using the name 
Marshall Miller for a number of years and used it back in 1948. How- 
ever, I changed it in court, in the official records, to Marshall M. Miller 
approximately 2 years ago. 

Senator Ives. What I am driving at, Mr. Miller, is that that com- 
mittee evidently did not know that you had any other name than. 
Marshall; did it? 

Mr. Miller. They did not, sir. 

Senator Ives. All right. That is all I am trying to find out. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator IMcNamara. Do you deny these affidavits that have just 
been submitted over the signature of David Scharaga ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, Senator, I will say this : There is no doubt that 
in my career I have made several enemies, as perhaps all people in 
public life or political life from time to time. However, I have 
offered to testify before this committee, and I tried to give this com- 
mittee the picture as it was. I pointed out the evils, I pointed out what 
happens, how this thing operates, how these goons can force their 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4577 

membership. I pointed out evils of welfare plans, and I came here 
specifically to answer the charges of a 22-year-old boy who did not 
know me. I recall the proceeding when Senator Ives asked him what 
does this man look like, and all he said was "I would like to see you 
outside. Senator," and the Senator again said what did he look like, 
and he did not answer, and the record will so show. 

Senator McNamara. Wait a minute on that, I want to find out. 

Mr. Miller. He doesn't know me. Senator. 

Senator Ives. The reason I asked that question is because I had 
never seen you. I wanted to know whether I had seen you. This is 
the first time I have ever seen you in my life. 

Mr. Miller. That is true, Senator. I am merely trying to point 
out that Mr. McNiff had never seen me either. 

Now, instead, I see, if I may point out, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Mr. Miller. I am trying to answer it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Miller. I find that instead of coming down for that specific 
purpose, I appear to now to be standing on trial and being charged 
t)y letter and affidavit about things back in 1944 and other individuals 
who may have had reason to see if they can hurt me somehow, some- 
way. I don't think it at all fair to have to appear before this com- 
mittee, to have given the investigators the cooperation that I did — 
I not only gave them what they asked for, but I gave them every- 
thing that was in the office — to sit here and be accused now by letter 
and affidavit, I don't think it is right at all. Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, just a moment, now. I think you brought 
up the subject yourself, did you not, in your statement? You came 
voluntarily and presented a statement. You have made reference 
to it yourself, have you not ? 

Mr. Miller. I stand on my statement, Senator. 

The Chairman. I understand you want to stand on your statement, 
but this other testimony contradicts your statement. 

Mr. Miller. I heard an affidavit read from a man that I haven't 
seen, if my memory serves me, this Stephen Dunn, I haven't seen 
him in maybe 12 years or so. I might say some of the newspapermen 
may remember that instant and yet this is a man that is a member 
of the bar and submits an affidavit. I say that some of the news- 
papermen may remember when Morris Muster, the national president 
of the CIO, resigned, when he gave a statement to the press and he 
said that his record as a trade unionist for 26 years would not permit 
him to be a captive of the Communist Party, and he resigned. 

Everyone knew about the Commmiist issue back in 1946 in that 
union. 

Yet here is a man that gives an affidavit. 

If I have to sit here and confront this, I don't think it is fair. 
Senator. 

The Chairman. I want to be fair with you, and I think the com- 
mittee does, too. 

Mr. Miller. That is all I am asking. 

The Chairman. I never heard of you. I do not know you. 

A witness gave some testimony a few days ago and you sent me a 
wire demanding to be heard. Now you appear. In the meantime 



4578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

we have gotten some infoniiation and you come in with a statement 
in which you refer to these tilings and stated it under oath. 

Now we bring in these affidavits. I am trying to be fair to you. 
Do you want us to take it up when you are not here ? 

Mr. Miller. Senator, I had stated that I was framed. I touched 
on everything. I left nothing out. I have given everything. 

The Chairman. You can still say you were framed, and you may 
have been. I am not saying you were not. 

Mr. Miller. I know, but I don't think — I am just trying to point 
out that I have made my statement, and I don't think it is fair for 
me to be tried by letter or affidavit. 

The Chairman. You do not think it is fair for the committee to 
check on the accuracy of your statement and present you with any 
evidence we may have ? 

Mr. Miller. I have cooperated. I have given your investigators 
everything, including tax returns, back many years, and things that 
they didn't ask for. They were welcome in my office and they were 
welcome to my files. 

The Chairman. I just do not see where you are saying it is un- 
fair. If there is any member of this committee that thinks it is 
unfair in any way whatsoever, we will revise our procedure. 

Senator McNamara. With this background now, I will ask you the 
question : Do you deny the facts in this sworn statement, sworn to by 
David Scharaga ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Mr. Chairman, the witness has testified that he 
never saw the contents of this letter. I am going to advise him not 
to make any categorical answer to a series of statements in a docu- 
ment that he has never seen. If this were a court of law, all I would 
have to say is "Objection; it is surprise," and it would be sustained. 

Senator McNamara. That is all you have to say now, if you object. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I am trying not have this witness refuse to answer 
any question, Senator. 

Senator McNamara. He has a choice at this point. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. At this point I am advismg him that it is best not 
to answer this question. 

Senator McNamara. I want to go on from there, Mr. Chairman. 
Let the record show that he refuses to answer the question. 

The Chair]man. Just a moment. The witness can take the fiftli 
amendment, if he wants to. I do not know that a witness can just 
determine what questions he is going to answer and those that he will 
not, particularly when he voluntarily appears before the committee. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Mr. Chairman, as a seasoned lawyer, I am fully 
conscious of the consequences of categorical denials of statements 
made by one witness as against another. I have not appeared with 
my client for the purpose of championing or looking forward to fur- 
ther proceedings, and, certainly, not in the nature of criminal pro- 
ceedings. He has made a statement: it has been clear; it has been 
voluntary. 

Now, if such questioning will continue, then I am going to avail 
myself of rule 6 of your committee's rules of procedure, and I shall 
advise my client to utilize whatever legal objection he may have to 
any answer of such questions. 

I am sure that I am only pursuing my duties as counselor to this 
client and witness. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4579 

The Chairman. The Chair is not questioning the way you are 
pursuing your obligation to your cHent. I have never thought a 
witness could come in voluntarily, demand to be heard, and, when 
we gi'ant him that request, then refuse to answer questions. These 
are not questions without any basis, without any foundation. They 
are verified by affidavit. The letter is not sworn to, but the man made 
an affidavit regarding the letter. 

Here are some more affidavits regarding these matters. If we are 
going to look into it, and your client claimed that he was mistreated 
in the testimony of the other witnesses who appeared here, we have 
these affidavits and we have other witnesses here. We are prepared 
to hear this matter today. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me that the situation we confront 
here, and I address myself to both the counsel and the witness, is 
that Mr. Miller sought the forum of the committee in order to clear 
himself of what he believed to be derogatory statements made against 
him by a Mr. McNiff. It is quite true that Mr. Miller comes before 
us voluntarily ; he has made a voluntary statement, and we appreciate 
it. 

Now, all we are trying to determine is whether or not the voluntary 
statement was a valid statement. There is conflict between what Mr. 
McMff said and what Mr. Miller said, this conflict being between the 
reasons Mr. Miller has given for leaving certain positions and taking 
on new responsibilities and what appears in these affidavits. 

As one member of the committee, I have not at this moment got 
the foggiest notion as to whether or not the facts as related by Mr. 
Miller are correct and valid, or whether the facts as related in the 
affidavit are correct. 

In his interest, coming down here to clear the record, I would think 
he would want to illumine the committee as to whether or not these 
affidavits are accurate or inaccurate. If they are false, if they are 
jDart of a frameup, I think he should say that. 

I agree; this probably came as a surprise. I, as one member of 
the committee, would feel, if you would tell us, "Look, I will come 
back next Monday and talk about that; I want to examine the rec- 
ords; I want to examine the facts," I think that would be a valid 
request. 

But I do not think it is valid to say at this stage of the game, 
"We are not going t^ discuss whether the affidavits are correct or not." 

Does that seem unreasonable to you, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Do you direct your question to the witness and 
counsel ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I want to answer, if I may, as his counsel. 

This witness has submitted the statement where he specifically 
denies the charges and labels it a frameup. He does not have the 
means or the capabilities of using the staff available to this com- 
mittee. If such staff was made available to him and put him on a 
status quo with this committee, I respectfully submit to you, sir, 
that he would be in a position to submit more affida^^ts, or at least 
as many, which would give the other side of the story. 



4580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Also, in private session with Mr. Kennedy — I believe you call it 
executive session; I am not too familiar with that phase of it — but, 
in any event, Mr. Miller has given certain statements and is willing 
to repeat them, and has done the same thing to your investigators. 
But, after all, there is a limit to which I, as his counsel, can go for- 
ward and advise him that the best thing for him is to put everything 
on the table before this committee, who, after all, is engaged in a 
very serious and important task of seeking remedial law, to propose 
and to legislate some of these evils that have grown up in this field. 

He is here to help you in this cause. He is also here attempting to 
clear himself, but no matter what he says, he cannot clear himself 
by mere denials. 

These affidavits, these letters, are not admissable in a court of law. 
They are nothing but hearsay. But they are most dangerous to him. 
The proof of the matter is just the testimony of one witness predi- 
cated on hearsay has caused him the loss of a job. 

I submit to you that it was with that in mind, Senators, that I 
asked at the beginning of these proceedings to withdraw his request 
from appearing and testifying here and withdrawing his demand for 
jour permission to him for appearing here. 

I thought that the place for that would be much better to be heard, 
namely, before the Joint Legislative Committee. Now, if I permit 
him to answer any and all questions that any person submits by way 
of letter or by way of affidavit, and I am not saying that those people 
who write letters or affidavits are evil people or have bad intentions — 
in their own mind they are probably 100 percent good intended and 
they have certain motives — but I am only concerned with the defense 
of this man. 

In this defense, I cannot, as a seasoned member of the bar, permit 
him to go into intricate details of which he knows not. He answered 
Senator McClellan that he never saw that letter before in his life. 
That is a direct answer. 

Senator Mundt. That, of course, is not the question. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. I realize that. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. The question is. Did he or did he not engage in 
the activities which are alleged in the letter. Did he or did he not 
get $200, accept $200 which appears to us to be in the nature of a pay- 
off ? If he did not do it, I would think he would be happy to say he 
did not do it. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. He has made such denial and has labelled it a 
frameup. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. If he took it, he should say, "Yes, I took it and 
here is the reason why." You must realize as a lawyer that when he 
comes before us and denies the charges, you and he should not con- 
clude that you should not talk about it. 

I certainly feel sorry if he lost his job and doubly sorry if he lost 
his job because of a witness before this committee who was misled in 
his testimony. We are trying to clear it up. Here is his opportunity. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Senator, he is here to testify. I want to please 
recall to your own mind that first Counselor Kennedy read the de- 
nial of this witness' statement with reference to this matter. 

Then the letter, wherein this information was contained, was read 
after Mr. Miller had stated that he had never seen it in his life. There- 
after, other questions have been put, all on this one point. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4581 

In other M'orcls, I suTbmit to you that the mere repetition of this 
thing over this man's denial in his statement, creates the aura of the 
validity or some truth to these charges when there may be no sub- 
stance to them whatsoever. 

Senator Ives, May I butt in right there? 

I would like to ask Mr, Miller a direct question : Did you or did you 
not receive $200? You have not said one way or another on that. 
Answer that one way or another. Did you or did you not receive it? 

Mr, Mn.UER, I did not receive it. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Let us straighten out the record. 
The letter is not evidence, but I have made it an exhibit because it has 
been talked about. 

The affidavit is from the man who wrote the letter. In the affidavit 
he covers substantially everything that is in the letter. The letter 
was obviously written at the time tlie incident occurred. 

He has made affidavit to the same facts stated in the letter. The 
affidavit is sworn testimony and can be admitted here. For that rea- 
son, I think it is quite proper that he be cross-examined on it. 

Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. My question did not refer in any manner to 
the letter. My question referred to this affidavit. I specifically 
asked the question on the affidavit. 

Now, there has been some discussion here about whether or not the 
witness received $200. Reading from the affidavit, signed by David 
Scharaga, he says he refused to pay the $600 to Mr. Miller. 

Then, he goes on to say : 

I then said to Mr. Miller I intended to keep my promise to the employees. 
However, I will give you $200, which is the most I can afford to give you. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is an act that we are very 
much interested in. This apparently is a free offer of a bribe of 
$200. He goes on in his affidavit to say that he paid not only the $600 
that was due to the emploj^ees, but he paid more than $600 in back pay 
to the employees. 

Beyond that, he paid, according to his affidavit, $200 which has all 
the appearances of a bribe. I think we ought to be just as much in- 
terested in that offer by the employer to a union representative as we 
are in the other phase of it. 

That is what I was getting at in my question. Certainly, this man is 
guilt}^ by his own words of offering a bribe. I do not know how it can 
be construed otherwise. 

The CiiATEMAisr. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Mtjndt. In this affidavit, Mr. Miller, and forget about the 
letter, Mr. David Scharaga says on page 2 of the affidavit these words: 

That I instructed Miss Werber to have the check cashed at the bank. When 
Miss Werber returned from the bank she gave me the $200 in cash, and I turned 
over the $200 in cash over to Miller. 

As Senator McNamara has pointed out, it seems to involve the 
employer as well as Mr. Miller. We are simply trying to establish 
the fact from Mr. Miller's sworn testimony. 

You liave heard this affidavit. Do you know Mr. David Scharaga? 

Mr. Mu.];.ER. I think I recall him. It is Scharaga, I think. 



4582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator ISIundt. Did he turn over $200 in cash to you under these 
circumstances ? 

Mr. Miller, Senator, he did not. 

Senator Muxdt. He did not ? 

Mr. Miller. He did not. 

Senator Mundt. Can you give any help to the committee as to why 
he would make an affidavit of this kind ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, I will go into part of it. It is a very interesting 
story. However, before I go into that, I have made a note on Mr. 
Stephen Dunn and this was an affidavit, too, and I would like to 
answer that, as long as we are going to get into these things. 

Senator Mundt. Les us find out about Mr. Dunn. He made his 
affidavit concerning circumstances which occurred back in 11)46, I 
believe. 

Mr. Miller. Is that 1946? 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I just summarize ? 

Senator Mundt. It was 2 or 3 years prior to 1946. You heard the 
affidavit. In the main, he charged that what you told the committee 
was wrong about leaving it on account of communism, that you had 
come into his office sort of soliciting a bribe. Will you explain that? 

Mr. Miller. I don't think he said that. Can I see that Stephen 
Dunn affidavit ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

The Chairman. Here are copies. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have that affidavit and three other affidavits in 
connection with his taking the bribe of $300 later in 1949. 

Senator Mundt. This is a different case, the Stephen Dunn case. 
If the witness want? to talk about that first, I think that is quite 
agreeable. About the only pertinent part is in the next to the last 
paragraph, Mr. Miller, where he alleges that you tried to get him 
to have the employers pay you something to get you out of town. 

( Tlie documents were handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Stephen Dunn is a scurrilous liar. ]Mr. Stephen 
Dunn, in the days when I was first assigned to Grand Rapids, I found 
an attorney who was antilabor in every conceivable fashion, a man 
who would stop at no ends and no means to beat them down and I found 
a town, insofar as the industry that I was interested in, pretty badly 
unorganized, and I found some beaten people. And I found that the 
largest company in town, at least one of the largest, had a company 
dominated union at the time. 

When I was assigned by Mr. Morris Muster, the past president who 
was the founder of tliat union and who resigned because of the Com- 
munist issue, he told me at that time, he said, "I am sending you into 
an area that lias cost us a lot of money, and where a lot of men have 
failed." 

If I recall, I think, if my memory serves me, he also was president 
of the association of manufacturers at that time for that particular 
industry. 

Senator Mundt, Now, coming down to this particular case, did you 
have the conference in the office of Mv. Dunn, to Avhich he alluded? 
If you did have such a conference, did you ask him what it would 
be wortli to the employers for you to leave town to avoid a lot of 
trouble ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 4583 

Did you talk about bringing in "trigger man and muscle men" ? 

Mr. Miller. Let me say this, Senator : I have never in my career, as 
ft labor official, personally hired any goons. I was never arrested in my 
life on any picket line, even for disorderly conduct. I have never 
conducted the kind of strikes, when I did, that you read about that 
brings about damage to property and damage to people. 

Senator Mundt. That is not the charge, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. I have never operated with any goons. 

Senator Mundt. That is not the charge. The charge is that you 
threatened Mr. Dunn that you would bring in muscle men, that you 
Avoulcl bring in trigger men. not that you did, but that you threatened 
to do it. 

Mr. Miller. That is false. 

Senator Mundt. That is false ? That is what I wanted to find out. 
Mr. Dunn also said that you asked him what it would be worth to the 
employers to get you out of town. Did you say that ? 

Mr. Miller. Tliat is false. I had to go where I was assigned. I 
couldn't get myself out of anywhere. Wherever I was assigned, that 
is where I had to go. 

Senator Mundt. You might know that and Mr. Dunn might have 
known that. 

Mr. Miller. Tliat is false. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ask him what it would be worth ? 

Mr. Miller. I did not. 

Senator Mundt. The second step, then, is this : We have two affi- 
davits, one from Mr. Arthur McDowell and one from Mr. Scharaga 
about the $200. Do you deny under oath that that is true? Is that 
right? 

Mr. Miller. May J read this affidavit, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. Do what ? 

Mr. Miller. I say, may I read this affidavit ? 

Senator Mundt. Surely. I want you to read the one by Mr. Mc- 
Dowell. Is that the one you are reading ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. I am interested in the third paragraph from the 
bottom, again, beginning — 

Miller was dismissed on December 12, 1949. 

So the question will make sense in the record, Mr. Miller, I want to 
read the paragraph which concerns me. 

Miller was dismissed «n December 12, 1949, from our own union because of 
evidence obtained that he had solicited a brit>e from officials of the Scharaga 
Co. in New York. 

Mr. Sol Hoffman and Mr. George Bucher, vice president of our union, con- 
fronted Miller with the charges against him. In the presence of Mr. David 
Scharaga of the Sharco Co., Miller would not deny the charges against him 
and was, therefore dismissed from the union at that time, December 12, 1949. 

Question No. 1 : Were you dismissed from the union, whatever the 
reason, on December 12, 1949 ? 

Mr. Miller. I was suspended and I asked the president then, Mr. 
Hoffman, I said, "With paj^ or without pay?" and he said, "Without 
pay, so I can look into this." 

Senator Mundt. You were suspended. Was your suspension a 
consequence of this meeting which is described in the affidavit between 
Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Bucher, Mr. Scharaga, and you ? 



4584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Miller. There was no such meeting. I can't even recall any 
such meeting. Wlien ISIr. Hoffman approached me and said that he 
had received notice about this, I told him at that time, I said, "What 
the heck kind of frame is this ? "VVliat is it all about?" 

That is when he said, "Well, I will look into it. You are sus- 
pended." 

Senator Mundt. This part is true : 

— Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Bucher confronted Miller with the charges against him. 
In the presence of Mr. David Scharaga and Mr. Arthur Ortner. 

Mr. Miller. To the best of my recollection, I don't even think Mr. 
Bucher was there. 

Senator Mundt. Was Mr. Hoffman there? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Hoffman was the first man that spoke to me. 

Senator Mundt. And did he speak to you in the presence of Mr. 
David Scharaga and Mr. Ortner, the counsel? 

Mr. Miller. To the best of my recollection; no. In fact, I recall 
this, I recall meeting when I was heading for Philadelphia, I met 
Mr. Scharaga on the train, and I said hello to him and I said, where 
are you going. He said, "I am just going visiting." 

That was the particular day that this instant occurred when Mr, 
Hoffman called me in. But I don't recall seeing anybody in the room 
at the time. 

Senator Mundt. We are trying to get at the facts. Certainly we 
know nothing about it. For the time being, I am pleased that you 
have made a categorical denial of this so-called effort on the part of 
Mr. Scharaga to bribe you or to pay you $200. You leave no doubt 
that your denial of this is complete and categorical. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. You denied receiving the $200. Was the offer 
made ? 

Mr. Miller. There was no offer made as far as I am concerned. To 
give you a little information 

Senator Kennedy. The question, is, was there any offer made ? 

Mr. Miller. No offer made. 

Senator Kennedy. Of any sum of money to you ? 

Mr. Miller. No offer made. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, this employer wrote to the head 
of the union in which you were associated saying he gave you $200 
and he never gave you $200 ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. McDowell stated in his affidavit that j'ou 
were dismissed because Mr. Hoffman confronted you with this charge 
and you did not deny it and you were dismissed. You say you were 
subpenaed. After the investigation was completed, were you dis- 
missed ? 

Mr. Miller. That happened right there. 

Senator Kennedy. You were put on suspension. Then what hap- 
pened ? 

Mr. Miller. No; he said you will be put on suspension. I said,. 
"With pay or without pay?" And he said, "Without pay." And in 
that case I said, "Forget about it. I am through." 

Senator Kennedy, And in other words, he wanted to suspend you. 
until he could look into it ? 



IjMPROper acttvitjes in the labor field 4585 

Mr. Miller. Eight, until he could look into it. And I said, "With 
pay or without pay?" And he said, "Without pay." And I said, 
"I don't call that a suspension. If a man don't pay me, I am " 

Senator Kennedy. You were fired because of this charge made 
against you ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Miller. That is what he said. I told him it wasn't so. I asked 
him what kind of frame is this. 

Senator Kennedy. We have here, then, an affidavit from the em- 
ployer who stated he gave j-ou the money. We have an affidavit from 
the head of the union stating that an investigation was made and as 
a result of that investigation, you were dismissed. It was after that 
that you were given a job as consultant to the State of New York to 
the Joint Legislative Committee on Industrial and Labor Conditions. 
You were not paid for that job ? 

Mr. Miller. Pardon? 

Senator Kennedy. You were not paid a salary? 

Mr. JSIiLLER. That was close to 5 years later. 

Senator Kennedy. You were not paid as a consultant ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. How many consultants did they have? 

Mr. Miller. I was the only consultant. 

Senator Kennedy, Did you get expenses ? 

Mr. Miller. Only if I went out of town. I was paid for my travel. 

Senator Kennedy. Who gave you that job? 

Mr. Miller. At this time, I would like to say this. Senator, in all 
fairness. Somebody mentioned my name, a boy who never saw me, 
and I was fired, I don't kiiow if I should mention the name of legis- 
lators in the State of New York and then have them hurt politically 
because someone may blow something up during the campaign and 
then they will congratulate each other when it is all over, but they will 
tear each other apart during the campaign. I am just wondering 
whether that is a fair question. 

I mean, this is a bipartisan committee. There are other people ap- 
pointed to it. I think when the chairman secures his position, he is 
appointed, and I think the other members are appointed by their re- 
spective parties. 

The Chair3Ian. You can answer this : Did the committee appoint 
you a consultant to it? 

Mr. Miller, I received a letter that I was appointed. The letter 
was dated in October 1954. 

The Chairman : L assume it was committee action. 

Mr. JMiLLER. I don't know. I know I received a letter that I was 
appointed to the committee. There is no doubt that the chairman 
must have notified counsel to send me a letter. 

Senator Kennedy. We have the affidavit of the head of a union 
and the affidavit of the employer concerning the conditions under 
which he is dismissed. Then we have you appointed as a consultant 
to an important committee. We have your card on which you say 
"Marshall M. Miller," on which you say, "Labor Eelations Con- 
sultant," and below that you have the title you were given, which 
obviously gives you some prestige. 

I think it is proper that we should know, as we are going into further 
activities of yours. I think, later this afternoon, how you happened to 



4586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

get an important job like that, particularly as you say you are the only 
one who has that job. 

Mr. Miller. There are counsels, assistant counsels, research 
directors. 

Senator Kennedy. I think it would be worthwhile to know how you 
received such an important job. There doesn't seem to me to be any- 
thing in your past record which would particularly qualify you for 
it. I am wondering how you got it. 

Mr. Miller. I received a letter sir, that I was appointed. 

Senator Kennedy. By what ? By the committee 'i 

Mr. Miller. I don't know. I have had various legislators in the 
State of New York who were my friends from both parties. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you refuse to state who wrote you 
the letter appointing you as consultant to this committee? 

Mr. Miller. I will tell you who wrote me the letter. The counsel of 
the committee wrote me the letter. 

Senator Kennedy. What is his name ? 

Mr. Miller. Eugene W. Dufloc. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you know who was responsible for telling 
Mr. Eugene 

Mr. Miller. No. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, this was right out of the blue ? 

Mr. Miller. It didn't come out of the blue. It didn't come out 
of the blue at all. 

Senator Kennedy. Plow did it come out ? 

Mr. ]VIiller. I had pointed out to some legislators my interest and 
desire to be in public service, and I sort of had the knowledge of 
this business when I spoke to them. Apparently my name was in 
there for recommendations. Then counsel, under direction, sent me a 
letter of appointment. 

Senator Kennedy. You do not want to tell us that it was under 
the direction of whom, do you. 

Mr. Miller. I will say '"Elected officials." 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, at this point he comes down here to 
clear himself. I do not know whether he is going to clear himself 
or get himself in trouble. But at least until the committee determines 
whether he has cleared himself or whether he is involved in something, 
I do not see any reason to drag in moi'e names and start a whole 
chain i-eaction with people who miglit be unnecessarily involved. 

I think we should first determine whether or not this witness is going 
to be able to refute these charges. 

Senator Ives. Will the Senator yield ? 

I know a little bit about how appointments are made on that com- 
mittee. It is a bipartisan committee entirely, 4 Democrats and 4 Re- 
publicans. Tlie members of the staff are members picked from two 
parties, upon the recommendations of members of the parties. 

I do not know anything about your recommendation, where it came 
from, Mr. Miller. 

I understand Mr. Miller is a Democrat. It may have come from a 
Democrat or it may have come from a Republican. I do not know 
anything about it. 

The committee w^ould approve all of the members the same way 
we approved in our committees here, the staff members that are named. 
We leave it to the chairman and the chairman turns it over, probably, to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4587 

counsel. That is the way it used to be when I was there. I do not 
know how it is now. 

Senator Kennedy. I appreciate this problem. 

It seems to me, however, it is a matter of public interest how Mr. 
Miller received an appointment as a consultant to a joint legislative 
committee on industrial and labor conditions. If he has been asked to 
resign or has been dismissed as a result of Mr. ]\IcNiff"s testimony, I 
think it is a matter, at least, that I am interested in to find out how he 
received that job, particidarly in view of his background. 

If you do not want to answer that, that is your business. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Senator Kennedy, I wish to advise my client pur- 
suant to rule 6 not to answer your question, because it is beyond the 
examination and hearing being conducted here today. You are assum- 
ing as a fact any aspersion or insinuation that this man's background is 
wrong, to be a consultant to the committee. I, as his attorney, differ 
with you, and say that to you respectfully. 

Senator Kennedy. I do not say whether he is right or wrong. I 
am asking just how he happened to get the job. 

Mr. Lefkoavitz. He told you how he got the job. 

Senator Kennedy. No, he has not. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. He doesn't want other people to go through this 
thing and be hurt. He has been hurt and he will be further hurt as a 
result of this. 

Mr. Miller. I have been lecommended. Senator. I know assembly- 
men in the State of New York. I know senators in the State of New 
York. But I don't think it fair for me to drop the names of those 
I thought perhaps used the strong reconnnendation and then have them 
hurt in the campaigns or elections. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you ever have any business dealings with 
Mr.Dufloc? 

Mr. Miller. I would recommend business to him if I thought he 
could handle it. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you ever recommended any ? 

Mr. Miller. I have. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he ever recommend business to you ? 

Mr. Miller. He has, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. What sort of business ? 

Mr. Miller. Well, anything pertaining to 

Senator Kennedy. Representing employers or employees ? 

Mr. Miller. Employers. Anything pertaining to law I would 
recommend to him. * 

Senator Kennedy. We are going to go into this matter further, but 
I think it is worthy of investigation by the committee. 

Mr. Miller, on your card you are a labor relations consultant, and 
you have this position as consultant with the State of New York Joint 
Legislative Committee on Industrial or Labor Conditions. You re- 
ceived an appointment from the counsel. You have recommended 
business to liim and he has recommended business to you. I think 
that is a matter worthy of attention to the committee in New York 
and our attention. 

Senator I\t<]s. Mr. Chairman, I beg to disagree some of the way with 
our distinguished fellow member. Senator Kennedy. I think it is 
primarily a matter for the Legislature of the State of New York to 



4588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

handle. I do not think it is any concern of the Senate of the United 
States, 

Senator Kennedy. I think what we are concerned about is whether 
his activities in the labor-management held, Mr. Miller, whether they 
were completely proper or not. 

Senator Ives. That may be. I will not argue about that. I am 
talking about his appointment on that committee. 

Senator Kennedy. If I may finish. Therefore, it seems to me that 
the fact that he had a position as a consultant to a joint legislative 
committee and was able to put that on his card, it therefore gave him 
a standing which he would not have had if he had not been a con- 
sultant to this important committee. Therefore, I think it is worth- 
while for this committee to at least inquire into the nature of how 
he got the job, what his functions were, what the interrelationship 
was between the counsel and himself and so on. 

Senator Ives. I still disagree with you. I think it is primarily a 
job for the State committee of the legislature there, and, primarily, 
a job for the legislature itself. It is a New York State matter, 
strictly, even as this whole investigation of New York City is a State 
matter, except as it pertains to matters outside the Statet. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. To get away from this particular line of ques- 
tioning for a moment, I understand that the statement had been made 
that you had been a candidate for public office in Michigan ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. What year was that ? 

Mr. Miller. I think about 1946. I ran for State senator. 

Senator McNamara. What district ? 

Mr. Miller. The Kent County area. The area of Grand Rapids. 

Senator McNamara. That was a State representative from Kent 
County ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right, sir. 

Senator McNamara, Were you defeated in the primary or in the 
general ? Was there a primary election ? 

Mr. Miller. I don't recall, but I know that I didn't become a State 
senator. 

Senator McNamara. You were not nominated, either, were you, 
or were you nominated beyond the final ballot ? 

Mr. Miller. I don't know. I would have to look at my records. 
I think I was, because I had literature out which said — here is some 
literature. 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Senator, I have a couple of things here that might 
be of help to you. 

Senator McNamara. Do you want to submit something? 

Mr. LE^K0\^^[Tz. Yes. 

(Document handed to committee.) 

Senator McNamara. The statement was made that you were a 
Democrat. I assume you ran on the Democratic ticket. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Miller. I did, sir. There is the literature and it says, "Vot«l 
for Morris Miller in November elections," so, apparently, I passed 
the primaries. 

Senator McNamara. You received the nomination ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4589 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir ; there is the literature. 

Senator McNAMi^RA. This indicates it was November 5; that was 
the final election. I just wanted to get the record straight, since we 
are discussing about whether you were a Democrat or a Republican. 

The Chairman. These may be returned to the witness. He may 
Avant to keep them. 

Now, Counsel, will you proceed ? We have 2 or 3 more questions, 
and then we will ask the witness to stand aside and we will call an- 
other witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have another affidavit in connec- 
tion with that same matter, which we will make a part of the record, 
which is repetitive. It is from the employer regarding the $200 
payment. 

The Chairman. This is an affidavit of Arthur J. Ortner, and deals 
with the same subject as the $200 payment. The witness should 
be privileged to see this, or be furnished a copy of it. Do you have 
copies of it? We will furnish the witness a copy of it. That affi- 
davit we will not take time to read, and it may be inserted in the 
record at this point. 

(The affidavit follows:) 

State of New York, 

County of New York ss: 

Arthur J. Ortner, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 

That I reside at 780 Gramatan Avenue, Mount Vernon, N. Y. 

That I was executive secretary of the National Bedding and Upholstering 
Manufacturing Board of Trade in 1949, which was then located at 114 East 
32d Street, New York City. 

That I was negotiating a contract between Local 601, UIU, and the Sharco 
Manufacturing Co., then located at 885 East 149th Street, Bronx, N. Y. ; that 
these negotiations were resumed during the week of September 19, 1949, with 
Messrs. Morris Miller, Harold Newton, Sam Msiiion, Bill Summers, David 
Scharaga, Mrs. Colton, her committee, and myself i)resent at this meeting. 

That, during the course of the conference, Morris Miller asked me if he 
could talk to me privately ; that I spoke to Morris Miller in the privacy of David 
Scharaga's ofBce, and that no one else was present. 

That Morris Miller, in substance, made the following proposition to me at 
this private meeting and said : 

"The retroactive increases from September 1, 1949, to date will amount to 
approximately $600. I want the $600 instead of the employees, and I will 
straighten it out with the employees by explaining to them at a meeting that 
Sharco is under a financial strain and cannot pay the retroactive increases to 
September 1 and that their increases would commence October 1, 1949." 

That I then called Mr. Scharaga into the office and told Miller to repeat to 
him what he had just requested of me privately ; that Miller said, in the presence 
of Scharaga and myself, in substance, the following : 

"The retroactive increases from September 1 to date will be about $600. 
Instead of giving this $600 to the workers of Sharco, give it to me. I will 
then have a meeting with the employeees and advise them of the fact that 
Sharco is financially embarrassed and, therefore, cannot make the increase 
retroactive to September 1, 1949, but they will receive their increase in pay as 
of October 1, 1949." 

That Scharaga said to me: "I don't think it would be fair to the employees 
not to give them the increase as we had been promising them, namely retro- 
active to September 1." 

That I then called Sal Hofiman, of the UIU, in Philadelphia, Pa., from the 
oflice of David Scharaga; that I informed Mr. Hoffman of the foregoing facts 
as outlined in this affidavit, and that Mr. Hoffman told me to have these facts 
put into writing and send them to him ; that I spoke to Mr. David Scharaga 
and told him to put the aforementioned facts in a letter and send them to Mr. 
Hoffman ; that Mr. Scharaga informed me that he had done this ; that I sub- 
setiuently heard from Mr. Hoffman that he had received a letter from ilr. 

89330— 57— pt. 12 — —7 



4590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Scharaga outlining the aforementioned facts ; that I attended a hearing in the 
UIU office in Philadelphia, Pa. ; that Mr. Hoffman told me after this hearing 
that, as a result of the facts mentioned in this affidavit, he had discharged 
Morris Miller from his job with the union. 

Arthur J. Oktnek, 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 13th day of August 1957. 

[Seal] Ida Schenkman, Notu?y Puhlic. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I think the other affidavit from the employer might 
be misleading. I understand the facts are in fairness to him, that after 
the $200 was paid, he then called the international president of the 
union and told him of the circumstances under which the money was 
paid, and that the international president of the union then brought 
in Mr. Miller and took the action that was taken, namely the dis- 
missal of Mr. Miller, so I do not think it was completely just an 
offer of a bribe. The man did take the action of telephoning the 
international president and telling him the $200 was paid. 

Now, I just have a question for you in connection with this com- 
mittee that you represent or that you are a consultant to. 

Do you represent any groups which have interests before that 
committee ? 

Mr. Miller. Did I represent any groups ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you or have you in the past or do you now 
represent any groups or individuals that have any business or interests 
before this committee ? 

Mr. MiLLEK. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever offered to represent any ? 

Mr. Miller. I was approached by an individual as to whether I 
would represent their groups, and I advised them that perhaps I 
would, but I would have to find out if there was a conflict of interest. 
We discussed it and he was going to meet with some of his people 
mvolved in the same industry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you mention how much money you would want? 

Mr. Miller. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money ? 

Mr. Miller. I told them that if they decided to retain me, that the 
retainer would be $10,000 a year. 

Mr, Kennedy. And the purpose of that 

Mr. IVIiLLER. I told them the reason for that kind of a fee, is that 
I would have to put a lot of time in and a lot of work, and so on. 

Mr. ICennedy. That was in connection with a bill that was before 
this committee ; is that right ? 

Mr. Miller. No, sir. I was to be retained as a public relations man 
and labor relations man, and that is all. I never was retained or 
the representatives that came to see me representing this industry 
never retained me and never hired me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question. The work that you were 
to do for this $10,000 fee was to be work that you were to do before 
this committee ; is tliat not right ? 

Mr. Miller. No; that didn't go into details, because I wasn't hired. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood it because otherwise you wouldn't 
have said 

Mr. MiLi,ER. I understood they would retain me. 

Mr. ICennedy. To work with this committee ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4591 

Mr. Miller. I would try to work for their benefit if I would accept 
it but I told them that I couldn't accept it even if they did decide 
unless I found out if there was a conflict of interest. They never 
came back to me any more, and no one ever spoke to me any more. 

Mr. KicisrjNT-^DY. The $10,000 fee, though, was to be paid for your 
representation of them before this committee, for work that you were 
going to do in connection with this State joint legislative committee 
on industrial and labor conditions; is that not correct? 

Mr. Miller. That would be part of it. I don't know what other 
work there would be. I guess we would have to detail it all in a 
contract between the parties. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said to them, in order to represent them, one 
of the jobs you were going to do was before this joint legislative com- 
mittee of which you were a consultant, and in order to represent them 
you would need a $10,000 fee ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. ^Iiller. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said that your fee for the work you were going 
to do was $10,000 ; was it not? 

Mr. Miller. I didn't know what work I would have to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you say your fee would be $10,000? 

Mr. Miller. I said that if I would represent them in a capacity of 
labor relations or public relations, the fee would be $10,000. Now 
that is what I told them. They never came back to me, and they 
said they would talk it over among their groups, and they have maybe 
five or six hundred members and I don't know how many members 
they have, and they never came back to me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Wlio was the person that approached you ? 

Mr. Miller. The first person that spoke to me was a man by the 
name of Max Simon. 

Mr. Kennedy. Max Simon? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who does he represent ? 

Mr. jMiller. He has an employment agency, and he represents 
himself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he represent these people ? 

Mr. Miller. No; not to my knowledge. He just spoke to me, and 
he said, "You know the problems in our industry are that we don't 
have anyone to represent us and do a proper job for us like other 
interests do, and we can't get our people together. Would you care 
to represent us?" 

I said, "I don't knt)W." 

Mr. Kennedy. Care to represent "us," being who ? 

Mr. Miller. Being "our organization," various organizations, and 
there might be about half a dozen difi'erent organizations. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were some of the organizations ? 

Mr. Miller. They are all in the employment agency business. I 
don't know how many associations they have. It would be 6, or 7 
or 8. ' ' 

Mr. Kennedy. IVliere did you have your meeting with him ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Again on behalf of the witness, I submit that here 
is a line of questioning which is completely new. This witness hasn't 
heard any such charge or accusation from any source, and there may 
be others of snnilar note. How far is the witness expected to answer 



4592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

such questions? I asked at 2 o'clock, and I respectfully ask you, 
Ml'. Chairman, to permit this hearing to be heard before the New 
York legislative committee, where I thought it would be more proper. 

Senator Ives. In that connection I would like to make an observa- 
tion. My recollection is, first, that that joint committee is not a stand- 
ing committee in that sense of the word at all, and it has to be con- 
tinued from year to year by a resolution. It has nothing to do at all 
with reporting out legislation on which the legislature votes. 

In the next place, I don't know what unemployment or unemploy- 
ment agencies have to do with that committee. I was chairman of 
it for 8 years and I don't think that we ever had any legislation deal- 
ing with that subject before that committee. 

So I can't see where that would fit the picture. 

I am just wondering what committee were you supposed to bring 
this legislation before? 

Mr. Miller. I don't know either. 

Senator I^'T:s. I am in a fog as to what this is all about. 

Mr. Miller. The last meeting that we had, I think that there were 
about 5 or 4 new members of the committee, I don't know, but I am 
just being brought into situations, and we just keep going on. 

(Present at this point in the proceedings: Senators McCleilan, 
Ives, Kennedy, McNamara, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. As I understand you, you Avere approached, you 
gave him a price, you were not employed ? 

Mr. Miller. I was not employed, sir. 

The Chairman. Then on the question of a conflict of interest, and 
you never represented anybody ? 

Mr. Miller. I never represented them. I was never retained. I 
had an individual that spoke to me about it, and there was a second 
individual that spoke to me about it, and they said they were going 
to have meetings with their own people, they don't know what they 
are going to do, whether they will hire someone or not hire someone. 
I was never hired. I couldn't tell you today whether I would have 
accepted that assignment or not. 

Senator Ives. Mr, Chairman, what has the United States Senate 
got to do with a conflict of interest under the laws of the State of 
KewYork? 

The Chairman. I don't know that it has anything to do with the 
State of New York, The only point is that the witness comes down 
here and says that derogatory testimony was given against him. We 
got all of this other explanation here. 

Let's let the witness stand aside and go on. 

Senator Mundt, Mr, Chairman, we have introduced another affi- 
davit into the record, and I would like to have the witness have a 
chance to deny or affirm what it says. That is the affidavit by Mr. 
Ortner, Do you have a copy of it? 

Mr, Lefkowitz, JNIay we have a chance to read it? 

Senator Mundt, The affidavit is slightly different from the one 
l)y the employer because it does not talk about the actual transmittal 
of the $200 from the employer to Mr, Miller, But I want to ask the 
witness about the statement made at the bottom of the first page and 
the top of the second page. 

If you will read that paragraph, that will enlighten you as to what 
I have in mind. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4593 

I will read that part of the aiRdavit to you. This is Mr. Ortner 
talking, who, I understand, is the counsel lor Mr. Scharaga ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Ortner? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Miijler. No. Mr. Ortner has a money interest ; I don't know 
what portion. He is not an attorney. He has a money interest in 
this Sharco Co., or at least he had when I knew him. 

Senator Mundt. He is executive secretary, I believe, of the com- 
pany. 

Mr. Miller. I don't know about the company. I think of the mat- 
tress and bedding industry in the city of New York. 

Senator Mundt. I will read from the affidavit: 

That I then called Mr. Scharaga into the office and told Miller to repeat to 
him what he had just requested of me privately ; that Miller said in the pres- 
ence of Scharaga and myself in substance the following : 

"The retroactive increases from September 1 to date will be about $600. 
Instead of giving this $600 to the workers of Sharco, give it to me. I will then 
have a meeting with the employees and advise them of the fact that Sharco is 
financially embarrassed and therefore cannot make the increase retroactive 
to September 1, 1949, but they will receive their increase in pay as of October 1, 
1949." 

You have previously testified that Mr. Scharaga did not give you 
the $200 ; you have testified that you did not receive the $200. I want 
to ask you now did you have a conversation along the lines indicated 
in this affidavit, either with Mr. Scharaga, or with Mr. Ortner, or 
with both. 

Mr. Miller. I am glad you asked that question, Senator, because 
right at this time, I think I am going to go into a lot of more things^ 

Senator Mundt. Could you answer this question first? 

Mr. Miller. As long as I am going to be put on the spot, I am 
going to put it and maybe at the stake of my life, but, you know, I 
was threatened and warned before, and come what may, you will 
get it now. You will find out why Mr. Ortner had written the letter, 
and you will find out why Mr. Scharaga wrote a letter, and you will 
find out perhaps a few more things. So we will get into it. 

Let me start first, and I must start, as long as my personal char- 
acter, integrity, is slurred every now and then, every time the name 
is mentioned, let me go in, I may be off style a little, but I will give 
you everything, and I am going to give you, I think, a lot more. 

Mr. Sol M, Hoffman, the president of this union, when I worked 
for him, is nothing t)ut a dictator, a man, who, according to a leaflet 
that I have here, in the year 1949, drew $200 a week from the welfare 
funds of the union, and every vice president he had he gave $2,500 
a year to. 

This is the reason, if you recall my affidavit, when I said that the 
counsel of the union had approached me and said that I should not 
represent any clients as an employer representative in the city of 
New York or anywhere if they have a contract with his union. 

He was afraid that I would expose this, which the whole country 
will listen to right now, come what may. 

Let me go further. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat pamphlet are you talking about? 

Mr. Miller. This is a pamphlet dated 



4594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Would you like to submit it as an exhibit in the 
record ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Identify the document. 

Senator Mundt. This is headed "International Office, United Furni- 
ture Workers of x\merica, 10 East Fifth Street, New York City, N. Y. 
Mr. Morris Pizer, President." 

It purports to be a circular dated October 4, 1949, to all officers and 
members of UIU, and is signed with a typed signature, United Furni- 
ture Workers of America, CIO. 

That is all that shows on the face of it. As to who authored it or 
where it came from or what it is, that is all. 

Can you identify it more specifically than that? 

Mr. Miller. I identify that as a letter from the United Furniture 
Workers, CIO, which explains the workings and background of Mr. 
Hoffman, president of the UIU. It talks about his salary that he 
drew from the welfare fund, and it talks about all his vice presidents 
secm-ing $2,500 a year from the welfare fund while they were being 
paid for their respective posts around the entire United States. 

The Chairman. That may be exhibit 114 for reference. I will not 
publish it in the record at this point. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 114" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. ICennedy. Do you state that all statements in this pamphlet 
are true ? 

Mr. Miller. I state, sir, to the best of my knowledge, they are true. 

Senator McNamara. Are we to conclude that these people were 
overpaid, illegaly paid, or what inference are you drawing? 

Mr. Miller. I am going to get to tlie frame, and the reasons why 
the Senator asked me. I have to lay the groundwork, and I have to 
give you the whole story, so you will understand what kind of people 
have accused me. Then you would know by then. I think you M'ould 
have an idea as to whether you can add any credibility to their affi- 
davits, on the basis of what I am going to tell you. 

Senator Mundt. He is going to establish a reason why the men 
might have been trying to frame him. 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator JNIcNamara. Then the inference is what ? That they were 
being paid illegally, immorally, or what ? 

Mr. Miller. As far as the payment, I wouldn't say it was illegally. 
It was in accordance with their own constitution. But I would say, 
morally, it was just as wrong as it was for the national president to 
buy his car on the black market during the war days. 

Senator McNamara. This is what you are pointing out, then ; that 
it is immoral. I wanted to find out what the inference was, and I 
think that answers the question. 

Mr. Miller. Proceeding further, one of the affidavits is from an 
Arthur G. McDowell. I don't know what he is today. During the 
time that I worked for this upholsterers union, there were several 
firms that refused to remit 3 percent of the payroll that the labor 
agreements called for. In other words. Senators, most of the labor 
agreements had a clause which said that the employer shall contribute 
3 percent of his payroll toward the union welfare fund. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4595 

Mr. Miller. There were some employers that thought that, perhaps, 
the welfare fund was illegal. One of the companies, a large company 
that refused to pay at that time, was a company called National 
Casket Co. They refused to submit 3 percent of the payroll to the 
miion. This union took a so-called friendly employer, with a friendly 
attorney, advised them not to pay, so that the union would come into 
the Federal court to show that their welfare plan was a justifiable 
legal plan and get a court order so that they can collect the moneys 
from all the plants around the country. 

The result of it vras that with this little employer, who does not 
compare with National Casket Company, a so-called friendly suit 
was conducted in the eastern district court of Pennsylvania, called 
civil action file No. 8744. I might add that, because this was a friendly 
suit, the court had ruled that the plan of the union at that time was 
a legal plan, he said, unless tliere was evidence shown to the contrary 
for him to see otherwise. 

But, however, this friendly suit and this employer did not bring out 
to the Federal judge that the international president at that time was 
getting $200 a week from the welfare fund. He did not bring out 
that every vice president was receiving around the country another 
$2,500 a year. He didn't bring out about all the junkets, pleasure 
trips that the welfare fund paid for, and this employer did not 
bring out a letter which I have here a photostat of, dated April 11, 
1949, State of California, Department of Employment. I quote 
paragraph 3 of the letter : 

Under section 283 (a) of the regulations, coverage under voluntary plan 
must be made available to all of the employees of the employer or to all of the 
employees employed in a separate establishment of the employer. 

This plan- 



Senator MuNDT. So that this has some significance, are you telling 
the committee that you had something to do with bringing out these 
facts against Mr. Hoffman so that Mr. Hoffman, in turn, might have 
some motive for trying to get even with you ? 

Mr. Miller. I am telling the committee that there are very few 
people that have a copy of this letter. There are very few people that 
know that the attorney that represented the company was a friendly 
attorney when he instituted this proceeding. There were very few 
people that knew that the National Casket Co. challenged the validity 
of the welfare plan. This was one of the reasons that Mr. Hoffman 
had threatened me when I refused to be paid by his resident counsel, 
who told me that J should work out a settlement with him, that I 
will accept no clients under contract with his union. 

I at that time said, "I am sorr}'^, once my door is open to represent 
employers, whoever wants to retain me can retain me. I am going in 
business, fellow." 

This is one of the reasons for McDowell affidavits coming forward 
now and so forth. 

Now, let me go on further with this character, and let's find out 
why Mr. Ortner or Mr. Scharaga wrote letters. You Senators who are 
familiar with labor relations can try to imagine what is this all about. 
Since when does an employer — it is a violation of law for an em- 
ployer to give any labor leader anything. At that time it was a 
violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, which was in effect in 1947, and 



4596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

it is a violation of State law. Since when does an employer send a 
letter and say, "Mr. Union President, you know, I give this fellow 
$200." 

Let's understand something. First of all, I did not represent no 
local union in the city of New York. I was the international director 
of organization for this union. And I was assigned, just coming in 
in the early part of 1949 — I was out on the west coast— I was assigned 
to come in to Xew York, and it was the first time that I had been 
assigned to this type of assignment in the city of New York. I want 
to say to you that Arthur Ortner is the man that introduced me to 
three known men who had served time, and it was Mr. Arthur Ortner 
who said to me tliat "these fellows are going to work for you. I cleared 
it with your boss, Sol B. Hoffman." 

And, because they were hoodlums and characters, Mr. Hoffman, 
who paid all the men that worked for me in the field as the director, 
paid the organizers directly, sent the payroll for these three hoods 
to the city of New York. It was the New York local who paid them, 
as a result. 

I want to tell you that part of the scheme, which I have learned 
later, was this : Mr. Arthur Ortner was some type of an executive 
officer for the mattress and bedding industry in the city of New York. 
He represented some in the State of New Jersey. These employers 
were caught by a very bad leftwing union. 

At that time, this was a union that was known as local 140 of the 
United Furniture Workers, CIO. There is no doubt about them 
having been communistic ; no doubt about it. No doubt that they gave 
employers a rough time. These employers would spend any amount 
of money to get rid of 140. 

Art Artner, being their representative, the man who represented 
them during the days of OPA, the man who became a millionaire be- 
cause he knew how to get price increases for mattresses during the 
OPA days, a man who is very wealthy today and very influential, had 
hatched his scheme because he was a personal friend of Sol B. Hoffman, 
the international president, who was my boss. 

When I fired these goons, I had broken up a plan, because, when a 
plan like that is adopted, here is what the employers do : Before the 
plan is successful, they will chip in certain sums of money and they 
will get it up and give it to Mr. Ortner to share with Mr. Hoffman, and 
the rest will be coming if and when the job is successful. In order to 
justify payment and expense for Hoffman to secure it, this Mr. Ortner 
had to show the rest of the employers that the guys are working on 
the payroll ; look how tough they are. Do you know who this guy is? 
He would kill you for 2 cents. 

These are the types of characters we had, sir. I fired two of them. 
Later, I was told by the third one what it was all about, and that I had 
broken up a good thing. There is the reason. I want to further point 
out to you I was not the business agent of this union. They had a 
business agent. I was a director of organization. 

Senator Mundt. Does that lead to the conclusion that your testi- 
mony is that this statement which I read about the retroactive in- 
creases of $600, your suggestion that the money be given to you instead 
of the workers — it is your testimony, based on these reasons and 
motives which you have elucidated that this affidavit is false? 

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4597 

Senator INIundt. This conservation never took place ? 

Mr. Miller. It never took place. 

Senator Muxdt. And yon have given us the reasons ? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I want to clear up any misunderstanding that exists 
on my position regarding this matter. I feel very strongly that any 
questions relative to improper activities under the jurisdiction of this 
committee, where the witness is concerned, should be asked. They 
are perfectly pertinent. But I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that questions 
related solely to his work with the New York State Joint Legislative 
Committee on Industrial and Labor Conditions should be reserved for 
a State investigation which should be forthcoming. 

I would like to have that definitely understood. I think this com- 
mittee has to draw the line somewhere in matters of that type. That 
is what I have tried to do this afternoon in the questioning where I 
am concerned. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, in that same connection, may I 
say that the only reason I made the suggestion with regard to the 
questions Senator Kennedy vras asking the witness is that I do not like 
to see any innocent witnesses, any innocent Americans, dragged into 
tliis hearing unless there is some cause for it. 

Until we have concluded, and the country has concluded in their 
own minds, whether Mr. Miller is telling the facts or whether these 
affidavits and so forth tell the facts, it seems to me it serves no good 
purpose to bring in the names of a lot of New York State legislators 
and politicians. 

I think, if the time comes that we need that information, we can 
get it. I think our staif can check carefully now into this new evi- 
dence which has come to us, come to me, anyhow, which is as much a 
surprise as the questions that came to Mr. Miller, to find out about 
this National Casket Co., about Mr. Hoffman. It is entirely possible 
this has opened up a whole new area of improper activities between 
labor and management in this area which were not before us at the 
time Mr. Miller volunteered to testify. 

Senator McNamara. In connection with tlie remarks just made by 
the witness, I would like to ask a question or two. You lay great 
stress on what you construe to be the improper handling of these 
welfare funds that were set up by a 3-percent payroll donation by 
the employer. Suf>pose this was negotiated through collective 
bargaining ? 

Mr. Miller. I will tell you my opinion, Senator. What often hap- 
pens, it is uiy contention, is that a union has a justifiable right to 
negotiate life insurance, hospitalization plans, et cetera, for the em- 
ployees, and should do so. 

(At this ])oint. Senators Mundt and Curtis withdrew from the 
liearing room.) 

Mr. Miller. But what happens often is this. I am talking about 
welfare, life insurance, surgical benefits, and so on. But the union 
demands $8, $10, or $12, and in some instances as high as 10 percent 
of the payroll for union welfare plans. Let us take a case where a 
union receives under contract $10 per month per employee for the 
following month's welfare benefits. He goes out and buys $7 worth. 



4598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

So he maintains the additional $3 in tlie treasury, and then he receives 
the dividends according to the experience rating of the book business. 
My contention is that, if he negotiates a $10 plan, buy the $10 plan for 
the workers, let them have the maximum, let the employer buy it, and 
put in the labor agreement how much he will receive in life insurance, 
surgical benefits, and so on. 

You have this problem today. Assuming that you negotiate with 
a union and you have agreed on everything, vacation, holidays with 
pay, and whatnot, and 3^ou are now down to one item, union welfare 
plans, and you agree to cover the people under the coverage that the 
union says they want them covered, but you say, "Wait a minute; I 
am going to buy this from Metropolitan Life Insurance or Jolin Han- 
cock," the union will say, ''You will? You will buy it from us or 
you will have a strike. We could not settle our contract." 

The answer to that is, then, I think, take the unions out of the 
insurance business, because, you know, like a game that is being cut, 
it is the house that winds up with the money, and I think all the 
money in our country someday will wind up with the unions because 
they keep cutting. 

Senator McNamara. You are discussing hj'^pothetical things. I 
am trying to ask you about the 3 percent that you were tallcing about 
that is in effect. 

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

Mr. Miller. Riglit. 

Senator McNamara. How was it administered ? 

Mr. Miller. How was it administered? I will tell you. That is 
a very good question, a very good question. 

Those plans that are established prior 

Senator McNamara. Not those plans. The plan. 

Mr, Miller. The plan. It w^as administered by the international 
president, who had as trustees all the vice presidents, and God help 
them if they didn't agree to vote for what the national president 
wanted them to vote for. They were nothing but puppets in the 
room. That is all they were. 

Senator McNamara. Are you trying to tell us that this plan was 
administered solely by the union ? 

Mr, Miller. By the union. 

Senator McNamara. The employers did not enter into the disbure- 
ing of funds or buying the insurance or anything? 

Mr. Miller, No, But they had a right, by the way. I think there 
has been a ruling that those plans that were established prior to the 
Labor-Management Act of 1947 can be run without management rep- 
resentatives on the plan. 

Senator McNamara. You do not know how this one was run, or 
do you ? 

Mr. Miller. This was established prior to 1947. They had a 
right, legally, to run that way. 

Senator McNamara. Who had a right ? 

Mr. Miller. The union did. They had a right to run this plan 
without management representatives. But it was a one-man show. 

Senator ]\IcNamara. So they had a right. You had something 
to do with setting it up ? 

Mr. Miller. No ; I didn't set it up. 



IMPROPER ACTTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4599 

Senator McNamara. The 3-percent plan was set up before you 
went there ? 

Mr. Miller. When we negotiated with the employer, our demand 
was that he would have to pay 3 percent of his paj^roll to cover the 
people under the following welfare benefits and remit it to the union. 

Senator McNamara. And this 3 percent was turned over to the 
union and management liad no control whatsoever ? 

Mr, Miller. No control whatsoever. I might say there was a plant 
in New Jersey that was under contract with this union for about 10 
percent. The president of the company refused to permit the em- 
ployer to sign an insurance plan with the union. He wanted an out- 
side company. Mr. Hoffman said, "If that is what he wants, then we 
don't want the members. They have to give us the plan." 

I wonder why. 

Senator McNAMARiV. Getting back to the 3-percent plan, it seems 
hard to keep you on the track, was this a plan negotiated prior to 
your coming into Grand Rapids ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. This is a plan that started perhaps prior to my 
working for this union. 

Senator McNamara. Then you had no experience personally in the 
setting up of the plan ? 

Mr. Miller. No ; but I used to sit in at some of their trustee meet- 
ings and see how they were in action. 

Senator McNamara. So you found it in operation when you got, 
there ? 

Mr. Miller. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. It was still 3 percent when you left? 

Mr. Miller. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Would you like to have these as further exhibits, 
Mr. Chairman, the letter from the State of California, and the de- 
cision, and so forth ? 

The Chairman. They may be turned over to the committee, and I 
will examine them. 

Call the next witness. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Ives, McNa- 
mara, and Curtis. ) 

The Chairman. He testified to the letter, did he not ? 

Mr. Lefkowitz. Yes. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit 115. 

(The document i-feferred to was marked "Exhibit 115," for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4877.) 

The Chairman. This next item will be made an exhibit for refer- 
ence only. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roman will be the next witness. 

The Chairman. Please 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 noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Roman. I do. 



4600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JOSE LUMEN ROMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, EOBERT S. PEESKY 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and busi- 
ness or occupation. 

Mr. Roman. Jose Lumen Roman, 164 Duane Street, New York, I 
am a reporter for El Diario, the Spanish daily newspaper; a news 
commentator for WLIV, a Spanish language radio station in New 
York City, and a moderator for, What's Your Problem, a Spanish 
language TV program over WATV, in Newark, N. J. 

The Chairman. You have your counsel with you ? 

Mr. Roman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Persky. I am Robert S. Persky of the firm of Luca, Persky 
& Mozer, of 150 Broadway, New York City. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Ives, Avill you preside for a while ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roman, you have been living in New York for 
how long? 

Mr. Roman. Seven years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are familiar with the operation of Mar- 
shall Miller? 

Mr. Roman. I do, in a way. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You are familiar with his method of operation? 

Mr. Roman. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are familiar with the local union, 229 ? 

Mr. Roman. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is the local union run by Archie Katz? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Generally, have you found that the Spanish speak- 
ing people in New York Citv have had difficulty with Mr. Archie 
Katz? 

Mr. Roman. Very much difficulty with Mr. Archie Katz and local 
229 ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have the employers that Mr. Marshall Miller has 
represented — have the employees, people working for those employers, 
have they had difficulty as members of local 229 ? 

Mr. Roman. Yes ; they have trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as wages, hours, and conditions ? 

Mr. Roman. Yes. As a matter of fact, I spoke with about 36 yes- 
terday and there are some working 10 years in a shop only making 
$40 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the contract that the employers have signed, 
and the ones tliat he represents, the contract arranges for a 40-hour 
workweek ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Roman. Forty hours workweek. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it is a dollar an hour minimum wage? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they only get a week's vacation if they work a 
year; is that correct? 

Mr. Roman. Sometimes, but that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they have to work on June 1 of the year; is 
that correct? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 4601 

Mr. RoMAisT. That is correct, too. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I want to ask you if you ever had any personal 
deahngs with Mr. Marshall Miller, and whether Mr. Marshall Miller 
ever held himself out to be a representative of Archie Katz, the union, 
or a representative of local 229. 

Mr. Roman. Yes. On or about November 17, 1956, I received, in 
my office at El Diario, 164 Duane Street, Mr. Archie Katz and some 
representative of local 229, because I was writing a series of articles 
on regard about the complaints of the Puerto Rican workers against 
local 229. At that time, I asked Mr. Archie Katz, and Mr, Archie 
Katz in a very rough way threatened to sue me and the paper be- 
cause I didn't give him a chance to express his points of view. 

That very same day I asked Mr. Archie Katz to debate the issue 
with the workers on my TV show and Mr. Archie Katz accepted the 
invitation, and the Sunday following that date, Mr. Archie Katz ap- 
peared in my show with a doctor, nurse, and Mr. Marshall Miller. 

The workers were there. Mr. Marshall Miller was the one who 
spoke on behalf of local 229. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was your complaint? What had you been 
pointing out? 

Mr. Roman. The workers were complaining specifically that with- 
out their consent, local 229 had increased the dues from $3 to $4. 
That was the complaint. That was the basic complaint of the workers. 
That was the issue in my television program. 

In that show, before the show, during the discussion prior to going 
to the air, I specifically asked Mr. Archie Katz and Mr. Miller not 
to take any step against these workers for being there, against them. 

They promised me on the air that they were not going to take any 
steps. Nevertheless, I found out later on that three workers were 
fired. 

Mr. Kennedy, Three of the workers who had come to the program 
and who were going to participate in a program were subsequently 
fired; is that right? 

Mr. Roman. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And by the employers that Mr. Marshall Miller was 
representing ? 

Mr. Roman. True. 

Mr. Kennedy. Although, at this program, he came as a representa- 
tive of Archie Katz and of the union ? 

Mr. Roman. Right. In that program, I usually ask everybody their 
name and what they* represent or where they live, where they come 
from. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me this : Preceding the program, did you 
have any conversation with Mr. Miller? 

Mr. Roman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell the committee about that? 

Mr. Roman. Well, preceding the show, I asked Mr. Marshall Miller 
who he was. At that time, he told me, "I am a labor consultant. I am 
an expert on labor and labor consultant." He said also that he was 
representing Mr. Archie Katz. We went to the air and that is the 
way he identified himself on the air. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to this show, and you have made out an affi- 
davit for us, prior to the show did Mr. Miller state anything to you 
about offering a donation? 



4602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. EoMAN. A what? 

Mr. Kennedy. Offering a donation to a fund. 

Mr. Roman. Yes. Prior to the show, El Diario- 



Mr. Kennedy. Was carrying on a campaign? 

Mr. Roman. For a Spanish hospital in New York City. And Mr. 
Miller and Mr. Archie Katz asked me if I was the one conducting that 
campaign and I answered them in the affirmative. 

Mr. Archie Katz and Mr. Miller offered me a donation. I told them 
that the donation was to be made at the El Diario office. Then they 
asked me if I was the same reporter that was conducting a campaign 
for toys for children, toys for Christmas for the underprivileged 
Puerto Rican children. 

Again I answered in the affirmative and they offered me toys. I 
told them that I would accept the toys if the toys were delivered at the 
El Diario offi.ce. 

Then Mr. Miller told me that he understand that I had a great in- 
terest on labor matters, that it was a shame that I was not working for 
a union. He suggested to Archie Katz that I should edit a Spanish 
paper for the union that they were contemplating making. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. He offered you a job editing the paper? 

Mr. Roman. Mr. Katz offered me the job editing the paper and I 
refused. Then we went to the air, and Mr. Marshall Miller defended 
very vigorously the welfare plan of local 229. 

I recall perfectly that one of the workers called Mr. Marshall Mil- 
ler, "a liar" because he said that the glasses that the workers were 
issued were issued by the welfare plan of the 229. 

This woman that was Puerto Rican and very hot tempered took 
the glasses and threw them at Mr. Miller and called him a liar and said, 
"It cost me $12 and I paid $12 to local 229 for it." 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean under the welfare plan they were sup- 
posed to provide glasses? 

Mr. Roman. At a minimum charge. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was a statement made on the broadcast ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And a woman who attended the meeting, took her 
glasses off and threw them down and said, "I had to pay $12 for it; 
you are a liar," is that right ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Were they supposed to get the glasses free ? 

Mr. Roman. For a nominal price. 

Senator Curtis. "V^Hiat was a nominal price ? 

Mr. Roman. I don't know exactly, but I understand it was between 
$2 and $6. 

After the show, an agreement was reached between Mr. Marshall 
Miller, Mr. Katz, the doctor, the nurse, and the other representative of 
local 229, that no one will be fired or any steps will be taken against 
the workers. Three of them wei-e fired. I have their pictures some- 
where around here. Three of them were fired. 

The Chairman. Do you want to leave that as an exhibit? 

Mr. Roman. Yes, sir, I will. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 116 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 116" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4603 

Senator Curtis. Would you name the workers that were fired, since 
that is going to be for reference? 

Mr. Roman. They are there, sir. I don't remember their names. 

Senator Cttrtis. Would you read them into the record? 

Mr. Roman. Yes, I will. Maria Ramas was one. Carmen Padilla 
was the other one. I beg your pardon. Ana Cordero was one and 
Nereida Rosas was the other one. 

Senator Curtis. Two of them ? 

Mr. Roman. Two of them. 

Senator McNamara. When these two workers were fired, was it 
immediately after appearing on the program or did some time elapse? 

Mr. Roman. I understand 2 weeks afterward. 

Senator McNamara. Two weeks ? 

Mr. Roman. Two weeks, as I understand. I was informed by them- 
selves that it was 2 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any advantage, did you find, of Mr. Miller 
being able to pass himself off as a consultant to the State of New York 
Joint Legislative Committee ? 

Mr. Roman. Weil, after the television show, Mr. Miller again identi- 
fied himself as consultant to other unions of New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. But was it an advantage, did vou find that it was an 
advantage for him to be able to describe himself as a consultant of the 
State of New York Joint Legislative Committee? 

Mr. Roman. Yes ; because, within a short time after this, Mr. Miller 
introduced himself to my superiors, to my editor in chief, Mr. Stanley 
Ross, at El Diario, holding herself out as a consultant to the New York 
State Legislative Committee on Industry and Labor, and persuaded 
Mr. Ross to allow him to write a column on industrial relations for 
the Spanish daily newspaper El Diario. 

As soon as this column appeared, and their slants became evident, 
I informed Mr. Stanley Ross of JMr. Miller's conduct on my television 
show. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have made somewhat of an analysis of this con- 
tract that local 229 has with the employer. Paragraph 7 states that 
time employees shall receive an increase of $2 per week at the end 
of respective trial periods, and at the end of respective trial periods no 
employee shall receive less than $42 per week, which means they start 
at the minimum wage of a dollar and there is no agreement in the 
contract as to how long the trial period is to last. 

It is up to the employer to decide when the increase of $2 a week 
will be granted. 

Vacations : Employees who have been in the employ of the employer 
for 1 year as of June 1 of the respective year shall receive 1 week's 
vacation with pay in advance. Those employed 3 years or more shall 
receive 2 weeks' vacation with pay in advance. 

Rest periods, section 1 5 : Wliere rest periods have been established, 
they shall prevail in those respective shops. 

In other words, no rest period is prescribed in this contract. 

Section 16 : The union agrees that it will not, during the terms of 
this agreement, sign an agreement with any nonmember of the as- 
sociation where said agreement is more favorable than the association 
agreement. 

In other words, Mr. Chairman, this type of contract is the best 
contract the union will sign, even with any nonmember of the Textile 



4604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Trade Association. So this contract sets the scale for all manufac- 
turers covered by Local 229 contracts. 

Mr. KoMAN. Let me point out, Mr. Kemiedy, that just yesterday I 
received a petition of 26 workers from local 229, If you do not mind, 
1 can read some names. They are working 10 years and making only 
$40 a week. This is very typical in that industry on Puerto Rican 
workers and Negro workers in New York City. 

Carmen Rosa, 729 Union Avenue, the Bronx, working for the 
Pearl Curtain, 55 West 26th Street, Manhattan, who has been in that 
shop for 10 years and still making $40. 

Also, Mary Aviles, 1506 Southern Avenue, the Bronx, has been 
there for 10 years, in the imion all the time, local 229, and still making 
$40. 

Olga Salgado, 3819 Third Avenue, the Bronx, 7 years in that shop, 
local 229, and making still $40. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What is your experience so far as attempting to live 
in New York City on $40 a week ? 

Mr. Roman. You cannot live on $40 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do most of these people have families? 

Mr. Roman. That is the difficulty. The Puerto Ricans enjoy large 
families. No one, no one possibly can live on $45 a week, not in 
New York City or in any other city of the United States, as a matter 
of fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Recently you had sort of an air-raid alert in New 
York City? 

Mr. Roman. Yes. That is very interesting. I received a letter 
from Estela Lotomayor. She lives at 27 Sterling Place, Brooklyn, 
and in her letter, in Spanish, she stated that the boss, with the consent 
of the union, deducted 50 minutes ; that is, for the air-raid drill. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. They deducted from the salary for that time? 

Mr. Roman. For all the Puerto Rican workers in that particular 
shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the take-home pay on these people that 
make $40 or $45 a w^eek ? 

Mr. Roman. An average of $37. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received many letters of complaint from 
the various people of Puerto Rican extraction ? 

Mr. Roman. We have here with me close to 200. I have in my office 
over 400 more. It was physically impossible to take them all. 

]SIr. Kennedy. When did they come in ? 

Mr, Roman. In 9 days, since the ACTU made the statements 
here about the exploitation of Puerto Rican workers. That is just 
a few of the ones that we have. The complaints are more or less in 
this fashion. I wall just pull one out. 

We have a complaint here from Local 1614, International Brother- 
hood of Electrical Workers. The complaint was made by Santos 
Mercado. There were no meetings; they never saw a contract; there 
were no benefits; no grievances; and he pays $4 a month dues, and 
the salary, as usual, is $40 a week. 

I have one here from local 1222, and this one was not signed, be- 
cause many Puerto Ricans are afraid to be fired if they complain. 
As a matter of fact, they are threatened many times, even if they com- 
plain to El Diario. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4605 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever been threatened yourself? 

Mr. EoMAN. Yes, I have been. I have been three times. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. When was that ? 

Mr. EoMAN. And the bomb squad of New York City searched Mr. 
Eoss' house very recentl}', too. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with the articles you have been 
writing ? 

Mr. KoMAN. In connection with our campaign that started May 
3, 1956, after 6 months of investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with all of this, is it recognized that 
Marshall Miller is there protecting the interests of these employers 
that make these collusive contracts w^ith the union? 

Mr. Roman. The workers know that ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is recognized ; is it ? 

Mr. Roman. Yes ; the workers in the companies know that. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Have you written articles concerning Mr. Marshall 
Miller's connection ? 

Mr. Roman. No; I don't recall having written any articles on Mr. 
Marshall Miller, but he wrote for El Diario. He wrote a column for 
El Diario that was suspended, this column. 

There is one point I would like to make, if there is any possibility. 
Mr. Marshall Miller that appeared on my show on that date in No- 
vember, also stated in the show that local 229 had a legitimate right 
to increase the dues without the consent of the workers. Some time 
later, in the column, he defended publicly, on the 3d of December 
1956, that an article — oh, yes; he specifically mentioned local 229, 
he mentioned local 229 — he said that the local unions can increase 
from $3 to $4 the dues. That was about 15 days after he made that 
statement on my television show. 

The Chairman. That article may be made exhibit 117 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 117" for refer- 
ence and may be fomid in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. In conclusion, there is some work now being done 
amongst the people up in New York of Puerto Rican extraction ? 

Mr. Roman. Yes. 

As a matter of fact, the mayor of the city of New York, Mayor 
Wagner, has called a meeting, and is doing the utmost to help eradi- 
cate this problem. So Governor Harriman is also doing an investi- 
gation on this whole affair. 

Senator Ives. jMay J^ raise a question there ? Was anything done in 
New York City prior to the disclosurCvS that have come out of the 
hearings here ? 

JMr. Ro]\rAN. Mr. Senator, thanks to you, something has been done 
very recently. 

Senator Ives. I wondered if our hearings didn't stir you up, up 
there. 

Mr. Roman. Your hearings have done a lot of good to the Puerto 
Ricans in New York City. 

Senator Ives. In other words, they started investigating in the city 
right after these hearings were held; is that right? 

Mr. Roman. We were for 1 year hammering and hammering and 
hammering and nobody listened to us until now. 

Senator I"\tes. Thank you. 

80330 — 57 — pt. 12 8 



4606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator MgNamara. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator MgNamara. How long have you had an active interest in 
this situation? 

Mr. EoMATsr. Ever since I went to work for El Diario, February 3, 
1953. 

Senator McNamara. About 4 years? 

Mr. EoMAN. That is right. 

Senator JMcNamara. You indicate that the members of local 229 
are paid $40 a week, which is the minimum requirement under Federal 
law in the industry ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct, sir. But there is one thing very im- 
portant here. Most of these workers do not know English what- 
soever, or very little, if they do. These unions have told them many 
times, through interpreters or Puerto Rican organizers, that they 
obtained increases, minimimi-wage increases, through their efforts 
and not through an act of Congress of the United States. 

Senator McXamara. So we get back to the fact that they are paid 
merely the required pay under Federal law ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct, sir. 

Senator McNamara. How many employees are there in this local 229 
that you are talking about ? Do you know ? 

Mr. Roman. I don't Iniow. 

Senator MgNamara. Are there hundreds or thousands, or what is 
the figure? 

Mr. Roman. The majority are Puerto Rican. I would say there 
are plenty. I would not guess. I wouldn't dare take a guess. But 
they are many. 

Senator MgNamara. I am trying to find out how widespread this 
is. Is this through the whole industry ? Is this the bedding manu- 
facturing industry ? 

Mr. Roman. In tliat particular industry, the Puerto Rican workers 
are very underpaid. 

Senator MgNamara. I don't question that. But getting back to 
tliis local 229 and the industiy in which they operate, is this generally 
considered the bedding industry, the bedding manufacturing industry, 
or is it something else ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Roman. No ; there are other things besides the bedding indus- 
try. There are other things. 

Senator MgNamara. Now, you talk about these people in 229. Do 
they work as service people in hotels ? What do they work at ? That 
is what I am trying to find out. Are they dishwashers, waiters, or 
waitresses? T^^at do they do? 

Mr. Roman. We have here a good contrast. 

Mrs. Esther Martinez, 2275 47th Street, Astoria, Long Island. She 
has been working for 6 years for the same factory, and local 229. 
Wliile all other workers in that factory are making $40 a week, she is 
maldng $90 a week because she is just an operator. She is considered 
to be skilled operator. 

Senator Mc;Namara. So a skilled operator gets $90 a week? 

Mr. Roman. She is the only one making that much money. 

Senator ISIgNamar-v. Is she a member of the miion, too ? 

Mr. Roman. She is a member of local 229. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4607 

Senator McNamaea. Then they don't all get $40 ? 

Mr. Roman. That is the only case that I found on 26 that I inter- 
viewed yesterday. 

Senator McNamara. One out of twenty-six ? 

Mr. EoMAN. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. But you don't know whether there are a hun- 
dred employees involved or thousands? 

Mr. Roman. There are hundreds of employees involved. 

Senator McNamara. I was trying to establish if the industry is all 
like this, if this is a lack of competition generally. Are there other 
employers who pay more than $40 a week in this industry ? 

Mr. Roman". If they were piecework they might. If not, they never 
make more than $40. 

Senator McNamara. But they are in various industries not just 
manufacturing mattresses. I am trying to find out what these people 
work at. What is the industry that is involved ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Roman. Local 229 has pillows, bedspreads, mattresses. They 
have many other thmgs. 

Senator McNamara. This is generally what is considered the bed- 
ding industry ; is it ? Do you understand that ? 

Mr. Roman. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know that. 

Senator McNamara. Well, pillows are connected with beds, and 
blankets or whatever you call them. Mattresses — these are all similair 
items. It might be considered an industry. 

Mr. Roman. Well, it is the industry, then, yes. 

