(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"

n^^SIuIs^ai? 




Given By 
S. SUPT. CF DGCUM£N Tl. 




EPUillOKT 

INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



FEBRUARY 26, 27, 28, MARCH 3 AND 4, 1»58 



PART 21 



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







IJNVESTIGATION 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 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



FEBRUARY 26, 27, 28, MARCH .3 AND 4, 1958 



PART 21 



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




I 



UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1958 






^O^^.Vt-«MW^ f -^ ' 



p-f-r. ^/- ^H- 



Boston Public Library 
Supenntcnd^nt of Documents 



MAY 2 - 1958 



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 E. MUNDT, South Dakota 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jh., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

PAT MrNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 



Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsi 
Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk 



'\ 



CONTENTS 



United Automobile Workers, AFL-CIO, and the Kohler Co. of 
Sheboygan, Wis. 

Page 

Appendix 8735 

Testimonv of — 

BeUino, Carmine S 8521, 8529, 8541 

Burkhart, Robert 8615, 8635 

Capelle, Waldemer G 8501, 8535 

Concellare, Frank 8576 

Conger, Lvman C 8527, 8577 

Daane, Bernard M 8687 

Daley, Fred J 8428 

Elsesser, John 8675 

Gallati, George C 8578 

Grasskamp, Allan 8331, 8371 

Guske, Ewald 8703 

Hammer, Edward J 8457, 8460 

Harder, Marvin J 8669 

Holsen, James J 8718 

Jacobs, Harold N 8393 

K it zman, Harvey 8542 

Konec. John 8583 

Mentink, Wilmer G 8696 

Miesfeld, Herman 8421, 8441 

Moede, Gilbert 8723 

Mosch, Theodore J 8479, 8495 

O'Xeil, Lawrence 8446, 8457, 8575 

Oostdyk, Dale 8409 

Quasius, Leslie 8709 

Raiih, Joseph L., Jr 8582 

Schmit z, Lawrence 8462 

Tracey, Mrs. Alice M 8386 

Voss, Guenther 8432 

Yurk, Fred 8715 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

1. A composite exhibit on union efforts to prevent violence in 

UAW— Kohler strike 8347 (*) 

2. Report of the XLRB trial examiner in the case against the 

Kohler Co., decision of September 15, 1934 8382 (*) 

3. Affidavit of Herman Miesfeld, dated April 8, 1954 8427 (*) 

4. Picture of Guenther Voss' car with broken window 8437 (*) 

5. Testimony of Herman Miesfeld before the Wisconsin Em- 

ployee Relations Board, pages 407 through 417 8441 (*) 

6. A reel of motion-picture film showing violence during the 

Kohler strike and also the clay-boat incident in 1954 8450 (*) 

7. Pictures of the Kohler strike mass picketing 8458 (*) 

8. Letter dated May 21, 1954, addressed to Lyman Conger, 

Kohler Co. from Theodore J. Mosch, sheriff of Sheboy- 
gan Countv 8492 8735 

9. Six deputv sheriff certificates, Shebovgan Countv, Wis 8492 8736 

10. Letter dated May 24, 1954, addressed to Mr. Theodore J. 

Mosch, sheriff of Sheboygan County, from Herbert V. 
Kohler, E. J. Biever, L. C. Conger, W. J. Ireland, and 

G. H. Buffington 8492 8737, 

8738 

m 



IV CONTENTS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

11. Memorandum of instructions to Sheriff Theodore J. Mosch 

from John Buchen, dated April 13, 1954 8497 (*) 

12. Record of tear gas delivered to the Kohler Co., dated April 

8, 1954 8501 8739- 

8740 

13. Letter dated April 1, 1954, addressed to Waldemar G. 

Capelle from Kohler Co 8505 8741 

14. Memorandum to Mr. E. J. Biever from J. L. Kuplie, dated 

February 7, 1948: "Inventory of guns and ammunition 

held by plant security" 8522 8742 

15. Records from 1952 through 1955 of invoices and memo- 

randa re purch«ise of te ir-gas guns and shells and am- 
munition by the Kohler Co 8541 

16. Advertisement in the Sheboygan Press, Friday, April 9, 

1954, placed by Kohler Co 8546 

17. Communications regarding arbitration between Governor 

Walter J. Kohler and Kohler Co., July 8 and 9, 1954 8551 

18. Article printed in the Kohlerian, Thursday, February 19, 

1953, "Pick Peterson's for Strike Headquarters on Lower 
Falls" 8553 

19. A letter to Governor Kohler dated July 9, 1954, from the 

Kohler Co 8564 

20. Letter d-ted July 10, 1954, to Hon. Walter J. Kohler, Jr., 

from Kohler Local No. 833, UAW-CIO, executive board. 8565 8743 

21. Two reels of motion-picture film taken during the mass 

picketing at Kohler 8576 

22. National Labor Relations Board examiner's findings 8615 

23. Group of photographs showing the explosion at the home of 

John E.sesser 8682 

24. Group of photographs showing the paint bombing of the 

home of John E.sesser 8682 

25. Group of photogr;iphs showing where the shots were fired 

in the home of Bernard Daane 8693 

26. Death certificate of William Bersch 8696 8744 

27. Group of photographs showing damage done to the home of 

Wilmer Mentink 8398 

28. Group of photographs showing damage done to the car of 

Marvin J. Harder 8702 

29. Group of photographs showing damage done to the office 

of Leslie Quasius 8714 

30. Group of photographs showing damage done to the car of 

Fred Yurk 8717 

31. Group of photographs showing damage done to house and 

car of James Holsen 8722 

32. Group of photographs showing damage done to the house 

of Gilbert Moede 8726 

Proceedings of — 

Februarv 2'i. 1958 8329 

Februarv 27, 1958 8421 

February 28. 1958 8495 

March 3, 1958 8575 

March 4. 1958 8635 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, 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; Barry Goldwater, Republican, Ari- 
zona ; and Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
Vernon J. Johnson, investigator ; and Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair will make a brief opening statement. 

The committee begins today a series of hearings into strike violence 
and other labor-management problems arising out of disputes between 
the International Union of Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural 
Implement Workers of America, the Kohler Co., of Kohler, Wis., and 
the Perfect Circle Co., of New Castle, Ind. 

It is our intention during the course of these hearings to take testi- 
mony from participants in the events which transpired at both com- 
panies during the long and bitter labor disputes, as well as from top 
officers of the companies and the union involved, Mr. Herbert Kohler, 
of the Kohler Co. ; Mr. William Prosser, of the Perfect Circle Co. ; and 
Mr. Walter Reuther, of the UAW. 

The Kohler Co. was struck by the UAW in 1954. The strike still 
continues today. The problems generated by that strike have resulted 
in bitterness and long simmering resentment on both sides. More im- 
portant even, however, these labor-management problems have posed 
a serious question as to the adequacies of existing laws to deal with 
strike violence and mass picketing. The committee intends to ascer- 
tain tlie true facts concerning the violence at the Kohler Co. with a 
view to determining whether Federal legislation is needed in that 
field. 



8330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The United Auto "Workers also initiated a nationwide boycott of 
the products of the Koliler Co. The effects of the boycott have been 
the subject of controversy between the union and the company — with 
tlie union claiming it has been a success and the company labeling it 
a failure. 

The committee is interested in ascertaining whether the boycott of 
Kohler products, which I understand the miion today freely admits, 
has crossed the bounds of law which prohibit secondary boycotts, or 
whether this type of boycott, union pressure on business, is something 
which requires legislative attention. 

Again, in New Castle, Ind., we have had violence. Union men and 
company employees at the Perfect Circle Co, emptied shotguns and 
rifles at each other in an outburst of violence which, fortunately, re- 
sulted in no deaths, but certainly is a blot on the history of labor- 
management relations in this country. 

I might say from the briefings that we have had by the staff, that 
all is not black and Avhite in these cases. There are many shades of 
gray in every labor-management dispute. Both sides in both the 
Koiiler and Perfect Circle disputes have serious charges about the con- 
duct and the activities of the other side. The evidence will have 
to detennine the true facts. It is this committee's intention to hear 
the evidence and discover where the responsibility lies and where leg- 
islation, if any, is needed, and get the true facts. 

There has been some controversy within the ranks of the committee 
over the proposed procedure for these hearings. I want to say at 
this time that any Senator on this committee who feels that any par- 
ticular witness can shed further light on these cases can ask for that 
witness to testify, and he will be required to do so. Some 70 witnesses 
have already been invited to testify in order to present the committee 
with as broad a picture as can be obtained. 

The Senate and the American people look to this committee to con- 
tinue its efforts resolutely. To do less would be to shirk our respon- 
sibility and to bring comfort to those forces in organized labor and 
management who cannot stand the scrutiny of an mvestigation. 

I only wish to make this comment about it: The proceeding that 
will be followed here are not the proceedings in keeping with the 
Chair's views as to how this matter should be presented. I have 
yielded to this procedure out of what I conceive to be deference to a 
higher duty and responsibility. 

I believe the work of this committee, and I believe its task and its 
assignments and the importance of it transcend all other considera- 
tions of any person, any individual, any party, anybody's policy, or 
the political fortunes of any member of this committee. 

I am interested in neither side, and I want to get the whole truth 
and get it on record, so that the public may know from sworn testi- 
mony what occurred, what Avas wrong, and what should be corrected. 

I cannot predict how long this particular series of hearings will 
last. I said, when I announced these hearings would begin on yes- 
terday, that it is quite probable that there would have to be other 
series of hearings at this particular inquiry which might go on for 
several weeks, intermittently. 

I cannot at this time determine just how many series of hearings 
may be required in this particular investigation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8331 

I do wish to say this, however, that so far as the Chair is concerned 
these hearings will continue as the committee can reach them, until 
such time as a majority of this committee is satisfied that all facts 
have been developed tliat are pertinent to this committee's responsi- 
bility, or until a majority of the committee feels that further hearings 
would prove fruitless. 

Does any member of the committee have any comment ? 

All right, Mr. Counsel, call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy, The first witness of the committee, Mr. Chairman, is 
Mr. Grasskamp, Allan Grasskamp. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please. 

You do solennily swear that the evidence you shall give before tliis 
Senate investigating committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN GHASSKAMP, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH L. RAUH 

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

Mr. Grasskamp. Allan Grasskamp, 1810 South 22d Street, She- 
boygan, Wis., president of local 833, UAW, AFL-CIO. 

The Chairman. Mr. Grasskamp, you have counsel representing you ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do. 

The Chairman. Counsel, you may state your name and place of resi- 
dence, please, sir, and identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Rauh. My name is Joseph L. Rauh, and I am Washington 
counselor for the United Automobile Workers, and I live in Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. I am sure you are familiar 
with the rules of the committee. Counsel are permitted to be present 
to advise their client and advise the witness of their legal rights. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grasskamp was notified at 10 : 15 
this morning that he was to be a witness at 10 :30. 

Of course, he has had no opportunity to get an opening statement in, 
and I do not know whether he has anything that he wishes to say 
prior to the time any questions are asked. 

The Chairman. Do you have a prepared statement ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not have a prepared statement, Mr. Chair- 
man, but I do have a short brief oral statement that I would like to 
make. 

The Chairman. The committee will hear it. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Mr. Chairman, this is a strike of the Kohler 
workers, the people that work in Kohler. These are the people that are 
striking. They are striking because of conditions that existed inside 
that plant. 

Their job security, and such things as transfers, seniority, layoffs, the 
unbearable conditions as far as silicosis is concerned, and these are the 
people that are striking at Kohler. 

These are the people that are continuing to strike at Kohler, and 
these are the people that will continue to strike until justice is won for 
the Kohler workers. 



8332 IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE Ll\BOR FIEIvD 

It is true that the vast majority of Kohler workers were on the picket 
line, side by side. They were there because they felt that in numbers 
there was protection. 

They remember from back in 1934, which is public record, of what 
the brutality of the company in that strike was at that time. Two 
people were killed, and 47 were wounded. They were all out there 
protecting themselves and their brothers together. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the questions, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grasskamp, you worked at the Kohler Co. for 
how long ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Since 1939. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position have you held, or what work have you 
done for the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I started working for the Kohler Co. unloading a 
couple of clay boats in 1939, and I then went to work in the yard 
department of the Kohler Co. for a few weeks. 

And in November of 1939 I was transferred into the pottery divi- 
sion, into the castings department. 

Mr. Kennedy. You remained in that position for how long ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To the time of the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now were you a member of any union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I was a member of the KWA Independent Union, 
signed up by a foreman, in 1939, which I started. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it KWA ? Wliat does that stand for ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That was the Kohler Workers Association. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean, you were signed up by a foreman ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Wlien I came in in the morning, I was handed a 
card by the foreman at that time, who is deceased now, and his name 
was Mr. Nolan, and at the same time he handed me a checkoff card, and 
said that it would be well that I sign this, and I did. 

I have been a member of the KWA from that day on. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the management representative signed you up in 
the KWA? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was supposed to be the union representing the 
employees ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That was supposed to be the union representing the 
employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it an independent union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It was an independent union. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt there ? 

It was really a company union ; was it not ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Ives. It was not an independent union as we understand 
them? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It was company dominated. 

Senator Ives. But it was a company union ? 

The Chairman. What you meant by independent, it was not affil- 
iated with any international ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the National Labor Relations Board ever hold 
that it was company dominated ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Back in 1934, as I recall the records, there was an 
election, and it was held that the company had fostered it and that it 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8333 

was company dominated, but it said another election could take care 
of that problem. 

Senator Curtis. What was the date of your joining the KWA ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, it would have to be 

Senator Curtis. What year ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. 1939. 

Senator Curtis. In 1939? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know how many members the KWA had ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. At that time, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I couldn't say right offhand. 

Senator Curtis. Give me an estimate. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say between 90 and 95 percent of 

Senator Curtis. Of the workers ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But not all of them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not all of them, no. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And you paid dues into that union at the time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I paid dues into the Kohler Workers Association. 

Senator Ives. May I get something cleared up at this point, Mr. 
Chairman? You talked about being a picket on a picket line? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Ives. Was that a mass picket line? Did the members of 
the union stand side by side ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, Mr. Chairman, I must say "Yes." 

Senator Ives. What I am interested in in that connection is this: 
Were there any pickets on that line that were not members of the 
union, that were not in the company or had not been in the company, 
had not been working in the company ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We had a few people. 

Senator Ives. Outsiders ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I do not call them outsiders. 

Senator Ives. What do yoti mean ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They were international representatives of the 
international union. We had some international representatives up 
there. It must be well understood at this time that when this strike 
started, because of the company's immediate publicity in saying that 
the majority of the people wanted to work, the majority of the people 
appeared on the picket line every morning, demonstrating their soli- 
darity to the union and their sanctioning of the strike. 

Senator Ives. The workers themselves of the company ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Ives. In other words, they were not outsiders ? 

Mr, Grasskamp. They were not outsiders. 

Senator I\'^s. How many so-called outsiders of these international 
organizers or people did you have there all told ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The most I can recall would be somewhere between 
12 and 15. 

Senator Ives. That certainly couldn't be considered an outside mass 
picketing job. 



8334 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOK FIELD 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I think you misunderstood me. Did you ask 
for international organizers? 

Senator Ives. I am talking about the outsiders. You mentioned 
outsiders that were not members of the local union. 

Mr. Grasskamp. That did not work for the Kohler Co. 

Senator Ives. How many of them were there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. 12 to 15. 

Senator Ives. And that is all. All the rest of them were workers 
in the plant, members of the local union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The rest of the members on the picket line, better 
than 2,000, maybe close to 2,500, were Kohler workers, worked for the 
Kohler Co. 

Senator Ives. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. When was this picket line that you are talking 
about, what month and what year ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. April 5, 1954. 

Senator Curtis. And you know most of the Kohler workers? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I know most of them by sight, yes. 

Senator Curtis. And it is your statement that in that picket line, 
you recognized them all as Kohler workers except these 12 or 15 inter- 
national representatives ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And there was no one else there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now will you name those international representa- 
tives ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, there is maybe two or three who I do not 
know, whether they were international representatives or from another 
local union. 

Senator Curtis. What were their names ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Guy Barber. 

Senator Curtis. Wliere was he from ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Chrysler, local 7. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was James Fiore. 

Senator Curtis. Wliere was he from ? ' 

Mr. Grasskamp. I think local 212. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio else? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was William Vinson from local 212. 

Senator Curtis. William who? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Vinson. 

Senator Curtis. Where was he from ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Local 212. 

Senator Curtis. Where is that? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The Briggs local, a Kohler competitor, the Briggs 
Manufacturing Co. 

Senator Curtis. Who else? 

Mr. Grasskamp. John Gunaca. 

Senator Curtis. Where was he from ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Local 212, the Briggs Co. 

Senator Curtis. That is a local in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. 

Senator Curtis. A local in Detroit ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8335 

Senator Curtis. Wliere did this mass picketing take place ? 
Mr. Grasskamp. At Koliler. 
Senator Curtis. Wliere is Mr, Gunaca now ? 
Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, Detroit, Mich. 
Senator Curtis. Is he wanted in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, from the newspaper and the 
courts, yes. 

Senator Curtis. What is he wanted for ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He is allegedly supposed to have beat somebody 

up- 

Senator Curtis. "What happened to the victim ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The victim ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. He is working at Kohler, so far as I know. 

Senator Curtis. Working at Kohler ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. What is his name? 

Mr. Grasskamp. William Bersch, Jr. 

Senator Curtis. And that is the only charge pending against Mr. 
Gunaca ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. So far as I know, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who else was on this picket line who Avere inter- 
national representatives ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, there was Eaymond Majerus, who was region 
10 international representative. 

Senator Curtis. TVliere was he from ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Kegion 10, originally a Kohler worker discharged 
in 1952. 

Senator Curtis. "Wliat city or place is he from ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He now works out of the Milwaukee office. 

Senator Curtis. Where was he at that time? 

Mr. Grasskamp. At that time I think he was already working out 
of the Milwaukee office. 

Senator Curtis. Who else? Was there a Mr. Ferrazza there? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Jesse Ferrazza. 

Senator Curtis. Was he there? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He was there participating in negotiations and is 
the administrative assistant to Emil Mazey. 

Senator Curtis. Where is he from ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He is from Emil Mazey's office in Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think of any others ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Donald Rand, who at the time was connected with 
the skilled trades department, was there. 

Senator Curtis. From where ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He was out of the Detroit office. 

Senator Curtis. Now you mentioned Emil Mazey. Who is he? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He is the international union secretary-treasurer. 

Senator Curtis. Did he have such a position at this time we are 
talking about ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Burns there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Joseph Burns, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who is he ? 



8336 IMPROPER ACrrVTTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grasskamp. He was head of the community services and the 
strike assistance program for the Koliler workers. 

Senator Curtis. Where did he live? 

Mr. Gr.\sskamp. Well, for a long time he lives in Sheboygan, be- 
cause he was stationed right there managing the assistance program. 

Senator Curtis. "Wliere did he live at that time? 

Mr. Grasskamp. When he was in Sheboygan ? 

Senator Curtis, Wlien this mass picketing took place. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, he was staying in Sheboygan but his home 
was in Detroit, Mich. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Stallons ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Stallons, yes. A Mr. Stallons was there. 

Senator Curtis. Who is he ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, he is just a worker from local 72 
in Kenosha. 

Senator Cuktis. Kenosha, Wis. ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was he an employee of Kohler's? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. He, as I understand it, was sent up there by 
his local union to check with us to see whether there was anything they 
could do to help us along in the way of assistance, whether they could 
raise some money for us to help us in the assistance program, whether 
they could go and take any clothing collections or food collections. It 
is my understanding he talked to me about that, and that was what 
his purpose was. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Prested there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. IJanny Prested was there a short time, right at the 
beginning of the strike ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Where was he from? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He was from the skilled-trades department, also. 

Senator Curtis. Whereabouts? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not know. I think his home was in Michigan. 

Senator Curtis. Someplace in Michigan. Was there a Mr. Fiore ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I have already said that. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Carpenter there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Clayton Carpenter is the international representa- 
tive of region 10. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am not sure, but I think at the time he was sta- 
tioned in Milwaukee, out of the Milwaukee office. 

Senator Curtis. He was not a Kohler employee? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; he was not. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Kitzman ? 

Mr. Gr^vsskamp. Harvey Kitzman is the regional director for region 
10, of which local 833 is in that region. 

Senator Curtis. Where did he live ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He lived in Racine, at the time, but his office was 
in Milwaukee. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Sahorske ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Frank Sahorske ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Frank Sahorske was an international representa- 
tive that assisted local 833 during the term of the first contract, and 
in the early negotiations he was present. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELI> 8337 

Senator Curtis. \Vliere did he live ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He was the assistant director at that time, and his 
home was in Eacine, Wis. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Land tliere ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I know a Mr. Boyce Land, who was up there for 
a short period of time. I wouldn't know just exactly what the period 
of time was. I would say a week or 10 days. 

Senator Curtis. And who was he ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. So far as I know, he was a member of local 212, the 
Briggs Co. 

Senator Curtis. Located where ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Detroit, Mich. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a Mr. Wallich there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Frank Wallich ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Frank Wallich 

Senator Curtis. I don't know what his first name was. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Frank Wallich came up there just periodically, 
because he was with the publicity department. 

Senator Curtis. And where did he live ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He lived in Milwaukee, Wis. 

Senator Curtis. In Milwaukee. Now, do you think of any other 
people who participated in this mass picketing who were not em- 
ployees of Kohler ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not recall any other names. 

Senator Curtis. And these people that you have testified about ; you 
know them all ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I know them ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. You could identify them in pictures, could you ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I could ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Were those men there the morning the mass picket- 
ing started ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; I don't think they were all there the morning 
the mass picketing started. 

Senator Curtis. But some of them were ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Some of the international representatives from 
region 10 were there ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who do you recall was there that morning ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, I recall that specific morning, the regional 
director, Harvey Kitzman; the assistant director, Frank Sahorske; 
Raymond Majerus; Jesse Ferrazza, who had been in there assisting 
us in trying to negotiate a contract ; Donald Rand. That is all I can 
say that were there, specifically, that morning. 

Senator Curtis. What time of day did that mass picketing start ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Five o'clock in the morning. 

Senator Curtis. Five o'clock in the morning. And how many men 
showed up, would you say ? 

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

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say there was better than 2,000 ; between 
2,000 and 2,500 people. 

Senator Curtis. And where did they congregate ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They congregated at all the gates, all the entrances 
to the plant. 

Senator Curtis. How many gates are there ? 



8338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was three actual gates where the entrances 
to the plant are. There is more, but the other ones were not open. 

Senator Curtis. And about the same number at each one of these 
places? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. I would say that the vast majority were out 
in the front of the plant, demonstrating their majority to the company. 

Senator Curtis. The vast majority were out in front of the plant? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. About how many were out there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say probably 1,800 to 2,000 in front of the 
plant. 

Senator Curtis. How many people were employed at that time? 

Mr, Grasskamp. 3,344, 1 think, is the exact number. 

Senator Curtis. And you are pretty sure there was no one there 
other than these people that you have mentioned in your testimony in 
addition to Kohler employees ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There may have been 1 or 2 others, but I don't 
remember their names at this time, if there were. This was only 10 
or 15 people out of some 2,000 that were out there in front of that 
plant that morning. 

Senator Curtis. How close a formation did they form in front of 
the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I didn't understand your question. 

Senator Curtis. How close a formation, and how did that 2,000 
congregate ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They walked in a circle, right in back of each other. 

Senator Curtis. Were there any workers who went through? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did any try? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't recall any of them tiying that first morning. 

Senator Curtis. Did anyone try in a subsequent morning? 

Mr. Grasskamp. In what? 

Senator Curtis. In any morning following that, did any of them 
try? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There were other mornings that I assumed that 
the people that did come from across the street had intentions of 
probably going in to work. I don't think that the company wanted 
them to go to work, but I think that probably, they had intentions. 

Senator Curtis. There were some that intended to go through? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is my thinking. I don't know what their 
intentions were. 

Senator Curtis. Did they get through ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; tliey did not. 

Senator Curtis. What happened ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, we said right from the beginning of the 
strike that if anybody knew of any of the people that worked at 
Kohler, that if they did not know whether they were with us or not 
they ought to go talk to them, and they were with us or not they ought 
to go talk to them, and they ought to try to convince them of our 
righteous cause, for decent w^orking conditions, and decent wages at the 
Kohler Co. 

They ought to try to convince them that our cause is just, and since 
the majority was there on the picket line, they ought to join them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8339 

Senator Curtis. Well, now what happened to the people who tried 
to go through there ? That was my question. 

Mr. Grasskamp. As I understand it, they talked to them. They 
met them. They met them after they got across the street and they 
talked to them. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any violence ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No violence, no. 

Senator Curtis. No violence ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No violence. I saw none. 

Senator Curtis. Now, the opening morning or any time, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. On the picket line, you are speaking of ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. At no time? 

Mr. Grasskamp. At no time. The only violence that I know of was 
levied against me, myself. 

Senator Curtis. By whom ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not know. I would like to know. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you when it happened ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I was home in bed when it happened, when my 
house was stoned. 

Senator Curits. What was the date of that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. September 1, 1954. 

Senator Curtis. What damage was done ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. A broken picture window, and two dents in the 
side of the house below the window. 

Senator Curtis. What time of the night was that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. As I remember, it was somewhere between 11 and 
11 : 30 in the evening. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did you report it ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I reported it to the Kohler Co., and to the city 
police department. 

Senator Curtis. ^Vlien did you report it ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Immediately. 

Senator Curtis. Was there an investigation ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, the police came to the house and investigated. 

Senator Curtis. What did they find out ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. All they found was a couple of rocks laying right 
down in the flowerbed in front of the window. 

Senator Curtis. Who did they find threw^ them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Wliat was that, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Who did they find, or did they find out who threw 
them? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not to my knowledge, they didn't. 

Senator Curtis. But you had a picture window broken ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a strike vote prior to this strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was a strike vote in March. 

Senator Curtis. In March ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How did the strike vote come out ? 



8340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was better than 2,000 people at the meeting,, 
and tiie strikers voted or the people at the meeting voted 88.1 percent 
in favor of striking. 

Senator Curtis. There is a record of that, is there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, there is. 

Senator Curtis. Who has the record ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. If it is in the material that was siibpenaed by the 
committee, they should have it. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what percent of the members were at the 
meeting 'i 

Mr. Grasskamp. The percentage of the membership, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis, ^¥ho were at the meeting, yes. 

Mr. (jrasskamp. I would say approximately 80 percent of the mem- 
bers. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, isn't it true that there were over 3,300 
employees ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. 3,344. 

Senator Curtis. Isn't it true that on the strike vote on ISIarch 10, 
a vote of "Yes," there were 1,105 votes ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This was a process that everybody had to identify 
themselves and everybody had to get a secret ballot, and many people 
did not vote. There were many people walked out of the meeting, and 
had voiced as they left that if the people voted for a strike, they would 
be in favor of it, and they left the meeting. 

Senator Curtis. Is it not true that there were 1,105 people who voted 
for a strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not know that to be the fact, at this point. I 
have not that memory or that figure in mind. 

Senator Curtis. If the record so shows, that is correct? 

Mr. Grasskamp. If the minutes of our executive board meeting 
show that, I will accept it. 

Senator Curtis. And 104 voted "no" ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. If that is what the record shows. 

Senator Curtis. And there was one ballot that was blank ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. If that is what the record shows, it would show it 
was 11 to 1 vote in favor of it. 

Senator Curtis. That made 1,254 people participating in the elec- 
tion ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That could be, if that is what the record shows. 

Senator Curtis. What percent would 1,254 be of the total number 
of employees ? 

Mr. Gr;\sskamp. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, anybody that was not 
a member is not entitled to operate and to vote in the functions of the- 
union. 

Senator Curtis. About 35 percent, in other words ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Of the total number of employees, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Gr.\sskamp. But the other ones who were not members cer- 
tainly, Mr. Senator, were not entitled to cast a ballot. 

Senator Curtis. How many membei's did you have in the union 
at that time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say around 2,400 to 2,500. 

Senator Curtis. And approximately half of them voted one way 
or tlie otlier on this '( 



i 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8341 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct, but 90 percent that voted, voted 
for the strike. 

Senator Curtis. Now in preparing for this strike, what financial 
arrangements did the local union make with anybody else in support 
of this strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was no financial arrangement made, other 
than that we had the promise of the international union, through their 
strike fund, that they would assist us. 

Senator Curtis. Who delivered that promise ? 

Mr, GPtAssKAMP. At this point, I would say it was either the secre- 
tary-treasurer or the regional director. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the secretary -treasurer? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Emil Mazey. 

Senator Curtis. Who is the regional director? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Harvey Kitsman. 

Senator Curtis. How did they convey that information to the 
union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They spoke at the membership meetings and they 
met with the excutive board. 

Senator Curtis. Now did you have arrangements made for the sup- 
port from other unions in the locality — to support your strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was no arrangements made for them to 
support it financially or any other way. We did have the moral sup- 
port of these people. 

Senator Curtis. What unions ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. All of the local unions in the city of Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. All of them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. There were no dissenters ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No dissenters, and they all sanctioned our cause. 

Senator Curtis. Unions of all complexions and affiliation ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. What particular unions did you discuss your plans 
for the strike with before it was called ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No one other than the international union. 

Senator Curtis. Now what other preparations were made for the 
strike? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, at the time the preparations were made, we 
notified the company that they could contact us on the Sunday before 
the strike started, that we M^ere willing and ready to resume the nego- 
tiations and sit down and work out an agreement. This company has 
seen fit to object and disagree with all proposals made. 

Senator Curtis. We will come to that. My question was: What 
other preparations did you make for the strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We made preparation for a strike kitchen. 

Senator Curtis. What is that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. A strike kitchen. 

Senator Curtis. What is that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is a place where coffee was made, douglmuts 
were delivered there, and these were in turn supplied to the people on 
the picket line. 

Senator Curtis. What other arrangements did you make ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. At present, to my knowledge, that is all. 

21243— 5S--l.t. 21 2 



8342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. What were these arrangements for financial sup- 
port and promises of financial support that were furnished by your 
international officers ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, the policy of the international imion at that 
time was that strike assistance was based on need, and there is no defi- 
nite plan. It depended on the need of the striker. 

Senator Curtis. How much money was made available to support 
the strike? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They never limited it to any amount. 

Senator Curtis. There was no limit ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It was given to the strikers on the basis of what 
they needed. 

Senator Curtis. How much money was spent ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, I do not have the entire access to the finan- 
cial records, but to my knowledge it was around $10 million to this 
date. 

Senator Curtis. Around $10 million ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio furnished that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It came out of the international union's strike fund. 

Senator Curtis. And from what city would that come? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That would come from Detroit, Mich. There were 
some local unions that took up collections or made a contribution from 
their local union, but this was minor, and this was a small percentage 
of the overall expense. 

Senator Curtis. But your estimate of $10 million came from the 
UAW strike fimd? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That $10 million came from the strike f imd, you 
say? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Where does that strike fund get their money? 

Mr. GRASSKiVMP. That is set aside by the members in each month's 
dues dollar, a definite amount of that is set aside and put into a strike 
fund each month. 

Senator Curtis. That is all UAW members ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. In all locals ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. All locals, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who has cliarge of that fund, and who determines 
whether or not money will be spent on that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am sorry, I cannot say. I assume that it is the 
international union executive board. 

Senator Curtis. Who makes up the international union executive 
board ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The officers. President Walter Reuther, and Sec- 
retaiy-Treasurer Emil Mazey, and the vice presidents, and the re- 
gional directors. 

Senator Curtis. How many vice presidents do you have ? 

Mr. Gr;\sskamp. Four. 

Senator Curtis. Will you name them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Richard Gosser. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8343 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not know where these people live, and where 
they have their homes. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr, Grasskamp. Leonard Woodcock, Norman Matthews, and Pat 
Greyhouse, 

Senator Curtis. Wlio is the chairman of the executive committee ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Walter Reuther. 

Senator Curtis. Now, in the way of any other preparation, did you 
have a strike manual ? 

Mr. GRiVSSKAMP. A strike manual ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. 

Senator Curtis. You never have seen one ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I have never seen a strike manual, no. 

Senator Curtis. You are pretty sure there was none prepared? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not to my knowledge, except that we issued in- 
structions to the pickets. 

Senator Curtis. Instructions to the pickets ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. And in writing ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. In writing. 

Senator Curtis. How often ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. First it was stated to them orally at the meeting, 
the Sunday before the strike started. We issued those instructions 
to them from the platform when we spoke to them, when they rejected 
the company's offer and approved of going on strike on Monday 
morning. 

They were issued that there was to be no violence and no vandalism 
and no drinking on the picket line, and they were to do no damage 
to any one. 

Senator Curtis. How about property ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Property was included in it. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any property damaged ? 

Mr. Gr-JlSskamp. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. No cars turned over ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not to my knowledge. 

^•eiiator Curtis. Was any individual hit or assaulted ? 

Mr. Grasska3ip. If there were, I didn't see it, and I was there every 
morning. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat are you talking about there, the entire dura- 
tion of this strike that began on April 4, 1954 ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. It is your statement that to your knowledge no 
cars were turned over, and no one was hit or assaulted ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my personal knowledge, no. Through the 
newspaper articles, I have read that there had been some. 

Senator Curtis. Now, other than what appeared in the newspapers, 
you have no knowledge of any car being turned over, or other property 
damaged ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. None at all ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Other than my own. 

Senator Curtis. Other than your own ? 

Mr. Gilvsskamp. That is right. 



8344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And you have no knowledge other than through 
the newspapers that there was any individual hurt in any way ? 

Mr. Gkasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Now, was there a strike manual prepared any place 
else and brought into this area for use ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Would you say there was not ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not know. To my knowledge, I do not know. 

Senator Curtis. What office in the union did you hold at this time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. President of the local. 

Senator Curtis. If there had been a strike manual, you would have 
known about it ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would have. 

Senator Curtis. So then it is your statement that there was none? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did you have a pass system ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, when the strike started, we offered this 
company, and we sat down and we said to this company, "Let us 
provide the necessary men for maintenance of the plant." 

This company refused, and said "We do not need your help. We 
will get our own help." Then at that point there was no specific 
system worked out in advance. But when the strike started, we had 
people come to us and ask us for a pass. They stated their reasons. 

Many people did not get a pass, and they still went into the com- 
pany, and many people came to us and they got passes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you work out any system for that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. We had a person stationed m what we called 
the soup kitchen, that if anybody came in and wanted one, he was 
there to issue it to him. 

Senator Curtis. But they did not issue them to all ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many people requested them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There were a number of them that requested 
passes, roughly, that I can remember, I would say half a dozen or so. 

Senator Curtis. Would you repeat the answer? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, that I can remember, which is 
4 years ago, I would say that I remember half a dozen maybe that 
came and asked for passes. 

Senator Curtis. Who did not get them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Oh, no, they got them. To my knowledge, every- 
body that asked for one got one. 

Senator Curtis. Now coming back to this question of violence either 
to persons or property, you did not have a conversation with anyone 
in reference to any violence to a person or destruction of property 
other than this one window in your own home, is that correct? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I discussed the company's preparations with peo- 
ple, yes. 

Senator Curtis. No, I am not talking about preparations. I am 
talking about instances of violence. Did you ever discuss with anv- 
body any instances of violence either to a person or destruction of 
property with the exception of this case where the rocks were thrown 
in your window ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I never discussed it, with the exception that 
many other of our people had nails in their tires, and they had their 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8345 

tires cut, and I have talked with people like that, who had paint 
thrown on their cars. 

Senator Curtis. Well, then, what you said a bit ago, that you know 
of none of that other than what you read in the paper, does not in- 
clude the information that you picked up in conversations ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. You were talking of company violence. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat is that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. You were talking of company violence, were you 
not? 

Senator Curtis. No. I was talking about violence on both sides. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Violence on both sides. I know of people that 
had paint on their cars — and union people — and tliey got their tires 
cut, and they had nails in their tires, and I know of people like Uiat, 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Curtis. Did you see it happen ? 

Mr, Grasskamp. No, I didn't see it happen. I saw the paint on 
the car, but I didn't see it happen. 

Senator Curtis. This denial that you said you saw nothing of cai-s 
turned over or no one hurt, no one hit or assaulted, were you con- 
fining your answer to actions of the company only ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I was refering my answer, and I imderstood your 
question to be, against company people. 

Senator Curtis. No, I mean against anybody. I am not interested in 
the company or the miion. I want to know how much violence took 
place there. 

Mr. Grasskamp. If your question is to cover both sides, then I 
must say that personal knowledge — I have knowledge of my own 
window being broken. 

Senator Curtis. Yes? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do have knowledge of at least one of our people 
with paint on his car. I have knowledge of one of our people with 
acid on his car. I have knowledge of a number of people who had 
their tires cut. I have knowledge of a number of people who had 
nails put in their tires. I have knowledge of one party who had his 
convertible top cut. 

Senator Curtis. These were workers ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Most of them were workers, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Were they people who were joining in the strike? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They were people who were participating in the 
strike, correct. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of any damage to property to em- 
ployees who were not joining in the strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Of what I have read in newspaper articles, yes, 
sir. 

Senator Curtis. I mean other than newspapers. 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, the only violence that you know 
of was the violence done to strikers ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right, other than newspaper articles that 
appeared in the newspapers. We have continuously, on a radio pro- 
gram and in our strike bulletin, and in our Kohlerian, we have said 



8346 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ESf THE LABOR FIELD 

many times that this is not the actions of the miion. The union nei- 
ther encourages it nor condones it. 

Senator Curtis. Coming back to this overturning of cars, all you 
know about that is what you read in the newspapers? 

Mr, Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. You talked to no one who participated in over- 
turning cars? 

Mr. GRiVSSB:.\MP. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. You talked to no one whose car was overturned? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I know of no one. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time, may I submit this in evidence? This 
is a copy of the union's disavowals. 

The Chairman. You may present it for the committee's considera- 
tion. I will not admit it in evidence imtil we have had an opportunity 
to examine it. 

Mr. Kauh. May we identify it, sir? 

The Chairman. You may state what you are submitting. 

Mr. Rauh. This is UAW Exhibit 1, a composite exhibit on union 
efforts to prevent violence in UAW-Kohler strike. 

The Chairman. It may be presented for the committee's inspection 
at this time. It will not go in evidence, as such, it is too voluminous 
for that. If accepted, it will be accepted as an exhibit for reference. 

Senator Curtis. You have a newspaper called the Kohlerian ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It is now called the Reporter. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat was it called at that time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Kohlerian. 

Senator Curtis. Did you print in that paper the names and license 
numbers of employees who went through the picket line? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not that I remember at this time that we did. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say you did not ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say at this time I don't know. I am not 
sure whether we did or not. I don't think we did. 

Senator Curtis. Who was responsible for the printing? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The printing of it? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. Wlio published it? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The Kenosha Labor News did the publishing of it. 

Senator Curtis. No. Who in your imion ran the publishing of the 
paper ? 

Mr. GRASSKAarp. The recording secretary of our local and the inter- 
national representative on publicity, jointly. 

Senator Curtis. You would have something to do with it, too ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Would I ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. I am sure many times I did not see it until 
the paper came out, what was in it. 

Senator Curtis. So if there was anything in there, you didn't know 
anything about it? 

Mr. Grasskaiup. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. And you don't know anything about it now? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. The Chair has casually examined this document 
which was presented. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE IjABOR FTETLD 8347 

Was this document prepared under your direction or supervision? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Under my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Are you prepared to state under oath, according to 
the best of your knowledge, that the contents and information in this 
document is true ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the Chair will make this docu- 
ment exhibit No. 1 for reference. 

Senator Curtis. When was it prepared ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This was prepared within the last 2 or 3 weeks. 

Senator Curtis. The last 2 or 3 weeks ? 

It is not a document that was prepared at the time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. But the contents in there were things that ap- 
peared way back as far as April 5, 1954. 

Senator Curtis. But it is something that was prepared in the last 
2 or 3 weeks ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is cori-ect. 

Senator Curtis. Does it include a complete assembling of all docu- 
ments and like bulletins that were used ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, it was a part of them that you se- 
lected and compiled in the last 2 or 3 weeks; is that correct? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It is a part of all the disavowals. To my knowl- 
edge, it is all the disavowals and the action of the local union demon- 
strating that we did not want violence and vandalism. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, it is things that you picked out 
to show your disavowals ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Con-ect. 

Senator Curtis. And you assembled it in the last 2 or 3 weeks? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And they are all originals ? ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. They are copies of them, but it also 
includes 

Senator Curtis. Wlien were the copies made ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Within the last 2 or 3 weeks. 

Senator Curtis. Where are the originals ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The originals, I would say that either we would 
have them, the committee would have them, or they would be in the 
Sheboygan office, on stuff that was returned. 

Mr. Kauh. We will provide any originals that are not in the com- 
mittee's hands. 

Senator Curtis. I didn't get the counsel's statement. 

Mr. Rauh. We will provide any originals not now in the commit- 
tee's hands. This is an autlientic copy. Senator. 

Mr. Grasskamp. This also includes the union's reward of $1,000 
for the apprehension of violence and vandalism. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to this being made an exhibit 
for reference only ? 

Senator Curtis. No objection. 

The Chairman. The Chair hears none. It is so ordered. It will 
be made exhibit 1 for reference. 

(The document was marked "Exhibit No. 1" for reference, and may 
be found in the files of the select committee.) 



8348 impropp:r activities in the l.\bor field 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I think something should be pointed 
up here to clarify the record so far with respect to what the witness 
had to say about the picketing. Insofar as I was able to determine, 
there was nothing in the picketing which occurred which he described 
which in any way, shape, or manner was in violation of the Taft- 
Hartley Act. I think that should be shown. That is all. 