Senator ]\IcNamara. Then do you hnd this is general throughout 
the entire industry ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Senator ]\IcNamara. And these people that are not Puerto Ricans 
in the industry, they still get the $40 ? 

Mr. Roman. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat do they get? 

Mr. Roman. They get more. 

Senator McNamara. And they belong to 229 ? 

Mr. Roman. They belong to 229. 

Senator McNamara. Then do you think that the union discrim- 
inates against your people, as against other people, but you don't 
have any figures what the others are paid, except on piecework they 
get more ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. And whether they are Puerto Ricans or not, 
they get more, if they are on piecework? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara, Well, I don't quite get the point. Wliat is 
this all about ? If the industry generally pays $40, 1 don't know. 

Senator Curtis. These employees under 229; do they work under 
a contract that requires that they remain in the union to hold their 
jobs? 

Mr. Roman. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So they are not at liberty to withdraw from the 
union without losing their jobs, even though they are dissatisfied 
with the services the union gives them ? 



4608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Roman. That is right. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the questions here is, if they only get the 
minimum wage of $40 a week, then there is no advantage to belonging 
to the union and having to pay dues every month ; is that not cori-eet? 

Mr. Roman. Well, it is correct, but I believe that no union, phan- 
tom union or no phantom union, should collect dues unless the worker 
gets more than $45. 

Mr. Kennedy. Agreed. But. on the question of if they are not 
going to get them a salary greater than $40 a week, if they are not 
going to get them a salary of $45, $50, or more, then, certainly, it is 
questionable whether the employees should have to pay dues for that 
service, of getting them what the laws of the land have already 
given them. 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. They only make $40 a week, and 
they have to pay $4 a month dues. 

The Chairman. As I understand it. $40 a week would be the mini- 
mum under the wage and hour law. They have to pay $40 a week, 
under the wage and hour law. Yet they are forced to belong to a 
union and pay $3 or $4 a month dues, and the union gets them nothing 
higher in wages than the $40 minimum under the Avage and hour law. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct, sir. But there is one point I would 
like to make at this stage. Local 229 is just one of so many locals 
that are exploiting the Puerto Ricans in New York City. That doesn't 
mean that there are not legitimate outfits in the labor unions who 
are trying to help Puerto Rican laborers. There are many, too, who 
are helping the Puerto Ricans. 

The Chairman. Do they have to belong to the union to work? 

Mr. Roman. When in comes local 229, they have to belong to the 
union. 

The Chairman. Were all of these plants around unionized? 

Mr. Roman. Yes, sir. I visited yesterday nine. All were unionized 
by local 229. 

The Chairman. In this contract that I have before me, one that 
I understand was negotiated by Mr. Miller, I notice among other 
things, it provides in section 4 : 

All the employees covered by this agreement shall become members of the 
union 30 days after their date of hiring or the date of the execution of this 
agreement, whichever is the latter. 

So, these contracts compel them to be members of the union. 

Mr. Roman. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And yet they are only paid the minimum Avage. 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, also, Mr. Chairman, this is a 3-year 
contract. It runs from 1957 through June of 1960. 

Mr. Roman. Let me point out, also, that, whenever there is a holi- 
day, like the Fourth of July, these workers are laid off in order not 
to be paid for that holiday. They not only are laid oft', but, when 
they come back, they are forced to pay again the initiation fee, and 
start as new members with loss of seniority. 

You have here the letters, and I will send to the committee all 
the rest that I have at El Diario, and it adds to the general com- 
plaints of the Puerto Rican workers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4609 

The Chair^iax. Do you want to leave those letters here? 

Mr. Roman, Yes, sir, and I would like to have the committee's 
permission to send more. 

The Chairman. They may be bundled up and kept as an exhibit. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 118" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This union that you have been talking about that 
made this arrangement, the employers that made the contract with 
the union, the employers are represented by Mr, Marshall Miller; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. To go back to the bedding industry, 
when I say $40, I mean 229 shops, but we don't have figures on non- 
Katz bedding shops. So we only spoke of the Katz outfits. 

Senator McNamara. You are speaking of nine shops? 

Mr. Roman. 229 shops. 

Senator McNamara. You mentioned there were nine that you 
visited? 

Mr. Roman. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Is it your conclusion that this condition is 
brought about by collusion between management and labor illegally 
to keep down the payment of legitimate wages to the workers? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. And, actually, your people are forced to fol- 
low this method because they have control of employment. The only 
way they can become employees is to become members of the union 
after 30 days ; is that right? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. So, they are using it as an employment agency, 
more than anything, as far as the incentive for someone to go there? 

Mr. Roma. You can call it like that. 

Senator McNamara. If he can't get work anyplace else, he goes 
there, and it is a lousy condition, but he has to put up with it because 
lie can't get anything better ? 

Mr. Roman. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Have you advised these people not to do this ? 

Mr. Roman. Sir, I receive an average of 50 to 75 complaints a day 
on labor alone. Most of the time I refer them to the Association of 
Catholic Trade Unionists, who have been cooperating with us very 
closely since we started the campaign, because nobody else ever paid 
any attention to our complaints in this matter. We refer them to 
ACTU, and then tltey will take care of the matter. They will advise 
properly these workers, because I feel that they are more fit to advise 
them. 

Senator McNamara. In your role, and I am more concerned with 
your role in the thing, are you trying to get other unions, that would 
be legitimate unions, to go in there ? Have you asked other unions ? 

Mr. Roman. No, sir ; I have not. 

Senator McNamara. What are you going to do? Are you going 
to complain about it and attempt to do nothing? You have a big 
group of people. They have some economic pressure. Why don't you 
try to get them to rebel against this thing. You must do something 
besides write about it. 

Mr. Roman. Senator, I think we have achieved that, with the coop- 
eration of this committee. 



4610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THEl LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara, I see no evidence of it. Maybe you think so., 
but I don't have any evidence of it. 

Mr. EoMAN. Well, I will say that 8 or 10 shops that have complained 
to us, we have referred them, in turn, to the Association of Catholic 
Trade Unionists. Other locals have come up and organized them, 
and they are getting a much, much better deal. 

Senator McNamara. That is interesting. You hadn't said that up 
to now. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. If union membership in this situation was volun- 
tary, and not compulsory that they had to join to hold their job, 
there would not be many of them join the union, would there, if it 
was purely a voluntary thing? I am talking about this particular 
union — 229. 

Mr. Roman. With local 229? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Roman. I don't think that the Puerto Ricans that once tasted 
local 229 will ever accept local 229. 

Senator Curtis. They would be ahead $-4 a month and the income 
of the union would be cut off, would it not ? 

Mr. Roman. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I think that would be a good way to cure it. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. On the point that Senator McNamara brought up, 
about this being an employment agency, there is a provision in the 
contract that states if any vacancy shall occur among the employees 
of the bargaining unit or if the employer shall require additional help, 
then the employer agrees to notify the union of such vacancy. 

Senator McNamara. Is there much turnover? Is there a gi'eat 
deal of turnover in these jobs? 

Mr. Roman. Well, Senator, as I mentioned before, once these people, 
these Puerto Ricans, are laid off, they bring new workers and they 
themselves, if they ever are called back, they have to come as new 
workers, too. So there is a constant influx of changing from montli 
to month. 

Senator McNamara. It is more or less temporary, although you 
have some there that have been there for many years? 

Mr. Roman. For many years. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This provision goes on and states that the final de- 
cision, however, as to who shall be employed, is up to the employer. 

We have two more witnesses. 

Mr. Thomas Rizzo is our next witness. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Roman. 

Come forward, Mr. Rizzo. 

(Members present at this point : Senators McClellan, Ives, McNa- 
mara, and Curtis.) 

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

Mr. Rizzo. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES rNT THE LABOR FIELD 4611 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. RIZZO, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

ROBEET S. PERSKY 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Persky is appearing 
as counsel for this witness, also. 

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

Mr. Eizzo. Thomas A. Rizzo, 233 Broadway, New York City. I am 
an attorney. 

The Chairmax. You are an attorney ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Eizzo, as a volunteer, have you been doing legal 
work for the organization called ACTU ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes ; I have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached in the end of 1956 by certain 
of the employees of a shop with whom local 229, Archie Katz, had a 
contract ? 

Mr. Rizzo. I was not approached by any of the employees, but, 
rather, ACTU referred these employees to me, since they were un- 
happy about the conditions which existed concerning their member- 
ship in local 229. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were unhappy with the arrangements, the deal 
that they had been getting from local 229 ? 

Mr. Rizzo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, did you agree to advise them ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes ; 1 agreed to advise them, and I agi-eed to take their 
grievance up before the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, did you proceed to do that, and did you have any 
contact then with Mr. Marshall M. Miller ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Well, the first contact I had with Marshall Miller was 
at the National Labor Relations Board, but I think it is necessary for 
me to, first, give you some background. 

Mr. Kennedy. Please do. 

Mr. Rizzo. There were three shops involved in this dispute with 
local 229, each of these shops belonging to 229. One was the Maken 
Umbrella Co., the second was Andor Co., and the third was Pearl 
Curtains. I had not heard of Marshall Miller at that time. Imme- 
diately after a petition was filed with the National Labor Relations 
Board — and, by the way, the petition, gentlemen, had to do with union 
deauthorization and jiot as Mr. Miller stated before. 

Mr. Kennedy. What had he described it as? 

Mr. Rizzo. He described it as decertification, and any person in 
the labor movement knows that there is a vast difference between the 
two. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you just tell us the difference between de- 
authorization and decertification and what that meant in this contract i 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. Decertification is a proceeding whereby you actu- 
ally throw the union out. I am going to use lay terms now, and you 
have another representative put in its place. 

Union deauthorization, as we had in this instance, in these 3 cases, 
has to do with getting 30 percent of the employees to sign a petition 
asking for an election, where the union-security clause is stricken from 
the contract. That is that clause in the contract which says that it is 



4612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

necessary for employees to belon*]: to the union as a condition of em- 
ployment 30 days after tliey get into that shop. 

Once you knock that clause out by an election of more than 50 per- 
cent of the employees, then it has the ultimate result of actually 
stopping all dues payments to that union. 

These employees being dissatisfied with local 229 came to me and 
said, "What can we do?" 

I told them, I said, "We will knock out that clause if you can get me 
30 percent of the employees wlio are willing to go along and ask for 
an election, and if in the election you can win with more than 50 per- 
cent of the employees we will knock out that clause and practically 
render the union ineffective. 

One of the employers, a Mr. Cohen, A. G. Cohen, of Maken Umbrella 
Co., called me on the telephone having received notice that this 
petition had been filed by the employees, and asked me "Mr, Rizzo, 
what is this all about ?" 

I proceeded to explain that this was a right between employees 
and local 229, that it had nothing to do with him. He then stated that 
he would remain neutral, "if this is between the employees and local 
229, I will have nothing to do with it. Let them fight it out by 
themselves." 

It so liappens that tlie three companies were appearing before the 
National Labor Relations Board on the same day. 

I went down to the National Labor Relations Board and, contrary 
to his promise, Mr. Cohen had, on the night previous, called in his em- 
ployees and told them that by proceeding with this idea of an election 
they were going to cause themselves a lot of trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was with him at that time ? 

Mr. Rizzo. At that time, at the meeting — of course, you realize no-vr 
that what I am telling you is hearsay and you have it confirmed, I 
believe, by affidavits which I submitted to the committee. At that 
time, at that meeting, there was a man I later learned to be one Mar- 
shall Miller, there was also Mr. Cohen, and the employees. 

Mr. Kennedy, Marshall Miller, according to what was reported to 
you and what these affidavits show, appeared with the employer before 
the employees and warned them against this cleauthorization, voting 
for the deauthorization ? 

Mr. Rizzo, That is right, 

Mr, Kennedy. Under the law, is that an unfair labor practice ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes ; I consider it to be an unfair labor practice. 

During the hearings, the informal hearings, I realized that there 
was this Marshall Miller, the first contact I had with them, who was 
representing the boss, and local 229 was involved in the first hearing. 

In the second hearing, the same thing occured, 229 involved, local 
229, and for the boss was Marshall Miller, 

I became a bit suspicious, and I asked Mr. Cohen "Mr. Cohen, how 
did you get this Marshall Miller ?" 

First "he hesitated and then he said, "I looked him up in the red 
book" the classified telephone book, "and I looked for the labor con- 
sultant and there he was. So I picked him out of the red book." 

Then Mr. Marshall Miller joined the conversation. 

Do you want me to go on as to what happened ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Just ou the main point. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4613 

He appeared as representing the employer before the board and at 
that time, did he oppose the deanthorization ? 

Mr. Rizzo. He most strongly opposed the deanthorization pro- 
ceeding. In fact, when I asked Mr. Cohen, "Why did you call the 
employees together to give them a lecture on this," he said, "I did this 
on' advice of counsel.'' I said, "Who is that ?" He said, "Mr. Marshall 
Miller. From now on I do what he tells me to do." 

Mr. Kennedy. At this same time, in this same period, starting in 
early 1956 and 1957, at the same time Mr. Miller was appearing with 
Mr. Archie Katz to Mr. Roman as a representative of Archie Katz 
and local 229. Why were you familiar with that? Did you know 
that that was going on at this very time ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Only from hearsay, only from what I heard. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when they appeared on a television program, 
Mr. Miller attempted to 

Mr. Rizzo. To pass himself off as a labor consultant for local 229. 

Mr. Kennedy. And attempted to offer gifts to the charity of Mr. 
Roman ; is that right ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes; I heard about that. But more important to me 
was the fact that Jose Roman had been writing articles against 
229 and now 229 was offering him a job on a newspaper. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the experience that you have had, is the con- 
tract that exists between the employers and local 229 fair to the 
employees ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Definitely not. You see, some contracts say one thing 
and something entirely different is done. Aside from the wages, 
let us prescind that for a moment, let us look at the welfare benefits, 
supposed welfare benefits. 

Immediately after this episode on television with Jose Roman, 
in which he was offered a job with local 229's newspaper, suddenly 
articles in that newspaper stopped against 229 and Miller began Avrit- 
ing articles for that newspaper. I though this was kind of strange. 
To date I have not been able to determine why or who swung the in- 
fluence that stopped this newspaper from writing articles against local 
229 and Archie Katz. 

This newspaper carried articles showing this wonderful man, 
Archie Katz, whom Mr. Miller said was a fine man in the labor move- 
ment and he knew nothing wrong. I learned later that he had two 
convictions. Suddenly they had these articles showing that there 
was a hospital that the people could go to. In looking into this, I 
found out sure, they* can have glasses made and sure they can go for 
certain medical treatment, provided they paid for it. To me I don't 
think this is any fair contract to anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand from the testimony of the previous 
witness, Mr. Roman, that Mr. Miller was allowed to write these arti- 
cles on the basis that he passed himself off as a consultant to the 
State of Xew York Joint Legislative Committee. 

Did you have any other contact with Mr. Miller after that? 

Mr. Rizzo. No, after that I had no contact with Mr. Miller, until 
these hearings began. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you know that Archie Katz during this period 
of time was sharing office space with Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Only from hearsay and what I read. 



4614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know the relationship between Tony "Ducks" 
Corallo and Archie Katz ? 

Mr. Rizzo. I do not. 

Mr. Ejinnedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. I have one thing. 

Mr. Rizzo. May I add one thing before, because I would like to 
settle something that is very important which came up in these hear- 
ings, concerning some of the doubletalking done by Mr. Miller today. 
He stated that an election was held in which 15 persons had voted 
on this union deauthorization in Maken Umbrella, and that the em- 
ployees had lost because it was not considered a majority. However, 
he fails to go on and tell you why that was not a majority. He fails 
to tell you that prior to the election suddenly there was a stream of 
layoffs in the shop, so that the Association of Catholic Trade Union- 
ists had to go out with trucks and automobiles searching for these 
people throughout the city and couldn't get them all to the election, 
that actually the vote at that election was 15 to throw out the union and 
5 in favor of it, 3 to 1, which, if we could have gotten to the rest of 
the employees — and we are now, by the way, putting in protest against 
that election because of that, and it was threats that they constantly 
made, "If we want to, we won't have anybody in that shop tomorrow." 

Senator Curtis. You feel that this procedure to deunionize the 
company, to take compulsory membership out of the contract, that 
that is one available present method of breaking the hold of unions 
who grant no service but the members are compelled to pay the dues? 

Mr. Rizzo. Definitely, and a most effective one. It is the most 
effective one. It is the best they can do when you consider the differ- 
ence between deauthorization and decertification. 

There are certain instances where you would have trouble. 

Senator Curtis. The procedure that you follow there puts the 
membership on a voluntary basis rather than a compulsion that they 
lose their job? 

Mr. Rizzo. That is provided no one interferes, it is voluntary. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And, if it is vohmtary, then the union must make 
its appeal on the merits of its services and the accomplishments for 
workers ? 

Mr. Rizzo. That is right. That is where they go to the workers 
and say, "We are giving you something. Now keep us in there," 
and the employees say, "You haven't given us what you promised us. 
You don't give us a fair shake. Consequently, w^e are throwing you 
out and we are not giving you any more dues." 

Senator McNamara. May I take it from there? 

"Wlien you arrive at this position, you have no union, and the em- 
ployer is compelled to pay $40 a week ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes ; the contract, may I state this 

Senator McISTamara. There would be no contract. 

Mr. Rizzo. Only that clause is knocked out. The rest of the con- 
tract remains intact. They continue with their salaries. In fact, one 
of the things — and I want to bring this out because I think a lot of 
this is pertinent to some of the things that were said here today — one 
of the things that was said to me during the conversation, and I am 
ready to back it up with a witness, one of the things that was said 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4615 

to me by Mr. Marshall Miller immediately after one of the hearings 
was this : "Mr. Rizzo, you are not proceeding correctly. Why don't 
>oii go to George Meany and give him your complaints. These Puerto 
Ricans are not worth more than $35 or $40 a week. If you bring a 
proceeding and this union is knocked out, who knows — another union 
will come in and cause us more trouble. We are getting along fine 
with local 229 and we want to keep them there." 

Senator McNamara. The point is, after they quit paying dues to 
the union, there will be no union, will there? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. This same union will remain, even if they get 
no dues ? 

Mr. Eizzo. That is right. You hit the point there. What union 
will go in to represent people that are not paying dues? You more 
or less take out some of the inducement for going in there. 

Senator McNamara. I agree with you. You and I are certainly 
agreed. When you wind up with all of this with no union, you are 
going to wind up with $40 a week, are you not ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. What have you done for your people? 

Mr. Rizzo. Now, we have gotten rid of what I consider phony 
unions. Once we do that — that is ACTU. You see my job is fin- 
ished once that is done. ACTU, then, tried to find some legitimate 
unions, and says, "Look, if you want to become members of unions, 
liere is a list of good unions. They will fight for your rights. They 
will not sell you down the river." 

Senator McNamara. I was wondering about your long-range pro- 
gi-am. Now, tell me about this election that you engaged in, where 
you went to the proper Government agency. Did you win the elec- 
tion or lose it, or what happened ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Well, we had a trial of the issues concerning jurisdic- 
tion. I beat them in the jurisdictional question. The first election 
was held with Maken Umbrella Co. We are still waiting on the 
other two. 

What happened was that just before the election, a few weeks prior 
to the election, suddenly there were layoffs, and, as you know, the 
Puerto Rican people, being people with very little money, sometimes 
are compelled to move from one place to another to go to the lower 
rental. It is very difficult to find these people. 

Senator McNamara. Did you win the election at the National Labor 
Relations Board or did you lose it ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Senator, actually I would say we won it, 15 to 5. The 
actual effect of it is that we lost. Fifteen voted to throw that clause 
out. Five voted not to throw it out. 

However, they choose a certain number of employees as of a certain 
date. You see, it was not considered a majority of the employees 
previously employed. But if you fire them, or wliat they call layoff, 
and they go to all parts of the city and you can't find these people, 
you can't bring them into that election. Consequently, although the 
majority in that shop, really, and there were 20 there, 15 voted against 
the clause, although 15 wanted that clause out, that clause cannot be 
taken out because of these practices, practices by the employer, and 
from what Mr. Cohen tells me, at the instance of Mr. Marshall Miller. 



4616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. I do not understand liow this Government 
agency can rule that way. 

Mr. Rizzo. It is the law. 

Senator McNamara. The law is that you have to take into consid- 
eration employees who were then not employed because of their 
previous employment ? Is that the point ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Well, as of a certain date. 

Senator McNamara. There was no strike, no labor trouble, or 
anything ? 

Mr. Rizzo. No labor trouble whatsoever. 

Senator McNamara. I do not know how these other employees get 
in there. 

Mr. Rizzo. Suppose today you have 28 people working in your shop. 

Senator McNamara. Let us take an actual case. Can we not discuss 
the terms of this actual situation, rather than discuss it on the basis 
of a hypothetical case ? 

Mr. Rizzo. All right. 

Senator McNamara. I think it would be much more help to the 
committee. 

Mr. Rizzo. I think it would be more burdensome. I have a list 
of the actual employees and how we had to go around and try to round 
them up. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat date is this that you are talking about ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rizzo. For instance, here we had a case in Maken Umbrella 
wliere they figure that the number of employees on which they are 
going to figure it on, say, 2 weeks before the election is to take place, 
there are 38 employees. Now, everybody is put on notice as to when 
that election is to take place. Let us say 2 weeks hence. 

There are 38 persons who the National Labor Relations Board will 
consider as the persons who are to vote. Immediately, 38 is the 
number. 

On the date of the election, there are only 20 employees. T]ie boss 
knows he has five in his hip pocket. Having five in his hip pocket, he 
knows no matter how you vote he will win the election, no matter what 
the results. 

The rules say a majority of the 38. So when Mr. Marshall Miller 
says they had an election but a majority did not vote to throw out the 
clause, there is only a semblance of truth in that, but it is not all truth. 

Senator McNamara. You had all of the 38 ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. 

Senator McNa.-mara. But you could not locate them ? 

]\Ir. Rizzo. We would go to one address and they would move. 

There was even one in there that we challenged and had it thrown 
out. You would see a bunch of addresses in one neighborhood and 
when somebody comes in from Queens, you realize somehting is wrong. 

Senator McNamara. You conclude that this is collusion between 
the management and the union that caused this condition to be brought 
about ? 

Mr. Rizzo. This is the only conclusion that I could reach. 

Senator Curtis. Did those men and women have to pay an initiation 
fee over again after that layoff ? 

Mr. Rizzo. That is something I have never had anything to do 
with, Senator, I couldn't give you a truthful answer. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 4617 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you do this work on a voluntary basis ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Definitely. I don't take a penny for any of the work 
that I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of the work that you have done for these people 
3'ou have done on a voluntary basis ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. In fact, it has cost me money. 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Do you want these affidavits made exhibits ? 

Mr. Rizzo. Yes. 

The Chairman. These affidavits may be made exhibit 119. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 119", for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller discussed a $10,000 fee tliat he contem- 
plated getting from a group of employers to represent them. The 
testimony that he gave in connection with that fee is different from the 
information that we have and have developed. 

We have a witness here who will testify regarding the conversation 
that he had with Mr. Miller in connection with the $10,000 fee and 
the point that it was the association that decided not to hire Mr. Miller, 
rather than Mr. Miller deciding not to take the $10,000. It is a 
question of whether you want to go into it. 

The Chairman. As I see it, it will only be a question of credibility. 

Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Kennedy, It is a question of credibility, and it is a question of 
what Mr. Miller was doing during this period of time as a consultant 
in this important organization up in New York. 

The Chairman. In other words, it would be a conflict of interest. 

Mr. Kennedy. And his whole activity. He came down, of course, 
requesting to appear and testify before the committee on the basis that 
his integrity and honesty had been affected. 

The Chairman. Very well, we will call Mm. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Knapp. 

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

Mr. Knapp. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF STANLEY KNAPP 

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

Mr. Knapp. My name is Stanley Knapp. I live at Sands Point, 
Long Island. I am president of Edward's Employment Agency at 73 
Warren Street, Manhattan. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Knapp, we had some testimony from Mr. Miller 
regarding a conversation he had with Max Simon. Do you know 
Mr. Max Simon ? 

Mr. Knapp. I met him once. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you personally have any conversations with Mr. 
Miller? 

Mr. Knapp. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us how they came about ? 



4618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Knapp. I was at Senator Ostrander's public hearing on the 
Hatfield bill at the hotel and, of course, on the dais they present all the 
members and they introduce all the members to the audience. 

Mr. Kennedy. Members of what ? 

Mr. Knapp. Members of the committees. It was a mixed commit- 
tee, the assembly and the senate committee on the Hatfield bill. 

Senator Iv^s. What was the Hatfield bill? 

Mr. Knapp. A bill for the regulation of employment agencies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they introduce Mr. Miller at that time? 

Mr. Knapp. They introduced everybody at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Miller was one introduced ? 

Mr. Knapp. He was the last one introduced. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was introduced as a representative of that com- 
mittee that was considering this bill? 

Mr. Knapp. He was introduced as a labor consultant for the 
committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were the committee considering this bill ? 

Mr. Knapp. Yes. 

Senator Ives. What committee was that? 

Mr. Knapp. Senator Ostrander's committee. 

Senator Ives. A joint legislative committee? 

Mr. Knapp. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. You saw him on the dais? 

Mr. Knapp. The next time I met that man was at a cocktail party. 
It was given by one of our members in honor of an incoming president. 
As I v.alked in the door, I was introduced to Mr. Miller for the first 
time face to face. 

I met other people there. After a while, somebody suggested, I 
am not sure who because I had too much to drink, "AVliy don't you 
contact Mr. Miller? He seems to have a lot of influence." 

I said, "Well, I may do that." 

Mr. ICJENNEDY. Who said that to you ? 

Mr. Knapp. I am not sure. It could have been Mr. Simon. It 
could have been any one of the boys there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it was an employer, or was it somebody 
connected with the government ? 

^Ir. Knapp. There were no employers there. There were news- 
papermen there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it somebody connected with the government? 

Mr. Knapp. No. It was one of our agency owners, licensees, I 
imagine. There were about 20 of them there. 

I called Mr. Miller and asked liim if I could talk to him. He said 
he was going away, but could give me a few minutes. I went up to 
his office and the first thing I said to Mr. Miller is, "We have a public- 
relations and labor-relations problem. Our industry always had it. 
We are trying to do something about it. Could we retain you, or 
would there be a conflict of interest ? " 

He said, "No, there would be no conflict of interest whatsoever." 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there discussed at that time some of tlie work 
to be done ? 

Mr. Knapp. No. That is the first thing I aked him, about the con- 
flict of interest. I said, "We are presenting a bill ourselves and we 
need help. You seem to know a lot about labor and management and, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4619 

after all, j'oii are the consultant to this committee. Could you help 
us?" 

He said, "Well, I will work with you." I said, "How much will 
this thing cost?" He said, "$10,000 per year." Not a one-shot affair. 
I said to him, "$10,000 ?" And he said, "Yes." 

I said, "Well, we are a poor organization, but," I say, "let me talk 
to some of the men and I will let you know." 

I never called him, never saw him again until today. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt here? 

Wliat time of year was this ? 

Mr. Knapp. Around July. About the first week of July. 

Senator Ives. You were talking about what kind of a bill ? 

Mr. KxAPP. I was talking about a bill thati intended to present. 

Senator Ives. I thought you said at the start you were talking about 
the Hatfield bill. 

Mr. KxAPP. The Hatfield bill had been put down. So far as I was 
concerned, it was dead for this past year. 

Senator Ives. If it was dead, there was no legislature in session, the 
bill was completely dead and there was no bill before any committee 
at that time. 

Mr. Knapp. I know it. 

Senator Ives. What did this joint legislative committee have to do 
with it? 

Mr. KxAPP. Nothing. 

Senator Ives. Exactly. That legislative committee so far as I know 
never had anything to do with employment agencies. It did not wlien 
1 was chairman, and I do not know what they are doing v/ith them now. 

Mr. Knapp. The Hatfield bill was considered in January. 

Senator I\tes. That is not a standing committee, that legislative com- 
mittee is not. It reports out no bills whatsoever. 

Mr. Knapp. Senator, I don't know these things. 

Senator Ives. You live in New York, do you not ? 

Mr. Knapp. That is right. 

Senator Ives. You deal with the New York Legislature; do you 
not? 

Mr. Knapp. And I was at a public hearing when they were talking 
about the benefits, or the why's and wherefore's of tlie Hatfield bill, 
and I was there at tlie time. 

Senator Ives. That committee was at that time? 

Mr. Knapp. That is right. 

Senator I\^s. What time was the hearing ? 

Mr. Knapp. The hearing, I believe, was in Maj^ or April. 

Senator Ives. That is impossible. There was no Hatfield bill be- 
fore them at that time. The bill was dead. 

Mr. Knapp. There was a Hatfield bill in November, I know that. 

Senator Ives. There was not a Hatfield bill in November because 
the legislature was not in session. There was no Hatfield bill in 
existence at that time. There may have been a Hatfield bill at some 
time, but not then. I know something about the legislature of the 
State of New York myself. I was a member of it for 17 years. 

Mr. Knapp. That is right. Senator. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

Mr. Knapp. I am not arguing the points of the Hatfield bill. I am 
saying what was tliere. I am not a politician. 



4620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ives. I know the Hatfield bill was not there at that time. 

The Chaikman. All right. Proceed. 

Senator Cuetis. What year are you talking about ? 

Mr. Knapp. This discussion? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Knapp. This discussion was last month. 

Senator Curtis. This year ? 

Mr. Knapp. The one that Mr. Kennedy is talking about. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand your testimony, you were the one 
that raised the question of a conflict of interest? 

Mr. Knapp. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And ]Mr. Miller said to you contrary to his testi- 
mony before this committee, Mr. Miller said to you there would not 
be any conflict of interest ? 

Mr. Knapp. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt again, but I wish 
to raise the questions as to what the committee or the United States 
Senate itself has to do with a conflict of interest under the New York 
State law. 

I think this particular thing we are in now is strictly a matter of 
New York State law. I think it is strictly a matter for the New York 
State Legislature to determine. If there is anything wrong, I am 
as indignant about it as anybody else and I want it straightened out. 

But I do not think we are exactly the party to supersede the Legis- 
lature of the State of New York in straightening it out. 

The Chairman. Senator, I do not think the question of tiie bill in 
the New York Legislature is significant or anything to do with this 
committee. The only question that I see in liere is that Mr. Miller 
came down here and gave us some testimony and the question is about 
the way he operates, particularly witii reference to these other unions. 

I do not know just what significance it has. He represents, ap- 
parently, the interests of the employers that are in collusion with 
some of these un ions to hold down these wages. 

Senator I\tcs. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this witness 
is talking about a bill on which there was supposedly a hearing, a 
bill which at the time did not even exist. It could not have existed. 

The Chairman. When was the time you attended what you called 
the committee meeting ? 

Mr. Knapp. It was a public hearing. 

The Chairman. When? 

Mr. Knapp. I don't laiow. There is a record of it, I know. It was 
at the Astor Hotel. 

The Chairman. When? Let us get some idea about the time. 
This year, last year ? 

Mr. Knapp. I believe it was September or October of last year, for 
the January legislature. 

The Chairman. For what? 

Mr. Knapp. For the January legislature. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I want to point 
out that all legislation dies at the close of every legislative session. 

The Chairman. Apparently this had not been introduced at that 
time. The legislature had not met. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4621 

Mr. Knapp. I didn't discuss any bills with Marshall Miller, and 
I didn't come here voluntarily, Mr. Chairman. I was subpenaed to 
come here. I don't know why I am here myself. I had a conversation 
with the man I met once or twice and that's all. 

It never went through, but I have been here since 9 o'clock this 
morning. I got a subpena at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, as the 
first I heard of. 

The Chairman. That does not tell me when this meeting was sup- 
posed to have been held. 

Mr. Knapp. Which meeting are you talking about? The meeting 
with Marshall Miller? 

The Chairman. No. I understand that was about a month ago. 

Mr. Knapp. That is correct. 

The Chairman. There is some question about the Hatfield hearing. 

Mr. Knapp. Do you mean the public hearing ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Knapp. That could be looked up very easily. Maybe Mr. 
O'Donnell has a copy. 

The Chairman. I thought maybe you could remember the time. 

Mr. Knapp. I have been to so many meetings I forget them. 

The Chairman. That was last year? 

Mr. Knapp. Yes. 

The Chairman. That was the meeting on the Hatfield bill which 
you say was a public hearing? 

Mr. Knapp. That's right. 

The Chairman. I do not know whether it is an official committee 
meeting. Sometimes people proposing legislation have a public meet- 
ing to try and build up sentiment to get support for their bill. 

Mr. Knapp. This was a bill that was to be presented, and we had 
objections to it. Our committee went there to a public meeting. 

The Labor Department was there. 

The Chairman. It is kind of a citizens' meeting? 

Mr. Knapp, That is right. They have them every year before the 
legislature starts. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say that we made an investigation 
of Marshall Miller. Mr. Miller made certain statements to us about 
his veracity, truthfulness and activity. We made an investigation. 
In the course of the investigation, we came across these facts that we 
have presented in the form of affidavits and witnesses. 

One of the other matters that we came across was a conversation 
that Mr. Miller had regarding a $10,000 payment that he was pre- 
pared to receive from this group of employers, and that at the same 
time the bill that they were interested in was to be recommended or 
not recommended by the same committee to whom he was a consultant ; 
namely, the State of New York Joint Legislative Committee on In- 
dustrial and Labor Conditions. I did not intend to go into the con- 
flict of interest other than the question that it gets to the veracity, 
truthfulness and honesty of Mr. Marshall Miller, as some of these 
•other witnesses bear on that matter. 

The Chairman. The thing I am interested in and which I think 
this committee is interested in, is Mr. Miller's operations primarily 
in connection with the unions up there. That is pertinent to this 
inquiry. 

89330—57 — pt. 12 9 



4622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 

The other, as I understand it, is a question of credibility. Mr. 
Miller has come down and challenged the veracity of the statements 
made here. 

Senator Ives. Before the witness leaves, I want to point this out, 
that I condemn Mr. Miller if he made any such suggestion regarding 
$10,000 as the witness says. I think that should be looked into very 
carefully by the Legislature of the State of New York, especially 
by that joint committee to which you refer. But I think it is strictly 
within their province and not within ours. 

The Chairman. 1 think that is correct, as to the conversation with 
Mr. Miller. 

There are other activities which have been testified to here that 
Mr. Miller may have engaged fn which are of concern to this com- 
mittee and pertinent to this inquiry. 

Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Knapp 
for coming down. 

The Chairman. The committee stands in recess until 10 : 30 tomor- 
row morning. 

(Thereupon, at 5 : 50 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Thursday, August 15_, 1957.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 

Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. O. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) 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, Michigan; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South 
Dakota; Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome S. xVdler- 
man, chief assistant counsel ; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel ; Wal- 
ter R. May, assistant counsel; Robert E. Dunne, assistant counsel; P. 
Kenneth O'Donnell, assistant counsel; Frank C. Lloyd, investigator; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair will make a brief statement to place 
the hearings today and the testimony we expect in its proper perspec- 
tive, based upon what has preceded, and the evidence heretofore by the 
committee. 

We have established that there was fraud in procuring the charters 
for a number of teamster locals in New York. We have shown that 
there was fraud in the letters and in the certification of those who were 
declared eligible to yote in joint council 16 election. 

We have also established there was fraud in casting the votes in 
that election for these phony locals. 

We expect to establish that these charters were issued, charters to 
these phony locals, at the request of one Jimmy Hoffa. 

I think we have also developed to date that Johnny Dio's followers 
were the instruments that were used in perpetrating these frauds. 

Now today we expect to show that Johnny Dio himself participated 
directly in these frauds along with another such character, that of 
Tony "Ducks" Corallo. 

With that background, I thought maybe those interested would be 
able to anticipate and follow the testimony that we hope to develop 
today. 

4623 



4624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Call the first witness. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have some charts here regarding 
Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo, his participation in the labor union 
movement, and his own background and the background of his 
followers. 

Mr. Corallo, just to gi,ve a little bit of his backround, came into the 
labor union movement in about 1951. He was an organizer for 
Local 995 of the UAW-AFL. 

Now, over here we have some charts regarding the United Automo- 
IdIIc Workers, AFL, operating in New York. We do not have 995 
on there because 995 was a completely separate entity from the locals 
of the UAW-AFL, controlled by Johimy Dio. It is significant that 
Dio did not control the local that was run and operated by Tony 
"Ducks" Corallo. He operated as a separate entity. 

In 1954, Tony Ducks received a charter, or a charter was granted 
to Local 239 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Corallo 
became vice president of that local, and he remained as vice president 
of Local 995 of the UAW-AFL, and he continued to hold both of 
those positions through 1954, 1955, and 1956, December of 1956 when 
he gave up the charter of local 995. He is still a vice president of 
Local 239 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He con- 
trols a number of other locals in New York. 

He has an interesting background. We understand that he is 
reasonably prominent in the underworld in New York, and we talked 
to 1 employer who had hired him and the employer said that he 
hired him to come into his phice of business once every 2 weeks or so, 
and glare at the employees. We asked him if the employees knew that 
Tony "Ducks" Corallo worked for him, and he said "no ; they didn't," 
but it was enough to have him just come in and look at them, and that 
would keep them at their work. 

We have a chart here showing the background of his followers, and 
Johnny Dio's followers. Some of them, people we have already had 
testimony about, and others whose names are less familiar will figure 
more prominently in hearings that are to follow. These are the people 
who played important roles with Johnny Dio and Tony Ducks. 

You can see regarding Corallo that he has been arrested a good 
number of times, and he has avoided being convicted. It is for that 
reason that he has the middle name, or he is called "Ducks," because 
he was able to duck so many. Some of these people, or at least one of 
them, has been charged with being an accessory to murder, and the 
charges range from bookmaking to that which is the most serious. 

Mr. Chairman, we also have a chart here showing the locals that 
in our estimation or that we can show, are controlled by Tony "Ducks" 
Corallo. Although he is supposedly just a vice president in local 239, 
we believe we have evidence to show that he controls 5 or 6 other 
different locals. 

According to our information, he controls four different teamsters 
locals, and he controls local 995 of the UAW, and he controlled 405 
of the retail clerks, which was operated by Max Chester, and he con- 
trols local 229 of the textile workers which is the Archie Katz local, 
which is the local that we had testimony about yesterday in connection 
with Marshall Miller. 

Our first witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4625 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, will you come around, please? 

Mr. Corallo, 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. Corallo. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH M. Mcdonough 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of business, your resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Corallo. My name is Antonio Corallo. I live at 14467 Eighth 
Avenue, Long Island, X. Y. 

The Chairman. You are also known as Ducks Corallo ? 

Mr. Corallo. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any business ? 

Mr. Corallo. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any profession ? 

Mr. Corallo. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any occupation ? 

Mr. Corallo. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you a known racketeer ? 

Mr. Corallo, I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have a lawyer ? 

Mr. Corallo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That wouldn't incriminate you. All right, Mr. 
Counsel, you may identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. My name is Joseph M. McDonough, attorney in 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the past 30 years, with offices 
at 6 Beacon Street, Boston. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McDoNOuGH. I have a motion. May I be heard at this time? 

The Chairman. Briefly. 

Mr. McDonough. Under the atmosphere particularly in relation 
to the opening made^by counsel for the committee, the witness at this 
time requests a continuance to a later date because certainly the state- 
ments made by counsel and the charts that are exhibited here are 
highly prejudicial from the standpoint at least of this witness obtain- 
ing a fair hearing. If this request is denied, of course, I will advise the 
witness as to his constitutional rights. 

I further wish to have it recorded in the record of this committee 
that this witness is acting under the advice of counsel, under the pro- 
tective amendments of the Constitution; namely, amendment 1, 
amendment 4, amendment 5, and amendment 6, and also I wish to 
cite to your attention, sir, the Federal Communications Act and any 
violation thereof, and further than that, that even though under 
certain decisions given by the Supreme Court where one takes advan- 
tage of the amendment to the Constitution, that might be considered 



4626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

an admission as to some later tribunal, I still cite to you, sir, that lie is 
acting on the advice of counsel, which is not construed to be an ad- 
mission on his part. 

I just want the record to note that for the furtherance of this 
hearing. 

The Chairman. The Chair has heard counsel's statement, and I 
am advised by members of the staff that your client was interviewed 
some months ago. We undertook to interview him about these mat- 
ters, and he declined to talk then, and I have no reason to think 
unless you can give me assurances, that he will not take the fifth 
amendment, and I see no reason to delay it. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. Except this, sir, Mr. Chairman, that I again 
point out to you that the opening statement made by counsel for the 
committee, and the highly infiammatory statements that have been in 
the press throughout the Nation, and also the exhibits that are placed 
here before us today immediately in back of the members of the com- 
mittee, certainly wouldn't be construed or in any way to be considered 
as an adequate preparation for any man who is answering a subpena 
as a witness before this committee. 

The Chairman. He is not on trial. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH, I realize that. 

The Chairman. He is here to give him an opportunity to help this 
committee carry out its assignment. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. I realize that, sir. But as an American citizen 
he has inherent rights which the Constitution guarantees to him, and 
I submit those rights are being violated. 

The Chairman. The Chair overrules the contention. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. I would like to have a vote of the full committee, 
if I may. 

The Chairman. All those favoring granting the objections and the 
continuance asked by counsel for the witness say "aye." Is there 
any discussion? 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask the counsel, if he objects 
to the atmosphere of the committee, if this session were held at an- 
other time under different circumstances, would the Avitness testify? 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. I believe, under certain circumstances. Senator 
Kennedy, this witness may testify. 

Senator Kennedy. Before we vote on this, we would like to have 
some assurance. Would he answer the questions or would he avail 
himself of his constitutional rights? 

Mr. McDoNouGH. I am aware of the fact that this committee can- 
not grant immunity. But I am also aware that all I can do is advise 
the client. I have limits to that. That is so far as advice is con- 
cerned. As to what the witness will do, I have to assure the com- 
mittee that I do not know, and all I can do is advise him of liis con- 
stitutional rights. 

Senator Ives. May I ask counsel a question on that ? 

Is your client under indictment for anything at the present time? 

Mr. McDoNouGH. To my knowledge he is not. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Has he been convicted, or is he convicted at the present 
time of anything, subject to sentence? 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. To my knowledge. Senator Ives, he is not, so far 
as I know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4627 

Senator Ives. Has he been snbpenaed up in New York City, or is 
he under subpena at the present time in New York City ? 

Mr. McDoNouGH. At present time, to my knowledge he is not, 
Senator Ives. 

Senator I^s^s. Then I can't see why he shouldn't answer. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. Well, I might cite to you a number of cases of 
the Supreme Court. 

The Chairman. Is there any discussion before we vote ? 

All right, those favoring the granting of the request of counsel 
on the basis of the statement that he has made, hold up your right 
hand. 

Those opposed hold up your right hand. 

It is unanimous. We will proceed. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. I have one other request. 

The Chairman. Let the record show the vote of four present was 
unanimously in the negative. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. During this appearance before the committee, 
might it be suggested by you to the photographers and to the cameras, 
that they desist while this man is testifying? The reason is that this 
man has been sick the last 2 nights, and under rule 8 

The Chairman. Apparently he is not going to testify and I am 
not going to grant that consideration for a man coming here who won't 
tell us where he works and what he does. 

Mr. McDonough. Under the rules of your committe, as I under- 
stand them, if the man is sick he may make the request and then it 
requires a vote of the full committee to sustain the request or not. 

The Chairman. It is in the discretion of the committee at any time 
as to whether it grants the request. 

Mr. McDonough. That is true. 

The Chairman. And the Chair has made a ruling here, and I think 
I have been sustained in it heretofore. When these folks come in 
here and take the fifth amendment, I don't think a little light or a 
little picture occasionally will detract from them being able to do 
that. 

That is the ruling of the Chair. 

Senator I^'es. Mr. Chairman, I can't see that the witness looks very 
ill. 

Mr. McDonough. Sometimes appearances are deceiving, sir. 

The Chairman. They are. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the counsel something. Do you 
expect to advise hifii to decline to testify concerning matters and 
transactions that by reason of the running of the statute of limita- 
tions, he could not possibly be prosecuted ? 

Mr. McDonough. Do I expect to advise him? I couldn't pass on 
that question. Senator, until the time arises as to what the question 
is. He is the one who determines that. I can only counsel and ad- 
vise him. The Supreme Court has stated that it is the opinion of 
the witness that counted and not the question. I can advise him 
accordingly as the questions are propounded to him, as to what his 
rights are. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, the Chair overrules 
the request to turn oft' the lights and desist from taking pictures. Is 
there any objection on the part of the membership to the Chair's 
'rilling ? 



4628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ites. Mr. Chairman, in line with that I want to point out 
that the lights are no tougher on the witness or any witness that comes 
here than they are on us, or on the press, for that matter. 

We are not objecting in any way, shape, or manner. 

The Chairman. Well, we have to have a ruling here. 

Mr. McDoNOTJGH. Your role is a little different than that of the 
witness here, I can assure you of that. 

Senator Curtis. I think the Chair's ruling is proper and I think we 
should proceed. 

The Chairman. Proceed to interrogate the witness, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. As we understand it, you are vice president of local 
239 of the teamsters at the present time. 

Mr. CoRALLo. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You do not even respectfully refuse to answer, do 
you. 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully refuse to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information that we have, you 
have had a record of 12 arrests, dating from 1929, with 5 arrests for 
robbery and 3 on narcotics charges ; is that right ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were convicted in 1941 for unlawful possession 
of narcotics. 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your two chief lieutenants are Charles Kamines- 
sky, also know as Charles Duke, and Mr. Carmine Tramunti, also 
known as "Gribbs"? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the gromid it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Charles Kaminetsky has no legitimate em- 
ployment that can be found, that we know of. Could you tell us what 
his source of income is ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he has a criminal record dating back to 1931 
which includes arrests for vagrancy, felonious assault, robbery and 
burglary, and he received a 1- to 5-year sentence in Sing Sing on 
conviction of being an accessory to a murder in 1938. 

Mr. CoRALLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Carmine Tramunti is carried on the payrolls 
of the Imperial Trucking Co. as a solicitor. Could you tell us what 
a solicitor is? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And his criminal record dates back to December of 
1939, and it is a number of arrests for assaults and robbery. On 
December 8, 1932, he received a 6- to 15-year sentence in Sing Sing for 
felonious assault. 

He was arrested on January 20, 1945, again on charges of felonious 
assault with a gun, and he was discharged on February 20, 1945. 
Could j^ou tell us anything about him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4629 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the groimcl- 



Mr. Kennedy. His name is Carmine Tramunti and he is also known 
as Gribbs? 

The Chairman. Do you know Carmine Tramunti or Gribbs ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chx\.ir3ian. Is he one of your buddies ? 

Mr. CoRALEO. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you use him as a strong-arm man to intimidate 
folks? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How many do you have under your control that you 
use for such purposes? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
groimd it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. CoRAELO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know you ? 

Mr. CoRALEO. I respectfully decline to answer on the gi-ound it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are in the labor racket business together, are 
you? 

Mr. CoRAEEo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. The counsel 
spoke of the witness' inherent rights as a citizen and I would like to 
ask the witness, are you a citizen of the United States ? 

Mr. CoRAEEO. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you born ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, CoRAEEO. In New York. 

Senator Curtis. When? 

Mr. CoRAEEO. 1913. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you attend school ? 

Mr. Coraleo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you always lived in New York ? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. What was the first occupation that you followed ? 

Mr. Coraleo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. If you were born in 1913, by 1935 you were of age 
and that is 22 years ago. It could not incriminate you. What was 
your first j ob or employment ? 

Mr. CoR.\ELo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. IVlien did you enter the labor movement ? 

Mr. Coraleo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 



4630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Are you a veteran of World War II ? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are ashamed of it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Excuse me one moment. The witness did not 
get your question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. He was asked if he is a veteran of World War II 
and he said he declined to answer on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate him and I asked him if he was ashamed of it. 

Mr. CoRALLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand that Mr. Carallo has had sources 
of income that go outside his employment or control over labor unions. 

Coud you tell us about that, Mr. Corallo ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand that all of his operations were out 
of local 229, the union run by Mr. Archie Katz. 

Could you tell us anything about that ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have a buddy named Freddie ? 

Mr. CoRAiJLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have a business relation with him? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize the person about whom I am 
inquiring ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you recognize his voice? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The record will reflect that we have certain record- 
ings of telephone conversations that we secured from the authorities 
in New York by a court order, authorizing the committee to make 
use of them for the purpose of these hearings. 

The recordings were obtained legally under the laws of the State 
of New York and, therefore, we are going to play a recording for 
the record at this time with a very solicitous invitation to the witness 
to listen carefully because there may be something in there that he 
would want to explain or deny or to amplify. 

We will furnish the witness with a copy of the transcription and 
the playing of the record or recording may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might just say in connection with 
this recording that the only changes that have been made are a beep 
signal instead of profanity. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 
might it be recorded or noted at this time that counsel for the witness 



EMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4G31 

wishes to object to the introduction of such recordings and calls to 
your attention that this is a violation of section 605 of the Federal 
Communications Act of 1934. 

I respectfullv further call to your attention the case of Noden v. 
United States (302, p. 379), and Olmstead v. The United States (277, 
p. 438). 

The Chairman. The purpose of this hearing is to get information 
upon which the Congress may predicate legislation. This is not a 
criminal trial. 

Proceed with the recording. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. Except that the committee is bound by the rules 
of evidence, the rules of which are governed by Supreme Court de- 
cisions. 

The Chairman. Well, this committee is not bound by all of the rules 
of law governing criminal trials. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. The legality of that is determined by a court. 

The Chairman. Sir, your objections are overruled. 

Proceed with the recording. 

(The transcript of telephone conversation between Antonio "Ducks" 
Corallo and one "Freddie" on February 2, 1955, is as follows :) 

CoRALLo. Oi, yoi, yoi, yoi, yoi. They got Freddie? 

If they got Freddie, they got the bankroll. 

They took the money? 

Freddie. Hello? Hello? 

CoRALLO. Freddie? 

Freddie. Yes. 

CoRALLo. What happened? 

Freddie. Oh, them same people. 

CoR^ALLO. They didn't get the money ; did they? 

Freddie. No. 

Corallo. No money? 

Freddie. Huh? 

Corallo. No money? 

Freddie. Not a penny they got. 

Corallo. We didn't get stuck; did we? 

Freddie. Do you mean in the game? 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Freddie. They were losing about 1,200. 

Corallo. They were losing about 1,200. 

Freddie. I just got back from court. 

Corallo. Did they hold anybody? 

Freddie. No. 

Corallo. Nobody, huh? 

Freddie. Nobody. 

Corallo. What you^do with that rat ? He done it again, huh? 

Freddie. You know who it is? 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Freddie. Yeah. 

Corallo. What did he say? 

Freddie. He wanted to whack me in the head with an ax. He said, "Show 
me where the thing is or I will whack you with this ax." 

Corallo. He whacks his and the whole police department. 

Freddie. I said, "Why don't you get the away from me with that kind 

of talk?" 

You know? I said "I don't even know what the you are talking about." 

Corallo. He'd whack you on the head, huh? 

Freddie. Huh? 

Corallo. He'd whack you on the head with an ax? 

Freddie. Yeah. 

Corallo. The yellow rat . 

Freddie. He couldn't find the place, ya know. They knew it was there, ya 
know. 



4632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

CORALLO. Huh? 

Freddie. He couldn't find the place. 

CoRALLo. He couldn't find the what? 

Freddie. The cellar. You know. 

CoRALLO. How did he find it? 

Freddie. He find — they knew it was there, ya see? They caught me upstairs 
with the two kids that own the store, ya know, so they had the cops there, 

CoRALLO. They had the cops? 

Freddie. Yeah, they had the cops there. The cops were watching us. They 
busted right in there. He said, "Where is that place or I'll whack you with this 
right over your head." 

CoRALLO. He whacks his mother. She has a big enough . 

Freddie. I said, "Who are you? What are you, crazy?" He said, "You know 
who I am." I said, "No, I don't know who you are," ya know. He said, "If you 
don't know, well, I am telling you," ya know. 

CoRALLO. Who is he? 

Freddie. He told me they were police officers. I told him, "What are you 
coming to me for? What are you, crazy?" I said, "I just come from the movies 
around the corner. I live in the neighborhood. I stop here for a cup of coffee 
with the people that own this place." 

CoRATxo. They held nobody, huh? 

Freddie. No. 

CoRALLo. He is going to come again, he says? 

Freddie. I don't know, Tony. He was pretty good after that, ya know. 

CoRALLO. He was pretty good? 

Freddie. The son of a . He didn't try to hold — he said he was going to 

hold me for maintaining. He said, "You're the boss." I said, "What are you 
going to make me, the boss of the house?" 

CoRALLO. Did you tell him? 

Freddie. Yeah. 

CoRALLo. Did you tell him he was going to make you the boss of the ? 

Freddie. "What are you going to make me, the boss of the house?" 

CoRALLO. What did he say to that? 

Freddie. He started to laugh. 

CoRALLO. He laughed, huh? 

Freddie. He gave me some frisk, though. If he found the money, he would 
have held me. 

CoRALLO. He didn't find it? 

Freddie. No ; I had it in my shoe. 

CORALLO. O. K. 

Freddie. O. K., boy? 

CoRALLO. All right. 

Freddie. I am going to lay down for a while. O. K., Tony? 

Mr. Kenxedy. Mr. Chairman, this recording was made on February 
2, 1955, at the same time that Mr. Corallo was listed as a vice president 
of local 239 of the teamsters. We have a witness here that can identify 
Mr. Corallo's voice on that recording. 

The Chairman. Maybe Mr. Corallo will save us having to put on 
that witness. Would you like to identify your voice, Mr. Corallo ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You would not want to identify the other voice and 
tell us who "Freddie" is ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. JlW right ; let us have the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Laurendi. 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LAURENDI 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 
Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4633 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath, and you may- 
proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Would you identify yourself ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Detective Natale Laurendi, shield No. 2021, in New 
York City Police Department, assigned to the district attorney's office 
squad, New York County, Capt. Frederick W. Haynes, commanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. This recording that you have just hear; you are 
familiar with it, are you ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have heard the call previously. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was obtained through a court order with the 
cooperation of District Attorney Hogan, was it not ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And have you followed the recording on the tran- 
script ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. ICennedy. And is it an accurate transcript of the recording? 

Mr. Laurendi. It is, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you identify the voices of the recording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I can identify the voice of Antonio Corallo. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the voice that is listed, or the name that is 
listed in the transcript as Tony Corallo's words are, in fact, the voice of 
Tony Corallo ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; they are. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Could you tell us about the transcript? It dis- 
cusses the fact that they hid the money in the slioe at this crap game; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us if this place was raided again 
by the police department 'i 

Mr. Laurendi. Originally it was raided, and arrests were made, 
and I think the press had a report of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And w^as it subsequently raided again? 

Mr. Laurendi. I do not believe it was at that location, because 
these floating crap games usually change locations. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do you know if it was raided at a different loca- 
tion? 

Mr. Laurendi. I believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you know at that time whether they did 
search the shoe ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I don't know whether they did. 
'. Mr. IvENNEDY. We understand, Mr. Chairman, that the next time 
that the raid was conducted all of the bankroll was picked up. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. Mcdonough— Resumed 

The Chairman. This is your place of business, referred to in this 
transcript of this recording of the telephone conversation? 

Mr. Corallo. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. Were you using union funds to operate it? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that a part of your activities as an officer in a 
union ? 



4634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, CoKALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did it have any connection with the unions you 
were affiliated with ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, if there were union funds, do you not think 
the members might have a little interest in it ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Curtis. Do you mind if I ask the detective a question ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You referred to this place, where the telephone 
conversation referred to. What place is it ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I don't know the exact location, sir, but I think it 
was somewhere in the Bronx on Audubon Avenue. Tlie location 
would be reflected in the files of the New York City Police Depart- 
ment. 

Senator Curtis. You, f>ersonally, do not have those records? 

Mr. Laurendi. No, sir ; I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some other recordings deal- 
ing with the control of various locals by Mr. Anthony "Ducks" 
Corallo. The first call that we wish to play is dated October 28, 1954, 
and shows several things. The call is a call from Corallo to Al 
Reger, who was secretary-treasurer of Local 522 of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

It shows. No. 1, that Mr. Reger looks to Mr. Corallo for instruc- 
tions. No. 2, it also shows that Mr. Corallo, although a vice presi- 
dent of the teamsters himself, namely, local 239, was unfamiliar with 
the procedure that needed to be followed in certain matters dealing 
with teamster affairs. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask counsel a question. Teamsters 
local 522 — what sort of drivers are they ? What industry ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The lumber yards. I might say, about Al Reger, 
he has just been indicted and convicted of extortion within the period 
of the past few weeks. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Might it be noted, Mr. Chairman and members 
of the committee, at this time, that, if I might borrow an expression 
or a statement made by a member of your committee yesterday, 
namely, Senator Ives, this is purely a matter intrastate rather than 
interstate, that New York authorities, if any, should be cognizant 
of the situation, and they alone should be the ones to pass on this. 
We strenuously object to it, so far as this witness is concerned. 

As I understand the purposes of this committee, these hearings are 
on irregular practices in the management or labor field. I don't know 
about a crap game having anything to do with management or labor. 
Certainly, this is a matter that is within the purview of New York 
State or New York City alone. It has nothing to do with the United 
States Senate. 

The Chairman. Well, that is a rather narrow view of it, you know. 
After all, if they were using union funds in this crap game up there, 
it might be of great concern, not only to the union members, but also 
to the Senate of the United States. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4635 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cliairman, the attorney raised a question about 
the legality of wiretaps and their use. I want to bring to your at- 
tention the case of the United States v. Frank Costello^ in the second 
circuit court of appeals : 

The fruit of any 1925-26 taps is admissible. The wiretaps in 1943 were done 
by State oflScers without FBI connivance. They are admissible in a Federal 
court, and the fruit of them, if similarly obtained without Federal connivance, is 
also admissible. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Mr. Kennedy, would you cite me the citation on 
that, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. United States v. Frank Costello^ just decided. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. If you will look up the case of Olstead v. The 
United States, and Argonne v. The United States^ you see that it is 
a violation of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just telling you that this court holds differently. 
This is a circuit-court decision. 

The Chairman. All right. We are going to hear them, so let us 
proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the question has been raised as 
to whether this is just the business of New York State. I understand 
that Al Eeger, involved in this conversation w^ith Mr. Corallo, was an 
officer in local 522, which had offices and actions involving both the 
State of New Jersey and New York, and, therefore, it was interstate, 
and, therefore, is a Federal responsibility. 

The Chairman. It is a Federal responsibility where any union com- 
plies with the law and receives the benefits of the National Labor Re- 
lations Board. It does not matter whether the business is intrastate 
or interstate. We have an obligation where we require them to file, 
and they do file, and get the benefit of the services provided by the 
Federal Government. Certainly, the Federal Government ancl this 
committee have jurisdiction to look into the operations. Let us pro- 
ceed. 

(Transcript of telephone conversation between Anthony "Ducks" 
Corallo and Al Reger on October 28, 1954, is as follows :) 

Anthony Corallo. Hello, Al? 

Al Regek. Yeah. 

Corallo. Listen 

Reger. Yeah. 

Corallo. Our friend in the oflBce 

Reger. Yeah. 

Corallo. Huh? 

Reger. Our friend? * 

Corallo. Huh? 

Reger. Our friend here? 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Reger. Which one — G. B. or Hickey? 

Corallo. Navv — G. 

Reger. He's here 

Corallo. All right, listen. Now, if they're ready to accept you 

Reger. Yeah? 

Corallo. You hear. This old guy is sending letters. 

Reger. Who? 

Corallo. The old guy here. 

Reger. Yeah? 

Corallo. He's sending letters that you're cut in half. 

Reger. I know ; I tri 

Corallo. They're ready to accept you if one of them guys — let that guy there 
send a telegram over there to them to send it to the joint council in Jersey to have 
them wipe — that you're O. K. 



4636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Reger. Who? You want Hickey to send it, or George? 

CoRALLO. No ; so let George send her. 

Reger. Have him tell it that what? 

CoRALLO. Let George 

Kegek. Yeah? 

CoRALLO. Call one of the guys from Washington. 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. Anybody. 

Reger. We did that once bef 

CoRALLO. No, no ; now, now, now — they waited. 

Reger. Well, what should Washington do? 

CoRALLo. Washington just sends the charter a telegram that you're O. K. inte 
the joint council, 

Reger. The New Jersey council. 

CoRALLO. That you're O. K. 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. With your charter. That it ain't cut. Just say you're O. K. with 
your charter 

Reger. Hold on a half a second, huh? Will you hold on? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Reger. Where can I reach you in an hour? 

CoRALLO. Well, listen 

Reger. I'm going in and talk to Tom. George says he'll do it; get somebody 
in here to call Washington. He don't know if they'll do a thing like that. 

CoRALLO. All I — he don't know if they'll do it? 

Reger. There's a question he could — look, this is a — first of all my charter 
has not been cut. What is happening is that Lacey is trying to cut my charter 
in half. 

CoRALLo. I know that. 

Reger. Right. Now, my charter has not been touched by the international 
yet — they have not sent me any communication ; they have not sent Hickey any; 
not sent Baldanzi any ; there's not been any communication out that says my 
charter has been cut 

CoRALLO. Well, listen 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALLo. They want to accept you ; all they want is somebody to send a tele- 
gram from Washington to say that it's O. K. 

Reger. The last time the same thing happened. We sent one and after we 
sent one we were left holding the bag. 

CoRALLO. Well, this just happened now^ — now, th 

Reger. It happened the last time the same thing. 

CoRALLo. Could — could you 

Reger. I went to Washin — I went down there and had it sent the last time 
and after I had it sent the guy says to me, I Iviiow, what kind of 

CoRALLO. Hello? 

Reger. Hello. 

CoRALLO. Just send a lettei"- — the telegram — to Larry McGinley. 

Reger. That what? 

CoRALLO. From the joint council in Jersey. 

Reger. Yeah ; I know who Larry McGinley is 

CoRALLO. All right; just let somebody from Washington send it to him that 
it's O. K. ; that's all. 

Reger. That what's O. K.? 

CoRALLO. That it's not cut ; you know, that you — that it's O. K. for you to 
work. 

Reger. I got my charter hanging right here. Of course, it's O. K. 

CORALLO. No, look 

Reger. I also wa 

CoRALLO. What you're saying. Hello. Don't say nothing about cut 

Reger. All right. 

CoRALLO. Just say, send a telegram that it's O. K. for you to work. You 
know — that's all. And here the tele — 

Reger. Listen to — Tony, list for a minute, huh? 

CoRALLO. Wha 

Reger. I — I — I — I don't want to — I — ^I — I— I'm not bucking you on a question ; 
I want to explain it to you. I got my charter hanging here, vvh — and there'a 
nothing been issued in any form whatsoever which says that my charter — How 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4637 

about the eastern conference itself? If they notified the Jersey council we're 
not functioning in those States. 

CoRALLO. Well, who's the eastern conference V 

Reger. The Eas — the New York Office of the eastern conference. 

CoRALLO. The New York of— well, you know the old b ain't going to send 

a telegram. 

Reger. Who? Hickey? 

CORALLO. No. 

Reger. Lacey? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Reger. I don't care about Lacey. He don't control the eastern conference; 
he's just a 

CoRALi.0. Wait a while ; we don't want Hickey to send it. 

Reger. What? 

CoRALLO. We want anybody in Washington to send it. Anybody. 

Reger. Oh, anybody but Tom. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. Don't you understand? 

Reger. Baldanzi? 

CoRALLO. Listen. 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. Tell Baldanzi to get Gibbons to send it and to get Einar Mohn to 
send it or get [inaudible] to send it — anyone, you hear? 

Regeb. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. Anyone. Just send a telegram that it's O. K. for you to work. You 
listening? 

Reger. Anybody at all? 

CoRALLO. Anybody from there in Washington. 

Reger. Remember now 

CoRALLO. Anybody. 

Reger. Right. 

CoRALLO. Anybody. 

Reger. I'm stopping what I'm doing and I'm going to Washington. 

CoBALLO. Right now? 

Reger. Yeah ; right after our meeting tonight. 

CoRALLO. All right. Then he'll get a telegram tomorrow? Right? 

Reger. Sure ; I'm going to take care of it right now. 

CoRALLO ( to side party ) . He's going right to Washington now. 

CoBALLO (to Reger). Wait a while. 
Reger. If that ain't it, I ain't going. 

CoRALLO. Hello. 

Reger. Hello. 

COBALLO. Al? 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALxo. And tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. You call the ofiice. Ask for Tony, you know. 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoBALLO. In Jersey. 

Reger. W^here? 

CoRALLO. Call right in the office ; he's waiting for your call. 

Reger. Who, Tone? 

CoRALLO. Tony. * 

Reger. In the Hoboken office? 

CORALLO. Right. 

Reger. O. K. 

CoRAixo. Listen 

Reger. Yeah? 

CoRALLO. When you call him just say : "Tony Lorenzo's calling." 
Reger. Right. 
CoRALLO. Understand? 
Reger. Right. 

CoRALLo. And tell him the telegi*am is out. 
Reger. Right. 

CoRALLO. So he goes right in there. 
Reger. It will be out by that time. 

CoRALLO. Yeah, it will be out. If you're going to leave tonight it will be 
there tomorrow. 

89330— 57— pt. 12 10 



4638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Reger. All right, but I could get a hold of the guys. You wouldn't be able 
to hold them. O. K. 

CoRALLO. All right? 

Reger. Right. 

CoRALLO. Call him tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock. 

Reger. I'll get Jimmy from Detroit to send it. 

CoRALLO. Who? 

Reger. [Laughter.] 

CoRALLO. You'll get Jimmy who? 

Reger. HofEa. 

CoEAi LO. Well, get Jimmy Hoffa to send it. 

Reger. O. K. 

CoRALLO. Call him up without even going. 

Reger. That's right; the 

CoRxVLLO. And listen 

Reger. Hello 

CoRALLO. If Jimmy Hoffa don't do it — when you get Jimmy HofEa on the 
phone ■ 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. Tell him — tell him that your calling — that Sam out there is a personal 
friend of yours. 

Reger. Who's Sam? Why don't you call him? 

CoRALLO. Well, you do like I say — save me the trouble. 

Reger. I — I — I 

CoRALi.o. In case he says, you know, starts to grumble ; tell him where could 
I get Little Sam 

Reger. Yeah. 

CoRALi.0. Sammy from Detroit. 

Reger. But Sammy don't know me. 

CoRALLO. Sammy's a personal friend of his. 

Reger. Of his? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Reger. But not of mine. 

CoRALLO. Yeah, he's a personal friend of mine, so 

Reger. Yeah, I know, but they'll first go finding out : it'll take a couple days. 

CoRALLO. All right, well, then don't bother. Talk to him direct — you know 
him well? 

Reger. Right. 

CoRALLO. You know him well? 

Reger. I know someone who knows him very well. 

CoRALLO. Well, look ; Gibbons is the guy, too. 

Reger. I know Harold, too. 

CoRALLo. That guy in the office will call him — to send the telegram. O. K. 

Reger. I'll call the guy right now. Listen — I'll ask you a question. 

CoRALLO. What? 

Reger. If Gibbons sends it — it is O. K. ? 

CoRAi-LO. Yeah ; if Gibbons sends it who else could send it. Would you want 
a better man than Gibbons to send it? What's 

Reger. I don't know ; he's not the international office. 

CoRALLO. Send it — let Gibbons send it 

Reger. O. K. 

CoRALLO. The guy we talked about. Then call Tony up and tell him the 
telegram is there. 

Reger. Right. 

CORALLO. O. K.? 

Reger. O. K. So long. 

The Chairman. Well, Mr. Corallo, do you want to comment first! 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it may 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It seems you know Mr. Jimmy Hoffa. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Does this say you knew him ? 

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

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Gibbons ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4639 

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

The ChairmajST. Do you know Mr. Reger ? 

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

The Chairman. What was about to happen to that charter up 
there? 

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

The Chairman. What do you use these charters for ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
may incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you not like to make some statement about 
this telephone conversation ? 

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

The Chairman. Did you recognize your own voice ? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I find it an intriguing conversation. I thought 
maybe you could throw a little light on it and tell us what was going 
on. 

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

The Chairman. You are not going to say anything about it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might just say something about what we know. 

The Chairman. Well, let us identify the voices, first. 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LATJRENDI— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Laurendi, did you hear the playing of this 
recorded telephone conversation? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir, I did. 

The Chairman. You have before you a transcript of it ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I do. 

The Chairman. Is that transcript accurate ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir; it is. 

The Chairman. Have you compared it with the recording? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have. 

The Chairman. Did you compare the previous telephone record- 
ing transcript ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman. The previous telephone recording will be printed 
in the record at the point of the playing of the record. 

This transcript of the recording will be placed in the record at the 
proper point. 

Did you recognize any voices on that recording? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman. Whose voice did you recognize ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I recognized the voice of Anthony Corallo and Al 
Reger. 



4640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you know Al Keger ? 

Mr. Laueendi. Yes, sir; I do. 

The Chairman. Do you know his voice ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir; I do. 

The Chairman. Then you can say under oath that this telephone 
conservation, this recording, was a telephone conservation between 
the witness here, Mr. Corallo, and also the party of Mr. Reger, whose 
jiame appears on this transcript ? 

Mr. Laurendi. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what Al Reger's connection is with 
any union? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. He was secretary-treasurer of local 522 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and 2 months ago he 
was prosecuted by District Attorney Hogan and Assistant District 
Attorney Alvin Goldstein for the crime of extortion, for which he 
was convicted. 

The Chairman. This telephone conservation, according to the 
transcript, took place on October 28, 1954, is that correct ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it was October 28, 1954. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. I^nnedt. Mr. Chairman, we do not know what all of this 
means. We know that there was a charter in 522 that operated in 
both New Jersey and New York, and we know that it was contem- 
plated in 1954 to split the charter into 2, 1 chapter for New York and 
1 charter for New Jersey. 

Evidently, the conservation is about steps that should be taken 
by Reger to prevent that from happening. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. The charter was not split at that time. The charter 
was split, we believe, in July of 1955, some 6 months later. 

The conversation tends to show that Mr. Al Reger, who was the 
secretary-treasurer of local 522, was looking to Tony "Ducks" Corallo 
for his instructions as to how to handle this matter. It indicates the 
control that Tony "Ducks" had over this local. 

I might identify some of the other individuals. G. B., we believe 
to be George Baldanzi. George Baldanzi at that time was inter- 
national organizer of the teamsters and the eastern conference. 

Tom Hickey is a vice president and was a vice president of the 
teamsters at that time and was one of those whom Corallo and Dio 
avoided and who was an enemy of Jimmy Hoffa, and was the one that 
opposed Jimmy Hoffa's efforts in the election for the control of joint 
council 16, New York City. 

Gibbons is second in charge of the Central Conference of Teamsters, 
the one that is controlled by Jimmy Hoffa. 

We would like to go on and show Mr. Corallo's control over local 
875 of the teamsters. 

We have a telephone call dated October 28, 1954. On the tran- 
script it shows the date as being October 28, 1957. It should be 
October 28, 1954. 

The call will show Corallo issuing orders to an official of the union 
with whom Corallo has no official connection. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITTE'S EST THE LABOR FIELD 4641 

On October 28, 1954, the date of this call, Nat Carmel, with whom 
Mr. Corallo was talking?, was a vice president of local 875. He called 
Corallo at the Textile Union Local 229. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. May the record indicate that counsel for the wit- 
ness objects on the same grounds as previously stated? 

Senator Kennedy. The record will so indicate. 

The objection is overruled. 

(The transcript of telephone conversation between Tony "Ducks" 
Corallo and Nathan Carmel on October 28, 1954, is as follows:) 

Corallo. Hello. 

Carmel. Hello, Tony; how are you? 

Corallo. Hello. 

Carmel. Hello; how are you? 

Corallo. All right. 

Carmel. Good. 

Corallo. Listen 

Carmel. What? 

Corallo. You work out with that Freddy Sutton ; go after 'em griys and try 
to sign them. Give them any kind of contract they want. 

Carmel. Who, them five or everybody else? 

Corallo. No ; stay away from them five, but hit everybody else. 

Carmel. But, but a — that other party called me this morning. 

Corallo. Who? 

Carmel. Johnny DeLury. 

Corallo. For what? 

Carmel. He wants me to make a meeting with — I have a meeting scheduled 
for 7 : 30 tonight with him and that Duke LaFonti. He requested it. It's very 
urgent. 

Corallo. He wants to speak to — with who? 

Carmel. That Duke LeFonti. 

Corallo. And you? 

Carmel. And me. 

Corallo. What does he want you for? 

Carmel. I don't know ; so I figure I'm going to get sit down and just listen. 

Corallo. Just go there 

Carmel. There'll be no commitments from 

Corallo. Listen 

Carmel. From me, y'know. 

Corallo. Well, you make no commitments; just go there and listen and go 
out in the street and get them people and bring them in your place. 

Carmel. All right 

Corallo. And if they tell you you can't have them, you just go out and get 
them ; tell them you already got a bushel and you're going to get the rest 

Carmeh:.. O. K. 

Corallo. The same like they got 'em. 

Carmel. All right. 

Corallo. O. K.? 

Carmel. Right. 

Corallo. So long. 

Carmel, O. K. 

(Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. McDONOUGH— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, do you want to make any comment 
about this little conversation ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is this fellow Carmel ? 



4642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

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

The Chairman. Wlio is Freddy Sutton ? 

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

The Chairman. "Wlio is Duke LaFonti ? 

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

The Chairman. Are they pals of yours ? 

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

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LATJEENDI— Resumed 

The Chairman. Let me ask you if you heard this recording played ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Have you a transcript of it ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I do. 

The Chairman. Have you compared the transcript with the r«^ 
cording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Is it accurate ? 

Mr. Laurendi. It is. 

The Chairman. This conversation was held on what date ? 

Mr. Laurendi. October 28, 1964:. 

The Chairman. October 28, 1954. 

A transcript of this recording may be printed in the record. 

Do you recognize the voices ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. I recognize the voices of Anthony Corallo 
and Nathan Carmel. 

The Chairman. Do you know Nathan Carmel ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. He was arrested at the same time with 
five others of local 875 by New Yorl: City detectives attached to 
Hogan's ofi&ce. 

The Chairman. Was he convicted? 

Mr. Laurendi. Up to this time the cliarges are still pending. He 
is awaiting trial. 

The Chairman. He is awaiting trial? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions of the witness? 

Mr. Laurendi. I beg your pardon, sir. He was convicted in 1957. 

The Chairman. He was convicted for what? 

Mr. Laurendi. For extortion. 

The Chairman. For extortion ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, and he pleaded guilty before coming to trial.. 

The Chairman. Was this in connection with labor? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. It was in connection with local 875. At 
that same time, we arrested six officers of Local 875 of the IBT, and 
that case was handled by Chief Assistant District xVttorney Alfred J . 
Scotti, Mr. J. Fitzpatrick, and Assistant D. A. Vincent Ferrari, who 
is now a magistrate in New York City. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4643 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Cliairman, I would like to ask counsel if he 
knows what industiy 875 of the teamsters union is connected with? 

Mr. Kennedy. With rugs, rug cleaning. 

Senator Curtis. The drivers for the rug cleaning industry ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it is generally connected with rug cleaning, 
I understand. 

We have an identification of Mr. Carmel back here, a little back- 
ground on him, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to point out also that Mr. Corallo had absolutely no 
official connection with 875 of the teamsters, and yet can see from 
this transcript that he was instructing Nat Carmel, a vice president, 

You work out with that Freddy Sutton ; go after 'em guys and try to sign them. 
Give them any kind of contract they want. 
Carmel. Who, them five or everybody else. 
CoKALLO. No, stay away from them five, but hit everybody else. 

And then on page two : 

CoBALLo. Well, you make no commitments ; just go there and listen and go 
out in the street and get them people and bring them in your place. 

Carmel. All right 

Corallo. And if they tell you you can't have them, you just go out and get 
them ; tell them you already got a bushel and you're going to get the rest 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO COEALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. McLONOUGH— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what all that means, Mr. Corallo ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Do you own these people ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Do you often refer to people as being "a bushel of 
people" ? 