I make that comment. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is tiiie, Mr. Grasskamp, is it not, that employees 
came across the street to attempt to get into the plant during the 
period of time of the mass picketing ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would think that that is why they came across. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that mass picketing lasted from April 5 until 
it was cut off in the early part of May. Was it stopped in the early 
part of May ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The early part of May. 

Mr. I^nnedy. That was because the Wisconsin Labor Board inter- 
vened ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was an agreement in the early part of May 
that the union would reduce their picket line down to 35 people at 
each ^ate, and that the company would sit down with the union and 
negotiate in good faith and try to work out an agreement. The com- 
pany did not live up to their end of this agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean "the company did not" ? Didn't 
you start the mass picketing within 2 or 3 days of the time of that 
agreement ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. My understanding, and as I know it, the agree- 
ment was that we were to meet on May 6, 7, or 8, or 7, 8, and 9, 3 days. 
After 4 years later, I am not too clear. But it is those 3 days. And 
that the company was to sit down with us and negotiate in good faith 
and try to work out an agreement. During this negotiation, we asked 
the company to meet. They met with us on Friday. We asked them 
to meet Friday night. We asked them to meet Saturday. We asked 
them to meet Saturday night, Sunday, and Sunday night, and they 
refused ; and, as stated by the chairman of the management committee, 
he said the niunber of people that came into that plant to work on 
Monday morning would have some reflection on their attitude that he 
could take back to the president of that company, and maybe they 
would then make some concession. When they refused to meet, we 
resumed back to the type of picketing we had before May 6. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you resumed the mass picketing on what date ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. On the 10th, if my dates are correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The following Monday ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The followmg Monday. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlie mere fact that they refused to meet with you 
over tlie weekend, on Saturday and Sunday, you rasumed the mass 
picketing on Monday ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They refusal to live up to their end of the agree- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you felt that their end of the agreement necessi- 
tated their meeting on Saturday and Sunday? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8349 

Mr, Kennedy. And for how long did it go on after that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To the end of May. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it stopped then ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. We agreed to the Wisconsin Employment 
Relations Board order. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Wasn't there a court order then ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. What is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there a court order ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. There was not a definite court order at the 
end of May. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grasskamp. They used the word "stipulation." I was going to 
say "agreement," that we would abide by the Wisconsin employment 
order. 

But this was always peaceful picketing. You have to keep in mind 
that the company's preparation, their moving of cots into the plant, 
their moving of food into the plant. 

There is testimony which was later borne out, and which we had 
practical knowledge of it at the time. We had our suspicions of it, 
that this company was well again equipped as in 1934, when 2 were 
killed and 47 wounded; that they had guns, and they had tear gas. 
Our people were out there altogether, because they were going to see 
that this stuff wasn't used on the people in 1954 as was done in 1934. 

The Chairman. Let me get one point cleared up. There was a ques- 
tion asked you about a court order. I believe you said a stipulation 
was entered into. Therefore, there was a court proceeding in which 
the union stipulated that it would reduce its picketing force. Am 
I correct ? 

JNIr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I was trying to get the record clear on that point. 

Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I just want to ask one question of the witness. Has 
the company at any time since this started in 1954, has the company 
at any time been willing to sit down and talk or negotiate Avith the 
representatives of your union ? 

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

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, they have at times been requested to come in 
meetings. The Federal Conciliation Service called many meetings. 
But every time that it appeared as though we were starting to make a 
little progress, they raised more obstacles. They were bringing in new 
obstacles. I would like to give you a good example of that. 

In June of 1954, we thought we were making progress along the lines 
of hospital and medical insurance. But during this, it comes out the 
company's interpretation of what we once thought was an agreement. 

We had once thought that we had an agreement on seniority, not to 
our liking but on a compromise basis that we could settle and get a 
contract with this company and end the strike. 

We originally asked for plant seniority. The company said : This 
can't be done." They said "It has to be by departments." We agreed 
that it would be by department. Then the company said that "AVe 
have to have a clause in there which allows us to deviate to the extent 
of 10 percent." In these discussions, the understanding of the 10 per- 
cent, and it was in the previous contract, and it was everybody's 



8350 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

understanding that that is what it meant at the time, if the company 
had a layoff, and they had to keep some key people to maintain their 
plant, and in order to keep their departments going, they could deviate 
irom seniority to the extent of 10 percent. Then in June of 1954, 
when we thought we were starting to make a little progress, we 
thought we were starting to get some agreement on medical insurance 
and hospital insurance, then lo and behold comes the company's inter- 
pretation of the 10 percent, in which they say "Oh, no ; this isn't our 
opinion. This isn't why we want to use this 10 percent. We have a 
lot of people on our payrolls — " They didn't say this, but I said 
giving them the best years of their life — they said, "Who may have 
been here for a long time. We have never taken the time to fire them 
or bother to fire them. But we may want to exercise this and take 
them out of the bargaining unit and use them in the layoff." 

Then we get into the position of what is that to be ? Our position 
was if this is to take place, they wanted to lay off 20 people, and exer- 
cise the 10 percent, they could lay off the 18 from the bottom, but if 
they wanted to keep 2, the next 2 would be kept. But they said, "Oh, 
no, this would be the guy with the most seniority in the department." 

At that time we had a disagreement on the application of the 10 per- 
cent. This is what happened along the lines. There are many people 
who offered to arbitrate the strike. I can specifically remember com- 
ing here to Washington to appear before a subcommittee on a bill 
which was up at the time 

Senator Ives. Was I on that subcommittee ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. You were on that, Mr. Ives. 

Senator Ives. I well remember. 

Mr. Grasskamp. It was up at the time which dealt with the issuing 
of contracts with companies on strike and their failure to deliver. I 
specifically remember the remarks of the company's chairman of the 
management committee who said he didn't come here to try to settle 
the strike, and there was no magic air in Washington, that he came here 
to appear before the bill, and that is all he would discuss here. 

Senator Ives. You will remember we settled one strike that time. 

Mr. Grasskamp. The day before you did. I remember that. 

Senator Ives. The question I want to ask you in this connection is 
was that the same gentleman to whom you are referring at the hearing, 
is he the one with whom you carried on your negotiations to which you 
refer ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, on the company side of the table, Lyman 
C. Conger. 

Senator Ives. All of your negotiations were with him, and you 
didn't have negotiations with the president or the chairman? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We asked the president of the Kohler Co. We 
sent him a letter asking him to participate before the strike started. 
We asked him to come down and sit into the meetings. It was our 
suspicion that he wasn't getting the facts, and we felt he ought to 
be there and ought to hear our side of the story. He refused and 
said that as long as we were demanding what we were, there was no 
point in any further negotiations whatsoever. 

Senator Ives. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. The mass picketing, then, continued until the end 
of May ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8351 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during that period of time, there were in- 
stances where the employees, people that disagreed with the UAW, 
attempted to get into the plant, were there not ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I assume that was their intentions. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it a fact that those who were the pickets 
were walking so closely together or with their arms through one 
another's that it was impossible to get into the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Let me just — 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They were walking there, yes. But let me ex- 
plain. First of all, you have to recognize — I hope and we hope to 
show— that the company had no intentions and did not want these 
people into the plant, because they never made any effort to go into 
that plant until the company first had all their equipment set up on 
the top of the guardhouse, in back of the employment office. Then 
I specifically remember, whether it was the second or third week of 
the strike — it is now beyond my memory, but I know it was either 
the second or third week of the strike — I happened to be looking back 
at the guardhouse in back of the employment office, where their 
cameras and everything was set up, because we were always keeping 
an eye out, and fearful of the tear gas and what happened in 1934. 

I looked at the top of the employment office and saw the blind go 
up, and at that point saw the plant manager, Edward Beaver, wave to 
the people, and then the people came across the street. I say the 
people were goaded to come across the street. I don't think they 
wanted in there. The company has a perfect right, under Wisconsin 
Employment Relations Board, if they are not satisfied with mass 
picketing, and if they claimed it was mass picketing, on April 4, they 
could have gone to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board o^ 
April 5 and could have gotten the same results they got. 

But they didn't. They chose to wait. They chose to wait a couple 
of weeks, because there was fellows like myself and other people who 
did not take all of this stuff from the company, did not accept the 
answer and the way they pushed people around, and we were willing 
tofight for the workers. 

There was many times that many of us almost got discharged be- 
cause we fought as hard as we did for the workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grasskamp, whether they wanted them in there 
or not, there were individuals that wanted to get into the plant and 
work, were there not ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I assume that was their intentions. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you and the other pickets kept those people out 
of the plant, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, we 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Isn't it correct you would not allow them through 
the line? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They did not go through the line, that is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Isn't it a fact that you people were there, 2,000 of 
you ? How many of you were there and kept them out of the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say that may be correct. We may have 
made some mistakes in this strike. I don't know. I don't know if 
we had to do it over again, whether we would do the same thing or 
we wouldn't. 



8352 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a fact that you kept the people out of the plant, 
did you not, when they wanted to come into the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you agree that was a mistake, now ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, when you have a number of people like we 
had, with the conditions that were in that plant, and these people 
are on that picket line, and these people are hungry, they are fight- 
ing for their wife and children not for themselves — I will never re- 
gam what I have lost during this strike. But I intend to see to it 
that there is going to be a time when if my son, which I very much 
doubt now, will ever be able to go to work for the Kohler Co., he 
will not have to work under the conditions that I did. 

When I see people wanting to go into that plant to steal our jobs, 
and to take our jobs away from us, I suppose that maybe tempers are 
not always what they should be. 

Mr. E^ennedy. Wliat do you say, when you talk about the condi- 
tions in the plant ? What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am talking about first of all, many times, in 
most plants, where there is better jobs, where there is higher-paying 
jobs, where there is easier jobs, the men with the most seniority get 
an opportunity to do these jobs. This was not true at Kohler. Wlien 
I first became active in the independent union there was people work- 
ing on some of the hardest jobs in the casting shop department that 
had 25 and 29 years of seniority in that place. They never had an 
opportunity to get these easier jobs. The worst job in the casting 
shop, in the pottery at Kohler, is the casting of bowls, and that is 
where these guys were. 

They never got the right, even though they asked for it, to get a 
job casting lavatories, stoves, or tanks. Today some of those people, 
even though they are not on our side, and are working in that plant, 
are there because we w^ere willing to stand up and fight and argue for 
the right for them to be there. 

Senator Goldwater. May I ask a question on picketing? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Before we get away from the subject of mass 
picketing, I w^anted to ask Mr. Grasskamp a few questions. 

Mr. Grasskamp, was there a strike committee formed in the union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Who were the members of that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The strike committee included the executive-board 
members and the chief steward. 

Senator Goldwater. And you were a member of that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I was chairman ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. And you would know pretty much what went 
on in the plant before the strike and in the operation of the strike? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you aware when the strike was called 
that it was against the Wisconsin law to have mass picketing? 

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

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, I suppose if you say that it is against the 
Wisconsin law, there is a law in Wisconsin against egress to a plant 
or the blocking of roads, which is what I was talking about before, 
that the company could have used this, this board. They could have 
used it on April 5. But they didn't choose to do so. They waited 2 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriE.S IN THE LABOR FIELD 8353 

to 3 weeks until they had enough evidence, on the people that they 
were in opposition to, to discharge. They could have used that, the 
very first day. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know that it was a violation of the 
law to hold mass picketing when you started the strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Not exactly a law. I am not — ^ — 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know it was against the law to pre- 
vent people from goin^ to work by a picket line? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It is not against the law, as such. 

Mass picketing is not against the law as such. 

Senator Goldwater. Preventing people from going to work is 
against the Wisconsin law. 

Mr. Grasskamp. That's against the law, but not mass picketing. 

Senator Goldwater. As a member of the strike committee, did you 
know about this ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That mass picketing was against the law ? 

Senator Goldwater. No. You know what I am getting aL Did 
you know, as a member of the strike committee, that preventing a 
person from going on to work was against the law, the Wisconsin 
law? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grasskamp. As I understand it, this is not against the law 
until somebody presses a charge and a proceeding against you. 

Senator (ioldwater. That is not a very good Vv-ay to interpret the 
law. The law is on the book 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am not a lawyer, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not, either. It is against the law to 
speed. We cannot say that it does not apply until we do it. It is 
against the law. As a member of the strike committee, didn't you 
know that what you were going to engage in was against the Wis- 
consin law ?-^ 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Grasskamp. My own personal opinion is that it was not. 

Senator Goldwater. What did your lawyers tell you? You must 
have had a lawyer engaged. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I did not confer with our lawyers on this. 

Senator Goldwater. So you say, then — do you deny any knowledge 
oj (he Wisconsin law? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't deny the knowledge of the Wisconsin law. 
I deny knowing the interpretation that you place upon it. 

Senator Goldwater. It is a very clear law. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Wisconsin law made a 
part of the record. I do not want to take it from this sou- -o tliat I 
have. It happens to be a newspaper advertisement. I as': ^]\at the 
counsel get the law. It is section 343.683, "Preventing pn-suit of 
work," and I would like to have that made a part of the record at this 
point. 

The Chairman. The statute to which the Senator is r^" r'va: — I 
am not familiar with it — without objection, that statute nay be 
printed in the record at this point. I assume it is a brief s'^^u^e, is 
it not ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes; it is very brief. It is a short paragraph. 
The reason I do not want to read it is because it is quoted '- '^ news- 
paper ad run by the Kohler Co. I would rather have it r-ome out 
of the lawbooks than the newspaper ads. 



8354 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. We have some lawyers on the staff. They can do 
a little research, and do it as the matter exactly is, and insert it into 
the record. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Wisconsin Statutes 

Sj^3.683 Preventing pursuit of toork. Any person who by threats, intimida- 
tion, force, or coercion of any liind shall hinder or prevent any other person 
from engaging in or continuing in any lawful work or employment, either for 
himself or as a wageworker, or who shall attempt to so hinder or prevent shall 
be punished by fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment in the county jail 
not more than 6 months, or by both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of 
the court. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit any person 
or persons ofC of the premises of such lawful work or employment from recom- 
mending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means to refrain from 
working at a place where a strike or lockout is in progress. 

Mr. GrassKxVMP. May I say, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am con- 
cerned, this is no more against the Wisconsin law than the illegal 
possession of tear gas and riot guns is against the law. 

Senator Goldwater. We are not talking about that now. We, will 
get to that in due course. Mr. Grasskamp, did you know that a picket 
line that denies access to plants is a violation of Taft-Hartley, under 
sections (b) (1)? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This, it seems to me, is under the same process as 
it is with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. 

Senator Goldwater. I am asking you a very simple question. You, 
as a member of the strike committee; you, as president of the local 
that is going to call the strike, must have had some knowledge of 
what you were going to go into. You must have had some idea that 
you were going to be in violation of a State law and a Federal law 
when you did it. Did you or didn't you know that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Let me say it this way _ 

Senator Goldwater. Just answer my question. We can go around 
the bush on this all day. Just say yes or no. 

Mr. Gr^vsskamp. Then the answer is "No." 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't know that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. All right, that is fine. Now, Mr. Grasskamp, 
prior to the calling of the strike, during the period of the negotiations 
or discussions, I believe they went on for about a year prior to this 
strike. Am I correct in that, or wron^ ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The actual negotiations for this contract ? 

Senator Goldwater. Not negotiations, necessarily. But discussions. 
The wage reopening demands you were making on Kohler, under 
the contract. 

Mr. Grasskamp. They agreed on a contract on February 23, 1953. 
On August 14 or 15, 1953, we made a wage demand upon the com- 
pany, which was provided for in the contract on a wage reopener. 

Senator Goldwater. That was about a year prior to the strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; it was not. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, roughly. 

Mr. Gr^vsskamp. August 16, 1953, was when we made the wage 
demands. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, the strike was April 1954. It is roughly 
a year, or 10 months, whatever you call it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8355 

Mr. Grasskamp. Seven or eight months. 

Senator Gold water. During that time, did you threaten to strike 
the company ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We took strike votes, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. So tlie company knew for that period that tlie 
chances were pretty good that there would be a strike ? 

Mr, Grasskamp. I don't know wliether they could assume tliat that 
was right or not. 

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

Senator Goldwater. If you continued to threaten them with 
strikes, I think they could assume that there would be a strike, don't 
you? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There are many, many unions that have taken 
strike votes and have never had a strike. 

Senator Goldwater. But during the course of tlie 7 or 8 months, 
you continuously threatened tlie company with strikes unless agree- 
ments were made ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. We never tlireatened this company with 
strikes. 

Senator Goldwater. You never mentioned it once? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We took a strike vote. 

Senator Goldwater. When did you take a strike vote ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We took a strike vote on the August negotiations. 
In the international union 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat date did you take the strike vote? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I can't recall the exact date. It would be in Au- 
gust of some time. 

Senator Goldwater. August of 1953 or of 1954 ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. 1953. 

Senator Goldwater. You took the strike vote in August of 1953? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Correct. And the international union would not 
sanction a strike. 

Senator Goldwater. And you didn't strike until April 1, 1954? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. And the same issues were in- 
volved then. 

Senator Goldwater. We are not talking about issues now. You 
mentioned the fact that the company was preparing for a strike. I 
don't condone their purchasing of firearms, tear gas or anything else, 
but I think it is rather normal for a company to make normal prepa- 
rations for any work stoppage. As I say, we will get to the instru- 
ments that they used later on. But during this whole year, they had 
the threat of a strike over them, or a period of approximately a year? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. No, they were never notified that we were 
going to strike. We cannot notify the company that we are going 
to strike before we get sanction from the international union that we 
can strike, which we never got within that year. 

Senator Goldwater. But you took a strike vote? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is true. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the company know the result of the strike 
vote? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I think they did. 

Senator Goldwater. You could assume that they would. Now. how 
many people are still on strike at Kohler ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Around 2,000. 



8356 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Are tliey all former employees of Ihe Kohler 
Co.? 

Mr. Grasskamf. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Are they in an employed status now ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Oh sure they are in employed status, and they have 
only temporary employment somewhere else to provide them with a 
living, because after 4 years you just can't live on strike assistance. It 
is tough. It is the women and children that are paying the price here. 

Senator Goldwater. How many people are working at Kohler now ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you say the full complement of 3,300 ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Oh, no. I would have reason to believe it was 
less than 2,000 actual employees working. 

Senator Goldwater. Then they are not working to full production ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say "No." 

Senator Goldwater. Do we have the figure of how many are work- 
ing there now, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have that, Mr. Bel lino ? 

Mr. Rellino. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can ask the Kohler Co. 

Senator Goldwater. If we can get that information, I would like 
it to go in the record at this point. 

(The information is as follows :) 

Total enrollment at the Kohler Co., Kohler, Wis., on Jauuary 15, 1958, for 
production and maintenance employees, 2,296. 

Senator Goldwater. Getting back to the picket line again, Mr. 
Grasskamp, were the office employees organized at any time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, they were a part of the original bargaining 
unit before we affiliated and before the NLKB election with the UAW. 

Senator Goldwater. They were a member of the Kohler Workers 
Association ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir; we had the officeworkers, technical em- 
ployees, and everybody but supervision. 

Senator Goldwater. When you switched over to UAW, did they 
go with you ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. The National Labor Relations Board ex- 
cluded them in a bargaining election. 

Senator Goldwater. How did you handle those employees when 
they wanted to cross the picket line ? 

Mr. Gr V sskamp. They went in to work. 

Senator Goldwater. Without any difficulty? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. How about the first day of the strike, did they 
go across the line? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, they did. 

Senator Goldwater. As far as you know, as president of the local, 
and a member of the strike committee, they did cross the line that 
day? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, the officeworkers have always 
crossed the line. 

Senator Goldwater. Were the allowed to go over the second day? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. To my knowledge, people who were 
even members of the bargaining unit crossed the picket line. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8357 

Senator Goldwater. Were Kohler executives allowed to cross the 
picket line ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did anybody at any time try to get across the 
picket line and were stopped? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say yes. People came across the street 
and they crossed the street and they got as far as what we called the 
boulevard in the road, over an industrial road, and our people talked 
to them, and there was some movement there, and they got together 
but there was nobody hurt. 

There was no violence on that. It was all peaceful picketing as 
far as the pickets were concerned. 

Senator Goldwater. How would you prevent a person from going 
through the picket line if he wanted to go through? 

Mr. Grasskamp. How would I prevent it ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. If I was there, I couldn't. 

Senator Goldwater. You couldn't prevent it, and you wouldn't even 
try to prevent it ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I wouldn't. And I tried to talk to the guys 
and convince them they shouldn't. 

Senator Goldwater. If you could not convince him with conversa- 
tion, you would say, "Just pass on through" ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I would say, "Look, even if you don't want 
to join our forces, please let me ask you to stay out of the plant. This 
is the whole purpose ." 

Senator Goldwater. We have gotten past that point now, and you 
have not been successful in arguing him out of wanting to go across 
the line. Would you then step aside and just say, "Go on through"? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I think that I would keep talking to him 
and try to convince him that he ought not to. 

Senator Goldwater. Suppose he just wanted to walk on? 

Mr. Grasskamp. If he pushed me aside and went through, then I 
suppose that is the way he would go. 

Senator Goldwater. Now there is just one other point. Were the 
nonunion members, or workers not members of the local, allowed to 
go across the picket line without any hindrance ? 

I think there were about — and my memory may not be correct — 
but I think that you said you had 2,500 members out of about 3,300. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Around that number. 

Senator Goldwater. So there are about eight-hundred-some-odd 
who are not members. Were they restricted in any way in going to 
and from work ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I had no way of knowing. 

Senator Goldwater. You were on the strike committee, and you 
helped plan the strike, and you helped run the strike. Wouldn't you 
have any knowledge of whether or not these nonunion people were 
allowed to cross the picket line ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I can't keep in my mind the names of 2,500 people, 
and I would have no way of knowing when they came across the 
street, other than people that worked in my definite department where 
I work, wliether or not they were members or were not members. T 
would not know. 

21243—58 — pt. 21 3 



8358 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Gold water. I wouldn't expect you to know the names of 
that many people, but did you receive any complaints, as president 
of the local or as a member of the strike committee, that so-and-so 
couldn't get across the picket line because he was not a union member? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No one has ever come to me during the course of 
the strike — has come to me and said, "I want this line opened up," 
or "Will you open this line up so that people can go to work." 

Senator Goldwater. And you had no complaints about people who 
were prevented from going across the line ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, I had complaints, but I wouldn't want to 
use the language they used here. 

Senator Goldwater. I wouldn't ask you to, either, but you did get 
complaints from people who couldn't get across the line? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't know if that was them or not. 

Senator Goldwater. What were the complaints in the nature of, 
then? 

Mr. Grasskamp. People were calling me, and it could well have 
been company supervision, and I don't know, and nobody will ever 
tell me their name when they called me. And they will call me names 
and call me Communist and everything else. 

It was necessary for me to change my phone and get an unlisted 
number so my wife and my kids would not be subjected to this. 

Senator Goldwater. Now I think you said earlier that there was 
an NLKB decision holding that the KWA was company dominated 
and that the disestablishment of this union had been ordered ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, that isn't what I said. I am not sure whether 
it was the NLRB, but it was the Federal board at that time. If 1 
remember rightly, it was either 1934 or 1935. It was one of those 
years. I would have to check the records to be exact. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you a member of the union at that time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Oh, no. But I have checked these records, and I 
have seen these records. 

They held that this independent union who had won the election 
was fostered and was controlled and everything by the company. But 
they did not disenfranchise them. If I remember, their words were 
that "another election can take care of this problem." 

Senator Goldwater. Isn't the company-dominated union an unfair 
labor practice ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Today it is. I don't know that it was in those 
days. This is back in the 1930's, or 1935, and I don't know if it was. 

Senator Goldwater. In my recollection it was, and I may be in 
error on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was before the Wagner Act. This is 1934. 

Senator Goldwater. What was the year that UAW took this KWA 
over ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. UAW never took over the KWA. The KWA is 
affiliated with the UAW. 

Senator Goldwater. Put it your way. What was the year? 

Mr. Grasskamp. 1952. 

Senator Goldwater. In 1952 ? 

Mr, Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. So the unfair labor charge could have been 
made under the Taft-Hartley Act. Did you make any charge? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8359 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am confused at this point. 

Senator Goldwater. Did your union make any charge that because 
this was a company-dominated miion, it was therefore an unfair labor 
practice? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, between 1952 and 1935, would 
be 17 years, and the statute of limitations w^ould run out. 

Senator Goldwater. I am talking about 1952. 

Mr. Grasskamp. We tiled no charge. There wasn't any. 

Senator Goldwater. That is what I wanted to get. 

Mr. Grasskamp. This was not in 1952. 

Senator Goldwater. That is the year that you transferred to the 
UAW? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is not where the board held it was fostered 
and dominated. 

Senator Goldwater. Tell me that year. That is the year I wanted 
to know. 

Mr. Grassk^uip. That was 1934. 

Senator Goldwater. In 1934? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That cleai-s that up. 

Mr. Rauh. We have the document here that Senator Goldwater 
has been asking about. It is case No. 115 ; hearing, September 8, 1934 ; 
decision, September 15, 1934; before the National Labor Relations 
Board ; under the old NRA. And if Senator Goldwater would like to 
insert this or the particular paragraph we would be happy to do so. 

It does s^ this is a company dominated union. 

Senator Goldwater. I was interested in the year, and I was con- 
fused with 1934 and 1952. 

The Chairman. 1934 is before the enactment of the Wagner Act, 
and this under under the old NRA ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, that is correct. 

The Chairman. The one that had the eagle spread out ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful if 
we could get from both the management and the union the differ- 
ences in positions on negotiations prior to the strike. 

In other words, what were the reasons why the UAW local struck? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There were many, many issues, but at the time 
around the start of the strike, it boiled down to 7 or 8 issues ; but there 
were many issues. There was the silicosis issue. 

Senator Kennedy. What is the silicosis issue ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Silicosis is a lung disease that is caused from 
breathing dust with silica dust in it. In the pottery itself, there is a 
department where there is a high percentage of silica dust. In some 
of the mixtures, the silica dust in some of the mixtures goes as high 
as 80 or 90 percent. 

Now, this stuff is floating around there in the air all day long and 
we many times asked for ways to clean this up. We have always been 
refused. They always say it was impossible and it can't be done, and 
other companies have done it. 

The workers would breathe this dust in and they would have X-rays, 
and when I first started, you got X-rays once a year, and they later 
went into a miniature X-ray machine and they took X-rays every 6 



8360 IMPROPER ACTIYITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

months. But people were never told when they started to show spots 
on their lungs. 

It got to be too late. During the course of the negotiations, this was 
brought out. We knew this and we said, "Look, why not give the 
employee a copy of his X-ray when you take it, the negative, and he 
can take it down to his own doctor and have it examined and he can 
get the facts on what his lungs are." 

The company said, "We cannot tell these people the minute they 
get a spot on their lung, because if we do they will all worry them- 
selves to death and they will become hypochondriacs if we do. 

Senator Kennedy. What w^as the evidence that you had that a high 
rate of lung disease came from silicosis in the factory ? Do you have 
any statistics which would support that? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We have some. It is not possible for us to have 
all of them. 

Senator Kennedy. Was there a hospital nearby ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There is a sanitarium close by, called Kocky Knoll, 
as we call it, the Kohler Pavilion. 

Senator Kennedy. Are there many people who worked at Kohler 
who are now there? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This is the place where these people go when they 
contract this, if it is caught in time that they can still go there. 

Senator Kennedy. You made the charge, and what is it that you 
use to support the charge that silicosis existed to a degree which was 
dangerous to the workers in that section of the company ? 

Mr. GRi\ssKAMP. I turned over to the company a file on silicosis, 
which contains cases from the Kohler Co. This we know is only a 
portion because I know that there are many people working at that 
plant today, that are working in that plant today that have contracted 
some of this disease in their lungs. 

We cannot reach those people today. Those people are scared to 
tell us the facts. We cannot talk to them. 

Senator Kennedy. What is the position of the company ? You re- 
quested what, in your bargaining? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We requested a copy of the miniature X-rays 
so these people could take it to their doctors and have their doctors 
examine them and tell them the facts and not wait until it got to such 
a point that they were too far gone, and they had to be transferred 
off of their job and precautionary methods taken. 

Sena'^or Kennedy. The company refused that? 

Mr. Grvsskamp. On the basis that they could not tell tliese people 
the minute they showed a spot, because they would all become hypo- 
chondriacs. 

Senator Kennedy. What is the second item of disagreement? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Many times the company would also transfer 
people from one job to another, transfer them from one job because 
they were in the process of this silicosis. They would transfer them 
to another jrb, which did them no good. It was another job just like 
they had and they would still be in contact with this. 

These are the "things. It was not the question of wages, and the 
wages were never the No. 1 question at Kohler. There are too many 
other things like job security. 

' Senator Kennedy. What I am trying to do is go through them. 
The first one is the instance of silicosis, and what is the second one? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8361 

Mr. Grasskamp. The working conditions in the plant. 

Senator Kennedy. Tell me about that. 

Mr. Grasskamp. You could file a grievance and these foremen do 
not have a right to settle these grievances, because when you get the 
foreman's answer you have got the answer from the management 
committee. It is necessary that you go through all of these prolonged 
steps and you get the foreman's answer, and you get the supervisor's 
answer, and you get the superintendent's answer, and all of the way 
up the line you get the same answer. 

When you get to the management committee, then they say, "All of 
these grievances come up here to the management committee." Why ? 
Because you get their answer in the first place. 

You have got to go to the top in order to get it sglved because you 
luive to change their attitude and you can't change' the ones below. 

Senator Kennedy. What were you attempting to negotiate on 
grievances ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Many grievances ; for instance, wage rates. There 
was a time when I coulcl go in to the superintendent of potteries' of- 
fice and even if he could not agree to the correct time that they al- 
lowed for the job, and these jobs at Kohler are mostly all or 90 percent 
piecework, and so this necessitates negotiating a rate for each and 
every job. 

So there was a time when I could go up to the superintendent in 
the pottery office, and we could sit down and discuss this thing, and 
we would come up with an agreement. Maybe we didn't agree 
whether it should take 10 minutes or 12 minutes to make this piece, 
but we did agree on the price that this guy would get paid for making 
the piece, which is what the worker himself was really interested in. 

We used to make agreements. We never had too much trouble 
settling rates until he got an order from the management committee 
that from now on, he can only go 10 percent over and above what 
the time study department submits. 

If there is any more than that, then it has to be gotten from the 
management committee. This interrupted our whole peaceful pro- 
cedure we had in the pottery department at one time. There was a 
time when I could go there and sit with the superintendent and dis- 
cuss anything and we could solve our problems. But I was no longer 
able to do that after that. 

You had to go to the management committee. I cannot recall the 
exact grievance at this time but I can remember specifically sitting 
with this management committee before we were even with the UAW, 
and I am sure I had them convinced I was right and finally they said, 
"So what ? We aren't going to go along with it." 

These are the things that these people are striking for, not wages 
so much, and pensions. 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me the second one then was this : 
Wliat you are objecting to was that the superintendent did not have 
the right to increase the wage by more than 10 percent without refer- 
ring it to the management committee. Is that your second grievance ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. That does not seem to me to be very important. 
I think a company has a right, if a wage increase goes beyond a 
certain point to have it referred to the central management. 



8362 IMPROPER ACTivrriES in the labor field 

Mr. Grasskamp. But this is a prax^tice that had been in effect for 
years. As long as I knew it, this is the practice. We never had to 
do that before. They never notified us that they were changing their 
practice, and these are the thin^. There are many otlier things. 
Any grievance on working conditions within the plant were involved. 

Senator Kennedy. Tell me something about the working condi- 
tions in the plant. You described the incidence of silicosis, about 
which you say nothing was done by the company. 

Can you describe other working conditions which caused you to 
feel a strike was essential to have them settled ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We had conditions in 1 part of the plant where 
we had 2 men lifting a bathtub. They had to lift this thing to- 
gether, 1 guy pick it up on 1 end and 1 guy the other end, and 
they laid it on the truck. They had 1 little guy and 1 big guy, and 
the big guy got 10 cents an hour more than the little guy. 

These are the things that finally we straightened out. Let's go 
in and take a look at the grievances and the stuff in the enamel shop. 
When we affiliated, the enamel shop was where they were having their 
problems. When we affiliated with the UAW, the company notified 
us, "We are no longer recognizing you," and chased us out of our 
office, and took away our concessions in the plant and told us that 
we had to get these guys to move the machines out. 

Evidently they did not let them because they took them off them- 
selves. We had a $15,000 a year income off those concession machines. 
If you take a look at the enamel shop, at the point that we affiliated 
with the UAW, the company notified us they were no longer recogniz- 
ing us. 

They took away the 6-hour day which was in effect in the Kohler 
Co. for as long as I know, from when I was a little child. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell us what is the enamel shop ; we do not know 
anything about it. First say what the enamel shop does, and then 
say what the conditions were, and just give the facts. 

Mr. Grasskamp. The enamel shop is a branch of the cast iron divi- 
sion, right within the same plant grounds. This is after the tub is 
poured and it is cold, and it is ground so that the edges are off' and 
smooth, and then they take it into another department and they spray 
a ground coat on, and then they take this tub over into the enamel 
shop and that is where the white enamel that you see on the bathtub, 
that is where it is put on. 

At that point these tubs are inspected. Then they put them in what 
they call a preheater. There this tub gets warmed up first, and 
then they put it into what they call the hot furnace. This tub gets 
put in there, and when it comes out red hot, they have a sieve with a 
long handle and they have to shake this powder all over this hot tub. 

This is so hot there that they wear these shields in front of them 
and asbestos sleeves, and they wear winter underwear in summer 
to keep the heat off their bodies. This is the kind of conditions these 
people worked in. 

After they get the enamel sprayed on they have to put it back in the 
stove and heat it once more. Now, at the point we affiliated, the com- 
pany really went to work on this enamel shop. 

First of "all, they took away their 6-hour day. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8363 

Senator Kennedy. The reason they had a 6-hour day instead of an 
8-hour day was because of the working conditions in the enamel 
section ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Because it was always considered that 6 hours in 
the enamel shop was equivalent to 8 hours in any other department. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the temperature in the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Next to the tubs, it has been established that the 
temperature went up as high as 180°. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you have to get next to the tubs during 
the day's work ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. These fellows stood right next to them. 

Senator Kennedy. Was it 180° for the whole 6 hours or did they 
move away from the tubs ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They did not move too far because when they put 
this tube in for the second time, the tub again became hot, but then 
they had to put this on a little truck, not much longer than this table, 
with a handle on it, and they had to put it over into a shield where 
they set it to cool off. 

But in the meantime, while they were walking this tub over there, 
they had to then go back and inspect the next 1 and put the next 1 back 
in the preheater and take that 1 out and put that back, that that is a 
process that kept on continuing. 

In between time, they had to inspect all of these tubs and they had 
to inspect the hot tubs when they took them out before they wheeled 
them away. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the issue in the negotiations between 
the company and the union on the 6-hour day ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There were a number of them, as far as the enamel 
shop was concerned, and it was not only the 6-hour day. 

Senator Kjennedy. You wanted a 6-hour day, or they had given 
you that? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This had been the practice for years. 

Senator Kennedy. And had they taken it away ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes ; and at one time we negotiated with this com- 
pany and this was considered, a 6-hour day was equivalent to an 8-hour 
day in any other department of the shop, and then the enamelers ought 
to get the same conditions on the basis of 6 hours as the other ones do. 

Senator Kennedy. At the time of the strike, what was the issue in 
the enamel plant between you and the company ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The 6-hour day and the changing of all rates. 

Senator Kennedy. Wait a minute. Wliat do you mean by the 6-hour 
day? Was that in effect at the time of the strike or was it an 8-hour 
day? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The company, during the affiliation, took away the 
6-hour day and put into effect an 8-hour day, take it or leave it. 

Senator Kennedy. This, in other words, was an issue whether you 
would get the 6-hou.r day back ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We were negotiating to try to get the 6-hour day 
back, and, if we couldn't get the 6-hour day back, we wanted at least 
the same consideration for the enamelers that they gave to all of the 
other departments, which was a 20-minute lunch period during the 
8 hours. 



8364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Kennedy, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Kennedy. What do they do on the lunch period ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The practice in the other departments in the plant 
was tliat, where you work on a 24-hour shift, and there is no room for 
one shift to overlap into the other one, they provide the people with a 
20-minute lunch period, and for that they compensate them 4 percent 
of their earnings. This is what we were asking the company 

The Chairman. Four percent of their earnings ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Four percent of their earnings for the day, which 
would be equivalent to 20 minutes a day. 

Mr. Kennedy. In other words, you would get the 20-minute lunch 
period or the 4 percent ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. If you got the 20-minute lunch period you 
would get the 4 percent added to your rates, so that at the end of the 
day you would have 8 hours' pay and not 7 hours and 40 minutes' pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was based on production ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And if you were out 20 minutes for your lunch 
period, you would not have as great production as you would if you 
worked the 8 hours. Therefore, the fact that you took the 20-minute 
lunch period 

Mr. Grasskamp. But they didn't. They didn't give it to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you got a 4 percent compensation for the work 
that you did. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I will give you an example. If a man made $10 
in 8 hours, and if he was working in one of these places where he 
worked 24 hours around the clock, and it wasn't possible for one shift 
to overlap into the other, they w^ould give him a 20-minute break in 
the middle of the shift, so that, when he ended work, he had only 
actually worked 7 hours and 40 minutes. Then they added 4 percent 
to his earnings for the day, which would compensate him for that 
20 minutes, and thereby give him 8 hours pay at the end of the day. 

The Chairman. In other words, as I understand it, he got paid 
for 8 hours, but he only worked 7 hours 40 minutes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. No; it is just the opposite. He was there 8 hours, 
but if he didn't get paid for it, he only actually got paid for 7 hours 
40 minutes, if he didn't get the 4 percent. If thev didn't pay him 
the 4 percent, he would have been there 8 hours, but only actually 
worked 7 hours 40 minutes. 

The Chairman. In other words, they paid him for a full hour. 

Mr. Grasskamp. If they gave him the 4 percent, correct. That is 
right. 

The Chairman. Were there instances when they didn't give the 4 
percent ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They did in the other departments, but they 
would not give it to these people. I hadn't gotten to that point yet. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, then, they were working not 6 
but 8 hours in the enamel plant under the conditions you described. 
Would they give them a lunch break or not during the 8 hours? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; they told the people they had to take it when 
they found time. They had to eat their lunch* in between time, be- 
tween tubs, which is not very much. 

Senator Kennedy. How long were the tubs in the furnace ? 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8365 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am not too positive of the exact cycle time. 
They made, as I remember it, about 28 tubs in an 8-hour shift; 28 
or 30 tubs in an 8-hour shift. 

Senator Kennedy. How much time would they have for lunch? 

Mr. Grasskamp. None. 

Senator Kennedy. How much time would there be between the 
tubs? 

Mr. GRASSKiVMP. Actually, none, because, by the time they put one 
tub away, they had to take the next one ; they had to inspect it and 
put that one in the furnace. 

Senator Kennedy. Wasn't there a minute or a minute and a half ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say that there maybe might be a time 
when they had a minute or two that they had time between the time 
they put the tub in and between the time they put the next one in, 
but I would say at no time did they ever have more than 5 minutes' 
time. 

Senator Kennedy. The issue really between you was, too, that you 
should go from 8 to 6 hours, and, also, that they should be compensated 
for a lunch period of 15 or 20 minutes ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We tried for the 6-hour day, and we could not get 
it. At that point, Ave said, "O. K., if you want to insist on a 8-hour 
day, at least give these people the same consideration you give the 
people in the other departments, and provide them with a 20-minute 
lunch period." 

The company said, all kinds of ways, that this couldn't be done. I 
pointed out to this company a couple of times, at one of the meetings 
in Chicago when we had some meetings, how this could be done. They 
refused to accept that kind of an answer. They say it can't be done, 
and I say it can be done, but they are unwilling to even try whether 
it can be done or not. 

Then at that point they cut the enamelers' rates 181/^ percent, and 
make them work 8 hours. They take away the system they got in 
there, and they put in a premium system, where they say you get so 
much for making the tub, and if it is a good tub you get so much more. 
Well, this is part of the wages. This is part of the wage structure, 
and I say this is wages. If there is any reason that they are not going 
to give the people this added premium, then they have to negotiate 
with the union why they ain't going to give it to them, and they re- 
fused to do so. They say this is not part of the wages. But as long 
as it depends on the quality of work that this man does it is wages, and 
we have the right to discuss what this is going to be. 

Senator Kennedy. "Wliy is it that they treated people in the enamel 
plant different from other people, if the working conditions were as 
adverse as you say they are ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Because this enamel shop is where the majority of 
the people came from, because of the treatment that they got. The 
original organizing group that wanted to go into the UAW-CIO, the 
vast majority came out of this enameling department. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you are saying 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am saying that they had a grudge against this 
department and they were taking it out on them. 

Senator Kennedy. They increased the work conditions from 6 to 8 
hours and denied them a lunch hour because they were active in the 
union organization ? 



8366 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. Back before the affiliation, when the enam- 
elers, even under the independent union, had the courage to sit down 
and not work, they gave them the 6-h.our day and overtime over 6 
hours and overtime over 30 hours a week. But, when we affiliated, 
they took that away from us. 

Senator Kennedy. Did the company negotiate the matter of the 
enamel plant to you ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. They made no offer. This was just put into 
effect, and you take it. On top of that, they always had big fans to 
blow tlie heat away from the man. The fan was in back of the man, 
and this blew toward the furnace, and when they took the tub out and 
the man was here, the heat blew the other way. Then they turned the 
fans off, and that is what led to the discharge of the 12 enamelers in 
1952. With the fans off, the people, from the heat, got dizzy, and some 
got sick. It so happens that some of them that went to the medical 
department got sent home, got cards to go home, but the most active 
UAW guys didn't get cards to go home, but were told to go back to 
the jobs, and they were the ones that were fired in 1952. 

Senator Kennedy. They not only increased the hours, and cut out 
the lunch hours, but also turned off the fans, in order to get rid of 
your members? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. What other grievances were there ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Then you have the settling of rates I told you 
about in the pottery. But this was a pretty general condition. Take, 
for instance, when they remodeled the foundry, which took them 
2 years. They rebuilt once and then they did it over again. These 
people worked for almost 2 years on an hourly rate, $1.60 to $1.78 
an hour. They were asked to go through all kinds of unbearable 
conditions at the time. 

Tliey were told that so many tubs can be made in so many hours. 
Today they may say yes, the people are making them. Sure the 
people are making them today, but it is almost 5 years later and the 
corrections have been made. But at the time they could not produce 
what the company was asking them to produce, and besides that they 
were not taking home a living wage. 

These people worked for 2 years below the rate of the foundry and 
the cleaning-room conditions. All of these things build up. So 
when it came time for the strike, the wages themselves were unim- 
portant. It was the dignity of the guy working there, the right to 
have a union steAvard bring up a grievance for him, the right to have 
it discussed, the right for the guy to come over on the job and dis- 
cuss it witli the employee first, as to whether or not a determination 
can be made as to whether he has a grievance, and then the right for 
the guy to go up there and get an honest settlement, if he is entitled 
to it. That is what the strike is all about. Arbitration, for instance. 
Let's take the question of arbitration. We had an arbitration clause 
in the 1953 contract. This contract, we were Avilling to live with yet. 
We were willing to live with it while negotiating. But the company 
wrote us a letter on December 12, 1953, and said : 

We are terminating this agreement as of February 28, or March 1, 1954, 

We wrote the company a letter and said : 

Inasmuch as contract negotiations are coming up, we wish to modify the 
present agreement. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8367 

We did not want to cancel the present agreement. We wanted to 
modify it and correct the things that were wrong with it. But the 
company canceled it. In February, we asked the company to con- 
tinue the present contract for another 30 days, so that we would not 
have to work without it. 

But the company said, "No, we wouldn't continue it for 30 days, 
but we will continue it for 1 year," 

Then they gave us an alternate proposal. With this alternate pro- 
posal, they gave us a 3-cent wage offer with it, but they wouldn't 
give us the 3 cents if we agreed to the old contract, but just with their 
alternate proposal. What their alternate proposal done was they 
gave us an arbitration procedure in clause 5, but as you went through 
the contract, everything that was arbitrable was taken away by the 
last sentence which said, "This shall not be subject to arbitration." 
So when you got through their proposal, you had an arbitration pro- 
posal, but by the time you read the rest of the contract, there was 
nothing left to arbitrate. They said "All we will agree to is appli- 
cation and interpretation of the contract." 

We finally agreed to all of these exclusions. We told the company, 
"O. K., we will agree to these exclusions, but we will not agree that 
unjust discharge and discipline are not subject to arbitration." 

That is where we stand on arbitration today. We have given 
everything that the Kohler workers have struck for a way in trying 
to reach an agreement with this company. In our last set of negotia- 
tions, when the three members, national members, of the clergy were 
there, we practically gave everything away trying to reach an agree- 
ment, and we couldn't reach no agreement with this company. 

We are at this point. The very things that the Kohler workers 
went on strike for they are not going to get if we settle it on the basis 
of our last proposal. We will be involved in this again. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin wanted to ask a question before we 
recessed for lunch. 

Senator Ervin. What causes the presence of the silica dust in the 
Kohler plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. What causes it ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. What material causes it? 

Mr. Grasskamp. In pottery, potteryware is made out of clay, and 
in the clay, in the mixture, you have flint, you have felspar, and you 
have a couple of different — it is like crushed stone, some of it, which 
is hard, like crushed rock. 

Senator Ervin. I understand that, coming from a felspar-producing 
State. Wlien a person works in silica dust, inhales, necessarily, un- 
less some methods are taken to remove the dust from the air, he nec- 
essarily inhales the silica dust into his lungs, and the silica dust 
builds up deposits there, which medical science has found no way to 
remove. 

The result of it is if a man stays or is exposed to silica dust beyond 
a certain point, he is deprived of a large part of the capacity of his 
lungs to inhale and exhale air. He gets what they call air hungry, 
does he not ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am not a doctor and by no means a specialist on 
silicosis, but it is my understanding that this not only affects his lungs 
but his heart and blood also. 



8368 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. The deposits, yes. And it is necessary, if that man 
is to continue to live a useful life, that he be removed from exposure 
to silica dust to another job before he reaches a disabling stage, is 
that not true ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. It is necessary that they ought 
to be removed the minute tliey have the first trace of it. 

Senator Era^n. You say the company made no provisions to re- 
move the silica dust ? 

Mr. Gr.\sskamp. They removed them, but too late. 

Senator ERV^N. I am talking about the dust. You say the com- 
pany did not take any steps to remove the silica dust from the air? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They claimed that they had all the fans that they 
could possibly put in the place, but this is not true. We suggested 
ways of getting rid of some of this dust, but they wouldn't listen to 
us. They said "No, this is the way it is going to be." I am sure if 
they build a new building you will find that many of these things 
that we asked them to do will be incorporated into it. 

Senator ER^^lsr. These deposits, once into the lungs, cannot be re- 
moved ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. To my knowledge, it cannot. 

Senator EK\^N. Let's you and myself talk very frankly about mass 
picketing and matters like that. 

Whenever a strike comes, there is a general rule when a strike comes 
there has been a lot of tension built up on both sides, has there not? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And the truth of it is the reason you resort to mass 
picketing is in case you cannot persuade a man not to cross a picket 
line, that you make it very difficult for him to get across the picket line 
because of the great mass of bodies involved ; is that not true ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Let me give you my explanation. I look at it this 
way : First of all, the whole pur'pose of a strike is to shut off the com- 
pany's production. If you didn't have any idea you could shut the 
company's production off, you would not have a strike. Then when 
you reach a company — I know many places, many strikes, where they 
put a sign on the gate, and one or two guys walk back and forth. 
They don't have no problem. They don't have mass picketing. But 
when you have a company that challenges your majority, even tlie day 
before the strike, already, and says— and the company's ads will prove 
that— "They have never more than 800 people on the picketing line," 
I deny anybody to say there ain't more than 800 people in any of the 
pictures." This is what they said, that the majority of people want 
to work, that this is a small minority of dictators from the outside. 
So we had to prove to this company that we had the majority, and we 
did prove that we had the majority. 

Senator Ervin. I assume that you and myself know some of the 
facts of life. It is also for that purpose and for the purpose of either 
by persuasion or by the mass of their bodies, to prevent persons from 
entering the plant to work ; isn't that so ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I didn't quite understand that, the way it was 
said. 

Senator Ervin. Let's see if you and I can agree on this. Wlienever 
you get two strikes as a rule 

Mr. Grasskamp. You are hoping that nobody goes to work. 

Senator Ervin. Strikes as a rule are not pink-tea affairs, are they? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8369 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; they are not Sunday school picnics. 

Senator Ervin. Exactly. And there is a great deal of emotional 
tension built up? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And the purpose of mass picketing is to keep people, 
among other things, not only to demonstrate to the employer that the 
majority or a substantial portion of the employees favor the strike, 
but it is also to keep people from entering the plant and working and 
frustrating the purposes of the strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I am sure that that is probably true ; yes. 

Senator Ervin. The reason I am asking you this is because 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would welcome the fact that you knew that when 
you went on strike, it was only necessary to put two or three people 
there to advertise that the company was on strike. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, when you have a strike, as a rule, 
strikes, most of them, or a part of them, are not the sort of powder- 
puff, free-speech affairs are they ? 

Perhaps some of the judges that live in ivory towers write opinions 
to that effect. 

Mr. Grasskamp. It makes it extremely difficult to decide, because I 
think you have to go on the basis of what kind of employer you are 
dealing with and what are his attitudes at the time of the strike. 

Senator Ervin. If the folks on strike feel that they have been un- 
fairly dealt with by the employer, and they have usually had contro- 
versies about working conditions, which they think should be im- 
proved, and there are human beings out there with emotions, there 
is a good deal of tension built up, isn't there ? 

Mr. Grassicamp. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, I remember reading a statement 
by Clarence Darrow, to the effect that ordinarily when you get to the 
point when a strike has been in progress for some time, and tensions 
are built up on both sides, he says that there is a spirit built up under 
which many men do many things which, as individuals, they would 
not do. 

Isn't that a fact? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I think when you have a case such as we had, when 
the emotions are high-strung, that sometimes you probably don't 
think just the way you should, and you later think about it. We made 
mistakes in this strike. I don't intend to sit here and deny that 
everything we done was perfect. I don't intend to sit here 

Senator ER^^:N. That is the reason I am trying to see if you and 
myself cannot come to a frank discussion on the matters of it. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do intend, though, that everything we have done» 
there is reasons for it. There is reasons for it. 

Senator Ervin. You have this situation, in many strikes. The 
leaders of the union believe that the cause of the union ordinarily is 
to get by without violence. And even under circumstances that they 
do the best to suppress violence, you have a lot of other human beings 
that have their emotions built up and sometimes they engage in vio- 
lence not at the request of unions, do they not ? 

Mr. Grasskami'. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Chairman, let me say at this point while on the question of 
emotions, that I am sure that if I had the kind of temper that they 



8370 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tried to paint me out that I have, I would have been arrested many- 
times, many times, because there is many people who I done a lot for, 
■who turned out to be on tlie Kohler Co. special police force, being 
paid by the village, but the Kohler Co. at the same time they are being 
paid by the village, paying these guys vacation pay, paying them holi- 
day pay, paying their medical and hospital insurance through the 
company, providing them with all the benefits that the union got and 
negotiated for the employees, while employees of the village. How 
do you disconnect the two ? 

At the same time, people are walking across the street, the people 
you done a lot for, and they call you a Communist. I could have lost 
my temper a lot of times, but I didn't do it. It would have solved 
nothing, but would have given them definite reasons to discharge me. 

Senator Ervin. And human nature being what it is, wlien emotions 
are built up, that is why it is so important for people to sit around 
the conference table and see if in a reasoned and enlightened manner 
they cannot reach a fair adjustment of the controversy. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I agree that that is the way it should be done. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Isn't it true, particularly inasmuch as the 
judge brought this out, that we have these laws written to protect 
the public and property against emotions? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I assume that all the laws are written for the 
protection of something. 

Senator Goldwater. That is right. That is why I asked you the 
question at the outset of whether or not you were aware of the fact 
that you would be in violation of the law if you allowed mass picket- 
ing. You must have known that. You must have known also, and 
I imagine the company knew, that the emotions had readied such a 
stage that you would expect trouble. 

What I am trying to get at is that I think you have some respon- 
sibility in this in that you must have known what you were doing 
when you decided to go out on strike and then use the mass picketing 
methods, which are against the law. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I disagree. We fought violence. We disowned it. 
We told the people no. There are many times people have said to us, 
''Look, this isn't what we have seen done.'' And we said, "Look, fel- 
lows, just stay in that picket line. That is where you belong. We 
are advertising that we are striking against the Kohler Co." 

Senator Goldwater. You have just agreed with Senator Ervin that 
emotions control these things, and you must have known that emotions 
were high and would get higher. I have heard of the same thing 
happening in other parts of the country, where emotions grew quite 
high down South last year regarding a colored girl who wanted to 
go to a college. I don't condone that. I don't condone violence any- 
place, and I don't think that any thinking American does. But I 
wanted to make the point that these laws were written to protect the 
public, protect property, and, yes, to protect your own members, and 
other members, from acts of violence that would be caused by emotions 
brought about by undue strain. 

Mr. Grasskamp. And we have done everything we possibly could 
do to encourage that kind of obeying of the laws. 

Senator Goldwater. I think, during the testimony, we will see just 
how successful that was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELH 8371 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions at this time ? 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

( Wliereupon, at 12 : 40 p. m., a recess was taken, to reconvene at 2 
p. m. of the same day, with the following members of the committee 
present: Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Gold water.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were Senators McClellan, Ives, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just so we can get the record correct, as far as the 
affiliations, can we get the dates in the record as far as the affiliation 
of the Kohler Workers Association with the UAW ? 

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN GEASSKAMP, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH L. RAUK, WASHINGTON, D. C— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grasskamp, can you, just chronologically, give 
us the situation very briejfly? That is, the existence of the KWA, 
and when the UAW first came in; then when the KWA voted to 
affiliate with the UAW; then when the UAW was recognized. Can 
you give us those dates, chronologically and correctly ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. As I stated this morning, I started working there 
in 1939, at which time I was signed up into the KWA by a Kohler 
Co. foreman. I belonged to the KWA. I was a member of it. When 
we started to change, it was in 1946, when the workers around the 
country were getting I8I/2 cents an hour and our officers of our inde- 
pendent union sold us down the river for a nickel an hour and over- 
time. This is what started the move, really. But there were many 
people that did not see the exact light, and, finally, a number of us 
ran against the people who were then officers of the KWA, and we got 
elected. 

At that point, the people who had been in charge of the KWA — 
for instance, the chairman who had been a full-time union employee, 
who was not paid by the union but by the company, but he spent his 
full time on activities and he was part of the company supervision 
when he was defeated. Well, on a lot of these things here, they slowly, 
over the next couple of years, the people began to resent that they were 
not getting what the rest of the workers all over the country were 
getting. The last contract we had was in 1950. It was signed in 
December of 1950. This came at a time when we were going to call 
the membership meeting for a Sunday afternoon. We had not been 
jable to get anywhere, and we were going to relay the facts to the 
membership on just what the attitude of the Kohler Co. was. 

That Sunday morning, two of the Kohler Co. supervision, the vice 
president, L. L. Smith, and Mr. Conger, came over to our office and 
said they had a new proposal to make. This was after we published 
a full-page ad in the paper and told everybody just what was going 
to happen at this meeting. Well, the concessions they made at that 
time seemed to be enough so that the members, instead of going through 
with what we were going to recommend, which was we were going 
to recommend taking a strike vote at that time, accepted the company's 



8372 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

offer. At this time, the United Auto Workers was already into the 
picture. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat date was this ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This was in December of 1950. This is at the 
same time that we filed an unfair-labor-practice charge against the 
company because they even refused to discuss with us who the insur- 
ance carrier was going to be, since they were going to take over the 
hospital and medical insurance. Of course, then, on signing the con- 
tract, in December, and reaching an agreement, we withdrew the 
charges and they never were processed. 

Then, in March of 1951, an election was held. At that election, the 
independent union defeated the UAW-CIO and we remained inde- 
pendent, but we never got another contract. We worked until the 
time of the first contract, which was then in February of 1953, before 
they got the next contract. However, during our impossible position 
with this company, when we could not get a contract with them, we 
started to look around and felt we had to be in a position and we wanted 
to see where our membership decided they wanted to go. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you an officer in the local at that time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I was vice president of the KWA at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you working full time in the company ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, with the exception of the time that we had 
off for grievance sessions or union activity. So, we called a 
meeting 

Mr. Kennedy. You have to give me the date. What date is this ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say this is around the 20th of April in 
1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the UAW had previously been defeated in a 
vote ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. In 1951 ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The employees decided to vote with KWA, or stay 
with KWA, and not affiliate with the UAW ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, we are up to February of 1952. 

Mr. Grasskamp. In April of 1952 we had a membership meeting 
around the 20th of April. I cannot recall the exact date, but it would 
be right around the 20th. We held a membership meeting and we 
wanted to recommend a strike vote. Although we told the people 
at the meeting that if they approved the strike they should under- 
stand one thing: We were in no financial position to support them 
financially if they decided to take a strike vote, so, instead, the mem- 
bersliip a])proved taking a secret-ballot vote on affiliating with the 
UAW-CIO. So, we wrote the company and we got permission from 
the company to hold this secret-ballot vote. This was with the com- 
pany's knowledge. 

We held tliis secret-ballot vote on April 29 and 30 of 1952, in which 
the vote was 2,274 for affiliation and around 1,100 against affiliation. 
But this included the officeworkers. This included people working 
in the chemical laboratory, who later, wlien the NLRB election was 
held, were excluded. This included all of these people. 

Tlien, we afHliated with the TTAW-CIO. During this course of 
affiliation, the company then notified us that they would not recognize 
us, and they would only recognize us as an independent union; since 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8373 

the affiliation we were no longer independent, and therefore, they 
wanted an NLRB election. 

But during the course of the time between April 30, and June 10, 
1952, the date of the NLRB election, the company began running 
full-page ads saying we were boring from within, that we led the 
Kohler workers astray, and accusing the officers of the independent 
union of selling out the UAW-CIO, and bought radio broadcasts 
and they called us "sellout artists." 

At the same time they attempted to give birth to a new organiza- 
tion, called the Independent Union of Kohler Workers Association^ 
better known to us as the lUKWA. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, were you aware or did you receive 
any information that the company began to import arms into the 
plant immediately after this vote in April of 1952 ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. This was when they began. The first knowl- 
edge I had of them importing arms into the plant again was in 1953, 
during the contract negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were unaware of any steps that they were 
taking back as far as April of 1952 ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I do not know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you continue ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. During the course of this time, there were a num- 
ber of people, around 25 in number, if my memory is correct, who then 
took up this crusade of the lUKWA. They ran radio programs, and 
they ran in conjunction with the company ads ; they ran the same type 
of ads. 

They rehearsed their speeches in the Kohler Co. office, that they 
were going to use on the radio programs. They carried on a real 
vicious campaign until June 10 of 1952, at which time the NLRB 
held an election. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the results of that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. In the NLRB election, shortly before the election, 
the UAW-AFL got on the ballot, too, and this was a consent election. 
Mr. Kennedy. Is that the UAW-AFL *6 Anthony Doria ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the one that Johnny Dio was in, also, is 
that correct ? 

jMr. Grasskamp. That is correct. They got on the ballot. I will 
say that during the course of this time, I think the friendship between 
the UAW-AFL and the Kohler Co. was good. So when the vote 
was counted, the UAW-CIO won the first ballot, and there was 
no necessity for a runoff, and they had 1,831 votes, and the independ- 
ent union had 850 votes, and the UAW-AFL had 710 votes, and if 
my memory is correct, there were 52 void votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the Kohler Co. against any union at that time, 
or just against the UAW-CIO ? 

j\Ir. Grasskamp. Their newspaper ads reflected, and they defi- 
nitely said that they were not opposed to any organization that their 
em]5loyees might join, but that they were opposed to the UAW-CIO. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, if you wanted to vote for the UAW-AFL, they 
would not have been against that. 

Mr. Grasskamp. According to their newspapers ads, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Anthony Doria's union, is that right? 

21243— 58— pt. 21 4 



8374 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gr<\sskamp. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Grasskamp. So, after the election, then, on June 19, the UAW- 
CIO was certified. Then they began negotiating a contract. They 
had to draw up a contract and submitted it to the company, and it 
took them until February of 1953 in order to get an agreement. 

During the course of this time, the employes that voted were not 
satisfied and they wanted to take a strike vote a lot sooner, but it 
was on the recommendation of the officers of the local union and on 
the recommendation of the international union that they recognize 
that this is not all they were entitled to, but that they ought to work 
with this company for a year and because of the propaganda put out 
by this company against the UAW-CIO, we ought to show them that 
they want to work with this company and we only want what the 
employees are entitled to and that is all. 

Eight after the contract was signed, in some of our very first meet- 
ings, the company started to interpret the contract altogether differ- 
ent than what was understood and what the contract was supposed 
to mean. In one grievance session, I can remember specifically we 
pointed out to the company this is what it says and the company said, 
"That isn't what we mean." And we said, "This is what we under- 
stood this to mean and this is what it says." 

In this specific grievance, it was the question of whether or not an 
•employee was entitled to a certain amount of earnings for a call-in, 
and that he was entitled to the earnings for his job, whicli they did 
not want to do, and thej w^anted to transfer him out to a different 
job and pay him a different rate of pay. But for these first 4 hours, 
this is what he was entitled to. 

At that point, they said, "If you are going to insist on w^liat tliis 
contract says, then from now on we will send the people home in- 
stead." So we did not resolve these issues, and a lot of these issues 
that were brought up during this time, the same issues again cropped 

Tip. 

Mr. Kennedy. You ultimately signed a contract ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time there were statements made by 
union officials that they were very satisfied with the terms of the 
contract ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I think that you are referring to the statement 
made by the regional director, Harry Kitzman, and you have to recog- 
nize the problems that were there, what was gotten, in order to under- 
stand. I am sure that anybody that would testify, that was at that 
membership meeting where that contract was ratified, will tell you 
that it took considerable selling on the part of the local union officers 
and the international union in order to get this contract ratified. 

I think that you are referring to the statement in which tlie re- 
gional director said, "These are the greatest gains we ever made in a 
new contract." 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Grasskamp. But along with it, you have to recognize how far 
the Kohler workers were behind, and how much room tliere was to 
make gains. Therefore, it is true they made gains, and maybe these 
were some of the largest gains that they made under a new contract. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 8375 

But this does not mean that the workers were satisfied, or that the 
workers had any wliere near wliat they were entitled to. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, Gold water.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlien the contract was signed when ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. February 23, if my memory is correct, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you a union official at that time? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I was a steward at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you become a union official after that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I became a union official again in June of 1953. 

Mr, Kennedy. Wliat position then ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. President of the local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you appointed president of tlie local ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir, I was elected by the membership, a secret 
ballot vote. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had opposition, did you? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I did have opposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a salary as president of the local? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. No salary ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No salary at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about your expenses? Did you have an ex- 
pense account ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The only thing received from the union is if we 
had lost time. They reimbursed us for the lost time. If we en- 
countered any expenses going to any conventions or conferences, we 
were reimbursed for whatever expenses were incurred. 

Senator Ives. May I break in here on that? 

You vv'ere elected president of your local at that time, were you? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Senator I\i:s. By a secret ballot vote ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator I\t2S. Do you know what the results were? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The exact numbers, I couldn't say. But I remem- 
ber the majority was a little better than 2 to 1. 

Senator Ives. Well, that is good. Have you ever had any opposition 
since ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator I\'es. How many times have you been elected since ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, there is the policy, and this is the inter- 
national union policy, that during the course of a strike, elections are 
just held in abeyance until the termination of the strike. So during 
the course of the strike, there have been no elections. 

Senator Ives. There have been no elections? 

Mr. Gr^vsskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Has there been any complaint on the part of the fel- 
lows because there haven't been any elections, that they are perfectly 
satisfied going along the way you have been going ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I have heard of no complaints. 

Senator Ives. You have no complaints? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. I have no reason to doubt you. I have been over 
this business with you before, you know, on Kohler. 

That is all at this moment. 



8376 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You went through the expenses. What liappened 
tlien, after you sig-ned the contract for the fii-st year? How long was 
the contract good for ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. One year. The contract Avas to expire the end of 
February 1954. During the course of this year we have a number of 
grievances, and I think I explained pretty much the procedure as to 
what our problem was with the grievances in this morning's session. 
1 would like just to say that there was a lot of issues that are now 
issues in this strike, that were issues in the last strike and were not 
resolved. I think I explained pretty clearly this morning our position 
on the arbitration question. In 1953 we had a contract that was sub- 
ject to arbitration. Discipline and discharge were subject to arbitra- 
tion. Grievances were subject to arbitration. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to go through all of that again. 

Mr. Grasskamp. The company excluded it all. We accepted the 
exclusion and said we merely wanted discipline and discharge sub- 
ject to arbitration. The question of maternity leaves came up again. 
The company included in the last contract a clause which said that, 
if rehired, an employee would get their seniority back. But the em- 
ployee had no right to be rehired. 

So we got into considerable discussion on the question of maternity. 
We said that a woman ought to have the right to take a leave of ab- 
sence, and that when she is able to come back to work, she ought to 
have the right to come back to work and her seniority reinstated. 
Of course, the one phrase that really stands out in my mind is when 
the chairman of the Kohler Co. committee, Lyman Conger, said that 
these people, if they can't learn to take care of themselves, they can't 
have their fun and their work at the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who said that to you ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Mr. Lyman Conger. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was the head of the bargaining group for 
the company ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The chairman of the management conmdttee; 
correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did he say this to you ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. This, to my best recollection, was in the June ne- 
gotiations of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said this about the women employees, about 
them having the right to come back to work ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. That is what the disoussiQn was 
about. We wanted the right for the women, after their child was 
born, to have the right to come back to work, and that they be re- 
instated, but the company said tluit only if they rehired them, would 
they reinstate them. They had no right to come back under the 
clause in the contract. That is when this statement was made. 

The question of hospital insurance and health and accident insur- 
ance, we finally come to an agreement, but we still have a plan which 
I don't think is adequate. But in trying to compromise, we have 
accepted the offer that they have made on hospital and medical 
insurance. 

On tlie question of seniority, we thought we had an agreement once. 
We are now at disagreement as to the application of the 10 percent. 
On the question of the enamel shop, I think I pretty well explained 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8377 

the enamel shop this morning. The company makes a lot of to-do 
about union security, about union shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it true that at least in the beginning the union 
was demanding the union shop in there, that all the employees had 
to join up with the union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right; we did. The original demand 
asked for a union shop. 

Senator Ives. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, just to clear 
this up ? What do you mean by union shop ? You are using that 
term again. 

Mr. Grasskamp. A union shop 

Senator I^'ES. You say the employees were demanding a union shop. 
What you mean is an independent union, isn't it? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I am talking strictly now about contract de- 
mands. 

Senator Ives. Contract demands ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 

Senator Ives. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. Grasskamp. We requested a union shop. These subjects that 
I am talking about are not the subjects drawn up by the local union 
officers or the international union. These demands were drawn up by 
the people back in the departments. Each department steward called 
a meeting of his department and asked the people in his department 
what they felt should be in our demands. The people in the depart- 
ment made demands way over and beyond this. 

But sitting down with the international representatives and the 
bargaining committee, we said "Look, we recognize there is a lot of 
problems here, and you are entitled to a lot of these things, but you 
can't expect to get these all at one time, and you ought to take the 
major demands, the ones that are really important, and those are 
the ones that we ought to get first. 

"We recognize you will take some time before you get all of these 
things, and get the Kohler workers up to the point where the rest of 
the workers in America are." 

So these are the demands. On the question of union shop, we asked 
for a clause in the contract on the union shop. We feel that when 
you sign a contract with the employer, both the employer and the 
union has the responsibility to enforce that agreement, and we have 
time and time again run into the problem where if we didn't get 
exactly what an employee thought he ought to have, the first thing 
you are faced with is the threat that "If you don't get what I want, 
I will drop out of the union." 

We think they have a moral responsibility to pay their share of the 
fare for negotiating these benefits for them. But finding out we 
could not get a union shop from the Kohler Co., we modified it. 

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

Senator Ives. Did you ask for an arbitration clause ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I covered that earlier. We modified our demand 
to the modified union ship, which said that people who are not now 
members of the union don't ever have to join the union, but only new 
members do after a certain date. Getting nowhere with that, we 
modified it to maintenance of membership. We got nowhere with 
that. It merely said that once an employee joined the union, then he 



8378 IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ought to remain a member, and nobody ever had to join. We got 
nowhere with that, so we are at the point now where all we are asking 
for is a checkoff clause that is irrevocable as a checkoff clause, with 
the exception that in there there is an escape period whereby the 
employee either at the termination of the checkoff agreemenU or at 
the termination of a contract, if he notifies the union that he no longer 
wishes to have his dues checked off', he can get out from under having 
his dues checked off. 

That is the point we are on as far as union security today, and that 
is all we are asking for. 

On the question of wages, we have to say that we felt that many of 
these things were more important than wages, but you have to recog- 
nize at the same time that there is — I make this admission — there is a 
few jobs at Kohler where the men make pretty fair, decent, money. 
But you cannot accept this as an overall picture, because the vast ma- 
jority of the Kohler workers are anywhere from 40 to 60 to 65 cents 
an hour behind the people doing the comparable work in a comparable 
shop. 

You may have seen charts, you may have seen ads in the paper, that 
show that the Kohler Co. take-home pay is so much more than the 
average for this city, or so much more than the average for that city, 
and so much more than the average for the State. 

But what you have to remember is that in reporting these wages the 
Kohler Co. does not report their wages to the State they are not in 
this Bureau of Labor Statistics of which these things are taken out of 
but they are all by themselves. 

If they were included in the average with the city of Sheboygan, 
you would find that the average then would be on the bottom of the list. 

You have to remember that all of these other corporations, in arriv- 
ing at these averages — this is not a one-plant average, such as they 
compare theirs to. On top of that, this is an average of 45 to 48 hours 
a week. This is at least 5 to 8 hours overtime each week, plus shift 
premiums all added into this, where these other figures that have been 
compared to theirs are, many of them, on the basis of 40 hours a week 
and some 39.4 hours a week. 

So if you take the number of hours and divide it by the take-home 
pay, this is not the figure you get. 

You will find that the Kohler Co. is way below the average of their 
competitors for the same amount of work that is done. 

The Chairman. Have you any further questions ? 

Mr. Grasskamp, the Chair would like to ask you 2 or 3 questions 
at this time. 

You have been talking about the different matters that were in issue 
when the strike began, and in 1 or 2 instances, as I understood you, 
many of those things that you asked for in the beginning you have 
now eliminated from your requests, is that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In the course of such negotiations as you may have 
had, you yielded at different times on different things contained in 
your original requests ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you regard those that you have already yielded 
on as binding on you now ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8379 

Mr. Grasskamp. I tliink we do. I think we do. I think they were 
made in one set of negotiations, and if you show your good faith you 
accept that, that that was in that set of negotiations. 

The Chairman. What you accepted or yielded, you think that is 
binding, that that is no longer at issue ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. At this roimd of negotiations ; yes. 

The Chairman. Now will you tell us just what is at issue here? I 
do not think it is this committee's business to ti*y to settle the strike, 
other than as good citizens we would all like to see it settled. But 
what is now at issue ? 

Wliat is the controversy, the remaining controversy, upon which 
you have been unable to agree ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, of course, one of the questions is the arbitra- 
tion question on discipline and discharge. 

The Chairman. The what? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Arbitration on discipline and discharge. There 
is the question of the application of the 10 percent. There is the 
question of pensions, and there is the question at this point as to who 
returns to work. 

The Chairman. So you have four issues left ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We have accepted the company's offer on hospital- 
ization insurance. We have accepted the fact that they are not going 
to go along any more on arbitration, that they are not going to give 
us more than what we can possibly get out of the interpretation 
of tlie 10 percent. We have dwindled ourselves down now to the 
point where we have practically nothing left to gain, because many of 
these things that we are still asking for, and that we are willing to 
negotiate on now, were in the last contract. All we are trying to do 
at this point is to retain what we had in the last contract. 

The Chairman. In other words, as I understand it, the union would 
be willing now to settle the strike for just what they had in the last 
contract ; is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; that is not the question. The No. 1 question 
at this time is reinstatement of the strikers. That has got to be the 
No. 1 question resolved. 

The Chairman. The reinstatement of the strikers ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is your big hurdle ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is the big hurdle. 

The Chairman. You think if you could overcome that, you might 
resolve the other differences ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We attempted to resolve that. If you will remem- 
ber, and I do not know whether you will remember it, but it was 
publicized, but in October, Walter Reuther of our international union 
sent the company a telegram saying that we would accept the trial 
examiner's findings as a basis to sit down and start from that and 
negotiate a settlement. 

The Chairman. You spoke of returning to work as being the prin- 
cipal hurdle. 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

The Chairman. How many union members went out on strike? 
Just round numbers. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say that there was 2,500 or better. 



8380 IMPROPER ACTTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Tlie Chairman. 2,500 union members that went out on strike ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Union members. It has to be remembered that 
some of the nonunion members came to the union and joined the union, 
and joined the strikers after the strike started. 

The Chairman. Do you know what that number would be? I am 
tryinj^ to get the true picture of it here. 

Mr. Grasskamp. To the best of my knowledge, the top figure ran 
2,Y00 and something. 

The Chairman. Say 2,700 went out on strike. How many of those 
have returned to work? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't know the exact figure right offhand. I 
know that there are right around 2,000 that are still out on strike. 

The Chairman. Some 2,000 still out on strike. Then you would 
say around TOO had returned ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I would say that is about correct. Many of these 
people returned under hardship conditions. 

The Chairman. We may have other accurate testimony about it, 
but I am just trying to get the picture as I could at this time. You 
say some have returned. Of course, you think some have returned, 
you think definitely under hardship conditions, where they felt they 
just had to work. 

Mr. Grasskamp. They have told us so. 

The Chairman. When they return, are they still members of the 
union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We have considered them still members of the 
union. 

The Chairman. Even those that returned to work ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They have never withdrew from the union. They 
have never gotten a withdrawal card. 

The Chairman. Do they still pay their dues ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; we have no dues paying members during the 
course of the strike. 

The Chairman. During the course of the strike, dues are sus- 
pended ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

The Chairman. Where they are out of employment ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But, were they to return to work, would you not 
expect dues to be paid then ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We have not tried to collect dues. 

The Chairman. You have not tried to collect dues ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. 

The Chairman. Are most of these people still out of work, the 
2,000 approximately ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. As I said this morning, most of them have found 
temporary jobs and are working elsewhere. 

The Chairman. Most have found other jobs. I have one other 
question. 

I believe you spoke of your election by secret ballot. Are all of 
your strike votes by secret ballots also ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. All strike votes are by secret ballot. 

The Chairman. How is your voting with respect to approving a 
contract that may be negotiated ? Is it by secret ballot ? 



IMPRXDPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8381 

Mr. GitASSitAMP. Not necessarily ; no. 

The Chairman. Does your constitution make any provision about 
how a contract, after it is negotiated, may be approved by the mem- 
bership ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It has to be ratified hj the membership, but I am 
positive there is nothing concerned that it must be by secret ballot. 

The Chairman. It must be ratified. It could be done by acclama- 
tion or most any method ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Right. 

The Chairman. Do you agree with me that for the union members 
to have the greatest amount of democracy, the greatest right to con- 
trol their own policies, would you agree with me that they should 
have a right, and it should be provided, that they should elect their 
officers by secret ballot ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Definitely so. 

The Chairman. That they should be permitted to vote on a strike 
by secret ballot, and the settling of a strike by secret ballot? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Definitely so. During the course of the strike, 
when the strike was 16 months old, we gave the members an opportunity 
to vote by secret ballot. 

The Chairman. I am not questioning that. I am simply trying to 
arrive at what I think might be appropriate legislation, because we 
do find so many unions, we have found a good many — I do not say it 
is most of them, but we have found a good many — where apparently 
the employees, the local union members, have very little right, very 
little choice in choosing of their officers, and sometimes no voice at all 
because they are under trusteeship, and probably have no voice in 
the strike. I think it should be mandatory, the policy you have in 
your union, I think it should be mandatory for all unions. 

Mr. Grasskamp. We have been elected by secret ballots, and we 
conduct our strike votes by secret ballot also. 

The Chairman. Are there further questions ? 

Senator Ives? 

Senator Ives. I will yield to Senator Goldwater for a question. 

Senator Goldwater. I wanted to clear a point with Mr. Eauh. It 
came out of this morning's discussion relative to the elections held in 
1934. I had my stalf check into this, Mr. Eauh, and I would like to 
correct the record, if the record is wrong. If you will follow this you 
can agree or disagree. 

After the NEA Labor Board in 1934 found the KWA to be company- 
dominated and assisted, it held an election that same year which the 
KWA won and was certified by the same NEA Board. 

The KWA remained the legal bargaining representative of the 
Kohler employees from that date until 1952 when it lost an election 
conducted by the NLEB to the UAW. During that 17-year period, 
not only were no charges ever filed against Kohler that KWA was 
company dominated, which would have been illegal all during that 
period, but KWA actually won two elections. 

In 1947 KWA beat the A. F. of L. in an election for bargaining 
representative conducted by the Wisconsin Labor Board. 

Again in 1951, KWA beat the UAW in a similar election conducted 
by the Federal NLEB, and KWA was certified as the bargaining rep- 
resentative by the NLEB. Thus, KWA was never found between 



8382 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L/VBOR FIELD 

1934 and the present to be either company assisted or company domi- 
nated, and no charges to that effect seem to have been filed. 

I understand, and I have not checked with the counsel, but he can 
comment on this if he cares to, that there is documentary evidence in 
the possession of the committee that the old NRA Labor Board certi- 
fied KWA as bargaining representative at Kohler's after its previous 
finding of company domination of KWA. 

Is that substantially a correct statement ? 

Mr. Rauh. We understand tliat is substantially correct, Senator 
Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. It was a little confusing this morning as to the 
times when the different laws applied. I have also been advised that 
the Wagner Act did hold a company-dominated union to be against 
the law. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, in order to keep this record straight at this 
time, too, I would like to read a very brief quotation from the inter- 
mediate report of the NLRB trial examiner in the case against the 
Kohler Co. now pending before the NLRB, which is case No. 13-CA- 
1780. I quote from that: 

The background evidence showed that Kohler had given assistance in various 
forms to KWA until the affiliation with UAW, though domination as such had 
faded rapidly in the late forties with the emergence of a militant KWA leader- 
ship and had ceased in any practical sense some time prior to the 1952 election. 
In the meantime, and concurrent with the growing independence of KWA, 
Kohler began a withdrawal of various privileges and forms of assistance. Much 
of such assistance had been withdrawn before the affiliation, that is, with UAW, 
and what remained was withdrawn shortly thereafter. 

That is from the trial examiner's report. 

Do you agree with that ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, we do. Possibly it would be well to put the 1934 
decision in the record at this point. We would offer it as an exhibit 
for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. It may be passed up to the committee. 

(The document was handed to the conmiittee.) 

The Chairman. I do not think it is necessary to print all of these 
things, but without objection from the committee it will be filed as 
exhibit No. 2 for reference. 

(The document was marked "Exhibit No. 2"' for reference, and may 
be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I just have a few more questions. 

You say that the question of rehiring the strikers is the question 
that is keeping you apart now ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. It is one of the questions. It is the No. 1 question. 

Mr. Kennedy. The main thing that is keeping you apart? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The main question. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Is the union arguing at all that the strikers should 
be rehired ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We were prepared to accept the trial examiner's 
decision. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of which strikers should be rehired, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were charges against some that they had par- 
ticipated in illegal or improper acts, in which the trial examiner 
held that the company should not have to rehire them, is that correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8383 

Mr. Grasskamp. Although we disagreed with him, we were willing 
to accept that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were willing to accept the fact that they would 
not to be rehired, some of them ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You were not arguing that all those that went on 
strike, no matter what they had done while on strike, should be re- 
hired, is that correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We did, up until the time that the trial examiner 
made his findings. 

Mr. I>ljENNEDY. But you were agreeable to the fact that they would 
not all be rehired as of this time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Statements have been made that at the time or while 
this mass picketing was going on, that there were some 500 goons in 
this line of striken and pickets. Do you have anything to say about 
how many people you had from the outside in addition to the 12 or 15 
jou named this morning ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. There was none more than that from the outside. 
We have never had any imported people on the picket line, other than 
the Kohler people themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you have the 12 or 15 up there at that time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. They were there for a number of reasons. First 
of all, as I testified, some of these worked for the Briggs Corp., and we 
got advice from some of these working for the Briggs Corp., as to their 
production standards, their wage rates. We had them there for those 
reasons. We wanted to make sure that we weren't asking anything 
beyond the Kohler Co.'s competitor. The record will show that any 
number of people, the Governor of Wisconsin, Secretary Mitchell, 
President Eisenhower, and the clergy, any number of people have 
offered that the strike should be arbitrated. We have accepted every 
one of tliem. The company has rejected all of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have not been willing to arbitrate to strike, is 
that right? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on their interpretation of the arbitration, could 
they fire anybody then in the plant who happened to be a union leader 
or for any reason that they saw fit ? That would not be permitted to 
go to arbitration ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. The best example of that is during the discussions 
in September, when Circuit Judge Murphy, who was in on negotia- 
tions, when he sat in on it, and he raised this question with them. He 
said, "Supposing you discharged the people sitting right here on this 
other side of the table." 

At that point, Mr. Conger said "Well, if they were fired for union 
activity, they got a recourse." 

But the judge said, "Suppose you fire them for some petty reason 
other than union activity. What recourse would they have?" And 
he said, "None." 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is what you were arguing about, is that 
right, that you were trying to get something written into the contract 
that would permit some recourse in that ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. 



8384 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, The Xational Labor Eelations Board trial examiner 
held, as I understand, that the company was prolonging the strike?' 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That the blame for the length of the strike was the 
fault of the company? Is that right? That is, rather than the 
union ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He found that the company refused to bargain in 
good faith, that they have prolonged the strike. He found many rea- 
sons for that, that they were engaged in surface bargaining, that they 
refused to give us information requested by the union ; they refused to 
discuss with the union the question of the people discharged on March 
1,1955.^ ^ ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going to have some witnesses appear before 
the committee who were unable to get into the plant during this period 
of mass picketing. I am going to ask you just if you know anything 
about their cases. Miss Alice M. Tracey, do you know anything about 
her being unable to get into the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, I know her, but that is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had nothing to do with it personally ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Harold Jacobs ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I know Harold Jacobs well. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was unable to get into the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I saw him there, but I don't know that he was 
unable to get into the plant. 

Mr. KennedA. But he has been a friend of yours ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, for a long time. 

Senator Ives. Is he still a friend of yours ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, we haven't had any words together. We 
haven't talked to each other. 

Senator Ervin. That is not always the test. 

I once heard of a man w^ho had some difficulties with his wife and 
the judge asked him, he said, "What caused the difficulty?" 

He said he didn't know exactly, and the judge asked him, "Didn't 
you have words?" He said, "Yes, but I didn't get a chance to use 
them." 