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

jMr. Kennedy. Is it just a source of income for you? Is that the 
way you look for labor unions? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the gromids that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information that we get from the 
one union alone, the one you are officially connected with, you get 
paid a salary more than $20,000. Can you tell us what you do to 
deserve that ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. That is Local 239 of the International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters. 

Wliat do you receive from this local that you control, local 875 ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out from the chart, Mr. Chair- 
man, that from 875 came one of the paper locals, namely local 275, 
that was used in this election up in New York, in the voting. 



4644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

We have information that Mr. Corallo also controls 275 in the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. We have a call regarding 
that matter. 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny the accuracy of that in- 
formation ? 

Mr. CoRALix). I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If there is anything being said here, any testimony 
or statements being made that you think unfair to you or not truthful 
or not accurate, the Chair invites you to speak up. 

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

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedt. Mr. Chairman, this next call is a call between Milton 
Levine, who formerly served as an organizer for local 875, on which 
we just had the telephone call, and then became president of local 
275, one of these so-called phony locals or paper locals, the charter of 
which was issued on November 8, 1955. 

The call is between Levine and Dick Kaminetsky, Dick Kaminetsky 
being one of those who we understand and believe to be one of those 
working for Mr. Corallo. 

Mr. Kaminetsky and Mr. Tramunti were two of Mr. Corallo's lieu- 
tenants. 

This is a telephone call between Levine, president of local 275, and 
Mr. Kaminetsky, who, of course, had no official connection with local 
275 of the teamsters. 

Once, again, Mr. Chairman, this call comes from Local 229 of the 
Textile Workers Union. The call is handled from there. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. My objection is still noted, I assume, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

My objection is still noted? 

The Chairman. Just one moment. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. I said my objection is still noted? 

The Chairman. And still rejected. 

Proceed. 

(Transcript of telephone conversation between Milton Levine and 
Dick Kaminetsky on November 25, 1955, is as follows :) 

Milton Levine. Can I speak to Tony or Dick, please? 
Woman's Voice. Who's calling, please? 
LE\^NE. Milton Levine. 
Woman. Pardon? 
Levine. Milton Levine. 
Woman. Just a moment. 
Dick Kaminetsky. Hello. 
Levine. Hello. 

Kaminetsky. Milt, how are you? 
Levine. How are you? 
Kaminetsky. All right. 

Levine. Listen, I — I'm down at 30th Street; I got — we got an office space 
available at Court Square, that's near — in 13S's building there. 
Kaminetsky. Well, how do you like it? 

Levine. It's a nice room, I mean, for what it is ; it's a front window. 
Kaminetsky. That's all right ; so take it. 
Levine. I did, I mean, I gave the guy a tentative yes. 
Kaminetsky. Uh-huh. 
Levine. So I just wanted to let you know. 
Kaminetsky. O. K. 
Levine. Seventy-five or eighty dollars. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4645 

Kaminetsky. You'll need something bigger than that, you know. 

Levine. Well — look, that's whats available there now. 

Kaminetsky. All right ; so take it. 

Levine. Take it? 

Kaminetsky. All right. 

Levine. I mean its a — I — look, I wouldn't want to take it unless I told you. 

Kaminetsky. Yeah ; take it. You need something to start with. 

Levine. All right. 

Kaminetsky. And that'll give you a chance to look around. 

Levine. Well, look ; you gotta sign a lease with the guy for a year at least. 

Kaminetsky. All right. Do it. 

Levine. Do it? 

Kaminetsky. Yeah. 

Levine. If I can get away without it will you settle for thirty without it? 

Kaminetsky. You're better off. 

Levine. I know you're better off. I didn't commit myself to the guy. 

Kaminetsky. Oh — yeah. 

Levine. O. K. 

Kaminetsky. O. K. 

Levine. Right. 

Kaminetsky. O. K. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Kaminetsky ? 

Mr. CoRALLo. 1 respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know this man Levine ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the gi'ounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is Kaminetsky working for you ? 

Mr. CoRALLO, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was Levine in charge of a local or an officer in a 
local at that time ? 

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

The Chairman. Were they talking about business that you are 
interested in ? 

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

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

The Chairman. Are these some of your lieutenants, Levine and 
Kaminetsky ? 

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

The Chairman. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LAURENDI— Eesumed 

The Chairman. You have a transcript of this recording we just 
heard ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Have you checked it with the recording? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. Is it accurate? 

Mr, Laurendi. It is. 

The Chairman. This transcript may be printed in the record. 

(Members present at this point in the proceeding: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, McNamara, Mundt, and Curtis.) 



4646 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field 

The Chairman. Do you recoonize either of these voices? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I recognize both voices. 

The Chairman. Who are they? 

Mr. Laurendi. Milton Levine and Dick Kaminetsky. 

The Chairman. "W'lio is Milton Levine ? 

Mr. Laurendi, Milton Levine was 1 of the 6 persons that I previ- 
ously mentioned. At the time of his arrest he was president of local 
875." 

Mr. Kennedy. 275 ? 

Mr. Laurendi. At the time of his arrest, he was an organizer 
for 875. 

The Chairman. This conversation was had when? 

Mr. Laurendi. November 2Ii, 1955, 

The Chairman. Wliat position did Levine hold at that time ? 

Mr. Laurendi, Levine? Pie was president of local 275, 

The Chairman, Do you know Levine personally ? 

Mr, Laurendi, I met him through official police duties at the time 
we arrested him on a warrant which was handed down by the grand 
jury of New York County. 

The Chairman. Well, you met him? 

Mr. Laurendi. I met him ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You talked to him? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know this man Kaminetsky? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Laurendi. He is a lieutenant of Anthony Corallo. 

The Chairman. How do you know that? 

Mr. Laurendi. From other wiretaps. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, Mr. Chairman. 

I might just say there was a subsequent tap that was taken where 
Milton Levine called Mr. Kaminetsky back and said he wasn't going 
to take this headquarters, that he had found another one, and that he 
thought he would take that, and Kaminetsky gave his approval. He 
did take it and he identified it in the second tap. It is presently the 
headquarters of Local 275, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman, Do you have that tap ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We do, but we don't have it transcribed. 

The Chairman. You don't have it transcribed ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No : we do not. 

The Chairman. I believe it should be transcribed to properly con- 
nect it up. Have it transcribed and we vrill have the witness identify 
it and place it in tlie record. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In identifying Kaminetsky, again, Mr. Chairman, 
we can find no legitimate source of income for him. He has a long 
criminal record dating back to 1931. He is on the chart there. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. McDONOUGH— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Do you want to give us any information about Mr. 
Kaminetsky ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4647 

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

The Chairman. You don't want to give us any about Mr. Levine 
either ? 

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

The Chairman. Proceed, counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have another tap dealing with 
Mr. Corallo and Mr. Kaminetsky, specifically a call between Kami- 
netsky and Paul Lafayette, who at that time, at the time of this call, 
December 30, 1954, was regional director in New York of the retail 
clerks international. 

On December 30, 1954. this regional director of the retail clerks, 
Lafayette, calls Dick Kaminetsky and complains that local 405 has 
not paid its per capita tax for October or November, and to which 
Kaminetsky replies lie will take care of the matter. Of course, at 
that time, Kaminetsky had no official connection with local 405 of the 
retail clerks. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the recording. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. My objection is still noted, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Y'es. sir ; it is noted and rejected. 

All right. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were: Senators McClellan, McNamara, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

(The transcript of telephone conversation between Paul LaFayette 
and Dick Kaminetsky on December 30, 1954, is as follows:) 

Woman's Voice. Dick, please. 

Man. Hello, who's calliug? 

Woman's Voice. Paul Lafayette. 

Dick Kaminetsky. How are you? 

Paul Lafayette. How are you, Dick? 

Kaminetsky. O. K., how are you feeling? 

Lafayette. All right. Listen, Dick, on that 405. 

Kaminetsky. Yeah? 

Lafayette. Did Carmine say anything to you about that per capita? 

Kaminetsky. No. 

Lafayette. Well, they haven't paid any per capita for October or November 

Kaminetsky. Oh, I'll get after 

Lafayette. I'll have to lift the charter on 'em if they don't get it in. 

Kaminetsky. O. K., Paul. 

Lafayette. Now, I know that Manny spoke to me here a few weeks ago and 

told me that they had a strike 

Kaminetsky. Yeah, they did have one- 



Lafayette. They might be a little late with them, but— — -, he hasn't even 
sent any October 

Kaminetsky. O. K. ; I'll take care of it — today I'll take care of it 

Lafayette. All right 

Kaminetsky. I'll get 

Lafayette. Now look. 

Kaminetsky. Yeah? 

Lafayette. On — down there in Florida, you know, when you fellows were 
talking to me you told me you had somebody down there that would be able 
to head the organization that was — ah, local. 

Kaminetsky. Yeah. 

Lafayette. Well, now, the last time I was talking to Carmine he was talking 
about Miltie Richman going down there 

Kaminetsky. Naw, that's — that's ridiculous. 

Lafayete. Huh? 

Kaminetsky. That's ridiculous ; he has no part — no part of that picture 

Lafayette. He hasn't? 



4648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Kaminetsky. No. 

Lafayette. Well, then, Carmine must be confused, you know 

Kaminetsky. He must be confused? 

Lafayette. That's right 

Kaminetsky. Aw, he must be. 

Lafayete. Because that wouldn't be any good, because they already know 
that he was originally with us. 

Kaminetsky. Naw, that's no good 

Lafayette. That would be no good at all. 
Kaminetsky. Naw ; I wouldn't even think of it. 
Lafayette. All right. 
Kaminetsky. O. K. 

Lafayette. Now then, on this Rothman 

Kaminetsky. Yeah? 

Lafayette. There's nothing I can do on that for him on that 

Kaminetsky. All right. 

Lafayette. I mean I just want to tell you 

Kaminetsky. O. K. 

Lafayette. The tieup over there and he won't make a change. 

Kaminetsky. All right. 

Lafayette. O. K. 

Kaminetsky. O. K. Take care, Paul. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Corallo, do you know these voices 
that you heard ? 

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

The Chairman. Who is this fellow Lafayette ? 

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

The Chairman. Wliat does 405 refer to? 

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

The Chairman. You ask here about some other folks — Miltie Kich- 
man. Do you know him ? 

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

The Chairman. He refers to Carmine. Who is Carmine? 

Mr, Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, once again 
that Dick Kaminetsky is a man with a long criminal record. He is the 
one designated by Paul Lafayette to make sure that the dues payments 
are paid to the international from this local 405 of the retail clerks. 
I would like to also point out that 405 had as its secretary-treasurer 
Mr. Max Chester, who, of course, appeared here and testified before 
the committee. 

The Chairman. I don't know that he testified. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he didn't give us very much information. 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LAURENDI— Resumed 

The Chairman. Will you identify this transcript of this testimony ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have examined it ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And compared it with the recording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN" THE LABOR FIELD 4649 

The Chairman. Is it accurate ? 

Mr.LAURENDi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then this transcript may be printed in the record. 

What is the date of this telephone conversation ? 

Mr. Latjrendi. December 30, 1954. 

The Chairman. Did you recognize any voices ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I recognized both voices, Dick Kaminetsky 
and Mr. Paul Lafayette. 

The Chairman. Do you know Paul Lafayette ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have met him in the office of Assistant District 
Attorney Harold Birns. 

The Chairman. You met him on official business ? 

Mr. Laurendi. On official business ; yes, sir, in connection with the 
trial of Max Chester, Sam Goldstein, and Johnny Dioguardi, for 
bribery and conspiracy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might point out once again, Mr. Chairman, that 
this telephone call as far as Kaminetsky was concerned was out of 
the headquarters of Local 229 of the United Textile Workers, Archie 
Katz' local. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have one more telephone call which is of signifi- 
cance in connecton with local 875 of the teamsters, and which shows 
once again Mr. Corallo's complete control and domination of that 
local even though he had no official connection with it. 

The Chairman. Are you ready ? 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Please note my objection again, Mr. Chairman, 
please. 

The Chairman. The objection is noted and the objection is over- 
ruled. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might just state what this appears to show. 

Joey Levine, one of Corallo's men, is placed in charge of the local 
over the heads of the elected officers. Joey Levine in this call is report- 
ing the events, the fact that he has been put in charge of the local 
through Solly Cotliar, who is another associate of Tony Corallo's. All 
of the officers of this local all have been indicted and convicted for 
extortion. 

The Chairman. All these parties ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. The officers of local 875, Berger, Kleinman, 
and Carmel ; those three. 

The Chairman. All right. Let's proceed with the recording. 
(Transcript of te^lephone conversation between Solly Cotliar and 
Joey Levine on February 11, 1955, follows :) 

Solly CoTLiAK. Hello — Hello, Abie? 

Abie. Yeah. 

CoTLLiR. Joey there? 

Abie. Yes, sir. 

Joey Levine. This is Joe. 

Cotliar. All right ; who's with you? 

Levine. Ah, nobody ; I'm downstairs. 

Cotliar. Oh, good. What's doing? What happened ? 

Levine. Well— all right. Everything's O. K. 

Cotliar. The way you want it? 

Levine. Ah — a lot of pressure on them. You understand me or not5 

Cotliar. Are you on your own? 

Levine. Yeah, definitely. 

Cotliar. That's what I meant. 



4650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Levine. I mean, ah, on top of that, ah, ah, the boss. 

CoTLiAR. You're the boss. Well 

Levine. Yeah • 

CoTLiAK. He told you that. 

Levine. No, no ; I'm talking about other things. 

CoTLiAB. Yeah? 

Levine. I gotta make them — eh, eh — ^jump. 

CoTLiAK. Yeah. 

Levine. In plain English. 

CoTLiAR. Yeah : but you were told you're boss. 

Levine. Eh, that's not it, but I — the way he put it to them 

CoTi.iAR. Yeah. 

Levine. "Get out and work or else." 

CoTiiAK. No kidding? 

Levine. That's ritiht. 

CoTLiAB. Boy, they must have died. 

Levine. I Avaut to tell you, he was white. 

CoTLiAu. Who? Jack — Aaron? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CotiJar. Uhuh. S'all right. 

Levine. Only, the minute I walk into the office a couple minutes I told the girl 
I want a recoi'd of all the delinquents. 

CoTLiAE. Ri.trht. 

Levin^e. There's no right for any shops to be behind January — forget about 
February — I'm not talking about February ; I'm talking about January, and, ah — 
especially December. 

CoTLiAR. I^huh. 

Levine. No. 2 — I gotta give 'em a written report every week. 

CoTLiAR. Uhuh. 

Levixe. Whatever comes in and whatever goes ont. He opened up his 
mouth about you. 

CoTi.iAR. Who did? 

Levine. About 

CoTT.iAR. Twenty? 

Levine. Yeah. 

COTI.IAR. Aaron? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTi.iAR. Jack? 

Levine. Yeah. 

Cotijar. So what did he — what was up? 

Levine. Tony says, "Look, everything stands the way it is. I want — I want 
Jack to get a raise. I want evei'ybody to get a raise, and I want this organiza- 
tion to be the biggest—" 

CoTijAi;. Yeah. 

Lip;viNE. "And that's why I'm putting Joey in there now and I want youse all' 
to jump." 

COTI.IAR. T\Tiat was he told about the 20? 

Levine. That, ah — it's an extra knock. 

CoTLiAR. Yes, so what did he say? 

Levine. He says, "It stays that way " 

COTLIAR. Oh? 

Levine. "I want to see what happens the next 4 or 5 weeks and I want to see: 
you guys with members." 

C0TT.1AR. ITh-huh. They must have died. 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAR. Good. I told you, you're boss. You take care. 

Levine. Ye-ye-yeah. And, believe me, I'm in the stage where I'll have to do 1 
or 2 things ; either they do it or else I'll chase them. 

CoTi.iAR. That's all. It's simple. They don't want you running around. He 
told you. 

Levine. Well, I'm going out tomorrow morning ; I got a shop with 2 people, 3 
people 

CoTLiAR. Take it easy, though. Don't — don't hurt yourself. 

Levine. I gotta have the pickets out there and I gotta be out on Long Island^ 
so what's the difference? I arranged for the — for four pickets for tomorrow. 

CoTLiAR. Good. 

Levine. In other words, ah, if, ah — I had a couple dollars, it's going tomorrow^ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4651 

CoTLiAR. Look, you got to — you know what it'll bring back. 

Levine. Eh — uh, I know what 

CoTLi^ui. So, what can you doV I mean 

Levine. No ; I want you to understand a 

CoTLiAR. You mean about no pay? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAR. Well, so what? So what — so it'll be next week. 

Levine. I figured on 

CoTLiAR. As ah — I told you ; look, with me they'll be no problem. 

Levine. All right, Solly. 

CoTLiAR. Take it easy. 

Levine. I'll keep in touch with you at your house, in case I need you. 

COTLIAR. Right. 

Levine. All right. 

CoTLiAB. O. K., but he told them that stays, eh? 

Levine. Oh, yeah. 

CoTLiAR. Did he say it emphatic? 

Levine. Definitely. 

CoTLiAR. Yeah ; huh ? 

Levine. Yeah. I want to tell you something. Ah^ — ^sometimes its very good. 
[Unintelligible.] 

CoTLiAR. Yeah. 

Levine. [Unintelligible.] 

CoTLiAR. Yeah. 

Levine. He really give it to them. 

CoTLiAR. Yeah? 

Levine. Y'eah, and he says, "I'm not leaving any inferences ; don't tell me 
anything ; I don't — don't give me any excuses ; I don't listen to nobody. I want 
you to prove." 

CoTLiAR. Yeah? 

Levine. "From now on, I want you to prove; that's why I'm putting Joey 
in " 

CoTLiAR. Well, I mean — tell me exact, because when I go up there with Dick, 
I'm going to find out, so I want to know just what's what 

Levine. Uhh 

CoTLiAR. Exactly the way you told them to me? 

Levine. That's right. 

CoTLiAR. Yeah? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAR. Good ; don't embellish it in any way. 

Levine. No, sir 

CoTLiAR. But he told that Stays, huh? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAR. And no questions? 

Levine. No questions ; no nothing. Everything that's sai — ah — so he's 
squawking about he owes a bill here. He — ah — so he ah — Tony says to me, 
"All right." This is what he said: "He owes out $650. All right; that'll be 
paid " 

CoTLiAR. Yeah. 

Levine. "But if it's paid, I want to know where it's going and to who it's 
going." ^ 

CoTLiAR. Yeah. 

Levine. Because any check that goes out, I have to go tomor — Mon — Monday 
and change the checks. 

CoTLiAR. Uhuh. Change 'em? 

Levine. Yeah. Change the signatures. 

CoTLiAR. Heh? 

Levine. Change the signatures. 

CoTLiAR. You mean just you and Aaron? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAR. Uhuh. 

Levine. So no money goes out unless 

CoTLiAR. But you're on your own ; everything goes in there is yours. 

Levine. Yeah. 

COTLIAR. Right? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAR. And as the time comes— the way we decided? 



4652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Levine. Of that, he didnt' saj; nothing, and I think it was very smart. 

CoTLiAK. What was that? 

Levine. That, he didn't bring that up at all. 

CoTLiAR. About you on your own? 

Levine. Yeah. 

CoTLiAB. Why? 

Levine. In other words, ah — he didn't bring that up at all. 

CoTLiAR. In other words, you're the boss. 

Levine. That's right. 

CoTLiAK. Uhuh. 

Levine. You understand what I mean? 

CoTLAiK. Yeah ; good. 

Levine. So, there's no discussion 

CoTLAiE. No dissension ; no discussion. 

Levine. If I want to walk out tomorrow, I got 400 members. I'm the boss. 

COTLAIR. I get it. 

Levine. See ; I mean — ah — he covered everyth — a multitude of sins. 

CoTLAiR. Perfect. 

Levine. [Unintelligible.] 

CoTLAiK. Take care. 

Levine. O. K. 

CoTLAiR. And call me. 

Levine. I will. 

CoTLAiR. So long. 

Levine. So long. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. McDONOUGH— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, do you know Mr. Cotliar? 

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

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Levine ? 

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

The Chairman. Is this one of your operations ? 

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

The Chairman. Wlio is Aaron ? 

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

The Chairman. Does he work for you ? 

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

The Chairman. Did you recognize the voices in this telephone 
conversation ? 

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

The Chairman. There is some conversation in here about own- 
ing 400 members of a union. Do you have any knowledge about 
that? 

Mr, Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

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

The Chairman. Is it within your knowledge that these labor 
racketeers treat union members as chattels, just goods and property 
to be used any way they want to ? 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4653 

The Chairman. Have you had any experience along that line ? 
Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LAURENDI— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Did you hear this recording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you compared the transcript with recording? 

Mr. Lanrendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is the transcript accurate ? 

Mr. Laurendi. It is. 

The Chairman. The transcript of the recording may be printed in 
the record. What is the date of this conversation '] 

Mr. Laurendi. February 11, 1955. 

The Chairman. Do you have any information about Joey Levine 
and a man named Cotliar that engaged in this conversation? 

Mr. Laurendi. No, sir, I do not, except that I have been informed 
that Solly Cotliar has disappeared. 

The Chairman. By accident or otherwise ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I could not say. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is one of those, Mr. Chairman, that we have been 
trying to find for a period of some time and we cannot locate him. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. McDONOTJGH— Resumed 

(Members of the select committee present at this point are Senators 
McClellan, McNamara and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Do you want to make any comment at all about 
any of these conversations ? 

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

The Chairman. You will agree we are giving you a very fair op- 
portunity, will you not? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You tell me how I can be more fair to you to give 
you an opportunity? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to point out several matters in this conversa- 
tion. 

It was originally a conversation had between Mr. Tony "Ducks" 
Corallo and the officers of the local of 875. Jack would be Jack 
Berger, Jack Berger being the president of the local. 

Aaron would be Aaron Kleinman. Drawing your attention to 
page 2, where Joey Levine is describing the fact that he has been put 
in charge of the union and the conversation that Tony "Ducks" 
had with these officers, he describes what Tony said. 

Levine. Get out and work or else. 
Cotliar. No kidding? 
Levine. That's right. 

89330— 57— pt. 12 11 



4654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

CoTLiAB. Boy, they must have died. 
Levine. I want to tell you, he was white. 
CoTLiAR. Who? Jack — Aaron? 
Levine, Yeah. 

Meaning Jack Berger, president of the local and Aaron Kleinman, 
who is secretary-treasurer of this local. 

This is, again, a local which Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo has no 
official connection with. 

On page 3 it says : 

Levine. Tony says, "Look, everything stands the way it is. I want — I want 
Jack to get a raise. I want everybody to get a raise and I want this organiza- 
tion to be the biggest 

We have examined the records of this local, Mr. Chairman, and 
find that shortly after this conversation, all of the officers of the local 
did get raises. 

Over here on page 6, we notice that Mr. "Ducks'' says that he is 
going to take care of the bills of the local. 

He says, "That'll be paid." Then he says on page 7 that the signa- 
tures on the checks will be changed, and that Joey is to go down 
and change the signatures on the checks. 

We have here the checks dated January of 1955, which have certain 
signatures, and then we have checks here of that local dated March 25, 
1955, and we find a change in the signatures. 

Mr. McDoNouGH. In fairness to the witness, might it be noted that 
the conversation or the alleged conversation, the name "Tony" is only 
referred to twice. 

"Anthony" is a great Italian name and probably in the city of 
New York there may be one hundred to five hundred thousand people 
with the surname of Anthony." 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. I mean in fairness. 

The Chairman. Yes, in fairness, that could be correct. I will ask 
Mr. Corallo if we are mistaken about it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We know, Mr. Chairman, and could establish if 
necessary, a very close relationship between Mr. Joey Levine and Mr. 
Tony Corallo. There is no question that the Tony that is referred 
to in this conversation is Mr. Tony Corallo. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to ask with respect to these 
checks, what member of our staff procured them and can verify them 2 

'Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walter May. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, McNamara, 
and Mundt.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. May can also identify Mr. Levine's voice. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER R. MAY 

The Chairman. Have you been previously sworn in this hearing? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. 

You are a member of the staff of this committee? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4655 

Mr. Mat. I am. 

The Chairman. I hand you a series of four photostatic copies of 
checks on Local 875, IBT-AFL. All of these are dated in January 
1955. 

I will ask you to examine these photostatic copies of the four checks 
and state if you procured them and where and how as a staff member 
of this committee. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. May. Yes, Senator. I have seen the originals of these checks. 
The records of 875 were subpenaed by District Attorney Frank 
Hogan's oflice in New York. I went to the district attorney's office 
and reviewed the records of 875. These particular checks are photo- 
static copies of the originals. 

The Chairman. That series of checks, then, may be made exhibit 
No. 120 A, B, C and D. 

(The docu.ments referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 120 A, B, 
C and D," for reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4878- 
4881.) 

The Chairman. Will you state for the record who signed those 
checks as officers of local 875 ? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. These particular checks dated in January 1955 
are signed by Nathan Carmel, the vice president, and Jack Berger, 
as president. 

The Chairman. They were signed by officers of the local? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The telephone conversation recording that we just 
heard was dated February 11, 1955. 

I will first ask you : Did you hear that recording played ? 

Mr. May. Yes, I did, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any voices in there that you recognize? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. I recognize the voice of Joseph Levine. 

The Chairman. You recognize his voice ? 

Mr. May. I have interviewed Mr. Levine and I can identify his 
voice. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Now I hand you another series of photostatic copies of checks, six, 
I believe, in number, altogether, on the same local, 875, IBT-AFL, and 
I ask you to examine these photostatic copies and say if you recognize 
them, and, if so, how you procured them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. May. Yes, Sehator. These were obtained in a similar manner 
from the original records which were in the possession of District 
Attorney Frank Hogan. These checks are signed by 

The (Chairman. What are the dates? What month? 

Mr. May. March 1955, after the conversation. 

The CiiAiR^tiAN. The other series of checks that you identified were 
in January 1955 ? 

Mr. May. And five in number ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The telephone conservation took place on the 11th 
of February ? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do those checks reflect that had occurred be- 
tween January and March, the date they were issued ? 
_ jVIr. ]May. These particular checks carry the signature of Aaron 
Kleinman and Joseph P. Levine. 



4656 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field 

The Chairman. Levine is one of those who participated in the 
telephone conversation ? 

Mr. Mat. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he is the one that had been put in charge, 
according to the telephone conversation ? 

Mr. May. Yes, Senator. It is interesting to note that Joseph Levine 
was carried on the records of local 875 as an organizer, and here in 
March 1955 Levine is signing the checks, the payroll checks, of Jack 
Berger, who was president of the local at that time. 

The Chairman. In other words, the fellow that moved in took over 
and even signed the checks of the president ? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he sign them as an officer? Is that series of 
checks signed by anybody as an officer of the local ? 

Mr. May. It just carries a simple signature stamp. 

The Chairman. It does not identify their relationship to the union f 

Mr. May. No, sir. 

The Chairman. The other series of checks did ; did they not? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who are identified as the signers of the other 
checks ? 

Mr. May. Nathan Carmel, vice president, and Jack Berger, 
president. 

The Chairman. The change was made, and in March there were 
two signatures on the checks, but none representing any official of 
the union ? 

Mr. May. That is right. Senator. 

The Chairman. This last series of checks will be made exhibit 121. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 121," for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4882-4887.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Is there anything else, Mr. Counsel ? 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, McNamara, 
andMundt.) 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. Mcdonough— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, can you give us any information 
about that arrangement down there ? 

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

The Chairman. It seems like if you gave those orders, you would 
agree that they were carried out pretty well. 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the groimds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Once, again, on the question of identifying who is 
Tony in that call, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you of the 
earlier call in connection with 875, where Mr. Tony "Ducks" gives 
orders to the secretary-treasurer, I believe, of the union, to send out 
certain pickets, and to release certain shops, and to picket other shops. 

The Chairman. Would you tell us how long you have owned and 
controlled that local ? 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S EST THE LABOR FIELD 4657 

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

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. IvENNEDT. We will have testimony regarding the relationship 
between the president of the 995 and Sam Goldstein, who is also 
president of 239, and Mr. Tony "Ducks" and also the interest that 
Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo had in the election for the presidency of 
joint council 16. 

But that will take some time, Mr. Chairman. I do not think we 
could finish it this morning. 

The ChxMrman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

Before adjournment, the Chair will have made an exhibit a mimeo- 
graphed copy of the charts that have been exhibited. 

It will be made exhibit 122, for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 122 " for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. The committee will now recess until 2 o'clock this 
afternoon. 

The witness will return at that time. 

( Wliereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members present at tlie taking of the recess: Senators McClellan, 
McNamara, and Mundt. ) 

AFfERNOON 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 Ives.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, the witness on the stand at noon will 
stand by, and he will be recalled later. 

The next witness is Sam Goldstein. 

Will you come around, Mr. Goldstein ? 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. Goldstein. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAM GOLDSTEIN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
MICHAEL P. DIRENZO 

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

Mr. Goldstein. Sam Goldstein, 157 Mary Lane, Long Island, N. Y. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand your business or occupation. 

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

The Chairman. You have a lawyer ? 

Mr. Goldstein. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. That is probably the only answer we are going to 
get. The lawyer may identify himself for the record. 

Mr. DiRENzo. Michael P. Direnzo, 253 Broadway, New York City. 

The Chairman. You are a member of the New York bar? 

Mr. Direnzo. That is correct, sir. 



4658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to the information we have, 
Mr. Goldstein is a close associate of Tony "Ducks" Corallo. Is that 
right ? 

Mr, Goldstein. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You have a little peculiar situation here, don't you 
agree, where each of you say it will incriminate you to tell about the 
other ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I decline to answer on the ground it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information that we have, Mr. 
Goldstein was president of Local 995 of the UAW-AFL, and also 
president of local 239 of the teamsters. 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 

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

The Chairman. Since when does it become an incriminating cir- 
cumstance to be president of a labor organization? 

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

The Chairman. I just wondered if we could fix a time. It is a kind 
of a strange circumstance that has developed here in the course of these 
hearings, and I wonder when it placed anyone in disrepute to be a 
member of a labor organization or the president of one of its locals. 
Could you give us any help on that ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline on the ground that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You will agree with me, won't you, that it only 
applies to certain locals and certain people? 

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

The Chairman. You wouldn't want to give the impression that all 
unions, and all officials of unions, find themselves in such circumstance, 
would you ? 

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

The Chairman. Do you feel that you owe any obligation at all to 
honest unionism? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

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

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cliairrnan, although Mr. Goldstein is listed as 
president of these two locals, 995 UAW-AFL, and 239 of the teamsters, 
we understand Mr. Tony "Ducks" Corallo is listed as vice president, 
was actually the one giving the instructions. Did you take your in- 
structions from Mr. Corallo ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I decline to answer on the ground it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does he know^ you ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on tlie 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE K\BOR FIELD -^659 

The Chairman. Plave you ever been associated with him in any 
legitimate enterprise ? 

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

The Chairman. If that might incriminate you, then we may assume 
that it would incriminate you to answer whether you have been asso- 
ciated with him in any illegitimate enterprise, could we? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respect full3^ decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Accorcling to the information that we have, you were 
born on November 27, 1915 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Goldstein. That is correct. 

ISIr. Kennedy. And that you are married and 3'ou have an arresc 
record consisting of unlawful entry, possessing gambling equipment, 
and operating a gambling establishment on which you were convicted; 
possessing gambling equipment, conviction, and bribery on which you 
were just coiiAncted together with Max Chester and Johnny Dio; and 
that you are presently under indictment with Philip Goldberg, the 
recording secretary of local 239, for extortion. That case is presently 
pending ; is that correct ? 

IVfr. Goldstein Sir, I decline to answer on the ground that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that summarize your record correctly ? 

Mr. Goldstein. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. ]\Iaybe the witness would rather give his own record 
in his OAvn language. Would you ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, t respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The (^HAiRMAN. You are married, are you not ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Yes ; I am. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We understand, also, that Mr. Goldstein was presi- 
dent of local 239 of the teamsters and Local 995 of the UAW-AFL, 
at the same period of time, for a period of 2 years, from 1954 through 
] 956. Is that correct ; that you were presiclent of both locals at the 
same time ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. WI3 also have information that, in October of 1956, 
you received a loan of $20,000 from local 239 on a non-interest-bearing 
note ; is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever pay the loan back ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did your union members know you borrowed that 
money? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



4660 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The CiiAiKMAx. Did you bo]-row it or did you just take it without 
authority? 

Mr. GoLDSTEix. Senator, T respectfully decline to answer the ques- 
tion on the oTound it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chair:max. Would you tell us what became of that money? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you use it to set up a gambling joint ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you invest it illegally in narcotic drugs ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Has the union ever gotten its money back? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Then the union members, the people who work and 
pay the dues, are left to guess and speculate and I think that they 
could speculate pretty accurately, as to whether you ever paid it back. 
Is that the way you want to leave it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. GoLDsiTsiN. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand your salary at that time was $250 
per week, or $13,000 per year, at the time you received this $26,000 
interest-free loan. 

Mr. Goldstein. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, I understand that on January 4, 1957, your 
salary was increased to $340 a week and $60 expenses, making a total 
of $400 per week, or $20,800 per year ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Again, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it possible or does the staff hav(^ the minutes 
where the salary increases were voted ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We interviewed the secretary-treasurer, Mr. Ber- 
nard Stein, about the salary increases and the salary increase that 
went to both Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Corallo, up to $20,000 and he said 
that it was never approved and it was not necessary to approve, that 
the officers determined their own salary. 

Senator Kennedy. Without having a vote of the members, and 
tlie}^ increased their salaries without a vote of the members. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the statement that he made to us when we 
interviewed him and asked him for the minutes in connection with the 
increase in salaries. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand the $20,000 was to be repaid back 
at the rate of $80 a week. 

Now, your salary increase from 1956 to 1957 provided an increase 
of $150 per week, which would cover the repayment of your loan, plus 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD -^661 

the extra taxes on your additional income, which meant that you 
received the money from the union to pay back the $20,0u0. 

Therefore, you received $20,000 free and clear from the union with- 
out a vote of the members ; is that a correct statement ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. To put this concisely, in 1956 you received $250 
a week. You received a $20,000 interest-free loan. In 1957 your 
salary was raised to $400 a week and it was provided that the loan 
would be paid back at the rate of $80 a week. 

Therefore, the increase in your salary which w^as made without 
going to the members for their agreement, would have given you not 
only your usual salary, but sufficient funds to repay the loan and the 
taxes and would have resulted instead of your paying back to the 
union the $20,000 you owed them, in your receiving $20,000 free and 
clear. 

This was never put to the members for their consent, the 2,700 mem- 
bers of local 239 ? 

The Chairman. Do you wish to comment on it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir ; is that a question or a statement ? 

The Chairman. We will make it a question. 

Senator Kennedy. Is that a fact ? 

Mr. Goldstein. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. As I understand it, you are now under indict- 
ment awaiting sentence. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been convicted together with Max Chester 
and Johnny Dioguardi. He is in jail awaiting sentence. 

Senator Kennedy. In what way is it going to be possible for you 
to pay back the $20,000 that you owe to the union members ? Have 
you made any plans for that ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Is your salary continuing at the present time 
from the union ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you given a report to the members of your 
local as to whether you are going to receive a salary while you are 
in jail from them? * 

Mr. Goldstein. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, if you will not say whether the members 
knew about your loan and approved it, may I ask you if "Ducks" 
Corallo knew about it and approved it ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How about Johnny Dio, do you know him ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you take orders from him ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 



4662- IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Are you under apprehension or fear of Jolinny 
Dio and "Ducks" Corallo ? Is that why you will not testify ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, according to the information that 
we have, Mr. Goldstein played a very prominent role in the attempt to 
swing the election to Mr. John O'Eourke during the period of Novem- 
ber of 1955, and the first few months of 1956; is that correct Mr. 
Goldstein ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir ; I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that in those negotiations, and in the work that 
you did, you were representing Tony Ducks. 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also acted in the capacity of an inter- 
mediary between Tony Ducks and Johnny Dio in connection with 
that election ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this same period of time, is it true 
that you had some conversations with certain teamster officials re- 
garding Mickey Finn of the U AW-CIO ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Mickey Finn of the UAW-CIO ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations in November of 
1955 with Mr. Harold Gibbons, about moving Mickey Finn of the 
UAW-CIO to the teamsters ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is Harold Gibbons ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to an- 
swer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you take the same position if I asked you 
who Mickey Finn was ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to an- 
swer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true, also, that during the same period of 
time that you were talking to Mr. Gibbons about this, that Mr. Hoffa 
was attempting to get Mickey Finn, or was carrying on discussion 
with Mr. Harold Gibbons to get Mickey Finn a charter ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any movement underway that you par- 
ticipated in about bringing in some of the other UAW-CIO mem- 
bers in the New York area into the teamsters union? 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4663 

Mr. Kennedy. And were these conversations all carried on at the 
same time that the conversations regarding the control of the presi- 
dency of joint council 16 was carried on. 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Corallo in 
February of 1955, regarding the per capita dues payments that would 
have to be paid by local 239 to the joint council ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the gromid 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you report to Mr. Corallo that you had a con- 
versation with Mr. Lacey and you were able to lower the per capita 
dues payments from $2,500 to about $175 ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during 1955, November and December of 1955, 
and January of 1956, did you have frequent conversations with Mr. 
Corallo and Mr. Johnny Dio regarding the control of the joint council 
of teamsters in New York City ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Sir, I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you not make certain efforts yourself to have 
John O'Rourke elected as president of joint council 16 ? 

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

The Chairman. Did you regard him as such a bad fellow that if 
you made the admission that you tried to help elect him or did help 
elect him president of the joint council that that would incriminate 
you ? 

Are you implying that ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If you cannot explain it, it is just left in such infer- 
ences as one wants to draw from it, I suppose, do you not '? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Corallo 
return to the witness stand together with Mr. Goldstein. 

The Chairman. Come around, Mr. Corallo. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH M. Mcdonough ; and sam Goldstein, accompanied 

BY HIS COUNSEL, MICHAEL P. DIRENZO— Resumed 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Corallo, you were sworn this morn- 
ing. 

Proceed Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a call that I would like to 
play, the transcription of which was made prior to the time that this 
committee began its investigation, and it vras made in accordance with 
a court order, and we have received a court order from the State of 
New York allowing this committee permission to use these calls. 

The Chairman. The court order the Chair now has before him will 
be placed in the record at this point. 



4664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

(The court order is as follows:) 

COUBT OF GeNEEAL SESSIONS, CoUNTY OF New ToRK 

In the Matter of Intebcepting Telephonic Communications Transmitted 
Over Pennsylvania 6-3843 

It appearing from the aflSdavit of Alfred J. Scotti, Chief Assistant District 
Attorney of the County of New York, sworn to on May 1, 1957, that it is in the 
public interest to furnish to the United States Senate Select Committee on 
Improper 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 during the period November 28, 1955, to May 27, 
1956, which were transmitted over the telephone instrument designated as PEnn- 
sylvania 6-3843, listed in the name of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Local 239, A. F. of L., located in Room 205, Hotel Martinique, 49 West 32nd 
Street, City and County of New York, for the use of said committee in connection 
with and in the course of its said investigation, 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 the above-identified telephone instrument during the period set forth 
hereinabove, for the use of said committee in connection with and in the course 
of its said investigation. 

( Signed ) John A. Mullen, J. C. G. S. 

Dated, New York, N. Y., July 27, 1957. 

Court op General Sessions, County of New York 

In the Matter of Intercepting Telephonic Communications Transmitted 
Over Pennsylvania 6-3843. 

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 PEnnsylvania 6-3843, listed in 
the name of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 239 of the A. F. of L., 
located in Room 205, Hotel Martinique, 49 West 32nd Street, City and County 
of New York, during the period hereiubelow set forth. 

On January 30, 1957, the Senate of the United States duly adopted a resolu- 
tion by which the said committee was authorized to investigate improper activi- 
ties in the labor or management field, with the purpose of obtaining information 
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 subpoenaed and interrogated numerous wit- 
nesses 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 subpoena to Samuel Goldstein, to Bernard Stein, and to Antonio Corallo, all 
of whom are known to be officials and representatives of the said Local 239, for 
interrogation in connection with said investigation. 

In August 1956, and again subsequent to January .30, 19.>7, the date the said 
resolution above referred to was adopted, said Chief Counsel of said committee 
requested that this office furnish him, for the use of the said committee, all 
transcripts and information reflecting the interception of all telephonic com- 
munications transmitted over the telephone instrument hereinabove described. 

The records of this office reveal that the telephonic communications trans- 
mitted over said instrument were intercepted during the period hereiubelow 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN" THE LABOR FIELD 4:665 

set forth. All of 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 November 28, 1955, to May 27, 1956. 

It is respectfully submitted that the District Attorney of New York County 
be authorized, in the public interest, to furuish to the United States Senate 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field to 
said transcripts and other information for the use of said committee in con- 
nection with and in the course of its said investigation. 

No previous application has been made for the order herein requested. 

(signed) Alfked J. Scotti. 

Sworn to before me this 1st day of May 1957. 

Kathryn a. Donohue, 
notary Puhlic, State of New York. 

Mr. McDoNOUGii. My objection will be noted for the reasons previ- 
oiisl}^ stated. 

The CHAiRMAiSr. Your objection has been noted, and to save you 
trouble we will consider you are objecting to everything from here on 
out. For the purpose of the record, those objections are overruled. 

Mr. DiRENZo. I note the same objection on behalf of the witness 
Goldstein. 

The Chairman. But you waived an 3^ objection up to this point, 
and you did not interpose it. But your objection is overruled. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this first is a transcript of a tele- 
phone conversation between Mr, Samuel Goldstein, president of Local 
239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Anthony Ducks 
Corallo, vice president of Local 239, International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, both with long criminal records and will indicate the 
interest of these individuals in the election of Mr. John O'Rourke. 

Mr. Goldstein is on two phone calls and only one of them is 
monitored. 

(The recording is as follows:) 

1st Operator. Mr. Selzo. 

2d Operator. I don't get the name. Operator. 

Samuel Goldstein. Room 402, he's in. 

1st Operator. Room 402. 

2d Operator. Operator, I don't get that name. 

1st Operator. Is it S-e-1-z-o? 

Goldstein. That's right. 

1st Operator. It's S like in Sam, el, Z like in Zebra, 0. 

2d Operator. Selzo? 

1st Oper.vtor. Right. Room 402. 

2d Operator. We don't have anyone listed in room 402. Are you calling the 
Seville? ^ 

1st Operator. I'm trying 

Goldstein. The Seville ; that's right. 

1st Operator. Yes, we are. Do you have a Mr. Selzo reg^istered? 

2d Operator. No, I don't have him listed. Operator. 

Goldstein. Fanny, there is no such name as Selzo, Fanny. 

2d Operator. Sir? 

Goldstein. Let me make a- — Forget about the person-to-person, Miss ; let me 
just speak to the hotel and tell them to connect me to room 402. 

2d Operator. Well, that will still be person-to-person. 

Goldstein. Okay, let it be person-to-person. 

1st Operator. Operator 

2d Operator. I have a Mr. Macalu 

Goldstein. That's the party, that's the party I want. 

1st Oper-\tor. Then do you want Mr. Macalu? 

Goldstein. Yeah. 

1st Operator. We'll speak with Mr. Macalu. 

2d Operator. Are you paid? 



4666 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

1st Opebatok. Yes, I am. 

Goldstein. Inaudible. What's all this Fanny? What is this? 

2d Operator. Hold for a page, Operator. His room 

1st Operator. Thank you. Sir, his room doesn't answer ; they're having him 
paged. 

Goldstein, Thank you. What does Chester want: Fanny? 

Fanny, pick him up on 50 for me. RE 2-5961. Max on 50? Hello — — 

1st Operator. Yes? We're waiting for Mr. Macalu 

Goldstein. Will I meet who? 

1st Operator. Hello 

Goldstein. Yes, Miss ; I'm listening to you 

1st Operator. Oh, all right. I was just saying we're waiting for your party. 

Goldstein. Fine ; thank you. 

1st Operator. You're welcome. 

Goldstein. I got a 2 o'clock appointment. Max, but I got a few calls to make 
before I make that appointment. Why, I don't want the other party with me. 

* * * Ob, so better meet me in the office about 4 o'clock. Oh, fine ; that'll be all 
right. * * * Yeah, what's the situation there Max? * * * Where? * * * They're 
going to close the joint and he's talking about good raises. * * * Yeah. * * * 
All right Mac, how's the situation down there? You know this guy's number? 
The guy you spoke to ; what's his name? Yeah I'm just going to call him up Max. 

* * * You don't want me to? * * * No, okay, fine. * * * Right, okay, Max. Right, 
right. * * * Oh, let him stop worrying about that ; first we got to — let him go back 
and have some kind of a meeting with them and then tell them that he is coming 
next Thursday to discuss contract conditions. * * * He'll be back next Thursday 
to speak contract conditions. * * * Who's that? * * * Yeah. * * * 

2d Operator. Hold on. Operator ; he's coming to the phone. 

1st Operator. Thank you. 

2d Operator. Hello. 

Voice. Hello. 

2d Operator. Hello, Mr. Macalu? 

Alfred Macaluso. Yeah. 

2d Operator. All right. New York 

Goldstein. Hello, Mac? 

Macaluso. Yeah? 

Goldstein. What's new, Mac? 

Macaluso. Oh, not much, Goldie. 

Goldstein. The other guy there? 

Macaluso. Yeah; how you been? 

Goldstein. Can't complain, Mac. 

Macaluso. Hold on, right? 

Goldstein. Right. 

Voice. Hello. 

Goldstein. Hello, Anthony? 

Anthony Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Let me explain to you what's going on here. I went to see that— 
there was a big meeting Tuesday night, you know, for nominations. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Is it all right for me to talk? 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. There was a big meeting for nominations and all of a sudden 
there was rebellion in the hall, you know. This crew was hollering ; that crew 
was hollering — everybody was hollering. So I went up into the side thing 
and I grabbed hold of Marty, you know. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. I says, "What are you doing Marty ; this is no good for you ; it's 
no good for the other guy ; it's no good for nobody. Why don't you listen to 
what I got to tell you ; it'll take a couple of minutes." So I start to tell him, 
you know, what's what, so he says, "What do you mean I don't want to meet 
him?" Who the hell does he think he is, you know. So I went over to Johnny, 
you know, "O." And I sat down and I spoke to him real quick like for 2 
minutes. I said the best thing for you to do is to get together with this guy— 
1, 2. 3 — this thing is going to go on all night ; it's no good for everybody. It's 
going to hit the papers. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So he says, "Does the guy want to talk?" I says, "Sure, he wants 
to talk to you. He's waiting in the little thing for you." So the both of them 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4667 

went down. Now, I was going to do the talliing but Johnny says, "I'll talk 
to him myself." I says, "O. K." You know, he's big enough to handle his 
own problems, you know. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So I walked way. So they cut up for about 45 minutes so the 
joint took a recess. 

CoRALLO. Why didn't j'ou stay there? 

Goldstein. He asked me to go away, Anthony. 

OoRALLO. He asked you to go away? 

Goldstein. He said he wants to speak to him alone — — • 

CORALLO. Oh. 

Goldstein. You know. So, the joint took a recess of 45 minutes but nobody 
left their seats. In the meantime, the press was upstairs, you know. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So I guess you know we hit the papers here the next day. I don't 
know if you get the papers down there. 

CORALLO. No. 

Goldstein. Well, anyway this little thing went on, you know. And then 
when Johnny came back he moved away from his motion. In other words, it 
looked like everything was all right, as far as I knew. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. And then he sent somebody over; he wants to see me before the 
meeting ends like, you know. So, when I came — when the meeting was over, 
we had an 8 o'clock meeting ourselves that night, you know, with our members. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. But I ran over to him and he says to me, "You done a good thing." 
He says — he says "You moved it real good." I says, "Johnny, I wished you would 
have let me stay with you ; we could have moved it better maybe, not that you 
can't do your own job, you know, I guess you know best what you want to tell 
them." 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So, he says everything is okay, he says. I'm figuring that he spoke 
to the guy like I was told to ; you know what I mean. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Now, all of a sudden, there is a problem. So, your little fellow 
from 57th Street calls me yesterday 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. And he says, "There's a problem : it's no good." 

CoRALLO. What 

Goldstein. He says, "When I left it it was all right." He says, "So see if you 
can go see that guy." So I made him a call about 1 o'clock and he was gone 

Huh? 

CoRALLO. I told those to let you talk to him. 

Goldstein. I don't hear you. 

CoRALLO. I told those stupid guys to let you talk to him. 

Goldstein. Well, anyway, here's what happened. When I called about 1 
o'clock he wasn't in ; he was in the mayor's office, you know. I ain't going to 
no mayor's office, so I didn't try to reach him any more. But I left word with 
the girl that he should call me as soon as she heard from him. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So, 1 o'clock last night, I got a call in my house from him. 

CoRALLO. One o'clock at night? 

Goldstein. Yeah. That's the first he heard of it, you know. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Evidently it slipped her mind and she must of thought about it 
and called him up and he called me, 1 o'clock in the morning. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. He says, "Can I see you tomorrow morning?" I says, "Yeah, what 
time?" "Well, you know what time," he says, "6 o'clock." So 6 o'clock I went 
down to see him this morning. And we start cutting it up with him, and I 
figured, whats the sense in me cutting all the way ; I don't know what I'm talk- 
ing about. You know what I mean? 

Corallo. You could have cut about the money, didn't you? 

Goldstein. Yeah, but that wasn't important no more because he was hurt by 
what happened on account of that night like : in other words, something must 
have happened from the night Johnny and him spoke until 2 — 3 days later, 
you know what I mean ? 



4668 IMPROPER AcnvrriES in the labor field 

CoRALLO. Did you tell that to Jolmuy Dio? 

Goldstein. Well, I'll finish the whole thing. 

So, now I'm in the middle with the thing here and this guy has got me in the 
room Tony from 6 o'clock, till 8 o'clock he's talking his heart out to me and he 
told me that things could have been arranged. He says : "Why didn't these peo- 
ple come," he says. "I would listen to whatever you had to say," he says, "but 
I'm not going to take no back seat the way they're trying to do it. The 
^Ijole press got it ; everybody got it. Why should I back away now." 

I says: "Marty, what's the sense in fighting this here thing the way you're 
fighting it now? It's no good." 

So the guys breaks down and he starts to cry, Tony, you know. He says: 
"Look, how many years I got to go? If they wanted this here thing why didn't 
they tell me that 3 months ago. You could have come and spoke to me, Sam. 
Tell me what's what." 

CoRALLO. He knows you act for us? 

Goldstein. Huh? 

CoRALLO. He knows you know everything. 

Goldstein. Yeah. He says : "I would have made a speech but my doctor says 
I got too many jobs to take care of " You know what I mean. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. And I would have backed away from one of them." He said, 
"Look," he says, "I'm going to win this thing Sam, and I'm going to fight it all 
the way down the line." I says : "Look, Marty, don't do nothing like that yet." 
And listen, I never brought up .Johnny's name like in reference to something like, 
you know, he was a friend all the time ; he told Johnny not to go on the campaign. 
I says, "Marty, I don't know anything about that but there is one thing I can 
tell you, Johnny is still your friend. That I can guarantee you, no matter what 
you may think, he's still your friend, you know. And I pulled Johnny up to the 
skyward while we were sitting there ; in fact, I told him Johnny once told me 
that he was like a second father to him. You know, this and that. And the 
guy was crying, Tony, like a babe in the woods. "What," he says, "if they 
would come and hit me with bats that would be all right. But not the way they 
done it to me. Look if they want to move Hickey, you know what I mean, I'll 
help them." 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. "If they want to move the other guy up as the top man in the busi- 
ness I'll help them." 

"Let's sit down and talk," he says. "Did I ever hurt anybody. Did I — Sam, 
have I done anything but good?" "Marty," I says, "I'm not concerned in this 
here thing. As far as I'm concerned, you know how I stand Marty. I don't 
have to tell anybody how I stand. Noljody knows better than you how I stand." 
So I says, "I'm only here, Marty, trying to make peace. That's what I'm trying 
to do. I'm trying to see that New York don't blow up on account of this here." 

He says, "So what am I supposed to do?" 

So, Johnny left me and I should call him when I get through, you laiow what 
I mean 

CoR-\LLo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. That he would have a walk with him. When I called Johnny he 
didn't have no walk. But I made it that .Johnny is the — I'll bring Johnny in and 
Johnny will sit down like. In other words, if Johnny will get Johnny O'Rourke, 
this guy will sit and look to map something out. 

CoRALLO. Work fast. 

Goldstein. Work fast ; they already had a meeting. After I left about 10 
after 9 ; he wouldn't let me out of the oflSce, you know. 

CoRALLo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. He says you handle it and he give me his phone number like. He 
says call me Saturday, Sunday, 2 o'clock, 4 o'clock. He says you call me, what- 
ever you hear, whatever they want to work you call me and I'll come and meet 
you, Sam. 

CoRALLo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So now, I'm waiting to hear from them. They know exactly what 
happened. 

CoRALLO. Well, reach out for them ; I'm going up in the room. 

Goldstein. Reach out for them? 

CoRALLO. Yeah, reach out for Johnny and tell them I said to phone me too. 
Give them the number where I'm at. 

Goldstein. Right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4669 

CoRALLO. And say that 

Goldstein. Right. Anthony 

CoRALLo. What? 

Goldstein. Anthony, he says he's going to win it; if they are going to fight 
him he's going to win it. He got ways to win it. 

CoRALLO. He can't win it. 

Goldstein. I wish you was there Tuesday night. 

CoRALLO. Yeah? Don't underrate this guy, Tony. 

CoRALLO. No ; but how's he going to win it when he ain't got the votes? 

Goldstein. I'll tell you how, Tony. I got the roster in front of me. There's 
57 locals, Tony. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. He shows me he's got 33 locals in the bag, Tony ; that's more than 
half. 

Corallo. Don't believe it. 

Goldstein. Tony, all right ; I'm just telling you. 

Corallo. Listen, could you reach out for Johnny now? 

Goldstein. Yes ; I'll get a hold of him right away. 

Corallo. Get a hold of him and call me right back ; I'm going up the room. 

Goldstein. You're going up— you want them to call you. 

Corallo. You'll be there, you'll be there. 

Goldstein. We'll — they'll be at 'STth. 

Corallo. Well, you'll be there ; otherwise, let them call me. 

Goldstein. Right. 

Corallo. If you can be there, be there ; I want to speak to all of you. 

Goldstein. All right, Tony. 

Corallo. I'm going up the room and wait for the call. 

Goldstein. Right. 

Corallo. Right now. So long. 

The Chairman. That is a little interesting ; is it not ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Is that a statement or a question ? 

The Chairman. Both. 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How about this Mr. O'Rourke ? What interest do 
you have in him about that time ? 

Mr. Goldstein. A name you should know, Senator McClellan. 

The Chairman. It may be a good name. 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is this fellow Tony that they are referring to ? 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. And Johnny Dio? It looks like something was 
kind of cooking. Can you tell us what it was ? 

Mr. Goldstein. \ must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. "Wlio is Sam? Can you tell us who Sam is? 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Could it possibly be Sam Goldstein ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you recognize Sam Goldstein's voice on that 
recording ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know the man sitting next to you now? 

Rn.330— 57— pt. 12 12 



4670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let us have order. 

Was it not that conversation between you and the man sitting next 
to you, just on your right, Ducks Corallo ^ 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Turn around and look at him and see if you can 
identify him. You know him, do you not ? Thank you. 

You know him, do you not ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, is there anything in that that you would like 
to explain ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is Selzo ? 

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

The Chairman. Do you know him ? Do you know Selzo ? 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is Macaluso ? 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything in here that you think would 
not incriminate you that you heard ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, maybe you will help us some. Can 
you give us any information about this telephone conversation? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It seems to me that you were one of the parties 
speakiiig here. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully refuse to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well now, that is a kind of pretty comeoff, that you 
boys sit there together and had this telephone conversation, and now 
you are side by side here where people are interested in the affairs that 
have gone on with respect to these labor unions — fraudulent elections 
and robbing the poor working people, and so forth, and you sit there 
now and won't even recognize each other after planning and plot- 
ting here. 

Don't you think that is a pretty picture? I am asking both of 
you. 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Corallo. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, I am sorry then we had to bring you up 
here together, because that may incriminate you too. 

Go ahead, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is just some background that I might give on 
til is. Mr. Chairman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4671 

We can identify the voices. 

Tlie Chairman. Have your witness identify the voices. 

TESTIMONY OP DETECTIVE NATALE LAUEENDI— Sesumed 

The Chairman. You were previously sworn ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn during these hear- 
ings ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Cpiairman. Did you hear this recording played just now? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman. What date was that conversation? 

Mr. Laurendi. This conversation was recorded on January 13, 
1956. 

The Chairman. How long was that before the election of joint 
council 16 ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I think it was a few months. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The election, Mr. Chairman, was on February 14, 
1956, and the charters of the so-called paper locals were Novem- 
ber 8, 1955. 

The Chairman. I wanted the relation of this conversation to the 
election. 

Mr. Kennedy, February 14. 

The Chairman. That has already been testified to. It is in the 
record. I just wanted to have it stated correctly. 

Did you recognize the voices in this telephone conversation that 
you just heard. 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I just did. 

The Chairman. Whose voices are they ? 

Mr. Laurendi. They are the voices of Anthony Corallo and Sam 
Goldstein. 

The Chairman. Do you see the gentlemen in the room whom you 
can identify as having the voices that we have a recording of here ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Point to them, will you ? 

Mr. Laurendi. On my right is Sam Goldstein, and on his right is 
Tony Corallo. 

The Chairman. The two witnesses on the stand ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. J see. Have you compared this transcription with 
the recording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Is it correct ? 

Mr. Laurendi. With a few minor exceptions, on page 2. 

The Chairman. On page 2, will you note the corrections ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. The third line down, instead of being 
"What's all this, Fanny?" that should be "What's all this, Bernie?^' 

The Chairman. That is on page 2 ? 

Ml". Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will make that correction in the transcript. 

Mr. LAtT?ENDi, Also on lines 6 and 7. 

Tlie Chairman. What are the corrections there ? 



4672 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Laurendi. On page 3, 6 lines down, instead of "Alfred Maca- 
luso," that should be "Mac Macaluso." 

The Chairman. All right, we will make the correction there. Are 
there any other corrections in there ? 

Mr. Laurendi. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You observed no other corrections to be made ? 

Mr. Laurendi. No, sir ; I do not. 

The Chairman. All right; this transcript will be printed in the 
record. 

The date of the conversation, you say, was January 13, 1956 ? 

Mr. Laurendi. January 13, 1956 ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask Mr. Laurendi if he did all of this 
under the direction of District Attorney Hogan ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Under the direction of my superior officers, Capt, 
Fred Haynes, Lt. Willard F. J. Shipsey, and Acting Lt. George R. 
Salaca, who are my superior officers of the New York City Police De- 
partment, which is a squad attached to Mr. Hogan's office. 

Senator Ives. They operate directly with Mr. Hogan's office? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; they do. 

Senator I^^s. I merely want to commend you and your superioi'S, 
and to mention District Attorney Hogan as one of the outstanding 
district attorneys in the country. 

Mr. Laurendi. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to say for the record at this 
point that District Attorney Hogan's office, and his staff, and every- 
one connected with his office have extended this committee every cour- 
tesy and cooperated fully. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might give a little background on this, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

This conversation as has been stated was recorded on January 13, 
1956. I might just receipt the events that preceded that. 

A meeting of joint council 16, in New York, was held at Roosevelt 
Auditorium, 100 East I7th Street, for the nomination of candidates 
for joint council 16 offices, on Tuesday, January 10, 1956. 

This first telephone conversation between Goldstein and Corallo 
which occurred on the following Friday, January 13, 1956, concerned 
the joint council meeting of January 10. 

The following which I am going to read are excerpts of the meeting 
of joint council 16 on January 19, 1956. 

The Chairman. From the minutes of the meeting? Do we have 
the minutes ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They are right here. 

Tlie Chairman. Where were these minutes obtained ? Maybe they 
should be sworn to. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the joint council office. 

The Chairman. Is there any member of the staff who can verify 
this? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, you have been previously sworn in 
this hearing ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4673 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, Is this a copy of the minutes that you obtained 
from the files of what office ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. From the files of joint council 16 in New York City 
of the teamsters. 

The Chairman. Is this the original that you obtained ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. This is the original I obtained. 

The Chairman. It came out of the files? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Now, you may refer to them and read any part of them into the 
record. 

This will be made exhibit 123. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 123" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The excerpt that we are interested in reads as 
follows : 

A motion was made by Brother Collins, local 816, and seconded by Brother 
Oallen, local 607, that all other business be dispensed with and that nomina- 
tions be conducted. A voice vote followed. The chairman, Martin Lacey, ruled 
the motion carried. 

Then Brother McNamara, local 808, appealed the decision to the chairman 
and Brother Holt, local 805, seconded the appeal. 

Then the next note is that the meetinar recessed, and then this 

follows : 

Brother O'Rourke, Local 282, requested Brother McNamara to withdraw his 
motion, and Brother McNamara withdrew his motion, and asked the seconder, 
Brother Holt, if he agreed to withdrawing the motion. Brother Holt agreed. 
The motion to suspend all business therefore carried. The chairman turned 
the Chair over to Vice President Catrollo for nominations. 

So there was a recess that was discussed here which occurred, which 
was discussed in this telephone conversation, and the recess occurred 
and Mr. Lacey and Mr. O'Rourke got together. Then when Mr. 
O'Rourke came back, he requested Mr. McNamara to withdraw his 
motion, which was done, and the seconder. Holt, who had seconded the 
motion, also withdrew his second. 

The Chairman. Is Holt the same man that provided that bouncing 
charter ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. He is secretary-treasurer of local 
805, and very close to Johnny Dioguardi. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I have two points that I would like to bring 
out. 

On page 5, Mr. Chairman, there is a notation : 

Goldstein. Now, all of a sudden, there is a problem. So your little fellow 
from 57th Street calls me yesterday • 

The little fellow from 57th Street there, Mr. Chairman, we believe 
to be Johnny Dio. That was his address at that time. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH M. Mcdonough ; and sam Goldstein, accompanied by 

HIS counsel, MICHAEL P. DIRENZO— Resumed 

The Chairman. How about that, Mr. Goldstein, could you help 
us out? 



4674 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. We wouldn't want to do the "little fellow" any 
injustice, and you might help us if you would tell us. 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Goldstein speaks of Johnny Dio, and he says 
to Mr. Coral lo, "So, your little fellow from 57th Street calls me 
yesterday—" and Corallo says, "Yeah," and Goldstein says, " — and 
he says, 'There's a problem ; it's no good.' " And Corallo says, 
"Wliat — " and then they go on. 

Then over on page 6 there is something of particuhir interest, and 
we are going to have some more information on that immediately, 
but it is Goldstein discussing with Corallo : "Can I see you tomorrow 
morning ?" — reciting the conversation or relating the conversation that 
he, Goldstein, had had with Martin Lacey. 

Goldstein. He says, "Can I see you tomorrow morning?" I says, "Yeah, 
what time?" "Well, you know what time," he says, "6 o'clock." So 6 o'clock 
I went down to see him this morning. And we start cutting it up with him, and 
I figured, what's the sense in me cutting all the way ; I don't know what I'm 
talking about. You know what I mean. 

Then Corallo says something which is of considerable significance: 

You could have cut about the money, didn't you? 

Goldstein. Yeah, but that wasn't important no more because he was hurt 
by what happened on account of that night ; like, in other words, something 
must have happened from the night Johnny and him spoke. 

The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein, you were the one that was talking 
to somebody here named "Marty." Is Marty, Mr. Lacey? Is that 
who that is? 

Mr. Goldstein. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is Marty the one that was crying like a babe in 
the woods ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to answer 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did he cry in yoiu- presence that day ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. It goes on, of course, on page 7, and Corallo asks if 
he discussed this matter with Johnny Dio, and then they go on to 
discuss the relationship or somewhat of the relationship between 
Johnny Dio and Johnny O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, did you understand when you were 
talking to Sam there, that it was Marty that was doing the crying? 
Did you get that impression from the conversation you had with him? 

Mr. Corallo. I must res])ectful]y decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It was the other follow crying and it wasn't you. I 
thought you wouldn't mind telling whether you got the impression he 
was the one who was crying. 

Mr. CoRAELo. I must respectfully decline to answer the (luestion 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4675 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there is more reference to Johnny Dio's in- 
terest and activities in this on page 8, where there is a discussion on 
the bottom of page 8, of Johnny Dio sitting down with Johnny 
O'Rourke and discussing this whole matter. 

Now, we have another telephone conversation which will relate to 
this. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions on this conversa- 
tion? 

All right, let us play the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. If I could ask Mr. Corallo, what money were you 
referring to there in connection with Martin Lacey ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had arrangements been made to offer Mr. Martin 
Lacey some money to get out of the fight ? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I must respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This conversation took place on the same day, Jan- 
uary 13, Mr. Chairman. I would like to explain that we have the 
same situation as we had in the other call, where Goldstein is talking 
to two people at once, and he is talking to Corallo, and that whole 
conversation is recorded, and he is talking on the other phone to 
Johnny Dio, and the only part of that conversation that is recorded 
is what he says to Johnny Dio. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. My objection is noted, Mr. Chairman and mem- 
bers of the committee. 

The Chairman. It is noted permanently. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. And I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman,^ 
as long as this is on the TV, and perhaps a nationwide audience, to 
say at least for the purposes of counsel of record that our position 
should be explained to the committee and explained to the TV audi- 
ence, and I quote from President Grant in 1876 : 

The privilege against self-accusation, it is an inherent natural right, recog- 
nized in this country by a constitutional guaranty which protects every citizen,^ 
the President as well as the humblest in the land, from being made a witness 
against himself. 

The Chairman. Well, I think if Mr. Grant were here now and ob- 
served the capriciousness with which it is apparently invoked, he 
would have had a little more to say than is there recorded. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH.^ As late as 1943, Justice Robert H. Jackson, of 
the Supreme Court, had this to say on the same thing : 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no 
oflScial, high or petty, can proscribe what shall be orthodox in politics, national- 
ism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word 
or act their faith therein. 

That was in 1943. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair say that if this is on a national 
hookup of this proceeding — I doubt that it is, but I hope it is, and 
I am not sure — I think the American people who are observing, most 
of them at least, have the intellect and the judgment to form their 
own opinions without going back to Mr. Grant or even hearing a 
Supreme Court decision. Let us proceed. 



4676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Transcript of telephone conversation between Sam Goldstein, pres- 
ident, Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and 
Anthony "Ducks" Corallo, vice p)resident, Local 2-39, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, on January 13, 1956, is as follows :) 

Sam Goldstein. Jefferson 2-2511. 

Operator. Tonr number? 

Goldstein, ily number is Pennsylvania 6-3843. 

Operator. Thank you. 

Goldstein. John, I didn't think I was going to hear from you, so I — * * * 
When? * * * Yeah * * * She — she didn't tell me nothing 

(Goldstein was on two phones; now he switches to his long-distance call to 
Florida.) 

Man's Voice. Hello 



Goldstein. Hello, Tone? Hold on, Tone ■ 

Anthony Corallo. Hold on 

Goldstein. Yeah ; one second, Johnny, huh? 

Corallo. Hello. 

Goldstein. Hello, Tone? As I was dialing you, Jf>hnny came in on the other 
phone. Do you want me to have Johnny call you now ? 

Corallo. Can you get him? 

Goldstein. Yeah ; he's on the other phone now. 

Corallo. What happened? 

Goldstein. Tone? He's says it's bettor you call him. At the Plaza 7? No? 
[To other party.] Hold on just 1 minute, John. Judson 2-59. Are you going 
to be there, John? * * * Hello, Tone * * * Yeah * * * Do you want to call him 
at Judson 2 

Corallo. Johnson 2 

Goldstein. Judson, Judson, J-u-d-s-o-n 2-1259 

Corallo. Judson 2-1259 ; right ? 

Goldstein. Right. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

GrOLDSTEiN. Yeah, Johnny. Do you want to say anything now? Try it, Johnny. 
You can't go up there 

Listen, Tone 

Corallo. Yeah? 

Goldstein. He can't go up to see the meet — so * * * Listen, that's what 
I'll do ; that's what I'll do. I'll have him call you, .Johnny : all right? I'll hang 
you up ; I'll speak to him and he'll call you right away again — yeah — yeah — 
yeah. What am I supposed to do with it ; what am I supposed to do with it, 
John? It's no good this way ; I'm going and I'm groping in the dark, John * * *. 

Corallo. Ask him about the money. 

Goldstein. You're not going to meet the guy, huh? 

Corallo. Did you ask him about the money ? 

Goldstein. All right ; you tell thim everything, John ; O. K. ? 

Corallo. Did he offer the 10,000 a week — a year? 

Goldstein. All right, John : I'll hang you up. 

Hello, Tone 

Corallo. Yeah? 

Goldstein. Look, Tony, I'll explain to you. He would have listened to any- 
thing a couple of months ago ; sit down and talk it over. Now, the way they done 
things Tuesday night. Tone — if it was you and you was a whipped dog. Tone, you'd 
get up and you'd fight. Tone ; you know what I mean? 

Corallo. Yeah 

Goldstein. Tone, there's all kinds of ways to do things ; you know what I 
mean? 

Corallo. What's that? What happened? The whole joint council is 
against 

Goldstein. Is against who? 

Corallo. What happened with this whole committee? 

Goldstein. With the committee? They met this morning; all the committee. 

Corallo. They met this morning? 

Goldstein. They met this morning? 

Corallo. Yeah? 

Goldstein. He asked me if I wanted to stay there. I says, "Marty, what am 
I got to do with this thing? People think I'm a figure in this thing; I'm nothing, 
Marty. I'm just trying to do the best I can. I don't want to meet the whole 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4677 

committee ; they'll be talk around New York — what am I doing there ; you know?" 
He says, "You're right ; you're right, Sam." You're right, you know. 

And what am I — look, Tone, while I'm sitting — you know those couple hours — 
DeLurey walked in; Toretella walked in; Parisi walked upstairs — you know 
what I mean. Tone? 

CoRALLo. Parisi see you? 

Goldstein. No ; I ducked him. But Toretella and DeLurey saw me ; you know 
what I mean? That's no good for me. Tone; you know what I mean? 

CoRALLO. That's all right ; it's nothing against you. 

Goldstein. All right, if you say it's O. K. 

CoRALLo. Know the part you're playing. 

Goldstein. Huh? 

CoRALLO. They all know what part you're playing 

Goldstein. I think so. 

CoRALLo. Because they're all in the open. You understand? 

Goldstein. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. They're all gone. 

Goldstein. How's the weather, Tone? 

CoRALLO. Aye * * * I got a cold ; I'm all stuffed up. 

Goldstein. When do you think you'll be coming back? 

CoRALLO. Sunday. How's them guys doing? Good? 

Goldstein. No. 

CoRALLO. They didn't go? 

Goldstein. No. 

CoRALLO. They didn't go yet? 

Goldstein. No. 

CoRALLO. Those . 

Goldstein. When you coming back? Sunday? 

CoRALLO. If you call that big guy, tell him I says — if he took care of that 
thing I told him. 

Goldstein. Carmine? 

CORALLO. No. 

Goldstein. Dick? 

CoRALLO. Yes. 

Goldstein. Right. I'll call him right away. 

CoRALLO. That island thing, you know. 

Goldstein. Yeah. 

CoRALLO. J'ust speak to him, 

Goldstein. I know what to say. 

CoRALLO. Just speak to him, watch what you tell him. 

Goldstein. I will. 

CoRALLO. What else? 

Goldstein. Oh, I don't know. I can't tell you nothing else. I can tell you 
everything is moving good with 239. That's all I can tell you. 

CoRALLO. Did you go over the doctor's? 

Goldstein. Huh? 

CoRALLO. Did you go to the doctor's? 

Goldstein. Yeah. 

CoRALLo. What did he say? 

Goldstein. Well, my heart is 100 percent ; my lungs is 100 percent ; my blood 
pressure's up, but he found sugar, you know. 

CoRALLO. How much? 

Goldstein. Well, I went today ; I went for blood pressure today and I'll know 
about 5 o'clock. I'll call the doctor about 5 o'clock. 

CoRALLO. You tired and hungry all the time? 

Goldstein. No. He says to me, he says, "You work too hard." I said, "I 
work too hard? I don't do nothing." He says, "Well, whatever you do, you 
spend long hours at it." 

CoRALLO. He's full of . 

Goldstein. Pile of , all right. I got to take — the sugar don't show 

nothing ; if the blood don't show nothing, him, I know what I have to do. 

CoRALLO. You sleepy? 

Goldstein. No. 

CoRALLO. Tired? 

Goldstein. No. * * * no, but I'm drinking a lot of water, Tone. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Now, listen, Tony, he's waiting by the phone ; you call him. 



4678 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 

CoRALLO. What's that number? 

Goldstein. Judson 2-1259. 

CoRALLO. Judson 2-1259. 

Goldstein. Right. All right. * * * Tone. 

CoRALLO. Yeah? 

Goldstein. What should I be — a football over the weekend, or what? 

CoRALLO. You can't be a football, because you got no other choice. 

Goldstein. Right. 

CoBALLo. You gotta drown with everybody. 

Goldstein. All right. Tone. 

CoRALLO. Listen ; what I mean you got to drown with everybody, you got to 
be on the rough side. 

Goldstein. Oh, that's for sure. 

CoRALLO. Know what I mean? 

Goldstein. Yeah. That's for sure. I wish you were here, Tone. 

CORALLO. But I'm not. 

Goldstein. Yeah ; I guess so. 

CoRALLO. Glad that I'm not. 

Goldstein. All right, Anthony ; I'll speak to you over the weekend. At tMs 
same place? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. But, listen, how about Mickey Finn? 

Goldstein. He just called me about 15 minutes ago ; he wants to reach your 
fat friend. 

CoRALLO. What happened? The guy didn't get back when he was supposed to? 

Goldstein. Not entirely. 

CoRALLO. Not entirely — well, I told him to give me the whole list ; now, 

he's going to start the beat one at a time. 

Goldstein. I say, that's no problem of yours now ; I'll speak to Carmine now. 

CoKALLO. All right. 

Goldstein. I got the phones out looking for Carmine now. 

CoBALLO. Tell that other to get ahold of him ; if you can't get him there, get 
him on .36th .Street. 

Goldstein. Right. 

CoRALLo. Champion's place. 

Goldstein. All right, Anthony. 

CORALLO. O. K. 

Goldstein. Take care. 
CORALLO. All right. 

The Chairman. Well, all right. 

Would the witnesses now like to throw any light on this conversa- 
tion? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to an- 
swer on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Corallo, would you care to be helpful? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It looks like this thing is about to get out of hand 
at that moment ; does it not ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I respectfully decline to an- 
swer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Let me get it in the record. 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LAUEENDI— Eesumed 

The Chairman. You heard this recording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Have you compared the transcript with it? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have. 

The Chairman. Is the transcript correct ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4679 

The Chairman. It is correct ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes ; it is. 

The Chairman. This transcript may be printed in the record. 

"What is the date of this conversation ? 

Mr. Laurendi. This conversation was recorded on January 13, 
1956. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize any of the voices ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. I recognize both parties. 

The Chairman. Both parties ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Sam Goldstein and Anthony Corallo. 

The Chairman. The two witnesses who are here before the com- 
mittee now ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. Are you about to discharge the witnesses? 

The Chairman, Are there any questions on this ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have some points that I want to make. 

The Chairman. I meant has the committee any questions on this 
particular item. 

Senator Ives. I have them on something else. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say starting on page 1 
where they give some of these numbers. Plaza 7 is the beginning of 
Johnny Dio's number. Johnny Dio was on the other jDhone. His 
telephone number at that time started out Plaza 7. During this period 
of time he received a great number of his telephone calls at local 805 
of the teamsters, the local that was run by Milton Holt. That number 
is the number that they ultimately decided that he should be called 
at by Corallo, and that was Judson 2-1259, which is mentioned over 
on the top of page 2. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is of particular significance that at this 
time, Corallo and Johnny Dio were attempting to get Martin Lacey 
to withdraw from the race, so that the presidency would go to John 
O'Rourke. We have over here on the bottom of page 10 probably the 
most significant part of either one of these calls, namely Tony Cor- 
allo 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. ^'Wliat page is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Page 2 of the second call, where Tony Corallo says 
to Goldstein in connection with Johnny Dio, "Did he offer the $10,000 
a week — a year?" 