Mr. Grasskamp. I want to say that I think in my opinion he was 
probably the leader of the gi'oup that did appear across the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Jacobs was ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I think he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he been with you at one time? Had he been 
on your side at one time ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. He was a member of the union, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Oostdyk or Miesfeld ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I know "Dyke" well. He is a cousin of mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. A cousin of yours ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was kept out of the plant ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't know that personally, no, except what I 
said this morning, what I read in the paper. 

Mr. Kennedy.' And Miesfeld ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I heard of him. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Vass ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8385 

Mr. Grasskamp. I don't know about Vass. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have anything to do with these cases? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow a little of 
< hat up. 

You say you have a cousin that was on the list that the counsel 
just read? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. I understand that one of the sad things or the un- 
fortunate things about the whole Kohler matter is that there is a 
division of families as a result of it. Has that affected your family 
so that there is a feeling of hostility within the family? How are 
you and this cousin, for example ? Is he a first cousin ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Well, his dad is my first cousin. 

Senator Ives. He is the second cousin ? 

Senator Ervin. He would be his first cousin once removed. 

Senator Ives. Are you on speaking terms at all now ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. With him ? 

Senator Ives. Yes. 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes ; he spoke to me at the Federal court hearing 
dn Milwaukee during the course of these 

Senator Ives. Is that the only time you were able to get together? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is the only time we were together. 

Senator Ivt.s. Then there is feeling within the family ; is that true ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Thei-e is no question but what there is a lot of 
feeling between families. 

Senator Ix-es. That is a very unhappy situation in a place no larger 
than where the Kohler plant is. 

A]-e you through, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator I\t5s. I want to ask the witness this question : Wlien were 
you notiiied that you were supposed to appear at this hearing this 
morning and testify ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. I appeared voluntarily. 

Senator Ives. Did you know there was going to be a hearing this 
morning? 

Mr. Grasskamp. We have offered right along. No. I was notified 
tliis morning. 

Senator I\tes. Not until this morning did you know anything about 
the hearing; is that right? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Or that you were expected to appear ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. That is right. I did not know until this morning. 

Senator Ives. You had no opportunity to prepare anything ; is that 
■correct ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. No ; with the exception that when the question was 
raised, we said that we would voluntarily appear. We have volun- 
tarily appeared. But I did not know until this morning that T was 
to be the No. 1 person to testify, and I certainly want to say that T feel 
flattered by the committee to be taking the place of our president. 
Walter Reu^her. 

Senator I\t,s. I want to say this : Your union does not need ^o be 
ashamed of having you appear here today, because you have made an 
(excellent presentation. 



8386 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grasskamp. Thank you. 

Senator Ives. And I do not think that your president could have 
done better. What you have said has come right out of the heart 
and come straight from firsthand knowledge, and you have been sin- 
cere, in it, obviously, and that is the kind of testimony that we wanted. 
I want to commend you and congratulate you. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I want to say thank you, and I am certainly willing 
to cooperate with this committee as long as these hearing go on. 

Senator Goldwater. I think the statement of Senator Ives just 
bears out what we have been saying for the last 4 days, that this 
type of witness can do a better job than the president. 

The Chairman. I would judge from the statement that Mr. Reuther 
issued today, that he does not wholly agree with you. 

Senator Ervin. If I may make an observation about the procedure,, 
the procedure we have followed has left me in a state of ignorance as 
to what the allegations and counterallegations are. I do not like to 
disagree with anything on the panel, but I think it would have been 
much better if we had had a statement from each side as to what they 
contended before we began to take evidence. 

Now, I have to hear the evidence first to find out what the allega- 
tions are, which is backward to everything I have ever done as a 
lawyer. 

Mr. Grasskamp. I want to say, in checking the record this morning^ 
that on this question that you raised as to the mass picketing in front 
of the plant, I checked and I find that there were 7 or 8 different 
arrests for unlawful assembly and egress and ingress, but they have 
all been dismissed and none of them have been found guilty. 

The Chairman. Were any of those for violence? That was the 
question. 

Mr. Grasskamp. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But they were arrested for obstructing ingress and 
egress ? 

Mr. Grasskamp. Ingress and egress; but they were found not 
guilty. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. Do you think this witness will be needed 
any further? 

Mr. Kennedy. I do not think so, or at least I know of no other 
reason. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Alice M. Tracey. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Tracey, 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 ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ALICE M. TRACEY 

The Chairman. Will you state your name and your place of resi- 
dence and your business or occupation, please ? 

Mrs. Tracey. My name is Mrs. Alice Tracey, and I live at 827 
North Sixth Street, Sheboygan, Wis., and I am employed by the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8387 

Kohler Co. At the time of the strike I was employed in the armature 
generator department of the E. E. P., and I am now an inspector. 

The Chairman. You are aware of the fact that you have a right 
to counsel to advise you of your legal rights while you testify. Do 
you waive counsel ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Tracey, you have been working at the Kohler 
Co. for how long ? 

Mrs. Tracey. For 31 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in what division in the Kohler Co. do you 
work ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I have always been in the E. E. P. department. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the E. E. P. ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Electric engineering and power. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of work do you do ? 

Mrs. Tracey. At the present time I am an inspector. I was work- 
ing in the generator department, winding armatures at the time of 
the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this 30-year period, were you ever a member 
of a union ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Which union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you a member of the Kohler Workers Asso- 
ciation ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I was. 

Mr, Kennedy. Were you an officer or just a member ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I was just a member. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the KWA affiliated with the UAW, and 
did you vote for or against the affiliation ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I was not there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not there ? 

Mrs. Tracey. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever become a member of the UAW ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, at the time that the strike took place, on April 
5, 1954, did you join the picket line ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not approve of the strike ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you at any time attempt to go to work? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you attempt to go to work ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I attempted to go to work on April 12, May 10, and 
I believe the other day was May 27. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what happened when you 
attempted to go to work ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Well, when we attempted to go to work, the picket 
line — or it was not a picket line; it was people standing in the indus- 
trial road — came out to meet us and on the boulevard and they held 
us back. ] 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean ? Who is "they" ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I wouldn't know the names, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was "us" ? 



8388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs. Tracf.y. We were the people who wanted to go to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a group of you ? 

Mrs. Tracey. That was a group. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you all got together, did you ? 

Mrs. Tracey. There were four women and myself, who came out to 
go, and then there were some men there, because there was always 
some there. 

Mr. Kennedy. A group of you women and the men got together 
to go and you started to come across, did you ? 

Mrs. Tracey. We did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you got to the picket line ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you try to go through then ? 

Mrs. Tracey. They would not let us through. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, could you tell us what happened when you 
got to the picket line ? 

Mrs. Tracey. We got to the picket line, and we pushed them and 
they pushed us, and we asked Mr. Cappelle to help us through. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVlio is he ? 

Mrs. Tracey. He was chief of police of Kohler Village. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was chief of police of Kohler Village ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is C-a-p-p-e-1-l-e ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You asked him to help ? 

Mrs. Tracey. We did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he do ? 

Mrs. Tracey. He tried to help us with his deputies, and they asked 
them to open up the lines and let us through, and they refused, and 
one morning I saw one of them was pushed down, 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the deputies ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you pushed, and they pushed back, and they 
would not let you through ? 

Mrs. Tracey. They would not let us through. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anything happen to you when you were up there 
at the line ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, What happened to you ? 

Mrs. Tracey, Well, I was tromped with something besides soft- 
soled shoes, because my shoe was torn off on the side. 

Mr. Kennedy. Somebody stepped on your feet ? 

Mrs. Tracey. It was Mr. Ferrazza. 

Mr. Kennedy. He stepped on your feet? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, He is from the union ? 

Mrs, Tracey. He is from the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you came and tried to go through the picket 
line, he stepped on your feet ? 

Mrs. Tracey. He was standing right in front of me and he was 
stomping up and down like a racer Avould. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this all of the time he was stomping up and 
down on your feet? 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN TTIE LABOR FIELD 8389 

Mrs. Tracet. Not all of the time, but lie did while we were there. 
He also call for girls to come through from in back, because we were 
women. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted the girls to come forward ? 

Mrs. Tracey. There was a solid block of men from the islands clear 
back to the industrial sidewalk. On the sidewalk was a double line of 
people that I recognized as Kohler workers; those out on the island 
I didn't recognize, except a few that I knew were representatives of 
the international union. In fact, I even asked one gentleman what 
he was doing there and I said, "You don't belong there and I never 
have seen you here." And he told me it was strictly none of my busi- 
ness if he wanted to be here from outside. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people did you see from outside, or people 
that you did not recognize ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did not recognize any of them, except one man. 
That was in the island, in from the sidewalk out to the island, in the 
industrial road, let us put it that way, and that is about 15 feet, at least. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the people that actually were the employees you 
saw in the background ? 

Mrs. Tracey. They were in, in the background, sometimes with 
arms linked, but not one right close to the other, circling around, above 
the office and down below the employment office, and I can't tell you 
just how far. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever get into a fight with any of them, 
yourself ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom did you get into a fight? 

Mrs. Tracey. At the time I did not know the girl, but later she was 
told in one of the hearings that she was Gretchen Seybold. 

Mr. Kennedy, Gretchen Seybold ? 

Mrs. Tracey, Yes, sir. And she was one of those that they pushed 
through from in back, and as they pushed her through, she came 
through with such force that she hit me on the arm with her elbow, 
I think, and raised a black and blue mark about the size of an egg, 
which I carried some 6 weeks, and made me angry, and I slapped 
her with the back of my hand. I was in there so tight I couldn't have 
done anything else. 

Mr. Kennedy, Wliat did they claim that you struck her with ? 

Mrs. Tracey. They claimed I struck her with my first, and, if I had, 
she would have had a mark. 

Mr. Kennedy. They said you had something in your hand at the 
time? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes. They said I had a purse loaded. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a purse in your hand ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did not. I had my dinner bucket, and I went right 
to one of the deputies — one of these plastic dinner buckets with a 
drawstring on it — and I went right to a deputy and I had him look 
in my bucket. All that was in there was a pair of slacks, and I am 
not sure whether it was an apple or an orange, or a sandwich, and he 
looked in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are saying you struck her with your dinner 
bucket, and, really, it was just a bag, with your slacks and an apple 
and an orange ? 

21243— 58— pt. 21 5 



8390 UMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs. Tracey. I didn't strike her with that at all. They said I 
struck her with my fist, but I didn't. I struck her with the back of 
my hand. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did the dinner bucket get in it at all ? 

Mrs. Tracey. They claimed I was carrying a loaded dinner bucket, 
and I was swinging it around, and it was hanging on my arm like this 
by the cord. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you strike her ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I sti-uck her with the other hand, and I couldn't move 
that one. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that finally decided ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Well, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive some threating telephone calls ? 

Mrs. Tracey. My telephone rang for weeks, but for the first 2 or 3 
weeks I would be called any time, day or night, and there were some 
times they just would call me and hang up when I answered, or they 
called me back again, and sometimes I was called all of the filthy 
names you could lay your tongue to. 

Senator Ives. Could I ask a question there. 

How long did this telephone business continue? 

Mrs. Tracey. Well, in fact I had a telephone call not more than 3 
months ago. 

Senator I\t:s. Three months ago ? 

Mrs. Tr-acey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. These calls were at night, were they not ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Nights and days both. In the first part of the strike, 
sir, it was both. 

Senator Ives. The calls that bothered you most came at night, and 
occurred all night long ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Did jou. ever do this, which some of us have to do 
in that connection : Did you ever take the receiver off the cradle and 
leave it off ? 

Mrs. Tracey. No, sir. 

Senator Ives. So your bell would not ring ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I put my telephone down in an upholstered chair and 
put two pillows on top of it. 

Senator Ives. That might do it all right. 

In other words, they did not bother you too much, did they ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I let it go on. I wouldn't give them the satisfaction 
of taking a private number, or of not answering for some time. For 
a couple of months or more, I was just too angry for that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mrs. Tracey, are you married ? 

Mrs. Tracey. My husband has been dead some 31 yeare. 

Senator Goldwater. You are a widow. And do you have children ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I have four, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you put them through school yourself ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you husband work at Kohler ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Senator GoLDWAiiiR. How long did he work there ? 

Mrs. Tracp:y. Just about a year. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, when you tried to get through the picket 
line, on May 10, did you ask help from the sheriff ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8391 

Mrs. Tracey. I called the sheriff's office. Who answered I don't 
know, but I called and asked them when they were going to open 
up the line and the answer I got was, "What do you want us to do ; 
go out there and get our heads bashed in ? " 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever call the sheriff again for help ? 

Mrs. TuACET. I never called him. I talked to, I don't know whether 
you call them deputies or what out on the line, and I asked one of 
them when we could get in, and he told me to go home, it would be 
settled in 2 weeks, and they never in any way, from the sheriff's office, 
gave us any help whatsoever. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have any friends that tried to get 
help from the sheriff's office ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Not that I could get up here and swear the truth that 
I would know what to say. 

Senator Goldwater. But the chief of police did try to help you ? 

Mrs. Tr.\cey. Of Kohler, yes, and he did and his deputies. 

Senator Goldwater. That was the chief of the village of Kohler ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir, the village police. 

Senator Goldwater. The sheriff was the sheriff of the county? 

Mrs. Tracey. County of Sheboygan ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, this man that jumped up and down in 
front of you, you say, and tore your shoes, I think you said his name 
was Ferrazza ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I believe that is the way you pronounce it. 

Senator Goldwater. Jess Ferrazza ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Do joii know what office he held in the union ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I knew he was an international representative of 
some kind ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a resident of Kohler Village? 

Mrs. Tracey. He was not. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know where he was from ? 

Mrs. Tfl\cey. I thought he was from Detroit, but I don't know for 
sure. 

Senator Goldwater. You had not seen him around there ? 

Mrs. Tracey, He had been around there for some time. 

Senator Goldwater. You never saw him working in the plant? 

Mrs. Tracey. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I think you stated this, but I wanted to ask 
you again to make sure, for the record, that you have lived in Kohler 
Village for a considerable len^h of time. 

Mrs, Tracey. No. I lived m Kohler Village at one time, but since 
1931 1 moved to Sheboygan and I lived there ever since. 

Senator Goldwater. That is how far away ? 

Mrs. Tracey. About 4 miles. 

Senator Goldwater. You have worked in the plant how long? 

Mrs. Tracey. Thirty-one years. 

Senator Goldwater. So you would know a large number of the 
workers by sight? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir ; by sight, I would. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you see many outsiders in the picket line? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Have you ever tried to recall how many you 
might have seen, or would you care to make a statement to that effect? 



8392 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs, Tracet. I must say that I am kind of poor at estimating num- 
bers of people, but I would safely say on my honor that I know 
there were more than 100 standing right out there that 1 morning. 
Outside of one man, I didn't know a soul. I didn't recognize any 
of the faces. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mrs. Tracey, did the Kohler Co. ever 
approach you offering to give you assistance or give you money, or 
any other kind of help for attempting to come back to work ? 

Mrs. Tracey. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You just went back through that line of your 
own accord? 

Mrs. Tracey. I certainly did, and I figured that I am an American 
citizen and I have a right to work, if I so desire. 

Senator Goldwater. I could not agree with you more. Has the 
Kohler Co. down through the years treated the employees in a decent 
manner ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I have always been treated very fair, and I raised 
and educated four children and gave them all better than a high- 
school education, and they all hold good jobs today, and I have no 
one in the world to thank more than I have the Kohler Co. 

Senator Goldwater. Do any of your children work for Kohler? 

Mrs. Tracey. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Ervin. Did you advise the pickets that you wanted to get 
in the plant to work ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Well, what could be more impressive than I walked 
across the road to meet that bunch of men ? 

Senator Ervin. How many were there ? 

Mrs. Tracey. Well, I think Mr. Grasskamp said 1,800 ; and I would 
agree with him wholeheartedly. 

Senator Ervin. Certainly one lone lady could not quite crash the 
gates against that formidable number. 

Mrs. Tracey. No. Unless you wanted to go to w^ork, you wouldn't 
be there, I will say that. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Was the purpose of this massed group of people 
out there solely to keep you away, and keep you out of the plant? 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir ; and they told us so. And they said, "You 
won't get through," and they just hollered that all of the time. 

The Chairman. So there can be no question but what the interna- 
tional representatives of the union who were there present knew at 
the time that mass picketing to prevent ingress and egress to the plant 
was going on ? 

Mrs. Tracey. They certainly must have, because they were stand- 
ing there. Mr. Burkhart was standing there right on the island, as 
they call it, and he certainly could see it. 

The Chairman. Who was he ? 

Mrs. Tracey. At that time he was, I believe they call it, the head 
of the bargaining committee from the international office. I am not 
sure that is correct, but anyhow he is sent there by the head of the 
UAW to help bargain for a contract. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8393 

The Chairman. From what you observed there in your efforts to 
^et into the plant to go to work, could anyone have misunderstood 
the purpose of the tremendous crowd that was assembled there ? 

Mrs. Tracey. If they did they must have been very, very ignorant. 

The Chairman. Would you call what happened to you peaceful 
picketing ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I certainly would not. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything else ? 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I think.one thing could be cleared up. 
I think we have a terrific conflict here as to whether in the first place 
more than 15 of the pickets came from outside of the employees of 
Kohler. According to the testimony given by the witness this morn- 
ing and early this afternoon, it was limited to around 15. 

According to the lady before us here, I think she said something 
like 100. Is that what you said ? 

Mrs. Tracey. I would say at least 100 there that I didn't recognize, 
and I didn't recognize their faces, except just 1 gentleman. 

Senator I\;es. Well, I want to point this out, that if what the wit- 
ness said this morning is correct, and that is what we are going to 
have to ascertain if we can, there is no violation of Taft-Hartley. 
But if what you say is correct, there was a violation of Taft-Hartley. 
That is the way the thing stands at the moment, 

Mrs. Tracey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

Thank you very much, Mrs. Tracey. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Harold Jacobs. 

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. Jacobs. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD N. JACOBS 

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

Mr. Jacobs. My name is Harold N. Jacobs, and I live at 510 Green- 
trie Road, Kohler, Wis., and I am employed at the power division of 
the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman, You waive the right to counsel, Mr. Jacobs ? 

Mr, Jacobs. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You liave been with the Kohler Co. for how long? 

Mr. Jacobs. At the present time, about 261/^ years. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And you were once a member of the UAW? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you left the UAW prior to the calling of the 
strike because you felt the demands that the UAW was making of 
the Kohler Co. were too high ^ 

Mr. Jacobs. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt that the union had been in there only a 
short period of time and the requests they were making or the de- 
mands they were making of the company were far too stringent? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I do. 



8394 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ICennedy. And did you feel that this was unfair, and that you 
did not want to be associated with this kind of an operation ? 

Mr. Jacobs. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you left the UAW, is that right? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Now, when the strike was called, therefore, and the 
men went out and the pickemg started on April 5, you did not par- 
ticipate in the picketing? 

Mr. Jacobs. No. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You disapproved of this operation? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir, entirely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any attempts to go through the picket 
line? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell the committee what attempts you made 
to go back to work, and how you were prevented from doing so ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. I went down there the first morning at the 
regular scheduled work hour to go to work and approached my normal 
gate of entrance and I was blocked by some automobiles and by 
massed pickets. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were driving yourself then ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir, I was. So I did not try to enter that gate 
at all, because I realized it was impossible. I turned and went up 
on High Street to the main entrance of the plant, and there were any- 
where from 1,500 to 1,800 people blocking that entrance there. 

So I parked my car, and I walked across the street, and stood there 
and I made no actual attempt to enter the plant that first morning, 
and I don't think that I did for 3 or 4 mornings. But I went down 
there every morning and tried to get into work. 

At that time there weren't enough of us, I would say, to really 
make a concerted effort to get in. 

But a few weeks later there were enough of us, and we tried to get 
in, and I tried to drive through in my car, and we were blocked and 
stopped, and we could not get in. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do in your automobile then? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I had driven this car into the island, as they say 
between the Industrial Road and High Street, in Kohler, and it was 
completely surrounded by pickets and representatives of the union. 
I requested the sheriff to open up the line for me, and told him I would 
stay there just as long as there was any chance of getting in. 

I think I had 3 or 4 other men with me in my car. We stayed right 
in the automobile. We did not get out, but we stayed in there waiting 
for them to open the line. 

He went across the road and talked to the picket captains and the 
pickets, I guess, and came back and told me, that is the only knowl- 
edge I have of the conversation, that he had talked to them, and said 
it would be impossible to get us in. 

I asked the chief of police of Kohler, Mr. Capelle, if he would try 
and he made an attempt. But they would not open the line. 

As I said, these men were right up to the car. One gentleman had 
his knees up to my bumper, and I wouldn't injure anyone. I think we 
were in there from a half hour to 45 minutes with iio success. I 
moved my car ahead about 6 feet in the course of 45 minutes, and all 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8395 

this while they were threatening that if I came in, they were going to 
tip my car over. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they physically hurt you at all then ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I did not get out of my car, and no one reached 
in my car. One of the local men from the union came and talked to me 
through the window. Otherwise, I had no bodily harm or anything. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask one question along that line, Mr. 
Counsel. 

Did they threaten you then or at any other time ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Did they threaten us ? Yes. 

Senator Ives. Did they threaten you personally? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, a number of times. 

Senator Ives. What did they threaten you with ? What were they 
going to do with you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. They told me that if I drove my car in, they would tip 
it over, and I had phone calls, and I recognized the man's voice, and 
he told me I was going to get beat up if I drove across the line. He 
said, "We are not a bunch of kids. If you think you are going to get in, 
you are not going to get in today or any other day." 

Senator Ives. In other words, they threatened to do bodily harm 
to you, is that right ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. Then what you are saying, if that is true, that is a 
violation of the Taft-Hartley. 

Mr. Jacobs. If that is a violation, it happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you backed your automobile, out of there? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. I stayed there and finally I talked to the sheriff 
for the last time, and I said if he couldn't get us in, I surely didn't 
want to run anybody over, and if he would clear the people from the 
rear of the car, I would get out and peacefully leave the picket line, 
which he did, and I backed my car out and tried to get out of the village. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you try to get in again ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. I made attempts after that quite frequently. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you cross over across the street and try to get in ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would not allow you in ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also receive threatening telephone calls at 
home? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir ; at all hours of the day or night. 

Mr. Kennedy. '\Yhat would they say on the telephone ? 

Mr. Jacobs. They would curse at you, and tell you not to come down 
to picket line, "You are not going to get in," words to that effect. It 
was practically the same conversation every time I picked it up. They 
wouldn't identify themselves. They would just tell us not to come 
down to the picket line, "You are not going to get in," and that was it. 

Senator Ives. Wliat did you do ? Did you put your telephone under 
the pillow, too ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I had a daughter at school at that time, and I expected 
telephone calls. I did cover it up, I will admit that, and eventually I 
asked for a private line. 

Senator Ives. An unlisted number ? 



8396 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobs. An unlisted number, yes. The company kept it un- 
listed. 

The Chairman. What induced you to go down and try to get into 
the plant ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I worked there for a long time. Senator, and my 
father worked there before me, and I have a brother that has worked 
there longer than I have. My treatment at the hands of the Kohler 
Co. has been very good. I could perhaps go a little more into detail 
and explain what 1 mean by that. I had every reason to go back in 
to work, and none at all to stay out. 

The CiiAiEMAN. You wanted to go to work ; that was the purpose of 
going down there ? 

Mr. Jacobs, Absolutely. That is right. 

The Chairman. Were you induced to make the effort by Kohler or 
anyone representing the company ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You were not persuaded, or there were no arrange- 
ments made with you to go down and make an attempt to see what 
would happen ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I was down there quite a long time, a number 
of times, before I ever saw anybody from the Kohler Co., and at no 
time 

The Chairman. In other words, you went down on your own voli- 
tion because you wanted to continue working? 

Mr. Jacobs. That is right. 

The Chairman. You said the Kohler Co. has been very good to you. 

We have had testimony here by a representative of the union that 
the Kohler Co. is not very good to its employees. I want to try to 
lind out whether you have had some special favors, or whether what 
you term "good'' is what applies to all of the employees. 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I wouldn't say I had any special favors, no. I 
think that in the average course, any worker that was down there 
that done his job, and was not a troublemaker or anything, was treated 
fairly. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by troublemaker ? 

If he wanted to join a union, would you regard him as a trouble- 
maker ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I mean a man that was a good emploj^ee, that 
did not miss too many days during the week, or come there perhaps 
intoxicated or something like that. That is what I was referring to, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. You were not referring to imion activity as trouble- 
making ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In what way do you feel that the company has 
been so good ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, in my case, I became ill, and was on a job that was 
quite well paid, and when I came back, I reported to their medical 
department and explained my situation. They let me work as many 
hours as I wanted to work, and, of course, I took a different job, I 
asked for it — they let me work as many hours as my doctor prescribed 
for me. I started, I think, with a half-day, and then went to 7 hours, 
or whatever it was. When I felt that I was fit to put in a full day's 
work, they let me put in my full day's work. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8397 

I don't know of anybody down there that has had any iUness or 
any reason to be transferred from a job to another one that hasn't 
been given consideration. I work in the pottery division, Senator. 

The Chairman. In the pottery division ^ Is that where the silicosis 
is? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you worked there ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I have been in pottery now since 1941. 

The Chairman. Working in that department since then ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We had some testimony here about the very unsatis- 
factory working conditions there. What would you say about them ? 

You do not work in the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I did at one time, Senator ; yes. 

The Chairman. How long did you work in the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Jacobs. About a year, I think. 

The Chairman. When? 

Mr. Jacobs. I think that was somewhere back about 1951, right be- 
fore 19 — about 1950, before I became ill. I was getting some sort of a 
nervous muscular condition, and they thought the heat would be good 
for me. So they transferred me from the pottery to the enamel shop 
and I worked there for about a year. 

The Chairman. Well, was the heat good for you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I couldn't answer that. Senator. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't know ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No. 

The Chairman. How come you to leave the enamel department ? 

Mr. Jacobs. The condition of my back became worse and I left there 
and went to Madison General Hospital in Wisconsin for treatments. 

The Chairman. You were not removed from there because of sili- 
cosis ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You had no trouble with that ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I went right back into the pottery division 
again. 

The Chairman. Wliere is it the worst, in the pottery division or in 
the enamel department ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I worked in the pottery division from 1940 to 1950. 

The Chairman. I am talking about the exposure. 

Mr. Jacobs. I work in the casting shop of the pottery. 

The Chairman. Which place is the worse with respect to this sili- 
cosis dust? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I think you will find more dust in the pottery than 
you will in the enamel shop. 

The Chairman. More in pottery ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, m that department it is worse; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I mean the silica is used in the pottery part of 
the production, where I don't think it is used as much in enamel. I 
don't think there is any silica in enamel. 

The Chairman. So you worked in that department for how many 
years ? 



8398 lAIPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, from 1940 until right now. I am still working 
in that division. I would say that would be about 16 years I have 
been in the pottery. 

The Chairman. And in all fairness to the company, you have given 
one illustration of their kindness to you. I assume they did not pay 
you for any time you did not work. When you only worked a half- 
day, you only got paid for a half -day ? 

Mr. Jacobs. That is right. 

The Chair^ian. Has there been any other instance of their consid- 
eration that you know of for their employees ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. I know men that have decided they were too old 
to work on a production job, and have gone for a transfer, and have 
been transferred to gatemen, to the security division, and I know men 
that wanted to get out of pottery that have left there and have been 
transferred to the K. E. P. or to the brass foundry. I don't think they 
held anybody in the pottery where the dust is, as far as I know. 

The Chairman. In other words, so far as your observations and 
your knowledge of the situation, there is not any real basis for com- 
plaint as against the company's working conditions it provides for its 
people ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I would say no, sir, there is no complaint as far as I am 
concerned, not at all. 

The Chairman. Is there any reason why you should especially 
favor the company other than your own belief that it does treat you 
right? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I have nothing to offer but my labor. I sell 
that to them and they pay me for it, and I think the agreement is fair. 

The Chairiman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Gokhvater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Jacobs, I have several questions to ask you. 

Did you ask the sheriff at any time for help in getting through the 
line? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I did. 

Senator Goldwater. How did he react to that ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, as I said, he went across and talked to some of the 
people on the picket line. What their conversation was, I don't know. 
He came back and told me that if I attempted to get in, there would be 
bloodshed. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you feel that he refused to give you help ? 

Mr. Jacobs. He refused, yes. We even offered one morning, when 
we became quite angry, and there were 50 or 60 of us, we offered our 
services as deputies to try to open the line to get through, and he re- 
fused to deputize us. 

Senator Goldwater. He would not deputize you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, he would not. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know Mr. Ferazza ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I do. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know Mr. Gunaca ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I know him when I see him. 

Senator Goldwater. You know him when you see him ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Were eitlier of these men from Kohler Vil- 
lage or Sheboygan or thereabouts ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIEiS EST THE LABOR FIELD 8399 

Mr. Jacobs. I do not believe so. I think tliey are from Detroit, 
both of them. 

Senator Goldwater. Were both of these men in evidence during the 
strike ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. I saw them both on the picket line and had 
a little tussle with one of them. 

Senator Goldwater. Which one did you have a tussle with? 

Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Ferazza. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you care to describe the tussle? 

Mr. Jacobs, Well, we were trying to get in one morning, and I 
think it was the same morning that Mrs. Tracey referred to, and there 
was an ensuing battle there. We were chest to chest. I was trying 
to get in and he was trying to keep me out. I think at that time I 
swore out a warrant for him. They said it was dismissed. At least, 
it never came up. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you tell Mr. Ferazza that you wanted to 
get in and out of the plant peacefully ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. What did he say to you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't think he answered me that at all. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't think he answered what? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't think he gave me any direct answer at all. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you gather from him that he did not want 
to let you in and out of the plant peacefully ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I am quite sure he didn't want to let me in, because 
he was holding me out with all of his strength. He is a big man. 

Senator Goldwater. One day, on May 10, I believe, did you and 
some passengers in your car attempt to get into the plant ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I wouldn't be positive of the date, Senator, but I tried 
to enter on a ISIonday morning. It could have been May 10. 

Senator Goldwater. What happened when you tried to get in? 
Will you tell us ?^ 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. I drove, and had my car turned between the 
islands of the boulevard, the main street of Kohler and the industrial 
road. High Street. Between there, there are grass islands. I had 
my car turned into the grass island and was completely blocked by 
a mass of people. While they were there, they drove a car midway 
between the entrance of the gate. It was a CIO sound truck. I 
don't know if it was local 212 or not. At least, I recognized it as a 
sound truck that had been brought in from Detroit to help with the 
strike or something. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you notice if it had Michigan license 
plates? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir; I do not recall. As I said, I tried to move 
my car. I had the motor running, and I tried to move my car ahead 
little by little to reach the entrance of the gate, but it was impossible 
to do without rimning over 20 or 30 people. They were massed be- 
tween me and this gate. Then the picket line proper was behind 
the truck. 

Senator Goldwater. Did they do anything to your car ? 

Mr. Jacobs. They shook it, but nothing serious. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you at that time ask the sheriff — is it 
Mosch ? Did you ask Sheriff Mosch for assistance ? 



8400 EMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE L.\BOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. I called him right up to my car. He stood 
right outside my car and talked to me through the wmdow. 

Senator Goldwater. What did he tell you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. He said he would talk to them. He went back and 
talked to someone on the line, and told me he couldn't get me in 
without bloodshed. 

Senator Goldwat-er. Did he say anything else to you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir ; just that he could not get us in. I do not recall 
anything else he said. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the sheriff seem cooperative to the people 
who wanted to get through the picket line ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, this is just my personal opinion. I would say 
"no." 

Senator Goldwater. You have said that you recognized Mr. Jesse 
Ferazza. Could you describe any of the activities you saw him en- 
gaged in on the picket line ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, he was there, generally, up in front, and I saw 
him kick one man in the groin with his knee, and he kicked me in the 
leg. He was quite handy with his feet, I will say that. As far as 
swinging with his hands, I don't think I have ever seen him, although 
I imagine he might have, too. But he used his feet to very good 
advantage. 

Senator Goldwater. Speaking of his fists, were they just his fists, 
or did he have knuckles with him ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, on one occasion, I don't know if that was on 
May 10, but they greeted us right across the road. They Avere not 
on the picket line, but they came across the road onto High Street 
and met us on the comer, and there were other fellows with them 
from Detroit and a few local boys. That day they had sort of pig- 
skin gloves on. I noticed some of them had a band sewed across 
the knuckles on the back. 

Senator Goldwater. A band of what ? 

Mr. Jacobs. A leather band, added thickness on the knuckles of the 
glove. I don't say they were brass knuckles, but there was an added 
weight put over the knuckles of the glove. I don't say Mr. Ferazza 
had it, but there were gloves like that in the gi-oup. You understand 
there was excitement at that time, and we were trying to go to work. 
But they were all wearing gloves, and smoothing them back on their 
fists. 

Senator Goldwater, Was there any metal on the gloves at all ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I could not say there was metal on the gloves. Senator ; 
no. 

Senator Goldwater. You mentioned that you saw other people that 
you did not know. Was it your impression that there were more than 
15 people in this mass picketing from outside of the general area of 
Kohler Village in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you have any way of knowing or mak- 
ing an educated guess as to how many outside there might have been ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No ; I don't think I would try to estimate, but I know 
that there were men from Sheboygan that I recognized that worked 
at other plants, that were not strikers ; some from Baldra ; some from 
the tannery, that were out there on the picket lines in the mountings, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8401 

that I recognized as not men that worked there that were on the 
picket line. 

Senator Goldwater. Mrs. Tracey made a guess of aroimd 100. 
Would you say that is a guess on short side or the long side ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I would say she was close. I would estimate 
somewhere in that. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have a feeling, and I do not know 
if you are able to answer tliis other than just our own observations, 
but did you have a feeling this strike was being rmi by people other 
than those in the local union ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I would say, definitely, yes. I never had any trouble 
with the local ofRcei-s. As Mr. Grasskamp said, at one time we were 
very good friends, and we have not had any words since then. But I 
think this was clearly engineered by someone outside of our local boys. 
I think, if it would have been left to our local officers, I think we 
wouldn't have had the strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Pardon me? 

Mr. Jacobs. I say I think, if it had been left to our local officers, I 
don't think we would have had the strike. 

Senator Goldwater. You said you were bothered at night on the 
telephone. "\Miat time of the night was it that that usually occurred ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, it would start about 11 o'clock and run right 
straight through to 5 in the morning. Then they would pick me up 
in the car, and so they quit the telephone calls. 

Senator Goldwater. You said you recognized the voice ? 

Mr. Jacobs. One voice ; yes. He called me. That was a call during 
the day, though. He called me at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. 

Senator Goldwater. Who was that '? 

Mr. Jacobs. Gordon Majerus. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a local man ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. He was a steward, I think, over in the E. E. & P. 
He was a union steward. 

Senator Goldwater. He worked in the Kohler plant? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes; he did. 

Senator Goldwater. The first time that you tried to get into the 
plant, how many pickets would you say blocked your way ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, I would estimate around 1,500. 

Senator Goldwater. About 1,500 ? 

Mr. Jacobs. In front of the main gate ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. How were these pickets directed ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Pardon? 

Senator Goldwater. How were the pickets' activities directed ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, they were walking close together, and I would 
say 5, 6, or 7 deep, mitil you got there, and as you approached the 
entrance to the gate, they would converge and that depth would be 
greater. You would have maybe 20 or 30 people between you and 
the entrance to tlie plant. They would come out to meet us. They 
would not stay on the picket line. They would come out onto the 
boulevard to meet us. 

Senator Goldwater. Did it appear to you to be a well-planned or 
well-directed strike, the picket effort ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I would say it was very well directed; yes. It ac- 
complished its purpose. We couldn't get in. 



8402 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Wlien they needed pickets at another gate, 
how were they told to go there ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't know what system they used, but I know id 
you tried it at certain times to get in, and there were a small number 
of pickets at that gate, it didn't take very long before they had rein- 
forcements. 

Senator Goldwater. Did they use sound trucks ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. They had sound trucks. I imagine they used 
them. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever notice any of the operators of 
the sound trucks, the ones with the microphones? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir; not as individuals; no. 

Senator Goldwater. The pickets who were standing in front of 
your car when you were trying to get in that time, when the station 
wagon or sound truck, whatever it was, blocked you, did you recognize 
any of those men ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I did. The man that was the closest to my car, 
that was right upon my bumper, at times with a foot on it, was a 
Mr. Fiore. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr, Fiore ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he from the local ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I think he was from Detroit, Senator ? 

Senator Goldwater. Did you recognize Robert Burkart? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. But he was not in the front of my car. 

I will say that the only times I have seen him there, which was 
generally early in the morning, he would be up on the grass of the 
island to the right of the entranceway. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he from the general area of the village 
of Kohler ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't think so. I never saw Mr. Burkart until the 
time of the strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know him to be from Detroit? 

Mr, Jacobs. No, sir ; I do not. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you recognize Ed Kalupa ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. Ed Kalupa was there, and the Nitsch boys, and 
I saw Mr. Grasskamp in the line, Konec. There was quite a few 
of them that I recognized that were in there in front of the auto- 
mobile ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. When you recognized that you couldn't get 
through the picket line, and you started to drive away, did they 
leave you alone at that time ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir; they did not. We tried to drive out of 
town, and there is only 4 or 5 roads where you can get out of town 
onto the highways. You have 2 highways, 1 on each side of town, 
Highway 28 and 23, I think I tried all of the ways out, and every 
time I would get to the stop sign, and there is a stop sigTi on every 
intersection leading to the highway, 1 car would pull up behind 
me and 1 would pull diagonally in front of me so I could only make 
1 turn, and that turn would be back to the village. 

So I stayed in the village until I figured I had been there long 
enough, and then I drove up to the village police station and drove 
my car in there, and went upstairs. Sheriff Mosch was there and 
one of his deputies and the chief of police, I explained the situa- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8403 

tion, and at that time Sheriff Mosch said that if I would wait, he 
would see that I ffot out of town. His under sheriff, Larry Schmitz, 
escorted us out of town with his car. That is how I left the village. 

Senator Goldwater. Were there any other times when attempts 
were made to give you trouble with an automobile ? 

For instance, did you ever have difficulty in leaving your 
residence ? 

Mr, Jacobs. Yes, sir; I did. I had that every morning I went to 
work. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you explain it ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I will explain it. I lived on a dead end road, a pri- 
vate road. It was about a block and a half long, and at the end it 
was a dead end. To get to the highway, which is Highway 28, I had 
to pass an entrance to another factory, a woodworking factory, 
Beamers. At 5 o'clock in the morning, a car would drive up in that 
driveway and as soon as I would back my car out of my private drive- 
way and get onto the private road to go to the highway, they would 
squeeze me by the road. If I tried to get by them, they would speed up 
and cut in front of me, and I had that to contend with a good many 
mornings. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever recognize any of these people ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you name them ? 

Mr. Jacobs. The man that owned the car was a caster in the pottery 
where I worked, Nick Rocoverich. 

Senator Goldwater. Nick Rocoverich ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Who else did you see ? 

Mr. Jacobs. In front of my house, I saw Mr. Rand drive by in a 
Pontiac, and Mr. Vinson, and the sound trucks drove by quite often. 

As I said, it was not a through street, but a private street. They 
would come down and turn around in front of my house, and then 
turn around and go out again. I requested the sheriff one time, I called 
from my home one morning when I couldn't get out. He came to my 
home with another squad car, and they got me on the highway and I 
got to the village all right. 

But there were other mornings that I tried to get out and I called and 
I didn't get any help at all. 

Senator Goldwater. Getting back to the sheriff, did the sheriff give 
much assistance to those people that wanted to go through the picket 
line, as the chief of police? 

Mr. Jacobs. Do you mean the chief of police of Kohler? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir ; nowhere near the help. 

Senator Goldwater Did you have the feeling that the sheriff might 
be dragging his heels a little bit on law enforcement ? 

Mr. Jacobs. This is my personal opinion. I would say he definitely 
was. 

Senator Goldwater. You said that you were kicked by Jesse 
Ferazza ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever see other people kicked or kneed? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. He kicked another fellow next to me, a gentle- 
man by the name of Tank that came down with me, and a man by 



8404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the name of Federwisch. Those are the only three where I could 
definitely say that I saw his body come in contact with them, although 
as I say, he was very handy witli his feet. 

Senator Goldwater. You would not in your experience call that 
peaceable picketing, would you? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir; I would not. 

Senator Goldwater. And tliis violence continued for how long ? 

Mr. Jacobs. For quite a while, as far as at the homes. Well, we 
didn't get peace for a long, long time. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have peace today ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Right now I am living in the village of Kohler, yes. 
I am comparatively peaceful. I will say that. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there a new sheriif now ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, there is. 

Senator Goldwater. "VNHien did that sheriff come in ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Last year. In last year's election. 

Senator Goldwater. And was that about the time you started to get 
some peace ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, now that you mentioned it, I would say "Yes" 

Senator Goldwater. Do you recall that Sheriff Mosch ran for 
reelection ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't think he did in this last election. I think he 
served his two terms, if I remember rightly. 

Senator Goldwater. You cannot serve more than two terms ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I think that is right. I don't think he was up for 
election. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to put into the record a quotation from 
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, in other words, the 
Taft-Hartley Act, which applies to that matter of which I spoke ear- 
lier, and that is the conflict in the testimony between this witness, and 
Mrs. Tracey, and Mr. Grasskamp. 

This morning I pointed out the fact that what Mr, Grasskamp 
said, about the picketing, as far as his description went, as far as I 
could see was no violation of the Taft-Hartley Act. But, Mr. Jacobs, 
the description given by you and Mrs. Tracey conflicts with that in 
one very important part. 

You speak of coercion, and the Taft-Hartley Act is very clear on 
that subject when it comes to an unfair labor practice. 