Did he offer the $10,000? 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO COHALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH M. McDONOTJGH; AND SAM GOLDSTEIN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
HIS COUNSEL, MICHAEL P. DIEENZO— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us whether you made arrangements, 
Mr. Corallo, to offer Martin Lacey $10,000 a year if he would get out 
of the race? 



4680 IMPROPER ACTIVmES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. I^NisTEDY. Eight above that he says "Did you ask him about the 
money" and Goldstein answers, "All right, you tell him everything, 
John, O. K.?" And Corallo goes on, "Did he offer the $10,000 a 
week — a year?" 

Can you tell us about the $10,000? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, I^NNEDY. Goldstein goes on to explain that ISIartin Lacey per- 
haps would have sat down and talked about it a few months ago, 
but now it was too late, he was too involved and now he was going to 
fight this thing, which he ended up doing. 

Then the telephone number, again, that is mentioned, on page 6, 
where Tony was supposed to call, is Judson 2-1259, which is the 
telephone number of local 805. 

We see also on page 7 the conversation referral to Mickey Finn. 

Can you tell us about that, Mr. Goldstein ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Were you not carrying on some discussions during 
this period of time about bringing Mickey Finn of the UAW-CIO into 
the teamsters ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. And the Dick that is mentioned in here we believe to 
be Dick Kaminetsky and Carmine to be Carmine Trammmiti, two of 
the lieutenants of Tony Ducks. 

The Champion place is Champion Trucking Co., mentioned on page 
S. This is Abe Chait, who operates out of New York, and it is the 
location where Solly Cotliar, who we heard about this morning, used 
to operate out of, as well as Dick Kaminetsky. 

Senator Ives. Are there any further questions, counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. That was the explanation of some of the items 
in the call. 

Senator Iat.s. If that is all you have for the moment, I will get my 
2 cents in here. 

This is something different. 

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

Senator Ives. My question applies to both witnesses. 

I will first direct it to Mr. Corallo, because he happens to be the first 
one today. 

I wish that Mr. Goldstein would also pay attention to it, because 
in the event Mr. Corallo cannot answer it, I will ask him. 

Did your local 239 negotiate a contract with Eedgton Automotive 
Supply Co., of 6012 Eighth Avenue, Brooklyn, which company is a 
1-man operation conducted by Francis Shannon? 

Mr, Corallo. I must decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Goldstein? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Ives, I respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator I\tes. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4681 

Is it true that there are no employees in this company, but notwith- 
standing this you signed a collective bargaining agreement with it? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I must decline to answer the question on the ground 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Ives, I respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. Did you not sign a similar contract with another one- 
man shop, owned by Pat Eeger, of 1368 Linden Boulevard, Brooklyn, 
N. Y.? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I must decline to answer the question on the grounds it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. I do not care which one will answer first. I am going 
to s^Gt the same answer out of them. I can see that. 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Ives, I respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ives. This is the last one. Was not Mr. Eeger, according to 
the terms of the contract, forbidden to conduct his business on Satur- 
days, despite the fact that no employees are involved ? 

Mr. CoRALLo. I must respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Ives, I respectfully decline to answer on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Ejsnnedy. Mr. Chairman, these records and other evidence 
brought before the committee indicate that the charter for these paper 
locals was obtained by fraud, also credentials involved in the voting 
for the head of the teamsters of New York City, and that fraud was 
involved in the voting. It was involved in the preparation of the 
credentials. 

We have this evidence that Mr. Corallo and Mr. Goldstein dis- 
cussed paying $10,000 to Mr. Lacey to withdraw from the tight for 
the control of the teamsters in New York. 

We understand, it has been brought out, that Johnny Dio brought 
in a number of men into the labor movement, all of whom had prison 
records, many of whom have been indicted since then, including Mr. 
Dio, and sentenced to jail for extortion and other crimes. 

I would like to ask either witness why it was that these racketeers 
were so interested in playing a major part in winning control of the 
teamster movement in New York City. 

Mr. Corallo. I mu^st respectfully decline to answer the question on 
the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I will ask Mr. Goldstein. Wliy was it worth so 
much effort by you, Mr. Corallo, Mr. Dio, and all of the rest, to try 
to put Mr. O'Eourke in as head of the teamsters instead of Mr. 
Lacey ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer 
the question on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. I understand, Mr. Goldstein— are you still pres- 
ident of local 239 ? 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator Kennedy, I must respectfully decline to 
answer the question on the ground that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. And I understand Mr. Corallo is vice president 
of local 239. 



4682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoRALLo. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Kennedy. The ethical practices committee of the AFD- 
CIO has called for the resignation of any officers of any local in the 
AFL-CIO who take the fiftii amendment before this committee. The 
fifth amendment has been taken by both of you many times today. 

It seems to me an obligation of the president of the teamsters to 
ask for the resignation of both of you and, certainly, to investigate 
the material that has been brought forth before this committee. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have one other matter we would like to take 
up with these gentlemen, if they could stand aside and let us call Mr. 
John O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. The two witnesses will stand aside for the present, 
subject to being recalled this afternoon. 

Mr, O'Rourke, please come forward. 

(Present at this point were Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Mc- 
Namara, Kennedy, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Rourke, will you be sworn, please? 

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

Mr. O'Rourke. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN O'EOURKE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

SOL GELB 

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

Mr. O'Rourke. John O'Rourke, 4120 50th Street, Woodside, Long 
Island. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. Will you answer the remainder of the 
question, please? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer. Senator, on the ground it may 
tend to incrminate me. 

The Chairman. You are the president of a joint council of the 
teamsters union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is there about that council that would in- 
criminate you ? 

Mr. O Rourke. I respectfully refuse to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, there has been a lot of testimony here. You 
can help us clear it up a little, you know. You can sort of get it 
straightened out, if there is anything wrong. Do you not think so ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, let me see if I can get you to answer this 
question : Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record? 

Mr. Gelb. Sol Gelb, 30 Broad Street, New York. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4683 

The Chairman. Are you a member of the New York bar ? 

Mr. Gelb. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you proceed. Let us be sure we 
give this witness an opportunity to clear up this record. It is pretty 
cloudy. 

He looks like a nice, pleasant Irishman. I believe he is going to tell 
us something directly. Go ahead. 

Senator Mundt. Before we start, I would like to address a question 
to Mr. O'Eourke. 

As one who has listened to most of this testimony, it seems to me you 
have been pretty badly incriminated by some of the evidence placed 
before this senatorial committee. Is there anything you would like 
to say at this time to help disincriminate yourself ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Senator, I refuse to answer on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. It would be a wonderful opportunity now. It is 
the same forum before which you have been accused as to really serious 
dereliction. It is a wonderful opportunity to straighten out the rec- 
ord if, in fact, your activities have been such that the record can be 
straightened out. 

I want to give you that opportunity. I do not want you to go away 
and say you did not have a chance to tell the truth ; you did not have 
a chance to deny the charges. You have that chance right now in the 
open. 

Is there anything you would like to say to place your record in a 
better light before the people of New York City ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. Is the whole story really that bad, so that if you 
told us the truth, you would incriminate yourself ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds, that it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Mundt. You would be the best judge of that. I would 
hope that you could say something in your own defense. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Adlerman, are you serving as counsel at this moment ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gelb. Senator, may I ask you something. 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

Mr. Gelb. The witness has indicated quite clearly that he refuses 
to accuse himself. 

The Chairman. Refuses to what ? 

Mr. Gelb. Accuse himself. 

Senator Mundt. He has gone further than that. He has refused to 
defend himself. Let us get the record straight. 

Mr. Gelb. I say the witness has made it quite clear that he refuses 
to accuse himself. 

Senator Mundt. And he refuses to defend himself, too. Let us 
keep the record straight. 

]\Ir. Gelb. What I say is a fact. 

Senator Mundt. What I say is a fact. 
. Mr. Gelb. Yes, sure. He has invoked a constitutional right. 



4684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. We are simply going to give him an opportunity 
to invoke it to his full satisfaction. 

Mr. Gelb. Would you permit me to ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gelb. I say he has invoked the constitutional right and to 
which ungrudging adherence should be given. He has made it quite 
plain that he is refusing to accuse himself. 

We can save time at the very threshold. I assume you are not going 
to ask him irrelevancies. 

The Chairman. How would you assume we save time ? 

Mr. Gelb. That you take it for granted that he is not going to 
accuse himself. 

The Chairman. Well, we will take it for granted that he is not 
going to accuse himself, but we woidd like to take it for granted that 
he will be a good citizen and try to help this committee and his Gov- 
ernment carry out an assignment of a task that has been assigned to it. 

We would like to hope, that he he will be a little bit cooperative 
to that end. 

Mr. Gelb. And I would like to hope that in view of the plain posi- 
tion expressed, that you would not try to trap him. 

The Chairman. Not try to what ? 

Mr. Gelb. Trap him. 

The Chairman. I could not do that. There is no danger. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, how long have you been in the labor 
movement ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. And you were president and secretary of local 282 
for the past 9 years ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. At the present time, are you president of the Joint 
Council No. 16 of New York ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, were you president of joint council 
16 several years ago and you gave it up because of ill health or some 
other reason, is that right ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Then in the middle of 1955 or sometime in 1955, 
you decided to run again for the joint council, is that correct l 

Mr. O'Roruke. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me, on the same grounds stated in my previous question. 

Mr. Adlerman. Judge Gelb has asked that we try to limit this as 
much as we can to personal questions. I will try to do so. I will try 
to ascertain from you now whether you had anything to do with the 
chartering of the paper locals, the seven paper locals. 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Of Avhich, of course, you were the beneficiary in 
votes or attempted beneficiary of those votes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4685 

Mr. O'RouKKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you something. Do you honestly be- 
lieve that if you answered the question and told the truth, that a truth- 
ful answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds, 
Senator, it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Listen to the question. Ask him that question 
again. 

I will ask you. Are you president of joint council 16? 

Mr. O'RouREJE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have j^ou been serving as president of joint coun- 
cil 16 during the past year at any time ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Now, I ask you again : Do you honestly believe, 
and will you state under oath, that you honestly believe that if you 
gave a truthful answer to that question that a truthful answer might 
tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, without ob- 
jection from the committee. The Chair orders and directs you to 
answer that question. 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer on 

Mr. Gelb. By the way, may I inquire what question is before the 
witness ? 

The Chairman. The record shows what question is before him, but 
for the benefit of counsel who may desire to advise him, I will ask 
him the question again. 

Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful answer to that 
question under oath, that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you ? That is with regard to the question of whether you are now 
president or have served as president of joint council 16. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'RouRKE. The answer is yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Gelb. Senator, may I make the observation the subject is not 
as simple at that. It isn't all black and white. There are some very 
interesting 

The Chairman. We are looking for something white around here. 

Mr. Gelb. I know, but there are some very interesting historical 
events concerning the invoking of the privilege. I could tell you a 
very interesting story about it w^hich would put this in proper per- 
spective. 

The Chairman. Well, I believe it is in proper perspective. I can 
tell you my position. I will maintain that position until some court 
tells me I am wrong. 

I do not believe a witness can just capriciously take the fifth amend- 
ment and refuse to answer any question and I do think a witness 
should be required and can be required to state that he honestly be- 

8!»:i;!0 — 57 — pt. 12 — —13 



4686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 

lieves that a truthful answer to a question might tend to incriminate 
him. 

Otherwise, I think he would be invoking it capriciously if he could 
not state that. That is the position I have taken. I believe the com- 
mittee has sustained me on it. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, you say that you refuse to answer 
any questions regarding the chartering of the paper locals. You 
refuse to commit yourself on that. 

Will you tell the committee whether or not you had any discus- 
sions regarding the chartering of these paper locals with Mr. Molin ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. And may I ask whether or not you had any con- 
versations regarding the chartering of these paper locals with Mr. 
James Hoffa ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you ever discuss this question with Mr. Harold 
Gibbons ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you recall whether or not you made some tele- 
phone calls to Mr. Mohn and to Mr. Hoffa at about the time these 
charters were made ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds as the previous question. 

Mr. Alderman. For the purpose of the record, of course, the char- 
ters were issued on November 8, 1955. I would like to ask you spe- 
cifically whether or not you made any calls at about that time to 
Mr. Mohn, Einar Mohn ; that is, on November 9, 1955. 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Mohn ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me see. What is his position in the interna- 
tional teamsters? 

Mr. Adlerman. He was executive assistant to the president, Mr. 
Beck, and he is vice president of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Do you know Dave Beck ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know John English ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer on the grounds — the question on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Harold Gibbons ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer the question on the same 
grounds as the previous question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4687 

The Chairman. Do you know Anthony "Ducks" Corallo and Sam 
Goldstein? The two men who preceded you on the witness stand? 

Mr. O'RouKKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed with your telephone calls. I just want 
to see if he knew any of them. 

Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. I would like to call to the attention of the witness 
the fact that on these placards in back of the committee, is a list of 
many of the officers and organizers of the labor unions in the city of 
New York in which he has been involved, according to the charges 
before this committee. 

Alongside the right-hand columns of each of these characters in- 
volved in this mare's-nest of union activities in New York City, you 
will find the various dates of their arrests, the charges for which they 
were indicted, and, in many cases, the dates and times of their peni- 
tentiary sentences. 

I had hoped and believed and want to hope and want to believe, that 
you are cut out of a little different pattern of cloth from these crooks, 
racketeers, cheats, and chislers who have been in the labor-union move- 
ment with you according to the evidence we have. So I direct you 
this question : 

Do you have a criminal record, Mr. O'Eourke? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. If you can say no to that, you can help yourself a 
lot more by saying no than by ducking behind the fifth amendment. 

Mr. O'RouRKE. No. 

Senator Mundt. Did you say no ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Alderman. Mr. O'Rourke, just to keep this in context, about 
December 14 or 15, Mr. Lacey was sent notice to seat these paper 
locals at the joint council. Did you call Mr. Hoffa on two occasions 
just prior to the time Mr. Lacey was sent those notices ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you liave any conversations with Mr. Hoffa 
pertaining to the seating of those paper locals? 

Mr. O'RoxjRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you speak to Mr. Harold Gibbons in St. Louis 
at the same time, or within a day or two after that ? 

Mr. O'Rourke, I refuse to answer that question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. And did you discuss with him at that time the 
seating of the paper locals ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you ever discuss with them the purpose of 
seating those paper locals ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 



4688 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Did you know that those were phony locals when 
you arranged to get their votes ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The CHAiRMAisr. Do you honestly believe that if you told the truth 
about it, it might incriminate you ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question, Senator, on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Read the question back. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. You have heard the question. You answered that 
by saying that you declined to answer on the ground the answer might 
tend to incriminate you. The Chair asks you the question, which I 
now repeat : 

Do you honestly believe that a truthful answer to that question 
might tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the ground it 
jnay tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. "With the permission of the committee, and with- 
out objection from any member thereof, the Chair orders and directs 
you to answer the last question, as to whether you honestly believe 
that a truthful answer thereto might tend to incriminate you. 

Mr. O'Rourke. It may. 

The Chairman. That is a little different. Wliy did you not say it 
in the first place ? All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Adlerman. I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, seven applica- 
tions for charters, which I would like to introduce into evidence. I 
would like to call your attention to one that has been introduced into 
evidence, exhibit No. 13. I would like to call your attention to the 
notation made on the top of it. 

The Chairman. You were not president of this joint council on 
November 8, 1955, were you ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question, Senator, on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I hand you here five applications for charters, 
addressed to John F. English, general secretary-treasurer, Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and 
Helpers of America. Each of them has a notation. They are all 
dated November 8, 1955, Each has a notation in pen and ink on the 
left-hand corner, showing that these charters were sent to you. There 
are six altogether, I believe. I ask you to examine these applica- 
tions, the writing thereon, and state whether j^ou received the char- 
ters of those applications applied for. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I have examined the documents. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize them ? 

Mr. O'RouitKE. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you receive those charters referred to there, 
as indicated by the pen writing in the left-hand corner of each appli- 
cation ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THEi LABOR FIELD 4689 

Mi\ O'KouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that because you knew the charters were tainted ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
same groimd as the previous question. 

The Chairman. Well, I suppose you will say the same about this 
one. I hand you another one, which is already exhibit 13. I will 
make those documents that the witness has just examined exhibit 
12^A, B, C, and D, and so forth, 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 124r-A 
through 124-F" for reference and will be found in the appendix 
on p. 4888^893.) '; 

The Chairman. I present exhibit No. 13 to the witness, which is 
another one, making the seventh of those bogus charters that we have 
had testimony about. I ask you to examine that one, and examine the 
pen notation in the left-hand corner of it, and state whether you 
recognize it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. O'EoTTRKE. I have examined the document, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you get that charter ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that you have any obligation what- 
soever to the union members that you represent ? 

Mr, O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I cannot understand very well, and I don't think 
anyone else can understand, or conclude that to say you do feel you 
have an obligation to the membership, the working people who pay the 
dues to pay your salaiy, who place you in the position that you occupy 
with respect to labor, to the labor movement, and where you have 
the opportunity and where it is your duty to represent their interest 
and promote their welfare, I do not see how anyone could conclude 
that it could possibly incriminate you to say you felt some little bit of 
obligation to those people. 

Mr. Gelb. May I say. Senator 

The Chairman. I am going to ask you again : Do you feel any obli- 
gation at all to tell them about the affairs of their union ? 

Just a minute. 

Mr. Gelb. May I say something very briefly. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. The witness will answer. 

You can consult with your client, if you like. 

Mr. Gelb. May I say it is very difficult even for an experienced 
lawyer to advise a client to answer a question like that or not to answer 
a question. 

The Chairman. You can advise him either way. It is your client. 

Mr. Gelb. It is not as simple as that. It is a question of whether 
or not one waives his rights. These questions 

The Chairman. He can answer it either way he wants to. 

Mr. Gelb. These questions may be calculated to trap a witness into 
waiving rights. 



4690 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. No, I think not. I am not trying to trap liim, but 
I do want to know if we have labor unions or a segment of them 
stacked with officials who feel they have no obligation or responsibihty 
to the membership of the union. 

I have asked many of them this question. 

Mr. Gelb. Aren't you really asking for opmion evidence? 

The Chairman. No. He knows whether he feels an obligation. It 
would not be an opinion. I am not asking for an opinion. I am 

asking him for a fact. , . , -, p .i , • \ 

(At this point, Senator Mundt withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Mr. O'RouRKE. Are you ready for the answer, sir ? 
The Chairman. I will be glad to have an answer. I 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to 
incriminate me. 
The Chairman. All right. Proceed. . , » 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Eourke, I do not have the transcript before 
me, but you were questioned before Judge Palmieri in Federal court 
in New York about a year or so ago, and during the examination I 
understand certain questions were asked of you as to the practice and 
procedure of seating delegates. ■,■, j- 

You are quoted as saying that, "The procedures were all according 
to who you were, what side you were on, and who you were with." 
Is that a correct statement of what your answer was before Judge 

Palmieri at that time ? . ^ -, ^.-i, 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to anser that question, Counsel, on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. . -, . , 

Mr. Adlerman. May I ask you if that is your idea of the correct 
procedure to be followed in seating delegates? . ^ -, -t, 

Mr. O'PvOURKE. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. _ , 

Mr. Adlerman. At another page in this transcript, a similar ques- 
tion was asked of you and the answer that I have here as a quote, and I 
do not have the transcript before me, but I would like to ascertain 
whether or not it is a correct statement was : 

It was a question of who you were, what side you were on, where y?^ were 
going to cast your ballots, where you were going to cast your weight, and that is 
the procedure. 

Is that the procedure that you followed ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Counsel, I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. ... 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, can you tell me who is the vice presi- 
dent of the joint council? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer, Counsel, on the gromids it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Is it Mr. Leonard Geiger ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer, Counsel, on the groimds it may 
tend to incriminate me. -, r^ - • ^ 

Mr. Adlerman. Can you tell us where Mr. Leonard Creiger is at 
the Dresent time ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. , , j. j.i j. 

Mr. Adlerman. Can you tell us where he has been for the past 
month ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE' LABOR FIELD 4691 

Mr. O'RoTJRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you know that Mr. Geiger has been searched 
for by the United States marshal with a subpena ? 

Mr. O'KouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Would you help us, Mr. O'Rourke, in trying to 
find Mr, Geiger ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel, on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you another question. 

Do you subscribe to the principles and standards of conduct as set 
forth in the ethical-practices declaration adopted by the AFL-CIO ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are those principles a little bit too high a standard 
for you to subscribe to? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

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

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, I would like to go to another subject 
at this time. 

Simultaneously with the time that the joint council affair took place, 
and there was this movement to set you in the joint council through the 
paper locals, and your conferences with Mr. Hoffa on this subject, 
simultaneously with that time, was there a movement afoot to join up 
ILA, the International Longshoremen's Association, and the team- 
sters union? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Just for the sake of the record, I would like to 
make clear here that on February 3, 1953, the American Federation of 
Labor Executive Council notified the International Longshoremen's 
Association to clean its ranks, to clean up the situation that was found 
in the longshoremen's union by the New York State Crime Commis- 
sion, at which time they enumerated 5 or 6 different grounds, includ- 
ing the principal fact that the longshoremen's union was racket- 
ridden, that 30 percent of the officials of the longshoremen's union 
had criminal records, and so forth. 

In September, on September 21, 1953, at the American Federation 
of Labor Convention, by a vote of 79,072 to 736 votes, the Interna- 
tional Longshoremen's Association was expelled. 

On September 25, 1953, Mr. Meany, the president of the American 
Federation of Labor, issued a new charter to the International Broth- 
erhood of Longshoremen, at which time he appointed five members 
as trustees. They were Dave Beck, president of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Mr. William Doherty, of the letter car- 
riers, Mr. Al Hayes, of the machinists, and Paul Hall, of the seafarers 
union. 

These men pledged themselves to support the brotherhood of long- 
shoremen, which was the AFL longshoremen's union, against the 
racket-ridden ILA, or the International Longshoremen's Association. 



4692 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE' LABOR FIELD 

I understand, Mr. O'Rourke, that at a meeting held in May 1954, 
you were the only one who refused to go along and support the Ameri- 
can Federation of Labor or longshoremen's union ; is that a fact ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, were you one of the prime movers, 
along with Mr. Hoffa, in arranging for an alliance agreement between 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union and their confer- 
ences with the International Longshoremen's Association ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you confer with Mr. Hoffa on a number of 
occasions before July 18, 1955, and with Mr. Bradlej^ and Mr. Gleason 
and other members of the International Longshoremen's Association, 
about arrangements to join up the forces of the ILA and the teamsters 
by an alliance agreement ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel, on the 
gi'ounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlermaist. Did you and Mr. Hoffa, and certain other members 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, while Mr. Beck was 
a trustee of the brotherhood union of the longshoremen, the AFL 
union, secretly meet and plan to have an alliance between the teamsters 
union and the American Federation of Labor ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Counsel, on the 
grounds that it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, did you sign an agreement with the 
International Longshoremen's Association on behalf of the Eastern 
Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question. Counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. Chairman, I hand you 2 agreements dated 
July 18, 1955. One is between the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters and the Eastern Conference of Teamsters with the Inter- 
national Longshoremen's Association. 

The second one is dated the same date and is between the Southern 
Conference of Teamsters and the International Longshoremen's Asso- 
ciation. 

Both of these contracts, Mr. Chairman, are alliance agreements to 
support each other. 

I might say that they were only part of the agreements and there 
were some other agreements entered into at that time. 

The Chairman. Did you understand counsel ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what these documents are ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you the one for the Eastern Con- 
ference of Teamsters, the contracts entered into between it and the In- 
ternational Longshoremen's Association, I ask you to examine it and 
state if you identify that document, a copy of the contract or compact 
agreement. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4693 

Mr. O'RouKKE. I have examined the document, Senator. 

The Chairman. Can you read writing? 

Mr, O'RouRKE. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will you read your signature on that contract? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to read my signature on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You admit it is your signature, as I understand it. 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you not be proud of that signature ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you mean you are not proud of it? 

Mr. Gelb. Senator McClellan, do you seriously want an answer to 
that question? 

The Chairman. Serious ? Yes ; I am serious. Who has any doubt 
about it ? I want an answer. Is that your signature ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer, Senator, on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you look at another one ? 

That one may be made exhibit 125. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 125," for reference 
and may be found in the hies of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I hand you one for the southern conference; I 
believe you will find some familiarity in there. Would you examine 
it, please, and see if you can identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I have examined the document. 

The Chairman. Is there anything about the document that is 
familiar to you ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question. Senator, on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are taking the position, as I understand you, 
that your signature on the document may tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. It may. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Gelb. Senator McClellan, the exception I took was to the ques- 
tion "Are you proud of your signature?" That is the thing I had in 
mind. 

The Chairman. Well, I thought he was. Maybe I am mistaken. 

That last item may be made exhibit 126. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 126" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I want to ask you about some other names on that. 

I believe those signing for the Southern Conference of Teamsters 
were Murray U. Miller and John O'Rourke. I might have thought 
that was Joe O'Rourke, unless you would care to clear it up for us. 

Would you ? Is that your name or Joe O'Rourke ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know a Joe O'Rourke ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 



4694 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chair]vian. Do you know Murray Miller ? 

Mr. O'RouKKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see on here it is signed for International Long- 
shoremen Association, Independent, by William B. Bradley. Do you 
know William V. Bradley ? 

Mr. O'KouEKE. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds 
as the previous question. 

The Chairman. I see another signature here of Pat Connolly, 
executive vice president. Bradley seems to be president. Do you 
know him ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question, Senator, on the 
grouds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Then it is signed "Thomas Gleason," without any 
title. Do you know him ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Let me see exhibit No, 125. 

Now for the eastern conference, I fuid signatures here of Tom 
Flynn, chairman, per James K. Hoff a. Do you know Tom Flynn ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You would not by any chance know Mr. James E. 
Hoffa, would you ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the groimd it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see a name there again of John O'Rourke. Would 
that be you ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer. Senator, on the grounds it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see it is signed for the Longshoremen's Associ- 
ation by the same people who signed the other, and I believe you have 
already stated it might incriminate you to answer whether you knew 
them or not. Is that correct ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

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

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, do you know Mr. James R. Hoifa? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, you are a labor leader of many years 
standing, and I think perhaps — well, I know you probably will not 
answer the question but I would like to know now wiiether you feel 
that the International Longshoremen's Association is an organization 
that has rid itself of the criminal element, whether it has cleaned up 
its ranks as requested by the American Federation of Labor, and for 
which refusal it was rejected or expelled from the American Federa- 
tion of Labor. 

Do you think there has been any change in the situation between the 
time it was expelled in 1953 and the time that you signed the agree- 
ment in July 1955 ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I must refuse to answer that question. Counsel, on 
the grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIEiS m THE LABOR FIELD 4695 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. O'Rourke, at that time it was public informa- 
tion, published by the New York State Crime Commission, that over 
30 percent of the officials of the International Longshoremen's Asso- 
ciation had criminal records. 

Did you know that fact ? 

Mr. O'EouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Counsel. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did you know that fact when you signed the alli- 
ance agreement ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Adlerman. Are you a personal friend and acquaintance of 
many of the offi<Mils of the longshoremen's union? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Roup.KE. I did not get the last question. 

Mr. Adlerman. What was that ? 

Mr. O'RoLTRKE. I did not get the last question. 

Mr. Adi.erman. Are you a friend of many of the officials of the 
Longshoremen's LTnion, the International Longshoremen's Union ? 

Mr. O'Rourke, I refuse to answer on the same grounds as the 
previous question. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Ives, Ken- 
nedy, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you think it was right and proper for a man to 
head up the joint council of New York on the basis or the support 
of people such as those who were supposed to be the delegates of 
those seven paper locals? Do you think that it was right? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds as the previous question. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you think it was right to take the support of 
such men ? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds as the previous question. 

Mr. Adlerman. You recognize that there was fraud in the incep- 
tion of the organization of those seven paper locals ? 

Mr. O'Roltrke. I refuse to answer that question, counsel, on the 
same grounds as previously given. 

Mr. Adlerman. Do you feiow Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Gibbons, and other 
members of the teamsters union that participated in that? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer the question, counsel, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions by any member 
of the committee ? * 

Senator Ervin. I would just like to ask if there is any activity 
which the witness has engaged in at any time that he could disclose 
to us without tending to incriminate himself? 

Mr. Gelb. Senator, may I answer that for a moment ? ^ 

There are many things a witness may disclose without incriminat- 
ing himself. 

Senator Ervin. "We had one here the other day who invoked the 
fifth amendment when we asked him whether he was married. 

Mr. Gelb. Some people cannot draw the line. The point I want 
to make is the particular spot, the particular point, at which a wit- 
ness may be deemed to have waived his right to rest on the privilege, 
is not easy to pick out. 



4696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. I agree with you ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Gelb. There are many things that he can say, but whether 
or not he will be deemed to have waived his right becomes ques- 
tionable. 

In other words, some innocuous things may tend to furnish links 
in a chain of evidence that may be required to implicate a man. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to ask him if he can disclose any 
fact within his knowledge in reference to the activities of any of these 
locals concerning which inquiry has been made of him, which would 
not tend to incriminate him. 

Mr. Gelb. Privately, I think he could. 

He said privately I think he could. 

Senator Ervin. Well, publicly, since this is a public hearing. 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Do you want me to asnwer that, sir? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. O'KouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. You and your counsel do not agree. But that is 
not unusual. 

Sometimes my clients did not agree with me. 

Mr. Gelb. May I make one more observation. Senator? 

Strange as it may appear, there was a Lord Chief Justice of Eng- 
land, considered one of the outstanding, if not the greatest, who once 
invoked the privilege, in a very strange case. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are we to assume from that that we have a strange 
case here ? 

Mr. Gelb. No, no, no. I merely say 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Mr. Gelb. This is one of the most respected men in English law 
history. Lord Chief Justice Holt. 

The Chairman. We do not want to investigate that now. 

Go ahead. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you been in the labor movement? 

Mr. O'Rourke. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How old are you now ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Fifty-seven. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you been connected with the Team- 
sters union ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Since 1914. 

Senator Curtis. Since 1914. 

There is nothing about your entrance into the labor movement in 
1914 that would incriminate you, was there? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. All of your union activity has been with the 
teamsters union ? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. I can get the information maybe another way. 
Have you been associated with the teamsters union in some capacity 
as a member, officer, or employee continuously since 1914? 

Mr. O'RouRKE. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4697 

Senator Curtis. Do you know Dave Beck? 

Mr. O'RouREJE. I refuse to answer that question, Senator, on the 
grounds it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

The witness may stand aside for the present. He may be recalled 
before the afternoon is over. 

Call the next witness. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Ives, Ken- 
nedy, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Corallo. 

The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Corallo, will you resume the 
witness stand? 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH M. Mcdonough ; and sam Goldstein, accompanied 

BY HIS COUNSEL, MICHAEL P. DIRENZO— Resumed 

The Chairman. The Chair will say to the witnesses that we have 
another recording here that we would like you to hear, and hope that 
you may give us a little comment on this one, particularly. 

All right. 

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

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Will the Chairman note my objection ? 

The Chairman. Are there transcripts of it? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. McDonough. The Chair will note my objections, Senator Mc- 
Clellan ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. They have been noted each time. 

Proceed. 

(Transcript of telephone conversation between Sam Goldstein and 
Antonio Corallo on February 7, 1955, follows:) 

Sam Goldstein. Tony, please. 

Man's Voice. Who's calling? 

Goldstein. Goldy. 

Man's Voice. Goldy ; hold it 1 minute. 

Goldstein. He's got a phone call; right? 

Man's Voice. No ; not at present. 

Goldstein. Oh, all right. Just a minute. 

Anthony Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Now I can talk to you. 

CoKALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. I was called up today, you understand. 

Corallo. Huh? 

Goldstein. Today he called me ; he made a meet with me to come up to his 
oflSce today. 

COKALLO. W^ho? 

Goldstein. Lacey. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Oh account of the money situation. Remember we got a letter 
to give him $2,500 for the joint council and $1,250 for the teamsters. 

Corallo. Ah, the eastern conference? 

Goldstein. Yeah. So today I come and Johnny DeLury is sitting in there, too. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So before any of the conversation starts they popped me, but 
I got the checkbooks with me ; you know, the two checkbooks. I show 'em we're 
not taking no money. Now, somebody put a complaint in again against us 
that we got two locals. We got 995 and we got this one, like, you know what 
I mean? 



4698 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

CJoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. When are we stepping away? So now I started to give 'em that 
story. I says, "Listen, Marty ; if we step away from 995 how are we going 
to support 239. Now here's the checlibooks ; nobody has taken 10 cents out 
of this here in salary. What we're doing is that we're working ofC 995 to build 
on — and I give 'em a big, f story, you know. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Then, he busts in and he says, "Listen, can you help," he says, 
"my cousin?" I says, "Who's your cousin?" He says, "John DeLury." I says, 
"Marty, I didn't know he was your cousin." I says, "But even if he wasn't your 
cousin whatever help I could give him I'd be glad to give him." 

He says, "Well, it's going to be a question are we going to take these f 

joints away or are they going to give them up nice and easy anyway." "But 
if you can do it," he says, "I'll appreciate it." I says, "Marty, even if you 
don't appreciate it, anything I could do — because after aU, you've been very 
helpful and instrumental — " and I, you know, took care of him. Tone ; you 
know. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. But the windup is. Tone, instead of us paying $2,500 and $1,250, 
Tony, we're paying him $175, Tony. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. You understand? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So we saved roughly about $3,800, we saved 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. With the buU moves. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Because all he had to do is say, "Give me $2,500" and there's 
nothing we could do about it. 

CORALLO. So 

Goldstein. You know, instead of being in — so we're not only — then he stretched 
out on the phone ; he got a hold of some guy, Sheridan, from the master — from 
the — ah — who's boss of the truckmen around New York who consummates all 
the deals. He's having them reached — ah. Wheels, Inc. He had — he got on the 
phone with Commissioner Mulraine ; he says, "Listen, you call up this outfit 
and tell them you're canceling the city work with them if they don't settle this 
here labor dispute." He went (inaudible) — he got him a lawyer who represents 
the association ; he called them up and told them, "Listen, see that you get this 

f thing straightened up ; it's a direct reflection on me." And he made like 

three important calls for us, you know what I mean. Tone. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Ah — that's our best friend in labor ; you know what I mean, Tone. 

CoRALLo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Oh, he's our best friend, all right. So now here's the situation 
with this Aaron Kleinman and Johnny DeLury. They got a shop called Ruckers, 
Ruckers, or Rookers ; there's 10 people there. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. How the h did they bring me into this picture? 

Goldstein. Who do you think brought you in? 

CoRALLO. Who? 

Goldstein. Who do you think? 

CoRALLO. You? 

Goldstein. Are you crazy? 

CoRALLO. Who? 

Goldstein. The other guy. DeLury. He must have known about you. 
Understand? That's why he didn't want to send no letter into the council; but 
in the meantime, he told Marty everything in person. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Now, as long as they know there's an — Anthony, I told him, 
"Iklarty, this is our vice president." Understand? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. He seems too stationary; I say, "He knows these people very 
well and take it for what you want, Marty, this fellow is instrumental to us as 
much as you're instrumental to us, Marty." You know. He says, "Look," he 
says, "Sam, anybody that can help you, if it's me or this fellow Tony or any- 
body, that's good enough for me." 

Corallo. What? He don't know me? 

Goldstein. Tony, I just said, "Tony" ; I didn't say no last names. 



IMPROPER ACTTVITIE6 IN THE' LABOR FIELD 4699 

CoKALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Do you know what I mean? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So he says, "Everybody that can help is good all away along the 
line." I says, "Look, he's a good fellow I'm sure that if its a favor to you with- 
out you starting to make letters and issues about this, I'm certain anything he 
could do — and I think he can do something — he'll do it." All right, so that's 
where I left him. Now, here's this one joint Ruckers, Tony 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. There in the middle ; nobody signed it yet. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Let Klein — hello — hello 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Let Kleinman make the first step ; let 'em give him that joint, like 

COEALLO. Ah 

OoLDSTEiN. Because Kleinman can't get it anyway. 

CoRALLo. Why don't they replace them? 

Goldstein. That's what I tried to tell 'em ; why don't they replace them 
with 

Corallo. What are they looking for? F people without being replaced. 

Goldstein. Yeah. From 719. So he says, "Well, I can't do it," he says, "but 
I'll speak to Beagle." I says, "All right, Johnny, I tell you what you do before 
you see — " Johnny's going to Albany today for Lacey, you know what I mean? 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So he'll be gone all day ; he'll be back in the oflSce — hello — 8 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So in the meantime, he was going to make you a call any minute; 
that's why I jumped to the phone right away to call you. 

Corallo. O. K. 

Goldstein. All right? 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So now you know the whole story. Tone. 

Corallo. O. K. 

Goldstein. All right? 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Speak to you tonight? 

Corallo. Where's Max? 

Goldstein. Max is out on Long Island — some auto — some automobile wash- 
ing places. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Called us up, they want to go along with us ; but they want to go 
along with that 995. 

Corallo. Listen, I got a call from some people; they want to meet me; they 
want to give you some people. 

Goldstein. Aw, forget about them. I had Milty Silverman for an hour this 
^morning. 

Corallo. What did he say? 

Goldstein. He wants to be friendly and everything else and 

Operator. Deposit 5 cents 

Goldstein. Just a piinute, Miss. Just one second, Miss. 

Operator. Thank you. 

Goldstein. This here lawyer Bau — hello — hello 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. This lawyer — there's a lawyer by the name of Bowman (Bau- 
onan) 

Corallo. Yeah. 

•Goldstein. He's got about 8 or 10 or 12 joints that he's the — he's repre- 
senting where we're working. He's the association lawyer for these, about 
50, 60 joints. He's calling everybody under the sun to come and sign these 
joints up. 

Corallo. Well, that's what I got a call from some kid telling me I should 
.<;all him ; that he's got some people that want to come in. 

Goldstein. Yeah; but everybody knows it's hands off until we get there, 
so any outfit that wants to go there knows that we're going to get the support 
.of the council and they can't even go there if they want to. 

Corallo. All right. Call me later, or I'll call you at home tonight. 



4700 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Goldstein. All right, Tone. Hello 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

Goldstein. Later where? Where you are? 

CoEALLO. Yeah. Call me here about 3 : 30 or 4 o'clock. 

Goldstein. All right, Anthony. So long. 

CoRALLO. Yeah. 

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

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McCleHan, I\'es, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Corallo, do you wish to give 
us any explanation of that conversation? 

Mr. CoKALLO. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Goldstein. Senator McClellan, I must respectfully decline to 
answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is this fellow Kleinman ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How about DeLury ? You don't want to acknowl- 
edge him either, or identify him ? 

Mr. Corallo. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. O.K. 

TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE NATALE LAUEENDI— Resumed 

The Chairman. Have you heard this recording ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Have you compared the transcript with it ? 

Mr. Laurendi. I have. 

The Chairman. Is the transcript correct ? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. The transcript may be printed in the record. What 
was the date of this conversation ? 

Mr. Laurendi. February 7, 1955. 

The Chairman. You have previously testified that you recognized 
the voices of the two witnesses, Corallo and Goldstein. Did you rec- 
ognize their voices again on this recording? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Was this conversation held between them? 

Mr. Laurendi. Yes, sir ; it was. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

TESTIMONY OF ANTONIO CORALLO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH M. Mcdonough ; and sam Goldstein, accompanied 

BY his counsel, MICHAEL P. DIRENZO— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Were the per capita dues lowered following this 
conversation, from $2,500 to $175 ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. At this period of time, did you look upon Marty 
Lacey as a friend of yours ? 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4701 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why you, as president 
of the local, were looking to Mr. Corallo, vice president of the local, 
for instructions in this matter ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what happened to Rutgers shop, 
to Rutgers, or, as you call it, the joint Rutgers, mentioned on page 5 ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have made some investigation 
of this matter. There are two investigators that could summarize 
what happened following this conversation. 

The Chairman. Do you want to put them on the stand now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside for the moment. 

Call the other witnesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. May and Mr. Tierney. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTEE R. MAY AND PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, j^ou have both been previously sworn. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney and Mr. May, two staff members, both 
of whom have been previously sworn. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed to interrogate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney, in this discussion in the recording that 
we just had, there is a discussion, and Mr. Goldstein says : 

On account of the money situation — 

that is why he went to see Lacey, and he says. 

Remember we got a letter to give him $2,500 for the joint council and $1,250 for 
the teamsters? 

And Corallo says, "Ah, the eastern conference?" 

Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

Mr. li^ENNEDY. Are you familiar with the letter they received? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you identify it ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you what appears to be a 
carbon copy of a letter of October 4, 1954, from Martin T. Lacey, 
president, to Sam Goldstein, of Local 239, 1. B. of T. 

Will you examine that document and state if you identify it? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Tierney. I identify this document, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What is it ? 

Mr. Tierney. It is a letter dated October 4, 1954, from Mr. Martin 
T. Lacey, president of joint council 16, to Mr. Sam Goldstein, Lo- 
cal 239, international Brotherhod of Teamsters, 2155 Grand Con- 
course, Bronx, N. Y. 

The Chairman. That seems to be a carbon copy and not the original 
letter. 

Mr. Tierney. It is a carbon copy ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you procure it ? 

? 89330— 57— pi. 12 14 



4702 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. TiERNEY. I procured this from the offices of joint council 16 
in New York. 

The Chairman. From their files ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. From their files. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 127. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 127" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4894.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read the pertinent paragraph, please? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The pertinent paragraph; that is, the second para- 
graph of the letter, reads : 

Your financial obligations are as follows : Joint council dues and statistical 
assessment, $2,500, based on the ratio of $1 per year per member, payable im- 
mediately; and $1,250, representing local 239's contribution to the Eastern 
Conference of Teamsters, based on the ratio of 50 cents per member payable 
immediately. Both checks are to be submitted here and we will forward the 
eastern conference check to Washington. 

The Chairman. Is that what appears to have been settled for $175 
in this telephone conversation ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what is referred to in this telephone conver- 
sation ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is what is referred to. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Tierney has made an 
examination of the books to find out in fact if it was settled for $175. 

The Chairman. Have you made an examination of the records? 

Mr. Tierney. I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Wliat records? 

Mr. Tierney. I made an examination of the records of the secre- 
tary-treasurer of joint council 16. I examined the books which reflect 
cash receipts of per capita dues. They reflected that on February 17, 
$175 was received. That is February 7, 1955 — I am sorry — which 
happened to be the same day as this telephone conversation. 

The Chairman. On the same day as the telephone conversation, 
there is an entry made in the books for $175 ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Instead of $3,750 called for by the letter? 

Mr. Tierney. Well, actually instead of $2,500 for the joint council, 
Mr. Chairman. The other $1,200 would be to the eastern conference. 

The Chairman. You only examine the joint council ? 

Mr. Tierney. The joint council ; that is correct. 

The Chairman. The other $1,250 would be the eastern conference? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So the joint-council account of $2,500 was settled 
for $175? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Who okayed this settlement for the joint council ? i 

Mr. Tierney. It would appear from the telephone conversation. 
Senator Curtis, that it was Mr. Martin Lacey. We have no other evi- 
dence as to who O. K.'d it. 

Senator Curtis. And who O. K.'d it for the eastern conference ? 

Mr. Tierney. That I don't know. Presumably Mr. Lacey, accord- 
ing to this conversation. 

Senator Curtis. Did the eastern conference 2:et any part of the 
$175? 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4703 

Mr. TiERNEY. I don't know. I doubt it. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Lacey was not in the Washington office of the 
teamsters? 

Mr. TiERNET. No. He was at that time president of joint council 
16 in New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. The conversation seems to indicate further that with 
Mr. Lacey agreeing to the lowering from $2,500 to $175, there was 
to be an arrangement made in connection with a place called Rutgers. 
Is that correct, Mr. May ? 

Mr. Mat. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Have you contacted Rutgers to find out what the 
situation was there ? 

Would you tell us from your analysis of this conversation what 
seems to have been taking place, and then what you found did happen 
in connection with Rutgers ? 

Mr. May. From the telephone conversation it appears that Mr. 
Lacey is requesting Mr. Goldstein to turn over a particular shop to 
John DeLury. Mr. DeLury is an official of teamster local 719. We 
contacted Meyer Orol, who is a partner of Rutgers Metals, 145 Garden 
Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. Mr. Orol stated that his company, for a 
number of years, had a contract with local 512, Amalgamated local. 
That happens to be the predecessor of local 875 of the teamsters. 

In 1954 the contract was absorbed by local 875, and that contract 
was in effect until, as Mr. Orol says, a little over 2 years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. In other words, the contract had been with 875, which 
was controlled by Corallo during this period of time, in which Gold- 
stein had this interest ? 

Mr. May. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then about this period of time, according to the 
information that the official from Rutgers has given you, 875 gave up 
the contract and it went over to 

Mr. May. That is right. A little over 2 years ago the contract was 
transferred to local 719, Mr. DeLury's union. 

Mr. Ej3nnedy. Mr. DeLury's outfit which is discussed here, and 
which Mr. Lacey describes as his cousin ? 

Mr. May. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is also some information in here indicating 
that Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Corallo were financing the operations of 
239 of the teamsters with the funds of 995 of the UAW-AFL. 

'testimony or antonio corallo, accompanied by his counsel, 
JOSEPH M. Mcdonough ; and sam Goldstein, accompanied by 

HIS counsel, MICHAEL P. DIRENZO— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any permission to intermix the funds, 
Mr. Corallo? 

Mr. Corallo. I decline to answer the question on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were using the members' dues of local 995, 
UAW-AFL to finance the beginnings of local 239 of the teamsters ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Corallo. I decline to answer on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate me. 



4704 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Did you ever make an accounting for a dollar that 
you handled from a union ? 

Mr. CoRALLO. I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds it 
may tend to incriminate me, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't think the members are entitled to an 
accounting ? 

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

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Corallo, you heard the exjolanation of, and the 
inferences drawn from, this telephone conversation by the two men 
from our staff who just testified ; did you not ? 

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

Senator Curtis. I asked you if you heard it. 

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

Senator Curtis. I haven't asked you to comment on it. I want to 
know if you heard it. 

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

Senator Curtis. Were the inferences that they drew from the 
meaning of that telephone conversation correct ? 

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

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Mr. Chairman, just to make our position clear, 
through the good efforts of my assistants, Mrs. Dorothea Sutcliffe and 
my daughter, Miss Ellen McDonough, I wish to cite one of the late 
cases explaining our position, Maffle v. the United States (209 Fed. 
2d 225). 

This is a case connected with the famous Brinks robbery in Boston, 
and quoting the court in that decision, the court said : 

Our forefathers made a judgment and expressed it in our fundamental 
law * * * 

The Chairman. Mr. Lawyer, you make any objection you want to. 
I do not care to have a lot of citations. This committee is operating 
under the authority of the United States Senate. We are trying to 
keep the testimony substantially along the lines of that that might 
be admissible in court. There are some parts of it that we know would 
not be admitted in court. We receive it because it does give us infor- 
mation. We try to be fair to the witnesses and present it in their pres- 
ence and give them an opportunity to deny it. 

So arguing court decisions will not change this situation. 

Mr. McDonough. Except this, Mr. Chairman, I think that this 
legislative body has to recognize the laws of the United States and 
the decisions of the Supreme Court. 

The Chairman. We do recognize them, and under the laws of the 
United States, tliis committee has a right to call witnesses in here and 
make the inquiries of them which we are making. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4705 

Mr. McDoKOUGH. Obviously comment has been made by the mem- 
bers of the committee as to the stand taken, as to the position taken, 
by these witnesses. 

I particularly quote the case of Marcello v. The United States^ in 
which a witness was summoned before the Kef auver committee, and 
the court had something to say about the position taken by that wit- 
ness, which I think, naturally, the committee should take cognizance 
of. 

In that case they said this : 

The appellant Marcello had been described in the press as a crime czar, as the 
Louisiana head of the infamous Black Hand Society and as the No. 1 gangster 
and racketeer in Louisiana. Marcello was summoned as a witness before the 
United States Senate investigating committee, charged broadly with an investi- 
gation of whether organized crime utilizes the facilities of interstate commerce 
or otherwise operates in interstate commerce in furtherance of any transactions 
which are in violation of the law of the United States or the State in which 
the transactions occur. 

The Chairman. Is that where the man went up for contempt? 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. Yes ; it is, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We have not preferred any contempt charges 
against your client. You can make your argument then. 

Mr. McDoNOUGH. For the record we wish to state our position, so 
that later on there will not be any question about it, and we feel it 
should be brought to the attention of this committee. 

The Chairman. It has been brought to the attention of the 
committee. 

The witnesses may now stand aside. We will call some more. 

Just a moment, gentlemen, and we will determine whether you can 
be excused now. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings : Senators McClellan, Ives, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. All right, gentlemen, you may stand aside for a 
few moments. We are going to hear some more testimony, and you 
may be interested in it. You stay available. 

Mr. Martin Lacey, come forward, please. 

Will you be sworn ? You do solemnly swear that the evidence you 
shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Lacey. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAETIN T. LACEY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

MAX H. FRANKEL 

The Chairman. Be seated, please. Mr. Lacey, will you state your 
name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation, please, 
sir? 

Mr. Lacey. Martin T. Lacey, L-a-c-e-y, 898 Washington Avenue, 
Westwood, N. J. I am president of the Central Trades Labor Coun- 
cil, AFL; secretary-treasurer and business manager of local 816; vice 
president of the New York State Federation of Labor, AFL. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You have counsel with 
you, Mr. Lacey ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

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



4706 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frankel. My name is Max H. Frankel, 305 Broadway, a mem- 
ber of the New York bar. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All risrht, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Ken^nedt. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lacey has not been well. He 
has just come out of the hospital, and we will attempt to expedite 
this matter as much as we can. 

The Chairman. All right. We will try to show you every con- 
sideration, Mr. Lacey. 

Mr. Lacey. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lacey, I want to find out, first, if you have any 
comment to make on the telephone transcription that has just been 
played concerning the dues that were due from local 875, the per 
capita dues payments of dues from local 875. 

Mr. Lacey. I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Excuse me. Local 239 of the teamsters. 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know anything about it ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Goldstein 
about it ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Lacey. The only conversation I had with him was at the time 
that he made application on the charter, when he got a potential mem- 
bership of 2,500 members. I was under the impression that, in view 
of the fact that he had a local union coming in, the balance of those 
men whom he explained he couldn't transfer in right away, until 
such time as he got straightened out with court litigations and some 
finances that they had regarding welfare and some other litiga- 
tions 

Mr. Kennedy. "Why did you lower it from $2,500 to $175? 

Mr. Lacey. I have no power to lower it. '\'\Tien I read that, I told 
him that is what it would be. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you charge him, then ? $2,500 ? 

Mr. Lacey. I have no authority to charge him. I notified him that 
is what he would have to pay. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. $2,500 ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. According to the application. I was 
under the assumption he had those men. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the first letter that was written. Then, 
according to this transcription that has been played, there was a con- 
versation that was held between you and Goldstein, and that Goldstein 
then obtained from you the permission to only pay $175. 

Mr. Lacey. I never had such a conversation. I haven't got the 
authority to make any deals with anybody regarding their per capita 
or their dues. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then that local only paid $175 after that. Can you 
explain that ? 

Mr. Lacey. They paid nothing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain why the local only paid $175 ? 

Mr. Lacey. They must have paid it into the joint council, the joint 
council 16 ; not to me. 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4707 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position ? What was your position 
in joint council 16 at the time ? 

Mr. Lacey. I was president. 

Mr. Kennedy. The letter went out to local 239 that they were to 
pay $2,500 to joint council 16. According to the transcript of the 
conversation Mr. Goldstein had a conversation with you and you 
agreed that he would only have to pay $175 to joint council 16. 

Mr. Lacey. I had no conversation with Mr. Goldstein whatever 
about the question of dues, none whatever but when the application 
first came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain to the committee why a letter went 
out to him requesting him to pay $2,500 to joint council 16 and he 
only paid $175 to joint council 16 ? 

Mr. Lacey. Well, he claimed he didn't have the money, and he 
was paying so much — as a matter of fact, I believe 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom did he claim that ? 

Mr. Lacey. Sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom did he claim that ? 

Mr. Lacey. He claimed that to me, that he didn't have the money 
immediately, that it was tied up in 995, of which I was under the 
impression there were over 2,000 men in it and they were going to 
come over to local 239. 

However, he was sending in a typewritten report monthly of his 
progress in organizing, and the additional men that he was making, 
and in addition he was sending in money as he went along. That, 
I don't check. The secretary- treasurer of the joint council 16, Louis 
Luf rano, is the man that does that checking. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then based on the conversation that he had with 
you, his description of the straits that they were in financially, you 
did agree that he would not have to pay the full $2,500 at that time ? 

Mr. Lacey. Not down, that is right. He didn't have the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he only had to pay $175 ? 

Mr. Lacey. I didn't mention — I don't remember, sir, about any 
certain amount of money. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just knew that because he did not have the 
membership; he did not have the finances; he could not pay that 
$2,500? 

Mr. Lacey. That was my impression. 

Mr. KJ5NNEDY. 995 operated through 1954, 1955, and 1956. The 
charter wasn't lifted until 1956. 

Did you allow thengi to operate with the teamsters ? 

Mr. Lacey. I have no knowledge of 995. I have no relationship with 
the automobile setup whatsoever. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You just said that you knew they had 995 and were 
going to transfer members over ? 

Mr. Lacey. No ; he stated that whole union, and that charter was 
approved by the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever check to find out whether those mem- 
bers were transferred over from 995 to 239 ? 

Mr. Lacey. I didn't have any opportunity for that, because down 
came the question of the election in January of 1956, and then from 
then on between court litigations and sickness, I didn't have any chance 
to do anything. But the records will show that every month that he 



4708 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

had sent in a report and the progress that he was making on his 
organizing program. While I am on the subject 

Senator Curtis. Wlio was he talking about, about the progress he 
was making? 

Mr. Lacey. Goldstein of 239. 

Sir, you don't deal with the individual local union. You deal with 
the individual, either the secretary-treasurer or the president of that 
local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember discussing with him about DeLury 
and getting him this Rutgers Shop. Do you remember having any 
conversations with him about that? 

Mr. Lacey. I don't remember. It is possible. It could be possible 
on a question on jurisdiction. That I just don't know of. My official 
position was to try to straighten out all jurisdictional questions, and 
they were straightened out in my office. I was never in the field to in- 
vestigate personally just the difference of what arguments there were 
on it. 

I asked them into the office in an endeavor to mutually straighten 
the matter out. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get into these so-called locals that were 
set u,p. 

Mr. Lacey. Sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. The so-called — what are we going to call them? 

The Chairman. I stated the other day I had a telegram, but it 
was actually a letter, from some international, I think, of the papers 
union or paper mills, whatever they represent, stating they were 
afraid the public might get the impression when we referred to paper 
locals, that we were talking about locals in their international union. 
They asked us to call them something else. I have been trying to 
remember to call them phony locals or something else rather than 
paper locals. 

Mr. Lacey. That would be more appropriate. 

The Chairman. We certainly do not mean to reflect upon that other 
international organization or any member of it when we use the term 
paper locals. We will try to remember to call them phony locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. Phony is the word ? 

The Chairman. I do not think you can dispute the word "phony." 

Counsel suggested to me that we call them disputed locals, but I do 
not think you can very well dispute by this record that they were 
phony locals. 

Mr. Lacey. Might I suggest that you call them rubber ones ? 

The Chairman. We had one that bounced along. 

Mr. Lacey. Nearly all of these have been bouncing and stretching. 

The Chairman. All right. We will call them phony for the present. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us, Mr. Lacey, when you first heard 
about these locals, these phony locals, in connection with their request 
to be seated in the joint council ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. On the day of December 1, 1955, joint council 
16 run a dinner in the Commodore Hotel for Mr. Beck. I attended — 
I hadn't been at the office for several days. At the same time of the 
starting of the dinner for Mr. Beck, which was authorized by the 
council, there was also the amalmagation of the CIO and the AFL, 
which v/as due a few days before. I hadn't gone back to the office 
for a full week. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4709 

On the first day or the second day of December — I think it was the 
first day of which the dinner, my secretary, Miss McHugh, had rim 
short of tickets for the dinner, and she had gone back to the office to 
pick up some more tickets. When she went back, she fomid some 3 
or 5 letters. 

I have a photostat copy of those letters. 

She called me on the wire and told me she had them in the office. 
I told her to "leave them there until I get back." 

That dinner, I think, was on a Thursday, the 1st of December. 

The following Monday was the 5th, the opening of the amalgama- 
tion or merger of the AFL-CIO, which was held in the Tlst Armory. 
I say I wasn't back in the office for the simple reason it necessitated 
a lot of setting up, technical points, having the place arranged, and 
at the last minute we forgot to bring a piano in the place. We don't 
remember it until a Sunday. 

We had to get a truckman, a union truckman, by the way, out at 
6 o'clock Monday morning so that we can get the piano into the 
armory early enough to start the merger convention. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Lacey, could I just suggest, if you don't feel 
too well, we don't have to go into every detail. Just if we can get 
whatever the pertinent facts are regarding these locals. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KIennedy. Maybe it would be better for you to wait until to- 
morrow and get a rest. 

Mr. Lacey. The only reason I give you that is the reason why I 
wasn't at the office attending business. 

I told Miss McHugh to hold the letters until I got back. 

The following Monday I got there, and I read the letters and I think 
after reading the letters, with copies of them here, and I believe you 
have them 

The Chairman. Let me help you there and shorten it. 

Mr. Lacey, I hand you here exhibits 100, 100-A, and 100-B, 101, and 
100-C. They are exhibits in the testimony. See if those exhibits are 
four of the letters that you refer to, or copies thereof. That will help 
you by just identifying those. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now I hand you two others that we have that have 
not been made exhibits. They are dated November 29, 1955, one of 
them is, and the other one is November 30, 1955. The one dated No- 
vember 30 is from John McNamara, secretary-treasurer of local 295, 
and the other, dated November 29, 1955, is signed by Harry Reiss, 
secretary-treasurer of local 284. Please examine these two and state 
if they are like the copies you have and if you recognize them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 128 and 128-A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 128 and 12'8-A," 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4895-4896.) 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

That helps you about the letters. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Or you may proceed, if you have not finished your answer. 



4710 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES UST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lacet. All that week we were over at the 7lst in the comple- 
tion of the merger, and the following Monday morning I was back 
to my office and I believe it was an executive board meeting was called 
on December 12, 1955, to report to the executive board the letters that 
I received requesting these individuals to be seated. 

I explained the letters, and at the same time presented the letters to 
the officers so that they can pass them around — there are 7 on the 
executive board, and, at that time, 4 on the advisory committee — to 
pass them around to see if they could identify anybody on these 
contracts. 

Only 1 man identified 1 name. I am sorry the man is dead. 

The only name was partially — it wasn't positively identified. It 
was the nam.e of Davidoff. 

The executive board went on record that in view of the fact that 
these came in as letters, and we don't have a copy of the application 
for a charter, that the matter lay on the table. 

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

Mr. Lacey. They instructed me as the president to send a letter to 
Mr. Beck requesting an explanation in view of a letter of understand- 
ing that we had from his international union signed by Einar Molm 
under date of June 16, 1954, whereby, in a four-page letter, he promised 
not to issvie charters unless they took the matter up with the joint 
council. 

The Chairman". These charters had not been taken up with you as 
president of the joint council ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you identify this original letter that you have 
just mentioned? It is dated June 16, 1954. Your letter was dated 
what? 

Mr. Lacey. Jmie 16, 1954. I have a photostatic copy. 

The Chairmax. You got a letter from Mr. Einar Mohn ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

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

The Chairman. I present to you what I believe to be is the original 
of the one of which you say you have a photostatic copy of. _ Will you 
examine it and state whether you identify it as the original letter 
about which you are testifying ? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do identify it ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman". That may be made exhibit 129. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 129," for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4897-4900.) 

The Chairman. Now you may refer to any pertinent part of it, if 
you desire. 

Mr. Lacey. The executive board after going on record of refusing 
to seat them, tabled the applications or, as we call them, credentials, 
to table them, and for me to contact or send a letter to Mr. Beck, 
requesting a copy of the applications of the charters and giving the 
jurisdiction. 

I want you to bear in mind that the question of jurisdiction is pri- 
mary, because all of these local unions, with the exception of one, have 
the same name. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE; LABOR FIELD 4711 

It would conflict with the various other local unions that had 
already been seated in our council. 

The CHAiRM:A]sr. So in the first instance, you had been completely 
ignored in the granting of the charter ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And those charters, under the letter from Mr. 
Mohn, the agreement that you had, they were supposed to come 
through your office, the applications, before charters were granted ? 

Mr. Lacet. That is right. 

The Chairman. That was so that you would be informed of what 
was going on within your council jurisdiction ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

The Chairman. They bypassed you to get the charter? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You never heard of them until after they were 
issued and until you heard of these letters being sent to you asking 
you to seat them ? 

Mr. Lacey. You say I never knew until they were issued. I don't 
even know yet whether they were issued. I never got the answer from 
Mr. Beck yet. 

The Chairman. Well, if they were issued, you never knew it ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Lacey. I called a meeting the following evening, which was the 
regular time, second Tuesday of the month. At this meeting we took 
the same matter up, and the recommendation of the executive commit- 
tee was concurred in unanimously. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. The council special meeting on the loth confirmed the 
action of the executive committee, which was a unanimous vote all 
over, that these letters be on the table until such time as I got an 
answer to my letter, as instructed by the council and the executive 
board, to forward on to Mr. Beck for him to explain the question of 
the granting of the charters, that we wanted a copy of the applica- 
tion and explain its jurisdiction. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have the minutes of the meeting 
of December 12, 1955, and the minutes of the meeting of December 13, 
1955. 

Senator Ives. I* will send those over to Mr. Lacey and he can 
examine them and see if he recognizes them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Senator Ives. That first one is December 12, 1955. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator I^^s. That will be exhibit No. 130. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 130" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4901-4903.) 

Seantor Ives. Now, I send to you the minutes of December 13, 
1955. Will you kindly examine those ? 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. That will be exhibit No. 131. 



4712 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 131" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 4904-4907.) 

Mr. Ejsnnedy. The situation at this time, then, was that despite 
the agreement that had been made in June of 1954 that any charters 
that were granted in the New York area would go through the joint 
council and through the general organizer, despite that agreement 
in May of 1954, these charters had been granted to individuals whom 
nobody on the joint council could identify; is that correct? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were not even aware at that time who were 
the applicants for those charters ? 

Mr. Lacey. Well, it was my duty to inquire 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, you did not even know who the 
applicants for the charters were ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kjennedy. The only officer that could be identified on any of 
the charters was just one officer; is that right — Harry Davidoff? 

Mr. Lacey. That's right. 

Mr. Kjennedy. So at that time the executive board decided to get 
in touch with the international president down here and find out 
who had applied for these charters and who these people were; is 
that right? 

Mr. Lacey. That's right. 

Senator Curtis. About when did you write Mr. Beck? 

Mr. Lacey. A copy of the letter I got here, dated December 15, 
1955. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did he answer ? 

Mr. Lacey. He hasn't answered yet. I received a telegram 

Senator Ives. Just a minute, Mr. Lacey. 

I have in my possession a letter signed by you and addressed to 
Mr. Dave Beck, general president. International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, datc>'^ December 15, 1955, which I assume is the original 
of the copy you have. 

I send it to you for identification. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

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

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 132. 

Senator Curtis. Is that unusual, that your letters to the interna- 
tional directed to Mr. Beck, were not answered ? 

Mr. Lacey. That's right. I might say on the subject that a copy 
of that letter, so we could get the information, or it wouldn't be by- 
passed, we sent the original to Mr. Beck, a copy to Mr. Einar Mohn 
and a copy to Mr. Tom Flynn and a copy to the organizer in the area, 
who was Tom Hickey. 

Senator Curtis. The two that you mentioned other than Mr. 
Hickey were in the international office here in Washington ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. I inquired of Mr. Hickey and he knew noth- 
ing about it. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of those other men answer? 

Mr. Lacey. Sir? 

Senator Curtis. Did you get an answer from anybody ? 



IMPROPER ACTrvrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4713 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. The only answer I got was under date of 
January 9. Things were pretty hot then. Not the weather. I got a 
telegram from Mr. Einar Mohn, dated January 9. 

The Chairman. Will you suspend a moment until I read into the 
record your letter to Mr. Beck, about which you are talking? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 132" and 
follows:) 

The Chaxrman. I will read it into the record. It is on joint coun- 
cil No. 16 stationery and it is dated December 15, 1955, to Mr. Dave 
Beck, general president, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 25, 
Louisiana Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. : 

Deab Sib and Bkothes : Please find six photostatic copies of letters received 
at this office wherein local unions unknown to us request the seating of dele- 
gates. 

In view of our understanding regarding the issuing of charters, I am writ- 
ing to you for more information on this matter, and request further that if 
charters have been issued to these locals, copies of their applications be for- 
warded to this office. 

Trusting you will give this matter your immediate attention, I remain, 
Fraternally yours, 

Maetin Lacey, President. 

This letter shows that copies were sent to : E. Mohn, T. Flymi, and 
T. Hickey. It has six enclosures. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. 

The Chairman. You were giving an explanation, but I wanted to 
get this letter into the record. I may say at this time I believe that 
we cannot conclude with you tonight, so I think you had better take 
a rest. 

We will recess over mitil 11 : 30 tomorrow morning, to give you 
plenty of time to rest. 

Mr. Lacey. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that satisfactory ? 

Mr. Frankel. That is satisfactory. 

May I thank the committee for their indulgence with Mr. Lacey. 
He has not been well. 

The Chairman. Thank you. We recognize that. 

Therefore, the committee will stand in recess until 11 : 30 tomor- 
row morning. 

(Present at the taking of the recess were Senators McClellan, Ives, 
Ervin, Kennedy, and Curtis.) 

(Whereupon, at*5 : 03 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat- 
ter was recessed, to reconvene at 11 : 30 a. m., on the following day.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FEIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 11 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 74, agreed to January 80, 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, Massa- 
chusetts; Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Karl E. Mundt, Re- 
publican, South Dakota; and Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; Paul J. Tierney, assistant counsel; Wal- 
ter R. May, assistant counsel; Robert E. Dunne, assistant counsel; 
P. Kenneth O'Donnell, assistant counsel; Frank Lloyd, investigator; 
and Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

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

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Lacey, will you take the witness stand, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN T. LACEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, MAX H. FRANKEL— Resumed 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Lacey, we were discussing these locals, these 
phony locals that were chartered at the end of 1955, and you testified 
yesterday, I believe, that 3'ou received letters from them in early 
December of 1955, requesting to be seated in the joint council, that 
you had never heard of any of these locals, that you and the executive 
board took the letters up, that you had never heard of any of the 
names of the officers that were listed, and that these charters, evi- 
dently, had been issued by the international without your knowledge 
and without the knowledge of Mr. Hickey, who was general organizer 
in that area at that time, and who was vice president of the teamsters. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. And that this procedure that had been followed by 
the international had been in violation of the agreement that the in- 
ternational had made with joint council 16 in 1954 in a letter that 
had been written by Dave Beck to joint council 16 on June 16, 1954, 

4715 



4716 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

that they would always go through the joint council before issuing 
charters. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDT. So, then, after you took the step of writing to Mr. 
Beck requesting the charter applications for these various locals; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Lacey. That last remark I didn't get, that last question. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You took a step, then, that was supported by your 
executive board, of writing to Mr. Beck requesting the charter appli- 
cations, the charter applications for these various locals, and any 
other information regarding the backgrounds of these people. 

Mr. Lacey. The jurisdiction, primarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. The jurisdiction? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And you stated, also, I believe, that you had not 
received a reply to that letter up to this tune ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir ; up to the telegram. 

Mr. Kenndey. Up to the telegram. I think that is about where we 
were yesterday. We had gotten to the telegram that had been sent 
in early January. Your letter to Dave Beck was written December 
15,1955? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And you received an answer on January 10, which 
was about 4 weeks later; January 10, is that correct? You received 
a telegram from Einar Mohn? 

Mr. Lacey. Dated January 9. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Just prior to that, we have one other document that 
I would like to get into the record, if I may. That is a letter dated 
December 15, in connection with one other of these phony locals. Up 
until December 15, we had only heard from 6 of the 7 locals? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we have a letter dated December 15, which 
brings in the seventh local. 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The chairman has it now, and you may identify it. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you what appears to be the 
original letter of Milton Levine to joii on December 15, 1955. Please 
examine it and state if you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 133. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 133" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 4908.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is a letter to the joint council, to 
Martin Lacey, president, from Milton Le\'ine, giving the names of the 
officers of local 275, and giving their names so tliat they could be 
admitted to membership in the joint council 16. If they ai-e admitted 
to membership, of course, they would be eligible to vote. Local 275 is 
up here on our chart. It is the local that came out of 875. As we 
showed yesterday, 875 is controlled by Tony "Ducks" Corallo, as is 
local 275. This was the last of the so-called phony locals. Now we 
come up to January. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you wish to make any comment ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4717 

Mr. Lacey. None, other than Mr. Kennedy said to be admitted. 
The credential, as it is called, a credential, or the letter, is an applica- 
rion to be seated in the joint council. 

Hr. Kennedy. It says here : 

We are also making a request that local 275 be admitted to membership in the 
joint council. 

Mr. Lacey. The admitting to membership as being a member. I 
would like to explain that the seating of the delegates would have to 
be elected officers. Just the seating of delegates doesn't mean any- 
thing, although they can discuss any question that arises. But they 
are not in tlie capacity to vote. I just want to bring that to your 
attention. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we come to your letter of December 15 to Mr. 
Beck requesting the charter applications and tlie backgrounds of 
these people and the jurisdiction that these various locals were to 
cover. You received a telegram that is dated January D, 1956, which 
was a reply to your letter of December 15, 1955 ; is that right? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. But that telegram was signed by Einar 
Mohn, under direction, as I understand, from President Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand. 

Mr. Lacey. I might state, Mr. Kennedy, that that, in no manner, 
shape, or form, gives me the information that I required in the letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. The chairman has the telegram 
now. 

It is your testimony that you never have received an answer to 
that letter of December 10, 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you what purports to be a telegram, ad- 
dressed to you, signed by Einar O. Mohn, assistant to the general 
president, dated January 9, and I ask you to examine this document 
and state if you identify it. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the telegram that you received from Mr. 
Mohn? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit 134. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 134" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

The Chairman. You had requested in your letter of December 15 
to Mr, Beck this. You say : 

In view of our understanding regarding the issuing of charters, I am writing 
to you for more information on this matter, and request further that, if charters 
have been issued to these locals, copies of their applications be forwarded to 
this office. 

Is the telegram responsive to that request for information ? 

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

Mr. Lacey. I couldn't wed it up. I couldn't wed it up, in view of 
the time element betw^een December 15 and January 9. I in no way 
believed that that was an answer to my letter. I took the telegram 
more as an order than I did as an answer to my letter. 

89330— 57— pt. 12 15 



4718 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. In other words, it did not respond, actually, to 
your letter by giving you the information you requested? 

Mr. Lacey. Correct. 

The Chairman, They sent this telegram, which you regarded more 
as an order or directive to you ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

The Chairman. The telegram should be printed in the record at 
this point. I have read pertinent parts of the letter. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not receive the applications for charters? 
Mr. Mohn did not send you the applications for charters? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you sent Mr. Mohn a telegram back in reply 
to his telegram to you ; did you not, on January 10 ? 

Mr. Lacey. I haven't got a copy here. 

The Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be the original 
telegram. 

While you are examining this for the purpose of identifying it, 
the telegram from you to Mr. Mohn, while you are reading it for the 
purpose of identifying it, the Chair will read Mr. Mohn's wire to you 
into the record. 

It is addressed to Mr. Martin Lacey, president, Joint Council of 
Teamsters, No. 16, 265 West 14th Street, New York, N. Y., dated 
January 9. Also, it is addressed to Mr. Leonard Geiger, 2401 Jack- 
son Avenue, Long Island City, N. Y. 

It reads : 

.Ta^txtary 9, \9m. 
Mr. Martin Lacey, 

President, Joint Council of Teamsters, No. 16, 
265 West 14th, New York, N. Y. 
Mr. Leonard Geiger, 

2401 Jackson Avenue, 

Long Island City, N. Y.: 
In order to beat the deadline of the merged convention AFL-CIO held re- 
cently in New York, this office received requests from many sections of the 
country for charters from Federal labor unions and other AFL and CIO affil- 
iates whose people were engaged in some industries properly our jurisdiction. 
Time would not permit all of these applications to be processed under usual 
procedure. The following charters were issued in the New York area : Locals 
258, 269, 284, 295, 362, and 641. Some of these were small local unions and 
after they have been seated in our joint council as well as in the Eastern Con- 
ference of Teamsters, it was agreed that where consolidation of local unions was 
practical they would be consolidated. I shall be glad to forward to you copies 
of their applications. They are in good standing with the international union 
and should be accorded all the rights and privileges of local unions in good 
standing. 

EiNAR O. Mohn, 
Assistant to the General President. 

It is signed "Einar O. Mohn, assistant to the general president." 

You regarded that as an order to you to so accept and treat those 
locals ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you send a reply ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On the 10th? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you what this means here "As a prac- 
tical matter." They are talking about these locals. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4719 

Some of these were small local unions and after they have been seated in our 
joint council as well as the Eastern Conference of Teamsters, it was agreed that 
where consolidation of local unions was practical, they would be consolidated. 

Didn't this mean that after they had been seated, that during this 
period of time tliey would be permitted to vote in the election? If 
they were seateil in the joint council they would be permitted to vote 
in the election, is that right ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right, seven of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. All seven of them would be permitted to vote in 
the election? 

Mr. IvACEY. That is right. And after the election, they would 
shrink tliem. 

Mr. Kennedy. And come back to maybe 1 or 2 locals ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. If, in fact, this telegram was sent in good faith and 
tlie purpose of chartering these locals w«s other than to influence the 
election, they would have consolidated the locals prior to their being 
seated ? 

Mr. Lacey. Prior to that, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you sent back a telegram ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The telegram that lie sent back may be printed 
in tlie record at this point. 

The Chair will read it. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this connection, did you know if any of these 
locals had any members at that time ? 

Mr. Lacey. None whatever. 

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

The Chairman. Your reply telegram, which may be printed in full 
in the record, reads as follows : 

New York, N. Y., Jamtary 10, 1956. 

EiNAR O. MOHN, 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
25 Louisiana NW., Washington. D. C: 

Your chatty and interesting but belated telegram of January f), with reference 
to our serious letter of December 15 last, to Dave Beck, general president, 
received. 

We know how busy our international president is but when 12.5,000 members 
represented through this joint council make an important and significant request 
to him such as was done in our letter of December 15, we are puzzled why he 
does not reply so that constitutionally provided reviews, if necessary, can be 
followed. 

Many of us here think that fraud and deception have been utilized in seeking 
charters from the international and there is even the possibility that a major 
conspiracy directed to the detriment of this joint council and of the interna- 
tional, may be involved. 

As solid trade unionists we want to protect our members, improve their condi- 
tions, and fight in the basic union way for the people we represent and do not 
want to be party to or subjected to the establishment of any clique or block- 
control of manpower for intra- or inter-union politics. 

Although suspicion has been aroused by your belated telegi-am, which you 
must admit is meaningless, but which we assume is intended to be kindly, we 
still must follow in the mandate of our joint council and demand as to the seven 
alleged charters which, say, were issued, the copies of the applications for such 
charters, per capita payments made, copies of the alleged charters which we 
assume will outline the "jurisdiction" purportedly granted, and the names and 
addresses of the individuals at whose behest said alleged charges — 

I guess they mean charters — 



4720 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

have been issued. The joint council will continue to table applications of such 
alleged locals until there is a thorough examination, we hope with the coopera- 
tion of the international union, of the applicants. 

Please, therefore, request our general president, Dave Beck, to comply with 
our letter of December 15, 1955, and furnish the information requested and in- 
dicated herein promptly, and at the same time express the agreement which 
was made with our council regarding the issuance of new charters a letter to 
this council dated June 16, 1954, should serve to refresh his recollection of this 
^agreement. 

Martin Lacey, 
President, Joint Council No. 16 I. B. of T. 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

I have ordered this printed in the record in full, and also the other 
telegram should be printed in the record in full so that they can be 
read completely. 

Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Lacey. 

If everyone in the international union office had followed the rules 
laid down in the constitution and bylaws of the international, and 
the usual practices, would these charters ever have been issued ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you feel that the failure to send you copies of 
these applications, and the long delay in getting a response to your 
letters and telegrams, is an admission that at least some of the people 
in the international were cooperating with these irregular and non- 
existent unions ? 

Mr. Lacet. I have no other way to believe. I definitely believe 
that. 

Senator Curtis. Would you care to state who it was ^ 

Mr. Lacey. That I wouldn't know. 

My communications were directed to Brother Beck and answers 
were returned by Einar Mohn. 

Senator Curtis. While your organization has grown rapidly in 
many instances, it would not be any difficult office task to pliotost;ii 
copies of applications and send the seven of them to you, would it i 

Mr. Lacey. I don't think so. I don't think so, in a direct answer. 

Senator Curtis. I notice in the letter tliej^ said because of the 
shortness of time they could not do it. That was not a legitimate 
excuse, was it ? 

Mr. Lacey. No. The procedures followed by the international 
union, insofar as charters are concerned, are usuallv endorsed by the 
organizer in that area. That organizer was Tom llickey. 

Immediately upon receiving these letters, I asked him if lie knew 
anything about charters. He said "No." 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time that this telegram was sent, it states 
here : 

Many of us think that fraud and deception have been utilized — 

did you feel at that time that there was fraud and deception? 

Mr. Lacey. I felt so ; yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you feel that at the present time, looking back 
on it, that there was fraud and deception involved ? 

Mr. Lacey. Mr, Kennedy, it Avas not only that I believed it, after 
discussing it with the executive board and recommended to the whole 
council, the whole organization felt that way. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4721 

Mr. Kennedy. They felt that way, then, and as you look back on it 
at the present time, you think there was fraud and deception involved ? 

Mr. Lacey. At that time, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. As you look back on it now^, you felt that there was 
fraud and deception involved in the issuance of these charters? 

Mr. Lacey. I would say more so, after the evidence that has been 
produced before this committee. 

The Chairman. You are pretty well convinced, are you not? 

Mr. Lacey. I would say positive. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You state in this telegram, even at that date, in 
January 1956, that there was a major conspiracy involved. Did you 
feel at that time it was a major conspiracy to the detriment of this 
joint council ? 

Mr. Lacey. I felt that w^ay, but I would like to state that I didn't 
draft that letter. I had it drafted by my attorney, who I was con- 
stantly in touch with in every action pertaining to this situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that was the feeling of you and your people at 
that time ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel so at the present time, that there was a 
major conspiracy involved ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy, This telegram you sent back was January 10, 1956. 
On January 26, 1956, you had a special executive board meeting which 
was held at the request of 5 of your 7 executive board members ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. January 26 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the meeting where Geiger moved that the 
locals be seated. 

Mr. Lacey. I believe that that was the meeting that you are re- 
ferring to now. 

Mr, Kennedy. Yes. That is what I was going on. 

The Chairman. May I present to you what purports to be the 
original minutes of that meeting on January 26, 1956, and ask you to 
examine those minutes and state if you identify them. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Can I explain the circumstances ? 

The Chairman. Can you say whether you recognize that as the 
liiinutes of tliat meeting? 

Mr. Lacey. With an explanation. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. All right. 

Mr. Lacey. The secretary, Lenny Geiger, who was recording secre- 
tary, took the minutes. I recognize the contents that is in this letter. 
After the meeting was adjourned, by, as the practice, the rule, the law, 
the minutes of the meeting are kept in the office, typed, and read to 
the members. 

Immediately after this demand meeting — and bear in mind that this 
group walked in on me and insisted on a meeting right away. I was 
busy and I postponed it for a couple of days. 



4722 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The minutes of this particiiLar meeting I never got from Geiger. I 
^demanded them. He refused to give them to me. 

I asked the vice president, Joe Trerotola, to tlie best of Iiis memory 
to draft what happened at that meeting. From his (h-afting, tliese are 
^the minutes. 

J\ight up to now, regardless of how many demands I had made, I 
never received a copy of those minutes from Geiger. 

The CiiAiRMAX. He was the recording secretary? 

jNIr. Lacey. Yes. sir. 

The ChxVirman. And he was the official whose duty it was to make 
the minutes and to keep the minutes ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he never did provide you with them? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

The Chairman. So these are your unofficial minutes tliat you had 
prepared immediately after when Geiger refused to give you the ofli- 
oial minutes? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir, for a record for the organization of what 
actually happened at that meeting. 

The Chairman. You examined those minutes at the time they were 
presented to you ? 

Mr. Lacey! Sir ? 

The Chair^ian. I say, you exainined those minutes when they were 
prepared, this document before you ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And did it at that time reflect, according to your 
recollection, exactly what happened? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Therefore, this document will be received. 

It will be made exhibit 135. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 135,'- for reference, 
tind may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may interrogate the witness, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think the important part of this, Mr. Lacey, is the 
fact that at this meeting, 5 of the 7 executive board members reversed 
their position and moved that these phony locals be seated. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that this was led by Lenny Geiger? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This opposition and this attempt to have these 
phony locals seated was led by Lenny Geiger ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, we have been attempt- 
ing to locate Mr. Geiger. 

We interviewed him once about a month ago and liave been attempt- 
ing to locate him to testify in these proceedings. He has disappeared 
from his office and has disappeared from his home. We have been 
unable to contact him to ask him to appear before the committee. 

The Chairman, I guess he is what you call on the "lam ;" is that 
it? 

Mr. Lacey. I think that is the expression. 

The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4723 

Mr. Kennedy. So Lufrano, Geiger, Parisi, Schopback, and Bessler, 
those five members moved that these phony locals be seated; is that 
right? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you maintained your position that they should 
not be seated ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliat was the basis of that? Wliat was the basis 
of your opinion ? 

Mr. Lacey. The executive board had no right to reverse the decision 
of the overall council. I based my decision on the ruling of the 
council. The executive board is only official when it is in session, but 
once the executive board brings in a recommendation to the overall 
picture and it is adopted, we have no right to reverse it or revise it in 
any manner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you are talking about the executive board, 
you are talking about the executive board meeting that you had held 
back in December ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the executive board meeting at that time had 
said that these locals should not be seated, that a letter should be writ- 
ten for an explanation from the international ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then when this meeting was held, the special 
executive board meeting was held, in January, that was not the full 
council meeting and, therefore, could not reverse the position of the 
council back then ? 

Mr. FRiVNKEL. One moment, please. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Kennedy. I think I confused it. 

You had the executive board meeting in December, around Decem- 
ber 12, 1 believe. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on December 13, this executive board recom- 
mendation that these locals should not be seated was approved by 
the joint council. 

Mr. Lacey. Unanimously. 

Mr. Kennedy. Unanimously. So that was a joint council action. 
So then when vou held the executive board meeting on January 26, 
and these members reversed their positions, your ruling was that the 
executive board could not reverse the position of the joint council? 

Mr. Lacey. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you refused to seat these locals at that time? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

And if you will notice in the minutes, I refused to a(;cept their 
motion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were 3'ou familiar with the fact that Geigei- on 
the follovring day, on January 26, 1956, sent a telegram to John Eng- 
lish, urging that these locals be seated, and taking the position, and 
I quote, 

this appeal is of the utmost urgency for the reason that election of officers of 
joint council 16 is to be scheduled for February 14? 

Were you familiar with the fact that he sent that telegram? 
Mr. Lacey. I know that a telegram was sent. 



4724 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEI/D 

Mr. Kennedy. That shows clearly that the purpose of chartering 
these paper locals, Mr. Lacey, that the purpose of chartering these 
phony locals, was for the purpose of influencing the election rather 
than for the fact that there was an AFL-CIO merger, because if that 
is all that was at issue then there wouldn't have been the urgency of 
getting these people seated so that they could vote in the election ; is 
that right? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. That is right. 

The Chairman. Have you ever seen this telegram? Could you 
identify it? 

It is the telegram from Leonard Geiger to Dave Beck, dated Janu- 
ary 27, 1956. 

Have you ever seen this telegram ? 

Mr. Frankel. Senator McClellan, may I suggest that you show it 
to him ? He may have seen it. 

The Chairman. All right. I want to get it in the record, but if we 
cannot identify it, I want it identified by someone else. 

(A document was handed to the witness.^ 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Lacey. 

Mr. Lacey. Sir, I just don't remember the telegram, but I am led 
to believe that a copy was sent to each one of the officers. My secre- 
tary tells me that she remembers that everyone of the officers got 
them. I don't just remember that. There was so much confusion at 
that time there is a lot of things that I can't remember. 

The Chairman. Which member of our staff procured the telegram ? 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, you have been previously sworn. 

I hand you a telegram, apparently an original telegram, from Mr. 
Geiger to Mr. Dave Beck, dated January 27, 1956. I ask you to 
examine it and state how this committee came into possession of that 
telegram. 

Mr. Tierney. I procured this telegram from the offices of the In- 
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters here in Washington. It was 
obtained by subpena. 

The Chairman. It was obtained by subpena from the files of the 
International Teamsters organization headquarters here in Wash- 
ington ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That telegram may be made exhibit No. 136. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ives, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, do you want to read the telegram ? 

Mr. Kjennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might just summarize it. It is an 
appeal. 

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

(The telegram referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 136" for refer- 
ence and is as follows:) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4725 

New York, N. Y., January 30, 1956. 
Dave Beck, 

Oencral President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Chauf- 
feurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL, 25 Louisiana 
Avenue NW., Washington, D. C: 

Dear Sib and Brother: This is an appeal by the executive board of Joint 
Council No. 16 of New York from a decision of the president of said council 
in refusing to entertain a motion to seat the delegates to the joint council of 
locals 258, 269, 284, 295, 362, and 651. 

All of the aforesaid locals were duly chartered by the international union, 
and by telegram dated January 9, 1956, a copy of which is attached, Einar O. 
Mohn, assistant to the general president, stated that "after such locals have 
been seated in our joint council." Notwithstanding such communication, the 
president of joint council No. 16 refused to seat the delegates of such local 
unions or to issue proper credentials to them. 

All of the local unions involved have taken every action necessary to accom- 
plish their affiliations with the joint council. Every effort has been made 
through normal channels available to the joint council to comply with the pro- 
visions of the international constitution to effectuate the affiliations of these local 
unions with joint council No. 16. On January 26, 1956, pursuant to a request 
of the majority of the executive board of joint council No. 16, the president, 
Martin T. Lacey, called a special meeting of the executive board for the purpose 
of considering the affiliation of such local unions with the joint council. At that 
meeting a motion was duly made and seconded to seat the delegates of the 
various locals, and to issue to them the necessary credentials to allow them to 
participate in the functions of the council. The president refused to entertain 
such motion upon the grounds that it was unconstitutional and illegal. The 
members of the executive board were then polled on their position on the motion 
to seat the delegates of the 6 local unions involved. Five members constituting 
a majority of the executive board, voted to seat the delegates, and to issue cre- 
dentials to them, the president, however, stated that he would not comply with 
the wishes of the majority of the executive board. 

This appeal is of the utmost urgency for the reason that an election for 
officers of joint council No. 16 is scheduled to be held February 14. The eligi- 
bility of the delegates of locals 258, 269, 284, 295, 362, and 651 should be deter- 
mined and they should be advised whether they are entitled to vote in such 
election. 

The majority of the executive board of joint council No. 16, consisting of Louis 
Lufrano, Harry Schopack, Joseph Parisi, Harry Bessler, and Leonard R. Geiger, 
have authorized me to forward this appeal to your body. A prompt ruling from 
your body is earnestly requested. If necessary, we will be glad to appear at 
the next international board meeting to state your ca.se. 
Fraternally yours. 

Telegram copy. 

January 9, 1956. 
Leonard Geiger, 

Long Island City, N. Y.: 

In order to beat the deadline of the merged convention AFL-CIO held recently 
in New York, this office received request from many sections of the country for 
charters from Federal labor unions and other AFL and CIO affiliates whose 
people were engaged in some industries properly our jurisdiction. Time would 
not permit all of these applications to be processed under usual procedure. The 
following charters were issued in the New York area : Locals 258, 269, 284, 295, 
362, and 651. Some of these were small local unions and after they have been 
seated in our joint council as well as in the Eastern Conference of teamsters, 
it was agreed that where consolidation of local unions was practical that they 
would be consolidated. I shall be glad to forward to you copies of their ap- 
plications. They are in good standing with the international union and should 
be accorded all the rights and privileges of local unions in good standing. 

Einar O. Mohn, 
Assistant to the General President. 

Leonard R. Geiger, 
Recording Secretary, Joint Council. 

]Mr. Kp:N^]srEDY. It is an appeal that these phony locals be seated 
Avith the joint council, and it recites the fact that Mr. Geiger and his 



4726 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

colleagues have attempted to have them seated and have been op- 
posed. It demands that the international take the necessary steps to 
inten^ene and have these locals seated. 

Once again just to quote from the telegram : 

This appeal is of the utmost urgency for the reason that election of oflScers 
of joint council 16 is scheduled to be held on February 14. 

It shows that it was necessary to get these locals seated so that 
they could vote in the election. 

The Chairman. Was any other reason given for urgency other than 
the fact of the election ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The telegram has already been ordered printed 
in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. It goes on to say after the part I just quoted: 

The eligibility of the delegates of these locals 258, 269, 284, 295, 362, and 
651 should be determined and they should be advised whether they are en- 
titled to vote in such an election. 

The whole emphasis during this period of time was that the dele- 
gates be seated so that they could vote in the election. 

Mr. Chairman, on the same date, Mr. Geiger sent a letter to John 
English requesting the same steps be taken by the international, and 
that these locals be seated. 

The Chairman. Do we have the letter ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes; we do. 

The Chairman. Mr, Tierney, did you also obtain the letter that 
counsel has just referred to from the files of the international under 
subpena ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you have the letter ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The letter may be made exhibit No. 137. 

(The document referred to was marl^ed "Exhibit No. 187" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 4909.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this letter that 
was sent concerning letters that we have already had evidence and 
testimony on ; namely, the letters dictated from the office of 649. and 
were letters on the stationery of local 2G9 signed by Curcio, David- 
off. Brier, Reiss, and Gordon, appealing to the international that 
these locals be seated, and also the letter of local 295 which was dic- 
tated by John McNamara, when he went to the office of 649, and an 
appeal to the international that his gi-oup be allowed to vote in the 
election. 

The Chairman. These letters have already been made exhibits 
Nos. 102 and 103. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN T. LACEY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
MAX H. FRANKEL— Eesuraed 

Mr. Kennedy. On February 6, 196G, 3'ou wrote a letter t-o Dave 
Beck giving your position on those locals, Mr. Lacey ? 

Mr. Lacey! May I see the letter ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents you the original letter for 
your identification. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4727 

(A docimient was handed to the witness.) 

(Tlie witness conferred with his counseL) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Lacey. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You identify the letter? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 138. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 138" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select comittee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a letter that gives your position on the seat- 
ing of these locals, and your opposition to the seat uig of the locals. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You review the constitutional provisions which you 
feel make it improper that they be seated ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I read on page 2 : 

The niiestiou whether the aforesaid six locals were duly chartered by the 
international is a highly debatable one, and is at present the subject of 
a series of charges, complaints, and petitions contemporaneously dispatched 
to our ofRce. It is my contention that the aforesaid six locals were not duly 
chartered, but where chartered in violation of the constitution with a degree 
of haste and chicanery which shock common decency. 

Is that the way you felt at the time? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you still feel that way ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it goes on : 

Einar Mohn's telesram of January 9, 1056, betrays on its face the lack of 
usual, constitutional procedure. 

Tlie Chairman. Mr. Lacey, apparently, as the evidence shows up 
to now, you did everything you could, in your power, to keep this 
situation straight, and to keep them from violating the constitution 
and engaging in a practice that perpetrated a fraud upon your joint 
council ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right ; that is right. 

The Chairman. I don't know what else the evidence will show, but 
certainly up to now I am convinced that you were doing everything 
in your power to try to prevent the international from participating 
in a conspiracy to do gi-eat harm to your council and to its members. 

Mr. Lacey. Sir, regardless of the feelings of some of the members, 
I had no other position to take. Because at the meeting, the general 
meeting, of all the officers, it was a unanimous vote. 

The ChairmxVN. Did you realize at the time that the principal offi- 
cers, or most of the officers, in these phony locals that had organized 
and procured the charters, did you realize at that time that you were 
writing these letters and sending these telegrams, that they were noth- 
ing but a bunch of hoodlums, racketeers, and criminals? Did you 
know that at the time ? 

Mr. Lacey. No ; I did not know it. I did not know w^ho they were. 
The papers at that time were full of accusations. As a matter of 
fact, in the application for an injunction, a temporary injunction, my 
attorney put in there gangsters and racketeers. Him anci I had quite 
a dispute because if I didn't know them, how could I accuse them of 



4728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

■being gangsters and racketeers? That matter came out in the trial 
for the application for the injunction. 

The Chairman. Had you known then what you know now, you 
TwouM not have protested the use of the word, would you ? 

-Mr. Lacey. What this committee has done, I believe, has corrected 
a lot of things in the organization, and I appreciate it. 

The Chairman. We hope we have. 

Mr. Lacey. I hope every true union man appreciates it. 

The Chairman. We hope so, too. Thank you. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to read one more part of this letter to 
you, Mr. Lacey. 

Einar Mohn's telegram of January 9, 1956, betrays on its face the lack of 
usual, constitutional procedure. He says : "In order to meet the deadline of 
the merged convention AFL-CIO held recently in New York City, this office 
refused requests from many sections of the country for charters from Federal 
labor unions and other AFL-CIO affiliates, whose people were engaged in some 
industries properly in our jurisdiction. Time would not permit all of these 
applications to be processed under the usual procedure * * * it was agreed 
that, where consolidation of local unions was practical, they would be con- 
solidated." 

Then you go on to say : 

In other words, purely for the purposes of the coming election, 42 delegates 
are to be seated despite their meager composition and weak positions under 
"usual procedure." And, after the election takes place, these locals wiil be 
consolidated. Then the number of delegates (42) will dwindle to 7 or nothing. 
By that time the locals will have served their purpose in rigging the election. 

That is the way you felt at the time ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you still feel that that was the purpose? 

Mr. Lacey. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

A motion to seat the six delegates in question, and to issue them the neces- 
sary certificates to participate in the functions of joint council 16, is not only 
unconstitutional but illegal. It violates elementary standards of fair and honest 
conduct in trade-union procedure. This has been made plain in certain peti- 
tions, charges, and complaints to be filed as originals or as copies with your 
^office. 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you feel, Mr. Lacey, that the work of this com- 
mittee, and the facts we have develojied in the course of these hear- 
ings, has thoroughly vindicated the position that you took then ? 

Mr. Lacey. I think so. 

Senator I\'es. There are some that accuse us of being antilabor in 
our efforts of what we have been trying to do. Do you think we are 
antilabor ? 

Mr. Lacey. No ; I don't. 

Senator Ives. As a longstanding labor leader, I appreciate that, 
coming from you. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Mr. Lacey. I wanted to answer the Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Lacey. I feel you are doing a good job. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4729 

The Chairman. Senator Mimdt ? 

Senator Mundt. It is apparent, from what we have heard so far, 
Mr. Lacey, that, under great pressure, you were trying to protect the 
interest of honest workingmen in these unions. In connection with 
this, I wanted to direct your attention to the transcript of the tele- 
phone conversations which we have, involving a discussion on the 
telephone between Samuel Goldstein and Anthony "Ducks" Corallo 
on January 13, 1956. Do you know Mr. Samuel Goldstein? 

Mr. Lacey. I know Samuel Goldstein ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Mv. Anthony "Ducks" Corallo^ 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You don't know him ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. But you know ]SIr. Goldstein ( 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I will read 3'ou part of what this discussion re- 
vealed on the phone. I think you. can shed some additional light 
on the missing element. Corallo and Goldstein are talking, and 
Goldstein is reporting to Corallo on the meeting wliich he attended. 

GoLDSTEix. There was a big meeting for nominations, and all of a sudcleu 
there was rebellion in the hall, you know. This crew was hollering ; that crew 
was hollering — everybody was hollering. So I went np into the side thing and 
I grabbed a hold of Marty, you know. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. I says, "What are you doing, Marty ; this is no good for you ; 
it's no good for the other guy ; it's no good for nobody. Why don't you listen 
to what I got to tell you ; it'll take a couple of minutes." So I start to tell 
him, you know, what's what, so he says, "What do you mean, I don't want 

to meet him?" Who the does he think he is, you know. So I went 

over to Johnny, you know, "O." And I sat down and I spoke to him real quick 
like for 2 minutes. I said the best thing for you to do is to get together with 
this guy — 1, 2, 3 — this thing is going to go all night ; it's no good for every- 
body. It's going to hit the papers. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So he says, "Does the guy want to talk":'" I says, "Siu-e, he wants 
to talk to you. He's waiting in the little thing for you." So the both of them 
went down. Now, I was going to do the talking but .Johnny says, "I'll talk 
to him myself." I says, "O. K." You know, he's big enough to handle Ms 
own problems, you know. 

Corallo. Yeah. 

Goldstein. So I walked away. So they cut up for about 4.j minutes so the 
joint took a recess. 

I wonder if we can identify, Mr. Lacey, Avho this Jolmny was who 
did talk to you. * 

Mr. Lacey. I didn't see Goldstein there. The letter itself — the 
transcript speaks for itself. The place was jammed, and the hall 
liolds about 1,200 or 1,400. Ordinarily, tlie tops, eligible voters, are 
about 400. Actually, I think at that time it Avas 399, pliLS orgaiiizers 
and delegates who are not officials. That would bring it to about an 
additional hundred. At that particualr meeting, there were over 
1,000. Who they were, I don't know. But there was a hullabaloo, 
I Mill say. There was sucb. a commotion that I declared a recess, 
and in that telephone conversation thei-e it says three-quarters of an 
hour, but I don't think it was any more than 15 minutes. 

Brother O'Rourke came up to talk to me to proceed with the meet- 
ing, because it was on the question of accepting the minutes which 
,avould refer to the so-called local unions. 



4730 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I am a pretty fair ps^'chologist. I felt that if those minutes were 
aread, they were going to be adopted, and if they were adopted, those 
local unions were going to be seated. 

So I declared the motion wliich was to set aside all business and 
immediately go into nominations — that is when the hullabaloo 
started. They questioned my decision on the vote. 

I stood firm on it. Then an appeal was made. On that appeal 
immediately after that appeal, was when the commotion started. I 
'explained that I was going to rule the same on the appeal as I did on 
the motion. 

If they were going to throw me out of the place, it was O. K. with 
me. 

The only one I spoke to is Johnny O'Rourke. And Johnny 
O'Rourke insisted on the meeting going on, but his argument 
was, of which there was a difference, as to wdiether we were going to 
have paper ballots or machines. I was never in an election where there 
was machines. I know nothing about them. 

But the opposition felt that I was in close contact with them, that 
I could have them manipulate the machines. 

So if that was going to be the only obstacle, I agreed we will have 
the paper ballots. 

He walked back to the hall and I declared order. In our course 
of discussion, the appeal entered into it. I said, "Get that guy that 
made the appeal to withdraw his appeal and we will go ahead with 
the meeting, and I can't go ahead with the meeting until such time 
as that is cleared up.-' 

So he went back and spoke to McNamara, who made the motion, 
and McNamara, as soon as order was declared stood up and wanted 
to withdraw his appeal from my decision. I asked if tlie seconder 
of the appeal would withdraw his seconding, and lie stood up and 
he withdrew his seconding. 

Then I declared that the motion stood as originally made, vrhicli 
prohibit any reading of minutes, but to go into nominations 
immediately. 

At no time had I spoken to Goldstein during that period. There 
was so much excitement in the place. 

I hope. Senator, you are no going to ask me to vouch for what 
conversation was carried on with Goldstein and some guy I don't 
know, but it is possible for Goldstein to be building himself up witli 
this so-called party that I heard here. It is possible that everybody 
was getting the business. There is no reasons why they shouldn't 
give one another the business. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is a reasonable hypothesis. I am 
pursuing a little further this telephone conversation of the same date. 

Thank you for explaining what happened at this meeting and who 
Johnny w^as. It means Johnny O'Rourke talking with you, and I have 
that understood. 

Then we go to a little later in the conversation and Goldstein is 
still talking. And he says : 

So, now I'm in the middle with the thin? here and this guy has got me in 
the room, Tony, from 6 o'clock till 8 o'clock ; he's talking his heart out to me and 
lie told me thit things could have been arranged. He says: "Why didn't these 
people come," he says. "I would listen to whatever you had to say," he says, 
"but I'm not going to take no back seat the way they're trying to do it. The 
whole press got it ; everybody got it. Why should I back away now." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4731 

I says : "Marty, what's the sense in fighting this here thing the way you're 
fighting it now? It's no good." 

Goldstein didn't talk to you in that fashion, I take it ? 
Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 



Senator Mundt. He is just telling Cor alio 

Mr. Lacey. I don't know anything about it. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, on that particular occasion, when 
you had the meeting with all the hullabaloo, you did talk with Johnny 
0'E,ourke, but you did not talk with Sam Goldstein ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

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

Senator Mundt. And when Sam Goldstein comes in there and says 
jie is getting you and O'Rourke together, he is building himself up 
with Corallo or something? 

Mr. Lacey. I don't know about that Goldstein. I was primarily 
interested in the argument with O'Rourke. Let me in passing state 
tliat, innnediately after the meeting reconvened, one of the representa- 
tives of the organization got up and asked the question of w^hat deal 
was made back of the curtain. I said, "Let Brother O'Rourke answer 
that question." 

So Brother O'llourke answered the delegate that we had an under- 
standing that there was going to be paper ballots instead of machines. 
That is all. 

Then we went on with the meeting. 

Senator Mundt. In another conversation that they had on the 
phone, they implied that they were trying to get you out of that 
office by fair means or foul. If they couldn't vote you out, they were 
going to try to buy you out. 

Did Sam Goldstein ever try to talk you out of running for re- 
election ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. Sam Goldstein's local 239 is only a new local 
in our council. 

Wlio the hell in Sam Goldstein to buy me? If I was distrusting 
them all, why should I trust Sam Goldstein? But at that time, I 
didn't w^ed him up with this thing. 

Senator Mundt. That is what we are trying to find out. We are 
trying to find out what transpires, and we appreciate your coming 
here to talk to us. 

Mr. Lacey. The only business relationship I had with him or any- 
body else was in the course of the council meeting when they looked 
or appealed for assistance and I gave them all the assistance I possibly 
could. That was my duty. 

Senator Mundt. At tiiat time you didn't even know whether Gold- 
stein was going to vote for you or against you ? 

Mr. Lacey. No. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't know who to mistrust? 

Mr. Lacey. No. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Mr. Lacey. I am disappointed in a lot of people. 

Senator Mundt. I don't blame you. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Just ou that question, and then I will go back to the 
chronology, Mr. Lacey, what made Mr. O'Rourke speak to Mr. Mc- 
Namara and get him to withdraw his motion ? 



4732 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lacey. I told O'Rourke that. I don't know whether he went 
back, in the confusion that was on there, I don't know whether he 
spoke to him, but immediately after order was declared, and in action, 
that is the time that McNamara got up and withdrew his appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me see if I can understand it, 

Mr. McNamara's motion, if it had carried, w^ould have had the effect 
of allowing a discussion and motions to be made to seat these dele- 
gates ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lacey. No. On an appeal there is only two 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean if it had carried. 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the effect it would have had ? 

Mr. Lacey. That would have loosened it up for a vote on the seating 
of those delegates. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So it was rather an important issue for everyone? 

Mr. Lacey. Definitely. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Let me read the minutes to you. In talking about 
this motion, it says : 

Brother McNamara, local 808, appealed the deeisiou of the chairman, aud 
Brother Holt, local 805, seconded the appeal. 

Then the next statement is : 

The meeting recessed. 

And then : 

Brother O'Rourke, local 282, requested Brother McNamara to withdraw his 
motion. Brother McNamara withdrew his motion and asked if seconder, 
Brother Holt, agreed to his withdrawing the motion, and Brother Holt agreed. 

Then you went on and it was withdrawn and the business went 
on as usual. What was it that was discussed between you and Mr. 
O'Eourke that made Mr. O'Rourke come back and tell Brother Mc- 
Namara to withdraw^ his motion and Brother McNamara withdrew 
it when it was a matter of such importance? 

Mr. Lacey. I refused to go on with the meeting, because I had 
already stated that appealing from my decision, that on an appeal 
I was going to rule the same as I did on the original motion. That 
explanation proved to them that they could appeal as often as they 
pleased but that they weren't going to move me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So behind the curtain in addition to discussing 
wdiether you were going to use machines or paper, you also discussed 
your position on thisi matter ? 

Mr. Lacey. I told O'Rourke, "Get that guj^ to withdraw his ap- 
peal." He was insisting that we go on with the meeting after I said 
I don't care whether you vote paper ballots or machines or anything 
else. Bear in mind, I have already explained I don't know anything 
about these machines. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I understand that. This other issue, of course, was 
of far greater importance as to whether these locals would be seated 
or not. 

Mr. Lacey. I was very much afraid that if the motion was on the 
floor for discussion, that they were going to vote, the meeting was 
going to vote. It was no rollcall vote. It was just a yea and nay. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you accomplished a great deal by getting John 
O'Rourke to have McNamara withdraw this ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4733 

Mr. Lacey. Definitely. 

Senator Mundt. The thing that influenced O'Rourke to agree with 
your position, as I understand it, was that you put it to him cold 
that either he agi'ee to get McNamara to withdraw liis motion, oi- 
you weren't going to call the meeting back to order? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. That is right. That is right. I was 
very fearful that I couldn't get away with the original motion — with 
the appeal as I got away witli the original motion. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, Lacey outbluft'ed O'Rourke at 
that particular conference. 

Mr. Lacey'. To say the least 

Senator Mundt, You were the weakest, but j'ou made it look 
strong and he backed down and you went ahead. 

Mr. Lacey. To say the least, the meeting wasn't a pleasant meeting. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Lacey. I wouldn't like to go through the same experience again. 
I don't think that I could phj'Sically stand it. 

Senator Mundt. Having heard j^ou talk before our committee, and 
having also seen Mr. O'Rourke, I am easilj' convinced that you could 
outtalk O'Rourke. I don't think there would be anv difficulty in 
that. 

Mr. Lacey. I don't think that is a hard thing to do. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then according to this telephone conversation, after 
this agreement was made, getting McNamara to withdraw his mo- 
tion, you met with Sam Goldstein within the following day or within 
the next day or so. 

Did you meet with Sam Goldstein ? 

Mr, Lacey. I may have. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with him early one morning? 

Mr, Lacey. Not according to that time that the}- got down there. 
Although, let me say this : I am an early riser. I am out every morn- 
ing at 8 o'clock, I open my office at 5. At a quarter to 6 — there is 
nothing funny about that, if you got to earn a living. 

At a quarter of 6 two of my agents come in who handle the dues 
that come in and assign extra men. We have quite a large extra 
hall. We have an excessive amount of members for the work that 
we have. 

They report every morning. We have an agreement wnth the em- 
ployers that they won't hire anybody if the}^ need extra men before 
they call our hall. That is why these men shape up. 

It is possible that I could have met him some morning because at 
the minimum I am there at 5 o'clock. But I don't remember this 
occasion of meeting him. I could have met him. I am not denying 
that I didn't meet him. 

Mr. IvENNEDY, And if you did meet him, you could have discussed 
this subject? 

Mr. Lacey. The only subject I could have discussed with him, as 
I do with practically 95 percent of the members of the organization, 
is disputes over jurisdiction which is one of the toughest things that 
we have not only in our local union and in the international union, 
■ but it is in labor organizations generally. It has been since the in- 
ception of organizations, 

89330— 57— pt. 12 16 



4734 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did you meet with ]Mr. Dio at all during this 
period of time ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You did not? 

Mr. Lacey, No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with him i 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None at all? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was interested in the outcome of 
this'^ 

Mr. Lacey. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Johnny Dio or Sam Goldstein, not anyone 
else, mentioned the sum of $10,000 to you ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir, at no time. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no money mentioned to you at all if you 
would withdraw from the race? 

Mr. Lacey. Well, they would get an answer and it would not be 
pleasant. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand, but was there any money mentioned 
at all? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir ; never. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you would be paid any sum of money if you 
would \yithdraw from the race? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did any of them try to talk you out of running for 
reelection? 

Mr. Lacey. None of them people ; no. 

Senator Mundt. Did O'Rourke? 

Mr. Lacey. I feel confident that I could beat O'Rourke if I run 
again, but I am not physically able to stay on the job and particularly 
not to go through what I have gone through in this last year. 

Senator Mundt. You ran for reelection and you were reelected after 
this controversy? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. In 1956 there was quite a heated election, and I 
won. 

Senator Mundt, Was O'Rourke your opponent in that election? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt, In 1957 did you not run ? 

Mr. Lacey, No, sir ; I declinecl to run. I declined to be a candidate. 

Senator Mundt, Did O'Rourke have any opposition in 1957? 

Mr, Lacey. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I called an executive board 
meeting of the joint council and informed tliem that I was not physi- 
cally able to run. But I assured them that if any one of them were 
to be a candidate, I would go down the line with them. Nobody 
^vanted to run. So I had a lot of support, huh ? 

Senator jNIundt, I was not here at the concluding session yesterday. 
Are you still in the labor movement in some position ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt, As an officer? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Of a local union? 

Mr, Lacey, Yes; I am still secretary-treasurer. I have been sec- 
retary-treasurer of that local since 1950. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4735 

Senator IMundt. So you retired from the office of the presidency- 



Mr. Lacey. Let me expLiin. If you will check up you will find that 
that local was 645, but then we had some difficulties with the inter- 
national union in 1920 re<^arding the establishment of a mortuary 
benefit, which was promised with an increase in dues. 

I was one of the floor leaders in increasing the dues from 15 to 30 
cents per capita and iiicidentally, recommending the increase of the 
officers 50 to 100 percent. I just don't remember wliich. 

After the convention, in the following December, when the consti- 
tution was supposedly to be changed, and the mortuary benefit in- 
stalled, we were informed tlien that it vras an inopportune time for 
the simple reason that the international union at tliat time Ijad only 
in its treasury approximately $650,000. 

If it is interesting to you for me to prove the reasons why we 
wanted the mortuary benefit, it was very hard collecting dues. We 
had to go around the street to meet the individual members. You 
always carried money in your pocket. You were physically jeopar- 
dized for somebody throwing a Maiy Ellen around you ajid taking 
whatever you had. 

We felt that if the individual member was negligent in paying his 
dues, somebody in the family, brothers, sisters, mother, father, would 
make it their business to pay their dues to get that death benefit. So 
it was sort of an inducement. 

We were very much disappointed wdien we didn't get it. As a mat- 
ter of fact, we ain't got it today. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. CRourke was elected when? Wlint time in 
1957 was he elected? 

Mr. Lacet. Sir? 

Senator Mundt. What time in 1957 was Mr. O'Rourke elected? 
Did he take office January 1 ? 

Mr. Lacet. No. My term of office didn't expire until February 
19,1957. 

Senator Mundt. So you were president up until February 19 and 
he has been president since? 

Mr. Lacet. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Have your relations as secretary-treasurer of your 
h)cal union been pleasant with joint council 16 and Mr. O'Rourke and 
l\is officials since that time or have they been unpleasant? 

Mr. Lacet. Has our what? 

Senator JMundt. Relations. 

Mr. Lacet. Well, we "hello." We pass the time of day and "how 
<are you feeling?"' 

Senator Mundt. There is no controversy remaining since you have 
stepped out ? 

^Ir. Lacet. I don't believe there was ever a controvers^y until this 
time. We liad our internal differences, but that came to a vote in an 
immediate meeting. 

Senator Mundt. There was some controversy, by reason of the fact 
they were trying to put in some phony locals with some phony dele- 
gates to vote you out of office, and you beat them. They did not do it. 

Mr. Lacet. I beat them after I had to prove to court that I beat 
them. If the 49 votes were to be counted, I was licked. There is no 
question about it. I protested those votes, and I protested some 16 
or 19 other votes. On the basis of that protest, they tried to rule me 



4736 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

out, anyway, and v, anted to take possession of the office. It neces- 
sitated me going to court. 

Senator Mundt. Right. So I was asking the (question whether — 
since upon your voluntary retirement the opposition who tried to 
throw you out fraudulently came into control — whether your relations 
and the relations of j-our union were now pleasant with these people 
who had tried and failed to throw you out by a fraudulent method. 

Mr. Lacey. I tliink that the local I represent is solidly entrenched 
and respected by all the other local unions, regardless of this election. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Chronologically, we were up 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Before we leaA'e tliat point, Mr. Lacey, how many 
members are there in the union that you represent? 

Mr. Lacey. Sir? 

Senator Mundt. Before Ave leave this part, how many members are 
there in the union which you represent now ? 

Mr. IvACey. Over 3,000, 

Senator Mundt. 3,000? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is it one of the bigger unions in tlie joint council ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Our local union and its jurisdictional question is not 
on a straight line. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Senator, it was a question that you asked me what my 
official position in the labor movement no\A' was as compared to the 
time of that election ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Lacey. I am still president of the Central Trades and Labor 
Council. I am still vice president of the State federation of lobar. 
I am still secretary-treasurer of local 816 and its business manager. 
I am chairman of the merger committee, representing the AFL from 
the central body, with the committee of the CIO which is watining 
for the results of the State action, of whicli I Avas one of the com- 
mitteemen, which has adopted it. 

Senator Mundt. Would these offices that you now liold luive any 
function in coimection with the efforts of the ethical practices com- 
mittee to remove from office some of the tj^pes of characters Avho have 
been before our connnittee taking the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Lacey. Are they in a position ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr, Lacey. To remove them ? 

Senator j\Iundt. Yes. 

Mr. Lacey. Well, I don't know. Each organization has its own 
established bylaws. 

Senator Mundt. What we are trying to find out is the way in 
which the ethical practices committee can operate to fulfill its an- 
nounced position of removing from office men who liold responsible 
labor positions and take the fifth amendment. Mr. Meany pointed 
out that at the top level tiiey cannot do it directly. They have to work 
Avitli the local level. My question to you vras whether tliis joint coun- 
cil tliat you mentioned that you are president of, and the offices that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4737 

you now hold, whether any of these have anything to do with hearing 
these ethical practices charges and removing those found giiilty. 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator Mitndt. You do not ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. We are only a subordinate to the CIO-AFL. 
However, I will say that this committee's work has done more than 
any committee would do in educating the man who pays the freight. 

Senator Mundt. He is the fellow we are interested in, and he is 
the fellow you are interested in. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman, xlll right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Coming up to where you had protested to the in- 
tei'national the seating of these phony locals, Geiger and four of the 
members of the executive board had appealed to the international to 
force you to seat the delegates of these locals. The locals themselves 
had written letters requesting to be seated. Those letters had been 
all sent out of local 649, which was Jolmny Dio's local, the chief 
local of Johnny Dio. Then came February 1, 1956, and Mr. Beck 
sent 3^ou a letter as to what his position was going to be on the 
matter; is that right? 

Mr. Lacey. I would like to see it. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you what purports to l>e the 
original letter of Mr. Beck to the president and officers of joint coun- 
'cil of teamsters No. 16, dated February Is 1956. 

I ask you to examine it and state if you received that letter and if 
you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You recognize the letter ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You received it ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 139. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 139" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. In that letter, Mr. Beck ruled that the six locals, 
and he did not include 275 — perhaps inadevertently, because that is 
the letter that had come in later on — he ruled that these locals should 
be seated in the New York joint council, did he not ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he also ruled that, as far as their votes, they 
slDuld be cast and put in a separate box and segregated? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that they should only be counted if they would 
a ffect the election ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. On February 14, 1956, there was an election held? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you won the election. You received 192 votes 
and John O'Eourke received 181 votes ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 



4738 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L^BOR FIELD 

Mr. Kexnedy. In dispute were these 49 votes which actually turned 
out to be 42 because only 42 of 49 were cast of the so-called phoney 
locals. Each local has seven votes, is that correct ? 

Mr. Lacey That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the phoney locals, f oi' one reasoii or another, in- 
stead of casting the 49 votes which they would be allowed to cast, onljr 
cast 42 votes and these were segregated ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You might not liave Iviiown it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. No, I think there were 49 votes cast. There was one- 
bundle that contained the 42, but in view of the lateness of that last 
one, it was particularly challenged and I believe it was put in another 
envelope and sealed. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were only 42 letters of credentials. Cast by 
these 7 locals there were only 42 votes. We o})ened the envelope. I 
do not think it had ever been opened before. We opened it and there- 
were only 42 votes in it. 

We only found 42 letters of credentials. 

Mr. Lacey. "^^T^ien the contestants and the seekers of office met, and 
we could not agree, then we came to the conclusion of appointing two 
from each side. We appointed two. 

This letter was referred to them. They went along with this letter. 
They had a representative by the name of Mr. Therian. These were 
deposited in a vault signed by these 5 with the understanding that 
under no consideration could anybody get them unless the 5 signatures 
were on the application. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, the point is there were 42 votes cast and 
they were segregated. You won the election 192 to 181. In addition 
to these votes that were segregated, the 42, which were the votes from 
the 7 phoney locals, there were IG other votes that were contested, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Lacey. Challenged, that's right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Challenged. So it was 192 to 181, 16 coniested and 
42 that were contested ? 

Mr. Lacey. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Beck appointed Mr. Buddy Graham of the 
international to determine whetlier these 16 should be counted, is that 
right ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they had a meeting which you felt was on toO' 
short notice to send down representatives? 

Mr. Lacey. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Graham had a meeting with representa- 
tives of Mr. eTohn O'Rourke and Mr. Graham ruled at that time that 
these 16 votes should be counted ? 

Mr. Lacey. Well, let me give you a picture in between that time. 

The two officers, election officers, that I appointed, could not be 
found. They were out of town. But the request for the meeting 
went to their office. Their office sent a telegram requesting a post- 
ponement. Short postponements were granted. 

All of a sudden an order came in, or a telegram caine in, that tliis 
is the time that the}' are holding the meeting. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4739 

I understand that one of the coinniittee of two that were repre- 
feenting me wrote a letter pleading for additional time. That was at 
this meeting that you referred to that they took action. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these people did not liave an opportunity to 
come down there and attend the meeting^ 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Ejennedy. And these 16 votes, Mr. Graham ruled that they 
should be counted. Among these 16 votes were the votes of local 445 
in Yonkers, Masielo, and Stickels. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had been convicted of extortion? As I 
understand it, they had not been sentenced at that time, had they ? 

Mr. Lacey. No. It was a pending sentence. I may be mistaken. 
They may have been sentenced and they were out on appeal at that 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is right. Those were some of the 
votes of the 16 protested. And Mr. Gordon, Abe Gordon, president 
of 805, a good friend of Johnny Dio 

Mr. Lacey. He was never seated until he came in Avith a credential. 
The council had gone on record that he don't be seated. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason that they opposed his seating was the 
fact that he owned a trucking company ? 

Mr. Lacey. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, there were 16 altogether that were con- 
tested ? 

Mr. Lacey. Challenged. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Graham ruled that they should be seated 
and Mr. Beck w^rote a letter ordering that tliey be seated and the votes 
counted. So that, then, gave the election to Mr. .John O'Ronrke, be- 
cause all 16 of those votes went to Mr. Q-Rourke, is that right ? 

Mr. Lacey. According to that letter ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would give the election to Mr. John O'Rourke 
at 197 to 192? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was not then necessary to count the 42 votes 
because John O'Rourke had won the election, according to the ruling 
of Dave Beck ? 

Mr. Lacey. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was at that time that you went in to try to get an 
injunction against the activities of the internati(mal in tliis matter? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Against the activities of counting either the 16 
votes or the so-called 42 votes ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the judge gave a preliminary injunction to you ?. 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was on May 12, 1956 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. He said that the 16 votes and the 42 votes wei*e 
invalid ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. sir. Are you referring to the decision of Judge 
Palmieri ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Yes. 



4740 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lacey. There was another judge that handled the matter, 
Judge Mullen, I think his name was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, on May 12, 1956 ? 

Mr. Lacey. That was the decision, that's right, after the trial or 
the hearing, whatever you call it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never went any further because subsequently you 
decided to withdraw from running for reelection in the year 1956 for 
the year 1957; is that rights 

Mr. Lacey. 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you announced your decision in 1956 that you 
would not run again ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that on January 3, 1957 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. It was January 1957. The nominations took place in 
January of 1957 for the election. 

Senator Mundt. At that time, Mr. Lacey, when the nominations 
occurred — I think it was January 3. 1957 — was this case still pending 
in court? Had it been finally adjudicated? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. I think that the decision of the court was in 
my favor and enjoined them from interfering with me and order 
them to pay me the money that they were withholding, my salary that 
they were withholding. 

Senator Mundt, That was a final adjudication ? 

Mr. Lacey. Sir? 

Senator Mundt. You talked about a preliminary decision of the 
judge. I wonder when it was finalized. Let me ask the lawyer if I 
may. 

Will you explain that ? 

Mr. Frankel. May I explain I was not the attorney of record at 
that time nor did I participate in that trial. But I am familiar with 
the record. 

The first injunction that Mr. Lacey is talking about was on a pre- 
liminary application to get a temporary restraining order. A hearing 
was then held for a temporary injunction, and, after an extended 
hearing, that motion was granted and an order entered granting the 
injunction. 

Senator Mundt. That was still a temporary ? 

Mr. Frankel. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Go ahead. 

Mr. Frankel. But, although an appeal was filed, it was never 
prosecuted. To all intents and purposes, that injunction remained 
and there was no further proceeding after that. 

Senator Mundt. That, I think, clears it up. So when Mr. Lacey 
made his announcement in 1957 that he was not going to run again, 
there was still an appeal pending which they had never prosecuted? 

Mr. Frankel. The appeal had been abandoned many months before. 

Senator Mundt. I see. Neither Mr. Lacey nor I are lawyers, so we 
liave to talk to lawyers to get the legal terms. 

In other words, there was a certain time in which they were per- 
mitted to activate their appeal and that period of grace had expired 
before January 1, 1957, is that right ? 

Mr. Frankel. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4741 

Senator Mundt. So in 1957 tliere was nothing they fould have done 
to reactivate the appeal ? 

Mr. Frankel. No ; not without leave of the court. 

Senator Mundt. Not without what ? 

Mr. Frankel. Leave of the court, permission of the court. To all 
intents and purposes, they had abandoned it. Mr. Lacey resumed 
his office. He conducted the affairs of the council from that fall until 
January of 1957. 

Senator Mundt. And had been paid his back salary over that 
period of time ? 

Mr. Frankel. That is correct. 

The Chairman. As we lawyers term it, they did not perfect their 
appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that despite the 
fact that this injunction was in effect on December 3, 1956, Mr. Dave 
Beck sent a telegram ordering the joint council 16 to seat these locals, 
on December 3, 1956. Is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. I believe so. I contacted my attorney who drafted me 
a letter to answer Mr. Beck, that we were not going to seat them, but 
if he insisted and prosecuted the endeavor in the telegram, that he was 
in violation of the court order. 

Mr. Kennedy. So once again, just prior to this election that was 
going to be held in 1957, this question of these plioney locals was 
raised again by Mr. Beck ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30. 

I am sorry we did not get through with you this morning. We will 
have to ask that you come back at that time if 3'ou can. 

(Wliereupon, at 1 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was recessed to reconvene at 2 : 30. ) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan 
and Mundt.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(Members present at the start of the afternoon session: Senators 
McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN T. LACEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
MAX H. FEANKEL— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. We were talking this morning about the fact that 
there was a temporary injunction against the seating of these dele- 
gates, the 16 plus the 42, and the counting of their votes, and then 
the fact that on December 3, 1956, a telegram was sent out over the 
name of Dave Beck requesting or ordering that these delegates be 
seated. 

I asked you if you were familiar with that, and you said yon 
were. 

The Chairman. I wonder if you could identify this copy of a tele- 
gi'am that has been referred to, which you received from Mr. Beck, 

(Document handed to witness.) 
. (The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



4742 IMPROPER ACTIVmEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Lacey. I do. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do identify it? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 140. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 140," for reference 
and is as follows:) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is to Martin T. Lacey, i)resident, joint council 
16: 

Locals 2G9, 258, 275, 284, 295, .3(52 of the luternational Brotherhood of Team- 
sters have notified me that, although requested to do so, joint council No. 16 
np to the present time has failed to accept and recognize these local xmions as 
affiliates of joint council No. 16 and has failed to recognize, accept and seat in 
joint council 16 their qualified delegates to that council. 

Each of the local unions above mentiuuL-d is a duly chartered local union 
affiliated with the international brotlierhood and each has been such a local 
for approximately a year. The v/ithholding by a joint council of recognition 
within that council to a duly chartered affiliated local union of the international 
brotherhood and the failure of a joint council to recognize or seat qualified 
delegates of that local union is contrary to the constitution of the international 
brotherhood. 

As general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and act- 
ing Tjursuant to the constitution of the international joint council No. 16 is 
therefore and herewith ordered to forthwith accept and recognize locals 269, 258, 
275, 284, 295, 302, and each of them as affiliates of joint '-ouncil No. 16 aod to 
forthwith recognize, accept and seat in joint coimcil No. 16 as delegates thereto, 
qualified delegates of each of the local unions above mentioned. It is further 
ordered that you, as an officer of joint council No. 16 take such steps as may be 
necessary to Ijring about immediate and full compliance by joint council No. 16 
with the terms of this order. 

Signed, "Dave Beck." 

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

Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Beck, or someone in his name, gave instruc- 
tions that these locals should, be seated, the delegates from these locals 
should be seated ; is that correct ? 

Mr, Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was despite the fact that at that present time 
there was an injunction from the court that these locals should not be 
seated ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, He ordered you to act contrary to the orders of the 
court? 

Mr. Lacey, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it not just about this time or shortly after 
this telegram was received, that you made the decision With these 
various factors against you that it would be better because of these 
matters not to run again for president of joint council 16 ? 

Mr, Lacey. Will you repeat that, please? 

Mr, Kennedy, Was it not around this time, around December 3, 
4, or 5, around this time that you received this telegram, that you 
made the decision that you would not run for president of joint 
council No. 16 ? 

Mr. Lacey. Around that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was not some of it based on the fact that you had 
received this telegram and that you felt you were going to go through 
this fight all over again ? 

Mr. Lacey. I intended to oo through the fight, but my illness pre- 
sented me from goine into the fijrht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4743 

Mr. Kennedy. It was your illness? 

Mr. Lacey. That definitely settled it, that I wouldn't run. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that if you went through with it, you 
•could win again? 

Mr. Lacey. I^ersonally, I think I could. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now at that time was there some discussions with 
Mr. John O'Rourke, or Mr. Hoii'a, or anyone else, regarding what 
financial arrangements would be made for you if you retired from the 
council as president? 

Mr. Lacey. None whatever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a discussion about a pension fund? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. From your local was there a discussion of a pension ? 

Mr. Lacey. Not from my local. My local union does not get me a 
pension. I get a pension from tlie Government. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand there was a discussion about a pen- 
sion or some financial aiTangement. There was none? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir; I received no salary from my own local union 
from the first day I was paid in joint council 16. When my salary 
ceased, although I held the oflice in 816, I wasn't being paid a salary, 
but when I went back in, my salary was paid by local 816. 

There were no other arrangements by anybody or suggested by 
anybody that there be a pension. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were no discussions about any financial ar- 
langements that were being made for you ? 

Mr. Lacey. None whatever. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just went from president of joint council 16 
back to your local ? 

Mr, Lacey. As secretary-treasurer, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And received a salary from your local ? 

Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was no discussion about any other finan- 
cial arrangements for you? 

]Mr. Lacey, None whatever. 

Mr. Kennedy. You decided to retire at that time because of ill 
health? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir ; and I so advised the board, the executive board 
of the council. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. John O'Rourke was then subsequent.lv 
elected president of joint council 16? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. * 

That was in February of 1957, 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. O'Rourke is also running as a vice president 
of fhe International Brotherhood of Teamsters; is he not? 

Mr. Lacey, Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, At the present time? 

Mr, Lacey, Yes, sir, 

]Mr. Kennedy. Is there anyone running against him ? 

Mr, Lacey. I believe so. As far as I know, I believe that Mr.^ 
Hickey is running for the position of vice president in this area. The 
New York area, I mean. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are supporting Mr. (3'Rourke, are you ? 

Mr. Lacey. I haven't been committed. My local union hasn't been 
committed, with the exception of a meeting that was called and my 



4744 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

local union committed themselves to support O'Rourke. He has been 
the only candidate put up. 

Mr. Kennedy. So in this election or this contest for vice president 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters you will be supporting 
John O'Rourke against Mr. Hickey in that; is that right? 

Mr. Lacey. Well, my local union went on record. What I am going 
to do at the actual election, I don't know as yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this contest that you had in the past with 
Mr. O'Rourke on the question of the presidency of joint council 16, the 
contest of 1955 and 1956, Mr. Hickey supported yon ; did he not? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I wish to ask 1 or 2 questions. 

Do you know who brouglit the pressure to bear on the international 
and its officers to cause them to take the position they did with regard 
to the issuing of charters to these phony locals, and trying to compel 
you to accept and seat them and count their votes? 

Mr. Lacey. That I don't know, because since my letter of December 
15, I have never received an answer. The only answer was the tele- 
gram of January 9, or thereabouts, signed by Brother Mohn. 

The Chairman. Obviously, it is so irregular and improper, the posi- 
tion and action taken bj^ the international officers, I do not know if 
there will be proof of it but I am persuaded some pressure was brought 
to bear on them from some source to cause them to do that. 

Mr. Lacey. It could be, without my knowledge, in the face of the 
letter of acknowledgment to our council of June 1954, that we would 
have the right to object to the charters and the international constitu- 
tion would allow the international to reverse us, but we would have to 
have a hearing on it. 

The Chair:man. I do not know whether you have any information 
on what pressure was exerted on the international office or not. 

Mr. Lacey. That I wouldn't know. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a couple of 
questions. 

Wei-e you out of the teamsters district council in New York when 
the so-called paper locals were taken in, actually, into the organiza- 
tion, before they had membership ? 

Mr. Lacey. Do you mean supposedly taken into the international 
union ? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 

Mr. Lacey. They have never been taken into joint council 16, not to 
this date. 

Senator McNamara. They have not? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. When they cast their votes, were they not 
taken in at that time ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. They were able to vote without ever becommg 
affiliated with district council 16 ? 

Mr. Lacey. Well, those votes that you refer to, I think, are the 42 
votes. 

Senator McNamara. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4745 

Mr. Lacey. No. They were impounded and put in a vault. Ac- 
cording to my belief, they are still impounded. 

Senator McNamara. The votes are one thing, but I was talking 
about whether or not these locals, the so-called paper locals, ever be- 
came affiliated with council 16. 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. They never did ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator JVIcNamara. As far as you know, they are still not mem- 
bers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lacey. I know they are not members. 

Senator McNamara. Then they are directly affiliated with the in- 
ternational ? They do not have any connection with the New York 
district council ? 

Mr. Lacey. According to the communications from the interna- 
tional union ; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. That is the situation as it is now ? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. They never became a part i 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lacey. There was only 1 local union of the total 7 that has 
been seated in the joint council. 

Senator McNamara. What one is that ? 

Mr. Lacey. 295. 

Senator McNamara. 295 did become officially a part of the joint 
council 16? 

Mr. Lacey. Now; yes, sir. 

But that went through tlie regular routine and its jurisdiction is on 
the charter itself. That is one of our principal objections. 

Senator McNamara. The committee has previous testimony that 
indicated that the paper locals were in some manner filled out with 
membership at a later date. Would you know about that ? 

Mr. Lacey. That I wouldn't know about. 

Senator McNamara. You did not have anything to do with that? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know that they were truly without 
membership in the early days of their existence? You do not, by 
your own knowledge ? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir ; nor by the council's knowledge. 

Senator McNam/VRa. I do not want you to answer anytliing that 
you do not know. * 

Mr. Lacey. No ; I do not know. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know Jimmy Hoifa? 

Mr. Lacey. I know Jimmy Hoffa. 

Senator jNIcNamara, Do you know liim personally ? 

Mr. Lacey. I have met him quite a few times. 

Senator McNamara. Did he visit you in New York about the af- 
fairs of the teamsters in New York? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. He never consulted with you about that? 

Mr. Lacey. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that is all. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedv? 



4746 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to make sure that the record was clear. 
Despite this telegram that was sent to joint council 16, those locals 
were not seated ? 
Mr. Lacey. No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say that, at the time this 
telegram was sent, on December 3, 1956, it was sent over the name of 
Mr, Dave Beck from Washington, D. C. Mr. Dave Beck was out of tlie 
country, so the telegram could not have been sent by him. 

The Chairman, We do not know, then, whether they got in touch 
with Mr. Beck while he was away and the telegram was sent at his 
direction or not ? We do not know ? 
Mr, Kennedy. We do not know. 
The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr, Kennedy. I might say, on one other matter, local 295, out of 
the seven phony locals, has been seated ? 
Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, The other six have not been seated ? 
Mr. Lacey. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy, And you and Mr, O'Rourke had this contest during 
this period of time, 1956, and you each had attorneys; is that correct? 
Mr, Lacey, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy. Was it decided by the joint council or your board 
that each one of your attorneys would be paid out of union funds ? 
Mr. Lacey, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, And each one of youi' attorneys got ])aid $24,0()(> 
apiece ? 
Mr, Lacey, Those are approximately the figures they got paid. 
Mr. Kennedy, So, $48,000 of union-member money was used to pay 
your own attorney and that of Mr, O'Rourke? 

Mr, Lacey, Yes, sir. Those are the amounts, approximately, 
Mr, Kennedy, Tliat was an agreement that you and Mr. O'Roiu-ke 
reached in connection with your atto)"neys? 

Mr, Lacey. Tliat all transpired thi'ough the attoi-nevs ami our 
executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. The attorneys reached tlial agreement, how much 
they would want to get paid, and tlien it was ratiiied by the joint 
council? 

Mr. Lacey. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ratified by (he joint couiic-il or by the execu- 
tive board? 

Mr. Lacey. Fii-st by tlie board and then bv tlie e(iu!>cil. 
Mr. Kennei>y. So it was about $48,000? ' 
Mr. Lacey. Yes, sir; about that amount. 

The Chairman. I do not imagine they had as much argument as 
you and Mr, O'Rourke had in arriving at a fee, 
Mr, Lacey, Much less. 

The Chairman, Is there anything further? 

Tlie Chair wishes to thank you very nnicli for your testimony and 
for your frankness, and your eifort to be of assistance to this com- 
mittee in carrying out its function and assignment. It has been very 
refreshing to hear a labor leader, occupying a high position, come 
in here from an area like that, that is infested with these racketeers 
and gangsters, to come in here and frankly and freely tell tliis com- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4747 

mittee the facts within your knowledge. In my book, sir, you are 
a credit to the labor movement. 

Mr. Lacey. Thank you. 

The Chairman. You may be excused. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Vice President Thomas Hickey, Internationul 
Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Ives, and 
McNamara.) 

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, an<l 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hickey. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS L. HICKEY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
GERARD F. TREANOR 

The Chairman. Be seated. Mr. Hickey, will you state your name, 
your place of residence, and your business or occupation? 

Mr. Hickey, My name is Thomas L. Hickey. I am sixth inter- 
national vice president of the teamsters union, and I am secretary- 
treasurer of local 8(J7, truckdrivers, New York. 

The Chairman. Would you give us your address ? 

Mr. Hickey. I live at 687 East 39th Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Hickey. I do, sir. 

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

Mr. Treanor. Gerard F. Treanor, 25 Louisiana Avenue NW., 
Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr, KJBNNEDY. Mr. Hickey, you have been in the teamsters how 
long ? 

Mr, Hickey, I have been a member of the teamsters since January 
of 1919, 

Mr, Kennedy. You came in as a truckdriver at that time ? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been with them ever since? 

Mr, Hickey, I have, 

Mr, Kennedy, How long have you been an officer of your local ? 

Mr. Hickey. Janutiry 1, 1937, 

Mr, Kennedy, About 20 j^ears, then ? 

Mr, Hickey, That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy, What office did you have at the beginning in 1937? 

Mr, Hickey. Secretary-treasurer of local 807, 

Mr, Kennedy, Local 807 has how many members ? 

Mr. Hickey. About 11,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the biggest local in New York ? 

Mr, Hickey, It is, 

Mr, Kennedy, Is it the biggest local in the country ? 

Mr. Hickey. No ; it is not the biggest in the country, but it is the 
largest truckdrivers' local in New York. 



4748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What area do you vrork? What area do you cover 
in your locals 

Mr. HicKEY. Metropolitan New York and the five boroughs. 

Mr, Kennedy. All the truckdrivers? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We don't have all of them, but we have the vast ma- 
jority of them. Some are involved in other local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. HicKEY. Some are members of other local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are also the sixth international vice president 
of the teamsters ? 

Mr. IIickey. That is correct. 

JN'Ir. Kennedy. When did you become that? 

]Mr. HicKEY. September 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that an elective post ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I was appointed by the late President Tobin, and 
was reelected in the Los Angeles convention in 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. And are you up for reelection ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I come up this next month at the convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any opposition to that position? 

Mr. HiCKEY. From what I understand, I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that Mr. O'Rourke? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy'. That is Mr. O'Eourke, who testified here yesterday 
and invoked the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Mr. KENNEDY^ He is your opposition for the sixth vice presidency 
of the teamsters. 

Mr. IIiCKEY, So far as I know. 

Mr. KENNEDY^ You held this position as president of local 807 in 
1952 and 1953? 

Mr. HicKEY'. Secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedys Secretary-treasurer. 

Were you familiar at that time with the activities of Mr. John 
Dioguardi in New York City? 

Mr. HiCKEY'. I knew very little about his activities except what I 
heard through the grapevine. 

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

Mr. Kennedy'. Were you familiar with the fact that he was at- 
tempting an organization of the taxicabs? 

Mr. HiCKEY'. I was on that score. I was well mformed there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what you heard about it, and 
vrhether you had any dealings with him at that time? I am think- 
ing particularly as of the end of 1952 and the beginning of 1953. 

Mr. HiCKEY'. Well, nobody seemed to pay any attention to taxi- 
cab drivers for a long while, and when I became the general organizer 
in that area I looked into the matter, and saw the need for organizing 
the cabdrivers. 

I began stirring up some interest among the cabdrivers. 

It was only a short time afterward when I understood there was 
a local 102 which was headed up by Mr. Dioguardi at that time, that 
he was also organizing cabdrivers. That was my first introduction 
to Mr. Dioguardi. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you attempting to organize them yourself at 
that time? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4749 

Mr. IItokey. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy, And he was also attempting to organize them? 

Mr. HicKEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, did you run into, or did your organizations run 
into, one another? 

JMr. Hickey. Not directly on a personal basis, but we used to get 
reports back at the meetings of the activities of local 102, and that is 
how I became — that is how I first picked up the acquaintanceship of 
Mr. Dioguardi. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Dio have a good reputation at that time? 

Mr. Hickey. We never really knew what he had. He professed 
to have a lot of members, but we never really knew. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about his reputation as a labor leader ? Were 
you familiar with tliat at all ? 

Mr. Hickey. Not as a labor leader, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. What steps did you take concerning Dio after you 
heard that he was active in the taxica.b tield, also? 

Mr. Hickey. I advised our organizers. We had about 200 volun- 
teer organizers that were working in the taxicab field. I advised 
them to pay no attention to the activities of 102. I said "Don't get 
into any conflict with them because we got enough trouble on our 
hands getting by these employers." 

But he never really amounted to any opposition as such in ouj" 
attempts to organize the cab drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he receiving any support from any teamster 
officials for his drive in opposition to your drive? 

Mr. HiciiEY. At that time he was not, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, did he? 

Mr. Hickey. I feel that afterward he might have got the partial 
support of some of the people, some of the activities we were engaged 
in. They may have had a chance to either support or not support us. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1953, did you attend some meetings that werj 
attended, or attend a meeting that was attended, by Mr. Johnny Dio 
and other teamster officials? 

Mr. Hickey. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that also attended by Mr. James Hoffa? 

Mr. Hickey. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in connection with the taxicab drive? 

Mr. Hickey. That was a meeting which, I think, was attempted to 
solve the jurisdiction of the taxicab drivers, as to whether the team- 
sters would take them over or 102 would get the charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. And tliat meeting was held at the Hampshire House 
in New York City ? 

Mr. Hickey. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, liad you understood by that time 
that Mr. Dio was being backed in his eliorts by jMr. James Hoffa? 

Mr, Hickey. Mr. Hoffa at that meeting asked Mr. Beck to give the 
charter to 102. 

Mr. Kennedy. And to Mr. John Dio ? 

Mr. Hickey. Well, Dio represented the local union at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, if the charter was given to local 102, it would 
be a teamster charter that would be granted to Johnny Dio, is that 
I'ight? 

f}r\'\;>f)—^'r rit. 12 17 



4750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And that is in 1953 at the meeting at the Hampshire 
House ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did l)io talk to the meeting as to what his posi- 
tion had been in the taxicab organizational drive ? 

Mr. HicKEY. He went on to tell that he had been engaged in this 
business for about a year or so, I believe, and that he had spent some- 
where around $200,000, and they were willing to spend $200,000 more 
if they could get a charter from the teamsters. This was either Dio 
or Doria who said this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doria was there, also ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Doria was there ; tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you express opposition to this ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I opposed them bitterly. There is no question about 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ? 

Mr. HiGKEY. I told them that the teamsters were well able to take 
care of the taxicab drivers, that they had been the forgotten man of 
the industry, and that we had an organization set up ; we had enough 
people working for the teamsters union to take care of their situation 
as it should be taken care of, and that we didn't need any help or 
advice from the UAW. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Hotfa say at this meeting? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Mr. Hotfa interceded for Mr. Dio, and indicated that 
the teamsters were in no position to organize them, that our etfoi'ts 
would not be as successful as 102''s efforts under Mr. Dio. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Why did he say Mr. Dio could do it better than the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, he went on to describe a tieup that was in effect 
at the time with one of the transportation companies there that Dio 
had pulled at the time Mr. Hoffa was in New York. It impressed 
Mr. Hoffa no end, the fact that he had this particular barn tied up 
at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what position did you take on that ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I took the position that that was just one of the things 
that happened, and it does happen. We do it ourselves. We tie up a 
barn for a couple of days over some grievance that we can't get 
adjudicated by the management, and then, after a couple of days, we 
put the men back to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that Mr. Dio's efforts had been success- 
ful in the taxicab drive that he was making in New York ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. They had no material — nothing was sliown there that 
proved that Mr. Dio had made any headway in organizing the cab- 
drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that Mr. Dio and Mr. Hoffa, prior 
to this time, were friends, and this was the basis of Mr. Hoffa's backing 
of Dio? 

Mr. HiCKEY. They had been friends before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was finally decided at that meeting? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, the meeting lasted several hours, and when it 
broke up Mr. Beck was to decide what he was going to do about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE Lu\BOR FIELD 4751 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there uny other meetings held during that 
jjeriod of time ? 

Mr. PIicKEY. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the meeting that was held down 
in Florida between Hoffa and Dio ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That must have liappened at the board meeting in 
February of that year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That must have happened at the board meeting in 
February. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of that meeting in Februaiy? 

Mr. Hickey. I was at the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Dio there then ? 

Mr. Hickey. Not at the meeting with Dio. I only met Dio once. 
That was at the Hampshire House. 

Mr. Kennedy. That Avas at the Hampshire House? 

Mr. PIickey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware tliat Dio had come down to Florida 
and met with Jiunny Hoft'a and Dave Beck at that time ? 

Mr. Hickey. Not until a long time afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of uny other meetings that were 
held during this period of time witli HoUa and Dio ? 

Mr. Hickey. No, sir ; I was not aware of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that they also met here in Washino-- 
ton, D. C. ? ^ *^ 

Mr. Hickey. I heard about that the last couple of days. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, prior to that time, you did not know it? 

Mr. Hickey. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, after the meeting at the Hampshire House, 
the decision was left up to Dave Beck ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us wliat happened then: what you 
heard next ? "^ 

Mr. Hickey. About a week or 10 days later, word came to me that 
the charter was to be left with me, and I was to continue to organize 
the cabdrivers in the city of New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that, initiallv. Beck Avas (mms 
tograntthecharterto Johnny Dio? " ^ 

Mr. Hickey. I never knew Mr. Beck's position on tlie matter until 
he hnaJly rendered a decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yoit were not familiar with that fact; tliat he Avas 
going to grant it to Jolmny Dio. and that Mr. Meanv met witli him 
and got him to cliange his mind ? 

Mr. Hickey. We had raised sucli a fuss up there that Meany had 
ordered the UAW to get out of tlie taxicab field, and I believe that 
was what promoted the meeting in the Hampshire House, where the 
matter Avas solved, Avhere the hearing M-as held that solved the entire 
matter. 

The Chairman. Was Mr. Beck present at the Hampshire Plouse 
meetme? 
.. Mr. Hickey. He Avas. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, folloAving the Hampshire House, Mr. Me;iny 
rendered a decision that the charter Avould remain Avith you, and that 
Mr. Johnny Dio Avould not receive the charter from the teamsters i' 



4752 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HiCKET. Mr. Beck did that. 

Mr. Kenintedy. Mr. Beck did ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there is no question that, at one period of time; 
namely, at the time that you held the meeting at the Plampshire 
House, there were efforts made by James Hoffa to get a teamster 
charter grant-ed to Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. PIicKEY. No question about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, in 1953 and 1954, did you have any 
dealings with Johnny Dio? 

Mr.HicKEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about the locals that he had 
operating in New York City ? 

Mr. HicKEY. What I knew was just hearsay. I had met some of 
the people who said that they were working for him or connected 
through the UAW, the various locals they had chartered. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any opposition from any of them, any 
of the places that you went into ? 

Mr. HicKEY. In one case we had some opposition from — I think ic 
was local 221. 

Mr. Kennedy. 224? Could you just outline briefly what tlie prob- 
lem was as far as 224 is concerned ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We organize 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. Seglin ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hickey. Seglin; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Seglin is one of those who has 
appeared before the committee and wlio lias taken the tiftli amer.d- 
ment. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Hickey. We organized a grou]^ known as the Happy Days 
Trucking Co., who done most of their work for the Revlon Cosmetic 
Co. We signed up every one of tlie drivers, and offered tlie coinj^auy 
a contract. Tlie local 224 immediately got into the picture aiid said 
they represented the men. We petitioned the board for a certifica- 
tion, which is the proper procedure. Finally it was worked out that 
we were under so much op])osition frojn local 224 that it was agreed 
that we would pull out of that job until — they said they had a con- 
tract — until such time as their contract expired, which was cloie 
to a year, and a year later we came back into tlie picture because of 
the fact tliat the men were thoroughly disgruntled with 224 and they 
would have nothing to do Avith them. 

But 224 had some sort of an agreement with the c.imprinr. T< 
finally wound up hj we went into court, they got an injunction, and 
Seglin presentecl me with the injunction. He served the injunction 
on me that was issued to the company by the court, and it finally wa;- 
settled tliat we would let them take the dues — ^all they were interested 
in was getting the dues for a certain period — and then we could have 
the job after that. 

A week or two before the time limit expired on the Happy Days 
contract with 224, the compan}^ transferred their operations, their 
Avarehouse operations and their trucking operations over to Jersey, 
'somewhere in the neighborhood of Bergen CouPity, and that was tiu^ 
^ast we had to do with that job. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4753 

1 understand the men have been transferred now to local 560 of 
the teamsters in Iloboken. 

Mr. Keknedy. So once again this is an example of local 224 officials 
having made an arrangement with management rather than with the 
employees ? 

Mr. lIicKEV. There was no doubt about that one. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You Came in and upset it, and the officials of 224 
finally made an agreement with you that they would get the dues 
and you would get the membership subsequently, is that right? 

]Mr. IIicKEY. That came down in the decision, I think, that was 
worked out by the lawyers. My main interest was getting these men 
in the Teamsters Union and out from the UAW. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Under the contract between 224 and the company, 
were there lower wages and less hours than would have been under 
the teamsters ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. About $25 a week less per week than we get for our 
men for compai'able service. 

The CHAiR:\tAN. Is that what you would term a very sw^eet sweet- 
heart contract ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We called it under the hat. 

The Chairman. Under the hat? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

JNIr. Kennedy. What generally was the reputation, going through 
1953 and 1954, of these UAW-AFL unions in New York City ? 

Mr. PTicKEY. There was no reputation as a general thing. We used 
to meet tliem as individuals. They would have a strike and ask us 
to support them. In most cases we didn't go along. 807 wouldn't go 
along with anything that smells of any illegitimate background. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it smell that way to you, these locals? 

Mr. HiCKEY. In most of the cases they did. In some of the cases 
we would support them and in some we wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. But generally you were not favorably impressed with 
their trade union? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We were always suspicious of anything that the UAW 
locals had anything to do with, due to our experience with them 
ourselves. 

]Mr. Kennedy. In 1954, Mr. Hickey, there were some negotiations 
that were taking i^lace regarding a contract of certain truckers? 

Mr. HicKEY. That was our general contract which expired August 
31, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Cotdd you tell the committee what happened in con- 
nection with that ? 

Mr. Hickey. We had always argued for an areawide agreement. 
There are about 6 or 7 local unions involved in the city of New York 
who compete with us for the same kind of work, and while the juris- 
diction is plainly ours they have parts of it and they have enough of 
it to be considered a sizable element in the industry. 

We had arranged an areawide committee, consisting of about 9 or 
10 locals. We took in Jersey in this particular setup, too. We had 
agreed on a joint resolution which would represent the wage scale and 
the various contracts for all the local unions. We had been going 
along pretty well on that for about 2 months, or 2 months and a half. 
We had the over-the-road fellows working with us, which was local 



4754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

707. We liad 560, 641, 617, lociil 478, local 807, local 445. Those 
const it iit'^d the majority of the local unions. 

We hadn't got too far with the employers, particularly the over- 
the-road fellows, who were hollering murder. We wanted a real 
sizable increase and they were averse to giving it to ns. So we got to 
a situation where the international union was advised. We keep them 
advised of our activities. They sent in a group of vice presidents from 
the rest of the country. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the one that took charge then? 

Mr. HicKEY. Well, they come in as a group. There was 4 or 5 of 
them from the West Coast, the Middle AYest, and other parts of the 
country. They sat down with us and tried to find out what was the 
tronble. 

The trouble was very evident. We weren't getting along. We 
weren't getting anywhere with them. We hadn't had even the wage 
increase offered to us ; not a dime. We were asking for somewhere in 
the neighborhood of about 50 cents an article plus other articles that 
go into the contract, and they wanted to know what they could do to 
help us along. 

Mr. Beck sent them in there, and that was the reason they came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Hoffa one of those who came in ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Mr. Hoffa was one of those vice presidents, that is 
true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently, he was the one that headed up 
the negotiations w^ith the truckers ? 

Mr. Hickey. When Mr. Hoffa come in. he assmiied, actually, full 
charge of the negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what was your position after that? 

Mr. Hickey. I was removed as chairman. I was acting as chair- 
man of the group. Shortly thereafter I was removed as chairman and 
Mr. O'Rourke was substituted for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then did you walk out of the negotiations at 
.that time ? 

Mr. Hickey. The local. Our local walked out. We walked out 
and signed a contract and settled for a quarter, for a quarter an hour. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Hoffa trying to settle for at that 

time ? 