Before I read that section or that part of the Taft-Hartley Act 
wdiich is applicable, I w^ant to say also that the number of pickets, 
and whether they came from the striking members of the Kohler Co. 
or from outside, has nothing whatever to do with it. Stranger- 
picketing is still permitted under the Taft-Hartley Act. So that is 
not the question before us. 

But the real question is this conflict of coercion and the matter of 
coercion. 

Here is the Taft-Hartley Act applicable to that. It is section 7, 
a very short section. I will read this slowly so that the stenographer 
can get it accurately. 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8405 

Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organizatiou, to form, join, or 
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of 
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur- 
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also — 

and this is the part that is particularly applicable in this section — 

and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities — 

to refrain from any or all such activities — 

except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring 
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized 
in section 8 (a) (3). 

That is section 7 in full. 

Now, section 8 (b) reads as follows, and I read section 8 (b) (1) : 

(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents — 
(1) to restrain or coerce — 

and then following that, and I am merely interpolating that there is a 

large capital (A) with — 

employees on the exercise of the right guaranteed in section 7. 

That is where the word "coerce" gets in there. 

You were attacked, were you not, personally ? 

Mr. Jacxjbs. That is right. 

Senator Ives. That would certainly have to be construed as coer- 
cion, if what you say is true. 

I think what Mrs. Tracey says shows there was coercion where she 
was concerned. So certainly under the section of the Taft-Hartley 
Act that I have quoted, that certainly is an unfair labor practice. 
That is why I have brought that out. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. As I understand you, you worked in the pottery 
department for most of the time from 1941 to date ? 

Mr. Jacobs. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And do you have silicosis, so far as you know ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir ; I am quite sure I haven't. 

Senator Ervin. I realize it is rather difficult to describe it, but 
to what extent is silica dust from felspar present in the air in the 
pottery department ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Senator, percentagewise, I couldn't tell you, but we 
are provided with respirators, and they have made provisions that 
during the dusting time — you are only supposed to dust your molds 
with this silica dust at the close of your shift, and they even give you 
15 minutes of time. They start dusting at a quarter to 4, and we 
work until 4. As soon as you are through dusting your molds, you 
are requested to get out of the area where tliis dust is in. 

Senator Ervin. Is the feldspar ground up ? 

Mr. Jabors. Yes, sir. It is a fine powder. 

Senator ER^^:N. And notwithstanding the fact you have been work- 
ing in there for approximately 15 or 16 or 17 years, so far as you know, 
you have never experienced any discomfort from inhaling silica dust ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir; not a bit. And I have just had a thorough 
checkup a year ago at Madison, where I was not known, and my place 
of employment was not known. 

21243— 58— pt. 21 6 



8406 IMPROPER ACTivrriBs m the labor field 

Senator Ervin. Does the company make any provision for exami- 
nations for anyone tliat works in that department that desires to be 
examined ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. They force you to have an X-ray twice a year. 

Senator Ervin. Twice a year ? 

Mr. Jacobs. And with the hospitalization we have, we have the right 
to get an X-ray, by a private doctor any time. It is paid for. 

Senator Ervin. Do you know of any occasions when the employees 
in that department have been removed from that department to other 
work on account of having contracted silicosis ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I do. There are some that have been told that 
they have it, but because of the wages being at the level they are in 
the pottery, they stay on. It might be a good idea if they forced them 
to get out, but, after all, every man has a right to say what he wants 
to do with his own body, I imagine. 

Senator Ervin. In this mass picketing where you have pickets of the 
depth that you described, when you cannot gain entrance to the plant 
to work unless he resorts to violence, and then he is in danger by reason 
of the number, he is in pretty bad shape, is he not? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. We tried. We pushed. I do not think I 
saw anybody exactly fight, but I will admit that we used force. We 
would get together in a group and push and try to get in, and made no 
headway. 

Senator Ervin. Did you on any occasion see automobiles turned 
over? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir ; I did not. Personally, I did not see any turned 
over. 

Senator Ervin. Did you see anybody beaten up ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir, I did. 

Seantor Ervin. Who was beaten up, the pickets or somebody else? 

Mr. Jacobs. This happened to be a Kohler worker that got beat up. 

Senator Ervin. Do you remember the time and place ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Franlvly, he wasn't trying to get it. He was standing 
with us on the curb across the street, and one of the pickets came over 
and started discussing something rather personal with him about his 
family, and before we could get between them, he had slugged him, cut 
his eye open, and he had to have some stitches taken in his eye. 

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

Senator Ervin. Do you know whether that altercation came out of 
the strike or out of some other matter ? 

Mr. Jacobs. It came from out of the strike, I am quite sure. He 
had been involved in a few other fisticuffs. He would come down in 
the courthouse in these other hearings, in the hallway, and sort of lay 
for this kid, because he figured he was an easy mark. 

Senator Ervin. How frequently would you usually see the sheriff 
around the plant ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I would say I saw him an average of 2 or 3 mornings 
a week on the picket line, around the plant, and that would be about 
all. 

Senator Ervin. Did you see him make any arrests? 

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

Senator Ervin. I imagine the sheriff was a county sheriff; was he 
not? 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8407 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir ; a county sheriff, of Sheboygan County. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did the chief of police make many arrests at Kohler ? 

Mr. Jacobs. He made arrests ; yes. I saw him take men down to the 
village hall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he get many people in the plant? 

Mr. Jacobs. Did he get many people in the plant? I don't think 
he got any. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought he did better than the sheriff. 

Mr. Jacobs. He tried. He would get in there bodily and try to open 
up the line with his deputies, try to open up a line for us. But to 
my knowledge, he didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many deputies did he have ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I couldn't answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many deputies did the sheriff have? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't know that, either, but you would see four or five 
deputies with the sheriff, and perhaps 4 or 5 with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe they didn't have enough men. 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't know. I don't think anybody stopped them 
from getting more. We offered our services, and I think if he wanted 
to open it peacefully, he could have gotten the help, if he wanted it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was wondering when you mentioned going to the 
hospital ; you were in the hospital, were you ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have sick leave at that time ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Did I have sick leave from the company ? Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you paid while you were in the hospital ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No. Only the sick benefits, as in the law, if you belong 
to a group. I received that, and that is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You weren't given anything further while in the 
hospital ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You joined the UAW at one time? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, I did. I joined shortly after February, when 
they signed their first contract. I agreed if they signed a contract 
without a strike, I would join the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any complaints against the company 
at that time ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Me ? No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. But you Ithought a union would be a good idea ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I still think they are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you express any regrets to Mr. Grasskamp about 
the way the company was being operated ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't know. I don't recall any, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never expressed any complaints against the 
company ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Well, after all, no company that you work for is per- 
fect. Every man has his natural little gripes. I might have, but I 
mean as far as any serious complaints ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. 



8408 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you don't remember any that you complained 
about to Mr. Grasskamp ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that tlie company was very good to you, or 
very good to the employees ? 

Mr. Jacobs. To my knowledge, yes. I would say that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you say that you live in Koliler Village now ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I do now. I moved there? 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't always live in Kohler Village ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I lived in Sheboygan Falls. 

Mr. Kennedy. Iviien did you move to Kohler Village ? 

Mr. Jacobs. The strike started in Marcli and I moved there in May. 

Mr. Kennedy. You moved to Kohler Village in May from Sheboy- 
gan Falls ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I suppose it is rather difficult to get into Kohler Vil- 
lage, is it ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I wouldn't say so. They have residences that people 
moved out of that they rent. I have been trying to get in there for 
a number of years. This time, the home that I bought, the man was 
retiring, and he wanted to retire to a place where he would have a 
garden and things. He was moving out of town, and the house was 
available and I applied for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kohler have to give his approval to that ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir, not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did theKohler Co. have to give their approval ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I think it is called the Kohler Improvement Co. It 
is a building and loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Kohler have to give his approval to that? 

Mr. Jacobs. No, sir. I haven't seen his name on my papers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Walter J. Ireland ? 

Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlioishe? 

Mr. Jacobs. A personnel director at the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have to give approval ? 

Mr. Jacobs. No; he didn't. But he was the man I contacted. 
Because, at the time, it was the time of the strike, I knew at one time 
he was instrumental in renting some of these homes. I think he is 
on the board at the building and loan, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, after the strike started, and you had been try- 
ing to get this house for a number of years, you went to the personnel 
director at the plant to see whether or not he could help you get the 
house ? 

Mr. Jacobs. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was able to help you get the house ? 

Mr. Jacobs. I don't know if his efforts were successful. At least 
negotiations were started, so I had a chance to start for the house. 
I rented it at first ; I did not buy it right away, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. There's a memorandum in the files of the Kohler 
Co. regarding your home, which states that — 

Walter J. Ireland spoke to Mr. Herbert V. Kohler — 

so, evidently he got involved in it — 

concerning representing the premises at 510 Greentree Road to Harold N. Jacobs 
and received Mr. Kohler's written approval. Attached is a lease for a 7-month 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8409 

period beginning June 1, 1954, for the rental sum of $80 per month. The lease 
will expire on December 31, 1954, along with all other leases on our property, 
and will be renewed again at that time. The present occupants will vacate 
the premises approximately 1 week before June 1, and the premises will be 
ready for occupancy for Mr. Jacobs at that time. 

Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs can look at the premises any night after 5 o'clock. Will 
you please have the lease executed by Mr. Harold N. Jacobs and return both 
copies to me so it can be signed by Mr. Herbert V. KohlerV 

Mr. Jacobs. That is without my knowledge. Perhaps, if I would 
look, I would find his name. But I didn't know that Mr. Koliler had 
been consulted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

If not, thank you very much, Mr, Jacobs. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I call Mr. Dale Oostdyk. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear 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. Oostdyk. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF DALE OOSTDYK 

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

Mr. Oostdyk. Dale Oostdyk, 424 Parkway, Kohler, Wis. I am 
employed in the cast-iron division foundry at the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. In what division ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. The cast-iron division. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Oostdyk, you have been with the Kohler Co. for 
how long ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. It will be 12 years this fall. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You were in the service for 4 years, were you ? You 
were in the Navy ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I was on active duty 4 years prior to being employed 
by the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. You came back and went to work for the Kohler Co. ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr, IvENNEDY. And when you got out of the Navy, you received a 
commission in the xlrmy, in the National Guard ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. When I got out of the Navy, from active duty, I 
signed up in the Naval Reserve and, approximately 2 years after I 
worked at the Kohler Co., I took an examination and received a com- 
mission in the Reserve, Army Reserve and the National Guard of the 
State of Wisconsin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is your present position ? 

Mr. Oostdyk, At that time, or this time? 

]\Ir, Kennedy, What were you at that time ? 

Mr. Oostdyk, At that time I was second lieutenant and I was a 
platoon leader in a rifle company. 



8410 IMPROPER ACTHTTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You have worked your way up ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. I am a staff officer now, and I am a captain. I hold 
the rank of captain. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you ever join up with the UAW? 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You disapproved of the UAW, the way they were 
operating ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You decided not to join ; is that right ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What was it that you disliked about the UAW ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Mainly, the tactics they were using to try to in- 
fluence the members to sign up. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were approached by large numbers of people ; 
is that it ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They tried to prevail upon you that way, rather than 
to reason with you about joining up ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You resented that ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you refused to join up; is that right? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that, when the picketing came, and the strike was 
called, you did not join the pickets? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, instead, you wanted to continue your job, and 
continue at work with the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what steps you took 
to try to get in to work, and what happened to you on your second 
attempt ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. On my second attempt, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell us, first, your attempts to get to work. You 
went to work the night before, did you not ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you received information that this picketing 
was going to start ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliom did you receive that information from ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. From my brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your brother was a picket ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he told you that the picket was going to take 
place ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, so, what did you do ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, I went to the plant late Sunday evening, because 
my brother had told me they were going to pull the plug and no one 
would get into the plant the next morning; so, I managed to get into 
the plant that Sunday evening. Normally, I did not start work until 
6 : 30 in the morning, but I was told I would not be able to get in. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, you went Sunday evening and you worked the 
following Monday ; is that right ? 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8411 

Mr. Oosi-DYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you had a meeting of the National Guard 
Monday night ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You sneaked out their back field ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you going to try to get in again the following 
day? 

Mr. Oostdyk. On Wednesday, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join with some others in telling them you 
could get through the back field ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many others were with you ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Four others. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you all try to sneak in the back field ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I tried to lead them in the way I went out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were caught? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell what happened ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, while we were going through the field, it was 
dark, and somebody spotted some of the pickets lying in the field and 
they started to chase us and so we ran and we came to a snow fence, 
and we separated and I jumped over this snow fence. 

It was quite muddy. This was in April of 1954, and it slowed me 
down, and I noticed some more pickets in front of me, and I turned 
and I almost ran right into them. One of them jumped on my back 
and about that time there w^ere at least 3 or 4 more there and some of 
them kicked me in the back and on the side, and 2 of them picked me 
up by the arms. One picket was very small, and he hit me on my left 
temple while the other two were holding me, and at that time they 
swore at me and called me names and that I ought to be killed for 
trying to go to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were trying to keep everybody out of the 
plant, and they said that you should be killed for trying to get into 
the plant ? 

Mr. OosiT)YK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they do to you then ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. They dragged me back to what the union calls the 
soup kitchen, which was a good half mile from where I was caught 
on company property. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened there ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Before I got there, they had sent a runner back to 
let them know that they caught a scab, and, before I got back to the 
soup kitchen, which was a good half mile from where I was caught 
we got out of the field. This was Mr. Frank Saborske from the 
union and some other union members waiting to escort me into the 
soup kitchen. At this point, I told them I had lost some money and 
I would like to go back, first, to look for it, but they refused to let 
me go back. 
Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody else captured at the same time? 
Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was captured with you ? 
Mr. Oostdyk. Herman Miesf eld. 



8412 IMPROPER ACl^IVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kenxedy. How long were you kept at the soup kitchen ? 

Mr, OoSTDYK. I would say 45 minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they threaten you at the soup kitchen? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say to you ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Well, I told them I wanted to get to the phone. I 
told them I was a deputy sheriff at that time, and they said they 
knew better than that because they had talked to Mosch, Sheriff 
Mosch, and he wouldn't send any of his deputies out there. I said, 
"He didn't send me out here, but I was trying" 

Mr. Ivennedy. You told them you were a deputy ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they would let you go ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not believe that ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not a deputy, in fact? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes ; I was. I was a special deputy then. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you show them your special-deputy card ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir ; I did not have it with me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But they did not believe it ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What else did they say to you ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I tried to use the phone, and they told me to sit 
down. Every time I got up to use the phone, they grabbed me and 
threw me down on the chair. Right after they kept me seated on the 
chair, they put a card in front of me and told me to put my name and 
my clock number on the card and where I worked. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. What did you do ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I gave them my name and clock number. 

Mr. Kennedy. They tried to sign you up with the union ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, who was present during all of this ? Did you 
recognize any of the people ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was present ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. At the time I did not know them, but it was Donald 
Hand, who was the one who took me by the arm first. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Donald Rand? 

Mr. Oostdyk. He is a representative of the TJAW-CIO. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he doing some of this, and was he one of those 
who was yelling at you ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes; he was, and he was the one that took hold of 
my arm and slung me down to the chair. Later on, after I knew it 
was useless to try to get out, he said over the public-address system 
that scab hunting was good and they should get some more fellows 
to go, and go out and look for some more scabs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else, besides this man, was there? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, there were quite a few people there. The next 
person wlio talked to me was Jess Fazzarra. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he do ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. He w-as a u.nion representative, too, and he came up, 
and he was very polite when he came up, and he took me over in the 
corner and he told the rest of them to leave me alone, and he wanted 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8413 

to talk to me. He told me it was a good thing I was not in Detroit, 
because I would have been killed for trying to go to work during a 
strike. I told him that at that time I thought we had our rights to 
go to work. The law stated that if you did not belong to the union 
and if the doors were open for work, you could go to work. That is 
what I had planned on doing. Then Mr. Bower came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Art Bower ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, and Mr. Fazzarra also asked me if that so- 
and-so, Conger, had called me up to come to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did you tell him ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I said, "No, sir." 

Mr. Ivennedy. Then Art Bower came, and what did he do to you ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, knowing him, personally, he took me on the 
side and he told me I was a damn fool for trying to come to work, and 
that I should know better, and he would take my picture and they 
would paste it up all over the country, showing the people that I was 
a scab, and trying to get back to work while the company was on 
strike. He said if I did get back into the plant, and they did settle 
the strike, he said somebody is sure to get you and they are going 
to drop a ram on your head. 

Mr. Kennedy. Somebody was going to get you, and they would 
drop something on your head ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has anybody ever dropped anything on your head 
since then ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No ; the strike hasn't been settled yet, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat happened, and who else was there ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Mr. Miesfeld was there when I entered the building. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He was somebody else that was captured with you ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Two of you were captured ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miesfeld was also captured ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody else there that you can think of that 
was present? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir. When I got back there, Mr. Miesfeld was 
drinking coffee at a table ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Miesfeld decided to sign up with the union? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir; and he signed up, and they served him 
coffee, and douglinuts, and took him home. 



Burkhard. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And Mr. Cohagen ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was also present ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Majerus? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was present ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see Mr. Gruskamp there ' 



8414 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDY. How were you treated after that? Did they mis- 
treat you some more ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. After that time, Mr. Bower told me he would take 
me home, so I would not get beat up any worse. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did he take you home ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, Mr. Kand drove his car with one other gentle- 
man in the front, and I sat in the back with Mr. Bower. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were nice to you then ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Well, I only talked to Mr. Bower until I got out of 
the car. I had told him that during 1952 I was called back on active 
duty, and I never bothered with union activities, and I wasn't for 
them or against them mitil I found out what they were after, or how 
they were persuading us to join the union. 

I said, "If you leave me go back to work, I won't press any charges 
or anything?" 

He said, "You just better get yourself out here tomorrow morning, 
and sign up and start picketing." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign up ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go out and picket ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did you do ? 

Mr. OosTDYTi. I contacted the Kohler Co., and I told them I was 
caught, and I had a statement to make. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give them a statement ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they get another job for you ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere did they get work for you then ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. You are speaking of before the gates opened ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. OosTDYK. I worked down at the clay boat, and I was in charge 
of the guards on the clay pile down at the dock, Hildebrandt dock 
in Sheboygan. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you gave them a statement after what oc- 
curred when you were trying to get in the plant, they got you a job 
as a guard down at the clay boats ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir; I told them I wanted work, and I said if 
I could not get work on the outside I was going to make another 
attempt myself to get back in the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Miesfeld mistreated, that you know of, 
when he was in the soup kitchen ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir ; he was drinking coffee when I was in there. 
All I know about Mr. Miesfeld was that one of the men that was with 
the group that caught him knew him very well, and told them to leave 
him alone because they knew he would go along. They never hit 
him, and he told me that if it wasn't for this particular person, he 
would have been beat up like I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did your brother think of all of this? Did 
you tell him about it ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, we are pretty good friends, and we never let 
it get between us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it cause a great deal of bitterness in Sheboygan ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8415 

Mr, OosTDYK. No, sir. In fact sometimes when my brother was 
supposed to be on the picket line he came over to my house and 
watched television. 

Mr, Kennedy. But, generally, this situation did cause bitterness ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Not in our family at all ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Outside your family, just as a general condition? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir ; very much so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Between those who were picketing, and those who 
were going to work ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvJENNEDY. And vice versa ; is that right ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, So you are a very fortunate family that you con- 
tinued to get along ? 

Mr, Oostdyk, We have a Christian family, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, Is there anything else regarding this situation that 
you think we should know ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, during the period of time I was in the court- 
room, and before I testified, Mr. Kand called me on the side, and he 
wanted to know something. 

He got me on the side and he told everybod}^ to move over and he 
wanted to talk to me in confidence, and this time he stated that he 
wanted to know what the Koliler Co. was giving me for testifying for 
them. 

I didn't know what he was driving at, and I said, "Wliat do you 
mean?" And he said, "Well, are they giving you $5,000 or $10,000 
for testifying for them," and he said, "if they are, don't forget, we 
will follow you wherever you go. You will be blackballed all over 
the country and you will never get a job in any shop." 

At this point he told me that if the union was giving me this 
money for not testifying, it would be a different story. And about 
that time, I shoved him off, and I knew what he was after. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Was anybody else present at the time of the con- 
versation ? 

Mr. Oostdyk, Not within listening distance. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you report that to anyone there ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you report it to ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Mr. Conger. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger, of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Conger told me that he would take it down, but it was useless 
to testify to it because it would be my word against his. And I also 
told him I would take a lie test if he wanted me to. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did the Kohler Co. ever give you anything, any 
extra benefits ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They treated you like everybody else and never gave 
you any money or gifts ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Well, I can tell you this : Being in the Keserve and 
going away every year for 2 weeks to a summer camp, and being 
called on active duty while I was at the Kohler Co., they have fur- 
nished my unit when I was National Guard commander with any- 
thing we wanted while we went to a summer field and training camp. 



8416 IMPROPER ACTIVrTlES m THE LABO'R FIELD 

"V\nien I was called on active duty in 1952, the Kohler Co. paid for 
my hospitalization insurance all of the time I was gone, until I came 
back, and I reimbursed them for this insurance. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is even before the strike, is that right ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. It was in 1952, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they had treated you very well even before this ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir, and I had my foot smashed at the Kohler 
Co. in 1950, and I had three compound fractures and my toes were 
burned. I was out approximately 2 weeks or so, and I could barely 
walk and they offered to give me a job sitting down until I could go 
back to my old job, to compensate me for the wages I lost. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you felt there were certainly no complaints 
against the Kohler Co., and in fact as far as your personal experience 
is concerned, they treated you very well. 

Mr. OosTDYK. That is right. 

Mr. ICJENNEDY. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Ives. You were here, were you not, when I quoted from the 
Labor-Management Relations Act pertaining to coercion ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. It occurs to me in your instance, if you are telling 
the facts, and apparently you are, and the other side will be heard on 
this and they can refute it if they want to, but the question I would 
like to raise there is this : 

I would like to loiow why you or either of the other two witnesses 
who appeared before you did not file a complaint with the National 
Labor Relations Board in connection with this alleged unfair labor 
practice. You have every right to. What happened that you did 
not do it? 

Mr. OosTDYK, I went all of the way to see a lawyer in Sheboygan 
and he took me up to see the district attorney, and the district attor- 
ney said he would try to help me. He wanted to know who the man 
was that hit me, because I was kidnapped and dragged back and he 
wanted to know who it was. 

I said, "Well, I couldn't tell you the man that hit me but if you 
would question the party that caught Mr. Meisfield, he could tell you 
who the men were and I would identify this one." 

Senator Ives. That is a matter of the State police power, as far 
as that is concerned, and law violations locally, but at the same time, 
there is a situation there involved which borders at least on the ques- 
tion of an unfair labor practice, and a matter of coercion. 

Didn't anyone tell you to file a complaint with the National Labor 
Relations Board ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Mr. Hutkey told me that there would be several of 
us who could file a complaint. 

Senator Iyes. With the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir, I believe it Avas with the Wisconsin Board. 

Senator Ives. The State Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. They told you that ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. I was just curious to know why you did not go through 
with this course you could have taken, if what you say is true„ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ITST THE LABOR FIEI.D 8417 

I am not questioning your word any more than I quevStion the word 
of the president of the union. We do not know yet, exactly what the 
facts are here, but there clearly appears to be a violation of the Taft- 
Hartley Act. 

It is too late to do anything now, and the statute of limitations has 
run out on you, and that is a 6-month proposition. 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. But I think that you had a clear situation, if you had 
filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Oostdyk, do you know Emile Mazey when 
you see him? 

Mr. OosTDYK. I believe I would, sir. 

Senator GtOLdwater. Have you seen him at the hearing today ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir, I did not look around to see him. 

Senator Goldwater. Could you look around and see if you see him ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Well, 4 years ago he was pointed out to me and I did 
not know him then and I could not tell you right now which one he 
was, and I can name most of the rest of them. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if he was at the kitchen that night 
that you were brought in ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I believe Mr. Meisfield said he was, and I did not 
know him at that time. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not know Mr. Mazey at that time ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. No. 

Senator Goldwater. What position does Mr. Ferrazza occupy in 
the union ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you report this to the sheriff ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I probably was not here and the question was 
asked, and I apologize for asking you again, but what was the reaction 
of the sheriff? 

Mr. Oostdyk. On Monday, before I went out to the National Guard 
meeting, I called the chief of police of Kohler, and I told him I wanted 
to get out. I was in and I wanted to get out and I wanted to get back 
in after the meeting. 

He told me that he was not able to open up the line to get anybody 
else in, and that I should call the county sheriff and ask him. 

I called Mr. Mosch and Mr. Mosch said he would give us protection 
up to the picket line, but he would not attempt to open it to get us 
in the plant. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you report this kidnapping to him? 

Mr. Oostdyk, No, sir, I did not have to report it. It was local news 
the next day. 

Senator Goldwater. It was in the paper ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Yes, sir, it was in the paper, but everybody knew 
about it and the word spread rapidly. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have the feeling during the periods of 
violence that the sheriff was cooperating in the interest of law and 
order ? 

Mr. Oostdyk. Did I have the feeling he was, you mean ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Oostdyk. No, sir. 



8418 IMPROPER ACTivrriES m the labor field 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask yon one more question : 

Have you received any threats relative to your appearing before this 
committee and testifying ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Since I have been called by the committee, you mean? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Has there been any time in the last 2 or 3 
months that you have been threatened if you come down here to 
testify ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. No, sir, that is what I was referring to. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all, I believe, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervtln. How many persons employed are actually working 
with the Kohler Co. now ? 

Mr. OosTDTK. How many persons are working there ? 

Senator Ervin. How many are there in the plant that you work in? 
About how many are employed there who are actually working in 
the plant now ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Well, I would say there is approximately between 
2,500 and 3,000 people working there. 

Senator Ervin. How does that compare with the number working 
before the strike began ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Well, I would say we are maybe 300 or 400 or 500 
less people working there now. 

Senator Ervix. How many pickets are there? Do they keep pickets 
on duty now ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Sometimes there are 1 or 2 or 3. 

Senator Erven. How long did this mass picketing last ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Well, the mass picketing lasted until they were forced 
by the labor board to open up the gates. But even after that, there 
were several pickets out there for the next year and a half. 

Senator Ervin. Now, this treatment of the National Guard by the 
Kohler Co., was that before the strike began or after ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir, he gave any service, whether it was the Na- 
tional Guard or Naval Reserve, anytime they wanted something, or 
anything the Kohler Co. had. They always were willing to give, and 
in fact, they donated money for mats for the paper for advertising 
for the Reserve. 

Senator Ervin. You would go on duty about 2 weeks a year with 
the National Guard ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Every year, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Two weeks each year ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And the company would make gifts to the National 
Guard ? It was in the form of something to supplement their mess 
above the regular rations and things like that? 

Mr. OosTDYK. I was not referring to the money. I was referring 
to letting them use auxiliary power units and different things like that. 
It was material things. 

Senator ER^^N. You had the feeling the company encouraged the 
employees of the company to serve in the National Guard? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir, they did, definitely. In fact, all of the men 
that were drafted, years back, always received their Christmas bonus, 
even wlien they were not working at the Kohler Co. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8419 

The Chairman. Was that a cash bonus ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it related to the amount of work they had per- 
f onned that year ? 

Mr. OosTDYK. I believe the first year after they were drafted, they 
received the full bonus. 

The Chairman. The second year, what did they receive ? 

Mr. OosTDTK. I don't know whether they received this Christmas 
bonus after that, but the first year their received the full amount, 
whether they worked there 6 months or 9 months, or 1 month. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You may stand aside. We 
will adjourn until 10 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 25 p. m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat- 
ter was recessed to reconvene at 10 the next day.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGE3IENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1958 

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 Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the Caucus Room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
Vernon J. Johnson, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order, 

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

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Herman Miesfeld, please. 

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 j^ou God ? 

Mr. JNIiESFELD. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HEEMAN MIESFELD 

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

Mr. MiESFELD. Herman Miesfeld, 2226 Broadway, Sheboygan, Wis., 
employed at the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Do you waive the right to counsel, Mr. Miesfeld ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miesfeld, you have been working in the Kohler 
Co. for how long ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. Eighteen years. 

Mr, Kennedy, You did not join the UAW ? 

Mr. Miesfeld, No, sir. 

8421 
21243— 58— pt. 21 7 



8422 EVIPROPER ACTIVrTIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

^Ir. Kennedy. You were against the UAW, were you ? 

Mr. MiESFEED. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you vote against affiliation or did you vote in 
that election? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I voted against affiliation, 

Mr. Kennedy. So when the strike came along, in April of 1955, you 
did not join the pickets, is that right ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right, 

Mr, Kennedy, You were anxious to get back to work ? 

Mr. MiESFELD, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, Ancl the mass picketing was taking place outside the 
plant gates so that you were unable to get in, is that right? 

Mr, MiESFELD, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, So did you take some steps to try to get to work 
anyway ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what you did? 

Mr. MiESFELD, I believe it was on a Wednesday, four fellows and 
myself tried to gain entrance to the plant in the evening. We drove 
around the plant and there was no way of getting in, so we went in 
through the rear. It was across the field on Kohler Co, property, 
where pickets had been out in the field patrolling where this incident 
occurred, Mr, Oostdyk and myself were caught. 

At that particular time two fellows caught me and took me down to 
the soup kitchen. At that particular time, they asked me, I would 
either sign up in the union or get beat up, and so I signed up, 

Mr, Kennedy, Who said this to you ? 

Mr, MiESFELD. If I am not mistaken, it was 

Mr. Kennedy, Do not be mistaken about it, because you are mak- 
ing a serious charge, 

Mr, MiESFELD. I can't say for sure who that was. 

Mr. Kennedy, But somebody at the strike kitchen did say that to 
you? 

Mr, MiESFELD, Yes, sir. There was a group around me and it is 
pretty hard to say just which one said it, 

Mr, Kenned, But somebody did say, if you do not sign up, you 
will be beaten up, is tliat right? 

Mr, MiESFELD, That is right, 

Mr, Kennedy, That was in the strike kitchen of the UAW ? 

Mr, MiESFELD, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, Who was present? Were there any officials of the 
union present at the time ? 

Mr, MiESFELD, Yes, sir, there was. Mr. Rand was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Donald Rand ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, sir, and Mr. INIazey, 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr, Emil Mazey, he was present? 

Mr, MiESFELD, Yes, sir, I don't believe I can recognize any of the 
other fellows that were present at this time, outside of the local fellows 
from the plant, 

Mr, Kennedy. Who was it that brought you back to the strike 
kitchen ? Do you know who it was that captured you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. A fellow by the name of Marciano. 

Mr, Kennedy. Marciano? 



IMPROPER ACTrVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8423 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, Serevedo Marciano. I knew him quite -well, 
and I used to play baseball with him, and we did bowling together, 
and so he and I got along pretty good. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you decide to sign up ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed up with the union ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, sir. After I signed up they treated me pretty 
nice and they gave me coffee and doughnuts, and Mr. Burkhart took 
me home and he told me I should come back the next morning and 
start picketing with the boys. 

The Chairman. Why did you sign up ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, it was either sign up or get beaten up. 

The Chairman. Did you want to join the union at that time ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, I signed a card. 

The Chairman. I know you signed a card, and I asked you if you 
wanted to join the union at that time. 

Mr. MiESFELD. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not want to ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But you took a choice of either signing under that 
threat, or getting beat up ? 

Mr. jSIiesfeld. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did they have anything there present to indicate 
to you that they meant what they said about beating you up ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I think so. 

The Chairman. Wliatwasit? 

Mr. MiESFELD. The number of men that they had around. 

The Chairman. "V^Hiat else? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, the determined looks on their faces. 

The Chairman. What else? 

Mr. MiESFELD. You can tell if a man says he is threatening you, or 
if he is just saying that as a joke. 

The Chairman. Did you see your partner who had tried to get in 
the plant with you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Not at that particular time. He came in a little 
later. 

The Chairman. He came in a little later ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was his condition ? 

Mr. INIiESFELD. He already had been beaten up. 

The Chairman. He had already been beaten up ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. Had you signed up before he came in, or was it 
afterward ? 

Mr. MiESFEiJ>. I don't remember. 

The Chairman. You do not remember? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No. 

The Chairman. I imagine that pretty much confirmed your think- 
ing as to what they would do to you, after you saw him ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is tnie. 

The Chairman. You became pretty thoroughly convinced at that 
time? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes. 



8424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIE-S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Now, were officers of the union present in that 
kitchen that night ? 

Mr. MiESFFXD. Yes, they were. 

The Chairman. Who were the officers? What position did they 
hold? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, I recognized Mr, Rand. 

The Chairman. What is his position ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I believe he is an international man. 

The Chairman. An international representative? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes. 

The Chairman. Wlio else ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Mr. Mazey. 

The Chairman. What is his position ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I believe he is secretary-treasurer of the UAW. 

The Chairman. Now, I want to ask you, did they know that you 
were being threatened ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I believe they did. I believe they did. 

The Chairman. You do not think there is any doubt about it, do 
you? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No, I don't. 

The Chairman. You know they knew you were being threatened ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, they were close enough, and they certainly 
heard what was going on. 

The Chairman. Well, the whole thing was an atmosphere of coer- 
cion, wasn't it, bringing you in there, and you did not go up there 
voluntarily ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No ; I didn't. 

The Chairman. You had been forced to go up there ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. After you got there, you were going to get beat up 
if you did not sign a card ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is true. 

The Chairman. They are bound to know what happened, aren't 
they? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes. 

The Chairman. Notwithstanding this issuing of orders and pam- 
phlets and so forth that they did not believe in violence, they had 
officers there who were actually practicing it by threatening you and 
making you sign a card ; isn't that the truth ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is true. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

All right ; thank you, sir. 

Mr. Rauii. We would like some questions submitted through the 
Chair to this witness, based on previous testimony. I have not had 
time to write them all out. 

The Chairman. He can be recalled for it. 

Mr. Rauh. It is very significant, Mr. Chairman, This witness has 
testified twice before, and there was not a word said about this very 
charge he has made here. 

(Mr. Rauh submitted a document to the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Did you testify before the NLRB at a hearing 
involvine: this strike ? 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8425 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. How long ago ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Possibly 2 or 3 years ago. 

The Chairman. Some 2 or 3 years ago ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were you asked, or did you testify at that time to, 
anything regarding the coercion that had been imposed on you? 

Mr. MiESFELD. To my knowledge, I testified about the same as I 
did today. 

The Chairman. You were asked about it; how you happened to 
sign up ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you say, according to your recollection, you 
testified about the same as you did today ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. You may not have been asked the same questions. 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is true. 

The Chairman. But, in effect, you testified the same ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you say there is any difference in the substance 
and meaning of your testimony that you gave then and what you have 
given here today ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No. 

The Chairman. All right. You may stand by. 
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, did you make any statement that there 
was no coercion ? 

Mr. IVIiESFELD. I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you asked about the coercion ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not make a statement at that time that there 
was no force or coercion used against you, as far as signing up with 
the union ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No, sir. 

Mr. Rauh. Would you ask him about tlie testimony in front of the 
Wisconsin Employment Eelations Board, please ? 

The Chairman. I did not recognize this "WERB." Did you tes- 
tify before the Wisconsin board, the WIilRB? What does it mean? 

Mr. Rauh. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. 

The Chairman. Did you also testify before that board in a hear- 
ing? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes. I thought that was w^hat you were referring 
to. 

The Chairman. I referred to the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. MiESFELD. That, I don't believe I testified at, and I can't re- 
member. 

The Chairman. You cannot remember testifying before the Na- 
tional Board, but you did testify before the Wisconsin board ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. So that the testimony that you have given with 
respect to what happened before the board, and your testimony, you 
were referring to the Wisconsin board and not the National Board ? 

Mr. Miesfi:ld. That is right. 

The Chairman. So your testimony still stands ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is correct. 



8426 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIElrD 

The Chairman. With respect to that board? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell eitlier one of those boards that you were 
told if you did not sign up you would get beaten up ? 

Mr. AliESFELD. Yes, sir ; I believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the Wisconsin board that ? 

Mr. MiESFELD, I believe I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have an affidavit that you made out, I guess for 
the company, before Edward J. Plammer, notary public, Sheboygan, 
on the 8th day of April, which must have been about that period of 
time, and you do not make any statement about that in there, about 
being threatened. You said you came in and they treated you very 
nicely. 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right, after I signed up, 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not make any statement in here about that. 
You said that Marciano was a friend of yours and vouched for you, 
and that you were O. K., and then that they brought you or helped 
you along because you had been hurt when you fell down. 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy, They brought you along, and everybody treated you 
very nicely ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is true. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'V\^iy didn't you put in that affidavit the fact that 
they had threatened you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Miy didn't you put in the affidavit that they had 
threatened you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I don't believe it was brought up at the time. 

The Chairman. Are you still a member of the union ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I wouldn't know. 

The Chairman. You have not paid any dues since that time ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you attended any union meetings ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is what it states here, and it is somewhat differ- 
ent, and I can see the ])oint that is being raised here. This is when 
you are in the strike kitchen : 

Mr. Burkhart asked me what I was doing out there, and I told him that I 
did it for dare, and he asked me who else was in the group, and I told him the 
only one I knew was Oostdyk. And he asked for my company pass, and I said 
I didn't have it, and I showed him my driver's license. 

Burkhart asked me if the company had put us up to this, and I told him no. 
He said that I had belonged to their union before and asked why I quit, and I 
told him I did not believe in unions any more. He then asked me to sign a card, 
and I did it to get out of there. 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said here that you did it because they 
threatened you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. I didn't talk to Mr. Burkhart until after I had been 
threatened. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says here that you were talking to Burkhurt, and 
then you signed up with the union to get out of there. 

Mr. MiESFELD. Before I talked to Mr. Burkhurt, I talked to this 
other group of fellows there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8427 

The Chairman. Do you recognize what the Chair presents to you 
now ? Do you recognize this as a photostatic copy of an affidavit that 
you signed on the 8th day of April 1954 '^ 

The clerk will please present this copy to the witness. 

(A document was handed to the witness. ) 

The Chairman. Examine it and satisfy yourself whether that is 
the affidavit that you signed. 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That affidavit may be made exhibit No. 3 for refer- 
ence only. 

(Document referred to was marked Exhibit No. 3 for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. I have some questions. 

Mr. Miesfeld, was Emil Mazey in the group that questioned you 
that night, or talked to you ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. I didn't talk to Emil Mazey, but he was present. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he question you at all ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. No, he didn't. 

Senator Goldwater. He did not talk to you at all ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. No. 

Senator Goldwater. But he was in the room ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. 

Mr. Kauh. Mr. Chairman, we ask that in addition to exhibit 3, the 
affidavit, that we be permitted to submit into the record at this point 
the testimony of Mr. Miesfeld before the National Labor Relations 
Board, to demonstrate he was not telling the truth when he said he 
did not testify there, and his testimony before the Wisconsin Employ- 
ment Relations Board, to demonstrate he never, at any time, said that 
anybod}^ at the soup kitchen had said, "Sign up or be beaten up." 
And we ask that this be seriously considered for perjury charges. 

The Chairman. The Chair will have the staff examine the file. 
I think we have the record of his testimony before the National Labor 
Relations Board. 

It will not be made a part of the record at this time, until the staff 
has examined it, and we may proceed. 

Are there any further questions of the witness ? 

I will ask that my attention be called to this document after it has 
been examined. 

Mr. Kennedy. I guess we have copies of both testimony. 

The Chairman. We will handle this matter whenever we can ascer- 
tain that we have a true copy of the transcript of his testimony. 

Call the next witness. 

You may stand aside for the pv- »nt. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Kexxedy. Fred J. Daley, please. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear 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. Daley. I do. 



8428 empropp:r activities in the labor field 

TESTIMONY OF FRED J. DALEY 

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

Mr. Daley. Fred J. Daley, 4215 Superior Avenue, Sheboygan. My 
business is an operator of vending machines at the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Fred J. Daley? 

Mr. Daley. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Daley. Do you waive the right 
of counsel ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You serviced and owned some of the vending ma- 
chines in the Kohler plant during the time the strike was going on ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during that first week of the strike, did you 
intend to go in and try to service those machines ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And take care of them ? 

Mr. Daley. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find it impossible to get through the picket 
line? 

Mr. Daley. I approached the picket line and I was told by the 
picket captain that it would be necessary to obtain a pass. 

Mr. Kennedy. To obtain a pass to get into the company ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what steps then did you take to obtain a pass? 

Mr. Daley. I was told by the picket captain that it would be neces- 
sary to go to the soup kitchen, and I went to the soup kitchen, and I 
met a Mr. Kay Majerus, an international representative. 

The Chairman. ]Met who ? 

Mr. Daley. Mr. Kay INIajerus. And I explained my reason for 
being there, and he said that he thought I would have to go before a 
strike committee board meeting. 

I asked him where that would be, and he said that tliey, at the time, 
were having a meeting at region 10 headquarters in Sheboygan. So 
he went to a telephone and called and made arrangements that I 
could attend that meeting that morning. So I therefore proceeded 
and went to the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened there? 

Mr. Daley. I explained to the committee meeting my purpose of 
wanting to enter the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was present at that meeting? Did you know 
any of them ? 

Mv. Daley. Yes. There was Mr. Grasskamp, the president; Mr. 
Kohlhagen, the recording secretary. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Arthur Bower? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, the vice president. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was another union official ? 

Mr. Daley. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what did they say to you at that time? 

Mr. Daley. They asked me what my purpose was for wanting to 
enter the plant, and I explained to them that I wanted to service and 
maintain the equipment tliat I had in the plant. Then there came 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8429 

a discussion as to what should be done about that. They requested 
that I be allowed to go into the plant and shut off the machines, but I 
couldn't agree with that procedure. Well, after a little haggling, 
they suggested that I leave and they would discuss it amongst them- 
selves and let me know then what the agreement would be. 