Mr. Hickey. There was a contract that never was really presented 
which accounted for 18 cents the first year and 7 cents the second 

Mr. Kennedy. And you subsequently settled for 25 cents yourself ? 

Mr. Hickey. We walked out of the meeting and tied \\y> our jobs. 
Within 3 or 4 days we had the majority of them sigiied up for a 
quarter an hour plus the other details that went along with the 
contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. At these meetings that were taking place, did Mr. 
Dio attend the last one, or one of those that took place? 

Mr. Hickey. I never saw Mr. Dio at any of those meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did vou understand that he attended one of the 
meetings at the Henry Hudson Hotel ? 

Mr. Hickey. I wfis told he did. I didn't see him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told at that time Mv. Hoffa offered hun 
a job publicly in the teamsters union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4755 

Mr. HiCKEY. I believe that item appeared in the newspaper. That 
is the most I know about that. 

Mr, Kennedy. In the New York Times ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. The New York Times, I believe, they covered that. 

The Chairman. I hand you what appears to be a photostatic copy 
of a newspaper article, a New York Times article, of April 12, 1954. 
I ask you to examine it, particularly the last paragraph of the article, 
and see if that refreshes your memory about where you may have 
read of that incident. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HiCKE r. What is the question, sir, in regards to this ? 

The Chairman. Do you recognize that article? Is that the one 
you i-ead? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 141. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 141" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 4910.) 

The Chairman. Will you read the last paragraph of it, that part 
th;it is pertinent? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think there are a few lines above the last para- 
grapli. 

Mr. HiCKET. The days' events came to a curious end with the appearance 
on the second floor of the hotel where the negotiations took place of Mr. .Johnny 
Dioguardi, Johnny Dio, convicted garment-industry extortionist, who, until 
recently, had been a power in the United Automobile Workers, AFL. 

Dio warmly greeted Mr. Hoffa, the teamsters vice president from Detroit 
and asked to speak privately with him for 2 minutes and announced he was 
looking for a job. 

Mr. Hoffa, who appeared to know Dio well, said at that point. "Well you 
always know where you can get one." ' 

That is the end of that. 

The Chairman. That is the source of vour information as to what 
may have occurred ? 

Mr. HiCKET. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything of the activities of Mr. Dio 
during this period of 1954-55 ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No, outside of his activities in the cab industry previ- 
ous to that. ^ 

tT^?* I^^^^^'EDY. Did you understand during this period that ^Mr. 
Holfa was a friend of his, a close friend of his ^ 

Mr. HiCKEY. It wa"^ generally known that he and Hoffa were nretty 
good friends. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1955 these so-called phony locals received their 
charters. Were you aware at all prior to that time that the letters 
were rec-eived by the joint council, that these phony locals were in 
existence ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I had heard that there were going to be some charters 
issued. The reason I got that information is that some people came 
to me and asked me if I knew anything about it. 

I said, "No,-' I hadn't heard anything about it as yet, but if they 
,,are to be issued I will hear about it. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^^^ly did you tliink that you w^ould not hear about 
t-heni before they were issued? 



4756 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, the regular procedure there was. if you wanted 
to get a charter in the teamsters, you would apply either directly to 
the international union or to the general organizer in the area. 

They hadn't applied to me. I had no conception of what was going 
on. 

Mr. Kennedy. So when you heard from Mr. Lacey that these 
charters had been issued or that he had received letters requesting 
that these delegates from these various locals be seated, were you 
surprised ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I was more than surprised. I hadn't lieard anything 
about the creation of those local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it had been understood that you would be noti- 
fied prior to the time that the locals would be given charters in 
New York '( 

Mr. HiCKEY. It is the usual procedure to notify the general organ- 
izer in that area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee how you heard about 
it and what occurred? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I got a telephone call from Lacey, and Lacey wanted 
to know, "What's going on here?" He said, "I have a deal with the 
international union that they will notify the council if there is new 
charters to be issued in this area." He said, "I understand there 
have been six of them chartered and I don't know anything about it." 

So I told him he knew more about it than I did. I knew less about 
it than he did. I asked him to send me a copy of the letters that he 
had received to seat these local unions in joint council 16. 

That was my introduction to the paper locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you fuid anything out about them at that time 
after the letters came in ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No. The only information I got was from Lacey, 
when he would be contacting the international union. He couldn't 
find out too much and I found out less. 

Mr. KIennedy. Did you know where these people had come from 
that were the applicants on the charters, that were the officers on 
the charters ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We had some reason to believe they came from some 
of the UAW locals, because the numbers corresponded in some cases. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know who made the request that these 
charters be issued ? Did you know that that time ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No, I did not. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Have you found out since then ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I understand that Mr. Hoffa liad okayed those 
charters. 

Mr. Kennedy. That Mr. Hoffa had made the request that 
these charters be issued ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. He had some discussion with the international union 
on the granting of these cliarters long before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean before they were issued? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Before they were really issued. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to imply that it is your understand- 
ing that the idea of setting up these bogus locals originated with 
Hoffa? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is the way I found things to be later on. Not 
at that time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE Lx\BOR FIELD 4757 

The CiiAiKMAX. That is what you learned later? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kenxkdy. I want to give you a blank application for a 
charter. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hickey, I present to you what I am advised 
is an application for cliar-ter form whicli is used in making applica- 
tion for a charter. 

This is just the regular form, I believe. Will you examine it and 
identify it, and if I am correct as to what it is ? 

(A document was lianded to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hickey. That is the regular form of application for a charter. 

The CiiAiKMAX. That is the regular form of application that is 
used to make an application for a charter from the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Will you look on the reverse side of it and read 
the last paragraph, I believe ? 

Mr. Hickey (reading) : 

In cities or towns where there is already established a joint council of this 
international, such council must be given written advice of this charter applica- 
tion. 

The Chairman. That is a part of the application for a charter. 
In other words, in the application itself, it is recognized tliat where 
there is a joint council, that the joint council will be given notice ? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Was that procedure followed in the issuance of 
charters to these six locals? 

]Mr. Hickey. No. sir. 

The Chairman. Seven, I believe it is, finally. 

Mr. Hickey. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think or do you now believe that the in- 
ternational acted with propriety in issuing those charters without 
following the established procedures ? 

Mr. Hickey. I do not. 

The Chairman. Then do you think they entered into — apparently 
they did — a conspiracy wdth certain interests up there, the applicants 
for these charters, to issue the charters for the purpose of controlling 
the election in joint council 16 ? 

Mr. Hickey. Well, that was what the result was, yes, that is 
correct. * 

Tlie CHAiR:;vtA N'. That was apparent all the way through after you 
got acquainted with the situation? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

The CHAffiMAN. Do you think that is an improper practice for an 
international union to pursue? 

Mr, Hickey. I would say that is an incorrect practice, yes. 

The Chairman. You would say what ? 

Mr. Hickey. It is incorrect to do things in that fashion. 

The Chairman. In fact, it would be a little bit reprehensible, 
would it not ? 

Mr. Hickey. It would. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

That may be made exhibit No. 142. 



4758 IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 142" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever any question in your mind after you 
learned about these charters? Was there ever any question in your 
mind that they were charters for the purpose of swinging the elec- 
tion in New York ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I think that is the principle factor that came out of 
that deal. The election was coming on and everybody knew about 

it. 

These 6 or 7 charters would certainly be a deciding factor. 

The Chairman. xVfter the charters were issued, after you knew 
about them, did you ever get information as to who the applicants 
for the various charters were ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We tried to dope that out from the names that were 
listed to be seated in the joint council as delegates, and we could not 
place too many of them. I do not think we placed any of them, just 
as to who they were. 

The Chairman. You did not know at that time, then, as it has later 
developed, that many of them were already ex-convicts and convicted 
of crimes? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We learned that later. 

The Chairman. You learned that later. Initially, you did not 
know that ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No, sir. 

Mr. ICennedy. You took an active part in 1956 in supporting Mar- 
tin Lacey ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I supported him all the way. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in the election. Now, during this period 
1956 and prior to that in 1955, had Mr. Hoffa been attempting to get 
rid of you in New York City ? 

Was he looked upon as being unfriendly to you? Did you look 
upon him as being unfriendly ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I might say that the situation was very unfriendly 
between Mr. Hoffa and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he was making some long- 
range plans to try to get rid of you in New York City ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I believe that was the case. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you know that during this period of time he 
was carrying on conversations with Mr. Dio toward trying to get rid 
of you as an influence in New York City ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I wouldn't know about his conversations with Dio re- 
garding myself. 

Mr. Kennedy, But you knew during this period that he was anx- 
ious to get rid of you as an important factor in teamster affairs in 
New York City ? 

Mr, HiCKEY. I would say so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you expect that in the election that is coming 
up for the presidency, he will oppose you ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I believe he will. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And that you, right from the beginning in New 
York City, were opposed to Mr. Johnny Dio, isn't that correct? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is so. 

Mr, Kennedy. And opposed to bringing him into the teamsters 
union, opposed to having him granted a charter in New York City? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE lABOR FIELD 4759 

Mr. IIiCKEY. I was opposed to issuing charters to anybody of ill 
repute who would bring the international into what is known as dis- 
repute with the general public in the city of New York. 

The CiiAiRiMAN. Was Dio in ill repute at that time ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. It would seem to be that was the position he held at 
the time. 

The Chairman. That was the position he held at the time. Are 
you sure that was known to Mr. Hotfa ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Mr. Iloffa could have found it out easily enough. 

The Chairman. In other words, you do not know how he could 
have escaped notice of it ? 

Mr. IIicKEY. I doubt that very much. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hickey, how long did you say you had been 
in the teamsters? 

Mr. Hickey. As a member ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hickey. January 1919. 

Senator Kennedy. What did you start off as ? 

Mr. Hickey. A truckdriver. 

Senator Kennedy. Then how long before you were an officer of 
the local ? 

Mr. Hickey. I was elected in December, 1936 as secretary -treasurer 
of the local 807. 

Senator Kennedy. And when were you elected president of your 
local? 

Mr. Hickey. I took office in January 1937. 

Senator Kennedy. When were you elected international organizer? 

Mr. Hickey. December 1951. 

Senator Kennedy. And you have not been up for reelection since 
then as international organizer ? 

Mr. Hickey. I came up for election in 1952. 

Senator Kennedy. Then what ? 

Mr. Hickey. I was tlie only one who was contested at the election. 

Senator Kennedy. The 1952 election ? 

Mr. Hickey. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Who ran against you then ? 

Mr. Hickey. O'Kourke. 

Senator Ivennedy. That was at the national convention? 

Mr. Hickey. That's right. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you come up for election again ? 

Mr. Hickey. I come up in September of this vear, September of 
1957. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. O'Rourke is running against you? 

Mr. Hickey. I believe he is going to be my opponent. 

Senator Kennedy. In your local union, how often do you come up 
for election ? 

Mr. Hickey. Every 3 years. 

Senator Kennedy. Were you contested in your own local? 

Mr. Hickey. We always get a contest in our local. 

Senator Kennedy. When did you come up again ? 

JNIr. Hickey. This December. 

Senator Kennedy. Has there been any effort made by those op- 
posed to you to support opposition to you in your own local? 



4760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HiCKET. I believe in the last election in 1954 they went all out 
to^et rid of me in local 807 as secretary-treasurer. 

.'Senator Kennedy. Who are "they"'? 

Mr. HiCKEY. The people with whom we don't cooperate. I would 
be here all day if I was to tell you who "they" are. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdreAv from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Kennedy. "\'\'lien you say not cooperating, do you mean the 
people within the local or people from outside the local? 

Mr. Hickey. All outside influences. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. O'Rourke and Mr. Hoffa, are they coimected 
with it in your opinion? 

Mr. Hickey. Mr. O'Rourke was. I don't know what part Mr. 
HoiFa played in that election. 

Senator Kennedy. You came up for reelection as international 
organizer in September and reelection as secretary-treasurer of your 
local union in December ? 

Mr. Hickey. I come up for reelection as secretary-treasurer the 
first week of December in this year, 1957. 

Senator Kennedy. I want to say Mr. Hickey 's reputation has 
alwaj's been the highest. I think it is men like him who have brought 
the teamsters up and maintained their reputation in tlie country, 
prior to the present difficulties. 

I think it is with the influence of men like him that the teamsters 
will win back the public support, wliich I hope they will do in the next 
few months and which I am sure is the ambition of most teamsters 
and, I am sure, is the ambition of Mr. Meany and tiie leaders of the 
AFL and CIO. 

Mr. Hickey. It has gotten me into a lot of trouble. 

'Senator Kennedy. Opposing these groups? 

Mr. Hickey. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, I think you have performed a service to 
the union and to the public. 

Senator McNamara. I would like to ask the witness a question, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. Hickey, you mentioned a tieup in relation to affairs that were 
discussed at the Hampshire House meeting, Dio had a tieup. "^Vliat 
do you mean by that ? A strike ? 

Mr. Hickey. He had a branch of the taxicab industry shut down 
at that particular time. 

Senator McNaimara. What branch of the taxicab industry ? Do you 
remember ? 

Mr. Hickey. I believe it was the National Transportation. 

Senator McNaimara. Are they a substantial portion of the taxicab 
industry in New York ? 

Mr. Hickey. They are one of the biggest. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat? 

Mr. Hickey. They are one of the biggest. 

Senator McNamara. And he had them completely shu.t down? 

Mr. Hickey. No. They may have 8 or 10 branches, and he had 

Senator McNamara. What was — pardon? 

Mr. Hickey. And lie had a branch with garages somewhere in New 
York, around 60th Street, shut down at the time over some dispute 
they had with management. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4761 

Senator McNamara. And it appeared that he had an organization 
of rabdrivers, and that he had control over it? 

Mr. HiOKF.Y. It was to show the company that he represented the 
cabdrivers. 

Senator McNamara. Was that his first activity in organized hibor 
as far as you know ? 

Mr. HicKEY. No. I wouldn't know, I wouldn't know too much 
about his background earlier than that. 

Senator IVIcXamara. That is the first you know about him us far 
as labor movement is concerned ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Yes. 

Senator McNamar^v. You indicated that he had a bad reputation 
generally at that time ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. If you were to read the newspaper, Dio was very 
prominent at the time. 

Senator McXamara. He had been convicted prior to that time for 
something? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Yes ; he had been convicted for something in the gar- 
ment industry previous to that. 

Senatoi- McNamara. But not connected with organized labor? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I don't know what tluit was all aljout. 

Senator McNamara. And you do think he might have been con- 
nected with organized labor prior to that time; is that it? 

Mr. HiCKEY. In some fashion, yes. 

Senator ]McNamara. The committee has had no indication of that 
up to now. His activities have been in the management end of the 
business up to that time. 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, I had read tliat in the newspaper. That is the 
only information I have on that. 

Senator McNamara. Wliat was the j)urpose of the meeting at the 
Hampshire House? 

Mr. HiCKEY. To settle a disi)ute between the UAW and the IBT 
over who was going to run the cabdrivers. 

Senator McNamara, Who presided at the meeting? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I don't think anybody jn-esided. It was just an in- 
formal gathering. 

Senator McNamara. Just a few people there? 

Mr. HiCKEY. There was aljont 7 or 8 people. 

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

Senator McNamara. You were representing who at that meeting? 
your local ? * 

Mr. PIicKEY. I was representing in the main the taxicabdrivers in 
tlje city of New York. I i-epresented that point of view. 

Senator McNamara. But 3"ou were there in official representation 
of some outfit ; weren't you ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, I am the trustee of the cabdrivers in the city 
of New Yo7-k, local 826. 

Senator McNamara. Did you have a substantial number of the 
cabdrivers organized at the time of the meeting at the Hampshire 
House ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We didn't have them organized in the fashion tluit 
we generally accepted as being organized. We had them signed u[) 
through ap})lication cards. We have about 18,000 of them signed 



4762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

up now. They represent a sizeal)le juiiount of people in the city of 
New York. 

Senator McNamara. But at this time yon didn't Jiave tlieni actntilly 
under organization to that degree? 

Mr. HiCKET. We don't have them under that agreement yet. 

Senator McNamara. That is a peculiar thing. How do 3'^()n repre- 
sent them if they are not in your organization ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. You represent a man as soon as lie signs an application 
card saying he becomes a member of local 82G aji<l authorizes vou to 
repi'esent him. 

Senator McNamara. Does he pay dues ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. He pays an initation fee. In this particular case we 
didn't collect any dues off many of them. We have about hve or six 
hundred that continue to pay dues even now, with no contract. 

Senator McNamara. And this was just a small group of people, and 
Dave Beck was there, and Dio, and yourself and Hotfa. They were 
not official representatives of anything, then, apparently? It was a 
loose-knit outlit. How did they get together? 

Mr. HiCKEv. It was an impromptu meeting. I think it was called 
by Beck. 
' Senator McNamara. Beck invited Dio, in your estimation? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, I was told to be there. 

Senator McNamara. You were instructed to be there by Beck? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. How did Dio get there? Do you Imow? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That I don't know. I didn't know who I was going 
to meet at the meeting myself, until we got there. 

Senator McNamara. It is a very unusual procedure; is it not? 

Mr. HicKEY. No ; it happens like that. 

Senator McNamara. Impromptu, did you say? 

Mr. HiCKEY. It was impromptu : yes. 

Senator McNamara. What does that mean, in your estimation? 

Mr. HiCKEY. On the si^ur of the moment. 

Senator McNamara. Did they just happen to meet? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No. 

Senator McNamara. Was it arranged? 

Mr. HiCKEY. It was arranged. 

Senator McNamara. Then it wasn't impromptu but it was arranged. 

Mr. HicKEY. So far as I was concerned, it was impromptu. 

Senator McNamara. You were instructed to be there? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Senator McNainiara. Apparently it was planned and you were in- 
structed to be there by your superior. 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. I don't understand what you mean by it being 
"impromptu." It was a planned meeting. You wei'c instructed to be 
there by your superior ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. The purpose was to try to do something about 
organizing the taxicab drivers? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. At that time you liad very little organization 
in the industry? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We were just getting going at that time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4763 

Senator McNamara. Just starting? -^ 

Mr. HiCKET. That is right. 

Senator McXamara. You now have them substantially organized? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We have better than 18,000 members signed up out of 
about 30,000, and right now we are before the board in New York. 
We have been in there since September trying to get the jurisdiction 
between the two boards straightened out so we can go to work. 

Senator McNamara. Is there an employers organization that you 
deal with ? 

Mr. HicKEY. There is. Several employers organizations. 

Senator McNamara. They don't have a joint organization that you 
can deal with all the cab owners in the city of New York? 

Mr. PIiCKEY. What we are trying to do now is get a citywide elec- 
tion for all the cabdrivers, whetlier they work for 1, 2, o, or 4 com- 
panies, no matter who they Avork for. 

Senator McNamara. You haven't negotiated with management as 
3'et, then ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No, we have not. 

Senator McNamara. You don't have any working agreement? 

Mr. HiCKEY. We have no working agreement at the present time. 

Senator McNamara. You haven't been able to improAe the condi- 
tions of the workers very much up to now ? 

Mr. HiCKEY^. We took the question up with the Governor, Governor 
Harriman. We took it up with Mayor Wagner, and told him what 
his responsibility was in regards to taxicabs, because with 35,000 taxi- 
cab drivers running around the city of New York, taxicabs play an 
important featui-e in the transportation setup. 

We told him we had a meeting in January of 1957 in Manhattan 
Center, and we had about 10,000 people who came to that meeting, and 
they voted strike. Well, we know better than to pull a strike unless 
we are prepared for it. We talked them out of it and went down to 
see the mayor and the police commissioner and explained to him what 
our position was. We wanted his help, his advice; his help in par- 
ticular. He referred us to the mayor. 

We immediately got in touch with tlie nuiyor and lie brought the 
police commissioner in and the ditlerent functionaries in the city of 
New York, and they advised us to go before the board and hold an 
election, an NLRB or State board election, and become the bargaining 
representative of these drivers, which we have attempted to do since 
last September, and which is held up now because of some fight be- 
tween NLRB and tlie State board over who has jurisdiction. 

Now if is their jurisdiction; not ours. So we are in a bit of a spot 
right now. 

Senator McNamara. You. Jiowever, feel that you are on the verge 
of organizing the cabdrivers ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. There is no doubt about it. 

Senator McNamara. Tliat is, into a legitimate trade-union organi- 
zation, 

Mr. HiCKEY. The best union they can get. 

Senator McNamara, Well, you might get an argument on that. 

Mr. HiCKEY. We think at least it is the best union they can get, 
where they will be able to run their own affairs. 

Senator McNamara. Did Dio's outfit do any good for the cabdrivers 
at ail? Did he get them any improved working conditions or wages? 



4764 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 

Mr. HiCKEY. No. The only thing that has happened in New York 
recently is an increase in fare that tlie employers got. But the drivers 
got little or nothing out of that. 

Senator McNamara. Do vou think that was likelv through Dio's 
efforts? 

Mr. IIiCKEY. No. The people who are now members of local 826 
of the teamsters opposed the increase in fare without an iiun-ease to the 
drivers. 

Senator McNamara. How could you oppose it? You didn't have 
the organization to deal with it. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I say the people who are now members of local 826 
of the teamsters were very active in opposing the city fathers from 
granting them an increase. 

Senator McNamara. How could they oppose it? They didn't have 
any organization. 

Mr. HiCKEY. They opposed it whether they had an organization or 
not. 

Senator McNamara. Individually, I suppose ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. A public hearing. 

Senator McNamara. They appeared before a public hearing held 
by whom ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. By the niaj'or. He has control over taxicabs. 

Senator McNamara. Then individual cabdrivers appeared and 
opposed it ; is that right ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. You indicate that prior to the Hampshire 
House meeting, in your estimation, Hoffa and Dio were friends. I 
am sure the committee is interested in that. 

How friendly were they ? What do you know about their friend- 
ship? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I know that they were friends. To what degree, I 
couldn't very well 

Senator McNamara. Were they visitors to each other's homes? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I wouldn't know anything about that. 

Senator McNamara. What do you mean by saying they were 
friends ? You must have something in mind. 

Mr. Hjckey. Well, they knew one another. 

Senator McNamara. They were acquaintances? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Yes, acquaintances. They knew one another. They 
had met one another. I supposed they talked to each other about 
different matters. 

Senator McNamara. What you are talking about, then, generally, 
is that they were acquaintances rather than friends; is that right? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. The prior answer that you gave was that they 
were friends. I wondered how you determined the friendship, 
whether they were buddies or visited back and forth. 

Mr. HiCKEY. Many people connected with labor might meet people 
at conventions and meetings and things like that, and may strike up 
a speaking acquaintance and see each other from time to time. 

Senator McNamara. We established prior in the conversation be- 
tween you and me that this was in the early days of Dio's association 
with organized labor ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. It went back previous to 1953. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4765 

Senator McNamara. But not much, however ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That I wouldn't knoAv. 

Senator McXamara. You talk about labor conventions. They don't 
occur every week or something like that. 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, every year we have meetings. 

Senator McXamara. I think we have established that you feel now 
you do not know too much about this friendship. You mentioned 
the friendship, but what you meant was that you knew of an ac- 
quaintanceship ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. Why should Hoffa try to get rid of you as an 
international vice president ? Actually, you were the sixth interna- 
tional vice president ? 

Mr. HicKEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. He was the ninth. That indicates that you 
were a national vice president before he became one, does it not ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. HolTa became an international vice president at the 
convention in 1952. 

Senator McNamara. And you became one in 1951 ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I became a vice president by appointment of Dan 
Tobin in 1951. 

Senator McNamara. So when you get back to the Dan Tobin days, 
Dan appointed you, so it indicated that you had a close working re- 
lationship with Dan Tobin. 

Mr. HiCKEY. Very friendly. 

Senator McNamara. Hofia seemed to have the same relationship, 
did he not ? 

Mr. HiCKEY, I wouldn't know what Hoffa's relationship was with 
Tobin. 

Senator McNamara. If you attended many conventions, with Hoffa 
and Tobin, they seemed to get along, did they not ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, there was no other reason to believe but what 
Hoffa was friendly, beina; a fact in the Middle West. 

Senator McNamara. Then w^hy should Hoffa try to get rid of you 
as vice })resident ? Can you make that clear to the committee? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I really don't know, except that him and I didn't see 
eye to eye on how things should be done. 

The 1954 areawide committee broke up and I helped to break it up, 
because we didn't want to take anv contract from anybody that was 
originated in the Middle West and come into New York City and say 
"Here it is. You take this or else." 

We wouldn't take it and we walked out. 

Senator McNamara. I think I know what you mean. 

Senator Ives feels that way about people from the Middle West, 
too. It seems to be a feeling of New Yorkers, generally. 

When you leave New York, you are just camping out, 

Mr, HicKEY, You are camping out. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. Well, that is kind of a natural reaction. 

There must have been more of a basis than that to the feeling be- 
tween you and Hoffa that he wanted to get rid of you. He would 
not want to get rid of you for that, would he? That is sort of an 
accepted thing by people generally. 



89330 — 57 — pt. 12- 



4766 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You do not know of anything beyond that? It was just this feel- 
ing that you did not want to let tlieni so-and-so's from the ivlidwest 
handle your alfairs in the East? 

I am from the Midwest, incidentally. 

Mr. HiCKEY. We have a local union and we have people that pay 
dues, to represent them. They have paid us dues for a long while 
and they want us to represent them. 

"Wlien they don't want us in there, they will vote us out. 

Senator MrXv^iAiiA. What is your scale in New York for a truck- 
driver? 

Mr. HiCKET. It runs from $100 a week for a tractor-trailer driver 
down t-o about $89 for a helper and about $92 a week for a straight 
truckdriver. 

Senator McNamara. How does that compare with the wage scale 
of truckdrivers in the Detroit area ? 

Mr. HicKKA'. I believe our scale is higher. 

I am talking now about the general trucking. 

Senator McNabiaka. I am talking about truckdrivers as such. 
You cover the entire field of truckdrivers, do you not? 

Mr. IIicKEY. That is right. We have just the general trucking. 

Senator McNamara, What is the number of the local that covers 
the building trades, the building service ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. 282 has building supplies. 

Senator McNamara. 282? 

Mr. HiciCEY. Yes. That is O'Eourke's local. 

Senator McNamara. And this was Lacey's local ? 

Ml'. HicKEY. And then there is I^acey's local that has part of gen- 
eral trucking, too. 

Senator McNajiara. Mr. Hickey, as secretary-treasurer of local 
807, that is a paid job, is it not? 

Mr. HrcKEY. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You are not paid a salary? 

Mr. HiCKEY. T get no money from local 807, no salary. 

Senator McNamara, You are an unpaid local official ? Your main 
job is vice president 

Mr. Hickey. No; my main job is organizer for the teamsters. I 
get paid for that job only. I get nothing for being vice president. 

Senator McNamara. You are representing the president of the 
teamsters international in the area? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. ^^lat is your relationship with district coun- 
cil No. 16? Are you a delegate, or do yon have any official position? 

Mr. Hickey. No; I am a delegate to the council by virtue of being 
secret ary-trea.'^urer to local 807. 

Senator McNa:mara. All the officers are automatically delegates? 

Mr. Hickey. No ; the executive officers, the executive board of each 
local union, which is 7 in number, are seated in the council, and have 
a right to participate in the discussion and vote. We have 6 busi- 
n&'^s agents in 807. They are members of the council, but they have 
i:0 right to vote. They can enter the discussion, but they can't vote. 

Senator McNamara. You are a full delegate and these others are 
soi't of partial delegates and have a right to be there without the right 
to vote? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR TIELD 4767 

Senator McNamaea. And their presence is there because they work 
^together or cooperate with each other m the overall job? 

Mr. HiCKET. That is about it. 

Senator McNamara. Do you get a salary as vice president of the 
teamsters, or just expenses? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I get no salary or expenses as vice president of the 
teamsters. 

Senator McNamaka. Of the international ? 

i\Ir. HiCKEY. No, sir. 

Senator McNamaka. This is more or less of an honorary job, too? 

Mr. HiCKEY'. That is correct. 

Senator McNamaka. But you are a vice president. Are all inter- 
national organizers vice presidents? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No, sir. Only two. 

Senator McNamara. Then you are, incidentally, a vice president, 
and your main job, the paid job, is general organizer? 

Mr. HiCKEY, General organizer. 

Senator McNaiiiara. How many general organizei-s do you have in 
New Yoric City ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. In New York City ? One. 

Senator McNamara. Just one. Then all of the teamster activities 
come mider your jurisdiction? 

]\Ir. HiCKEY'. They come mider my surveillance, at least. 

Senator Mq^^AMA.ka- And you, actually, are the representative of 
the president of the teamsters union, whoever he is, Dave Beck being 
the president now? 

Mr. HiCKEY'. In New York City ; that is right. 

Senator McNamara. What you do, you do through your authority 
that is vested in you from the president ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. And I am accountable to him. 

Senator McNamara. To him. Then, in every respect, you repre- 
sent him in the are-a ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is true. 

Senator McNamara. And your acts are his acts ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is so. 

Senator McNamara. Despite all of this, you did not know about 
the so-called improper locals? I understand the papermakers do 
not want us to call them paper locals. Let us call them the locals in 
question here. 

M)". HiCKEY. I never discussed that wnth Mr. Beck at all. 

Seiuitor McNam\ra. But you are his agent? 

Mr. HiCKEY. 1 was. 

Senator McNamara. And what you did, he did in that area through 
you ; is that true? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Generally, yes. 

Senator McNamara. This is a surprising thing. You would think 
that when he took these acts, which indicated lack of confidence in 
you, he would iiave reproved you. 

Mr. HfCKEY. He could have, if he wanted to. 

Senator McNamara. He had the authority. All he had to say 
was, "you are no longer my representative. You are out." 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. How come he deals around you instead of 
"taking you out ? 



4768 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L^BOR FIELD 

Mr. MiCKFA'. My relationship Avitli Mr. Beck at all times lias beeir 
very friendly. While we disagreed on this or that, it never got to the 
point where we had a real falling out. I found him to be always 
decent. 1 never had any problem with Beck. If I took the position, 
whether he supported me or not, he never called me to tasj<: for doing 
what T done. 

Senator McNamara. How do you account for him dealing around 
you in the issuance of the charter? 

Mr. HicKEY. That, I don't understarid. That is one of the lui- 
fathomed mysteries. 

Senator McNamara. But you protested to hini ( 

Mr. HiCKEY. Sure, I did. 

Senator McNamara. I agree with you. I cannot understand. He 
has a man in here representing him. Everything he does, this man 
does, in his name, and then he deals around you and goes to whom? 
AVhom did he give tlie charters to ( Some individual ( 

Mr. HicKEY. He have the charters ro tlie people who applied for 
them. 

Senator McNamara. They applied through you ? 

Mr. HicKEY. No. They applied through the international union,, 
and the charters were issued in the iiiunes of the people who applied 
for the charters. 

Senator McNamara. You were not con.-ulted at all ( 

Mr. HicKEY. At no time. 

Senator McNamara. Were thei-e othei- charters issued in this same 
manner, besides this group? 

Mr. HicKEY. Not in my time. Noi since I iiave l>een general 
organizer. 

Senator McNamara. On tins chart oAer liei-e, the yellowish squares 
indicate locals of the United Automobile Workers. AFL, as I under- 
stand it, local 102 was being discussed here this aftei-jioon as one of 
Dio's locals, as were some of tlie others. Am 1 correct in understand- 
ing that these locals all wound up more or less in 649? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I don't know wliat liap)>ened. to any of tlie local 
unions, but I am responsible for chartering one local union there, '2-^. 

Senator McNamara. Which one? 

Mr. HicKEY. 239. It is a teamster local. 

Senator McNamara. 239? I don't see that. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not on the chart. 

Ml'. HicKEY. It is over on this other chart. 

Senator McNamail\. I never saw that one before. 'J'hat is indicated 
as a puppet union. You claim you are responsible for that ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That is one of the legitimate teamsters unions at the 
present time. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know what puppet means at this 
time ? 

Mr. HicKEY. Well, satellite oi- whatever you want to call them. 

Senator McNamara. Would this mean that they are in trusteeship? 

Mr. IIicKEY. No. 239 was never in trusteeship. 239 — Goldstein 
came to me about 2i/^ years ago and applied to me for a charter. I 
discussed the matter with him at length. I said to him, "Do you 
belong to the UAW now?" He said, ''Yes, but I don't cooperate' ac- 
tively with the UAW. I want to c'et out of there.'" 



IMPROPER ACTrv^rrrES in the labor field 4769 

I sensed a feeling that he felt that IIAW was crumbling and lie 
Avanted to get a home. So I checked with some more people who I 
knew knew liim, or knew of liis activities, and they recommended him 
to me. 

I wrote out one of those applications, sent one to the international 
nnd one to the council, and had to light Mr. Lacey to get him seated 
in the council. 

The only reason I got involved with 239 was the fact that we have 
a local union in the teamsters that has been in there for years, and 
they have the same jurisdiction that 239 has. They weren't doing 
anything about organizing these mechanics and service stations. I 
wr.nted to give this fellow a little competition, and that was the rea- 
son we selected local 239. 

We had to figiit him through the council and it finally was adopted. 

Senator McNamara. You were setting up a dual local to a local 
in your teamster union to a degree for the purpose of creating com- 
petition and, theiefore, organizing the field, is that your testimonj^? 

Mr. IIicKEY. That is correct. That is the reason how he got into 
tlie teamsters. 

Senator McNamara. Getting back to 6J:9, there is an indication 
tliere on the cliart that these locals were largely gathered up, as I 
recall the testimony, into 649, and then transfererd into fiol of the 
teamsters. Is that right ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I know nothing about the inner workings of the UAW. 

Senator McNamara. Tlien do you knoAv about a group of people be- 
ing taken in as indicated by that red mark going from 049 to 651? 

I might ask the counsel : Does that indicate that tliey went to that 
local union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, Senator McNamara, that vvas one of the locals 
that came out of local 649. I don't believe Mr. Hickey would have any 
firsthand information on that. 

Senator McNamara. I am concerned about how this group got into 
the teamsters, 651 and if that was done through Mr, Hickey's 

Mr. Kennedy. No, Senator, these are all of the so-called phony 
locals on the right, and they are the ones that Mr. Hickey said he 
knew nothing about. Tliey are tlie ones that were chartered through 
the international. You can see down there in the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters they came around Mr. Hickey and around 
the New York Joint Council. Those are the votes that were expected 
to be cast in favor of Mr. O'Rourke against Mr. Lacey. 

Mr. Hickey was* the gei^.eral organizer at the time and was never 
informed of these charters. 

Senator McNamara. I understand, but tliis 649 on the chart that 
yoi- and your staff compiled over here, what does that 649 indicate to 
us ;' That it was a gathering point for some of these other charters 
when they finally got together? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. When the UAW began in New York, it began 
with local 102. Subsequently, Johnny Dio took over the control of 
local 102. Then at the time that they were going to organize tlie 
taxicabs, local 102 had a charter of just organizing the taxicab drivers, 
and that is the thiixl charter of local 102, March 22, 1952. At the same 
time, they Avanted a local of the TTAW-AFL operating in New York 
which could organize others than the taxicab drivers. 



4770 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That v.as the formation of local 649 which was also organized on' 
the same clay. i 

Local 649 was one of the first locals organized by Jolmny Dio. 

From tliat headquarters, Mr. Dio operated, and the rest of the locals 
were set up subsequently, in 1952, 1953v land, I believe — -no, 4952 and 
1953. But local 649 was his main place of operation. He was tlie 
regional director. He operated out of the headquarters of local 649. 

When the paper locals, or the phony locals, of the teamsters were 
organized in 1955, the headquarters for the organization of those 
unions was the headquarters of local 649. 

The chief officials of 649 came down into the teamster paper locals. 
The stationery that was ordered for these phony locals was sent to 
649. The letters that were written to the joint council and to the 
international headquarters were written out of 649. That is the 
importance of 649. 

But Mr. Hickey would know nothing about local 649. or would have 
no first-hand knowledge of 649, because that was UAW-AFL rather 
than teamsters. 

Senator McNamara. That is why I directed the question to you, 
sir. I understood that. 

Now, what do these red lines mean in series from 649 to 651 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, 651 was even a more peculiar local tlian any of 
the others. 651 had the other four locals, 258, 269, 284, and 362, had 
chartei- members who had come out of Johnny Dio's locals in New 
York. They had as their officials the officials of Johnny Dio's locals in 
New York. 651 did not. 651 had as its official a man wiio worked in 
a liquor store, Nat Gordon. Mr. Nat Gordon is Mr. Abe Gordon's 
brother. Mr. Abe Gordon is an official of 805, president of 805, and a 
very close associate of Johnny Dio. 

Local 651 was operated directly out of 649, and its operations are 
handled even more directly out of 649 than the other four phony 
locals that came out of the UAW-AFL. 

Senator McNamara. Nom^ that brings us up to the point that I was 
trying to get at. 

Do you know of the existence of local 651 ? 

Mr. Hickey. I have heard of it ; yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You as the general or^ranizer representing 
Dave Beck at this point have charge of local 651 to the extent that 
you have charge of local unions generally, do you not? 

Mr. Hickey. The local union comes under the jurisdiction of joint 
council, principally, as being a member of the joint council, if it is a 
member. 

Senator McNamara. I have been told up to now that this was not 
a member. Only 295 became a member. 

Mr. Hickey. I have never had any connection with 651 whatsoever. 

Senator McNamara. Then you don't have complete charge of all 
the teamsters in New York City ? 

Mr. Hickey. Not concerning these local unions on the board there 
with the exception of 239. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have something to do with 295? 

Mr. Hickey. 295 has been one of the local unions that has been 
cleared. That has been seated recently in the joint council. 

Senator McNamara. Do you consider that you have something to do 
with, that one? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4771 

Mr. HiCKEY. As lon^ as it is a nieni!)er of the teamstrrs union, I liave. 
an interest in the local union. Tliat is correct. 1 have an interest in 
651 or whatever local union becomes a nieniher oi tl)e teamsters joint 
council. 

Senator McXamara. You don't work for the joint council^ 

Mr. HicKEY. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You work for the internationals 

Mr. HicKEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then I don't understand how you ^et in tiiis 
category of not havino: anythina: to do with them unless they become 
members of joint council 16. 

You are paid by the international. Tlierefore, you sliould be con- 
cerned with all of the local unions. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I am directly concerned. 

Senator McNamaka. And joint council 16 notwithstanding. I don't 
understand this. You answer my questions in part as if you were 
representing joint council 16 and you are not. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I am not. OTiourke represents them. 

Senato]' McNamara. Well, regardless of who represents them; you 
don't. 

Mr, HiCKEY. I don't. 

Senator McNamaka. I don't see how you make a distinction between 
local 295, a member of the joint council, and local 651 that is not a 
member of the joint council. They are both teamster locals and I don't 
see how you make any distinction. I can understand how the joint- 
council people make a distinction. Plow do you explain that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 651 does not exist anymore, Senator; 651 was the 
local that went out completely. Of all the locals that were chartered, 
651 does not exist. It disappeared in February 1956. 

Senator McNamara. But up to now this has been tlie connection, 
this has been the tie-in between tlie paper locals ami the automobile 
workers and the teamsters locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. 651 had a peculiiir history of just never really getting 
started and never getting irito (>])eration. 651 received its charter, it 
existed for a couple of months, and then it disappeared. 651's charter 
is no longer in existence. The rest of the charters are in existence, if 
you want to ask any questions about any of the others wdio are not 
affiliated with the joint council, there is a problem there. But as far 
as 651 is concerned, 651 just does not exist any more. 

Senator McNamaka. You heard the witness saj^ to me a minute ago 
that he knew of 651.* 

Mr. Kennt:dy. He might have known of 651 as one of the phony 
paper locals. 

Mr, HiCKEY. I might explain that in this way : Any one of the 60 
local unions that we have in New York, if they have anything that is 
bothering them, they can come in and see me on it. 

Senator McNamara. You are not only a general organizer but inter- 
national vice president as well? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. Manj^ of them come in and consult 
me and ask what they should do or what I would do under the same 
circumstances. If I can help them, I give them advice or contact the 
international union. And then if the matter is between another local 
union, it goes into the joint council and becomes a matter of the joint 
council. 



4772 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. Do you know what became of the charter of 
local 651 of the teamsters? 

jVIr, HicKEY. I don't think it ever went into operation, from what 
I hear. 

Senator McNamara. Is it still bouncing- in New York somewhere^ 
Is that your responsibility ? 

Mr. HicKEY. No ; it is not. 

Senator McNamara. You are interiiatiojiai representative. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I have never been officially informed that local 651 
even was born. 

Senator McNamara. But an international representative of the 
teamsters union operating in New York City has no concern about a 
chai-ter that has Ijeen in there and apparently is running around or 
bouncing around ^ 

Mr. HiCKEY. I liave an interest in the charter, but I luive no way of 
finding out what became of it. It might luive been returned to the 
international union. I have never inquired. 

Senator McNamara. You are not concerned? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I am concerned. 

Senator McNamara. Not concerned enough to inquire? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Up to now ; yes. 

Senator McNamara. You are not concerned enough to inquire? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. I give up. 

Senator Ivt.s. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if he desires 
to answer them in the line of some of the questioning of Senator Mc- 
Namara. I am curious to know whether he is opposed to — in the first 
place, before I get to that, I would like to point out something which I 
think is generally known or recognized by people, and that is that 
Ml'. Hotta contemplates being a candidate for president of the team- 
sters internationl. In that connection, I am curious to know whether 
Mr. Hickey is opposed to his candidacy for president. 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is quite a question. 

Senator Ia^s. I thought it was. If you don't want to answer it, you 
don't need to. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I am also a candidate for the presidency. 

Senator Ives. That is exactly wliat I was going to ask you, if you 
were. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I am. 

Senator Ives. You are opposed, then, to Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. HicKEY. Naturally I would be opposed. 

Senator Ites. Thank you very much. We are glad to know that 
you are a candiate, too. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. You said, Mr. Hickey, that you had been aware 
of the charter for 239, Sam Goldstein ? 

Mr. HicKEY. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Evidence before this committee indicates that 
later in his career, Mr. Sam Goldstein joined up witli your opposition, 
or at least he joined up with O'Rourke in opposition to Mv. Lacey. 
You and Mr. Lacf^y were friends, as I understood, and represented a 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4773 

similar point, of vieAv. while Mi". O'Kourke represented a diti'erent 
point of view. 

Did yon get any light as to wliy this man that yon had befriended 
to the extent of helping him get started subsequently gave you the 
old double ax ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I imagine that was preconceived before he came in to 
see me. He just wanted to get a charter in the teamsters and he nsed 
me as the only w^ay he could get it. I agree I have been used in that 
fashion. 

Senator Muxdt. It is entirely possible. Yon can't read a man's 
mind. But maybe when lie came in he had this motive to begin with. 
I didn't know whether that was it or whether something that hap- 
pened after he got his charter ci-eated a difference between the two of 
you that caused his opposition. 

Mr. HiCKEY. Nothing happened that I know of. 

Senator Mundt. Looking back now, you think maybe he hood- 
winked you right from the very start ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I guess that is about the best way of putting it, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to ask you a few more questions. 

Each local, Mr. Hickey, each local in the election for a presidency of 
a joint council would have seven votes ; is that right ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Ml'. Kennedy. So your local with 11,000 members and local 651 
who had no members would have T votes each, an equal number of 
votes at the election ? 

Mr. Hickey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. On your opposition to Hoifa and his opposition to 
you, did you look upon his entrance into the negotiation in 1054 as an 
attempt to move in on the New York scene as a major factor? 

Mr. Hickey. That was the beginning of his campaign to take over. 

Mr. Kennedy. So his opposition to you — first, you opposed him in 
his attempt to grant Johnny Dio a teamster charter, is that right, in 
1953? 

Mr. Hickey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then when he came in or attempted to take over the 
negotiations in 1954, the trucking negotiations that took ])lace in 1954. 
that is when you were in opposition to him again ? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you feel that that was an attempt by him to 
come in and take over in New York City ? 

Mr. Hickey. There is no doubt about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there an attempt to also — let me go back. 
You have always been opposed to the ILA, as 1 understand it, the 
racketeering in the ILA ? 

Mr. Hickey. I have been ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't tliere an attempt at one time, on his part, to 
make an alliance with the ILA ? 

Mr. Hickey. There was. 

Mr. ICennedy. Wasn't there an attempt also on his part, and sup- 
ported by others, to make a loan of some $490,000 to the ILA ? 

Mr. Hickey. There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was opposed by you? 

Mr. Hickey. Yes. 



4774 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You opposed him on the Dio matter, opposed him 
when he tried to take over in New York City in 1954, and opposed 
him when he tried to make this alliance with the ILA? 

Mr. HicKEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have one otlier subject. 

On the question of who picked these charters up or made the ar- 
rangements on the charters, you have said that you understand or 
you have learned that Mr. Hoii'a w^as the one that suggested that these 
charters be issued. Do you know who actually was the one who 
picked up the charters or made the arrangements for the charters 
to be delivered ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. John McXamara ? 

Mr. HicKEY. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a teamster official in New York ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. He is president of local 808. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know of liis close relationship with Mr. 
James Hoffa 'i 

Mr. HiCKEY. I don't know of it, but I suspect there is a close rela- 
tionship there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understand that they are close friends also? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you understand that he is also a very close friend 
of Mr. John O'Eourke ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. He is. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of the friendship of Mr. Dio and 
Mr. Hoffa, without getting into descriptive words, your understanding 
of their friendship is based on not only what you have seen yourself 
but what other ]>eople have told you of their relationship, is it not? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is generally understood in New York in the labor 
circles that they have been friends, is that right? 

Mr. Hickey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I didn't know^ until a few minutes ago that Mr. 
Hickey is a candidate for Dresident of the teamsters international. 

I want to ask you a couple of questions that may go into your cam- 
paign platform, as it were. I don't want to work an injustice by 
doing this, so if you don't want to answer any of these because of 
political reasons, don't answer them. 

Mr. Hickey. T am not that political. I am a very poor politician. 

Senator Mundt. I think you look like a man whose face is an affi- 
davit, and that helps quite a bit in politics. 

I would like to ask you, because I know the public is concerned in 
this election, though not because it has any particular preference 
between you, Mr. Hoffa. and Mr. Beck, if he decides to become a candi- 
date again, or anybody else, but because it has an understandable 
concern about what is going to happen under the new president of the 
teamsters, one of the great and important unions of the country. 

No. 1 :1 have heard that part of the campaign platform of Mr. Hoffa 
is tc form an alliance, if successful, between the teamsters and the 



rivrpm)PE:R activities in the labor field 4775 

longshoremen, and that in so doing he will have to bring into his 
organization one Harry Bridges, the west coast longshoreman. 

Is that part of your platform, too 'i Do you intend hooking up with 
Harry Bridges if yon get elected? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No such thought. 

Senator Mitndt. No such thought. Thank you. 

During the hearings, some members of the committee have con- 
<-1uded, at least I have concluded, that anything we can do to increase 
the democratic processes by which the man who pays the freight 
has control of the election of his officers, the determination of union 
policies, and the calling on or calling oft' of a strike would be to the 
good. 

We believe that the American workingman, if he really can exercise 
freely his democratic choices, will clean up most of the things that 
have been of concern to this connnittee. 

Would you feel that if you were international president, that is 
something yon would want to encourage or discourage — the expansion 
of the democratic rights of individual teamsters? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I am a hundred i)erceut in favor of the statement you 
have made. In our local union we liave elections every 3 years. We 
don't conduct them oui-selves. We have the Honest Ballot Association 
come in and take full charge of those elections from start to finish. We 
have just completed a referendum vote, a mail referendum, where we 
tried to get all our members to vote. 

The unfortunate part about it is you never get more than 50 per- 
cent of them to vote. They just simply don't want to come out. So we 
tried a referendum vote. All he had to do was mark an X on it. We 
got less returns on that than we did — well, we have always used the 
machines. We have used machines in our local since 1936. 

Senator Mundt. We can't expect you f ello^s in the union movement 
to do what Acllai Stevenson and Ike Eisenhower tried to do, and that 
was to get everybody to vote. All you can do is give them a chance. 
You give them a chance to vote in secret? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you believe in that ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I honestly believe in it. 

Senator Mundt. It follows that if, as, and when the membership 
discovers there is something pretty bad in their union membership, 
tlien they will take care of it ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. They will take care of it. They will vote us out. 

Senator Mundt.* The third thing that concerns us is that we have 
found that, in the handling of some of the union funds, there is not a 
very good public accounting, either to the general public or to man- 
agement, or, especially, to the labor- union membeis who create that 
fund. I have felt that something should be done either by the unions 
or by Congress to provide for a complete safeguarding of moneys 
collected from the union members, because it becomes part of the tax, 
you might say, a compulsorj^ payment. If they make an agreement 
to belong to a union, they have to i)ay the freight all the way through. 

Would you agree with me that the union members and their fami- 
lies are entitled to a public accounting of what is done with their 
money ? 

Mr. PIiCKEY. I am 100 percent in favor of that. 



4776 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. This is another one. I recog;nize that Doria, who- 
camo before us, a loquacious witness, made a great and impassioned 
plea for having labor work as sort of reform schools to give convicts 
and ex-criminals second chances. There is sonie appeal in that. 

However, it seems to me that the primary appeal for a union has 
to be for the union membership and not for some fellow who wants 
to rehabilitate himself. The fellow who wants to rehabilitate himself 
should start a little further down the scale and prove the sincerity of 
his reformation before you place him in charge of a great many mem- 
bers of the union, where, if he continues to be crooked, he works a 
great disadvantage on them. 

Do you have any ideas in that area i 

Mr.'HiCKEY. Well, when we take people into our organization — ^and 

1 mean the teamsters generally — we only take the people who are hired 
originally by the employer. If you employed 10 men, we will take 
those 10 men. We don't ask them nothing, except that they are sup- 
posed to be of good moral character. If they fill out our application 
and comply with the requirements of the job and can do it, they are 
eligible for membership. After they have been in the local union for 

2 years, and continue in good standing, they are eligible to run for 
office, and that right is protected. 

Senator Mundt. You have a provision that before they can become 
officials, they have to be in the union for at least 2 years ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. In unions of the type that are older 
unions. In newer unions, of course, the time is less. 

Senator Mundt. The difficulty of the instant case seems to arise 
from the fact that these characters become officials at the very time 
they are given the charter. They get a new charter and put them- 
selves in it. How do we safeguard against that ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, if I take over a local union or set up a local 
union, a brandnew one, I appoint the officers. Like in the cab-drivers 
union, I appoint the officers. I can remove them. We have removed 
some of them for their failure to comply with their job. But they 
must run for office at the end of the trusteeship, which might be a 
matter of 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years, regardless of how long the trustee 
stays there. Then I call for an election. Anyone who wants to get 
nominated against the present officers can get nominated. We hold 
the election, and then they become the officials of that local union. 
That is standard. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. I think you have a very 
constructive program. 

Mr. HiCKEY. Thank you. 

Senator Ives. Some of this you would not want to have put into 
law; would you? You would not want to have these provisions put 
into law, would you, that you are talking about ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. What provisions is that. Senator ? 

Senator Ives. About the period of time that they have to belong to- 
a union before they could hold office or anything of that kind ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No; I wouldn't want that. We have our own inter- 
national rules, and if they are lived up to they are quite all right. 

Senator Ives. I did not think you would want to. I would not want 
to have it myself, and I did not think you people would, either. 

Mr. HiCKEY. No, I don't think we would. 



HVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4777 

Senator McNam.vra- You talk about requirements for membership 
eligibility in your unioni Do you require that they are citizens of the 
United States or have indicated their desire? 
. Mr. HicKEY. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. That is pretty general in unions ; is it not ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is right. 
. Senator McNamara. May I ask one thing, in this connection : ^Vliat 
do you think about having put into the law a provision that no one 
with a criminal record will be permitted to hold office in a labor 
organization ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Well, that is quite a problem to answer ; a question like 
that. . 

Senator McNamara. You must have thought about it, Mr. Hickey. 
You are long at this game. You have been at it a great many years. 

Mr. Hickey. I have. We, in our business, we pick up people who 
have served time in prison, and reformatory schools, and so forth. 
We don't ask them the question. As long as he conducts himself as 
a decent American citizen, so far as we are concerned, and brings the 
union into no ill repute, we will accept him and we will defend him 
to whatever degree is possible, as long as he don't bring his nefarious 
ideas into the activities of the local union. 

Senator McNamara. What has been your experience with i>eople 
of that character who have been elected to office in your local union. 

Mr. Hickey. They have not gotten into our local union. 

Senator McNamara. Then, even though you have been open on 
that subject, you have not been electing people of that character to 
your offices ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hickey. Never ; in our local union. 

Senator McNamara. I do not mean about jou own local. I mean 
generally speaking in your international setup. 

Mr. Hickey. Well, the international setup provides that if you 
vepresent a local union and you are a member of it, under the consti- 
rution, for 2 years, 3^011 have riglit to run for office. If you are elected, 
fhey accept you. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know of anybody in the whole setup 
of the teamsters, anywhere along the line, with any local teamsters, 
outside of these phony locals we are talking about; do you know of 
.iTiybody that has a cj'iminal record who is holding an official position 
'n nny of those locals at the present time ? 

Mr. Hickey. That happens from time to time. 

Senator McNaiv^ara. You have heard of that ? 

Mr. PI'ckey. Yes. 

Senator McNAsfARA. IIow has it worked out? That is what I am 
Iryingto find out. 
J\ir. Hickey. On tlie whole, it has worked out very vrell. 

Senator McNamara. We have uncovered several instances where in 
tliese phonies it lias not worked oiit at all. 

Mr. Hickey. Well, if a fellow wants to work for his local union, 
his time is all taken up. He ain't got no time for any phony business, 
and his time is taken up representing the people who pay him a salary. 
Tf he gets involved in that, he hasn't got time to get involved in any 
illegal activities. 

Senator jVIcNamara. Of course, these people who are in the phonies 
■we in there for illegal activities. That is their purpose in being there. 



4778 IMPROPER ACTIVlTIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. HiCKEY. It is pretty hard to guard against that by legishition.. 

Senator McNamara. By law you cannot do it; do you think? 

Mr. KicKET. You cannot legislate a man to be honest, by law. 

Senator McNamara. No; you cannot legislate honesty; we know 
that. 

Mr. HiCKEY. You can't keep him honest, either. 

Senator McNamara. No. We have discovered tliat heie very 
recently. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hickey, you said that 295 has been taken into 
the joint council. Mi-. McNamara is secretary-treasurer of that? 

Mr. Hickey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is presently undei- indictment with Johnny Dio 
in connection with his activities with local 295 for extortion '( 

Mr. Hickey. So T understand. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that local able to get a charter? Not able' 
to iret a charter; but why was it accepted in the joint council? 

Mr. Hickey. Mr. O'Rourke, who is the president of the joint council' 
at the present time, appointed a committee to investio-ate local 295.. 
He was one of the members of the connnittee; he and another man. 
They investigated local 295, and reported back to the joint council — 
they recommended tliat 295 be seated. On that basis, 295 was seated 
in the council. It is the only one of that group of local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'Wlio was the other man? 

Mr. Hickey. A fellow by the name of Corrigan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Rourke was very close to Mr. McNamara; 
is he not ? 

Mr. Hickey. They have been, so far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is Mr. Corrigan secretary-treasurer of local 808 ? 

Mr. Hickey. He is either president or secretaiy-treasurer of local 
808. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, of the two people appointed to the committee, one 
was Mr. O'Rourke, very close to Mr. McNamara, and the other was 
the secretary-treasurer or pi'esident of Mr. McNamara's local. 

Mr. Hi<;KEY. That is the way it worked out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio appointed the committee? 

Mr. Hickey. Mr. O'Rourke. 

Mr. Kennedy. He appointed himself ? 

Mr. Hickey. Well, he is the president of tlie council. He must have. 
He appoints all committees. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. What is the jurisdiction of local 295 ? What 
is the nature of the industry ? 

Mr. Hickey. According to their charter, they are connected with 
the airfreight industry. 

Senator McNamara. Truckdrivers generally ? 

Mr. Hickey. Truckdrivers, helpers, and warehousemen. 

Senator McNamailv. Did you take in the local that was established 
in this group that services refrigeration equipment? Is that part of 
the teamsters union now ? 

There was a local that was brought out here a few days ago in 
testimony that was composed of servicemen in the refrigerator- air- 
conditioning industry. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4779 

Mr. HiCKEY. There is no local union as such that I know of. 

Senator McNamara, That must have been the other group, then, 
in the so-called United Automobile Workers. 

Mr. HiCKEY. That could be. 

Senator McNamara. But you do not take in that type of people '^ 

Mr. HiCKEY. We take in the people who service oil burners and 
like that. I imagine we take those in, too, and vending machines. We 
have a mechanical local of that type. 

Senator McNamara. There are other internationals wlio are opei'ut- 
ing in that same field ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. There are 3 or 4 others that do the same sort of work. 

Senator McNamara. And plumbers, steamfitters- electrical workers, 
and so forth? 

Mr. HiCKEY. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. So there is conflict between the international 
unions, actually? 

Mr. HiCKEY. There is disagreement there as to who has the right 
to do it. 

Senator McNamara. It has never been ironed out by the AFL 
officials ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No ; it has not. 

Senator McNamara. I suppose it will have to be done one of these 
days. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I believe it will. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask you just one question. I did not 
know until you advised us a while ago that you were a candidate for 
the presidency of the Teamsters International Union. 

I can have no personal interest in who is elected or not elected, 
but I do think, in view of testimony that has been developed here in 
the course of these hearings, that the public would have a general 
notion, and that the union members and their families would cer- 
tainly have an interest- 

I simply want to ask you this: If you should be elected, would 
you use all power and authority vested in you under international 
constitutional provisions to clean out this organization and get these 
racketeers and that element out of it? 

Mr. HiCKEY. I would dedicate myself to that ambition. 

The Chairman. Would you retain in the union as head of locals, 
or any other official positions, people who would come before a com- 
mittee of this kind and take the fifth amendment with respect to their 
trusteeship in that organization? 

Mr. HiCKEY. UncTer the teamsters' constitution you cannot throw 
anybody out unless you can prefer charges. Charges must be pre- 
ferred at the lower level, at the local union level. 

The Chairman. I understand, but you do have an ethical practices 
standard set up now by the AFL-CIO ; have you not ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The teamsters have not as yet subscribed to that, 
as I understand it. 

Mr. HiCKEY. We have appeared before the ethical practices com- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. But have you subscribed to or have you adopted 
the same ethical practices standards ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. No; not as a requirement of the constitution. 



4780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I believe, as I recall, they set forth that they would 
"regard it as an unethical practice for a union official to take the fifth 
amendment on his conduct and handling of union affairs, that they 
would so regard it. Would you ? 

Mr. HiCKEY. As a member of the executive board, in Miami last 
February, we voted that anybody coming before any committee had 
the right to take the fifth amendment if he saw fit, and there would 
be no punishment attached to that particular position taken by any 
member, whether he be an executive board member or a general or- 
ganizer, whatever he might be in the teamsters union. 

The Chairman. Then, presently, the teamsters international is in 
conflict with, and has not subscribed to, the ethical standards in that 
respect set by the AFT^CTO ? 

]Mr. HicKEY. That's correct. 

The Chairman. AVell, I do not know what others think, but I think 
a man who holds a responsil)le position in a labor organization, who 
is president of a local or president of a joint council or executive sec- 
retary or whatever the official positions are, who handles mone}', who 
handles the dues of the men and women who work and pay them, and 
who will refuse to give an accounting and who takes a fifth amend- 
ment position when interrogated about his use of those funds, in my 
judgment is not worthy to be a union official and does bring discredit 
upon his organization. 

I hope you subscribe to the same view. 

Mr. HiCKEY. I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other questions? 

I want to thank you very sincerely, Mr. Hickey, for your testimony. 
It is certainly refreshing to us, after these days of labor hearings, that 
two men high in the teamsters union will come before this committee 
and be helpful as you have been. 

Thank you. 

]Mr. HiCKEY. Thank you very much. 

(Members of the select connnittee present at this point: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, McNamara, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John McNamara. 

The Chair3ian. Mr. McNamara, 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 'i 

Mr. McNamara. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN McNAMARA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

EDWAED S. JOSEPH 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

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

Mr. McNA?,rARA. My name is John McNamara. I reside at 123 Page 
Avenue, Yonkers, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Did j^ou say what your occupation was? 

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

I decline to ans^ver that question on the grounds that the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4781 

The CHAiR^rAx. Well, I thought maybe we had gotten through the 
list of those who were going to take that position, but I guess we have 
at least one more. 

Mr. Counsel, you may state your name for the record. 

Mr. Joseph. My name is Edward S. Joseph. I am admitted to 
practice before the bar of the State of New York. My address is 17 
East 63d Street, New York City. 

The Chairinian. Mr. McNamara, what position do you hold with 
organized labor ? 

Air. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How^ long have you been identified with organized 
labor? 

Mr. JMcNamara. The same answer on the same ground, sir. 

The Chairman. That will not be accepted. You will state your 
answer iully each time. 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is there about organized labor, in your opin- 
ion, that might tend to incriminate you if you admitted that you had 
an association and contact with it ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you now an official in any labor union? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you been stealing from a labor union? 
' Mr. McNa^iara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you any regard for the working people in 
the union who pay their dues ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have any concern whatever for their wel- 
fare? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McNamara is an extremely im- 
portant witness for the knowledge that he has about the matter that 
we are investigating. 

According to our information, he is a very close associate of Mr. 
Johnny Dio. He also is a very close associate of Mr. James Hoffa. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McNamara, according to the information we 
have, is presently president of local 808 of the teamsters in New York 
City. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
..that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



89330— 57— pt. 12 19 



4782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly be- 
lieve that if you answered that question truthfully, that a truthful 
answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir ; it might. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, McNamara is also, according to our records, 
secretary-treasurer of local 295 of the teamsters, one of the phony 
locals. 

Is that correct, Mr. McNamara ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McNamara, at the present time, is under indict- 
ment for conspiracy and extortion, along with Johnny Dio, for con- 
spiring to obtain $11,500 from an employer in New York City in con- 
nection with his activities in local 295. 

Is that correct, Mr. McNamara ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, McNamara's position as secretary-treasurer of 
local 295 would be important, Mr. Chairman. But it goes far beyond 
that. We consider him one of the key figures in this investigation. 

It was Mr, McNamara, according to the information we have, that 
came down here to Washington and picked up the charters of the 
so-called phony locals. 

Is that correct, Mr. JNIcNamara ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was Mr. McNamara, Mr. Chairman, after Mr. 
Hoffa liad requested that these charters be issued, who made the trip 
down from New York to Washington, D. C, and brought a list of 
names that should be put on the applications for these phony charters. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a typewritten list of names 
on seven different sheets of paper, listing charter members of local 
295, local 355, local 228, local— I am reading the wrong numbers. 

Local 295, local 362, local 651, local 269, local 258, and local 284. 

Present those to the witness. 

The Chair directs you to examine those documents and see if you 
identify them. I believe each one of them bears the signature or 
initial RLG. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined those documents ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What are they ? 

Mr, McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The documents will be made exhibit 143-A, B, C, 
D, and so forth. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 143-A to G, 
inclusive, for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 
4911-4917.) 

The Chairman. Do you think your handling of those documents 
may have tainted them when you first brought them down to the 
international ? 

Mr, McNamara, I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4783 

The Chairman. Or do you think they have been tainted since you 
handled them ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, the initials on 
here are RLG, which we understand stand for Robert Graham, who 
works out of the international lieadquarters. 

The Chairman. Let us ask the witness if that is correct. 

Do you know RLG ? 

Mr. McNamxVra. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Who is R. L. Graham ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know R. L. Graham? 

Mr. Graham. I decline to answer the question on the grounds the 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know Johnny Dio ? 

Mr. Graham. I decline to answer the question on the grounds^ 

The Chairman. Do yon know Dave Beck ? 

Mr. Graham. I decline to answer tlie ({uestion on the gTounds 

The Chairman. Do you know Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Graham. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 

The Chairman. Do you know your lawyer sitting by you ? 

Mr. Graham. I — I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it was originally intended, and it 
so appears on these sheets, that the local numbers that would be used 
for these teamsters' phony locals would be the same numbers as had 
existed for the UAW-AFL organizations, that there would be a local 
227 of the UAW-AFL, and there would be a local 227 of the team- 
sters, and that they would be transferred over in that manner. So 
when Mr. McNamara originally arrived here in Washingion, he had 
a suggested local number. For instance, the suggested local number 
for 355 would correspond to 355 of the UxlW-AFL. 

But when they searched the teamster records they found that 355 
was already being used, so they gave it the next ch^sert number and 
that is how 355 became 362 ; 228, originallv of the UAW-AFL, then 
became 275 of the teamsters. 649 of the UAW-AFL became 851 of 
the teamsters. 224 of the UAW-AFL became 269 of the teamsters. 
250 of the UAW-AFL became 259 of the teamsters. 227 of the 
UAW-AFL became 284 of the teamsters. 295, of course, became 
a new local. 

Is that correct as to what happened down here, Mr. McNamara ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McNamara, as I said, supplied all the names 
of those who appeared on the charter applications which I hand you 
now, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman. May I ask counsel if the names on these charter 
applications correspond with the list that this witness, I understand 
presented to the international ? ' 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; they correspond. 



4784 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McNamara became secretary-treasurer of local 
295 and subsequently wrote a letter to joint council 16 requesting they 
be seated, 7 officers of local 295, so they could vote in the election. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a 
document entitled "Local Union 295," dated November 30, 1955. It 
appears to bear the signature of a man named John McNamara. 
. Will you examine that document and see if you identify it ? 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined that document ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Can you read the signature on it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McNamara, I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you know John McNamara ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You said that is your name when you took the 
witness stand under oath. Since then, now you have became 
ashamed of your name ? You admitted it when you took the witness 
stand under oath a while ago. 

Is that your name ? 

Mr. McNamara. My name is John McNamara ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I asked you if you knew him. 

You have just answered. I assume you answered under oath. You 
just answered, saying you could not answer the question because to 
answer it might tend to incriminate you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the 
grounds 

The Chairman. Which one ? Which question ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McNamara. On the question whether I could identify the sig- 
nature on that letter. 

The Chairman. You identify the name, though ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. That is your name ? 

Mr. McNamara. That is my name. 

The Chairman. Now, then, will you be kind enough to tell us it is 
also your signature ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, on February 6, 1956, Mr. McNamara 
wrote a letter to the joint council. 

The Chairman, just a moment. 

That document may be made exhibit 144. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 144," for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 4918.) 

Mr. EIennedy. That was a letter giving the names of the seven 
officials of local 295 that were eligible to vote. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR iTEIiD 4785 

Mr. Chairman, subsequently only 5 of those 7 voted. We have 
the five credentials that are contained there in letters dated February 
6. All those letters of credentials were signed by Mr. John Mc- 
Namara. 

The Chairman. I hand you a series of 7 documents, photostatic 
copies, 6 of which documents bear your signature, John McNamara, 
as secretary-treasurer. 

The top document which I am handing you, a photostatic copy of, 
is a letter to Martin T. Lacey, February 6, 1956, announcing the 
name of the officers of local 295. 

The second in this sheaf of documents appears to be a photostatic 
copy of an envelope in which they were mailed to teamster joint 
council 16. 

Then the others are statements certifying the names of John Mc- 
Namara, James Costa, Michael Burton, Ernest Hogenbirk, and Timo- 
thy Ring as being eligible to vote in joint council elections. 

I ask you to examine all of those documents, each one of them, and 
state if you identify them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. Joseph. Senator, are these marked exhibits now? 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Joseph. Are these exhibits marked already ? 

The Chairman. Not yet. 

Mr. Joseph. I see. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

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

Mr. IvENNEDY. Can you identify those ? 

The Chairman. Have you examined those documents ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify them ? 

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

The Chairman. They bear your signature ; do they not ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Whose name is on them ? Is it that same fellow, 
John McNamara, we have been talking about a little ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tpnd to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You can read the name on it; can you not? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I got one "yes" answer. 

Is there anything else you can read on them ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You said you could read a name on it. Whose 
name do you read on it ? 

• • Mr. McNamara. A name of John McNamara. 
_ The Chairman. And his signature ? What are you reading, the 
signature or the printed name ? 
r(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



4786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIBS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds the 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You decline to answer whether you are reading 
writing or reading printing ? Is that what you mean to do ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does it not make you blush a little when you look 
at that and remember the part you took in trying to perpetrate this 
fraud ? Or do you blush ? 

Mr. McN'amara. I decline to answer the question. 

The Chairman. Are you not now ashamed of it ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer. 

The Chairman. For what reason? 

Mr. McNamara. On the grounds the answer may tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

The Chairman. I see; all right. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have also had the testimony that 
the letters appealing to the international for the setting of these 
various locals tliat were dictated by Mr. McNamara in the head- 
quarters of local 649, exhibit 103 and exhibit 102, the letters being 
dated Januaiy 27, 1956, and Mr. McNamara requested the secretary 
at that time, Mildred Warchauer, to write the letters on two different 
typewriters. 

Is that correct, Mr. McNamara? 

Mr, McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds the 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You would not imply that little lady would not 
tell us the truth ; would you ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Does the truth incriminate you, do you think? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Those documents, the six documents, may be 
made exhibit 145-A, B, C, D, and so forth, the last ones presented to 
the witness. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 145-A to F, 
inclusive," for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 
4919^924.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So after Mr. Hoffa rex[uested that these charters be 
granted, you went down and picked them up and brought them back 
up. It was you that supplied the names. 

AVhen there was an appeal made to the international that these 
locals be seated, you went to what were formerly the headquarters for 
Mr. Dio, and dictated the letters, for 269, 362, 275, 651, 258, and 284, 
and then another letter for your own local 295, and you requested 
tlie secretary to write these on different typewriters. 

Could you tell us if you did all those things, Mr. McNamara? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4787 

Mr. Kennedy. Duriii<r this period of time you were in toucli not 
only with Mr. Jimmy Hofl'a, but you were also in touch with Mr. 
Johnny Dio ; is that correct ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the gi'ounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you afraid of Johnny Dio? 

Mr. McNamara, I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may t€nd to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not correct and true that you are very close to 
Mr. Dio, socially and otherwise, and that you are also very close to 
Mr. Jimmy Iloffa, socially and otherwise? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question. 

Mr. KENNEDY^ On what grounds? 

Mr. McNamara. On the grounds that the answer may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy-. Is it not true that Mr. Hoifa was in New York 
during this period of time, for instance, in November, and stayed at 
the Hampshire House? And is it not true that while he was there 
3^ou were in touch wnth him, and he was in touch with you and with 
Mr. Johnny Dio ? Is that not correct ? 

Mr, McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incrimmate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the chartering of these phony 
locals at that time with Mr. Ploffa? 

Mr. McNamara, I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy'. You will not tell us anything about this, Mr. Mc- 
Namara ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds the 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could be of great assistance to the committee. 
You will not tell us anvthing at all about what vou did in connection 
Avith this? 

Mr, McNamara. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew when you got these chartere that none of 
these locals had any members at all ? 

Mr. McNamara. I decline to ansAver the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. How long have you been in the teamst-ers union? 

Mr. McNamara. I tlecline to answer the question on the grounds 
the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you married? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 

The C hairman. Have you any children ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 

The Chair]man. How many ? 

Mr. McNamara. Five. 

The Chairman. Are j^ou an American citizen ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, sir. 
,. The Chairman. What kind? 

Mr. McNamara. United States. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 



4788 iMpROPEiR AcrrviTiEis in the labor field 

Mr, Kennedy. "We are not getting very far with this witness, Mr. 
Chairman. What he intends to tell us does not seem to add much to 
the committee's knowledge. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Well, I hope the day will come when unionism will be rid of such 
people as you are. 

Stand aside. 

Call another witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Captain Bradley and Mr. Gleason. 

The Chairman. Will you stand 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. Bradley. I do. 

Mr. Gleason. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM V. BRADLEY AND THOMAS GLEASON, 
ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, THOMAS W. GLEASON; WILLIAM B. 
MISCHO; AND SEYMOUE WALDMAN 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, will you give your name, 
your place of residence, and occupation ? 

Mr. Gleason. Thomas Gleason, 29 Charles Street, New York City, 
general organizer for the International Longshoremen's Association, 
Independent. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Will you give your name, please ? 

Mr. Bradley. William V. Bradley, president of the International 
Longshoremen's Association, Independent, 174 Pelton Avenue, West 
Brighton, Staten Island. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes. 

Mr. Gleason. Yes. 

Mr. MiscHO. William B. Mischo, 265 West 14th Street, New York. 
I am cocounsel with Mr. Waldman for Captain Bradley. 

Mr. Waldman. Seymour Waldman, 305 Broadway, New York. 

The Chairman. You represent both witnesses? 

Mr. Waldman. No. We both represent Captain Bradley. 

Mr. Thomas W. Gleason. Thomas W. Gleason, 70 Pine Street, rep- 
resenting Mr. Gleason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gleason, how long have you been an official of 
your association ? 

Mr. Gleason. I have been an official since 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held your present position ? 

Mr. Gleason. I have held my present position since December of 
1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Captain Bradley, how long ? 

Mr. Bradley. I have been the president of the local union since 
1935. In 1951 I became vice president of the international. In 1953 
I became president ; in November of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that after Mr. Ryan left the organization that 
you became president? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4789 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members does the ILA Independent 
have ? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, I would say about 65,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that operates on the eastern seaboard? 

Mr. Bradley. That operates from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Browns- 
ville, Tex. 

Mr. Kennedy. In February of 1953 did you receive a letter from 
the executive council of the AFL instructing you or telling you that 
the ILA would have to clean itself up, get rid of some of the gang- 
sters, and make its procedures more democratic ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Bradley. In February of 1953, I believe there was a letter re- 
ceived by the president then ; yes. 

The Chairman. I present to you what purports to be a carbon 
copy of that letter, dated February 3, 1953, addressed to the officers 
and members of the International Longshoremen's Association. It 
does not appear to be signed, but it bears the title, "President and 
Secretary-Treasurer of the Executive Council, American Federation 
of Labor." 

Will you examine this copy, Mr. Bradley, please, and see if you 
recognize it as such ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Bradley. Mr. Chairman, being as I wasn't president at that 
time, but I remember such a letter being read to the executive council 
of our organization. 

The Chairman. You recall such a letter being read ? 

Mr. Bradley. I do ; yes. 

The Chairman. I think we got that from the files ; did we not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. It came from the official files of your organization. 
Thank you. 

That may be made exhibit 146. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 146" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And that made reference to the fact that a study had 
been made of waterfront conditions by the crime commission and that 
the ILA would have to put its house in order ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, we questioned it, but that was the theory of 
the letter ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Get rid of its alleged criminal elements and practice 
more democratic procedures ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On September 22, 1953, the charter for the ILA 
was revoked by the AFL, is that right, by a vote of 79,079 votes to 
736 votes? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe that is correct ; yes. 

Mr. Waldman. In view of the fact that coimsel has brought up the 
letter of the AFL to the ILA, to complete the record may the answer 
of the ILA to the AFL to that letter also be made a part of the 
record ? 

The Chairman. Let us see it. I think it may well be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the AFL then grant you a new charter to the 
ILA organization ? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe they did ; yes. On the IBL. 



4790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. IBL. And were there trustees appointed to that 
organization ? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe there were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Dave Beck one of the trustees ? 

Mr. Bradley. That organization; yes. 

The CiL\iRMAN. Ma}^ I ask you, Mr. Bradley, did you examine this 
and do you identify it as a copy ? 

Mr. Bradley. I will identify on the say-so of the attorney. I was 
not president at that time. I would identifj^ it on the attorney's 
say-so. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. It may be made exhibit 
No. 147. 

(The document referred to was marked "P^xhibit Xo. 147" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. On September 25, 1953, a charter was issued to the 
IBI^AFL? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time a committee of trustees were ap- 
pointed, with George Meany as chairman, Dave Beck of the teamsters 
being one of the trustees, William Dolierty of the letter carriers, Al 
Hayes of the machinists, and Paul Hall of tlie seafarers; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Bradley. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The aim of that organization was to combat your 
organization, the ILA ? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe it was; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, in December of that same .year, vv-as there a 
meeting held between you and certain officials of the teamsters union? 

Mr. Bradley. There was ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a meeting held on October 21, 1953? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And attending that meeting was Captain Bradley, 
yourself, Packy Connolly — what was his position ? 

Mr. Bradley. Executive vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Harold Gibbons of the teamsters? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Sam Barron of the teamsters ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Waldman ? 

Mr. Bradley. Mr. Louis Waldman and Mr. Seymour Waldman. 

Mr. Kennedy, Representing the ILA ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. This was within the time that the AFL had expelled 
the ILA and had formed a local of its own to handle this matter, 
called the IBL to combat the ILA ? 

Mr. Bradley. That is so. 

Mr. Kennedy. This meeting was held at the home of Mr. Waldman? 

Mr, Bradley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And another meeting was held on November 2, 1953? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. And the purpose of that meeting was to attempt to 
bring a closer relationship between the teamsters and the ILA? 

Mr. Bradley. That is right ; yes, sir. 



IMPBiOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4791 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a discussion at that time about forming a 
marine division of the teamsters wliich the ILA would come in and 
take over? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe there was a discussion later on, but at that 
particular meeting it was explained to us that the purpose of the 
meeting was whether we would be interested in working with the 
teamsters on a plan that would get the ILA back into the American 
Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time was it discussed that the way they 
would come back in would be they would come back in as a member 
of the teamsters union and handle the marine division of the 
teamsters ? 

Mr. Bradley. There were discussions, but whether it was at that 
meeting or not, I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those discussions were held either then or subse- 
quently ? 

Mr. Bradley. There were a lot of discussions held and that was one 
of the phases of discussions that were held. 

Mr. Ivennedy. As I understand it, word of that meeting got out 
publicly, there was some mention of it in the press; is that right? 

Mr. Bradley. That is right ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Harold Gibbons infoi'med you that it would 
be better not to meet any more ? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, I don't know whether he informed us, but we 
met in Mr. Waldman's home again and with Mr. Barron and Mr. 
Waldman, I^ouis Waldman and Seymour Waldman, myself, and 
Connolly, and we were informed at that meeting that the report was 
taken back to Mr. Beck and that we would hear further on this ques- 
tion after they consulted with JMr. Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew at this time that Mr. Beck had been one 
of those that had been appointed trustee of the IBL; is that right? 

Mr. Bradley. Very much so; yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. And at the same time lie was sending a representa- 
tive to meet witli you people? 

Mr. Bradley. That is so ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That Avas secretly ? 

Mr. Bradley. That was my understanding of the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harold Gibbons is an official of the central con- 
ference of teamsters ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe he is M'itli the central conference of team- 
sters. ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. Which has as its 

Mr. Br.\dley. I am not sure of that. I know he holds an official 
job in some branch of the teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he mention at that time, at that meeting, the 
position of Mr. Hotfa on this? 

Mr. Bradley. I don't believe Mr. Hoft'a's name was mentioned at 
that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, in 1954, you had a number of elec- 
tions ? 

Mr. Bradley. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the dispute between your own organization and 
the IBL continued; is tliat right ? 

Mr. Bradley. That's right. 



4792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet again in 1955, witli certain teamster 
officials, or 1954? December 1954 I ^less was the next meeting. 

Mr. Bradley. We met on December 3, 1954, in Chicago. I would 
like Mr. Gleason to explain, because 1 am a little confused on that 
meeting. I was having so many meetings that that meeting I am a 
little confused on — who was there and what went on. 

I would ask you to ask Mr. Gleason that question. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to. 

Mr. Gleason, you may comment. 

Mr. Gleason. Well, I think that sometime between November 2, 
1953 — you will notice there is over a year, there is 13 months' difference 
there. The reason for that difference was that we did not have our elec- 
tions for certification between the ILA and the IBL, the new organi- 
zation set up by the AFL, until December 23, 1953. 

After that election, after the ILA won that election, there was a 
protest put in before the National Labor Board, and the election was 
disallowed. 

We weie not certified. We went into formal hearings again and 
we had another election in May of 1954. By the time the election was 
all over, it took us until August of 1954 before we were certified by 
the National Labor Relations Board. 

From August of 1954 we had to go into negotiations with our 
employers and we were working without a contract from October 
1953 right through until August of 1954, while all the other ports in 
the North Atlantic, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, had already 
concluded their agreements and had received raises above what we 
were working for in New York. 

Consequently, we went on a strike in New York, some time in Octo- 
ber or November of 1954, to force the employers to pay us the retro- 
active money and to give us a better contract or to give us what they 
were giving the other ports in the North Atlantic. 

Right after that contact was made with us again through our inter- 
national office for another meeting in Chicago. "\'\'Tiat date the call 
can^e through or the message came through to meet in Chicago, I don't 
know. But I believe from the records that we went there on December 
3, 1954, and I belieA^e at that time, if my recollection is correct, that 
we met with Mr. Hofl'a, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Lee, and I 
believe there were 1 or 2 other representatives from the teamsters 
present, plus myself, "Packy" Connolly, Captain Bradley, "Preacher" 
Jones, 1 of our vice presidents from New Orleans, Mr. Idzik, 1 of 
our vice presidents from Baltimore, plus Mr. Donovan, 1 of our vice 
presidents from Boston. 

At that time we discussed sort of an alliance or compact between 
the two organizations to help each other out in organization. 

They set up a code of ethics — I believe, watching your program the 
other day, you made it a part of the record, the alliance we signed; 
I believe you have it there — what the physical setup was supposed 
to be. 

We agreed then, in principle, what it was going to be. We left 
there with the intentions of going back and recommending to our 
members that we work in cooperation with one another. 

Mr. Senator, this was nothing new as far as we were concerned. We 
had what they call the transportation council in the port of New York 
as far back as 1951. The only reason why we did not continue it on is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS ENT THE LABOR FIELD 4793 

because prior to the Norris-LaGuarclia Act, the courts enjoined us from 
cooperating with one another in those years. 

Do you want me to go into other meetings, the subsequent meetings ? 

The Chairman. Do you have those exhibits here, the agreements? 
The witness says they have been placed in the record ah-eady. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think we have quite gotten to when the agree- 
ments were signed, as yet. 

Mr. Gleason. No, sir. 
. Mr. Kennedy. So you had some other meetings ? 

Mr. Gleason. On March 18 our records — and I believe them to be 
correction March 18, 1955, we held an executive board meeting in 
the Statler Hotel, among ourselves, the international. 

At that executive board meeting we explained what our discussions 
were with the 6 or 7 representatives of the teamsters union, because at 
that particular time there were many of our own people, many of our 
own people, that did not want an alliance with the teamsters because 
they felt after the stand that Mr. Beck had taken originally, in sign- 
ing tlie motion to have us expelled from the American Federation of 
Labor, many of our people did not want to go along with an alliance. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had that meeting, and then didn't you meet 
during the summer months 'i 

Ml. Gleason. I did not come to that one yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we can just move it along a little faster. 
We do not have to go through every meeting. 

But you had a meeting on I^^Iarch 21 and May 18; is that right? 

J^Ir. Gleason. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently in August, the lOtli and 11th, 
you met at the Palmer Ilouse in Chicago ? 

Mr. Gleason. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell the committee who was present ? 

Air. Gleason. An August 10 and 11 at the Palmer House in Chi- 
cago, the records here show that we had Mr. Brewster, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
Hotfa, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Tom Flynn present representing the 
teamsters. John O'Rourke was there also 

I believe O'Rourke might have been present at one of the other 
meetings, now, but my recollection is not too good on that. But I 
believe O'Rourke was at the original meeting in December with us, 
also. 

We had our own executive council there on August 10, 1955. At 
that particular time, I think we agreed then, that in principle we 
were going to go aloitg with an alliance with the teamsters and work 
out our organizational problems together. 

Another thing you must bear in mind is that this was not alone for 
organizational problems. There is automation coming in the steam- 
ship vessels. There is new equipment coming along on these docks. 
These "piggybacks" and tankships are coming along. 

Where we have the complete authority now on the waterfront to 
receive and deliver all cargo coming on and off the docks, eventually 
with this new type of mechanization coming along, the teamsters in 
some inland port that receives our freight, say for some place in Vene- 
zuela, or South America or Europe, will be taking the jurisdiction 
away from our own people. 



4794 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We felt that by sitting down and discussing our conunon problems 
with the teamsters we would be in a position to stop all of this juris- 
dictional strife. 

That was one of the reasons for it more so than anything else, for 
this alliance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it during this period tliat it was also discussed 
about being a part of the marine division of the teamsters? 

Mr. Gleasox. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was it decided that it would be an alliance 
rather than a marine division of the teamsters? 

Mr. Gleason. The alliance and the marine division, Mr. Counsel, 
would go along hand in hand. If you recollect. Captain Bradley said 
in his original remarks that we were looking to get back into the 
American Federation of Labor and he has taken that stand completely 
every chance he has, that he wants to get back into the house of labor. 

But the American Federation of Labor kind of handcuffed them- 
selves when tliey issued a new charter. Here they have now, if they 
take us back, dual jurisdiction. On the one hand we have ILA and 
on the other hand the IBL. So the procedure would be to get us back 
into the American Federation of Labor as our minds thought, would 
be with this setup of a marine division under the jurisdiction of 
the IBT. 

Mr, Kennedy. Subsequently you had several other meetings, and 
ultimately at the end of 1955 there were alliances, agreements signed; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Gleason. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign with the southern conference, the east- 
ern conference, and central conference ? 

]\rr. Gleason. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We put in the eastern conference and the southern 
conference yesterday. 

The Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be the agreements 
signed with the central conference. Will you gentlemen examine it 
and state if you identify it ? 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

(The witnesses conferred with their counsel.) 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

The Cpiairman. Thank you. That may be made exhibit 'No. 148. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 148'' for ref- 
erence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That agreement was signed on November 27? 

Mr. Gleason. It was signed November 27, 1955, but it was made 
retroactive to July 18, 1955, for the purpose that that was the last 
time — it was a 4-year compact, and it was to expire on Jul}^ 18, 1955, 
to conform with our constitution, which called for a convention every 
4 years. 

We had held our couA^ention in 1955, in July, and our next one, at 
that particular time, was July of 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the pact, although signed November 27, 1955, is 
iictually dated July 18, 1955? 

Mr. Gleason. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you if this is a picture of your 
signing the agreement. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 4795 

The Chairman. I hand you here wliat purports to be a publication, 
longshoremen News, January 4, 1956, It has a picture on the front 
page of it, and beneath the picture a number of names of those who 
are in the picture. 

I ask you to examine the picture and state if you identify it, and if 
it was made at the time of the signing of this document. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witnesses conferred with their counsel.) 

Mr. Gleason. I think I can safely say it was, sir. 

The Chairman. You think it was ? 

Mr. Gleason. I think so, sir. 

The Chairman. You think that is correct ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes. 

The Chairman. And the names that appear under that picture are 
the people who were present at the time the agreement was signed ? 

Mr. Gleason. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That may be made exhibit 
149. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 149" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. So the agreement or alliance was signed, and this 
one for the central conference was signed by Mr. Hoffa for the central 
conference. 

During this period of time, was there also discussion and negotia- 
tions by Mr. Hoffa with you people, or by Mr. Hoff'a or his repre- 
senatives, regarding a loan of some $490,000 to the ILA? 

Mr. Gleason. Yes, sir. That was one of the stipulations that we 
made, and we insisted upon our debt to Mr. John L. Lewis would be 
paid before we could go and make an agreement with any other 
organization. We felt that in time of need he was there to help us, 
and he supplied the money. We had the brawn on the waterfront 
to keep the organization going, but he supplied the money. 

We felt that before we should make an alliance with any other 
organization, that first, honorably, we should take care of our debts. 

We made that a part of the agreement, that Mr. John L. Lewis, not 
alone himself, but I believe there were some other bills in there that 
had to be paid, also, that we had agreed upon to pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they amounted to about $490,000; is that right? 

Mr. Gleason. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I hand you a copy of at least the 
tentative agreement,* showing how the money was going to be spent. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you this document dated the 
[blank] day of December 1955. I think it was actually signed Decem- 
iDer 21, 1955. It appears to be signed by representatives of the Inter- 
national Longshoremen's Association, Independent. 

Attached to it appears to be a list of accounts. It says, "Bills 
rendered to the ILA, Independent, the amounts of which are in dis- 
pute," totaling $197,891.81. 

I will ask you to examine this document, gentlemen, and see if you 
identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witnesses.) 

(Witnesses conferred with their counsel.) 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir ; it is. 



4796 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That may be made exhibit 
150. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 150" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Iloffa requested, in the early part of 1956, 
to come to address a meeting of the executive board of the ILA? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. The record is here. We held a meeting 
from February 27 to March 1 in the Governor Clinton Hotel in New 
York. At that particular meeting, we had all the presidents of all of 
our local unions throughout the entire international. We wanted to 
familiarize them with a set of rules, of procedure, rules of order they 
should follow, bookkeeping setups, and at that particular meeting, I 
think it was the last day, we had invited Hoffa to come there and 
address our meeting, which he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Negotiations continued for the $490,000, and Mr. 
Hoffa stated to you or to your group at that meeting that this money 
would be forthcoming to the ILA ; did he not ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But prior to his 

Mr. Bradley. May I butt in there on that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bradley. I think that with the money, I think that Mr. Mohn 
handled, with Mr. Mattie Albert Woll, and Mr. Waldman, Sr., I 
think that they worked it out more than Mr. Hoffa did. I think it was 
Mr. Mohn who was doing most of that work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on March 6 was there a letter written to Mr. 
James Hoff'a, in 1956, from Mr. Waldman, on your behalf? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes. 

The Chairman. I hand you a copy of the letter and ask you if you 
recognize it. It is either a copy or the original. I am not certain. 

Mr. Bradley. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the 
loan and the agreement on the loan, it was worked out between our 
attorney and their attorney, and any correspondence was done between 
the lawyers of the teamsters and the conference and our lawyers. 
They have all the correspondence. 

The Chairman. You were kept advised, of course, of that cor- 
respondence. 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that letter is right. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 151. 

Mr. Kennedy. About this period of time, as I understand it, Mr. 
George Meany became aware of these discussions and meetings that 
were taking place ? 

Mr. Bradley. There was such a rumor. 

Ml'. Kennedy. And he raised a question about whether the teamsters 
should make this loan to the ILA ? 

Mr. Bradley. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That brought about a postponement in the date that 
the loan was to be made ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir ; it did. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 151" and 
follows.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was the purpose of this letter to Mr. Hoffa 
on March 6, 1956, which reads : 



IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4797 

Dear Mr. Hoffa : As you can imagine, the officers of the ILA were disappointed 
to hear yesterday that the delivery of the money to the certified list of ILA 
creditors, in accordance with the ILA's loan agreement with the three teamster 
conferences, was postponed from tomorrow, March 7, to an unspecified ad- 
journed date. 

We know that you must have been just as disappointed as our client at this 
postponement. We were all glad to hear of your statement today to Teddy 
Gleason that the loan would go through as arranged. 

The ILA is anxious to facilitate the delivery of the moneys involved to its 
certified creditors at the earliest possible date. Toward that end, at the 
direction of Captain Bradley, we are enclosing herewith the 3 executed, notes 
from the ILA which are called for in the loan agreement, 1 to each of the 3 
teamster conferences, as you suggested. 

We hope that with these notes in your possession, the actual delivery of the 
moneys can be concluded at the earliest possible date. We would appreciate it 
if you would let us know as soon as you can the date on which this will take 
place. 

With kindest personal regards, we are. 
Sincerely yours, 

Waldman & Waldman, 
By LotTis Waldman. 

Those are the attorneys for the ILA. 

So you sent him the note saying you owed them the $490,000 ? 
Mr. Bradley, Yes. That had something to do, some technicality, 
where the hiwyers recommended that it be done that way. 
Mr. Kennedy. So the notes say the ILA owes the teamsters $490.- 

000 and went into the possession of James Hoffa ; is that right ? 
Mr. Bradley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive the $490,000 ? 

Mr. Bradley. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever get the notes back ? 

Mr. Bradley. No ; not as of yet, we did not ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, according to the records of Mr. Hoffa, the ILA 
owes Mr. Hoffa of the teamsters some $490,000 ; is that correct? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes ; according to that technicality. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to get the notes back ? , 

Mr. Bradley. We expect them. Mr. Waldman has written lately 
about them. I believe there is a letter on them that they have been 
mislaid in the bank or something. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he write a letter on March 22, Mr. Waldman, 

1 believe, at your direction, 1957, asking for the notes ? 

Hr. Bradley. I believe he did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they still have not been returned ? 

Mr. Bradley. No ; they have not. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do you know what he has been doing with them? 

Mr. Bradley. I believe we have been notified that they have been 
mislaid in one of the banks that they were to be doing business with. 

Mr. Gleason. Don't you know that one of those banks has been in 
a lot of trouble out there, Mr. Senator? One of those fellows got 
into a lot of trouble out tliere. That State auditor. Maybe he has 
them. 

The Chairman. I don't believe he would want a note to disappear 
with. I hand you the letter referred to, dated March 27, 1957, a 
copy of it, and ask you if you can identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Bradi^y. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 152. 

SO.SSO — .57— pt. 12 20 



4798 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 152" for 
reference, and will be found in the appendix on p. 4925.) 

The Chairman. What was the date of those notes? I am curious 
about that. They have had the notes in their possession more than 
a year and a half. 

Mr. Kennedy. They actually were sent, Mr. Chairman, on March 
6, 1956, according to the letter. 

The Chairman. March of 1956 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. They have still had them 18 months? 

Mr. Bradley. Our information is that the notes were mislaid some- 
where and they are trying to find them. 

The Chairman, They have not been returned to their proper place 
at least ? 

Mr, Bradley. No ; they have not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are negotiable notes; are they not? 

Mr. Bradley. I can assure you that they haven't been paid, either. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately February 29, Mr. Chairman, or on 
Februa-ry 29, 1956, Mr. George Meany wrote Mr. Beck a letter pro- 
testing the proposed loan of the some $400,000 to the ILA. 

Are you familiar with that ? 

Mr. Bradley. No ; we wouldn't be familiar with that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Captain Bradley, I understand that in April, 
namely, April 26, 1956, it was decided by ILA, in view of the fact that 
they had not received the loan that they expected, that they would 
dissolve their agreement with the teamsters; is that right? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, I would like to make that point very clear. It 
wasn't due to the fact that they didn't receive the money that we 
canceled the alliance. It was on the basis that it created a situation 
where there would have been maybe a suspension of the teamsters out 
of the AFL ; rather than to have any part of that, we suggested that 
we would cancel the alliance and work it on as friendly a basis as we 
could. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the documents, I believe, that brought 
about the cancellation. You notified the teamsters that you were 
canceling ? 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These documents may be made exhibit 153. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 153" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir ; those are the ones. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would give the teamsters a great deal more power 
in New York City and on the eastern seaboard and in the other areas 
in which the ILA operates if this kind of an agreement stayed in exist- 
ence; would it not? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, Mr. Chairman, plainly from the standpoint of 
labor it would have done a lot of good for both organizations. The 
International Longshoremen's Association itself is about the only 
international that is organized, as far as the States are concerned, from 
Portland, Maine, to Brownsville, Tex., and also the Canadian ports 
from Halifax to Toronto, as the saying is now. It was before 
Montreal -Quebec. We had a lot to gain, and we still have a lot to 
gain, by having this alliance. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4799 

It is nothing nnusiial. As Mr. Gleason mentioned a few minutes 
ago, as far as the port of New York is concerned, there has been an 
alliance there for a good many years. There was a setup under our 
former president, Mr. Ryan, and the president of the joint council 
of teamsters, a committee of 6 from each side that would meet every 
so often to discuss the possibility of better organization work be- 
tween the 2 organizations. 

Mr. Ivennp:dy. It would be very helpful to the teamsters, would 
it not, to have this alliance with you ? 

Mr. Bradley. I say it Mould be very helpful to anybody to have 
the alliance with the ILA, yes, and the teamsters in particular, 

Mr. Kennedy. It would be helpful to you, as I understand it, as 
your finances are not in the best possible shape; is that correct? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in them 
days; yes, sir. But today we are a little better off than we were then. 

Mr. Gleason. Could I elaborate a little bit about that organization 
and alliance with the teamsters ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Gleason. I think this, Mr. Kennedy. I have heard a lot of 
testimony. I have followed your program pretty well here, and I 
think you have been pretty lenient with anybody that wants to say 
anything. I think you are looking for the facts. I think you have 
been pretty fair with everybody here. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Gleason. It wasn't a question of the port of New York. The 
port of New York and the city of New York, tlie joint teamsters 
council, has pretty nearly everybody organized. Nobody can take 
over the ILA. It has been there for 60 years. What the teamsters 
have really been looking for was in the Southern States, below Nor- 
folk. You take North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, where they had the 
ri^ht-to-work laws. The teamsters had a lot of difficulty in organ- 
izing, and they needed the help of the longshoremen to organize 
them. How" they needed the help was this way : If the trucks would 
come down on the dock to deliver or pick up, our people would re- 
fuse to work alongside a nonunion man. In that way, they were 
looking to build up their membership — Mr. Miller, especially in the 
southern conference. The long-haul truckers, between the central 
conference of the teamsters and the eastern conference, were well 
organized. 

As everybody in New York knows, or everybody that has anything 
to do with ships operating knows. New York is not a railroad port. 
New York is primarily a trucking port. It depends upon its business 
from over-the-road trucking companies. We wanted to be in a po- 
sition to protect, although both Mr. Bradley and myself are inter- 
national men, and interested in longshoremen where they work; at 
least New York has been a port, and it has been kicked around, and 
you know now it is working at a disadvantage, you know that piers 
in New York City are at a premium, that it probably costs anywhere 
from $750,000 to $1 million a year to rent a pier in New York. 

The average steamship line that handles 5,000 tons of freight in 
and out of a port a week, 52 weeks, would give you 260 tons a year, 
which is pretty good business for a steamship company, at a rental 



4800 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of $750,000 to $1 million a year. That is almost $3.85 a ton for rental, 
before they pay a man off, before they put an electric bulb on the 
clock, or before they put a sweeper on the dock, plus the 6 or 7 cents 
an hour now that is going to the waterfront commission. 

You know, there is a penalty, of, I think it is li/^ percent an hour, 
on the earnings of the longshoremen. That is 6 cents an hour morei 
Plus the fact that the seaway is going to open up now. 

All these long liaul trucking companies will not be coming into 
New York now. They will be going into Cleveland, Toledo, and 
Chicago 6 months out of the year. 

Unless we work out some kind of jurisdictional problems with the 
teamsters, through an alliance, through a compact, then the eastern 
seaboard as we know it, will be like, in 6 years. Tombstone, Ariz. 

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

Senator Ives. I would like to ask a question. I will direct it to 
Captain Bradley. 

In line with the comments that have just been made concerning the 
alliance of the teamsters and your organization, it has been rumored, 
and bear in mind that it is just a rumor as far as I know, that an 
effort will be made, I assume by the teamsters, if Mr. Hoff'a should 
become president of the international, to have a general alliance be- 
tween your organization, controlled by Mr. Harry Bridges on the 
Pacific coast, the railroad brotherhoods, and the employees of the 
airlines — one great transportation organization in the country. 

Do you know anything about sucJi a proposal ? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, Senator Ives, there have been rumors of such 
a move, but there wouldn't, even at that, be anything unusual for 
something like that to happen, I know that your committee is very 
much interested in it. I have read some of the remarks of some of 
your committee. 

Senator Ives. You have not read anything I have said, because 
this is the first inquiry I made. 

Mr. Bradley. Well, I believe I read it some in the articles, or, as 
you say, it might have been a rumor. 

But, nevertheless, the International Longslioremen's Association, 
and speaking for it as its president, there Avill never be an alliance 
between us and Harry Bridges. The teamsters, we welcome it, we 
think it is good, whether it is with Jimmy Hoffa or anyone else. We 
think, in our organization, of what is best for our membership. We 
would welcome an alliance or a working agreement. 

As a matter of fact, we have always had it, Mr. Ives, we have al- 
ways had a working agreement with the teamsters. 

There are teamster locals that do not agree with the long-shoremen 
any more than the longshoremen can agree with them. But I can 
assure this committee that at no time, to my knowledge, has any 
official in any official capacity sat down to work out an alliance with 
Harry Bridges. 

Senator Ives. Well, I am very glad to hear that, and I conmiend 
your organization for the stand you take in that connection. Wliat 
do you think about alining yourselves, making an alliance, with the 
railroad brotlierhood, assuming the railroad brotherhoods would 
agree to it ? Do you think that is feasible ? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, I think it is feasible but I don't think it is 
practical under the laws. The railroad has the Railroad Labor Act. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4801 

Senator Ives. It occurred to me it would not work out very well 
for that reason. I wanted to get your viewpoints. 

How about the employees of the airlines ? 

Mr. Bradley. Well, there has been some talk about that, but I 
haven't discussed it with anyone and no one discussed it with me. 
I know there were some comments made about it, but we haven't sat 
down on it. We haven't talked. Nobody talked to myself or anyone 
else in our organization, that I know of, of such a move. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Ivennedy. This fourth report of the New York State Crime 
Commission in 1953, May 20, talks about the ILA locals. It said that 
30 percent of the officials of the ILA longshore locals have police 
records. 

Waterfront criminals know that control of the local is a prerequisite 
to conducting racket operations on the pier. Through their powers 
as union officials, they place their confederates in key positions on the 
docks, shake down steamship and stevedoring companies by threats 
of work stoppages, operate lucrative public loading business, and 
carry on such activities as pilferage, loan sharking, and gambling. 

That is a serious charge. It is true, as I imderstand it, that the union 
was suspended from the AFL because of similar charges. I am won- 
dering what has been done about cleaning that situation up. 

Mr. Bradley. Senator Kennedy, I think it is near time that the facts 
be presented to the people. One of the reasons that we were glad to 
come down here is we haven't had an opportunity anywhere to cry. 
We think, and we honestly believe, that the port of New York, or the 
maritime industry, is no different than any large industry. 

In our minds, as being strictly union men on union principles, we 
believe that we were not kicked out of the American Federation of 
Labor because of racketeers or gangsters. We don't say we have 
halos, but we don't say we are any worse or any better than any other 
industry. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, Captain 

Mr. Bradley. Let me finish, Senator, if you please, because this 
point I want to get over. 

I think as Mr. Gleason has said, you have been fair. One of the 
things that I w^ant to get over to your committee, or the public in 
general, is this : There hasn't been, ever, any charges or any hearings 
or any trials between the American Federation of Labor before we 
were kicked out oruracketeering or gangsterism. Mr. Meany has based 
the whole charges on what he read in the newspapers. 

Let me tell you about the trial that we had before we were kicked 
out of the American Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Bradley. This is the point, and then I will keep still if you let 
me give you this, Senator Kennedy, and then I will shut off. 

We appeared before the executive board in Chicago, before they 
suspended us, or kicked us out, and there were 5 or 6 questions asked 
in that meeting between the executive board of the American Federa- 
tion of Labor and our executive board. One of the questions was raised 
by the late Dan Tobin. 

He got up and he said to Mr. Kyan : "Mr. Kyan, I have known you 
for 25 years. You have done nothing but stepped on the jurisdiction 
of the teamsters." 



4802 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

And Joe Ryan answered liim, "Well, if we had a figlit 25 years ago. 
let's bury the hatchet now. We don't want to be suspended from the 
American Federation of Labor," or some line along that. Another 
vice president got up and said, "You have our painters.'' Another 
vice president got up and said, "You have our carpenters." 

Finally, I believe it was Vice President Hayes that got up and said, 
"What have we got the longshoremen here for — jurisdiction or 
rackets?" 

Meany said, "We have them here for rackets." 

And he said, "Well, let's hear about the rackets." 

Mr. Meany cited one local union in the port of New York that he 
claims had a racket, and he mentioned the man's name, and he men- 
tioned a local, and that was the only charge that was brought before 
the executive board of the AFL or our own, and then Mr. Meany said, 
"We heard enough from the ILA, and if you will excuse us, we will 
go into conference.'' 

That is the trial we had. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. In the report of the proceedings of the AFL in 
1953, in Mr. Meany's speech, it says : 

We asked the longshoremen, in keeping with the custom of the American 
Federation of Labor of noninterference, to do certain things to try to clean up 
this situation, to bring democracy into this organization, to see to it that officers, 
who on the face of their own admission, under oath, are unfit for office, are 
tried under the rules of the international. During the 8 months since then we 
have received nothing but delay and promises. 

Then by a vote of 79,079 to 736, which is 100 to 1, the revocation of 
the charter took place. 

That is the situation, at least in 1953. It was confirmed to some 
degree by the report of the Crime Commission of New York in 1953. 
I read their statement. 

I am wondering Avhat happened since then. Now it is 1957. What 
has been done to clean it up since then ? 

Mr. Bradley. Senator Kennedy, there has been plenty done as far 
as the workingman in the port of New York. There is one thing 
we have to get clear once and for all : that the International Long- 
shoremen's Association claims and defies anyone that says that we are 
not a legitimate labor organization. We will admit that we are not a 
police force. I am a labor leader. I am not a police commissioner. 

I cannot in any way, shape, or form — and I have no power — dis- 
miss anyone Avith any kind of a record in the port of New York. 

As you know, we have been in a struggle for the organization's 
life in the port of New York, and, Mr. Kennedy, we tried, by elimi- 
nating local unions, to get to the bottom of the trouble in the port 
of New York. 

As we dismissed men or put them out of local unions, they imme- 
diately went over to the American Federation of Labor, the IBL, 
which picked them up— I don't like to go into names, but I will in 
private give you the names ; you can check on it — as they went out of 
our union, they went over and they were received and they were ac- 
cepted by the American Federation of Labor. 

The next day, after we put them out, they were on the waterfront 
fighting us. 

"That was one of the stumbling blocks that prevented any of the 
cleaning house that went on. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4803 



I can also state this 

Senator Kennedy. Captain, I just want to try to ask you 2 or 3 
questions, and then I will be glad for any statement. 

In 1953, we had this report of the crime commission. We had Mr. 
Meany's report. I have these figures as of 1956. Of the 242 officers, 
86 of them had criminal records, which is jjretty high. I know sonir,- 
thing about this union in Boston, and it is not comparable in Boston. 
We do not have any statistics like this. 

Mr. Bradley. Well, if tliey are better, we are glad to hear that, I 
am sure. Nevertheless, I would like to say this : tliat we don't know 
of any 86 men — are you speaking of the port of New York? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bradley. In the port of New York that have criminal records. 

Senator Kennedy. The point I am making, Captain, is — and I 
know something about it ; I represented that district in Congress 

Mr. Bradley. But, please. Senator, don't put me in the position of 
defendinir criminals. 

Senator Kennedy. Let me just bring this out. The point I am 
making is that, to run a good trade union, you don't have to rely on 
officers that have criminal records. I have seen it in running the 
longshoremen's union in Boston, when I represented the district on 
the Waterfront in Congress, and there was not any comparable situa- 
tion of tliis alliance that we have seen, which was described this after- 
noon, of these hoodlums and racketeers trying to get into the team- 
sters union and attempting to work out a tie with the ILA; and then 
we have a figure in 1953 from the crime commission where more tlian 
30 percent had criminal records, and now in 1956, out of 242, 86 have 
criminal records. I do not see how you can defend that as good 
trade-union practices. 

Mr. Bradley. Senator Keimedy, we don't laiow of 86 with crimi- 
nal records, what you call a criminal or what you call a criminal rec- 
ord. All I can tell you since I have been the president of the ILA is 
that I have done what I could to give a democratic organization. A 
democratic organization, the record will show, consists of a free 
choice of members, a free choice of officials. 

The local unions that you speak of, those men are elected, nomi- 
nated, and elected by the local unions. 

Tliere is no way that we can run around from local to local with a 
police record of a man. As far as the union is concerned, we had 
hired public accountants to go over all of our union books, to set up 
central registratioijs, to put in a central bookkeeping system, elimi- 
nated about 15 or 20 locals in the poit of New York by amalgamation 
of locals, to get them down to the least local as the best possibility, 
and in that way those elements, the undesirable elements, will be auto- 
matically put out by the membership themselves. 

Myself, I can speak for the official family. There is no one in our 
official family, I mean the top echelon of the organization, with a 
criminal record that is a felony record. 

I heard some talk about other records, but our goal was, and what 
we were trying to do was, to prevent anyone with any kind of a record 
getting into any part of our organization. And I tliink we done a 
fairly good job since I have been president. 

Mr. Gleason. Mr. Kennedy, along those lines, I tliink tliat you got 
86 men there, and I think I saw a copy of that. Those 86 men, as 



4804 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I understand it, some of them have police records with no convictions. 
I just had a chance to gaze over it quickly. Some of them have mis- 
demeanors. Some of those fellows may have worked on the water- 
front for 15, 18, or 20 years. 

I wish you would cheek into their records and find out how long they 
have been working there. Under the waterfront compact, they make 
sure, they really make sure, that anybody with a real 

Senator Kennedy. As a member of the executive board and presi- 
dent of a local, is he part of your official family, so-called? 

Mr. Gleason. No. 

Mr. Bradley. A member of the 

Senator Kennedy. A member of the executive board and president 
of the local. What do you consider him? Have you ever heard of 
the president of a local and member of the executive board 

Mr. Bradley. When I speak of executive oflicers, I am talking about 
the four top offi.cers — myself ; Connolly, executive vice president ; the 
secretary-treasurer: and Gleason, the general organizer. They are the 
top four officials of our organization. 

Senator Kennedy. The only point I am making is that it was 
thrown out of the AFL. We heard Mr. Meany's statement, and after 
we read the record of the crime commission, and it is now 1957, and out 
of 230 officers 86 have these criminal records, misdemeanors, or some- 
thing, and yet during the same period there w^as an agreement to tie 
in the teamsters union. We have already seen how that was infiltrated 
by Johnny Dio and "Ducks" Corallo, and a prospective loan of $490,- 
000. That does not seem a very good way to run a trade union. 

Mr. Bradley. Mr. Kennedy, 1 want to say one other word on this. 
I don't want anybody to misconstrue that I am defending any crim- 
inals. But I have also saw a list, and I saw on that list three names 
of men that had misdemeanors. One of the men has six children. He 
was 18 or 19 years old when he committed the crime. He has six chil- 
dren now. Another one has four children. Another one has 2 or 3 
children. I have no law and I have no right, only my God, to say to 
help rehabilitate those men and try to give them a living to bring those 
children up, and I don't think anybody has a right to deprive them of 
a living. 

If we are to take a stand, if labor is to make a police force out of it- 
self, and deny the right of men to work with a criminal record, at least 
a 

Senator Kennedy. Wait a minute. No one suggested that thej^ be 
denied a right to work, particularly those who have family responsi- 
bilities. What I am talking about is why more than one-third of the 
officers of your union have criminal records. That is what I am talking 
about. That is entirely diiTei'eut from their i-ight to work. 

Mr. Bradley. We can't help that. Please listen to me for one thing. 

For the past 30 years, and I know you are a Christian man the same 
as myself, the International Longshoremen's Association would receive 
from ministers, priests, from all walks of life, from itself — we see a 
former police commissioner sitting in judgment of some of these men, 
and Ave have letters in our office to show that he sent men down and 
asked that they be put to work, and in 10 or 15 years he sits in judg- 
ment to tell us they have no right to work on the waterfront. 

Wh a t do you want us to do ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4805 

Senator Ivennedy. The only point is I think the AFL, which is a 
responsible organization — you are suggesting that here 

Mr. Bradley. I am making no suggestions. I will make a sugges- 
tion. LettheAFI^ 



The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Senator Kennedy. The AFL is a responsible organization. It 
wants to rehabilitate these men and give them an opportunity to 
work. But if you cannot meet, since 1953, the standards that they 
set down, it seems to me that you have no justification in claiming that 
you are being abused when these charges are made. 

Mr. Bradley. There is one thing we know on the waterfront, and 
that is labor. Wlien the trusteeship was put in to take over the long- 
shoremen's union, whether it was the IBL, or the ILA, Meany put 
into the trusteeship two men that we know, and I presiune Meany 
knows. If he doesn't know, he should know, because he is supposed 
to know every criminal in the world. But, nevertheless, he puts them 
in. I will sit before you and your committee with those two men 
and I will go face to face with them. For every 1 that they name 
in our organization, I will name 2 in their organization. 

If the American Federation 

Senator Kennedy. Captain, that is a very discouraging statement. 

Mr. Bradley, Just a moment. Wliat I want to get over to you is 
this: If the American Federation of Labor can do it in the labor 
movement, don't single out one union and crucify them and keep 
harping on it — we are doing the best we can under the circumstances. 

As Father Connolly said in Philadeljihia, the only ones who want 
the longshoremen's organization are longshoremen. 

Let him do it if he can in all labor, in all labor unions. 

We happen to know that Mr. Beck was more interested in jurisdic- 
tion when he made the motion. We know that Paul Hall is more 
interested in putting some of his men as winchmen, as deckmen, on 
our ships, unloading or loading, and we know that Dubinsky was a 
great friend of Hall because Paul Hall done him a big favor along 
the line in the labor movement. That is what I gripe with. 

If I could go back and I thought with my conscience I could say 
to these 8G men, "You can't be officers, you can't work on the water- 
front, get off," I would do it overnight. But I can't do it because my 
conscience wouldn't let me do it. 

If they commit a crime, the waterfront commission has taken 11/^ 
percent of 11/4 percent of the sweat and blood of the longshoremen to 
pay a police force*to enforce this. They have in their power to take 
off any man on the waterfront with a record, if they see fit. 

I say, again, Mr. Kennedy, in all due respect, I am not a police 
commissioner. God help my father; he was a sheriff I understand. 
I didn't know him, but he was a sheriff. I took the other way ; I went 
labor. I still have the sympathy for the underdog. 

Mr. Gleason. Senator Kennedy, in one of his statements, was ty- 
ing us in with Corallo, Dio, and $490,000 loans, and tied us in with the 
teamsters. We have never discussed our business; never sat down 
witli Corallo. I doubt whether Captain Bradley knows him. 

I know we don't. We have no business there. It was never oiu" 
intentions to tie up with anybody. We want that on the record, that 
we were doing business to protect our own rank-and-file membership 
and make oui'selves as strong as we possibly can. But tliere never 



4806 IMPROPER ACTWITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was any discussion about Corallo, Dio, or anybody else as far as we 
are concerned. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Gleason, if you heard completely what I 
said it was that, at a time after 1953 when the ILA was suspended, 
what we are investigating is the attempt of Dio and otliers to in- 
fluence the teamsters and control the teamsters in New York, in the 
joint council. 

AVTiat I was talking about was at this time, when this effort was 
being made with the knowledge and assistance of Mr. Hoffa, at the 
same time convei"sations Avei-e taking place between the ILA and the 
teamsters in New York to form a closer alliance, and go along with a 
loan of $490,000. 

I am not saying tliat you or Captain Bradley had a connection with 
Mr. Corallo and Mr. Dio. But I am saying that they were attempt- 
ing to influence and infiltrate the teamsters at that time wlien the tie 
Avas to be made with your group. 

Mr. Gleason. The funny part of that is tliis, that jNIr. Beck, when 
he designated Mr. Hoffa to conclude this alliance, wasn't the only 
one that was looking for an alliance with us. 

Before Mr. Lindberg died, he sat with Captain Bradley and I in 
the Statler Hotel here in Washington and was looking to make an 
alliance with us. and this was after we pulled away from tlie team- 
sters' pact, looked to make an alliance with us with the sailors, the 
engineers, and the ILA. So there were quite a few groups looking 
to make alliances with the longshoremen. 

Senator Kennedy. My only point, Mr. Gleason, that I would like 
to see is, it would be possible for the ILA to set up standards within 
its operations to make it possible for you to rejoin the AFL. 

Mr. Gleason. I believe they are right in doing that. But we are 
being criticized here on account of the 86 men here. 

Senator Kennedy. I am saying that is a high percentage. 

Mr. Gleason. That is right. 

Why don't you do this'^ Take everybody in the transportation in- 
dustry, all the organizations in the transportation industry, and find 
out what the percentage is, just in the transportation iiidustry? As 
you know, the teamsters and the longshoremen, the longshoremen 
more than anybody else, in the ports of these United States from, 
time immemorial — ^iny father came over from Ireland, my grandfather 
came from Ireland, and landed on the Avaterfront. People with rec- 
ords immigrated to the waterfront because they were afraid. The 
langTiage situation had them. 

Check this. Tie all the transportation unions together and then 
find out what the percentage is. That would be a fair answer. 

The Chaieman, T am sori-y, gentlemen, but we have other duties 
and we are being called now to perform one of them. It is to cast a 
record vote in the Senate. 

I wish to thank you gentlemen for your ap])earance, for your 
testimony. 

I am advised bv the staff that Mr. Harold Kolovsky, connnissioner ; 
Mr. Carl J. Ttubino, commissioner of New Yorlc, waterfront commis- 
sioner of New Yoi'k Harbor; and Mr. Michael Murphy, executive 
director of the commission, have l>een very cooperative with the com- 
mittee. We thank you very much. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4807 

Mr, KEX>rEDY. Also, Mr. Tom Jones, of the Commission, and Miss 
Jean Dunne have been helpful. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

The committee stands in recess until 2 o'clocJi Monday. 

(Whereupon, at 6:05 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
2 p. m., Monday, August 19, 1957.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess: Senators McClellan 
and Kennedy.) 



'U^^mmimi^^m 3^-y3^s^s;s^sBk'^^^e!S^. 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The select committee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator Jolin 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, Massa- 
chusetts; 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 ; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel ; Robert E. Dunne, assistant counsel ; Walter R. May, 
assistant counsel; Pierre E. G. Salinger, investigator; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk. 

(Members present at the convening of the session : Senators McClel- 
lan, Ives, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

We will resume hearings on the New York area. 

Mr. Counsel, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Einar Mohn, Mr. Chairman. 

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. MoHN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EINAR 0. MOHN 

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

Mr. MoHN. jMy name is Einar O. Mohn. I reside at 7205 Rolling- 
wood Drive, Chevy Chase, Md. I am a vice president of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, and in addition to that the admin- 
istrative assistant to the general president. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Mohn, you do not have counsel with you. 
Have you elected to waive counsel ? 

Mr. Mohn. I waive counsel. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

4809 



4810 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

How long have 3^011 been in the labor movement, Mr. Mohn? 

Mr.MoHX. Since 1933. 

The Chairman. Plow long have you been executive vice president of 
the Teamsters International Union ? 

Mr. MoHN. I came back to Washington, I think the date was either 
the 9th or the lltli of March 1953. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position before that, Mr. Mohn ? 

Mr. MoHN. Before that, I was general organizer, located at San 
Francisco, Calif. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you came back when Mr. Beck came back ? 

Mr. Mohn. No ; it was after that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sliortly after he took over the presidency ? 

Mr. Mohn. He took over the presidency at our convention in 1952. 
His term of office started in December of 1952, and I came back here 
around the middle of March. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that you had been in charge of the San 
Francisco area, general organizer in that area ? 

Mr. Mohn. I was generally overseeing the work in the State of 
California. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you always worked in California ? 

Mr. Mohn. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many j^ears were you there ? 

Mr. Mohn. I went down to California, I believe, in the fall of 1937, 
my first assignment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And 3-011 were in California, then, until you left, from 
1937 on? 

Mr. Mohn. I traveled. I was traveling a great deal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you working out of the international head- 
quarters, were you. or were you associated with one of the locals or 
joint council in California ? 

Mr. Mohn. For a time I was located in Los Angeles, and then we 
moved that office to San Francisco, in 1947. 

Mr. Kennedy. With what office were you connected in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Mohn. I was international organizer, general organizer. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time ? 

Mr. Mohn. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, as I am sure you know, we are interested, 
at this time, in these locals that were established in New York in 
November of 1955, the months that followed in 1956. The locals that 
I am talking about chiefly are the ones that are there on the board, 
the so-called phony locals, seven of them in number. 

Mr. Mohn. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you what comiection you had 
with the chartering of those locals, when you first heard of them, who 
approached you, and what steps you took in connection with the 
chartering or giving charters to these applicants. 

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

Mr. Mohn. Well, the best of my recollection is that this come to my 
attention on or about — right following November 4. I peg that date 
because that was the date that we dedicated our new Duilding — 
November 5, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did somebody approach you or speak to you at that 
time about these locals ? 



ijviproper activities in the labor field 4811 

Mr. MoHN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us who did that ? 
Mr. MoHN. Vice President Hoffa spoke to me about some charters 
for some local unions at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy- That was at the dedication of the building here in 
Washington ? 

Mr. MoHN. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that tlie charters would be granted in 
the New York area at that time? Did he tell you that? 

Mr. MoiiN. He didn't say that they would be granted. Pie spoke 
to me about issuing charters in the New York area at that time. The 
charters were to be issued for — with 1 exception, I belive 1 exception 
only^ — to locals that were at that time affiliated with the UAW-AFL. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just had that one conversation with him, with 
Mr. Hoffa, at that time? 

Mr. MoiiN. There might have been some subsequent mention of it 
afterward, but to my recollection there had been no conversation prior 
to that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you anything about the applicants for 
these charters ? 

Mr. MoiiN. No ; he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he describe them as being former members or 
present members of the ITAAV~AFL? 

Mr. MoHN. I think all that was said was that these were locals 
that wei-e affiliates of the UAW-AFL. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he gave you no furtlier description of them? 
Did he tell you how many members these locals had? 
Mr. MoHN. No, he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you how many members would be able 
to come into the teamsters union if you gave these charters ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, they were all in the field of what we would call 
miscellaneous workers. I don't think that he attempted to make any 
estimate on how many people could come in. But there were a lot 
of people that could be organized in these fields. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you why these charters should be 
granted ? "VVliat the advantage to the teamsters would be ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, the principal reason 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking what he told you. 
Mr. MoHN. Yes. Well, that is what I am trying to tell you. 
The principal reason was that we were going to have an AFI.(-CIO 
merger convention, something that hadn't been had before, and the 
proposed constitution which we all had copies of provided that affili- 
ates could maintain the jurisdiction that they had and would also be 
permitted to continue the organizing jurisdiction that they enjoyed 
prior to the merger. Whatever the latter means, I am sure I don't 
know. 

(At this point, Senator McNamara entered the hearing room.) 
Mr. Kennedy. Did he discuss that with you ? 
Mr. MoHN. Yes ; it was discussed. 

Mr. KiiNNEDY. You discussed that section of the constitution, did 
you? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with what? How did that apply to 
this? 



4812 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoHN. Well, that section of the constitution, I think, speaks 
for itself. Give me just a moment and I will find it here. 
Mr. Ej:nnedy. Is that section 4, article III ? 
Mr. MoHN. It is article III, and section 2 reads as follows : 

Each national and international union, and each Federal labor union affiliated 
with the American Federation of Labor at the time of this constitution and by 
reason of a charter, or certificate of affiliates granted by that federation and each 
national or international union organizing committee and local and industrial 
union affiliated with the Congi-ess of Industrial Organizations at the time of the 
adoption of this constitution, by reason of a charter or certificate of affiliation 
granted by that federation, shall retain its charter or certificate which shall 
become and be a cliarter or certificate of this federation, and by virtue of the 
same and as a I'esult of the merger between the American Federation of Labor 
and the Congress of Industrial Organizations shall be an affiliate of this federa- 
tion and subject to its rules and regulations. 

Sec. 3 : Each such affiliate shall retain and enjoy the same organizing juris- 
diction in this federation which it had and enjoyed by reason of its prior affilia- 
tion with either the American Federation of Labor or the Congress of Industrial 
Organizations. In case of confiict and duplicating jurisdictions involving such 
affiliates, the president and the executive council of this federation shall seek to 
eliminate such conflicts and duplications through the process of voluntary agree- 
ment or voluntary merger between the affiliates involved. 

Sec. 4: The integrity of each such affiliate of this federation shall be main- 
tained and preserved. Each such affiliate shall respect the established collective- 
bargaining relationships of every other affiliate and no affiliate shall raid the 
established collective-bargaining relationship of any other affiliate. When a 
complaint has been filed with tlie president by an affiliate alleging a violation 
of this section — 

and then it provides how that may be settled. 

(At this point, Senators Kennedy and Mundt entered the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. MoHN. I might add that we had under consideration, by virtue 
of having been approached, two Federal labor unions about the same 
time. But the urgency was not there as far as the Federal labor unions 
were concerned, because they still provided in the new constitution 
that it was the purpose of Federal labor unions, and whatever they 
called the CIO directly affiliated miioiis, that the general purpose was 
still to find a place in some national or international union for those. 

Objection was made to us by McDonald, of the CIO steelworkers, 
who made some claim over these two Federal unions, and we did not 
go through with processing their application for affiliation. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So Mr. Hoffa spoke to you about the granting of 
charters to these applicants up in New York; is that right? 

Mr. MoHN. He did. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you take certain steps after that? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, he had spoken to President Beck prior to speak- 
ing to me about the question of getting these people affiliated prior to 
the merger convention. 

I did not know that at that time, but I was subsequently told. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did Mr. Beck speak to you about it ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes; he mentioned it in, I would say, a very general 
way, that it was all right to go ahead and charter these people. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Was this, again, around November 4, 1955? 

Mr. MoHN. It could have been — it certainly was around that date. 
Within a couple of days of that date ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know anything about the background of 
these people, or were you just relying on Mr. Hoffa ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4.813 

Mr. MoHN. I knew nothing about the background of any of the 
people involved in any of those local unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the next thing that you heard about it? 

Mr. MoHN. I did not liear any more about the chartering of those 
locals. I went up to New York. 

Well, first of all, I was away from the office, because we went up to 
see Daniel Tobin, who was ill and not expected to live, and his funeral 
then was on November 6. We went to the burial in Boston on Novem- 
ber 17 and 18, and we went to Washington, D. C. — I mean. New York 
City from Washington, D. C, I believe, on the Saturday after 
Thanksgiving Day. 

Mr. Kennedy, "W^iich would be what day ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't have it marked down here. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was the end of November, anyway? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes ; it is the end of November. 

Mr. Kennedy. The charters had not been granted as of that time ? 

Mr. MoHN. They had not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I show you these charters that we have in our 
possession. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you exhibit No. 1,3, which 
has been identified as a charter application. It has a notation on it of 
the date of issuance of the cliarter based on that application. 

Then I hand you exliibit No. 124-A, B, C, D, E, and F, six applica- 
tions for charters, all dated November 3, and all bearing the same 
notation in pen and ink on the left-hand corn'^i- as exhibit No. 13. 

I ask you to examine these and state if you recognize them and 
whether you identify the handwriting on them. 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Mr. MoHN. No; I don't. I have never seen these before, to my 
knowledge, Senator McClellan. 

The Chairman. Did you issue charters without seeing the appli- 
cation ? 

Mr. MonN. I don't think that I issued these charters. 

The Chairman. You do not think you issued them ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, sir. 

The Chairman. As I understood you, you said as late as Saturday 
following Thanksgiving, in November of that year, the charters had 
not been issued. 

Mr. Mohn. That is correct. And I still believe that that is correct. 

The Chairman. You observe on each of these applications that 
there is a notation, '^Charter issued on the 8th day of November 1955." 

Am I correct ? 

Mr. Mohn. That is what the notation says. Senator McClellan. 
Of course, the information that I have about this I obtained after the 
fact. It is my information, to tlie best of my knowledge, and what I 
could obtain, that what actually happened was that the charters 
were to have been applied for with the date of November 8. Why 
they were not, I don't know. They carried the date of Novemb n- 8, 
but physically they were not issued in our office until some date dur- 
ing the week ]3receding the AFL-CIO merger convention. 

That is the best knowledge I have. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you another thing about tliose appli- 
cations, Mr. Mohn. iVs I recall, none of them are signed. They are 

S!t:{.'{n— 57— lit. 12 21 



4814 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

just typewritten applications with names on them, but no signatures. 
Am I correct ? 

Mr. MoHN. That is correct. That is the way they appear here. 

The Chairman. Is tliere anything unusual or extraordinary about 
that ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes. I would say that that was a little bit out of the 
ordinary. 

The Chairman. Do you recall having issued any other charters on 
such forms of application ? I do not mean the form itself, but where 
there was no signature to identify the applicant or the sponsor of the 
application ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, I would have a difficult time recalling that, because 
actually I have not personally looked at nor read very many of the 
charter applications. 

That is not implying that I didn't know about them, but the physi- 
cal work of taking care of filling out these forms and getting the 
orders and sending them out I have not handled. 

The Chairman. Who would be the proper party, particularly in 
the absence of the general president, to examine the applications and 
find that they w^ere in order, and give the direction that the charter 
be issued? 

Mr. MoHN. It w^ould be out of the general president's office. I am 
not shirking any responsibility for that. I am saying that when you 
ask me if there had been others come in that were not signed, I could 
not give you an accurate answer because I don't know. 

The Chairman. It is not the practice ? 

Mr. MoHN. I would say, I would expect, that charter applications 
are generally signed ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So those are unusual in that respect? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes ; I think that is a fair statement. 

The Chairman. May I ask you now if you recall how they hap- 
pened to come to the international office ? Did they come by mail or 
were they presented by someone personally ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, I was not at the office. I personally couldn't tell 
you that this happened, because I wasn't there. It is my information, 
and I think it is accurate information, that an individual from New 
York came down with the names of the people that were to go on the 
charter applications, and that the physical job of getting the charters 
prepared was done at the same time that he brought them in. 

The Chairman. And the notation, obviously, was made on them on 
the same day that he brought them in, that the charter was issued that 
day? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, that is a notation — I don't know whose hand- 
writing that is. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that a man that came down from 
New York just brought a list of names 

Mr. Mohn. That is my information. 

The Chairman. And that the applications were actually prepared 
here in the international office ? 

Mr. MoHN. That is my information. 

The Chairman. Without anyone signing them ? 

Mr. Mohn. That they were actually prepared in the office of the 
secretary - treasurer . 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4815 

The Chairman. In other words, the entire transaction took place 
in that way ? 

Mr. MoHN. That is my information. I believe that is correct. 

The Chairman. Except you say that the charter was not actually 
issued until sometime after Thanksgiving? 

Mr. MoHN. That is 

The Chairman. What record do you have to indicate that? 

Mr. MoHN. I would have none in my office. 

The Chairman. Is there no record kept of charters granted, the 
date they were granted, and so forth ? 

Mr. MoHN. Oh, yes; but that would all be in the office of the sec- 
retary-treasurer, because he physically does the work of preparing 
the charters and sending them out. We don't do that. 

The Chairman. Who was the secretary-treasurer at that time? 

Mr. MoHN. John F. English. 

The Chairman. Who ? 

Mr. MoHN. John F. English. 

The Chairman. Do you know the man who brought — can you give 
us the name of the man who came down with a list of names for these 
charters ? 

Mr. MoHN. I am sure it v/as John McNamara, from New York. 

The Chairman. I believe we asked him about it, and we did not 
get mucli information. 

Mr. MoHN. I understand you didn't. 

The Chairman. Do you know a Teresa Hanlon, who probably 
worlved for you that year in the international office ? 

Mr. MoHN. No. I don't think she worked for me. 

The Chairman. I mean worked — well, not for you personally, but 
worked for the international headquarters. 

Mr. MoHN. No. I may have known her when I saw her, but I 
don't 

Tlie Chairman. Specifically, I think, for Mr. John English. 

Mr. Mohn. Right. 

The Chairman. Will you examine this affidavit, and particularly 
the signature of Teresa Hanlon, and state whether or not you recognize 
it? 

( Document handed to witness. ) 

Mr. Mohn. I would not know her signature^ Senator. 

The Chairman. You would not know her signature ? 

Mr. Mohn. No ; I would not. 

The Chairman. You may return the document. 

Mr. Mohn, probably I am getting a little ahead of counsel, but 
let me ask you this question : Was there some agreement in writing 
between joint council 16 in New York that no charter would be issued 
in that area, within its jurisdiction, without their knowledge? 

Mr. Mohn. Yes; there was. There was such an agreement entered 
into as a result of a conference between myself and some of the officers 
of the New York joint council. I don't remember the date of that, 
but it certainly was sometime before the issuance of these cliarters. 

The Chairman. In other words, that agreement had been observed 
up until the time of the issuance of these charters ? 

Mr. Mohn. I believe it had ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know why it was not observed in this 
instance ? 



4816 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoiiN. The only answer I could give you, and all I know, is 
that the urgency of getting it done prior to the merger convention — 
and if there was any error committed, that was an error in judgment 
on my part, was the only reason it wasn't followed out. 

The Chairman. "Was it a further error of judgment when joint 
council 16 requested copies of the charters and information about them 
after they had heard from other sources they had been issued ? 

Mr. MoiiN. Well. I think about the time that they were asking for 
information about these charters there was quite a political contro- 
versy, at least, that broke out in New York. Whether it had been 
brewing before that time or not, I don't know. 

The Chairman. After it came to your attention that the charters 
had been possibly irregularly issued in disregard of that agreement, 
and under circumstances where publicity was indicating there was 
something out of order about them, did you or did the general presi- 
dent do anything to recall the charters, to cancel them, or to nullify 
them ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, sir ; we did not. We did not. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Senator MuNDT. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mohn, quite apart from the instant cases, I 
want to ask you some questions in general about charters. It would 
be my impression that a charter for a union is a pretty valuable docu- 
ment. Would you agree with that or not ? 

Mr. Mohn. I would agree with that. 

Senator Mundt. Could you advise the committee, consequently^ 
what, in general, are the safeguards that you establish out of your 
office to protect the union against granting charters fraudulently or 
to improper people ? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, the normal procedure when you receive a charter 
application is that either some general organizer or a vice president, 
or perhaps a joint council, would approve or vouch for the issuance 
of a charter. That is the general procedure. We would have no op- 
portunity, Senator Mundt, in the office, to make ourselves personally 
acquainted with the people out in the field who would be concerned 
with this charter. 

Senator Mundt. You had sort of a home-rule procedure 

Mr. Mohn. Eight. 

Senator Mundt. That if the local officers or local representatives 
of the international would vouch for them, you would not go beyond 
that, and you would assume that he had made the proper investiga- 
tion? 

Mr. Mohn. Right. 

Senator Mundt. And as a consequence in this instance, when that 
procedure was violated, for whatever reason it was violated — and I 
think you have agreed that in this instance it was violated 

Mr. Mohn. I said in this instance it was irregular. I think Sen- 
ator McClellan's question asked whether or not in this instance we 
had issued these charters in contradiction to the agreement that we 
had with the joint council. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you a question so that we will get on 
the basis of mutual understanding. Let me ask you this question : 
In the case of these charters which you had before you a few minutes 



EVIPROPEJR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4817 

ago, is it not correct that the procedure was violated which you have 
just enunciated, of having the local representatives vouch for the 
charters. 

Mr. MoHN". "Well, let me say in connection with New York, that 
perhaps no joint council in the international union over the years had 
paid as little attention to regular, accepted procedure as the joint 
council in New York. 

The agreement that you ask me about, or Senator McClellan asked 
me about, that we entered into, was entered into, or the request for 
such an agreement was entered into, primarily because at that time 
Vice President Hickey, who was our general organizer, he had re- 
quested over a period of time the issuance of some charters that were 
issued in New York, without the expressed approval of joint council 
16. It was because this had been going on that they asked for this 
agreement, which we sat down and worked out with them. 

So the history of joint council 16, without taking up a lot of the 
time of this committee, which I am sure tliey are not particularly 
interested in going into, had been one where the standard operating 
procedures that we hacl established with most of our organizations 
had not necessarily been too important in New York. 

Senator Mundt. In this particular case, however, neither joint 
council 16 nor your general organizer, nor your vice president, who 
in this case were one and the same — Mr. Hickey — neither Mr. Hickey, 
as general organizer and vice president, nor the joint council had 
placed approval on these so-called paper charters or paper locals. 

Mr. Moiix. Well, our records show that Mr. Hickey was absent for 
about a period of a month during the time that these applications were 
first received and during the whole period of time of the merger con- 
vention. He was on his vacation and was not in New York. He had 
not been contacted because the request for these charters had not come 
to the attention of our office prior to him being absent from New York. 
He was certainly advised about it when he came back. 

Senator Mundt. So for whatever reason, he did not approve these 
charters in advance ? 

Mr. Mohn. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And the joint council had not approved them in 
advance ? 

Mr. MoHN. Right. 

Senator Mundt. "V^-liy had the joint council not approved them in 
advance ? They were not all on vacation. 

Mr. MoHN. No ; they were not all on vacation. 

Senator Mundt. What reason was it that they did not approve 
them ? 

Mr. jMohn. Well, I think where we get into this conflict is that we 
are talking about a November 8 date, and to the best of my recollection 
we actually had nothing to act upon until the week of — the last week 
in November. Now, if we had had the formal charter application 
blanks in our office, say, 5 or 6 weeks prior to this convention being 
held, I am sure that they would have followed normal procedure. 

Senator Mundt. YN^iat I was really leading up to in my line of 
questioning, Mr. Mohn, was this : Since in this particular case the ar- 
rangement which you followed across the country generally was vio- 
lated, for whatever reason, violated to the point that neither the local 



4818 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

joint council nor the local organizer nor the local vice president 
had placed approval on the charters, it would seem to me that your 
curiosity would have been aroused by the fact that charters under 
those circumstances came to you without signatures; that the totality 
of evidence — no local endorsement, no local su]:)port, and no sigfna- 
tures— would have been a bronze light in your office to say, "Well, 
we had better investigate this pretty carefully. This is such a flagrant 
violation of our policy, maybe something is wrong." 

Mr, MoHN. I know of no merger convention that has been held 
since the Knights of Labor, to absorb themselves into the AFL, except 
this one, and there were a lot of unusual things going on about that 
time. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. So you explain the whole situation strictly on the 
basis that you were having a sort of shotgun approach to this merger 
convention. 

Mr.MoHN. I do. 

Senator Mundt. And you were, therefore, violating established 
procedures in order to consummate items of business before that time ? 

Mr. MoHN. I do. I assure you that if they had come up at any 
other period excepting under the stress of the convention which we 
were all very much concerned with, and, I might add, we are still 
concerned with it, they would have received the normal usual treat- 
ment. There would have been no reason for them not to have. 

Senator Mundt. Is it a fair summation of your testimony, Mr. 
Mohn, to say that there were no other influences, no other factors, no 
other conditions involved in these unusual procedures, putting them 
into operation, than the pending joint merger ? 

Mr. Mohn. As far as I was concerned. Senator Mundt, and I can 
only be responsible for Mohn sitting here today, as far as I am con- 
cerned there were no other factors involved ; none whatsoever. 

Senator Mundt. Could you add to that that there were no other 
factors influencing Mohn and there were no other factors of which 
you have any knowledge ? 

Mr. Mohn. At the time it occurred, there were no other factors that 
I had any knowledge of ; no. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Since then, as a result of our investigation, you 
imply you have learned about some other factors. 

Mr. Mohn. Well, I want to give the committee credit for everything 
that they are entitled to. But I think if you will read the record, 
immediately following that or very soon after that, this became a 
l^olitical issue in New York, and certainly at that time we found out 
that there may have been other motives involved in obtaining these 
charters. 

Senator Mundt. The first information 

Mr. Mohn. That was long before this committee started its investi- 
gation. 

Senator Mundt. The first information to that effect came either 
from Mr. Hickey or Mr. Lacey, or both, I presume ? 

Mr. Mohn. I think the first indication that we had that there was 
any political activity in the New York joint council came from Mr. 
Lacey's protest. There was no indication during the 2 weeks that I 
spent in New York that there was going to be a contest for the joint 
council presidency. There may have been people who knew about it, 
but I did not know about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4819 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. You state that this did not become known to you, 
these facts, until afterward, Mr. Mohn ? 

Mr. Mohn. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. How long afterward? You say it became a 
matter of a political issue in New York. 

Mr. Mohn. Well, the committee has all my files, which they have 
had since early this year, and I think there is a whole sequence of com- 
munications and correspondence that pretty well tells the story. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, let me ask you this : What action did 
you take, once you found out some of these facts that have been coming 
out, what action did you take to take away the charters ? 

Mr. Mohn, We did not take any action and take the charters away. 
Wlien the protest had been made that these people were to be seated 
for the purpose of voting in this election — you have a copy of a letter 
the general president sent to the New York joint council, stating that 
he would not permit them to vote in this election. They never did 
vote in this election. Their ballots were never opened, to my knowl- 
edge, until this committee obtained them and opened them. They 
were never voted. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, in other words you are stating that 
once these facts became known to you and to the president, that you 
used your influence and the president used his to prevent these ballots 
from being counted in the election, to prevent these locals from being 
seated, and also — is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Mohn. I did not say that. You said that. 

Senator Ivennedy. What did you say ? 

Mr. JMoHN. I said we notified them that the ballots — if these people 
were going to vote, that the ballots were not to be counted, that they 
were to be kept in a separate file, that they were to be properly sealed, 
and they were to be held there. That is what we told them and that 
is exactly what happened. The ballots never were counted until the 
committee counted them. 

Senator Kennedy. On December 3, 1^56, a year later, you are famil- 
iar with a wire that Mr. Dave Beck sent to Martin Lacey, saying that 
each of the locals involved is a duly chartered local union affiliated 
with the international brotherhood, and each has been such a local 
for approximately a year. 

Withholding by a joint council of recognition within that council 
to a duly chartered affiliated local union of the international brother- 
hood, and the failure of the joint council to recognize or seat qualified 
delegates of that local union, is contrary to the constitution of the 
international brotherhood. 

That does not seem to me, Mr. Mohn, that very much was done once 
these facts became known to prevent these charters from being main- 
tained, to x>revent these delegates from being seated. 

Mr. Mohn. We insisted that the local unions be seated in the joint 
council. From the very outset we insisted upon it. Our information, 
and I think substantiated by correspondence the committee has, in that 
the executive board of the joint council 16 met and that the majority of 
the board insisted upon that. They complained that the chairman at 
that time, Martin Lacey, had refused to go ahead and act upon the 
motion that had been adopted by a majority of the executive board. 
That is my recollection of what was in the files. 



4820 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. The point I am getting at, Mr. Mohn, is that in 
1955 these charters were granted and you have given an accounting say- 
ing you did not realize some of the factors behind tlie granting of the 
charters. Now we have a year hiter this wire by Mr. Beck, and we 
have other indications through that year, that in spite of the fraud 
involved in granting these charters, that the pressure from the top was 
in favor of maintaining these charters. 

I am asking you, when the factors behind the issuance of these char- 
ters came to your attention, what action you took to repeal these 
charters. 

Mr. MoHN. Well, of course, I can't assume your premise in asking 
that question. You said there was fraud used in the granting of these 
charters. I don't say that there was fraud used in the granting of these 
charters. I say that we did not follow the agreement we had with joint 
council 16. . 

Now, I think there is a vast difference between not following the 
agreement we had with joint council 16 and attributing to the interna- 
tional union fraud in the issuance of these charters. 

Senator Kennedy. You state that if you knew then what you know 
now, that you would still be in favor of these delegates being permitted 
to vote. 

Mr. MoHN. I did not know at the time the charters were issued who 
the delegates were, and I didn't know a year afterward who the dele- 
gates were. 

Senator Kennedy. I am not talking about who they were or what 
their names were. Did you know the conditions under which they 
were established ; these locals i 

Mr. MoHN. I knew very little about it. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, if you knew then what you know now about 
it, would you be in favor of these charters being granted and these 
delegates being seated ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, I tried to tell you. Senator Kennedy, that if it 
hadn't been for this impending merger convention these charters would 
have received the same considei-ation as any other charter that had been 
applied for. If that had been done, certainly we would have found out 
something about the conditions that existed in the community or the 
locality as to why they were asked for, one or more charters. 

Senator Kennedy. What would you have done then, Mr. Mohn ? 
Mr. MoHN. We probably would have gotten ahold of our vice 
president in that area, and if we had a general organizer, and if it 
was a large joint council that functioned with full time help we 
would have gotten ahold of somebody and asked them to give us a 
report on what the reasons were for the requests for these charters. 
Senator Kennedy. When did you do that; or did you ever do that? 
Mr, MoHN. We have never done it. 
Senator Kennedy. You have never done it ? 

Mr. MoiiN. No, because shortly after that the matter got into liti- 
gation in the New York courts, and it was kicked around there for 
many months. Lacey maintained his ofRce and there was no change 
in the joint council office, and I know of nothing that the joint comi- 
cil itself did or anybody else in the area to concern themselves after 
the matter of the election had been settled. I laiow of nothing that 
they did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4821 

Senator Kennedy. No action was taken once these cliarters were 
granted, and no action was taken by you or by anyone, to your 
knowledge, in the international against the people involved in the 
granting of tliese charters, once the facts behind the granting of the 
charters or behind the formation of the charters came to your atten- 
tion. No action was taken; is that correct? 

Mr. MoHN. No action has been taken. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Molin, the last question : If you knew 
then what you know now, would you favor the granting of these 
charterers, or would you have favored them ? 

Mr. MoiiN. If the committee's information is correct, and I as- 
sume it is correct, on some of the individuals that I have heard men- 
tioned over the radio and seen in the newspapers, no, I don't think 
we would have granted the charters. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, then, this information has not 
been available to you until the committee began its hearings? 

Mr. MoHN. I knew none of the individuals or any of their history. 

Senator Kennedy. You stated that this was a matter of some 
public knowledge because it became a political issue. In other 
words, you are saying until this committee began these hearings 
these facts brought out were not known to you. 

Mr. MoHN. I don't think that the New York joint council ever 
raised the question of the charters because of the individuals that 
were involved. They raised the question of the charters because they 
represented votes. 

Senator Kennedy. Because of the individuals involved, and be- 
cause of the fact there were no members. Is that what they raised 
the issue about ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't know about the question of membership. I 
can give you our records. Whether this represents the actual mem- 
bership or not, I don't Imow. These are the tax figures that have 
been paid to the international union since these locals were chartered. 

Local 258, they have paid 15,164 individual tax payments. Does 
the conunittee understand what I mean when I say "individual tax 
payments" ? 

The Chairman. I think we do. AVhat was the number. I did 
not get the number. 

Mr. MoHN. 15,164. 

Senator Mundt. My understanding is that that means that there 
are fifteen-thousand-odd members and that is a per capita tax. 

Mr. MoHN. No, that is not correct. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Will you explain, sir, so that we do know what 
you mean ? 

Mr. MoiiN. The international union charges 40-cents-per-member 
tax. This means there has been in this period of time that many- 
individual payments for that many individual tax stamps. 

Senator Mundt. How does that differ from what I said, that this 
was a per capita tax and it represented that many members ? 

Mr. MoHN. It may not. One member could pay 2 months' dues, 
and it would show on our records as representing two 40-cent pieces. 

Senator Mundt. It does not mean there were 15,000 members? 

Mr. MoHN. No, sir ; it does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. On that one, when did that begin ? 



4822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoTiN. I believe, Mr. Kennedy, that this began with the month 
of November. Now, I don't want to be held to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1955 ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any investigation at all to jBnd out 
if any of these unions had any membei*s, Mr. Mohn ? 

Mr. MoTiN. I did not, personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now tell me, how could the merger 

Mr. MoHN. I would like to fmish this. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Our records show it did not begin in November of 
1955, so if you are going to read some figures here, I think that they 
should be complete. 

Mr. MoHN. They did not begin in November ? 

Mr. I^nnedy. No. We have the international records here, and 
actually there were no payments until January 12, 1956, and actually 
our investigation showed that it had no members at that time. 

Mr. MoHN. Let me put it this way, maybe this will clarify it : Any 
payments that were made were made certainly not before November, 
and from November up until August 16, which is the latest figure I 
have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, August of of 1956 is really the first time that 
any membership started to pay any per capita dues according to the 
records we have. 

Mr. MoHN. I am not trying to make this reflect membership. I am 
trying to tell you that our records show that during this period of 
time, this is the amount of tax that they sent into our international 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are not questioning, Mr. Mohn, that they did not 
have membership after July of 1956, because they did. They trans- 
ferred their membership over from the UAW-AFL unions. This is 
perfectly right, they did get membership and then when their charters 
were lifted in February of 1957, they got more membership. There 
is no question but what they have been paying per capita dues. 

But the big question is back in 1955 when you say these charters 
were granted, what membership did they have at that time, and how 
possibly could the merger convention affect the granting of these 
charters ? 

Mr. MoHN. I think it could. Now, let us get separated the question 
as far as membership is concerned. 

If I recollect, and I don't look at the records down on the second 
floor too often, but if I recollect correctly there were some taxpayments 
made during November and December. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have them here, and there are none for the local 
that you mentioned. 

No. 1, I would like to say this: We have established the fact 
that there were no members ; and No. 2, your records down in the inter- 
national show there were no members ; and No. 3, when Mr. Hoffa came 
and requested that these charters be granted prior to the merger con- 
vention, that must have been because there was going to be membership 
coming into the teamsters, and you wanted to get them in prior to the 
merger convention. But that actually never happened. 

Mr. MoiiN. I don't think that the fact that the membership was 
going to come in prior to the merger was the important factor. The 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 4823 

important factor as far as we were concerned was that these organiza- 
tions were already organizations in the UAW, chartered by the 
federation. 

Now, whatever jurisdiction they had on those charter grants from 
the federation, and whatever organizing jurisdiction that might in- 
clude, that was the important thing, and not whether they had 20 
members or 200 members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything in any constitution that pre- 
vents the teamsters from setting up a local in New York City, estab- 
lishing a local in New York City after the merger convention? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, we can do that ; surely. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the difference between establishing a local 
in November or in December of 1955, and establishing a local in 
February of 1956 ? 

Mr, MoHN. At the time the charters were issued, we thought or we 
believed that there were members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is the point, then, and now you are coming 
back. You had to have as a prerequisite the fact that they had 
membership : is that right ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, we did not have to have a prerequisite, and there 
isn't anything in our constitution that spells out how many members 
you have to have to grant a charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not saying that. But if the argument that you 
had to have this, or had to have these locals granted prior to the merger 
convention is to hold up, these locals must have had to have member- 
ship. 
Mr. MoHN. At least we must have thought that they had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think that they had membership ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that they had membership ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't know if anybody specifically told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean to tell the committee that you granted 
these charters to individuals for locals, seven different locals, and you 
didn't even inquire whether they had any membership or not ? 

Mr. MoHN. I didn't tell the committee that, and I don't intend to 
tell the committee that. I am saying that these organizations as far 
as my knowledge was concerned, were former organizations affiliated 
with the UAW-AFL. I had every reason to believe, that that being 
so, they were going to transfer organizations over lock, stock, and 
barrel, including members. 

Mr. Kennedy. W^re you told that ? 

Mr. MoHN. Wliat? 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told that ? 

Mr. MoHN. I can't say I was specifically told that. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all an assumption on Einar Mohn's part 
and that is why these charters were granted ? 

Mr. MoHN. No. I think now you are trying to ask me questions that 
are a little unfair. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am trying to find out. IMr. Mohn, looking at the 
chart, these charters were granted to seven different groups of indi- 
viduals, and they had no membership at all. Two of the locals, 
295 and 275, came out of teamster locals. 

Mr. Mohn. That is right. 



4824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. They split up, and there wasn't any merger problem 
there. 

Mr. MoHN. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. For the other five, there wasn't any merger prob- 
lem for 651 because that charter was granted to an employee of a 
liquor store, who had never had any labor experience whatsoever. That 
was Nat Gordon. He never had any labor experience. 

Mr. MoHN. If I recollect, he made the application for a charter, 
whoever made it, and that charter never functioned. 

Mr. Kennedy. You granted that charter to him, and with instruc- 
tions — or gave later instructions that the officers of that local should be 
permitted to be seated so that they could vote in the election ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't think we said they were to be seated so they 
could vote in the election. If they are affiliates of the international 
miion, they must affiliate with the joint council if one exists in the area. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So this is a man in local 651, and an employee of a 
liquor store, absolutely no membership, and you sent a telegram on 
January 9, 1956, that this is one of the locals that should affiliate with 
the joint council and, therefore, be permitted to vote in the election. 

Mr. MoHN. You are assuming that I knew all of this when I issued 
the charter and I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you just assume that 651 had membership, for 
instance ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, I assumed they had membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about 258, 269, 284, and 362, the last four? 
None of them had any membership until July of 1956. 