So Mr. Kohlhagen called me that afternoon and said if I would 
meet him on the picket line the next morning at 8 o'clock, he would 
present me with a pass, which he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was some opposition, was there not, to giving 
you a pass ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes. There were certain members of the committee 
that objected to the idea of my going into the plant, 

Mr. Kennedy. And the only thing that you wanted to go into the 
plant for was to service the machines ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir ; that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are coin-operated machines ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes. They are vending machines. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, did they give you a pass ? 

Mr. Daley. The ultimate result was that they did give me a pass. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was just for a limited period of time; is that 
right? 

Mr. Daley. The first pass ; yes. It was for about 4 days, and the 
pass read that it was for the purpose of shutting off or deactivating 
the machines. 

Mr. Kennedy. They let you through the picket line when you 
showed the pass ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, before, you had not been able to get through 
the picket line, when you tried to get in before to service the ma- 
chines ? 

]\Ir. Daley. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when you got the pass, they let you through the 
picket line? 

INIr. Daley. Yes. There was no trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went in and serviced the machines. Wliat 
about when you wanted to come into the plant again ? Did you have 
to get another pass ? 

i\Ir. Daley. Well, I received this pass on the 8th, and it terminated 
about the 11th or 12th. So, I called union headquarters the following 
Monday and explained to Mr. Kohlhagen that the pass that they had 
issued wasn't for the purpose that I had applied for one, and I asked 
him the reason why they had incorpoi-ated the deactivating or shutting 
off of the equipment. lie said, "Well, the boys felt that that is what 
I ought to do." 

I explained to him that it wasn't the purpose or wasn't the type of 
pass that I wanted, and he said, "Well, why don't you come back to a 
board meeting and explain your case to the committee?" So, the fol- 
lowing day, I went up and we went through the process of determining 
the validity of my request. We will put it that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, what happened then ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, as I said, there was sort of a hassle and haggling, 
and they finally asked me to leave the meeting, and that they would 
inform me as to whether I w^ould get a pass or not. Mr. Kohlhagen 



8430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES Dv THE LABOR FIELD 

called me tliat afternoon and said there would be a pass in the mail for 
me, which I did receive the next morning. That pass did allow me to 
enter the plant for the purpose of servicing my vending machines. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon were able to use that pass after that? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you go into the plant a number of times then? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you shoAved the pass ? 

Mr. Daley. True, 

Mr. Kennedy. And they always let you in ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir ; that is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other difficulty beyond this? 

Mr. Daley. Not that I recall. 

The Chairman. Why couldn't you get in the plant when you first 
went down there to look after your machines ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, there were, possibly, about 200 pickets at the en- 
trance, and the picket captain informed me that it would be necessary 
to get a pass. I took him at his word for it. 

The Chairman. You made no effort to go in after he told you that ? 

Mr. Daley. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Would you say there Avas force used to keep you out 
of the plant, other than just telling you that you couldn't go in? 

Mr. Daley. No ; there wasn't any force used. I took them at their 
word for it. 

The Chairman. You didn't trv in any way to force vourself into 
the plant? 

Mr. Daley. No. 

The Chair3Ian. You simply went down, and, when the captain of 
the picket line told you that you couldn't go in without a pass, it 
would be necessary for you to have a pass, you deferred to his pro- 
cedure ? 

Mr. Daley. I accepted his word for it. 

The Chairman. You accepted his word for it ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who was the captain ? 

]Mr. Daley. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Did someone identify himself to you as the captain 
of the picket line ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes. I recognized his face, but I don't know liis name. 

The Chairman. You recognized his face at that time ? 

Mr. Daley. As an employee of the Kohler Co. ; yes. 

The Chairman. As one of the employees of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you knoAv noAv who it was ? 

Mr. Daley. No, sir. I never bothered to find out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the minutes of April 13, 1954, of 
local 833 executive-board meeting indicate that time was given to Mr. 
Fred Daley to permit him to present his reasons why a pass should 
be issued to him, or should be renewed, so that he could enter the plant 
and service his machines. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, you were first given a pass 
that read it was for the purpose of your going in to close down your 
machines, to deactivate them. 

Mr. Daley. That is true. I didn't 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8431 

The Chairman. In otlier words, to protect your property. 

Mr. Daley. Yes, but I didn't agree with the deactivation of them. 

The Chairman. So yon went back ? 

Mr. Daley. Correct. 

The Chairman. And you had further negotiations with them about 
it? 

Mr. Daley. Discussions with them about it ; yes. 

The Chairman. And you were successful about that. They per- 
mitted you to be in and service your machines ? 

Mr. Daley. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So, they continued operating; is that right? 

Mr. Daley. Right. 

Tlie Chairman. They were never closed down ? 

Mr. Daley. Never closed down. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason, as I understand it, that you didn't try to 
go through the line was because of the instructions that you had gotten 
from the picket captain that you would not be allowed to go through ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. True. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this, you felt, was the only way you could get 
into the plant to service your machines, to get a pass ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. That is correct. 

The Chairman. May I ask you, who did the concession come from, 
if you owned the machines? Did the concession come in from the 
company or from the union, to operate the machines ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, at that particular time, it was under the direc- 
tion of the company. Previously it had been under the direction of 
the KWA. 

The Chairman. So your machines were there at the time by the 
authority of the company and not by any union or union authoriza- 
tion? 

Mr. Daley. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Counsel, when you have questions, prepare them and submit them 
in writing. 

Mr. Rauh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

(The document was handed to the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Did you testify at the Wisconsin Employment 
Relations Board hearing involving this strike? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you recall your testimony there ? 

Mr. Daley. Not unless it was presented before me. 

The Chairman. Do you recall that you may have testified tli'it you 
wanted a pass to stay on good terms with the union members? 

Mr. Daley. I didn't state that. Mr. Raskin asked me if that was 
one of the reasons why I applied for a pass. 

The Chairman. Well, was it ? 

Mr. Daley. I agreed with him. 

The Chairman. You agreed with him ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes. 

The Chairman. Well, that was one of the reasons. 

Mr. Daley. That was one of the reasons, yes. 

The Chairman. You didn't want to get the union members mad 
at you? 



8432 IMPROPER ACTivrrrBS in the labor field 

Mr. Daley. Correct, 

The Chairman. You wanted, so far as you could, to cooperate 
with them? 

Mr. ]X4LEY. That is true. 

The CiiAiRJMAN. In other words, you didn't Mant a controversy 
with them, except you ^vanted to continue to operate your machines? 

Mr. Daley. Correct. 

The Chairman. You didn't want to offend them ? 

Mr. Daley. That wasn't necessary. There were no customers. 

The Chairman. That is what I say. You didn't want to offend 
the union ? 

Mr. Daley. I didn't want to offend the union ; no. I had no quarrel 
with them. 

The Chairman. Neither did you want to offend the company, I 
suppose. 

Mr. Daley. No, 

The Chairman. You wanted to get along with everybody, 

Mr, Daley, Right, 

The Chairman, Correct, All right. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr, Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater, The fact remains, however, that you couldn't 
get into that plant to service your own equipment without permission 
from the union ? 

Mr. Daley. That is correct. That was my opinion of it. 

Senator Goldwater, If you had tried to get through that line, you 
probably would not have gotten through, is that correct? 

Mr, Daley, I probably wouldn't have. 

Senator Goldwater, So all you were trying to do, as a private 
American citizen — and you are not a member of the union? 

Mr, Daley, No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater, As a private American citizen, operating a 
business within a plant, was to try to get to your equipment to service 
it, and you were denied that unless you got a pass from the union, 
is that correct ? 

Mr, Daley, That is correct, 

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

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 

The Chairman, Are there any other questions ? 

AH right, thank you. You may stand aside. 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr, Guenther Voss, 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, Goldwater, and Mundt,) 

The Chairman, You do solemnly swear 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, Voss, I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GUENTHER VOSS 

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

Mr, Voss. My name is Guenther Voss. I live at 525 Wilson Ave- 
nue, Sheboygan Falls, Wis, I work at the Kohler Co, in the foundry. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE KA.BOR FIELD 8433 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name is Guenther Voss ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You live at 525 Wilson Avenue, Sheboygan Falls, 
Wis.? 

Mr. Voss. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you work at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have worked at the Kohler Co. for how 
long? 

Mr. Voss. I worked for the Kohler Co. for 9i/^ years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not a member of the UAW ? 

Mr. Voss. I was a member for 1 month. 

Mr. Kennedy. But after that you did not support the UAW, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when they went on strike and began picketing, 
you did not support the picketing ? 

Mr. Voss. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did not become a picket yourself, is that 
right? 

Mr. Voss. No. 

Mi\ K-ennedy. In fact, you wanted to get into work and resume 
your job ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the mass picketing was keeping you out of the 
plant? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you finally return to work yourself? 
After the mass picketing ended ? 

Mr. Voss. No. I returned on, I believe it was, the 8th of April 
1954. I went with a group of four fellows and we couldn't get 
through the 

Mr. Kennedy. You were one of those who went in the back way 
andyou got through ? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Meisfeld and Mr. Oostdyk were caught, and 
you got through ? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were very anxious to get to work ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. On January 17, 1955, you were driving to work 
with some of your fellow employees ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

INIr. Kennedy. This was after the mass picketing had ended, but 
there was still some picketing going on ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Around 6 o'clock you were driving on Kohler Me- 
morial Drive ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what happened? 

Mr. Voss. Well, I was just about to turn off the Memorial Drive — 
there is a stretch of a couple of hundred feet up to the gate — and 
there were nine pickets standing there. That included Mr. Grass- 
kamp. I remember him telling yesterday that he was never in van- 



8434 IMPROPER ACTIVrXTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

dalism, but he evidently knew who threw the rock. He was not more 
than 10 feet away from my car, 

Mr. IvENNEDY, What happened ? 

Mr. Voss. Well, they threw a rock or some kind of a hard object, 
they threw against my rear car door and smashed the window. 

Mr. Kennedy. They smashed a window t 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who threw the rock ? 

Mr. Voss. No, I do not. I was sitting on the opposite side of the 
car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody in your automobile see who threw the 
rock? 

Mr. Voss. Well, they couldn't identify him, but one of the passengers 
saw somebody getting up behind the bunch and threw it and got back 
down again. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was the passenger who identified him ? 

Mr. Voss. That was But Roehl. 

Mr. Kennedy. Arthur Roehl ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And he saw somebody throw a rock ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see the person who threw the rock, your- 
self? 

Mr. Voss. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you presmne that the rock was thrown from the 
group that Grasskamp was in, is that right ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. But you don't know that for sure, do you ? 

Mr. Voss. If Grasskamp was there ? 

Mr. I^nnedy. Yes. 

Mr. Voss. I know he was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your passenger, Mr. Roehl, he appeared before the 
National Labor Relations Board hearing. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. Voss. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was asked some questions regarding this 
event. He was asked a question : "All right, were there some strikers 
or persons standing at the side of the road," and he said "Yes." 

Did you see anyone of those in a throwing motion? 

Witness. No, I didn't see anyone in a throwing motion. I only saw one in a 
crouched position. 

Question. Did you recognize any strikers within 15 feet of the car along 
Memorial Drive? 

Witness. As we made the turn into Industrial Road, I recognized one man. 

Question. Who was that man ? 

Witness. Edward Kalupa. 

Question. From his position, could he have possibly thrown the rock? 

Witness. No, sir. 

Question. Was there any other person whom you recognized among the pickets 
at or near Memorial Drive at that time? 

Witness. None. 

Question. Did you know Allen Grasskamp at that time? 

Witness. Yes, I did. 

Question. Did you see him at that time? 

Witness. No, I didn't. 

Question. Did you see him at any point along Memorial Highway? 

Witness. Not that particular day, no. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8435 

Question. Can you tell me whether or not his name was mentioned inside the 
car after the rocli had strucli? 

Witness. I don't recall. I don't believe so. 

Question. Did anyone in the car say that Grasskamp threw the rock? 

Witness. Not that I can recall. 

Question. Well, did you see it? 

Witness. No, I did not. 

Question. Did you tell Mr. Voss that you saw Grasskamp throw the rock? 

Witness. No, I did not. 

So he evidently did not see Mr. Grasskamp in this group or near the 
individual who he saw throw the rock. 

Mr. Voss. Well, I was the only one — I stopped the car right there- 
on the Industrial Drive when I made that turn, and I got out, and I 
was looking for a policeman ; I looked back over the car and I saw 
Mr. Grasskamp was the first one standing on the corner. 

Mr. Kenn?:dy. But evidently the passenger in your car is the one 
who saw someone throw the rock ? 

Mr. Voss. Somebody mentioned that in the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. He stated this under oath. He also states, in fair- 
ness to Mr. Grasskamp, I think we should develop this, he also states 
that he did not see Mr. Grasskamp in the group from where the rock 
came or near the person who threw the rock. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, this witness is under oath, 
isn't he? 

The Chairman. I believe I swore him. 

Senator Goldwater. I believe this witness stated that he also saw 
Allen Grasskamp in the group. I can't figure out just what the coun- 
sel is trying to drive to. It is highly possible that other people in the 
car didn't see Mr. Grasskamp. But this particular man said that he 
did, as I understand it. 

The Chairman. The Chair has been occupied here reading the 
former testimony of a witness. I am not sure just what has occurred. 
I apologize, but I have been occupied with something else. What 
was the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. This witness testified regarding a rock-throwing 
incident. He had a passenger in his car. 

This witness, as he was driving — please correct me if I am wrong — 
as he was driving down, a rock was thrown at his car. He did not 
see who threw the rock. He felt from the way the rock struck the 
car that it must have come from a group, of which Allen Grasskamp 
was a member. He had a passenger in the car who saw the person 
tlirow^ the rock, or in a motion of throwing the rock. The passenger 
testified before the National Labor Relations Board that Allen Grass- 
kamp was not in the group and was not with this man who threw 
the rock. I just felt that the passenger was not here testifying before 
the committee, but that his testimony regarding the incident should 
be known to the committee in fairness to all, and the members of the 
committee can determine for themselves what the facts are. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair get it understood. 

You were one of the nonstrikers? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And you were driving the car at what time and 
where ? 

Mr. Voss. At 6 o'clock I went to work on Memorial Drive. 

The Chairjian. On what ? 



8436 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Voss. On Memorial Drive. 

The Chairman. Six o'clock in the morning? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What happened? 

Mr. Voss. Well, just when I was about to turn off of Memorial 
Drive there were 9 of them standing there, I believe it was about 9 
of them 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Voss. Nine of them. 

The Chairman. Nine people standing there? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. And I was turning into the road up to the gate 
into the parking lot, and this incident happened, when somebody 
threw a hard object. I don't loiow what it was, but 

The Chairman. Where did the rock hit your car ? 

Mr. Voss. The right rear door window. 

The Chairman. Which side of the car? 

Mr. Voss. Right. The right rear door window. 

The Chairman. Right rear door window ? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did it break the window ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who threw the rock? 

Mr. Voss. That I don't know. 

The Chairman. Did it come from that group of 8 or 9 people, or 
9 people, that you saw earlier standing there ? 

Mr. Voss. Well, I must believe that it did come from that group. 

The Chairman. You what? 

Mr. Voss. I believe it came from that group. 

The Chairman. You believe it came from that gi'oup ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you see the rock before it struck, while it was 
in flight? 

Mr. Voss. No. The windows were steamed up. 

The Chairman. The windows were what ? 

Mr. Voss. They were steamed up. 

The Chairman. They were steamed up ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. The side windows were steamed up. 

The Chairman. So you didn't see the rock. All you know is that 
it hit and crashed the glass in the rear of your car? 

Mr. Voss. I did not see the rock, no. 

The Chairman. Did the rock go into the car ? 

Mr. Voss. No. But all the glass flew over there. 

The Chairman. You never clid see the rock ? 

Mr. Voss. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. You don't Imow that it could have been a rock 2 

Mr. Voss. No. 

The Chairman. It could have been something else ? 

Mr. Voss. It was a hard object. 

The Chairman. But something hit and broke the glass ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is this a picture of your car and the broken glass ? 

(Photograph handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. That picture may be made exhibit 4, for reference. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8437 

(The document referred to was marked Exhibit No. 4 for reference 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

The Chairman. Who threw the rock or whatever it was that hit 
your car? 

Mr. Voss. That I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't know anyone that threw that missile, 
or whatever it was, that hit your car ? 

Mr. Voss. No. 

The Chairman. Did you know anyone in that group of men ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. Wlio? 

Mr. Voss. Mr. Grasskamp was there. 

The Chairman. Who ? 

Mr. Voss. Grasskamp. 

The Chairman. Allan Grasskamp ? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did you know anyone else ? 

Mr. Voss. No ; I did not. 

The Chairman. Did you see any motion from him or any at all 
on his part that indicated he may have thrown it ? 

Mr. Voss. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. You didn't? 

Mr. Voss. No. 

The Chairman. Who was in the car with you ? 

Mr. Voss. There was Roehl 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Voss. Arthur Roehl and a fellow by the name of Willard 
Lemeheiu, and Jerome Billmans, and a fellow by the name of 
Tempes. 

The Chairman. There were some sitting in the back seat? 

Mr. Voss. Two in the back seat and three in the front. 

The Chairman. Five of you in the car ? 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

The Chairman. As I understand, you six were nonstrikers? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

The Chairman. You were trying to go to work ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

The Chairman. Was Allan Grasskamp one of the strikers? 

Mr. Voss. He was president of local 833. 

The Chairman. He was president of that local ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

The Chairman. And was he on strike with the others ? 

Mr. Voss. Pardon ? 

The Chairman. Was he one of the strikers ? Was he one of them 
that walked out ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

The Chairman. So you don't know whether he threw it or not? 

Mr. Voss. No, I do not. 

The Chairman. But you know he was in the crowd ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you ever try to find out who threw it ? 

Mr. Voss. Well, I stopped at the next corner and told the police 
about it. They went down there, and after I got home from work 

21243 — 58— pt. 21 8 



8438 IMPROPER AC'TIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I called the police station and tried to talk to the chief but he wasn't 
in. I believe tliey never did find out who threw it. 

The Chairman. Did you ever talk to Grasskamp about it yourself 
and ask him if he knew anything about it ? 

Mr. Voss. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. Why ? 

Mr. Voss. Well, I don't think we could have a very friendly con- 
versation. 

The Chairman. You don't think what? 

Mr. Voss. I don't think we could have a very friendly conversation. 

The Chairman. You don't think you could have a very friendly 
conversation. 

Mr. Voss. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But are you confident, and you state under oath, 
that someone in that group of 8 or 9 men threw something that hit 
your car ? 

Mr. Voss. I believe so. 

The Chairman. What is the issue now ? 

Senator Goldwater. There was no issue, Mr. Chairman, except 
that this man is testifying under oath that he saw Allan Grasskamp 
in that group, and the counsel is reading the testimony of another 
man in the car that said that particular person didn't see it. I think 
from what I gather we are trying here to doubt the veracity of this 
witness. 

The Chairman. Is Allan Grasskamp here as a witness ? 

Senator Goldwater. I suggest that if we want to follow this mat- 
ter, we follow the particular person the counsel has reference to and 
ask him these questions. It is highly possible that he didn't see Mr. 
Grasskamp. But this man says he did see Mr. Grasskamp. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Grasskamp here ? 

^Iv. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this witness made an affidavit at the 
time which said that deponent's passenger, Arthur Roehl, was seated 
in the rear of the car on the right-hand side. Deponent was told by 
said passenger that he saw a picket standing in the group with Allan 
Grasskamp stoop down and pick up something, and a few seconds 
later he saw a rock hurtling at the car. The picket wore a bright-red 
hunting cap and solid-green jacket. The witness, Arthur Roehl, about 
whom this witness had testified, testified under oath before the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board regarding this whole incident, and re- 
garding the fact that he saw the picket in a motion as if throwing the 
rock. He said Allan Grasskamp was not in the group. I am not say- 
ing who is right or who is wrong. I think in fairness to Allan Grass- 
kamp, the other witness, and everybody concerned, that that informa- 
tion should be put into tlie record. 

If you have an objection to putting that information into the rec- 
ord, Senator, that is one thing. But I think out of fairness, these are 
people who knew about the w^itness. 

Senator Mundt. Does your witness or the man who makes the affi- 
davit 

Mr, Kennedy. This is the man who made the affidavit. 

Senator Mundt. You were quoting from somebody, I thought, wdio 
was not here. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8439 

Mr. Kennedy. This man made an affidavit right after the incident 
occurred. That affidavit was contradicted by the man before the 
National Labor Relations Board. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about whomever you are reading 
from, about the NLRB. Did the man before the NLRB say Mr. 
Grasskamp was not in the group or does he say he did not see him in 
the group. I think there is a vast diti'erence between those two state- 
ments. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not see him. 

Senator Mundt. Conceivably, he could be in the group but not be 
seen, but if he looked the group over and knew them all and said he 
was not in the group, then I think that would be pertinent testimony. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I read his exact testimony. 

Senator Mundt, I did not hear it. Read it again so we can find 
out whether he said he was not in the group or whether he didn't see 
him in the group. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do you want to have the whole thing ? 

Senator Mundt. Just that part of it. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Question. All right, were there some strikers or persons standing at the side 
of the road? 

Witness. Yes. 

Question. Did you see anyone of those in a throwing motion? 

Witness. No ; I didn't see anyone in a throwing motion. I only saw one in 
a crouched position. 

Question. Did you recognize any strikers within 15 feet of the car along 
Memorial Drive? 

Witness. As we made the turn into Industrial Road, I recognized one man. 

Question. Who was this man? 

Witness. Edward Kapula. 

Question. From his position, could he have possibly thrown the rock? 

Witness. No, sir. 

Question. Was there any other person you recognized among the pickets at or 
near Memorial Drive at that time? 

Witness. None. 

Question. Did you know Allen Grasskamp at the time? 

Witness. Yes ; I did. 

Question. Did you see him at that time? 

Witness. No ; I didn't. 

Question. Did you see him at any point along Memorial Drive? 

Witness. Not that particular day ; no. 

Senator Mundt. He did not say Mr. Grasskamp was not there ; he 
only said he did not see him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I think there is something very mysti- 
fying to me. This is January 17 at 6 o'clock in the morning. 

Mr. Voss. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. It is completely dark at that hour. Did you have 
street liglits there so that you could see all of this going on and recog- 
nize these people ? 

Mr. Voss. Well, it wasn't that dark. 

Senator 1te.». You just testified that your windows were all steamed 
up, and here it is, it is January 17, 6 o'clock in the morning, and it is 
surely dark. It doesn't get light until about 7. 

Mr. Voss. I did not see Mr. Grasskamp through the window. 

Senator Ives. How could anybody in your case see Mr. Grasskamp 
or anybody else? 



8440 IMPROPER ACTIVrTlES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Voss. I went out of the car, right after the stone was thrown 
at my car, or wluitever it was. I stopped the car and I got out and 
looked for a policeman. 

Senator Ives. Was there a street lamp there? 

Mr. Voss. No, it was not. 

Senator Ives. It was pitch dark? 

Mr. Voss. I wouldn't say it was pitch dark. 

Senator I\t:s. It is pitch dark at 6 o'clock, if your terms are right 
here, it is pitch dark at 6 a. m., on January 17. I can tell you that 
myself. 

Mr. Voss. They had some pretty bright lights up on the main gate, 
they have there. 

Senator Ives. That is what I was trying to find out, if there were 
some lights there. I still don't see how you knew one could see a stone 
being thrown, or anything else, so that you would recognize it, through 
a window that is supposed to be all steamed up at 6 o'clock in the morn- 
ing, on January 17. It doesn't make any sense to me. 

The Chairman. This witness testified he did not see it. 

Senator Ives. He said somebody saw it. 

Mr. Voss. Someone in the car mentioned they saw it. 

The Chairman. Did you see anyone you recognized after you got 
out of the car ? 

Mr. Voss. I recognized Allan Grasskamp. 

The Chairman. What you could not see when in the car you could 
see better after you got out of the car ? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

The Chairman. After you got out of the car you saw Allan Grass- 
kamp, and where was he ? 

Mr. Voss. Standing right on the edge of the group. 

The Chairman. At the end of the group ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was a part of the group that you 
had just passed? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you recognized him after you got out ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you knew he was there ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes, sir ; I knew it. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Voss, let us get this down to something 
solid. You did not get out and punch that hole in your own window, 
did you ? 

Mr. Voss. No ; I guess not. 

Senator Goldwater. Something knocked the hole in the window, and 
in fact from the picture it destroyed pretty much the whole of the pane ; 
isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. You got out of the car and you saw Mr. Grass- 
kamp standing there ? 

Mr. Voss. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Was this the first time that rocks had been 
thrown at your car ? 

Mr. Voss. That was the only incident with my car. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have gravel or stones thrown at your 
car in August of 1954? 



IMPROPER ACnVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 8441 

Mr. Voss. Yes, there was gravel, kicked up. There was gravel 
kicked onto my car or thrown, and I don't Imow. 

Senator Goldwater. But it did not do any damage ? 

Mr. Voss, Well, it scratched a little paint off. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you recall of any other instances of rocks 
being thrown at cars during this strike ? 

Mr. Voss. I did not see any. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you hear of any ? 

Mr. Voss. I cannot recall whether I did. 

Senator Goldwater. The fact of this questioning is that, one, an 
object struck your right rear window and knocked a hole in it, and 
two, that you saw Mr. Grasskamp as a member of this group ? 

Mr. Voss. That is true. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

May I ask you if any of the others got out of the car when you did ? 

Mr. Voss. No, they did not. 

The Chairman. They remained in the car? 

Mr. Voss. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then you drove off ? 

Mr. Voss. That is, I drove up to the gate and talked to the police- 
man. 

The Chairman. All right, you may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the company has a movie, and some 
pictures that they would like to show on this mass picketing. 

The Chairman. AVliile they are arranging for that 

Mr, Kennedy. And we have another witness. 

The Chairman, Wliile they are arranging for that, Mr, Miesfeld, 
will you come around again, please sir ? 

TESTIMONY OF HEEMAN MIESFELD— Resumed 

The Chabrman. I present to you what purports to be or it was rep- 
resented to me as being a copy of your testimony before the Wisconsin 
Employees Relation Board and I ask you to examine it and I think 
you have examined it. Hasn't a member of the staff presented this 
to you ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I ask you to examine it again and state if you iden- 
tify it as being a copy of the transcript of your testimony before that 
board. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Miesfeld. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 5 for reference only. 

(Document referred to was marked Exhibit No. 5, for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined it sufficiently to tell whether 
there is any conflict in the testimony that you gave before the Wiscon- 
sin Board and that that you gave here this morning ? 

Mr. Miesfeld. Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman, Wliere is the conflict ? 

Mr, Miesfeld, In the bottom, in the part about coercion. 

The Chairman. In the part about coercion? 

Mr. Miesfeld. That is right. 



8442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LtABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I call your attention to some of the things you testi- 
field to at that time. 

Among other things, this is after you had gotten to the kitchen now 
and you were talking to Mr. Burkart : 

Who did you talk with after you got into the stril<e kitchen? 
Answer. Well, I talked to Mr. Burkart, and the other fellows, I did not know 
by name. 

Question. Was the conversation friendly with Mr. Burkart? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you have any talk with anyone else at the time? 

Answer. I talked with quite a few fellows that worked with me out there. 

Question. Was there anything unfriendly or hostile? 

Answer. No, I can't say. 

Question. In any of the conversations? 

Answer. No ; they weren't unfriendly or anything to me. 

Then I read further down in this transcript the following : 
Question. Was that conversation friendly- 
referring to a conversation with Mr. Burkart. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Did you, at the time you were at the strike kitchen, discuss the 
matter of the union and joining the union, Herman? 

Answer. Well, Marciano and I were talking about it, and on the way down to 
the strike kitchen, and when I got down there they asked me if I wanted to sign 
up and I said sure I would sign. 

Question. Was there any force or coercion used on you to sign up? 

Answer. No, sir ; not me. 

Question. Do you consider yourself a member now of the local? 

Answer. Yes. 

Wliat part of that testimony which you gave before that board, to 
which I have referred, is true and what part is untrue ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. It is all true. 

The Chairman. It is all true. Your testimony here this morning is 
quite in conflict. 

Mr. IVliESFELD. The testimony here this morning — or the testimony 
at that particular time did not bring out the questions that were 
brought out this morning. 

The Chairman. In other words, they did not ask you the questions, 
you think, to bring out that ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are you saying now, this morning, that they were 
friendly ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, let us put it this way : If it had not been for 
Marcianno, I would have taken quite a beating out there. 

The Chairman. You still maintain that is the truth about it ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is the truth. 

The Chairman. Why didn't you tell them there that it was not 
altogether friendly and that they did threaten you, instead of saying 
they did not coerce you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. The man who questioned me last time did not ask 
me what transpired out there. He was referring to what happened 
in the strike kitchen at that particular time. 

The Chairman. Where were you threatened ? Was it in the strike 
kitchen or outside of the kitchen ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. This all happened when I first got caught, outside 
of the strike kitchen. 

The Chairman. When you first got caught? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LAB^OR FIELD 8443 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who made the threat then? Who caught you, and 
who made the threat ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Those fellows I did not recognize. I recognized 
only one man, and it was Marcianno, and he was the fellow who con- 
vinced the other fellows to leave me alone, and he said I was hurt 
and he is going to take me down to the strike kitchen, and on the way 
down there they talked to me about signing up. 

The Chairman. You are saying now, as I understand you, that it 
was the folks who caught you, after you had fallen and hurt yourself? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. They threatened you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. And it was this friend that intervened and said 
he would take you down to the strike kitchen ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. So, it was not at the kitchen where the threats 
were made ; is that what you are testifying to now ? 

ISIr. MiESFELD. Well, I mean at that particular time there were so 
many people around there. You have some that are friendly, and 
some that are hollering at you, and what would you call it, friendly 
or not friendly ? 

The Chairiman. I was not there, and I could not call it. I would 
have to ask you. 

Mr. MiESFELD. The particular fellows that I talked to, when I 
talked to JMr. Rand, he was very friendly, and he never threatened 
me. I talked to a couple of other fellows there, and they were all 
right, but yet there were some in the background who were very 
unfriendly. 

The Chairman. You can well see, now, that your testimony ap- 
parently is conflicting, and I can appreciate sometime you are not 
asked everything, and you don't think to give all or relate all of the 
facts as you know them. I am trying to be absolutely fair to you. I 
Avant to find out what the truth is, but, on the face of it, there is a con- 
flict between the testimony that you gave here earlier this morning 
and the testimony that you gave before that board. What is your 
statement about it? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, I made a statement before, if it had not been 
for this Marcianno, I would have taken a beating out there. 

The Chairman. You would have taken a beating? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. And, had it not been for that threat, you would 
have signed up in the union? 

Mr. MiESFELD. No. 

The Chairman. You felt that you had to sign up, and you still state 
that. 

Mr. MiESFELD. I still maintain that if I had not signed up I would 
have gotten beat up. 

The Chairman. You maintain you would have been beaten up if 
you had not signed up ? 

IVIr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Goldwater. Did you go to the kitchen under your own free 
will ? 



8444 EVIPROPER ACTIVrTIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiKSFELi). Well, I was assisted. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you, in effect, kidnaped and taken down 
there i 

Mr. MiESFELD. What is kidnaping ? 

Senator Goldwater. Going against your will, and taking you by 
force to do something that you don't want to do, or going some place 
you don't want to go to. 

Mr. JMiESFELD. I did not have any choice in the matter. 

Senator Goi^davater. I think that is the essence of this. ISIr. Chair- 
man, I think he has stated what happened, and he has stated it in a 
clear way. Here is a man who has been taken l)y force to a meeting 
place. He did not go of his own free will, and he did not receive an 
engraved invitation, and he did not call up somebody and say, "Boys, 
I am going to be down there in a little while; I want to sign up." 
Someone met him out in the back yard and threatened him and 
escorted him down to the kitchen. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I can understand you went to the strike kitchen 
against your will, and they took you to the strike kitchen; is that 
right ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they stopped you from going into the plant? 

Mr. MiESFELD, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, those are two things that, certainly, we should 
take notice of. Then we get into the next field, the third thing; were 
they unfriendly to you ? 

Mr. MiESFEij). Like I say, there are some friendly and some un- 
friendly. 

Mr. Kennedy, You were asked before the National Labor Relations 
Board, were they unfriendly to you, and you said "No," they were not 
unfriendly to you. 

Mr, MiESFELD, They should have asked me if there were some that 
were not friendly, 

Mr. Kennedy, They asked, was there anything unfriendly or hos- 
tile, or anything, and you said "No," They asked you about any 
of the conversations, and you said "No, they were not unfriendly or 
anything to me," 

There w\as not any qualification that some of them were friendly. 
They asked you a question and you said "No, they were not un- 
friendly." Here you said that the fact was they coerced you and 
threatened you. It is entirely contradictory. 

Mr. MiESFELD, Well 

Mr, Kennedy. You say that you had to sign up or get beaten up, 
when was that said to you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. That was mentioned a number of times, that was 
mentioned in the background when I was talking to the fellows in the 
soup kitchen, and also it happened 

Mr, Kennedy. What do you mean about "in the background" ? 

Mr, MiESFELD. There are 15 or 20 fellows around you and they 
can't all be in the foreground. Someone has to be in the background. 

Mr, Kennedy, Wouldn't you consider that unfriendly ? 

Mr. IMiESFELD. Pardon me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you consider that unfriendly ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8445 

Mr. MiESFELD. Being in the background, no, but the remarks they 
made, yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Would you consider that that was an unfriendly 
remark ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. What? 

Mr. Kennedy. The fact that you were going to get beaten up ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Well, I don't believe it is very friendly. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think you would have stated that at the time. 
You were talking to the chairman here about the fact that you were 
badly treated again at the time that you were picked up in the field. 
Again, I hold no brief for the fact that they stopped you from going 
in the plant or they took you against your will to the soup kitchen, 
but I am just pointing out that at the Board you also said that they 
were very friendly to you there, that you had fallen down in the 
snow, and they ran in and assisted you ? 

Mr. MiESFELD. Yes, they even gave me coffee and doughnuts after 
I signed up. 

The Chairman. All right, is there anything further ? 

This testimony has been made an exhibit and I think the record is 
as complete as we can get it. All right, you may stand aside, and 
are you ready for the pictures? 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, the union requests the right to inspect 
the motion pictures before they are shown on several grounds, if the 
chairman please. 

(The company used at the NLRB hearing a cropped photo.) 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I am going to conduct the hear- 
ings just as fairly as I know how, but I want you to understand now, 
we are not going to let either the union or company run this pro- 
ceeding. 

Mr. Rauh. I am not asking to run it. I am asking to be heard for 
1 minute on this request; that is, that we be allowed to inspect the 
movie before it is shown, because there is prima facie evidence, and I 
think if I could examine the man who took these movies, that these 
movies are a cropped part of a number of reels. 

This is, I believe, about 1 reel out of 12. It could not possibly tell 
the vvhole story, and they should put on all of the movies or none, 
but they shouldn't be allowed to put on part. 

Now, at the National Labor Relations Board hearing the examiner 
found that these movies were unreliable and untrustworthy, and to 
use tliem without letting us see which ones they are and produce a 
witness to the fact that these are cropped photos, seems to us unfair. 

We are not objecting to your using them, and we are asking for a 
right of inspection, which is always granted, Mr. Chairman, then 
possibly later today, or tomorrow, you can put them on; but w^e 
can have our testimony as to how they were prepared and the unfair- 
ness of the fact that they do not tell an accurate story of what went on. 

The Chairman. The Chair does not believe that this committee 
can, nor that it is required to do it, tell everyone that may be involved 
in a hearing what testimony is going to be presented and to let them 
inspect it before it is presented and pass judgment on it. 

I have never seen the pictures and I doubt if any member of the 
committee has seen them. So we are going to inspect them together, 
and any testimony that refutes them, the committee will hear it. 



8446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

If anybody is trying to doctor pictures and present them here, we 
will <i-o to as much extent as is proper to expose them. 

Senatoi- (toldwater. I mifjht say that splicinjy or cuttinof or editing 
film is nothing new to the art. These men at the end of the table take 
thousands of feet of him a day, and probably 300 to 400 feet are used 
in the evening. 

Hundreds of thousands of feet of film are taken in the preparation 
of a normal movie, and it is edited down to a few thousand feet. This 
is a standard procedure, and I might remind Mr. Rauh that it is used 
daily or as often as films are prepared by his own union, and it is not 
an unusual practice, and you try to get the story that is to be told. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that is true, and we all know that 
is true; but at the same time, if a film has been made, and only certain 
parts of it that support one position are shown and the rest is not, 
it would be difficult for the committee to get the full clear picture of 
what happened. 

However, I am going to have the picture shown, and testimony will 
be received that may contradict them or may show, if there is such 
testimony, that the pictures do not represent the true facts. 

All right, proceed with the pictures. 

Mr. Kennedy. This film is being presented by the company, and 
do you want the company witness to come on ? 

The Chairman. I do not know. Is this a picture that the company 
took, or that we have procured from them '? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a picture that the company is presenting to 
the committee for their viewing, and they would like to have it shown, 
and Mr. McGovei-n spoke to me about the company wanting to have 
the film shown this morning. 

The Chairman. Where is the representative of the company who 
knows about the film? 

Mr. Conger. Right here, Mr. Chairman. Are you asking for the 
representative who will show the picture ? I am the attorney for the 
company. 

The Chairman. I want somebody who can testify to this picture, 
and I want sworn testimony before the committee, 

Mr. Conger. "We have a witness here, I think. 

The Chairman. 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. O'Neh.. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWEENCE O'NEIL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, LYMAN C. CONGER 

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

Mr. O'Neil. My name is Lawrence O'Neil, and I live at 437 Autoban 
Road, Kohler, Wis., and I work for the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. How long have you worked for them ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Almost 5 years. 

The Chairman. In what capacity? 

Mr. O'Neil, As an advertising copywriter, and as personal secre- 
tary to Herbert Kohler, president. 

The Chairman. You have counsel present to represent you? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8447 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Identify 5^oiirself for the record, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Conger. I am Lyman C. Conger, I live at Kohler, Wis., and 
I am also counsel for the Kohler Co. 

Tlie Chairman. All right. 

Now, do yon have some moving pictures, Mr. O'Neil ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How did you come in possession of the pictures? 

Mr. O'Neil. I was in charge of photography during the strike. 

The Chairman. You were working for the company ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I was working for the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. In charge of photography work that was being 
done during the strike? 

Mr. O'Neil. And also other work, too. 

The Chairman. We might get to that later, but, particularly, you 
were in charge of the photography work ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These pictures that you have presented here, or 
the company has presented that they want shown, were these pictures 
made or taken under your supervision ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you can testify or vouch for the fact that 
they were taken as a part of the strike activities ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that they so reflect ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now there has been some question here, and you 
may be cross-examined as to what has happened to these films and 
so forth, and so I am going to ask you 2 or 3 preliminary questions, 

Have these films, since they were made, been in your possession ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They have been retained by you from the time they 
were made? 

Mr. O'Neil. Except for the processing to produce this film. 

The Chairman. That was done, and you received them right after- 
ward, after they were processed ? 

Mr. O'Neil. They weren't out of my control. 

The Chairman. They were never out of your control ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right. 

The Chairman. Then you can vouch for their accuracy? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Now, may I ask you this general ques- 
tion: Have these pictures been doctored by cutting them or editing 
them so as to remove any evidence that may be presented that might be 
unfavorable to the company ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir. 

The Chahcman. You are stating positively they have not ? 

Mr. O'Neil. They have been edited, but I wouldn't say they have 
been doctored, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, edited out. Have you edited out that 
part that appeared to be unfavorable to the company? 

Mr. O'Neil. Not in my opinion, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliere is that which is edited out? 

Mr. O'Neil. Where is it? 



8448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. O'Neil. In my office at Kohler. 

The Chairman. We may proceed with these. If necessary, that 
can be made available, that part that has been edited out, is that right? 

Mr. O'Neil. By getting it here from Kohler, Wis. ? 

The Chairman. Well, you have it and it can be made available to the 
committee ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have all of it ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So there could be no question on cross-examination 
as to wliat part was edited out or not, because you have the pictures 
to show ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. I have one other question because some young man 
stood up and made objection, and I did not get his identification be- 
cause I was not here yesterday. 

The Chairman. That is Mr. Kauh, attorney for the union. 

Senator Mundt. The implication of his statement, it seemed to me, 
was that something might have been added which would be detri- 
mental to the union. 

I want to ask you under oath, this question : You have answered to 
the chairman that nothing has been deleted which has been injurious 
to the company, but has anything been added, which is detrimental 
to the union? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Nothing has been added which did not actually 
transpire during the strike, and among the pickets ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you, how long does this movie take, 
approximately? 

Mr. O'Neil. Approximately 40 minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many minutes of film did you take from which 
this is an excerpt ? 

Mr. O'Neil. This represents about approximately 900 feet, and I 
believe I started with 1,300 feet. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is 900 out of 1,300 feet. 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right. There were 400 feet which were edited 
out. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1,300 feet were taken, altogether, of the mass picket- 
ing ? Isn't this the film of the mass picketing ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there were 1,300 feet taken of the mass 
picketincf? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was all that was taken by the company of the 
mass picketing? 

Mr. O'Neil. Will you repeat that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there only 1,300 feet of film taken of the mass 
picketing by the company ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes. I'll answer that, "Yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean ? Wliat were you going to say ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I was going to say there was other film taken but not 
from this location. There were pictures taken of trade movements, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8449 

and there are other movies that were taken, but of this particuhir mass 
picketing area between April 1 and approximately May 25, this repre- 
sents the film that was taken at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was about 1,300 feet taken? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By that particular camera, or wherever it was ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. This is 900 out of 1,300 ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Approximately 900. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, McNamara, Goldwater, and Mundt.) 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to clear up one point. 