Mr. MoHN. Now, I think there is a lot of difference between looking 
at this thing sitting here today, when it has been well publicized, ad- 
vertised, and investigated and a lot of attention drawn to it, and 
knowing what we did about it at the time that the charters were issued. 

The issuance of six charters in the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters was not any tremendous, earthshaking thing to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, either you were being imposed upon, 
either the international was being imposed upon, or you arrived at an 
assumption on vrhich there was no basis in fact. 

Either Mr. Hoffa told you that these locals were going to have 
membership or he did not. Now, if he did not, that means that you 
reached an assumption that had no basis in fact. 

Mr. MoHN. I perhaps did. I may have reached an assumption that, 
looking back now at it with the knowledge you people have and that 
I have. I would not have reached. That is possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the question was raised on December 15 

Mr. MoiiN. Let us try to keep this in context now. We are inquiring 
now as to the knowledge that was had of this prior to and at the time 
it was done. We are not discussing this now as to what you think 
about it or I think about it today. 

We are talking about now, the facts as they were at the time that 
this took place. 

Mr. Kennedy. You granted 7 charters, Mr. ISIohn, which you agreed 
were very vahiable instruments, and you granted 7 charters and at least 
up to now it looks like vou granted the 7 charters without any investi- 
gation of your own at all. 

You granted them to seven groups of individuals that had no 
membership. Now, I am taking you up to December 15, 1955. 



IMI>R0PER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4825 

Senator McNamara. Getting back a little bit to the issuance of 
the charters, will you tell me the present status of the charter issued 
to local 296 ? Is it still in existence ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, it is. 

Senator McNamara. Do they have a membership ? 

Mr, MoHN. Yes, they do. 

Senator McNamara. Is it a subordinate body to 808, or is it an 
independent ? 

Mr. MoHN. It is an individual local union. 

Senator McNamara. Then it is in existence and it is still operating ? 

Mr. MoHN. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. This McNamara that we had here is still with 
it? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. He is one of the officers of it ? 

Mr. MoHN. So far as I know, Senator. 

Senator McNamara. Do I understand from your line of question- 
ing quite a bit back, that you thought these charters were issued much 
after November 8, the date on the charter ? 

Mr. Mohn. That was my understanding. Senator. 

Senator McNamara. Then we are to believe 

Mr. MoHN. The physical issuance of the charters did not take place 
until sometime toward the latter part of November. That is my 
understanding. 

Senator McNamara. When you refer to the physical issuing of 
them, you said tliat you assumed that somebody came down. 

Mr. MoHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one objection. I 
try to be very cooperative with the press, and I know a lot of them, 
and they are very fine fellows, but I can see no necessity for these 
people sitting right down here in front. Everytime I want to scratch 
my ear, they want to take a picture. 

The Chairman. Your request is granted and the photographers 
will take no more pictures while the witness testifies. 

Mr. MoHN. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator McNamara. If they are not going to take any pictures, 
would there be any objection to asking them to move, because they 
are between me and the witness and perhaps they disturb us a little 
bit. That is, if they are not going to be taking pictures. 

The Chairman. Move out of the line of contact, please. 

Senator McNamarA. The question I was asking you was this: You 
indicated that you believed the charters were issued after November 
8? 

Mr.MoHN. I did. 

Senator McNamara. You referred to the belief that you have, 
some individual came down here and picked the charters up in 
Washington ? 

Mr. MoHN. I do. 

Senator McNamara. Now, you use the term in answer to my ques- 
tion, "physical issuance of them." You are referring to the incident 
where the man came down and picked them up. You believe that 
was later than November 8. 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, sir. 



4826 IMPROPER AC?nVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamaea. Much later ? Was it weeks later ? 

Mr. MoHN. I would say at least 2 weeks later. 

Senator McNamara. Is it customary to issue a charter as of the 
date on which the application was dated when the charter finally 
issued ? Is it customary procedure to do that ? 

Mr. MoHN. I wouldn't say that you could find anything to sub- 
stantiate that it would be or it wouldn't be. Many times we get a 
charter application sent to us in the mail. It may be 2 weeks or 4 
weeks or 6 weeks or 6 months later before we decide to issue that 
charter. 

Senator McNamara. But in this case 

Mr. MoHN. Then you can have the reverse of that. You may find 
a vice president or an organizer who will come to the office and he 
has already gathered up what he believes to be sufficient information, 
and the charter is issued and he may take the charter back with him 
when he goes back to his area. 

Senator McNamara. In any event, you think that the charters 
generally bear the date of the actual issuance of the charter and not 
the date of the application ; is that correct ? 

Mr. MoHN. No; I don't think that they necessarily have to do 
that. I think that in many instances, because especially when people 
are transferring from another organization they may have some 
physical reasons why they want a certain date to appear on that 
charter. 

It may have to do with a contract expiration date, or it may have 
to do with several things that make it perfectly valid that they would 
want that date rather than the date that was actually made out or 
delivered from our headquarters. 

Senator McNamara. As far as the date on this charter is concerned, 
even though you believe that it was subsequent to the date shown on 
the charters, you think this is not an unusual procedure ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, I don't ; and I don't think that the difference be- 
tween the 8th and what I believe to be the date they were delivered — 
and I tried to, at great length, inform the staff when they interviewed 
me on this question that that was so. 

Senator McNamara. Who had the authority to issue charters? 
That is besides the general president ? 

Mr. MoHN. The general president's office has to approve the issuance 
of a charter. 

Senator McNamara. And they are given in his name? 

Mr. Mohn. That's right. 

Senator McNamara. And he was the only one authorized? Does 
not the secretary -treasurer have the authority under your constitution 
to issue charters ? 

Mr. MoHN. I think the constitution, if you read it, literally says so, 
but it has not been practiced, and we are correcting that in the redraft- 
ing of our constitution because it is an administrative function, and 
certainly ought to be solely controlled by the person who is in charge 
of the physical administration of the organization. 

Senator McNamara. I am asking you the question and probably I 
did not phrase it well. As of the date of issuance of this charter, did 
anybody other than the general president have authority to issue 
charters ? 



IMPROPER ACnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4827 

Mr. MoHN, No ; we are not shirking that responsibility in the gen- 
eral president's office at all. 

Senator McNamara. Do you know who issued these charters ? You 
did not know it ? 

Mr. MoHN. I was not there when they were physically issued. 

Senator McNamara. "Was President Beck in Washington on that 
date, do you know ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, I don't think that he was, Senator, and I didn't 
check his calendar and I checked my own before I came down here. 

Senator McNamara. Is Joint Council No. 16 a chartered body of the 
international ? 

Mr. MoHN. It is. 

Senator McNamar^v. Do you know who issued that charter ? 

Mr. MoiiN. Well, that goes back an awful lot of years. 

Senator McNamara. Does it? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. It is an old institution ? 

Mr. MoiiN. It certainly is. I wouldn't hazard a guess, but that goes 
back to the early days. 

Senator McNamara. That would be prior to Dave Beck being 
president ? 

Mr. MoiiN. Many, many years prior to that. 

Senator McNamara. You used the phrase, "political issue," that this 
thing became a political issue in New York. 

I take it that you are referring to union political issues and not po- 
litical issue in the general sense of the word. 

Mr. MoHK. I am not involving the mayor or the Governor. 

Senator McNamara. Without involving the mayor or the Governor, 
there is a common interpretation put on ''political issue," and you are 
talking about a imion political issue; is that right? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes ; and there have been lots of them in joint council 
16, believe me. 

Senator McNamara. I am sure you want the record to show that 
you are using this phrase not in the general sense of a political issue, 
but union politics. 

Mr. MoiiN. That's right; internal politics. 

Senator McNamar^v. I think that is all at that point. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just get back and following it through, let us assume 
that what you say is correct, that these locals did have membership at 
that time, and that is what you believed that these locals did have 
membership. What*in the constitution is there to prevent these locals 
from transferring over after the merger ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well 

Mr. Kennedy. What section of the constitution, AFL-CIO consti- 
tution prevents that ? 

Mr. MoiiN. There is nothing to prevent them, but it would have to 
be a voluntary act on the part of that international union. 

Certainl}?^, the constitution provides and encourages the voluntary 
merger, amalgamation of organization, but on the other hand laclving 
that, their rights are certainly very specifically protected both as to 
the entity of the organization that existed prior to the merger, and 
this has been, at least to us, a very troublesome section of the new con- 
.stitution, because nobody seems to be able to define it — it grants to them 
their organizational jurisdiction, whatever that means. 



4828 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you understand that the international 
would oppose these locals transferring over to the teamsters? 

Mr. MoiiN. I did not understand that. I had no information as to 
what the international might want to or might not want to do, I had 
no information on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well then, despite the fact that there was a merger 
of the AFL-CIO, if these locals wanted to transfer over in December 
1955, and if that was the reason, when these locals wanted to transfer 
over in December of 1955 or January of 1956, or even after your 
joint council election, they could do so; could they not? 

Mr. MoiiN. Provided their national union had approved, and I 
would assume — and I am not an expert on this AFL-CIO constitu- 
tion — I would assume that it would also imply approval by the AFL- 
CIO to be assured that two organizations would not get together and 
do so at the detriment of somebody else's jurisdiction. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa tell you whether the international 
was approving or disapproving of this ? 
Mr. MoHN. He did not. 
Mr. Kennedy. He did not mention it? 
Mr. MoHN. He did not mention it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, as I understand it, he did say that these officials 
of these UAW-AFL locals wanted to transfer over into the teamsters ? 
Mr. MoHN. I can't and I am not going to attempt to go back and 
reconstruct for you what was said on that particular day, because my 
memory is not that good. We did not discuss a great deal of detail in 
connection with these, and we were discussing the transferring over 
of organizations presently affiliated, with the exception of those that 
we split off from our own group, affiliated with the UAW. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said that you discussed the merger, isn't that 
correct, and you read three sections of it. 
Mr. MoHN. Yes, sir ; and we discussed the merger. 
Mr. Kennedy. You and Mr. Hoffa discussed it ? 
Mr. MoiiN. We have discussed the merger and in the official family 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters for at least a year prior 
to its taking place, and we are not through discussing it yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, when Mr. Hoifa spoke to you with these 
locals you discussed the merger, did you ? 

Mr. Mohn. Yes, sir; we did, and we discussed the merger. 
Mr. Kennedy. You discussed it in connection with these locals. , 
Mr. Mohn. Only to the extent that they should be transferred over 
prior to the merger so we would not have the problems that are con- 
tained in article 3, those sections which I read. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that imply, therefore, that the international 
was going to oppose these locals from coming over ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't say it implied they would oppose or approve. 
It was discussed. 

Mr. Kennedy. But if there was no problem of a merger, Mr. Mohn,'- 
as you say, unless the international is going to oppose, that is about 
transferring. And so, if Mr. Hoffa said to you, "We have got to do 
this before the merger," there must have been indicated to you or 
indicated to both of you, that this was going to be opposed by the 
international. 

Mr. Mohn. I suppose, from an academic point of view it would 
appear very simple, but from a practical trade union point of view it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4829 

isn't that simple. There are always problems involved when you dis- 
cuss mergers, and when you discuss jurisdiction. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well now, going beyond that, all that in fact was 
done in the granting of these charters was the giving of charters to 
former officials of the UAW-AFL ; isn't that right ? That in fact, is 
what was done. 

Mr. MoHN. If I assume now the facts as you have stated them, that 
there was no membership there, that is in effect what happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Looking back on it, is that what you expected would 
happen ? 

Mr. JNIoHN. No ; it is not what I expected would happen at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Coming up to December 15, 1955, Mr. Martin Lacey 
sent a telegram to you requesting the charter applications, to find out 
what the jurisdiction of these people was, and to find out the back- 
ground of these people. 

Could you tell us why you never sent those charter applications to 
Mr. Lacey in the joint council? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, we held it up. We did not send them. As I said 
before, there was a big political controversy brewing in joint council 
16. We had lived through a few of those before. It was always our 
experience that Lacey and O'Rourke over the years had many fights, 
and they would appear to outsiders to be very bitter fights. 

But it you concerned yourself, or the international union concerned 
itself, in their fights, they quickly got together to protect themselves 
from anybody from the outside being concerned. 

That has been the history of joint council 16. Just as a matter of 
information at our 1952 convention, when we all supported Vice Presi- 
dent Hickey, including Vice President HolTa who supported him, 
you had Lacey trying to elect O'Rourke in Hickey's place. 

In this election that took place in joint council 16, you had Vice 
President Hickey supporting Lacey, Now, as I understand it, at least 
the delegates of Martin Lacey's local union, whether he himself is 
going to participate or not, have now turned around and they are 
going to support O'Rourke to defeat Hickey. 

Now, we don't get too serious about politics up in joint council 16. 
We left them strictly alone. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you one question at that point. The 
fact that they might be on different political sides at one time or 
another time they might support each other or be together — what does 
that have to do with withholding from the joint council records in 
the international of|ice, to which it is entitled to a copy ? 

I would certainly assume that it is entitled to know who is char- 
tered, and what locals are chartered in its jurisdiction. 

]Mr. MoHN. I think someplace in your files, Senator McClellan, you 
will find a telegram that was sent to joint council 16. 

The Chairman. We have that telegram, which was sent something 
over a month I believe after the letter was written, about 5 weeks 
after the letter was written. 

Mr. MoHN. It might have been that long. 

The Chairman. We have that. 

Mr, MoHN. I don't know the date. 

The Chairman. But it did not throw very much light on the sub- 
ject as to why the charters were not sent or any information given 

89330 — 57 — pt. 12 22 



4830 IMPROPER ACTWITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

about them. I just cannot see, with O'Rourke and Lacey fighting one 
time and not fighting the next, why the officials of joint council 16 
were not entitled to have the information that you had an agreement 
with them they should have even before the charters were issued. 

Mr. MoHN. I think the first issue that they were concerned about 
was that these people not be allowed to vote. We certainly acted 
expeditiously on that and they were not permitted to vote. 

Contrary to some of the press reports that have come out of these 
hearings, that these are the people that elected O'Rourke, they did 
not vote. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Well, they did vote. There is a question about 
whether they were counted or not, and they got into a lawsuit up there 
about them voting. 

Mr. MoHN. They did vote, I stand corrected, and their ballots were 
not counted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we get back to my question, please ? 

On December 15, Mr. Lacey wrote a letter speaking for the joint 
council, and requested from you or from the international copies of 
the applications of these various locals. 

Wliy didn't you send that to him ? Why didn't you send copies of 
those applications to the joint council ? 

If the only question here, or the only reason you rushed it and by- 
passed the joint council, in November, and bypassed Hickey in Novem- 
ber, was because of the merger convention why after that didn't you 
send them copies of the application ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't know that I have any specific reason, except 
that we weren't in any hurry about it. If I recall the telegram was 
sent stating that there were too many charters for the membership 
involved, and I recommended that they ought to be consolidated and 
reduced. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand and I am going to come to that, and 
you say that you have no explanation for not sending that 
information ? 

Mr. MoHN. I have no definite reason to give you why, and it wasn't 
done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, on January 9, 1956, you sent a telegram to 
joint council 16, and you said that you had found that the membership 
of these various locals was very small and you were contemplating 
consolidating them. 

Mr. MoHN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, at that time, you must have made an in- 
vestigation ; had you not ? 

Mr. INIoHN. I didn't need to, and we had taken the tax reports as 
they were coming in. 

Mr. Kennedy. The tax reports showed they didn't have any member- 
ship. 

Mr. MoiiN. I tliink that you will find that there were some members 
reported on the tax forms at that time. I believe so. I could be in 
error. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now as of the time, at the time you sent the telegram 
on Januai-y 9, did you have any membership? The first membership 
that is shown on here, at all, is January 12, 1956, which in fact is in- 
accurate, but you didn't have any membership on January 9, according 
to vour own i-ecords. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4831 

Mr. MoHN. Then I must have found out from somebody that the 
membership was very small. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you find out from, Mr. Mohn ? 

Mr. Mohn. Mr. Kennedy, I couldn't tell you who gave me that 
specific information. I just couldn't tell you that. It might have 
been from any number of people. 

Mr. Kennedy. They requested the applications for charter and 
asked you to look into the matter and you didn't bother doing anything 
about that, and then you send them a telegram on January 9 and said 
you understand that the membership in these locals was small, but 
now you can't give any explanation where you found that information 
out. 

Mr. MoHN. Someplace, and where the figure comes from I don't 
know at the moment. But someplace, the overall figure of 1,500 mem- 
bers in 6 local unions sticks in my mind. Where that figures came 
from, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know, either. 

Mr. Mohn. I don't, but that was the figure I had in my mind. I 
can't tell you where I got it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mohn, the Chair presents to you a ledger 
sheet, I assume that would be the correct title of it, and I understand 
it is an original out of the records of the international, and I would 
like to get you to identify that, if you will, and we will make it an 
exhibit so that we will keep a record here of what we are talking about 
: and what we are questioning you about. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. IMoHN. Well, I don't keep the records down there, and I am sure 
however that this is taken right from our files, and it looks like it is. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That will be made exhibit 
No. 154 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 154" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We have these other locals here, Mr. Chairman. 

For 269, the first membership is shown to be on the 13th of 
. January. 

The Chairman. Let me present these to you. 

I present to you photostatic copies of the same records, apparently, 
for local 269, and ask you to examine that one, and see if you identify 
it. 

Also for 284, 295, 275, and 262. 

(Documents we^e handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Mohn. I know the committee obtained these, and I am per- 
fectly willing to agree that those are the records they obtained, and 
my identification would be worth very little. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 115-A, B, C, D, and E 
for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 155-A, B, 
C, jD, and E," for reference and may be found in the files of the select 
■committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. On January 9, you also said to Mr. Lacey that you 
were forwarding the copies of the charter applications, and you 
told him on January 9 that you would forward that information to 
him and to the joint council. 



4832 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Have you ever done that? 

Mr, MoiiN. I don't tliink that it has been formally done yet. 
Mr. Kennedt. But that is 19 months ago. 
Mr. MoHN. I didn't count it up, but it some time ago. 
Now I think it is only fair to say when you ask that question, that it 
wasn't long following that that the whole matter became involved 
in litigation in New York, and there were charges flying back and 
forth between tJi^se two factions, and we just made up our minds to 
stay out of it until something jelled in New York. 

Tlie Chairmax. It wouldn't have been a good idea to stay out of it 
and not condone it. Would it not have been a good idea to have 
withdrawn the charters ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, we could hardly have stayed out of it, if we had 
withdrawn the charters. 

The CiTAKMAX. I don't see how you could stay out of it, if you 
have the charters in existence. 

Mr. MoHN". If the theory that the committee has been working on 
is that the charters were issued to help O'Rourke, we certainly would 
have been partisan if we had got into it at this stage of the game. 

The Chairman. You were partisan when you got into it in the 
first stage of the game, if that is what it was for. 

Mr. MoHN. It was not partisan as far as I am concerned. 
The C FT AIRMAN. I didn't say as far as you were concerned, but if 
that is the purpose of it to begin with, it is partisan to begin with. 
It was conceived in partisanship. 

Senator Mxtndt. Mr. Mohn, is there any minimum number of 
members that have to belong to a local union before you can get a 
charter ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, sir. 

Senator Mitndt. Well, is it the policy of the international to grant 
a charter with tlie only members being the officers of the union ? 

Mr. IVIoH'sr. Yes, we have granted charters with oidy the charter 
members themselves were members, but we were trying to organize 
that particular group of workers, and there is nothing unusual about 
that. 

Senator Mundt. I am just thinking in terms of how this reflects 
itself in the votes, let us say, of an international convention, since you 
are going to hold one in September. Does a local get some votes in 
an international convention even though it doesn't have any members? 
Mr. MoiiN. The votes of a local union are based upon the tax 
that they have paid, over the period since the last convention. 

Senator Mundt. T^et us take a hypothetical case, local 100, Omaha, 
Nebr. This is a hypothetical case. Five people in Omaha get to- 
gether and apply for a charter and they make themselves president 
and vice president and secretary-treasurer and two trustees, and you 
grant them a charter. 

Does that local have any votes at a convention such as you are hav- 
ing in September? 

INIr. MoiiN. They would have to have seven to hold a charter, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt, All right — seven. 

Mr. MoiiN. If they had maintained that charter for a period of 6 
months, they would be entitled to 1 vote. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4833 

Senator Mundt, Now, if they were a regular union, and suppose 
they have 200 members — how many votes would they have? 

Mr. Moiix. They are entitled to 1 vote for every 750 members or 
major fraction thereof. 

And we have a membership of 1.4 million now, and so I don't think 
that these G local miions could, or is, going to influence the outcome 
at our international convention. 

Senator Mundt. I am just trying to establish in my o^^^l mind 
whether or not constitutional safeguards were needed in your organi- 
zation, to prevent some international officers who might have com- 
petition from M-illy nilly offering to charter a lot of unions to per- 
petuate themselves. He would have to put in a v/liale of a lot of 
local charters. 

Mr. MoHN. lie would have to get an awful lot of them. Senator 
Mundt. 

Senator Mukdt. That is what I am trying to find out. 

Mr. MoTiN. Yes, he would. 

Senator McNamara. To your knowledge, Mr. Mohn, up to now, did 
anybody ever admit issuing these charters ? 

Mr. Mohn. Admit issuing them ? 

Senator McNamara. Yes. Has someone taken the responsibility 
for the physical issuing? 

Mr. Mohn. I think I stated earlier that I am not going to shirk that 
responsibility. Those charters were issued out of the general presi- 
dent's office, and that includes me and the general president. 

Senator McNamara. But you do not know whether you or the 
general president or the secretary-treasurer or somebody else did it ? 

Mr. Mohn. I don't think that that is too important. They would 
not have been issued if approval hadn't been given by the general 
president's office. 

Senator McNamara. Then I take it that your anH\ver implies that 
you do not think it possible that someone obtained these forms and 
filled them out without any authority from the international office ? 

Mr. Mohn. No. Nobody sneaked into the building under cover 
of darkness and walked off with the charters. That was not done. 

Senator McNamara. I do not know why you say "sneaked into the 
building under the cover of darkness.'" I did not have anything like 
that in mind. 

Mr. Mohn. I know. But nobody could have gotten them out of 
there without the approval of the general president's office. 

Senator McNamara. One of the employees could not have taken 
them out and given them to somebody if they met them in a restau- 
rant ? That would be impossible ? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, I suppose a lot of things are possible. I don't 
think it would be very probable. 

Senator McNamara. Did I understand correctly from what you 
have said that it is compulsory on the part of every local union to 
become a member of the joint council in their area? 

Mr. Mohn. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. It is not optional with the local union as to 
whether they become, in New York City, part of joint council 16 
or not? 

We have had some testimony previously that indicated that they 
were not compelled to belong to joint council 16 and it came about in 



4834 IMPROPER ACnVITIE& IN THE LABOR FIELD 

connection with the issuance of charters around joint council 16, and 
they never did become affiliated with joint council 16. 

Mr. MoHN. Well, our constitution, as I read it, and as it has been 
interpreted, provides that a local union, if a joint council exists in that 
area — you couldn't require a local union in Kansas City to affiliate 
with the joint council in Chicago. That would be physically 
impossible. 

Senator McNamara. That is right. 

Mr. MoHN. But if there is a joint council in the area, they must 
affiliate with the joint council. There is good reason for that. 

Senator McNamara. Automatically, or do they have a specified 
length of time? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't think that it is spelled out as to 30 days or 60 
days. 

Senator McNamara. Then this condition that I talked about, pre- 
viously testified to, could actually be the circumstance in New York 
City ? They might have had a charter for a local union and not have 
become affiliated with joint council 16 because of the time element 
involved ? 

Mr. MoiiN. Well, I think that the big reason that these local unions 
didn't affiliate with the joint council up there is because the matter 
got into litigation, and everything was just left in status quo. If 
they had resolved their issues without going to court, there would 
have been an entirely different story written here. 

I think, and this is supposition now, I am just thinking, I think 
instead of resorting to litigation, that they would have found an 
answer to amalgamating the membership that either was in these lo- 
cals or that was going to come into these local unions into existing 
local unions, and at least eliminate the need for 6 or 7 charters to take 
care of this jurisdiction. I think that all would have come about. 

But they elected to go into court and litigate the question. 

Senator McXmlara. In the normal process, however, there is no 
option with the local union. As soon as th&y get a charter, they are 
automatically members of the joint council ? 

Mr. MoHN. You say as soon as. That might be a reasonable jjeriod 
of time. But they must affiliate with a joint council in the area if one 
exists. 

Senator McNamara. That is your setup ? 

Mr. MoHN. That is right. 

Senator Mukdt. You say there is a good reason for that, Mr. Mohn. 
What is the reason ? 

Mr. MoHN. There is a very good reason for tliat, because a joint 
council has certain constitutional functions that it must perform, it 
is the joint council's responsibility to perform. 

One of those is the question of trials and appeals from trials held in 
local unions. They must go to the joint council. 

The other, and perhaps the most important function of a joint 
council, is that a joint council is the body that is constitutionally set 
up in the first instance to deal with jurisdictional proble^ns that arise 
between local unions within that area. 

Senator Mundt. By joint council, is that meant to imply that it is 
a joint council representing all of the teamsters unions in the area, or 
is it all labor unions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4835 

Mr. MoHN. No, when I refer to a joint council, it only represents 
our teamster unions in that area. 

Senator Mundt. It is a sort of umpire of disputes within the union? 

Mr. MoHN. It has certain constitutional powers that are granted to 
it, and that is one of them, subject to appeal to our general executive 
board. 

Senator Mundt. In the city of New York, I suppose there is some 
other kind of joint council, is there not, that represents all branches of 
organized labor ? 

Mr. MoHN. They have a city "central body" or city "federation." I 
don't know what term they use in New York. 

Senator Mundt. There is no relationship between that and what we 
are talking about here ? 

Mr. MoHN. No. One of the big problems in New York, as long as 
you are talking about the joint council and its functions, is that the 
New York joint council has never functioned in assuming their re- 
sponsibility to straighten our jurisdictional lines. 

That has been one of our big problems up there. 

There was no good reason why the UAW should get any organiza- 
tion work even started in this field. That was more properly our 
jurisdiction than theirs. 

If our people had been doing their job in New York, in my opinion 
they would have been out there organizing these industries instead of 
letting somebody else do it. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator 1 vt.s. Mr. Mohn, I would like to ask you a question that may 
be a rather leading question. Are you acquainted with John 
Dioguardi ? 

Mr. MoHN. I have met John Dioguardi, Senator Ives, I think on 
four occasions. 

Senator Ives. Have you ever had anything to do with him on those 
occasions, outside of just meeting him? 

Mr, MoHN. I will be glad to tell you how I met him, mider what 
conditions I met him. 

Senator Ives. I wish you would, because Dioguardi seems to be the 
one that has caused a lot of this trouble up there. 

Mr. MoHN. Well, I don't know Mr. Dioguardi. When I say, "I know 
him," I don't know him. I came out here in 1953, and I met Dioguardi 
for the first time in New York when there was a question arose as to 
whether the UAW should have jurisdiction over cabdrivers in New 
York or whether the teamsters should have it. I remember I went out 
with a group of the officers — at least that is what I uiiderstood they 
were — of the UAW's cabdrivers local union, and John Dioguardi was 
with them. 

We took a little tour of the city. He showed me some of the places 
that they were organizing. They had one company out on strike. I 
don't remember the name of the company. 

We went by that to see how many cabs they had tied up that were 
in the barn, saw the picket line, and then he drove me on out to the 
airport and I got on an airplane and came back to Washington. 

Senator Ives. Was Mr. Hoffa with you at that time? 

Mr. MoHN. No ; he was not. 

Senator Ives. What was the next time you met Dioguardi ? 



4836 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoHN. I met liim clown in Florida, and I believe that this was 
during the winter. It was either in December of 1954 — I think it was 
the winter of that year, anj'way. They were having a jurisdictional 
dispute. One of the NAW locals was having a jurisdictional dispute 
with one of our organizations in New York, and Tony Doria and 
Johnny Dio spoke to me about it very briefly at Miami. 

Senator Ives. Was Mr. Hoffa there ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, he was not. 

Senator I\t:s. What was the next time you met him or had a con- 
ference with him, Dioguardi ? 

Mr. MoHN. I met him here in Washington at a resl;iurant with 
another individual. I happened to stay downtown for dinner with 
this other individual and we ran into him. 

Senator Ites. What was the purport of your meetings with him? 
You indicated more or less what you had to say in the first one. Wliat 
did you have to say in some of the others? Did you find him to be 
the kind of character that he has been found to be ? 

Mr. MoHN. No, not at the meetings I had with him. He could 
have been any labor representative from anywhere. 

Senator Ives. You knew nothing about his record at that time ? 

Mr. MoHN. I did not. 

Senator Ives. You did not realize he was getting your people into 
a lot of trouble up there? Did you? 

Mr. MoHN. I did not. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, let us i^roceed. 

Let counsel develop the testimony a little further. 

Mr. Kennedy. Coming to January 9th, your telegram, and then 
Mr. Lacey's telegram back to you starts out : 

Your chatty and interesting but belated telegram of Jantiary 9 with reference 
to our serious letter of December 15 last to Dave Beck, general president received. 

We know how busy our international president is but when 125,000 members 
represented through this joint council make an important and .significant request 
to him such as was done in our letter of December 15, we are puzzled why he 
does not reply so that constitutionally provided reviews, if necessary, can be 
followed. 

Many of us here think that fraud and deception have been utilized in seeking 
charters from the international and there is even the possibility that a major 
conspiracy directed to the detriment of this joint council and of the international, 
may be involved. 

As solid trade unionists we want to protect our members, improve their con- 
ditions and fight in the basic union way for the people we represent and do not 
want to be party to or subjected to the establishment of any clique or block 
control of manpower for intra- or inter-union politics. 

Although suspicion has been aroused by your belated telegram, which you must 
admit is meaningless, but which we assume is intended to be kindly, we still must 
follow in the mandate of our joint council and demand as to the seven alleged 
charters which say were issued, the copies of the applications for such charters, 
per capita payments made, copies of the alleged charters which we assume will 
outline the "jurisdiction" purportedly granted, and the names and addresses of 
the individuals at Mhose behest said alleged charters have been issued. The 
joint council will continue to table applications of such alleged locals until there 
is a thorough examination, we hope with the cooperation of the international 
union, of the applicants. 

Please therefore request our general president, Dave Beck, to comply with our 
letter of December 15, 1955, and furnish the information requested and indicated 
herein promptly, and at the same time, express the agreement which was made 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4837 

with our council regarding the issuance of new charters a letter to this council 
dated June 16, 1954, should serve to refresh his recollection of this agreement. 

Martin Lacey, 
President, Joint Council No. 16 of I. B. T., 265 West Hth Street, New 
York, N. Y. 

Here he makes, once again, a request for the seven alleged charters, 
copies of the applications of such charters, per capita payments made, 
copies of the alleged charters which we assmne will outline the juris- 
diction. Why during this period of time when you could see that 
they felt so strongly about it, Mr. Mohn, if there was any other reason 
other than to affect the election in New York, why wasn't this informa- 
tion forwarded to the joint council? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, I don't know why Lacey had to resort to the for- 
mality of sending wires when, for a long period of time, he new ■ 

Mr. Kenxedy. Mr. Mohn, I am not interested in how he got in touch 
with you. This is what he did. Why didn't you furnish him the in- 
formation ? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, we elected not to at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is "we" ? 

Mr. Mohn. I think the general president was absent. I don't think 
he was around at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You decided, then ? 

Mr. Mohn. Pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You decided on your own not to furnish that infor- 
mation to the joint council ? 

Mr. Mohn. No. I think when the general president came back — 
I don't have the chronology, Mr. Kennedy — there was a wire sent 
which stated that he was willing to set up a committee to go into this 
whole matter in New York. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. That is later in February. I am talking about 
January 9, to the end of January. 

First, the request had been made on December 15. The only 
answer that they got to that was your telegram of January 9, some 
20 days later. 

Mr. Mohn. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In which you tell the joint council that regarding 
these locals they are in good standing with the international union 
and should be accorded all the rights and privileges of local unions 
in good standing. In other words, they should be permitted to vote 
in the election. They should affiliate with the joint council and be 
permitted to vote i» the election. Then they renew their request of 
January 10 and you make no reply, at least until the end of January. 

Can you tell the committee why, if the only reason was to beat the 
merger, why you never furnished any of this information during this 
period of time ? 

Mr. Mohn. I don't think what happened after the merger conven- 
tion has anything to do with beating the merger. 

Mr. Kennedy- Why did you not furnish him this information ? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, we elected not do it at that particular time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now. Why? 

Mr. MoHN. I have no other reason to give you except that it was 
a very confused situation in Ncm^ York. You had an executive board 



4838 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of the joint council that, by a majority vote, was acting one way and 
Lacey was acting the other. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, they are not asking you to interfere. 
All they are asking at this time is for you to furnish the information, 
the basic information, which they had a right to, which you had agreed 
in June of 1954 that even prior to the time of issuing the charters 
you would give them this information. 

Wliy, when they requested the information on December 15, and 
you didn't send it to them then for 3 weeks, and they requested it 
again on January 10, why didn't you furnish the information at that 
time, if your motive was other than to try to influence the election? 

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

Mr. MoHN. I don't think that is a fair question. 

Mr, Kennedy. Then you tell the committee why you did not furnish 
the information to them. 

Mr. MoHN. I don't want to have motives imputed to me by answers. 
You are certainly at liberty to ask any questions you want. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, why did you not furnish the information ? 

Mr. MoHN. I have no specific reason in mind, Mr. Kennedy, except 
that as I understand it, the executive board up there was meeting quite 
often, and the majority of the executive board was going one way and 
Lacey was going the other. We probably just decided we would let 
them stew and find out what they were finally going to arrive at in 
New York. 

IMr. Kennedy. But not as of December 15, there was not one ijroup 
going one way and another group going the other way, not as of Jan- 
uary 9, when you sent the telegram. They had not split into two 
groups. It was not until the middle of January, or January 9, that 
they split into two groups. 

Mr. MoHN. I don't know when they divided up their forces. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nevertheless, what they were requesting from you, 
Mr. Mohn, was not to interfere in the election. All Mr. Lacey was 
requesting from you was to furnish the basic information which they 
were entitled to. Can you give any basic explanation as to why you 
didn't forward that to the joint council ? 

Mr. MoHN. I cannot give you any specific reason why we felt we 
should not, except that we felt this was a good time to stay out of 
New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were "we" you and John O'Rourke ? 

Mr. MoHN. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You and Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Mohn. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it you and Dave Beck? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The two of you decided ? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Beck in the country at that time ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't think he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk with him in an overseas call ? 

Mr. MopiN. Yes: I kept pretty close contact with him. 

Mr. Kennt^idy. Going on to the second, did you make any investiga- 
tion of these charter applicants at all after Mr. Lacey charged there 
was fraud involved ? 

Mr. JMoHN. No; I did not make any specific investigation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4839 

Mr. Kennedy. If you had made an investigation, Mr. Molm, you 
would have found that some of these people whose names were on the 
charters never even knew that they existed. People were listed as 
president, such as Mr. Getlan, who never even heard of the local. 

There was fraud imposed on the international or there was collusion 
between the international and some outside forces in fraud. 

Mr. MoHN. There was no collusion as far as I was concerned. 
There was no collusion. You may arrive at any assumption that you 
desire to, and that is certainly the prerogative of yourself, as to why 
this was done. But I am telling you that there was no collusion as 
far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Looking back on it, Mr. Mohn, do you feel that the 
international was imposed upon in the granting of these charters? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't think that that is necessarily pertinent or rele- 
vant, to get my opinion as to what it might look like at this long after 
the fact. We are discussing now the conditions that existed at the time, 
the specific times and places. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your testimony is that you knew nothing about what 
was going on in New York, you knew nothing about the applicants, you 
did not know the fact that these locals had no membership, all of these 
facts. 

Now, looking back, and these factors have since been developed, do 
you feel that you and the international were imposed upon in the grant- 
ing of these charters ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, might I presume to rephrase the question ? If you 
were to ask me if I knew that there were no members in a local union, 
and if I knew that officers were officers of questionable character, would 
I approve the granting of a charter ? The answer would be "No." 

The Chairman. Then do you feel now that there is question about 
those things, such that you would not have granted the charter if you 
knew what you know now ? 

Mr. MoHN. Pardon ? I would say, Senator, that hindsight is gen- 
erally always better than foresight. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that. You were reluctant to say 
that the international had been imposed on. It does occur to me, and 
I do not know about the other members of the committee, it occurs to 
me that the international was seriouslj^ imposed on or the international 
entered into some kind of collusion or agreement there to issue these 
charters for a purpose that I do not think you would be very proud of. 

Mr. Mohn. Is that a question ? 

The Chairman. ^Yes, sir ; I can make it one. 

Is that your view of it ? 

Mr. Mohn. My view of it is that if I had an application for a charter 
come into my office and I knew that there were no members in that 
organization, and that there were people that were unknown to us, 
people of questionable character, that I certainly would make it my 
business to find out who they were and under what circumstances, be- 
fore I would approve the granting of a charter. 

The Chairman. Would you not feel that the very fact that it came 
under those circumstances was an attempt to impose on the interna- 
tional union ? 

Mr. Mohn. I don't like to feel about it after the fact. I think we are 
concerning ourselves with the facts. 



4840 IMPROPER ACTIVlTlEiS IN THE Lu\BOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I am wondering why you did not feel about it or 
find out about it before the fact, as the facts developed. That is our 
situation. We are trying to get this thing straightened out to get the 
truth of tlie matter as to what happened, why was this information 
withheld from the organization entitled to have it. You cannot tell 
us that. You have no reason why. You just do not know. 

There are circumstances here that raise questions as to why they 
were withheld, why they were ever issued in the first place, under the 
strange circumstances of their issuance. 

If you can help us, every little bit that you can say, that you know, 
that you will testify to, that will help us, will be appreciated. 

Mr. MoHX. The only and the best answer I can give you is that at 
that particular time, sitting in the office, taking a look at the whole 
situation, the office felt that the best thing to do was to keep as far 
?iwsij from becoming involved in the situation in New York as we 
could until something had started to clarify itself in the New York 
area. That is the best answer I can give you. Senator. 

The Chairman. You couldn't stay away. You were already in it. 
I don't see what you mean by staying away, when you granted the 
charters. They were there, they were in controversy. I don't see 
what you mean by staying away. I can't understand it. You had a 
duty in the matter. 

Mr. MoHN. That is the way we saw it at that time. 
The Chairman. We who ? You and Mr. Beck ? 
Mr. MoHN. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did you order these charters issued? 
Mr. MoHN. Pardon ? 

The Chairman. Did you personally order these charters issued? 
Mr. MoriN. Mr. Beck approved the issuance of charters in New 
York. 

The Chairman. Then you ordered them issued. He was out of the 
country; is that right? 

Mr. MoHN. Yes. I said before that I assumed full responsibility. I 
didn't shirk that. I didn't shirk that at all. 
The Chairman. Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mohn, I assume that you are trying to run 
or administer an honest labor union ; is that right? 
Mr. MoHN. I certainly am. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. And I assume that the best interests of tlie laboring 
man who pays the dues is the chief concern tliat yon have as inter- 
national vice president ; is that right ? 
Mr. MoHN. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. I want to ask some questions of you, and I assure 
you in these questions, Mr. Mohn, that I am not trying to trap you, 
I am not trying to embarrass you, that none of the questions that I am 
going to ask you directly or indirectly refer to Mr. Dave Beck. 

With that background and understanding, I want to ask you some 
questions about your attitude toward local union leaders who are 
charged with corruption or fraud, or avIio have been indicted or con- 
victed, and when brought before this committee and questioned about 
their custodianship of the funds of the union, take tlie fifth amend- 
ment. 

I would like to ask you directly what, if anything, your organiza- 
tion expects to do concerning one Mr. McNamara, who is still an 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEIiD 4841 

officer of 808 and 285, and who stood before this committee, or sat 
where you now sit, and took the fifth amendment consistently. 

Do you think that you have some obligation to the membership of 
your union to take some action in a case like that ? 

Mr. MoHN. I think that we have constitutional procedure in our 
constitution that says that question, Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. In what way ? 

Mr. MoHN. In what way ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. MoHN. I think that the people in his organization have the 
right to prefer charges against McNamara if they have reason to 
believe that what you have stated here is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Assuming that what I have said is correct, do 
they have the power as well as the right to remove an officer who has 
shown himself guilty of misconduct in that matter? Would it be 
considered a healthful and wholesome thing for any individual 
member of that miion to do, to get upon the floor and present such 
charges ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, I don't know why it would be unwholesome for 
a member, if that member had information, as you have stated — and 
I know nothing about McNamara's personal problems. I heard when 
he was before this committee that it was announced that he was under 
indictment for some matter up in New York. 

Senator Mundt. For extortion, with Johnny Dio. 

Mr. MoHN. I think you have to keep in mind that an indictment 
is something else. Being guilty of wrongdoing is something else. 

Senator Mundt. True. But an indictment is an official accusation 
of guilt on the part of the Government. That isn't a rumor anymore. 
That is the first step. 

Mr. MoHN. It may not be a rumor, but there have been cases where 
people have been indicted and they have not been found guilty. 

Senator Mundt. That is true. 

Let's take Joe Curcio, who is secretary-treasurer of 269. There is 
a man who has not only been indicted, but, as the chart clearly shows, 
has also served a considerable amount of time in Danville. He has 
been convicted. He has been imprisoned because of the activities in 
which he has been engaged, and he took the fifth amendment. 

Does the international union assmne some responsibility to protect 
its dues-paying members against that kind of local union leadership ? 

Mr. Mo UN. Well, I didn't laiow anything about Curcio. I don't 
know Curcio. I ^didn't Imow anything about his backgromid and 
record until it was brought out here in this committee. 

Senator Mundt. I am prepared to believe that. As I say, I am not 
trying to embarrass you. I am simply trying to establish now, for 
the benefit of the millions of teamster members around the country, 
who are good, honest, paying citizens, hard-working men trying to 
support their families, and who have confidence in their international 
leadership, whether from that international leadership we can find 
that you have, No. 1, the desire, and, No. 2, the power to do some- 
thing to protect them against having gangsters running their unions 
who are deeply involved that when they come before a committe-e of 
Oongress they even take the fifth amendment when you ask them 
wliether they are American citizens, or whether they are married, 
whether they stole the union funds. 



4842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS EST THE LABOR FIELD 

In other words, what I am trying to find out, in brief, Mr. 
Mohn 

Mr. MoiiN. What you are trying to find out is my personal reac- 
tion to this. 

Senator Mundt. Precisely. 

Mr. Mohn. All right. Let me state it this way, Senator Mundt. 
As far as I am concerned, if the things that have baen charged about 
these people are facts, if they are guilty of the things that they are 
charged with, then I don't believe tliat they have any place in the 
trade-union movement. I don't believe that. 

Senator Mundt. Good. 

Now, going from that point forward, does your international or- 
ganization have a mechanism of some kind to do something about it 
if tliey are found guilty ? 

Mr. Mohn. Yes. We have it, certainly, provisions that provide 
for charges, for hearings, for fines, for suspensions, for expulsion. 

Senator Mundt. Are they provisions which enable you people at 
the top, who have a comparative degree of security, to do something 
about them, as opposed to the poor local teamster who stands up and 
makes his charge before he gets hit over the head ? 

Mr. MoHN. Well, you are making some rather fantastic assump- 
tions here. 

Senator Mundt. Not according to 

Mr. Mohn. You see, Senator, we have a real conflict of interest 
here, even in dealing with the Congress of the United States, be- 
cause sometimes the Congress v.'ould like to vest a great deal of au- 
thority in the topside leadership of labor unions, and then on the 
other hand they work very diligently at democratizing the rank and 
file, as they call it, so that there shall not be vested in the topside of 
labor leaders any great amomit of authority. You can't have it both 
ways, evidently. 

Senator Mundt. Which way do you want it? 

Mr. Mohn. I would like to see the membership have as much au- 
thority as they can have. 

Senator Mundt. You are, of course, aware of the actions taken by 
the CIO-AFL ethical practices committee 

Mr. Mohn. I am. 

Senator Mundt. To try to do something within their union toward 
meeting problems of this kind. 

Mr. Mohn. Not only within their union, but to try to do something 
within the labor movement. We are part of that too. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. Do you, as a teamster interna- 
tional, have some corresponding mechanism, either in being or in 
mind, to do something about these conditions, which I am prepared 
to say you didn't realize until this committee got to work on it ? 

Mr. Mohn. I happen to be 

Senator Mundt. Here is what we are up against, Mr. Mohn. 
George Meany testified that they had this ethical practices pro- 
cedure, but that they were comparatively powerless to get results 
unless the component parts of the labor movement took a correspond- 
ing action. You are a component part. I want to find out v/hat you 
would do, if anything, to implement the ethical practices standards 
established bv the CIO-AFL. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIEIiD 4843 

Mr. Morn. Well, every 5 years in the past — the recommendations 
of the AFL-CIO ethical practices conunittee is that it be changed to 
every 4 years for the future — we hold a national convention. The 
only time we can change our constitution is at a convention. 

I am chairman of the constitution committee that has been meet- 
ing and will meet prior to our convention. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking to the right fellow. 

Mr. MoHN. You are. 

Senator Mundt. Good. 

Mr. MoKN. I can assure you that we have given a great deal of 
serious thought, and I am satisfied we will draft a constitution that 
will more than meet the provisions tliat are expressed in the ethical 
practices code. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think there is the conflict of interest quite 
there, Mr. Mohn, that you imply. I am one of the members of the 
committee who has said many times, I think, that if Congress can 
help establish stronger democratic procedures on the part of the 
trade-union movement, that in the main trade-union members will 
clean up anything which gets out of hand. 

But it is not just like an elected or appointed official in Govern- 
ment. The voters can take him out eventually, but in the interim 
if somebody gets caught with wrongdoing you have the Department 
of Justice, you have law enforcement procedures. You don't simply 
sit back and say, "Well, the people will get rid of that crook," if it is 
a bad case. 

I think Curcio is a bad case. In tlie case of some of these witnesses 
who have appeared before us, with unsavory prison records, who 
hold official positions in labor unions — you didn't elect them, you 
didn't know they would be there when you signed the charter but 
they are there — I think you have a responsibility in the interim to act 
from the top. 

I don't think that vitiates the concept of having democratic proce- 
dures in labor unions. 

Mr. MoHN. I don't say that we don't have responsibility as officers 
of the national union, but I also say that I believe — I honestly believe — • 
that the best waj^^, and it may not be quite as expeditious, the best way 
is to follow the procedure that has been established by the delegates 
from these 830 or 840 local unions themselves at their conventions, 
where they have spelled out how they believe, and made it part of our 
law in our organization, that these matters should be handled. 

We have gone the*other way on a few occasions and we have not al- 
ways turned out too happily, where we just reached in and made deci- 
sions from the top. 

As I say, it is efficient, sometimes, but it doesn't always prove out 
over the long run to be the best procedure. It may be the most expedi- 
tious. That is not trying to duck the question that we are 

Senator Mundt. You agree that the kind of situations that this com- 
mittee has been discovering indicates that there is room for both pro- 
cedures to apply: sometimes perhaps to require one, and sometimes, 
perhaps, you can wait until you have an election to correct something. 

Mr. MoiiN. Senator Mundt, there is nothing to prevent our people in 
our joint council in New York, who certainly are living right alongside 
of this situation, from doing something about it and making it an offi- 



4844 IMPROPER ACTivrriEis in the labor field 

cial act, if it needs doing. There is not anything in the world to pre- 
vent it from doing that. 

Senator Mundt. There is this to prevent it. If the sequence of 
events placed before this committee indicates what it seems to, they 
would be prevented from within because of this group of paper chart- 
ers and the rest that moved in to influence the selection of the officers of 
joint council in order to select members who would deliberately do 
nothing about it. 

Mr. MoHN. You have organizations in New York that have been 
chartered back in the early 1900"s. Many of them are still there. I am 
not going to be sold on the theory that 5 or 6, as you designate them, 
paper charters, are going to step in and take control over our well es- 
tablished organizations in New York. I think some of them in New 
York are as fine as you will find anyplace in the country. 

Senator Mundt. I don't doubt that a bit. Five or six could repre- 
sent a block of votes — of 35 or 42 votes, which is a considerable block 
of votes in a meeting of that kind. 

The evidence we have before us at least seems to indicate that imbe- 
known to you, as you have testified here, the reason why these 
paper charters were sought in the first place was for the purpose of 
electing officials of joint council 16 who would not frown upon corrup- 
tion in the local unions. 

You don't know why they were sought. You accepted them at face 
value. Our responsibility is to try to find out whether or not there 
was some pernicious purpose in the first instance in coming down in 
this unusual manner with the unsigned charters to get the votes. 

You did stop them from voting. 

Mr. MoiiN. Eight. 

Senator Mundt. But that doesn't prove or disprove whether there 
was a pernicious purpose involved in the first instance in seeking the 
charter. If anything, it tends to confirm it. At least, I think you 
acted wisely when you said, "Well, we will put those votes on ice and 
not count them." 

But it does indicate why there must at least be some authority from 
the top to correct the situation. 

Let us assume that you had not stopped the vote. Had you not 
stopped the vote in that election, we now know from the facts that the 
votes of these paper unions would have changed the results of that 
election. 

That is correct, is it not ? 

Mr. Mohn. It is, if you counted the votes. As I understand it, it 
was overwhelmingly in favor of O'Rourke. 

Senator Mundt. Had they counted the votes. 

Mr. MoiiN. Yes. I say you counted the votes here. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. The vote was so close that the counting of 
the im]:)ounded ballots would have changed the results. 

Mr. Mohn. Right 

Senator Mundt. So the whole pattern and purpose of the plot 
would have come into being except for the fact that your office did 
stop the counting of the votes. 

If you had not interceded, then you would have created a mechanism 
in the city of New York which we believe would have tended to per- 
petuate tliese gangsters instead of tending to expose them. That is 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4845 

why I say I think you need something to operate effectively at the top 
of your organization with the standards established by the ethical 
practices code. 

You tell me you are going to recommend such change in your 
constitution. 

Mr. MoHN. The constitution can certainly take care of it. I will, 
as an individual, continue to recommend that whatever membership 
is there, that it ought to be consolidated into a reasonable number of 
local unions, grouped as efficiently as they can be grouped to take 
care of their needs. I believe that. I believed it then and I still be- 
lieve it. 

Senator Mundt. To get right down to the meat in the coconut, Mr. 
Mohn, and talking to you now as the chairman of the constitution 
committee, do you plan to recommend to your convention in September 
that you follow the pattern set by the ethical practices committee of 
the CIO-AFL and provide that those officials of local unions who take 
the fifth amendment shall be ineligible to continue as officials of the 
labor union ? 

Mr. MoiiN. I think you are a little bit in error, Senator Mundt. 
The question of taking the fifth amendment was never made any part 
of the code of the ethical pracitces committee. 

Senator Mundt. It wasn't? 

Mr. MoHN. It was not. 

Senator Mundt. Tell me what they did say. 

Mr. MoiiN. The question of taking the fifth was a motion adopted 
by the executive council at its meeting. I understand that they are 
in the process of some modification on that ([uestion, from the informa- 
tion I get from their last executive council meeting in Chicago. 

Senator Mundt. It was adoj^ted unanimously, with the sole dis- 
senting vote of the teamsters, was it not ? 

Mr. MoHN. We voted against the original motion as presented at 
Miami. Correct. 

Senator Mundt. You were the sole dissenter ? 

Mr. Mohn. Correct. 

Senator Mundt. And that motion did provide that those taking the 
fifth amendment should be ineligible to continue as officials? 

Mr. Mohn. I don't think it was quite as pat as that, but I think 
that that generally is correct. 

Senator Mundt. The word is "good," Mr. Mohn ; not "bad." 

Mr. Mohn. I said "pat." 

Senator Mundt. I thought you said "bad." 

Mr. Mohn. No. * 

Senator Mundt. I am sorry. But in general that is what it was. 

I think we asked Mr. Meany if that included a man who simply took 
the fifth as to protect something in the local union. I think he said 
it went right across the board. 

Mr. Mohn. The best information I can give you is that the reports 
I get from the Chicago meeting, and I wasn't there, the last meeting 
of the executive council, is that there is some change. How basic it is 
going to be, I don't know, in that original motion that was adopted 
at Miami. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy ? 

89330— 57— pt. 12 23 



4846 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Moliii, as a member of the executive board, 
do you know Avhether any action has been taken against any of the 
people who appeared before this committee who took the fifth amend- 
ment, No. 1, or those who have been indicted, or those who have been 
convicted ? Has action been taken in any formal nature against any 
one of the teamster officials appearing before this committee would 
have fallen into one of those three categories? 

Mr. MoiiN. No. 

Senator Kennedy. That is, taken the fifth amendment, been in- 
dicted, or has been convicted. 

Mr. MoHN. Up to noM', Senator Kennedy, there has been no action 
taken. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you know if any is planned? 

Mr. MoiiN. Well, I don't know if any is planned. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know of any? 

Mr. MoHN. No, I do not. 

Senator Kennedy. And what is your title? 

Mr. MoHN. I am a vice president, and I am the executive assistant 
to the general president. 

Senator Kennedy. And you are the chairman of the constitution 
committee for the next convention. 

Mr. MoHN. Right. 

Senator Kennedy. To the best of your knowledge, the teamsters 
union, the officials, the leadership of the teamsters, is not planning, at 
least to your Imowledge has not planned until now, any action against 
any of the men who have fallen into those three categories? 

Mr. MoiiN. To my knowledge, no. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you feel they have any responsibility to do 
so ? Do you feel that you do, JNIr. Mohn ? We have some people here 
who have been the presidents of these locals, officers of these locals, 
who have refused to tell what they have done with union funds. 
They have been indicted, and some have been convicted. 

You say yourself now that you know of no action being taken 
against any of them. Would you tell me whether you feel that that 
is meeting your responsibility ? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't think that I would like to express an opinion 
on the matter. I would certainly say this, that if it involves one of 
the vice presidents, that there is opportunity for charges being pre- 
ferred against an officer. If it involves a local union official, the 
action should start at that level against those officials. 

There have been no charges preferred at the present time, to my 
knowledge, before our board. 

Senator Kennedy. What about Sidney Brennan ? Is he an inter- 
national vice president ? 

Mr. MoHN. He is a vice president of our organization. 

Senator Kennedy. Has he not been indicted for taking a bribe ? 

Mr. MoHN. I think he was convicted. 

Senator Kennedy. Convicted of taking a bribe. What action has 
been taken against him ? 

Mr. MoHN. There has been no action taken up to now. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you mean there has been no action taken? 
How long ago was he convicted ? 

Mr. MoHN. I think it was sometime early this summer when his 
last appeal was before the United States Supreme Court. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4847 

Senator Kennedy. What action is contemplated, Mr. Molm? 

Mr. MoHN. I don't know. My answer to that, the best answer I 
can give you, Senator Kennedy, is that we are sitting on the eve of a 
convention, and I suppose if anybody contemphited the preferring of 
charges, it would be rather a moot thing to do because that question 
would be before the convention anyway. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words. Mr. Mohn, you, yourself, have 
done nothing about it ? 

Mr. MoHN. I have not. 

Senator Kennedy. You haven't interested yourself in the matter? 

Mr. MoHN. That is a different question. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you interested yourself in it ? 

Mr. Mohn. I am always interested in that. 

Senator Kennedy. Into what channels has your interest taken 
you ? 

Mr. Mohn. I think it is a question now where the convention itself 
ought to settle it. We are within weeks now of a convention and that 
is a good place to settle it. 

Senator Kennedy. You yourself are doing nothing to settle it so 
that Mr. Brennan is removed, are you ? 

Mr. Mohn. I have not. 

Senator Ives. Following Senator Kennedy's questions, I would like 
to ask Mr. Mohn one question. 

What would you think, Mr. Mohn, of having a provision placed 
in the Taft-Hartley Act of making it unlawful for anyone who has 
a prison record of any kind to hold office in a labor organization ? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, I don't think that I am expert enough on that 
subject. Senator Ives, to offer any opinion. I have known in my life- 
time some individuals wlio were unfortunate enough to have been 
convicted and to have served their time and who have come out and 
who have become very wonderful people. I don't think that I would 
want to offer any opinion and pose as an expert on that subject. 

Senator Ives. You wouldn't figure that having an official position 
in a labor organization of any kind was the exact spot for rehabilita- 
tion of a person like that, would you ? 

Mr. Mohn. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to just make a 
blanket statement that any individual who may have served time, 
regardless of the circumstances, or how long ago it was, should be 
forever foreclosed from doing that. I wouldn't go that far with you. 

Senator Ives. The reason I raise that question is we have come across 
a number of cases where persons that have had such records subse- 
quently held official positions in labor organizations and have caused 
considerable trouble. 

Mr. Mohn. Well, I think that is a pretty sweeping thing you are 
suggesting. 

Senator Ives. I merely asked you the question to get your reaction. 

Mr. Mohn. I can think of a lot of walks in life if you were to apply 
the same rule you would have • 

Senator Ives. I will be perfectly frank with you. When the Taft- 
Hartley Act was framed, that question came before us, and we took 
the same position in the matter that you are taking now. But this 
investigation that we are making is causing some of us to reconsider 
and review what we have done to see if we did the right thing. That 
is why I am asking you the question. 



4848 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoHN. I think the matter of review is good, but to make a 
statement that would put me on record as saying that it is my belief, 
I don't want to do that. 

Senator Ives. I do not want to cause you any embarrassment. 

Mr. MoHN. It is not embarrassment at all, not in the slightest degree, 
any more than it would be embarrassing if you were going to discuss 
if a person who has been convicted or an individual that has been 
convicted should be eligible to serve in the Congress of the United 
States. It is no more embarrassing than that. 

Senator Mundt. ]Mr. Chairman, following up on what Senator Ives 
said, we have provisions in this country, that certain kinds of criminals 
are considered so dangerous to society that they are not permitted to 
vote. 

Would you think that perhaps a provision might be included in 
legislation that in those cases where time servers are considered so 
bad that they are not permitted to vote, that they would not be con- 
sidered good enough to be officials in labor unions t 

Mr. MoHN. That would certainly be a much more reasonable ap- 
proach to it than the general overall inclusion. 

Senator Mundt. I quite agree with your reservations about the 
average fellow. If you believe in the doctrine of redemption and that 
people can improve, you would not want to foreclose an ex-criminal 
from becoming a good citizen. 

Mr. MoHN. I can remember. Senator Mundt, in some days gone past 
where I found a secretary-treasurer of a local union who had just a 
little difficulty in counting his money and ours. It never was too 
serious, but he just had a little problem. If you removed him from 
that place and you put him out in the field as a business agent, he did 
a good job. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. But it seems to me that we are 
getting into an area here where you make some discrimination, and that 
where society as a whole* the country to which you and I belong, to 
which we give devotion and allegiance, has decided that a fellow should 
not be permitted to vote, it might not be inappropriate to say that 
where a man's criminal record is such that he is not permitted to ^ote, 
it is also such that he should not be permitted to hold a responsible 
position in a labor union so that he, in turn, jeopardizes not only society 
as a whole, but the honest, dues-paying member who, after all, has a 
right to expect and receive decent union leadership. 

]Mr. MoHN. I think that is certainly much more, as I said before, a 
reasonable approach to it than to just shut the gate in everybody's face. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, it seems to me that it would not be 
necessary for us to discuss writing a blanket law that somebody who 
has been convicted of a crime should not be permitted to hold a posi- 
tion. There may be cases where a man might have rehabilitated him- 
self. It seems to me that the obligation in the first place is on you and 
the other officials of the teamsters, to do something about these local 
officials who come in here and take the fifth amenclment when we ask 
them about handling union funds. Your statements of failure to 
demonstrate any action that has been taken by the teamsters necessi- 
tates our attempting to do something which is not nearly as effective. 

I would like to know why it is that you as a responsible official of the 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4840 

teamsters could not indicate in the strongest terms your disapproval 
of these responsible officials who come before us and take the fifth 
amendment when we ask them what they have done with union funds. 

Mr. MoHN. I think I did earlier. I think I put myself on record 
on that question. I said that as far as I was concerned that if these 
individuals, if what has been stated here about them, if those are the 
facts, that as far 

Senator Kennedy. Are you conducting an investigation to find out 
if these are facts ? 

Mr. MoHN. As far as I am concerned, I don't think they ought to 
be union officials. That is what I said. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you feel that if somebody comes in and takes 
the fifth amendment on what he did with union funds- do you think he 
should be a union official ? 

Mr. MoHN. I am not going to comment on how people take the 
fifth amendment. First of all, I am not a lawyer. I don't understand 
all about it. 

We took a position as the teamsters organization that for the act 
itself, as the lawyers say, for the act, per se, of taking the fifth, we 
didn't feel that that should deprive a person of anything that he had. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, do you feel that if a man takes the 
fifth amendment, that an investigation should be conducted? 

Mr. MoHN. I think that if a man takes the fifth amendment over a 
question that has involved the handling of the membership's funds, 
that certainly it shouldn't stop there. 

Now, let me pose a problem. Let us say that a fellow comes before 
a committee that we set up for that purpose, 5 or 6 individuals, and 
the fellow comes in and he really bares his soul, he tells this committee 
everything in the world, and when he has told them everything in the 
world the committee is convinced that he had a valid, good reason 
for taking the fifth. 

But one of the conditions that he certainly wants to make plain is 
that he doesn't want the reasons that he is taking the fifth to be 
circulated generally and become public knowledge and public 
property. 

How does that committee protect itself from being subpenaed before 
some investigative body and then be asked why did this fellow take 
the fifth? 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Mohn, in other words, that is the reason 
that the teamsters will not suspend any official who takes the fifth? 

Mr. Mohn. I did^i't say that. You said that. 

Senator Kennedy. What I am asking, then, is why an investigation 
is not being conducted into these officials who have taken the fifth 
amendment on whether they mishandled and misappropriated union 
funds. Is such an investigation being planned ? 

Mr. Mohn. Well, this has all been developed, as you know, rather 
recently. 

Senator Kennedy. Well, have you heard of any investigation being 
planned? 

Mr. Mohn. I haven't heard of any investigation being planned. 
I have heard that we are going to hold a convention and there are a 
lot of things that are going to come up before the convention. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Beck's fifth amendment goes back to March. 



4850 IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In other words, we cannot look, up to this date, on the leadership 
of the teamsters to do something about presidents of locals or the 
president of the international, who come in here and take the fifth 
amendment as to their actions with regards to union funds; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. MoHisr. Well, I think tlmt is an opinion that you are expressing. 

Senator Kennedy. If it is wrong, let me know why, 

Mr. MoHN, You have a right to it. 

Senator Kennedy, In what way am I wrong ? 

Mr, MoHN, I don't say you are wrong. You have a right to that 
opinion. 

Senator Kennedy, Is it a fact or just an opinion ? 

Mr, MoHN, Up to now we have not instigated any investigation. I 
said that before. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy, That is right, Now, is an investigation being 
planned ? I just want to find out whether you are going to attempt to 
meet the problem or whether you have to expect that the Congress 
is going to attempt to go into the field, which, of course, is not as 
desirable, I would much rather see the teamsters take action, 

Mr. MoHN. So would I. I would rather see the labor movement 
take its own action. 

Senator Kennedy. The AFL-CIO did take a position on this fifth 
amendment. The teamsters voted against it. I assumed they were 
going to handle it on their own. I asked you what actions you were 
going to take, and you have not given any indication that they were 
going to take any action, 

Mr. MoHN, They have not taken any action up to now. 

Senator Kennedy. It is about time. 

The Chairman, Now we will let the counsel interrogate for awhile 
and maybe we can get through this afternoon. 

Proceed, 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of McNamara, as I understand it, 
going back chronologically, November 4 

Senator McNamara, Say "John McNamara," 

Mr, Kennedy, John McNamara, 

On November 4 or thereabouts, Mr. Hoffa spoke to you about 
giving charters to these various individuals. Subsequently, John 
McNamara came down and ))icked up the charters, is that right? 

Mr. MoHN. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. T\^io gave the instructions that these charters should 
be prepared when McNamara came down ? 

Mr. MoHN. I probably did, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a further conversation with Mr. 
Hoffa, who told you McNamara was going to pick the charters up? 

Mr. ]\IoHN, No, I don't think I had any further conversations with 
Mr. Hoffa. I think McNamara spoke to me. We established an office 
at the Statler Hotel the week preceding the AFD-CIO convention. 
1 arrived there on Saturday a week prior to the convention, 

Mr, Kennedy, Can we find out what date that is ? 

Mr, MoHN, I can give it to you right here. 

Well, it doesn't indicate the day of the week. 

Mr, Kennedy. AYliat day of the year ? 

Mr, MoHN. 1055, 

Mr, Kennedy. Yes; but what date? The convention started 
December 5, as I understand it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4851 

Mr. MoiiN. I was in New York, I think — Thanksgiving came on the 
24th. I was in New York the 26th of November. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say McNamara picked up these charters after 
that ? 

Mr. MoHN. That was my understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. JNIohn, tliat couldn't possibly be true, because 
they were out looking for a headquarters, for instance, on November 25, 

Mr. MoHN. I know. I went over this with your staff before, and 
all I can tell you is what my recollection and memory of it is. That is 
what I understand. He went down during the w^eek prior to the 
merger convention, on Wednesday or Thursday, and picked up these 
charters. That is my understanding of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would have more information about it? We 
have information here that they were out selecting a headquarters, for 
instance, on November 25, and that Miss Teresa Hanlon, who handled 
the charters out of John English's office, said that to the best of her 
recollection and the notes she put on there, that those charters were 
put on November 8. We have her here in the room and can have her 
testify now or later. 

Mr. MoHN. I am not going to question what she states. I am giving 
you my honest recollection. 

The Chairman. Miss Hanlon, come forward please. 

(Members present at this point: Senators McClellan, Ives, Mc- 
Namara, 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 ? 

Miss Hanlon. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF TERESA HANLON 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and your 
employment please. 

Miss Hanlon. My name is Teresa Hanlon. I live at 1500 Massa- 
chusetts Avenue NW., and I am a secretary in the office of John F. 
English. 

The Chairman. Secretary 

Miss Hanlon. To Mr. Casey. 

The Chairman. To Mr. English? 

Miss Hanlon. No. To Mr. Casey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mk. Casey? 

Miss Hanlon. Casey. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he works out of the office of Mr. 

Miss Hanlon. English. 

The Chairman. Have you talked to members of this staff and 
know generally the line of interrogation to expect ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir, I have. 

The Chairman. You folks get a picture or two, if you want, and 
then let us desist. 

You do not object to your picture being take, I suppose ? 

I hand you exhibit 13. 

May I ask, do you waive counsel ? 

Miss Hanlon. Pardon me? 



4852 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? Do you need a lawyer, do 
you think ? 

MissHANLON. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

I hand you here exhibit No. 13, which is an application for a 
charter. It is dated November 8, 1955, and it has some handwriting 
on it in the left-corner, some notations- Then I hand you six others on 
the same date, apparently with the same handwriting in the left-hand 
corner, that have been made exhibit 124^A, B, C, D, E, and F. Would 
you please examine these documents and state if you recognize them ? 

(Documents handed to witness.) 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir, I recognize them. 

The Chairman. Do you identify them? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that your handwriting on them ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What date did you place that writing on those 
documents ? 

Miss Hanlon. November 8, 1955. 

The Chairman. Did you prepare the documents, the applications? 

Miss Hanlon. That I could not tell you, sir. Sometimes I do and 
sometimes I don't. 

The Chairman. Do you remember in this instance if the appli- 
cations were prepared there in the office on November 8, the day you 
wrote that notation on them ? 

Miss Hanlon. I don't remember- I don't recall, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not remember that. How did you come to 
write that notation on the document ? 

Miss Hanlon. That is part of the procedure. 

The Chairman. That is part of the procedure ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you write it on there before they are issued 
or at the time they are issued? 

Miss Hanlon. At the time. 

The Chairman. So the documents were issued on that date ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you remember a Mr. John McNamara being 
down there at that time ? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not have any personal contact with him ? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

The Chairman. When the charters were issued, did you issue the 
charters, or supervise their issuance ? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir, 

I may have typed the charters, but that would be 

The Chairman. You may have typed them ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, All right. 

You do not remember preparing those applications from lists of 
names that were given to you ? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know, then, whether the applications 
were prepared that date in the office or not? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4853 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir ; I don't. 

The Cpiairman. You say that is your handwriting on the document ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you placed your initials on there and identify 
your handwriting ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. I identify my handwriting. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr, Kennedy. The charter application says "Charter dated Novem- 
ber 8, 1955. Charter sent 11-8. Charter sent to O'Rourke." That is 
all in your writing? 

Miss Hanlon, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the charter is dated November 8, 1955, is that the 
date that they were handed over ? 

Miss Hanlon. Well, generally, when we say charter is dated such 
and such a date, that means the charter goes out on that same date, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. So that these charters went out, based on this note 
on November 8, did they not ? 

Miss Hanlon, Well, according to procedure they would have. 

Mr. Kennedy, If it happened, actually, they had come down on 
November 25 or November 30 and asked you to date it back to Novem- 
ber 8, 1955, you would remember that, wouldn't you ? Wouldn't that 
be an unusual occurrence? 

Miss Hanlon. That would be unusual. 

Mr. Kennedy. That to your recollection did not occur in this case? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To the best of your recollection, these charters were 
issued on November 8, 1955 ? 

Miss Hanlon. That is correct. 

Mr, Kennedy, Can you explain to the committee why the notation 
"Charter sent to O'Rourke'' was made? 

Miss Hanlon. Because that is generally what we do. You see, we 
note where we send these charters. In all probability, I sent them to 
O'Rourke, or someone would pick them up in the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. In this case, do you know why they would be sent 
to John O'Rourke rather than to the joint council, Martin Lacey, or to 
the international organizer, John Hickey ? 

Miss Hanlon, No, I wouldn't, 

Mr. Kennedy. You were told that these charters were to be sent 
to John O'Rourke? 

Miss Hanlon. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you know who told you that they were to be sent 
to O'Rourke? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir, I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you wouldn't have put that down unless some- 
body told you ? 

Miss Hanlon. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. What did you do with the charters physically 
after you signed them ? Did you put them in an evelope and mail them 
or hand them to somebody ? 

Miss Hanlon. According to procedure, I would mail them out, 
sir. I would type up an address and mail them out. 

Senator Mundt- With a letter of transmittal ? 

Miss Hanlon. With a letter explaining that the charters were on 
their way, with seals and stamps and so on. 



4854 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. In this case, do you remember writing a letter to 
Mr. John O'Rourke? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir, I don't recall it. I have no independent 
recollection of these particular charters. 

Senator Mundt. Do you remember what you did with the charters 
themselves after you put your initials on them? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir ; I do not. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot recall whether you put them on the 
desk, or gave them to INIr. English, or gave them to Mr, Mohn, or 
gave them to Mr. McNamara ? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot remember what you did with them ? 

Miss Hanlon. I don't believe I gave them to Mr. McNamara, be- 
cause I never saw Mr. McNamara before in my life. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot recapture, then, what you did on that 
day with those charters after you signed your name on them? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir, I cannot. 

Senator Mundt. All you can remember is that the usual procedure 
is to send them to somebody, but you are not sure in this case what you 
did with them ? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Okay. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Mr. O'Rourke was not the 
president of joint council 16 at that time, was he? 

Miss Hanlon. That I wouldn't know, sir. 

The Chairman. You would not know who was president? 

Miss Hanlon. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You were just carrying out whatever instructions 
were given to you at the time ? 

Miss Hanlon. That is correct. 

The Chairman. AYlio woukl give you those instructions? 

Miss Hanlon. Either Mr. James Casey or Mr. Vernon Haggerty. 

The Chairman. One of those would give you instructions that you 
carried out? 

Miss Hanlon. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator McNamara. From the notation on the charter tliat you put 
on, you identified your handwriting, you say charter sent on this date. 
That would imply you mailed it, would it not ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Well, everything the committee lias had up to 
now indicates that they were not mailed but handed to one John 
McNamara. You would not have been the person that handed it to 
him ? What would you do with it ordinarily, give it to your employer 
or supervisor ? 

Miss Hanlon. Well, ordinarily I would mail it out. But if my 
supervisor wanted to hand it to someone, then I would hand it to my 
supervisor to hand it to that particular person. 

Senator McNamara. But your notation says sent, not handed, but 
sent. That indicates that it was mailed in the usual way, does it not? 

Miss Hanlon. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. That is a peculiar circumstance at this moment 
in view of the testimony we have had up to now, Mr. Chairman. That 
is why I am commenting. 



rMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 4855 

The Chairman. Well, it could be in one sense, but you can send 
it also by messenger, could you not ? 

Miss Hanlon. Pardon me ? 

The Chairman. You could also send them out by messenger, could 
you not ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If someone was there waiting for them, and it was 
not Mr. O'Rourke, you could send them to Mr. O'Rourke by someone ? 

Miss Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamar.^.. Mr. Chairman, I think at this point in the 
record there seems to be a definite conflict. However, I started by 
asking the young lady, the witness, if that indicated that it was mailed. 
It was her interpretation that that is what it indicated. 

My questioning based on that was the assumption that the normal 
procedure was to mail it. 

Miss Hanlon. That is the normal procedure. 

Senator McNamara. When you say you sent it, according to this 
notation that you made at the time, that indicates to you now that 
you mailed it, does it not ? 

Miss Hanlon. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, since the witness indicates that her 
instructions on that day came to her either from a Mr. Casey or a 
Mr. Haggerty — right ? 

Miss Hanlon. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. I am wondering w^hether counsel has interrogated 
Mr. Casey or Mr. Haggerty to try to find out whether or not they 
got the charters or whether they mailed them or what happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I think that the only controversy or question 
in doubt is the date. I think Mr. Mohn and the other gentleman — 
there is some question about how it was actually handled, but I think 
everybody is agreed, and Mr. Mohn can correct me, that Mr. John 
McNamara came down and picked up the charters; that this young 
lady was the one that made the inscription on the side. 

Nobody seems to be able to explain why O'Rourke's name appears 
on there. But, otherwise, there seems to be definite agreement by 
Casey, the other man, and Mr. Mohn's assistant, that Mr. John Mc- 
Namara came down here to Washington and picked the charters up 
and brought them back up to New York. 

As I say, the only controversy or the only question in doubt is on 
the date that it happened, and Mr. Mohn is not sure of the date. 

This lady thought*it was November 8. 

It would appear from the document that it was November 8. 

TESTIMONY OF EINAR 0. MOHN— Eesumed 

Senator jMundt. In that connection, let me ask Mr. Mohn about his 
office procedure. 

Do you have a system when a visitor like Mr. McNamara comes in, 
and we are agreecl that he came down, or anyplace that indicates in 
your office records when he came down ? Is there anything to indicate 
the date? Do you have an office calendar or a visitors calendar, so 
that you are able to go back and find out ? 

. Mr. Mohn. I think there is one, but I don't think it is infallible, 
Senator. If someone calls my office for an appointment with me, I 



4856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

would have a record of it. But I was not in the office when it is my 
belief that these charters were actually delivered. I was in New York 
at that time. 

Senator Mundt. The chances are that they were delivered either by 
Mr. Casey or by Mr, Haggerty. 

Mr. MoTiN. If they were ready, they could have been delivered by 
anybody down there. 

Senator Mundt. You don't have a substantial reception office 

Mr. Mohn. Yes, we do. 

Senator Mundt. Does a young lady keep a record ? 

Mr. MoHN. I say that that record is not infallible. There have 
been people who have come into our building who didn't sign that 
visitors's book. 

Senator Mundt. I am not asking about that, but I thought maybe if 
the date was important we could pin it down. 

Mr. MoHN. I think if they were mailed, there would be a definite 
record as to whether they were mailed. 

Senator Mundt. There would be a letter of transmittal of some kind. 

Mr. Mohn. There would be a record of some kind if they were 
mailed. 

Senator Mundt. You are sure they were not mailed? 

Mr. MoHN. And I am sure they were not mailed. 

Senator Mundt. And you are equally sure th