Mr. O'Neil, was this film shown at the NLEB hearing? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir ; this film has never been shown. 

Senator Goldwater. It has never been shown before ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No. 

Senator Goldwater. So this is the film to which the attorney for the 
union objected ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does this also include an incident of the clay boat? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes. This includes about 30 foot of film on the clay 
boat, and also film footage taken of vandalism that occurred, paint 
bombings, and dynamitings. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That is 30 feet out of how much ? 

Mr. O'Neil. The clay boat is approximately 30 feet out of about 900. 

Mr. Kennedy. But how much was taken of the clay-boat incident? 

Mr. O'Neil. About 50 feet. 

Mr. Kennedy. So, that is 30 feet out of 60 feet of that. Then how 
much was taken of the vandalism ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would have to estimate about 200 feet, sir, but 1 
am not sure. 

Mr. Kenedy. How many feet are in this of the vandalism ? 

Mr. O'Neil. This is all we took of the vandalism. The movies of 
this vandalism, depicting this vandalism, are taken from still photo- 
graphs of our files. They were not taken at the scene of the vandal- 
ism at the time it occurred. 

The Chairman. Are you prepared to show the film, Mr. Witness? 
Do you have an operator of the machine, projector, or whatever it is ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I understand, sir, the committee has furnished the 
technician. 

The Chairman. I wanted to get the record straight. The gentle- 
man who is operating the machine is working for the committee ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is assisting. 

The Chairman. We will call him an independent operator, then. 
He doesn't represent the company or the union. He represents the 
committee. Is that right ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, to clear up one point. The 
counsel has stated that this is a company exhibit. I have heard of 
this being referred to as a company exhibit before. I think it should 
be made a part of the committee records. I w^ould ask that it be 
made an exhibit in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't mean that. I meant that it was being of- 
fered by the company, is all. 



8450 IMPROPER ACTIVrriES EN THE LiABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. I believe, Bob, in all due respect, you left 
the inference that you didn't particularly want this particular piece 
of testimony, but that the company oii'ered it. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. Let's make it a McClellan exhibit. 
Proceed. 

Senator McNamara. Mr, Chairman, I would like to ask a question. 
Is the photographer who took these pictures here^ Has he been 
identified ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I am not the photographer who took them. I was in 
charge of the photographers who did take them. 

Senator McNAMARiV. The photographer is not available? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir ; he is not here. 

Senator McNamaka. Can we have his name? 

Mr. O'Neil. The name is in a title preceding each date. 

Senator McNamara. Then he will be identified ? 

Mr. O'Neil. He will be iclentihed by name. 

Senator McNamara. All right. 

Mr. O Neil. Mr. Chairman, do I have your permission to explain 
these ? They are silent. 

The Chairman. They are silent pictures ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, I don't know how that is gomg to work, if 
it can be done. Any time you want to stop to make an explanation, 
you are under oath. 

Mr, O'Neil. I would be doing it as the film was rimning, sir. 

The Chairman, All right. You do the talking. We will have it 
a talking movie; go right ahead, sir. Proceed. But you are under 
oath. You are testifying. 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. The film we are about to see will be 
made exhibit No. 6, for further reference and showing, if necessary. 

(The film referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 6'' for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that a man has 
been allowed to speak without examination. Is there to be a record 
of this and a cross-examination of this, giving the Kohler Co. a 
chance to make a speech without examination ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Rauh, the witness is under oath. 

Mr. Rauh. That is correct. But we were not allowed to make 
any direct presentations. Everything we have been allowed to say 
has been under examination. 

The Chairman. You were. The first witness that was placed on 
the stand yesterday, I gave him permission to make a statement of 
his viewpoint. 

Mr. Rauh. He got about two sentences done, and he was 
cross-examined. Here you are about to have a statement without any 
cross-examination whatsoever. You get 40 minutes of talk with no 
cross-examination. 

The Chairman. We will proceed. But we are the ones to do the 
cross-examination, and we will cross-examine him as we want to as 
we go along. 

Proceed with the film. 

I^t us have order. AVe will have a witness testifying, explaining 
this picture as it is shown. We want order so that the reporter can 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8451 

record what the witness says for the transcript and so tinit membei-s 
of the connnittee and others interested may hear the testimony. 

Mr. O'Neil. These tirst scenes [April 5, 1954] show the main gates 
of the Kohler Co., which show the driveways blocked by cars and, 
also, by mass picket lines. That is the southeast gate, blocked by 
automobiles. This is the entrance to the office. The two men in the 
center are union officials, Mv. Bower and a steward by the name of 
Nitscli. This is a gate that was very seldom used, but all these 
various gates that weren't used, nevertheless, were picketed on the 
first day of the strike. This gate was a temporary gate, I believe, 
that, nevertheless, was picketed. To my knowledge, it was never 
used. 

[April 10, 1954.] This picture shows a gantlet the officeworkers 
had to run to go into the plant. The people on either side, watching 
them, are union pickets. 

[April 12, 1954.] This scene will probably be in throughout the 
film. It shows the main gates of the Kohler Co. It shows High 
Street going in front of the plant, the boulevard of elm trees out 
beyond the picket line, separating the plant itself from the village 
by scenery. This represents the entrance to the main gate. The 
picket line with armbands is marching across the entrance, people out 
in front, who have just gone out of view. Those people out in front 
are in an area that is a driveway coming in through the plant. That 
is a union sound truck. 

[April 12, 1954.] This tactic of a mirror was used quite often to 
discourage our photographers from taking pictures. 

There you see nonstrikers approaching the group from the far side 
of the street. You will see how the picket line tightens up when 
people come in in that fashion, and an illustration of belly-to-back 
picketing, or lockstep picketing, we called it at times, too. The crowd 
congregates. Occasionally, the pickets at this gate would call up the 
street for help from other pickets at a gate. There they come now, 
coming down the street. With this camera, we are running out of 
some him this particular day, and we wanted to see just what the 
mirror would do to a bit of film. 

[April 19, 1954.] The gentleman waiving the hat is Frank Wal- 
lich, the international representative. William Vinson was in that 
picture, international representative. The men with the big round 
hats we called goons. They distinguished themselves from the local 
pickets many times by wearing costumes or something of that nature. 
This particular morning, they wore hats. 

The two men leaving — well, you can't see it now. 

[April 2-3, 1954.] Those two men leaving and going across the 
street are nonstrikers who tried to come into work and were turned 
back. That is Mr. Kitzman in front there. You will see him in a 
moment, and Kay Majerus in front of the station wagon. This is the 
morning JNIr. Macey visited the picket line. He is in the group, and 
there they posed for the cameras at this time. 

Mr. Rand, Mr. Majerus, Mr. Kitzman, Mr. Gunaca, all interna- 
tional people were in that picture. 

[April 26, 1954.] This morning, April 26, 1954, is the time that 
Harold Jacobs tried to drive into this gate. In a little while you will 
see the front end of his Pontiac car at the left hand side of the pic- 
ture as he tried to be in the first car, leading his group or leading the 



8452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

people who were trying to come to work, leading them into the plant 
through that entrance. There you see it at the top left, his car. The 
station wagon was pushed, a union station wagon, a sound truck, was 
pushed into the opening of that driveway, and I understand disabled 
by having a part removed from the engine. That is as far as Jacobs 
got. JNIr. Ferrazza is in there, and Mr. Majerus. I believe that sta- 
tion wagon eventually had to be towed away at the direction of 
police. 

Mr. Burkhart was in that crowd. 

[May 5, 1954.] This, again, is that driveway in front of the plant. 
There are some nonstrikers at the top of the picture, led by Mrs. 
Tracey, I believe, Mr. Jacobs who testified yesterday, is there. 

They got that far and then apparently they were turned back. 
People across the street, I think, mainly were nonstrikers, who came 
out to see what their chances were. 

This, again, is a huddle. Sometimes these people came in there 
and there was quite a confab between law enforcement and pickets, 
and shoving coming from the picket line, shoving the nonstrikers 
back out of the entrance area. 

That is Frank Wallich, the international publicity man, who is on 
top of the car with a camera. 

That is William Eawlings waving his hat, one of the union 
stewards, 

[May 10, 1954.] This picture was taken at our southeast gate 
coming into the plant. It is mainly a driveway for automobiles, and 
no foot traffic, to my knowledge. The picture was taken, and the 
barrels and other things you see are in the middle of the driveway, 
nest to the State highway going past there. These two pickets are 
standing: on the railway tracks which go into the property. 

This IS back at the main entrance to the plant, next to our person- 
nel office. Again we have nonstrikers trying to get in, and who were 
turned back. 

[May 11, 1954.] Once more this is the entrance, the main entrance, 
to our plant. I might say, too, most of these pictures were taken in 
the morning before 8 o'clock. 

There is Mr. Sahorske, an international representative, with the 
white baseball cap on. talking to this group. 

I see two men that I can identify as nonstrikers. The international 
men were talking to them in the last scene. This shows the depth, I 
believe, of the picketing pretty well. It was taken from a little dif- 
ferent point of view from a second-story window, the medical depart- 
ment. It shows the lines going in opposite directions, with inter- 
national people and other people, standing out in front before they 
ever get to the picket line. 

Those three men are nonstrikers. They came out to come to work, 
and were received by this crowd. 

Occasionally they would try and go up the grassy boulevard to 
another gate, and they would be followed up to that gate by groups 
of pickets. Those two men — a little bit of horseplay — are Vinson and 
Burns. They were both international representatives. 

Ray Majerus there is talking to the international representative. 

[May 17, 1954.] That is Mr. Burkhart talking to Art Bower, Burk- 
hart international representative and Bower vice president of local 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8453 

833. The nonstrikers are trying to get through there, and that draws 
a crowd of law enforcement officials and pickets. They are taking 
somebody away. I can't determine who is being hauled away. 

eless Ferrazza is shown in tluit picture, and liand, and Sahorske. 

There is Burns talking to one of our nonstrikers. 

And Burkhart, Wallich, Vinson. Burkhart was in the last scene, 
talking to the sheriff at that time, Ted Mosch. 

[May 24, 1954.] This melee is being caused by nonstrikers being 
on this side of the street. These men in the foreground of the picture 
constituted a rear guard in case anybody got through. I always as- 
sumed that their function would be to plug up any holes. 

Tliere is a group of nonstrikers talking to the police. 

This is a group of nonstrikers coming from the far side of the street. 
JNIr. Burkhart is there, watching tliem, and there come 3 more, and 6 
more coming in to the crowd. 

One of them is talking to Rand there. 

These people up at the end of the screen are nonstrikers, trying to 
go into a gate which usually wasn't open, next to the general offices. 
They went uj) to that opening and they were followed on the sidewalk 
and up the little roadway by a group of pickets. 

That is the sheriff, Ted Mosch, walking along, talking to Chief 
Capelle, of Kohler Village. 

Here, I think, the photographer was trying to cover a little bit too 
much with the movie. 

Several people were shoved to the ground in that melee of pushing 
and shoving. The chief of police of Kohler Village is in the center 
of that crowd, and he has a few of the sheriff's deputies around him, 
trying to straighten things up. 

Nonstrikers are in the back of that screen there. 

[May 25, 1954.] This is May 25, when a nonstriker was hit above 
the eye, I believe, across the street, and the opening scene shows the 
people running across to the other side where the fisticuffs took place. 
This man was taken into the Kohler Co. medical building by police 
officers. You will see a picture of him in a few minutes. 1 believe 
they took 3 or 4 stitches above his eye. 

This is the man. I think his name is "Dyke." He was taken to 
the Kohler Co. medical department where he was taken for treatment. 

There are several nonstrikers in the upper part of the screen. I 
think this was a Tuesday morning. If I am not mistaken, the reason 
we took this series of pictures was to show a tactic, yes, tliere it is, 
the alleyway opened up by union pickets. 

They would invito nonstrikers to come on and come on into the 
plant. On one occasion, one of the fellows I saw was kicked and 
kneed a bit trying to go through there, when he accepted the dare of 
the pickets. 

That is John Gunaca, at the head of the line there. 

There are the sheriff's deputies leaving after the nonstrikers had 
left the area. 

[July 5, 1955.] This is July 5, and represents clay boat pictures. 
It will show a Kohler Co, driver getting out of his cab which was 
stopped at that point by the people down at the clay boat dock. The 
driver, I understand, was taken out of that crowd by police escort. 

21243— 58— pt. 21 9 



8454 IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THE LABOiR FIELD 

That is the rig, the crane, or whatever you call it, which was disabled 
and damaged by the crowd. 

These pictures are taken from still photographs. This man was 
beaten up by people at the clay boat area. 

[lleign of Terror by Night], that is a picture of vandalism. It is 
taken from the inside against the window^s. I remember that home. 
I was down there at that time those people built that home. 

Here is a shotgun blast through a living room window, about 2 
or 3 miles outside of Sheboygan. 

This is a man's car. He turned into a country lane to go home, 
and his car was struck simultaneoulsy from both sides by rocks. 

In this home, I believe, the windows on 2 or 3 sides were broken 
simultaneously by heavy rocks going through. 

There is a double thermapane, which took considerable force. 

Here is paint on the Venetian blinds. And rugs were damaged 
and walls. 

Here is a cottage which had sulfuric acid poured every place you 
could pour acid. This happens to be a bed, but it was also poured 
over religious items and objects of that nature. 

Here is a car that w^as damaged in the country, I would say about 
15 miles from the plant. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Turn the lights on. 

Mr. O'Neil, did the union also make pictures, movies, so far as you 
Iviiow, of the strike ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. As far as I know they had men there with 
movie equipment. 

The Chairjman. You don't know whether they made and preserved 
pictures or not? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir, I don't. 

The Chairman. You do know there were union men there with 
movie cameras ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As I understood you in the course of the showing 
of the picture, you referred to a number of union officials in these 
crowds. 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. International officials? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Name those whom you identified in the crowd, 
international or union officers. 

Mr. O'Neil. Emil Mazey, Kitzman, Burkhart, Ferrazza, Kand, 
Majerus, Burns, Vinson, Ganuca. I am sorry, sir. That is all I can 
think of at the moment. 

The Chairman. There is no doubt in your mind that they were the 
union officials you referred to? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Then there is no doubt in your mind that they 
knew that this mass picketing was going on, and that they were there 
present and knowing and sanctioned it ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Were they directing it, do you know ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I don't know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8455 

The Chairman. You just know they were there and they are bound 
to have known what was going on ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And these pictures covered a period of what time ? 

Mr. O'Neil. The mass picketing covered from April 5, 1954, through 
May 25, 1954. 

The Chairman. That doesn't mean that you took pictures each day. 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir, it does not. 

The Chairman. It is on different days, as shown by the film? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. I observed that some had white bands or bands 
around their arms. Did that represent the union members that were 
on strike? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. Those bands had black lettering against a 
white background, with UAW-CIO. 

The Chairman. So the ones with the bands on their arms were 
presumably strikers, and members of the union ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You said something about some of the officers, hoAv 
you identified them. 

Mr. O'Neil. That one particular scene, I don't recall the date, they 
had big, floppy hats on. 

The Chairman. Was that something prearranged as a signal or as 
a means of identification ? Do you know that ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I don't know that, sir. 

The Chairman. The other films, parts of the film, that you edited 
out, you say they are where ? 

Mr. O'Neil. In Kohler, in my office. 

The Chairman. How soon could you get them down here ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I imagine they can have them here by tomorrow. 

The Chairman. I don't know that it will be necessary that early. 
But without objection on the part of the committee, tlie Chair is 
going to direct you to bring those films clown and turn over to the 
committee for the committee's inspection. 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very good idea, 
and I think to keep the thing in balance, we should also subpena the 
union films, so that we have all the films available to the committee. 
We will request them, if they will do it voluntarily. 

The Chairman. You will arrange to have those films brought down 
here and delivered to the committee ? 

Mr. Daley. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. You will do that without a subpena, for that 
purpose ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Ciiair3ian. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt. I did not hear you request the union, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. I am going to request them. 

Mr. Rauh, you are not under oath, but I am asking for informa- 
tion. Do you know whether the union has pictures ? 

Mr. Rauh. I am informed we have none, Mr. Chairman. I just 
asked tlie question of Mr. Mazey. 



8456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiKMAN. You are informed you have no pictures ? 

Mr. IIauii. No. If there are any, they will be delivered voluntarily. 
We will make one more check. 

The Chaikman. The Chair will request you to make a check and 
report to the committee, definitely, as to whether the union has any 
pictures that it took of these incidents. 

Have you anything further, Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. No. If they have no pictures, that settles it. 

The Chairman. We will ascertain that as the witnesses come on. 
We will get it under oath. 

Mr. Rauii. I take it, Mr. Chairman, you were referring to motion 
pictures. I think some of our people have still photographs. 

The Chairman. Apparently here the company went out and took 
pictures. They are company pictures and they presented them. If 
the union has union pictures that they can present, that the commit- 
tee might be interested in, that is what we want to know. I can ap- 
preciate individuals going out and taking some pictures. I am not 
talking about that. I am talking about the matter if the union took 
pictures. 

Mr. Rauh. Of those we have none, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, make a check and have somebody prepared 
to swear accordingly. 

Senator Ervin ? 

Senator Ervin. Mr. O'Neil, who owned these houses that were 
shown as having been subjected to acts of vandalism in these pictures ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Nonstrikers, sir. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, they were on the individual prop- 
erty of the nonstrikers and not property of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. I have no questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The pictures went on to May 25. Is that when the 
mass picketing ended ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Well, I believe the WEEP handed down its cease and 
desist order May 21. May 24 was that big scene of pushing, and May 
25 was the one where the driveways were opened up. Mass picketing — ■ 
it was about that time. I am not sure of the exact date. 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. So it went on from April 5, the first day of the strike, 
with a recess of about 2 days until May 25, is that right ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say until about June 1, sir. I am not sure 
of the date. 

Mr. Kennedy. About June 1. And there were always interna- 
tional officials or officials of the union present during that period 
of time? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were present ? 

Mr. O'Neil. On the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were present virtually every day, 1 , 2, or 
more of them ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir ; that is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. I have j ust one question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8457 

Did you mention at any time in your narration that you had seen 
Mr. Grasskamp on the picket line ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir ; I did not. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, you may stand aside. 

Is there another witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In the same way, Mr. Chairman, the company also 
has some pictures to offer to the committee for evidence. I believe 
it is Mr. Hammer. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Hammer will be prepared to swear to those. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Hammer. 

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. Hammer. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. HAMMER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
LYMAN C. CONGER 

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

Mr. Hammer. My name is Edward J. Hammer. I reside at 501 
School Street, Kohler, Wis. I am an attorney, associated with Kohler 
Co., and am an assistant to Mr. H. C. Conger, also legal counsel of 
Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Then I assume you waive counsel. Do you ? 

Mr. Hammer. I would just as soon have Mr. Conger, sir. 

The Chairman. I beg ^our pardon ? 

Mr. Hammer. I would just as soon have counsel. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Hammer. I said I would like to have counsel. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Counsel, identify yourself. 

Mr. Conger. Ljrman C. Conger. 

The Chairman. We will have the record show the same counsel as 
appearing for the preceding witness. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hammer, you have some pictures that were 
taken by you or imder your direction regarding the mass picketing? 

Mr. Hammer. These pictures were taken under the direction of Mr. 
O'Neil for the legal department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Neil, then, could introduce them, or could 
you introduce them ? I understood you were the witness that was to 
introduce them. 

Mr. Hammer. I understood iny purpose was to identify certain 
people on these pictures, because I am familiar with them. 

The Chairman. Let's have Mr. O'Neil back for a moment, please. 

Mr. O'Neil, you have been previously sworn. Have a seat, please. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE O'NEIL, ACCOMPANIED BY LYMAN C. 
CONGER, COUNSEL— Resumed 

The Chairman. There are presented to you at this time a certain 
number of photographs — and we will ascertain the number and have 
the exhibit show accordingly — a series of a group of pictures. 



8458 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I ask you to examine those pictures and state if you can identify 
them and whether they were made under your direction and super- 
vision. 

(The photographs referred to were lianded to the witness.) 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir; they were. 

The Chairman. There appears to be how many? Did you count 
them? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir; I didn't, but I would estimate around 30. 

The Chairman. I think for further purposes of identification and 
reference, those pictures should be made exliibit No. 7. They will 
have to be numbered for purposes of further identification. The 
whole group of pictures will be made exhibit No. 7, and the indi- 
vidual pictures may be nmnbered 7-A and 7-B, and when you run 
out of the alphabet start over again with AA and BB. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 7A to 
7SS" for reference, and may be found in the files of the select com- 
mittee.) 

The Chairman. I think it is necessary to do tliis to keep the record 
straight, so that when the pictures are presented to witnesses for ex- 
planation or identification, we will know which picture is being re- 
ferred to. 

(At this point. Senator McNamara left the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. \Vliile the clerk is numbering exhibits, let us pre- 
sent to the witness those that are already numbered up to now, and we 
can begin to interrogate the witness about them. 

(The photographs were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Neil, you have identified these pictures as 
pictures made and taken under your supervision. These are still pic- 
tures, representing some aspects of the problem, is that correct? 

Mr. O'Neil. May I confer just moment, please ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Neil. All of them were except some, sir, which were taken 
by press photographers. We made copies of those prints and then 
retained the negative and made some of these prints. 

The Chairman. Do you have the negative of all of these pictures? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you identify them ? Are you testifying that 
you know all of them, from your supervision and work with them, 
are pictures of incidents of this difficulty ? 

]Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Tlie CiiAmMAN. Of those that have been presented to you that have 
already been numbered, are there any among them that you want to 
point out specifically and comment on with respect to what they may 
show ? 

In other words, we have the pictures, but now we need some ex- 
planation of each one, what it shows, and what it represents. 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say they show the area in the main gate, wdiich 
the movie covered rather fully. These are still pictures of many of 
those actions you saw in the movies, sir, in that same general area next 
to our employment office at our driveway. These were stills taken by 
various photographers in that area. 

The Chairman. I understand you care to make no further explana- 
tion about them ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8459 

Mr. O'Neil. I am not quite sure of what you are after, sir. 

The Chairman. I am not sure either. Is there anything that is 
significant about them, that they show something specific that you wish 
to comment on ? 

Mr. O'Neil. It shows the mass picketing of the UAW-CIO across 
the driveway. 

The Chairman. Is that all they show that you might wish to com- 
ment on ? 

Senator Goldwater. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Is it 
possible to identify individuals in those pictures ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you able to identify them, or can some- 
body else identify them ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I can identify some of them, but not too many. 

Senator Mundt. There seems to have been some question as to 
whether or not there were officials of the UAW international on the 
picket line. Do any of those pictures show such officials, and, if so, 
can you identify them ? 

Mr. O'Neil. In some cases I can identify officials of the UAW on 
these pictures, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me if you can, or if Mr. Hammer can, 
that is probably what the chairman has in mind. Then it would be 
significant and we would know from the pictures what witnesses 
might be able to be called from the UAW. 

Mr. O'Neil. A number of international people and local union 
officers can be identified from these still pictures. 

Senator Mundt. I would suggest to the chairman that between 
Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Hammer they identify those people that might 
later be called as witnesses. 

The Chairman. I was trying to lay the foundation for a full iden- 
tification. 

Senator Mundt. I know you were. 

JMr. Conger. Might I make a suggestion that there is a caption on 
the back of each picture. I suppose you Avant that under oath, but 
you might ask the witness about that. 

The Chairman. The Chair has not looked at the caption. Let me 
see one of the pictures. 

( The photographs were handed to the committee. ) 

The Chairman. I want to make an intelligent record so that he 
who reads the record will understand this. In examining the pictures, 
I note there is handwriting on the back of them, identifying the pic- 
tures, and the people in the pictures. Is that correct ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And on the front of the pictures, I notice there 
have been marks down to individuals in the pictures and numbers 
placed at the top. 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On the reverse side of the picture, you have iden- 
tified the person whom the mark indicates as being present in the 
picture ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make these identifications? Is this your 
handwriting on the backs ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir. 



8460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Have you examined all of these to ascertain that 
the markings on them are correct ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who has ? Who can testify to that ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Mr. Conger's department did that. I don't know who 
did it, specifically, sir. 

The Chairman. We do not know, then, at this moment, whether 
these markings are accurate or not, is that correct? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. I thought Mr. Hammer was to do that. 

The Chair]man. Maybe he will. I just said at the moment. 

So you have told us all about the pictures at this time that you 
can ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Hammer. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. HAMMER (RESUMED), ACCOMPANIED 
BY LYMAN C. CONGER, COUNSEL 

The Chairman. Mr. Hammer, I present to you the still photo- 
graphs, a large group of them, I would say some 40 pictures. They 
nave been identified and placed in the hearings as exhibit 7, 7A, B, 
C, and so forth, to identify them. Have you examined those pic- 
tures that you have before you ? 

(The photographs were handed the witness.) 

Mr. Hammer. May I look at the rear side to determine if it is my 
handwriting ? I am sure it is. 

The Chairman. First tell me if you have examined them. 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, I have, numerous times, sir. 

The Chairman. You have numerous times examined them ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you are familiar with the pictures that have 
been made into this exhibit ? 

Mr. Hammer, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are familiar with the handwriting on the 
reverse sides of them ? 

Mr. Hammer. May I look at them ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. Look at enough of them to sat- 
isfy yourself. Unless there is some question, there would be no need 
to examine each one of them. 

Mr. Hammer. A good portion of them are in my handwriting, and 
those that are not were made under my direction. 

The CiiAHiMAN. Then you can state that the pictures are the pic- 
tures that have been kept under your direction and supervision? 

Mr. Hammer, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, And that the identifications marked thereon were 
either made by you personally or under your direction and super- 
vision ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How about the markings on the front indicating 
the identity, which also are designed to help identify the person 
indicated. 

Mr. Hammer, The answer would be the same, sir, under my direc- 
tion or personally done by myself. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8461 

The Chairman. Then do you state under oath that at least ac- 
cording to your best knowledge and belief, the markings of identifi- 
cations of persons shown in the pictures as indicated by the markings 
on the front, No. 1, 2, 3 and so forth, are true and correct as to the 
identification of those persons? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On all of the pictures ? 

Mr. Hammer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a good thought 
to have a list of those names, of the persons identified. 

The Chairman. They can do that on the different ones. 

Is there anything further of this Avitness ? If not, you may be ex- 
cused. The committee Avill stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

Mr. Kauh. Mr. Chairman, I have just one request from the union. 

We request that Mr. Mazey be permitted to have the same amount 
of time this afternoon that the company was granted in this morning 
for uninterrupted presentation of the union's position. 

Mr. Reuther is not in town. Mr. Mazey is here in the room. We 
ask for the same amount of time given the company this morning for 
the presentation of their case. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair say this : My friend, as an attorney, 
knows that you cannot present every Avitness and all the facts at one 
time . It is our purpose to present this in the best way possible so that 
a correct, true, factual picture may be recorded in the record. We are 
going to hear Mr. Reuther, Ave are going to hear Mr. Conger, we are 
going to hear all of them. But I cannot conduct hearings if every 
time I put on a witness, somebody tells me to put on another. 

Mr. Rauh. We would like the record to shoAv our feeling that only 
the company Avitnesses are being heard at this time, and that that is 
unfair to the union. 

The Chairman. I am not going to accept your statement that it 
is unfair to the union. I have tried a few lawsuits myself, and I know 
the proper Avay is to present, is to put on one side at a time. Here 

1 am trying in some instances to give both sides the equal breaks. I 
hope the Chair will be indulged in that respect because A\^e could be 
A'ery arbitrary, Avhich AA'e do not intend to be. We are going to give 
each side a fair chance here. I have no interest in Mr. Company or 
Mr. Union. All I want to get on this record is the truth, under oath, 
insofar as Ave knoAv hoAv to do it. 

The committee stands in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 17 p. m., the hearing recessed to reconvene at 

2 p. m. of the same day Avith the folloAving members of the committee 
present : Senators McClellan, Ervin, Mundt.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

(Members present at the reconvening were Senators McClellan and 
Goldwater. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. LaAvrence Schmitz. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 



8462 IMPROPER ACTIVlTrES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ing but the truth, so help you God ? 
Mr. ScHMiTZ. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE SCHMITZ 

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

Mr. ScHMiTZ. My name is Lawrence Schmitz. I live at 128 South 
Milwaukee Street, Plymouth, and I work for the Sargento Cheese Co. 

The Chairman. Mr. Schmitz, do you waive counsel? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schmitz you were undersheriff of Sheboygan 
County at the time the strike took place at the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. Schmitz, That is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And the Kohler plant is within the jurisdiction of 
the sheriff's office ? 

Mr. Schmitz. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is an undersheriff? 

Mr. Schmitz. An undersheriff is actually a deputy sheriff who 
assists the sheriff in performing the duties of his office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you appointed or elected ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I was appointed. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you appointed ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Sheriff' Mosch. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were present during the period of the 
strike and the mass picketing that took place outside the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. Schmitz. During a good share of the picketing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were present? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to the strike, did you have any meetings with 
the union or company officials ? 

Mr. Schmitz. About 1 year prior to the strike, when there appeared 
to be danger of a strike, I was present at a meeting at the Kohler 
Village hall, I believe. The chief of police of Kohler was there, and 
tlie sheriff and myself, and several other men. 

I believe there were about two of them that were union men, at 
least they were pointed out to me as union men. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But you did not take part in any meeting just a few 
days before tbe strike ? 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did the sheriff put you in charge of the en- 
forcement of the law in the vicinity of the Kohler plant during the 
period of the mass picketing ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I was not actually in charge of the law enforcement 
out there. As close as I can remember, a week or 10 days after the 
strike started, the sheriff asked me to go out there and assist Chief 
Capelle in trying to maintain order in Kohler Village. 

You have to understand the village of Kohler have their own police 
force which ordinarily takes care of everything within the village of 
Kohler. I was out there with some of our officers to assist Chief 
Capelle keeping order. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people did you have out there ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8463 

Mr. ScuMiTz. We had only 12 uniformed officers in Sheboy^jan 
County, and that county comprises an area of roughly 500 sc^uare 
miles. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many did you have there ? 

Mr. SciiiMiTz. At some times, early in the morning, from about 
5 : 30 until 7 : 30 or a quarter of 8, I would have all of the officers out 
there, and there were a few times when we had special deputies out 
there, and I think the greatest number would have been possibly 
15 or 18. 

Now, a special deputy is just an ordinary citizen who had been 
deputized by the sheriff to assist the law enforcement. These men 
have had no training. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are not issued a commission of any kind ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what did you feel your duties were as far as 
these nonstriking employees of the Kohler plant were concerned, who 
wanted to get into work while the mass picketing was going on ? 

Mr. ScriMiTZ. I asked the district attorney of Sheboygan County, 
who is the head legal official in our county, for clarification of my 
duties out there in writing. I asked for this several times, and I 
never was able to get a written opinion. 

However, he did tell me verbally that my duties were to assist these 
people in approaching the picket line, and after they got to the picket 
line, they would have to make their own attempt to go through it. 
Then, if there was any scrap or if there was any trouble on the picket 
Ime, of course whoever would start it would have to be arrested. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you fulfill your duties and responsibilities 
as far as this was concerned ^ 

Mr. SciiMiTz. I tried to, with the limited force I had. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. Did you bring people up to the picket line ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. We went with these people, and we usually went 
ahead of them, I think, as the pictures that you saw this morning that 
were shown here — it showed our officers and myself. Chief Capelle, 
and one of his uniformed officers who was usually out there, attempt- 
ing to take these people through the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people did Chief Capelle have working 
for him ';■ 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. I don't know the exact number, although I do know 
that he was working on three shifts. At no time did I see more 
than, I would say, about 30. 

However, as a general rule, none of his officers crossed High Street, 
wliich is the boulevard street in front of the plant, to assist in trying 
to enter the plant, with the exception of his uniformed men. I 
believe at that time he had three. 

As a rule it was just the chief — and I can't remember the name of his 
next officer who usually went with the chief in the morning, and came 
over here to assist in keeping the line as orderly as possible. 

"Sir. Kennedy. He had more men than you had then ? 

iVIr. ScHMiTZ. Yes ; he had more men than we had. 

Mr. Kennedy. More men than the sheriff's office had ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. Those men were there to help and assist, if neces- 
sary, is that right ? 



8464 IMPROPER ACTivrriES m the labor field 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. I cannot tell you exactly ^vhat his men were for. I 
know that part of them were assigned duties and guarded different 
places, like the pumphouse in the village, and they had walking 
patrols in the village to try and see that there were no disorders away 
from the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien you took people up to the picket line, which 
you w^ere describing, and then the pickets would not allow them in, did 
you make any arrests ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many arrests did you make during this period 
of mass picketing? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. Roughly, I w^ould say possibly between 15 or 18. 

Mr. Kennedy. Fifteen or eighteen arrests ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of those w^ere pickets and how many were 
nonstrikers ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. All of the arrests that I made w^ere strikers. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what happened in connection with those? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. I do not know, sir. I know that in one instance 
where I arrested, or I signed complaints against 11, there was a 
hearing in Donald Kane's court, justice of the peace in Sheboygan 
Falls, and then there was, I believe, an appeal made or there w^as ar- 
gument, and at a later date, I understand that they were all dis- 
missed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you select those 11 that you arrested? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. It was the leadership of the union who were pres- 
ent at the picket line that morning. 

Mr. Kennedy, It w^asn't necessarily those wdio had stopped the 
nonstrikers from getting into the plant, but it was those that ap- 
peared to be in charge of the picket line, is that right? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. It was those wdio were in charge of the union, as far 
as I knew, and I w^ould like to clarify that, at that time. We w^ere 
attempting to find a legal way of opening this picket line without 
bloodshed. 

I had talked to John Buchen, who was the district attorney, and 
asked them what we could do. He looked up our w-isdom laws, and 
this particular law^ stated that any time there w^ere three or more per- 
sons gathered together in a manner so as to, I don't know the exact 
w^ording, but I believe disturb the peace or cause a commotion, it was 
a violation, and he instructed me at that time to try and get the names 
of these leaders out there on that line that morning. 

Because I didn't know many of them personally, Chief Capelle as- 
sisted me at that time in pointing out the different ones. I w\as not 
too w^ell acquainted with the Kohler workers. 

^I live in the city of Sheboygan, which is some distance from the 
Kohler Co., and many of the people are from outside the county, and 
many of them are from the city of Slieboygan, and I did not" know 
a very large percentage of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the ones that were selected were not the ones 
wdio had stopped the nonstrikers from getting into the plant, but 
those who were in charge, or Avho you wei-e told were in charge of 
the picket line, is tliat right? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. That is rijrht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8465 

Mr. Kennedy. And that case was ultimately dismissed in one of 
the courts ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz, That is what I was told, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever called to testify in that case? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. I testified at the preliminary hearing on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever called to testify in the municipal 
court ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. No sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. No, not in that case, no, sir. And it didn't get that 
far. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Where it was dismissed ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. In the justice's court. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you called to testify at the justice's court ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make any other arrests of the people who 
were actually stopping the nonstrikers from getting into the plant ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. I made several other arrests, of one person at a time, 
where I felt that their manner of behavior on the line might cause 
a riot or might cause us to have trouble there where some of them 
would be seriously injured. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened in those cases? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. I am not sure on many of those, sir. All I did was 
sign the complaint before the district attorney. What happened to 
the case after that, I never knew. 

Most of these cases were delayed. They were set over. This was 
an agreement, I believe, between the district attorney and the attor- 
ney for the union. 

The Chairman. The committee will have to stand in recess until 
we can return. There is a roUcall vote in the Senate and we will have 
to recess for that purpose. 

(A brief recess was taken.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess were: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, and Goldwater.) 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Ervin. ) 

The Ci I AIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. Schmitz, we 
will resume with your testimony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you did arrest some of these pickets, did you ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you know what happened in those cases 
with the actual pickets that you arrested ? 

]Mr. SciiMiTZ. No, sir. I know that in one instance there were 
some of the cases tried at the Plymouth justice court, Plymouth, Wis. 
They were found guilty, I believe, and small fines were assessed. On 
the others, I do not know if they ever came to trial. To the best of 
my recollection, I was not called to testify. 

JNlr. Kennedy. Do you feel that you did all that you could do in 
this case to restore law and order and to give these people their rights, 
the individuals who wanted to go to work ? 

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

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. With the amount of help that I had, and 
1 thhik tlie pictures this morning shoAved the size of the picket lines, 



8466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN l^E LABOR FIELD 

witli the small force that I had available, I believe I did the best I 
could. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about Sheriff Mosch, do you feel that he met 
his responsibilities? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That would be a very hard question for me to an- 
swer. I believe that Sheriff Mosch did the best that he could accord- 
ing to his right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by that? What were the things 
that he should have done that he didn't do, in your estimation ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. I do not wish to second guess Sheriff Mosch or any- 
body else. I think that if all of us could do this over again, possibly 
we might do things differently. It is always easier after something 
happened, to look back and say "I should have done this or that." 
But at the time, I believe that he did what he thought was right. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You arrested William Vinson, did you not? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes. I signed a complaint against Vinson. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was an international organizer of the 
UAW? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is what I was told, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Was that for his activities on the picket line ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. That was for activity on the picket line on one par- 
ticidar morning. I am not sure of the date, sir. I believe it was 
about the middle of May. Do you wish me to tell of the incident? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, please. 

Mr. ScHMiTz. On this particular morning, as I recall it, I believe 
one pei-son came across High Street, and approached the picket line 
after first talking to Chief Capelle about entering the plant. I don't 
remember how many officers we had, but we started toward the picket 
line in an effort to force an entrance so this man could go through. 
I was ahead of the group, actually leading the group, of officers, and 
as I got up to the picket line, we were attempting to force those back 
that were on the street itself, back on to the sidewalk. 

I noticed that there wasn't anyone behind me. As I turned around, 
I noticed that Mr. Vinson had gotten in front of this man and had 
bumped him, as I was watching, bumped him with his shoulder. 

I returned toward Mr. Vinson, and, as I recall — it is a long time 
ago, it is almost 4 years — if my memory serves me, he bumped this 
man once or twice with his shoulder, and I grabbed Mr. Vinson and 
placed him under arrest. I took Mr. Vinson out of the picket line 
and took him over to one of our squad cars. The squad car was 
driven by Harvey Feld, who was a uniformed police officer. I told 
Harvey and the officer that was working with him, I don't remember 
who it was at this time, I told him to take Mr. Vinson down to the 
county jail. 

At the same time, one of our deputies, Mr. Federwich had arrested 
another man, and I told Harvey to take both of the men on this one 
trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what happened in that case, as far as 
Vinson ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. From what I was told, I don't know of my own knowl- 
edge, when they got to the sheriff's office, a bondsman was there who 
provided bond for the two men. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the case against him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8467 

Mr. ScHMiTz. I don't know of that case, sir. It may have been the 
one that was at Plymouth. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You weren't called to testify ? 

Mr. ScHiniTZ. I wasn't called to testify. I would say there were 
several cases in which I testified, and some of the other officers made 
arrests. There were arrests made of both striking and nonstriking 
persons, by members of the different police departments. It is pretty 
hard for me to remember which is which, miless you have the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also carried or brought Vinson down at a later 
time w^hen he w^as sent to the State penitentiary ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was sent to the State penitentiary^ after having 
been found guilty of assault to do bodily harm ; is that right ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You drove him down to the State penitentiary ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conversation with him at that time, 
regarding w^ho was responsible for the violence ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes ; I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you relate your conversation with him ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Well, as close as I can remember, I asked him what was 
going to happen now. He was pretty much down in the mouth. 

I don't blame him. He had been sent to the State prison. I asked 
him about this violence. As close as I can remember the statement he 
made was that "Well, we may be responsible for part of it, but we are 
not responsible for all of it." 

The Chairman. "Wliat does he mean by "we" ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Sir? 

The Chairman. What did he mean by "we" may be responsible for 
part of it? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. I couldn't tell you that, sir. That is his statement 
as best as I can remember. 

The Chairman. Well, you were asking him. "Wliat do you think he 
implied ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I felt he meant the union with which he was affiliated. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were sufficiently convinced 
of that that you didn't inquire further for clarification ? 

Mr. Schmitz. He went on, sir, if I may follow this a little fur- 
ther 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Schmitz. He went on to tell of a particular case, I think you saw 
a picture of it this morning, where a shotgim was blasted or fired 
through one of the worker's windows. He told me that he and two 
other members of their union had tried to find if anyone associated 
with their union had any part of this particular piece of vandal- 
ism. I think he was trying to impress me with the fact that they did 
not have anything to do with that at the time. When I tried to talk 
to him further, he wouldn't answer me at all. 

He just clammed up. 

Mr. Kennedy. How, generally, did the pickets act who were on the 
picket line? 

Mr. Schmitz. Well, as a general rule, sir, I would say that they were 
quite orderly, although they were quite determined also. 



8468 IMPROPER ACTIVITTEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. But they were, generally, orderly ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. I would Scay that they were generally orderly. 

Mr. Kennedy, Was there much damage done to the plant ? 

Mr. ScmriTz. To my knowledge there wasn't any damage done 
to tlie plant. I don't think any of them ever entered the plant, to 
tlie best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any bricks thrown at the plant or any- 
thing like that? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Not to my knowledge. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Most of the disorder that took place would be when 
the nonstrikers came across the street and attempted to get into the 
plant ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there much of the pickets going across the street 
and starting fights ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. There were occasions when the pickets would go to 
the opposite side of the street. By "pickets," I mean the people who 
were on the picket line. As I stated before, I was not acquainted 
with many of the people on that picket line, or with the people trying 
to get in, with the exception of a couple of people that I knew from 
Plymouth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that happen frequently, that they went across 
the street ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Not too often. It did happen on occasion, though. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. Did Sheriff Mosch ever speak to you about taking 
any money from the union as a campaign contribution ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversation did 3'ou have with him about 
that? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. He talked to me one day about it, and said that they 
wanted to make a contribution to his campaign which was coming 
up in the fall, and he asked what I thought of it, and I told him that 
if I were him I w^ould not accept contributions from either side at that 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was this ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. This was before he ran for reelection. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Which would be in 1955 ; would it be ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. I believe so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1955 ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you advised him at that time not to take any 
money from either side ;" is that right ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Yes; that is what I told him, sir. As I recall, that 
must have been in the summer or early fall, because the lines, the picket 
lines, were open at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was emotion between strikers and nonstrikers at a 
very high pitch during this period ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. It was very high ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was great bitterness between the people and 
those who were coming into the plant, trying to go to work ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There Avas name calling, was there, between the var- 
ious sides ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8469 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir ; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is al], Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Did you ever succeed in getting anyone into the 
[)]ant during the time of the mass picketing? 

Mr. ScH^iiTZ. Only one time, sir. I was called upon to serve sub- 
penas on 3 workers who were in the plant at the time, and I went into 
the company and subpenaed the 3 men, and I told them that I would 
provide them trans])ortation to the courthouse to testify, and that I 
would see to it that they were put back into the plant. 

The Chairman. Were you able to do that? 

jNIr. ScHMiTZ. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. You were able to take them out and able to put 
them back in? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What arrangements did you make to get them 
back? 

Mr. Schmitz. What do you mean by that, sir ? 

The Chairman. To get them back into the plant. How did you get 
them back into the plant ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I drove up to the employment office in my squad car ; 
I owned my own car ; I drove up to the front of the office and I had 
one uniformed officer with me, and I told the pickets that were on 
duty at the time that I had subpenas for these 3 men, that I was going 
^o bring them out of the office, take them to the courthouse, and I was 
going to put them back in the plant again when they were through 
with their testimony. 

The Chairman. Did you have any trouble getting them back in ? 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. When you gave orders as a sheriff or undersheriff, 
they were obeyed, in that instance ? 

]Mr. Schmitz. In that instance, they were obeyed, sir. 

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

The Chairman. But, in other instances, when you were trying to 
get people into the plant that wanted to go back in and work, did you 
give such orders that you were going to take them in ? 

Mr. Scii3riTZ. We tried to give orders, but they were not obeyed. 

The Chairman. Did you give orders that you were going to take 
them in, and to get out of the way ? 

jNIr. Schmitz. We gave orders, both myself and the chief of police, 
to open the line ; but they were not obeyed. 

The Chairman. They were not obeyed ? 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. I suppose you were not given orders to use bayonets 
to open them up ? 

Mr. Schmitz. My orders were not to use any arms. 

The Chairman. You used no force? 

Mr. Schmitz. I think the pictures this morning showed that. 

The Chairman. If you used force, obviously, force kept you out ? 

Mr. Schmitz. That is right. 

The Chairman. You could have gotten in if there wasn't force, 
then ; couldn't you ? 

^Iv. Sch:\[itz. Yes, sir. 

21243— 58— pt. 21 10 



8470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiR3iAN. So, there was mass picketing, and so effective that 
those designed to get in and out of the plant to work, couldn't. 

Mr. Sgiimitz. That is right. 

The Chairman. And in spite of all of the efforts that you made, 
other than just using physical shoving and trying to push yourself 
in, with all of that, you were unable to get anybody into work? 

Mr. Sgiimitz. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Mundt. I was interested in your observation that, looking 
backward, you iniglit have done some things and I can well appreciate 
how that is true of all of us in a great many circmnstances. I wonder 
if you would tell the committee now what you would do differently 
had you liad the benefit of hindsight at the time. 

j\lr. Sgiimitz. Sir, I was not in a position to actually do anything. 
I was not in charge. I could not secure the needed men. If you were 
going to open that line, it would have required several hundred men. 
And, after you hud the line open, in my estimation, it would have 
taken several hundred more men to keep it open. As I stated before, 
we have a county v/hich is 24 miles long and, on an average, I would 
say, of 22 miles across. The shoreline makes it vary at different 
points. It is, roughly, about 500 square miles. We have quite a 
highway system leading to Kohler Co. We have a great many work- 
ers who come from long distances in our county to go to work; and 
from outside of the county. 

It would have been our duty not only to open those gates, but, 
also, to protect those people coming to and going from the plants, 
after the lines were opened. I think that showed it after a Avhile. I 
just didn't have that kind of manpower to try to do that. We would 
have needed a great deal more help than what we had, and I never 
was provided with that help, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That all might tend to explain why you did what 
you did when you did it, but you said that, had you had the benefit 
of hindsight, you would have done things differently. My question 
was: What would you have done differently had you known then 
everything that you know now ? 

Mr. Sgiimitz. Sir, I believe that that answer I gave was in a ques- 
tion posed as to whether or not I thought Sheriff Mosch had done 
the best that he could, and that is the answer I gave. I was not in a 
position to order more men. 

Senator Munt. Let me put it this way : What do you think, as a 
firsthand observer and a law-enforcement official, what do you now 
think should have been done? We will take you out of the picture 
and say ^'ust what should have been done ? 

Mr. Sgiimitz. I don't know, sir. As I said, I do not intend to 
second guess these men. Mr. Capelle, chief of the Kohler Police De- 
partment, who, I think, did a fine job, with the limited resources he 
had, and Sheriff Mosch, were the two men actually in charge there, 
and I don't think it would be fair to them for me to sit here today 
and second guess them on what should have been done, now that we 
sit here and see what did happen. 

Senator JNIundt. You brought the phrase in ; I did not. 

Mr. Sgiimitz. Sir, it was only in answer to this question posed as 
to whether or not Mr. Mosch had done his duty. I was trying at that 
time to explain why it was hard for me to answer that question. 



IMPROPER ACTIYrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8471 

Senator Mundt. So we can get it in the record once and. for all, you 
do not want to at this time make any suggestions to what you think 
might have been done differently, is that riglit? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. You arrested Mr. Vinson, did you ? 

Mr. ScnMiTz. I did, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you later testify at his trial ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. As I stated before, sir, if that is the one that was held 
at Plymouth, and I think it was, then I did, sir, and I also testified 
in the other case when Mr. Vinson and these other, I believe it was 
later reduced to 10 of the 11 that I signed complaints on, were brought 
up at Justice Kane's court at Sheboygan Falls. 

I testified at that time, also. 

Senator Mundt. Your answer, then, is "Yes, you did testify" ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. On those two occasions, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. For what did you arrest Mr. Vinson ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. The one time, I stated this incident, of bumping the 
man coming across the street, and I believed that it was disorderly 
conduct. 

As a rule, if we had any arrests made by anyone on the line, any 
of our officers, we went to the district attorney, and told him what 
had happened. Then it was his duty to draw up the proper complaint. 
And we signed that complaint. The other case was this unlawful 
assembly under the Wisconsin State law, where more than three peo- 
ple are gathered in a manner so as to disturb the peace. 

Senator Mundt. Did you arrest Mr. Vinson twice, then ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Once for disorderly conduct, physical contact with 
a would-be worker ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And the other time for calling a meeting or par- 
ticipating in a meeting which violated Wisconsin State law ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you testified at the trials. Was he convicted ? 

Mr. Schmitz. As I stated before, sir, the false trial, the one at 
Sheboygan Fall. I understand later that those charges were dis- 
missed. But I would have no knowledge of a lot of that, sir. We 
would testify, if and when it came to trial. Some of them didn't come 
to trial. I would testify, but I would not know what happened 
later on. 

Senator Mundt. What were the charges against the workers in the 
plant which you went in to serve subpenas on ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I believe it was a WERB hearing that they had at 
that time, this labor relations board hearing. 

Senator Mundt. They were sought as witnesses, then ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes. They were taken as witnesses, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You mentioned the fact that the sheriff asked 
you whether he thought he should accept the money that the union 
offered him in his campaign. About what time of the year was it 
that the sheriff discussed that with you ? 

Mr. Schmitz. As best I can remember, sir, it must have been late 
summer or early fall. I know it was after the picket lines were opened. 

Senator Mundt. 1954? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes, sir. 



8472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. The election took place, I suppose, in the fall of 
1954? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. The end of 1954, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So this was some time, I presume, between the end 
of May in 1954 and whenever the campaigns opened ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You said that you gave orders to the picket line 
to let you bring workers into the plant. 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And that the orders were not followed. 

Mr. Sghmitz. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What manifestation of disobedience did the pickets 
take? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. The picket line just continued to stay where it was, 
sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you try to lead your men through the picket 
line? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And they resisted you physically ? 

Mr. Schmitz. One morning, I think some of the pictures this morn- 
ing — I saw them — I believe some of them showed where there was 
some men down. I believe the gentleman who was talking about the 
pictures, mentioned that 2 or 3 were knocked down, but he failed to 
mention that those 2 or 3 were my officers that were knocked down, 
2 of them in uniform and 1 out of uniform. 

I was knocked to one knee that morning, on that particular push. 

Senator Mundt. You saw it ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I was trying to establish, whether 
physical force was used not only against the Avorkers, but against the 
law enforcement officials as well. 

Mr. Schmitz. That morning, sir, three of my men were actually 
down on the ground and I was down on one knee, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Were you sufficiently identified so that the pickets 
knew they were using physical force against the law ? 

Mr. Schmitz. 12 of our officers were in uniform, sir. I wore my 
under sheriff deputy's badge on the outside of my overcoat. Tliere 
wasn't any doubt about who we were out there, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So the violence was directed not only against the 
would-be worker, but also against the law enforcement official who 
was trying to do his duty ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes, sir. This pushing, if I may go a little further, 
sir, this pushing, which would start, the depth, at times, I would say, 
might be 10 or 12 or even 15 men, one behind the other. 

The men in front were actually not doing any pushing. The ones 
that were pushed against us, the ones that were pushed against us the 
day we were knocked down had no choice in tlie matter. The weight 
in numbers behind them were forcing them on top of us. 

Tlie ones close to us, the ones that we could have readied, if we 
had wanted to make any arrests, actually were victims of circum- 
stances at the time. Tliey had no choice. They were just pushed on 
us. 

Senator Mundt. It Mas coming from several men back who were 
pushing? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE Lu4B0R FIELD 8473 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Back from quite a ways. 

Senator Mundt. I can understand that. I believe that is all, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The CriAiKMAX. Senator Ervin ? 

Senator Ervin. Were you in here this morning when the moving- 
pictures were shown ? 

Mr. ScHMrrz. Yes, sir, I was. 

Senator Ervix. As I understand, you were there on duty during 
the period in which they had the so-called mass picketing? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Were these moving pictures which were exhibited 
here this morning a true representation of the conditions that you 
saw there ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. It looked that way to me, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator Goldwater. INIr. Chairman, I have just one question. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Schmitz, were any strikers hired by the 
sheriffs as deputies or special assistants? 

Mr. Schmitz. Strikers? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Schmitz. Not out on the line, I don't believe, sir. I believe 
there might have been 1 or 2 who were deputies. May I qualify 
this, sir? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Schmitz. We had men who were deputized before the strike 
who later were in the plant; in fact, a great many of the Kohler 
officials were deputies, and we also had men on the picket line whom 
the sheriff' had deputized prior to the strike. And I believe there 
might have been 1 or 2 — we also had patrols out in the county. 

Because of our small force, we tried to put 1 uniformed officer and 
1 plainclothes officer without much experience together to have 2 men 
in a car and yet get a better coverage with the few cars we had. We 
also had cars out that were not marked. They were paid for the use; 
the man who drove the car was paid mileage for that car's use. There 
is a possibility that there might have been a few of those who could 
have been strikers. But I am not in a position to say, because I don't 
know who all were deputies and who weren't. I never had a list, my- 
self, of the deputies. I don't know who were deputies. Many of 
the men I knew were deputies, because they had attended meetings. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. That is all I had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any officials of the Kohler Co. deputized ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Prior to the strike, yes, sir; there were many of 
them that were deputized. I might add here, sir, that, prior to the 
strike, we had always, or for quite some time, sent a squad car with 
either 1 man or 2 along with what they call their Kohler payroll car. 
The Kohler Co. official and, usually, the chief of police, and often, 
another man, would come to Sheboygan, go to the bank, and pick up 
fairly large sums of cash, and we would help escort this Kohler police 
car back to the plant. That was common practice for years. Some 
of these Kohler officials, especially those engaged in the carrying of 
money, were officials, and had been deputy sheriffs under different 
administrations for some time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they remained deputies during this period ? 



8474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. For quite a while they did, sir ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that include any of the top officials of the 
company ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. I am not sure of all of them, sir, but there were a few 
of them that were ; yes ; I would say top officials, quite well up there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those deputy badges revoked at all ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Later on they were, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At whose suggestion were they revoked ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. The sheriff revoked the badges. He asked for the 
return of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that your recommendation ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. You recommended that the badges of the Kohler 
officials who had been deputized be revoked ; is that right ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you do that? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Well, sir, at that time, feeling was running awfully 
high out there at the lines, and we had received information, the 
sheriff had received information, that there was gas and gas guns 
in the Kohler plant. Naturally, I was worried; I was out on this 
picket line, as I stated before, with just a few uniformed men, and, 
most of all, I was worried about these citizens who were good enough 
to come there in the morning for a couple of hours with very little pay 
and try to assist us in maintaining order. I did not want to see any 
of them hurt. I went to the district attorney and asked what could 
be done to relieve this danger, which I felt was a danger, this gas in 
the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have gas guns, also ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were worried about their use ; is that right ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. I was afraid that if anyone in there would use them 
on this picket line^ — I had no reason to believe that they would, but, 
at the same time, had anyone used them, I was afraid it was the 
temper of that crowd that they would undoubtedly cause an awful 
commotion out there. As I stated before, tliese men that we had out 
there, our uniformed men, were allowed, they wore their guns and 
had their blackjacks, which they ordinarily wear; an officer is un- 
dressed unless he does wear them. 

But the plainclothes men, the citizens who came there to help us, 
they didn't have anything to protect themselves. Some of them 
might have had a billy; I don't know. To my knowledge, they 
didn't have that. I didn't want any of them hurt, or any of these 
people that were attempting to go to work, or any of the people that 
were on this picket line. I felt that it was our duty to try to see that 
no one got hurt out there, and that is what Ave tried to do; at least 
I did to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn wlien the company acquired the giuis 
and the gas 'i 

Mr. SciiMiTz. We were told by the party that sold the gas to them, 
because the Sheboygan County also bought an additional supply of 
gas. Wo had gas there. We had long-range gas shells. We had 
short-range gas guns, and we had canister tear gas, all tear gas, in 
case anything woidd break loose at any time. We had that there for 
years. In case you had serious trouble, we would have something 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8475 

to disperse the croAvd and give us time to get in more help and get 
organized. 

When I went to the district attorney, he said the only way they 
could get the gas out would be to have a John Doe hearing, but, first, 
that the cards, the deputy cards, would have to be revoked. Other- 
wise, they would have a perfect right, as deputy sheriffs, to have this 
gas there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Kohler a deputy sheriff ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Mister who ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Kohler, himself ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Not to my knowledge. I Avouldn't know, sir. You 
would have to ask the sheriff'. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr, Kennedy. The badges you revoked; were they revoked from 
Mr. Conger or Mr. Kohler ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. Not Mr. Conger or Mr. Kohler. I believe Mr. Ire- 
land was one. I am not sure about Mr. Beaver, but I think he was 
also a deputy of Mr. Mosch. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get the gas and the gas guns out of the 
plant? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Yes, sir; there was a John Doe hearing, and they 
were removed. 

Mr. Kennedy. On whose orders were they removed ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. I believe the district attorney. I am not just sure. 
The district attorney conducted the hearing, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn that they had any other guns, other 
than those in there ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Not to my knowledge, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy, You never learned anything about it ? 

Mr, ScHMiTZ, I dicki't, sir ; no. This was a secret John Doe hear- 
ing and I never was told anything that had gone on in the hearing. 
The only thing I know is what I actually testified to, myself? 

The Chairman. You spoke about them being deputies and, as 
deputies, they had a right to have the gas and the weapons. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is what the district attorney told me, sir. 

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

The Chairman. Do you have any information as to whether they 
had this gas and guns in the regular course of their duties, or if it 
was a special arrangement so they would have it for this particular 
purpose, a strike? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. I don't know, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no knowledge about that ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no knowledge of whether they had ac- 
quired the gas and the guns in their capacity as deputy sheriffs, pri- 
marily, or whether they had acquired it in preparation for anticipated 
trouble by reason of the strike ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Do you mean by that, sir, whether they had the per- 
mission of the sheriff, as deputy sheriffs, to have the gas ? 

The Chairman. I don't Imow whether they have to have per- 
mission. 

Mr. Schmitz. I wouldn't know, sir. 



8476 IMPROPER ACTIVrJ'IEiS EST THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Tlie question I am trying to settle is whether it 
could be possible — 1 don't even say it is probable, and I don't know — 
whetlier, in the course of their services as deputy sheriffs, they might 
acquire and have in their possession gas and guns for any emergency 
that might arise, an unanticipated emergency, or whether they ac- 
quired this equipment and these arms by reason of the fact that they 
wanted to have them to use in this strike difficulty, if the occasion 
arose. 

Mr. ScHMiTz. I couldn't tell you, sir. 

The Chairman. You have no knowledge about that ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Not of my own personal knowledge ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Ervin. I have a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. You agree with me in the observation that peace 
officers, such as yourself and others on this occasion, have a tremen- 
dous responsibility under such conditions. In other words, you do 
not have enough force to control the thing absolutely, and you have 
to not only be firm but you have to be sort of diplomatic. 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That's right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. In a sense, you are sitting on a powder keg wliich 
any little act might cause to explode. 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is true, sir. 

Senator Ervin. There were liouses around this plant, were there 
not? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And, if there had been any occasion that would 
have brought the use of firearms into play, it would have been quite 
possible that innocent women and children in the homes would have 
suffered. 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Very likely, sir. Not only that, but, usually, on the 
opposite side of the street there were often spectators, people from 
the village or maybe people from outside the village. Speaking of 
the tension, sir, I would like to say at this time I have had just a little 
experience when you have a group like this together. 

In World War II, I served in Italy, with the 81st I]if antry Division. 
At the end of the war, we were placed in control of the Trieste area, 
which, I think, many of you remember Tito was trying to take over, 
and we had occasion there to run into mobs, attempting to take over. 
In fact, one was at Gorizia, a town about the size of Sheboygan, about 
45,000. We had about 5,000 people move in on us there. But that was 
a little different situation over there. You could use whatever means 
you had to repel them, to get them out. 

And we had the force to do it. But on this occasion, sir, I didn't 
feel that it was proper for me to do anything which might start 
trouble there, which, with the small force I had, I would be unable to 
handle, and many innocent people could be hurt. 

Senator Ervin. Whenever an event like this happens, and it drags 
out, and you have the tension, hatred, and ill will built up on both 
sides, it is an extremely dangerous situation in that a group of people 
on the spur of the moment, irritated by some disagreement, real or 
fancied, are likely to turn into a mob and do things which, as in- 
dividuals, they would never consider doing ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That is true, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8477 

The Chairman. I hand you herewith a photostat copy of the letter 
dated May 21, 1954, addressed to Mr. Lyman C. Conger, of the Kohler 
Co., Kohler, Wis., and it is written in the name of Theodore Masch, 
sheriff of Sheboygan County. I will ask you to examine it, and I am 
not sure whether you have ever seen it before, and I will ask you to 
examine it and see if you can identify the letter. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(Members present are: Senators McClellan, Ervin, Mundt, Curtis, 
andGoldwater.) 

Mr. ScHMiTz. No, sir ; I have never seen that letter, although I did 
know that a letter of that kind was going to be written. 

The Chairman. You can't, yourself, identify it ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. I never saw the letter. 

The Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be photostatic 
copies of six deputy-sheriff commissions, and I will ask you to examine 
those and see if you are familiar with them. 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir ; I did not see any of that. 

The Chairman. Would you state, or can you state, whether you 
have ever seen deputy-sheriff-commission cards before in your county ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Yes, sir; I have seen the deputy-sheriff cards, many 
of them, sir. 

The Chairman. You recognize those ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Those are deputy-sheriff' cards, and they are autlior- 
ized deputy-sheriff cards, or a photostat of them. 

The Chairman. I am trying to determine that, even though you 
Ivuow that is the form of card used there, you don't identify those 
cards, and you never saw those ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I did not see these particular cards, sir. As I stated 
before, I was pretty sure Mr. Beaver and Mr. Ireland and Mr. Bufl'- 
ington, I forgot to mention him, also were deputies. But I did not 
know about the rest of them. As I stated before, I have never seen 
a complete list of the deputies. 

The Chairman. I think we can get them in the record later, but 
I did not know whether you could identify them or not. 

Mr. Schmitz. I am afraid I could not. 

The Chairman. They will be withheld for the present. 

Senator Mundt. You said several time that you had a compara- 
tively small law-enforcement force ? 

Mr, Schmitz. On the job, and I don't think that we have ever 
spelled out just now large or how small it was. Would you tell us 
that for the record ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Sir, we had 12 uniformed officers. 

Senator Mundt. In the sheriff's department ? 

Mr. Schmitz. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And how many deputies ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Full-time deputies, we had one, who was really a 
process server. We had the sheriff and myself. 

Senator Mundt. That is 14 or 15 ? 

Mr. Schmitz. Fifteen altogether. Of course, sir, the regular duty 
had to be taken care of by this same force. The uniformed men, sir, 
are really traffic officei's, and patrol our county. 

Senator Mundt. You had 15, and that does not include the police 
officers. Could you tell us from your knowledge how many of those 
there are ? 



8478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. SciiMiTz. IIow many police officers from Kohler Village? 

Senator Mundt. Who were trying to keep order. 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. We don't have those. That is all we have of full- 
time officers in Sheboygan County. I tliink ordinarily the Kohler 
Village has four full-time officers or they did have at the time, and 
their force may be larger now. 

Senator Mundt. That would make 19 ? 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. Full-time officers, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now, you said you deputized a lot of good citizens 
who came down in the morning and worked during the critical hours 
as deputies ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. Not a lot, sir. 

Senator IMundt. You said you had some. 

Mr. ScHMiTz. We had some and it was very hard to get anyone to 
serve. 

Senator Mundt. How many did you have ? 

Mr. SciiMiTz. I think that I stated before that 15 to 18, I believe, 
was about the most that we had out there any one morning. I may 
be wrong on that, and there may have been a few more than that out 
there, and I would not want to say definitely that there was only 15 
or 18, but to the best of my recollection that would be about all. 

Senator jSIundt. So that assuming all of the people who were in 
uniform were there, and the deputies, you had about 37 law enforce- 
ment officials. 

Mr. ScHMiTZ. That could be about right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. At the site, is that right ? 

Mr. ScHMiTz. That is about right, I believe. 

The Chairman. Do you Imow, Mr. Schmitz, of any tear gas at any 
other plant in the county other than Kohler's ? 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You never had any complaint or any notice thai- 
there was ? 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. No such matter ever came to your attention at am^ 
time? 

Mr. Schmitz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you arrest any nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I did not personally, but my men did. 

The Chairman. How many nonstrikers did you arrest ? 

Mr. Schmitz. I could not tell you exactly, sir ; as I stated before ; I 
did not have the records, but I noticed, I believe, that the committee 
here had some of the warrants here that I recognize, as nonstrikers, 
and I recognize the names of a couple of our officers as being on the 
complaint sheet. 

Whenever there was a fight or if there was any extreme pushing 
where they pair off two men, as a general rule they both were arrested, 
whether it was a striker or nonstriker. 

The Chairman. In other words, there were nonstrikers arrested as 
well as strikers ? 

Mr. Schmitz. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And where they got into a personal physical diffi- 
culty, such as pushing or fighting, you just arrested both of them? 
Was that your policy ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8479 

Mr. ScuMiTZ. That is right. We arrested both of them and got 
them out of there as soon as possible so as not to stir up the rest of 
them. That was the main reason, to get them out of there as soon 
as possible. 

The Chairman. You don't know whether any of the nonstrikers 
were fined or convicted or not ? 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. I don't have any of those records, sir. 

For your information, sir, toward the end of 1954, 1 was not feeling 
too well and I went to the hospital for a complete physical checkup. 

The CiixViRMAN. I can imagine that you might need it after the ex- 
perience. 

Mr. SciiMiTZ. Well, sir, we have in our county, a very fine TB 
sanitarium, and it is the policy in the county whenever you enter a 
hospital now before you leave you receive a chest X-ray, and this 
chest X-ray of mine eventually put me in the Rocky Knoll Sanitarium 
for tuberculosis for 17 months. 

When I went tliere I did not realize that I was going to be gone for 
any lengthy period, and so I did not have any of my records, and 
my stuff was still in my desk drawer, and before I ever got out of 
there, of course, there were other men in the sheriff's office and I don't 
know what happened to them. 

The Chairman. And you had no chance to preserve your records or 
to follow through on these matters ? 

Mr, ScHMiTZ. That is right. I am trying to tell you w^hat I know 
from memory. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

All right, thank you very much, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sheriff Mosch. 

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

Mr. MoscH. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE J. MOSCH 

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

Mr. Mosch. Theodore J. Mosch, 804 Spring Avenue, Slieboygan, 
Wis., occupation at the present time is that of operator of a bowling 
alley. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Mosch. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. You are a former sheriff of Sheboygan County? 

jNIr. Mosch. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. When did your term of office expire ? 

INIr. MoscH. My term of office expired January 7, 1957. 

The Chairman. When did it begin or when did you first become 
sheriff? 

Mr. Mosch. I first became sheriff January 1, 1945. 

The Chairman. You served only 2 years ? 

Mr. Mosch. I served two terms, and then ran again for office 
in 1952. 

The Chairman. I think you said 1945, I am sorry. It was 12 



8480 IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoscH. I have had 4 successful terms, 2 years each. 

The Chairman. In other words, you served a total of 8 years, be- 
tween 1945 and 1957 ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

The Chairman. You were out part of the time, and part of the 
time you were slieriff ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also hold several other positions, do you, at the 
present time ? 

Mr. MoscH. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the other positions ? 

Mr. Moscii. Since I left the office of sheriff, I have been elected 
to the county board of supervisors, Sheboygan, representing the 4th 
ward, city of Sheboygan. 

I am also appointed to the selective service board, appointed by 
the Governor. 

Mr. Kennedy. You Avere sheriff during the period of the mass 
picketing at the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. MoscH. I was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had certain responsibilities in that area ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did have. 

Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Is that correct? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during the time that the picketinjg was going 
on, how many assistants or deputies did you have ? 

Mr. MoscH. I had the under sheriff', Larry Schmitz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just how many, approximately ? 

Mr. MoscH. Twelve traffic officers, uniformed men. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was that to cover the whole county of She- 
boygan ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. And how many did you assign to the Kohler strike ? 

Mr. Moscii. I took all of the 12 men, plus some of the turnkeys 
that I had in the office, and the bookkeeper, and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, when the strike was going on, and the non- 
strikers were unable to get through the picket line, why didn't you 
take some steps to permit these people who wanted to go to work, to 
go to work in the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. MoscH. We tried our best. 

Ml-. Kennedy. What was your best, and what steps did you take ? 

Mr. Moscii. Well, we deputized some officers and of course they 
were not trained, and a lot of men refused to be deputized, remem- 
bering the 1934 strike, and didn't want any part of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Meaning what, in 1934? Were there people who 
were killed? 

Mr. Moscii. In 1934 they had a strike witli 2 people killed and 
about 37 shot. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were individuals who did not want to get 
mixed up in the operation again ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. And as soon as the Kohler strike threat- 
ened, tlie fear went through the community, and that was my great- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 8481 

est worry. And I didn't want to have any bloodshed, and I tried to 
get as many deputies as I possibly could. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What steps did you take to get more people to assist 
yon in opening up the picket line so that these people could go to 
work? 

Mr. MoscH. I called the neighboring county to see if I could get 

officers, and I couldn't get any over there. We deputized various 

men, and I believe we had about 25 or 28, maybe up to 40 total, all told. 

We got out there in the morning and tried to get the fellows 

through, and there was pushing back and forth. 

Senator Curtis. Would you describe what would happen when you 
tried to get someone through the picket line. 

Mr. MoscH. We tried to get some through the picket line, and the 
pickets would close in and they would push one way and we would be 
pushing tlie other, and we couldn't get through at all. 

Senator Curtis. Would that happen when they were accompanied 
by an officer of the law ? 

Mr. MoscH. It would. 

Senator Curtis. Did it happen when you accompanied someone 
who wanted to get through the picket line ? 

Mr. MoscH. It did. 

Senator Curtis. What did you say to them, and perhaps not to 
exact words, and you may not remember, but how did you proceed to 
get them to open up the picket line ? 

Mr. MoscH. I told the fellows, "Come on, let us open up and get 
these boys through." At times they would go to work and say, "Well, 
come on, get them through," and they would spread apart and when 
vre would get closer, the line would close up and we were trapped 
right in between. 

Senator Curtis. Then what would happen ? 

Mr. MoscH. We would be pushed back again, and it would be con- 
tinuous. 

Senator Curtis. In what manner would they be pushed ? 

Mr. MoscH. The pickets would be pushing and we would be trying 
to get the boys through that were Kohler workers. 
_ Senator Curtis. Did any of that pushing result in violence, at any 
time that you were there, anything beyond just pushing someone 
back? 

Mr. MoscH. No one exactly got hurt. Some of my deputies went 
down. 

Senator Curtis. Some of your deputies were pushed down ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get any workers through at all ? 

Mr. Mosch. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You did not get any through ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

Senator Curtis. And you tried a number of times ? 

Mr. MoscH, Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Over how long a period did you try ? 

Mr. MoscH. Up until the injunction went into effect. 

Senator Curtis. They did not open up anymore due to the fact that 
officers were with them than if the men tried it alone, is that true? 

Mr. MoscH. That is true. 



8482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Did anyone ever strike any officers ? 

Mr. Moscii. I didn't understand the question. 

Senator Curtis. Were any of the officers every struck by anyone 
out there, or molested ? 

Mr. Moscii. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. But 1 or 2 deputies were pushed down, is that 
right? 

Mr. Moscii. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Over how long a time did this take place? 

Mr. Moscii. From the beginning of the strike until the injunction 
was served and they were compelled to open the line. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you lived in that county? 

Mr. Moscii. All of my life, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know many of the people ? 

Mr. Moscii. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know a great many of the Koliler work- 
ers by sight, at least, and you recognize them as local people, do you ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did you see many people in that picket line 
that, in your opinion, were not residents of the local community, or 
employees of Kohler ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did. 

Senator Curtis. How many were there ? 

Mr. MoscH. I would say approximately 10, or 12, or 13, or some- 
where in there, who were strangers to me. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever see more than that? 

Mr. Moscii. No, not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Were they the same people there every day ? 

Mr. MoscH. Practically, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever learn who they were ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did later on. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio were they ? 

Mr. Moscii. I remember some of the names. There was Guy Bar- 
ber, Fiore, and Mr. Rand, and Mr. Burkhart, and Mr. Vinson. 

Senator Curtis. Was Emil Mazey there ? 

Mr. Moscii. I don't know him. 

Senator Mundt. Could you give us any more identification of 
these? There are just names out of a book to me; that is, these names 
you just mentioned. 

Do you know who they were, and where they came from, and who 
they represented? 

Mr. MoscH. Later on, at the beginning of the strike I didn't know, 
later on I found out. 

Senator Mundt. On the basis of your present knowledge, could 
you tell us who they were ? 

Mr. MoscH. I understand they were international representatives. 

Senator Mundt. From Detroit ? 

Mr. Moscii. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all for the present. 

Senator Mundt. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not see hundreds of outsiders who were 
carrying on the picketing then ? 

Mr. Moscii. There were a lot of pickets there, but I did not know 
who they were. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8483 

Senator Curtis. Now just a minute. Do I understand that the 
number of people that you did not recognize as being local folks was 
about 10 or 12, or was it more than that ? 

Mr. Moscii. There were quite a few I didn't know on the picket 
line, and there has been quite a few I did know. 

Senator Curtis. I am not arguing with your answer, but I want 
to make sure I understand it. Is it your opinion that they were 
all local people, except 10 or 12, or that there were, at times, greater 
numbers ? 

Mr. MoscH. There might have been up to 18, I am not sure, but I 
knew most of the members on the picket line, who they were, and 
their community. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Now, the instructions that you had from the district 
attorney was that you were obligated to take people up to the picket 
line but not through the picket line, is that right ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go to anyone to try to get more depu- 
ties or more help to open up the picket line ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us who you went to, and what the 
reaction was, or what advice you got ? 

Mr. ]Moscn. First of all, I went to the sheriff's department in Mil- 
waukee, and I tried to get some advice on how to handle this situ- 
ation, and they explained to me to hold it as peaceful as we could so 
no one would get hurt, and not try to use tear gas. 

I went to work, and I called the various counties, to see if I could 
get reinforcements, and there was only one community in West Benton, 
where the slieriff is always cooperative, and I called him the night 
before and I told him if I needed them I would call them. But we 
were unsuccessful in getting anybody through, and I think the most 
deputies we had was about 40 out there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else did you go to, sheriff ? What else did you 
do? 

Mr. MoscH. I went to the Governor of the State. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times did you go to the Governor of 
the State? 

Mr. MoscH. One time I went to his home. I had the chief deputy 
with me. He stayed out in the car. I told the Governor that it was 
a serious situation, that I was greatly worried about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the Governor's name at that time? 

INIr. ]\IoscH. Walter Kohler. He asked me, he said, "Are you using 
any firearms or anything," and I said "No," and he said, "Well, don't 
use them." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him for any help or assistance? 

Mv. MoscH. He told me that he couldn't do anything until all the 
resources in the community had been exhausted. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you ask him to do ? Did you speak to him 
about the National Guard ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did. 

My. Kennedy. And he said you had to exhaust all the resources 

Mr. Moscii. All the resources in the community. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go back and see him again ? 

?.Ir. Moscii. Later on I went back with Cliief Capelle. We went to 
Madison. 



8484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the first time you went to see the 
Governor? 

Mr. Moscii. At the beginning of the strike. I don't know the exact 
date. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is Governor Koliler related to the Kohler of the 
Company, Koliler of Kohler ? 

Mr. Moscii. I understand so, but I do not know the relationsliip. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to see him once at the beginning of the 
strike i Did you go to see him again ? 

Mr. MosGii. Chief Capelle and I went to Madison. 

Air. IvENNEDY. Chief Capelle is the chief of police of Kohler Vil- 
lage ; is that right ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Recite what happened. 

Mr. MoscH. Then we had a conference, and it was about the same 
thing again. We didn't get any help from the National Guard. 

Mr. Kennedy. What advice did he give you ? 

Mr. MoscH. The same as before. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What? 

Mr. Moscii. To try to exhaust all the resources in the community. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What did he say about using any arms or trying to 
open it up with tear gas or anything like that ? 

Mr. Moscii. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said you should not do that ? 

Mr. MosGH. I don't remember about tear gas. I don't remember 
him saying that. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he said tliat no arms sliould be used ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Had you already made up your mind that you were 
not going to use arms ? 

Mr. MoscH. I already had made up my mind that I wouldn't use 
any firearms. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of what reason ? 

Mr. Moscii. Because of the reason of the 1934 strike. That still 
carries a memory in my heart, and I believe, according to my own be- 
lief, and my own knowledge, I was worried about the strike. Perhaps 
I did make some mistakes, but I am here to admit them, if I did. 
Second guess is always better. But I was absolutely worried, and 1 
am telling you this much. At the beginning of the strike, I even 
became ratlier ill and I put my under sheriff in charge for a few days. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever any suggestion that you use any 
firearms ? 

Mr. Moscii. At one time — well, I received a letter, if I may read 

The Chairman. Identify the letter first. Who is it from? Who 
is the letter from ? 

Mr. Moscii. From the chairman of the Republican Party. 

The Chairman. Let me see the letter. 

(Document handed committee.) 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, would you like to see this ? 

Senator Goldwater. I do not know. I will look at it. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason it should not be read 
into the record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE U^BOR FIELD 8485 

The Chairman. All right. If there is no objection to it, Mr. Wit- 
ness, you may continue your testimony. 

(Document handed witness.) 

The Chairman. The letter is from whom I 

Mr. MoscH. Robert AV. Haynes, chairnuin, Kepublican Party of 
Sheboyan County. 

The Chairman. The letter is addressed to you ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

The Chairman. "What is its date i 

Mr. MoscH. It states : 

Mr. Theodore Mosch, 

Sheboygan County Sluriff, 

Sheboygan County Courthouse, 

Sheboygan, Wis. 
r)EAR Ted : You, as the chief law enforcement officer of the county, are respon- 
sible for maintaining law and order so that individuals may peaceably go about 
their business without fear of violence or interference from any source. In a 
labor dispute, the law protects the right of individuals either to strike or to con- 
tinue working. It gives to strikers the right to picket peacefully and to others 
the right to go to work without being hindered or prevented by threats, intimida- 
lion, force, or coercion from any source. You have been advised by the district 
attorney in a written opinion that it is your duty to protect these rights. To 
date you have taken no effective action. 

The executive committee of the Republican Party expects officers who are 
elected under its banner to do their sworn duty according to law without tear "v 
favor. The committee requests a prompt reply from you as to your position and 
intentions. 

Sincerely yours, 

Robert W. Haynes, Chainnan. 

The Chairman. Did you reply to that letter ( 

Mr. Mosch. I did not. 

The Chairman. I do not know the operations of politics out there, 
but I did not know that a Republican or Democratic comnutteeman 
had any official position as such with respect to law enforcement. Did 
you? 

Mr. Mosch. Would you repeat that, please '( 

The Chairman. I do not know about the laws of AVisconsin, but I 
would not think that a mere chairman of a party, either Democrat, 
Republican, or some other, had any responsibility, as such, .with re- 
gard to law enforcement. Do you know '( 

Mr. Mosch. No, 1 don't. 

The Chairman. I am sure everybody wanted and desired ihat i)eace 
be maintained and order kept. 

Are there any questions about it ? What was the reason for you 
mentioning the letter? 

Mr. Mosch. Well, at a later date he arrived at my office and talked 
to me. 

The Chairman. AVho did f 

Mr. Mosch. Mr. Haynes. 

The Chairman. What official authority has he, any more tiuui an of- 
ficial position in a political party ? 

I am trying to relate his activities to some official duty or official 
position. 

Mr. Mosch. Then what happened was — he wanted to know why the 
reply wasn't there, and I just told him I didn't feel like answering. 

21243— 58--i.t. 21 11 



8486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

He told me it was about time I opened up that line. He said, "You 
have the authority to use lirearms," lie says, "and use them." 

The ( 'ii AIRMAN. Are you a Kepublican ? 

Mr. ]M()Scii. Well, I was until they bounced me out. 

The Chairman, I see. I did not know anyone could be bounced out 
of a party. I thought they could belong to it if they wanted to. They 
tried to kick some of us out for a long time down South, but they have 
not been able to do it. 

Mr. ]MoscH. I had no choice. I absolutely was barred. 

The Chairman. You had been advised, and you had been given it 
from that source, to use firearms to force an entrance into the plant ; was 
that the purpose of it ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you declined to do it ? 

Mr. MoscH. Right. 

The Chairman. You never had any advice to do that from any 
authoritative source, so far as having a responsibility under law and 
official duty ; did you 'i 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

Senator Mundt. W\\j were you bounced out of the party, since you 
mentioned that ? 

Mr. MoscH. Well, the way I mentioned that is, they had a banquet 
right before the election, and my under sheriff was running for sheriff 
under the Republican ticket. He bought four tickets in order to go 
to the banquet. When he bought the four tickets, Mr. Haynes asked 
him, he says, "Have you any intention of taking the sheriff and his 
wife?" and he said, "If you have," he says, "that is out." 

Senator Ervin. Do you mean to tell me that they refused to allow 
you to even break bread with the party to which you had theretofore 
given your allegiance because you would not take the suggestion of 
the county chairman that you use firearms to open the picket line? 

Mr. MoscH. I believe that is true, sir, and I stood by my guns. If 
the Republicans do not want me, perhaps the Democrats will. I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you refused to use firearms ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was, again, because of what you knew about 
the number of people that had been killed and wounded in the strike 
at the Kohler plant in 1934? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received financial assistance from the UAW, 
did you not, in that election in 1954? 

Mr. MoscH. I received that later in the fall of the year. We had 
what they called a Mosch for Sheriff Club, and at that time there was 
$300 turned over to the club, which was given me from Mr. Grasskamp, 
and I turned it over to the club. 

Perhaps at this time, thinking it over, it might have been im- 
proper. But I am here to tell the truth and leave the chips fall 
wherever they may. 

Mr. Kennedy. xVnd you received $300 from the president of the 
UAW local? 

Mr. Mosch. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was this at a period of time where there was 
a dispute going on between the UAW and the Kohler plant ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8487 

Mr. MoscH. This was after the lines Avere opened, and it was riglit 
before the fall election. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was after the picket lines were opened, is that 
rio-ht ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there was still violence going on, and still bad 
feeling between strikers and nonstrikers, is that correct? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel it was proper to take $300 from one 
of the pjirticipants in this very bitter controversy ? 

Mr. MoscH. At this time I realize perhaps I made a mistake. 

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

Senator Curtis. How was that $300 paid ? 

Mr. MoscH. In cash. 

Senator Curtis. Who gave it to you ? 

Mr. MoscH. The president of the local. 

Senator Curtis. What did he say when he gave it to you ? 

Mr, MoscH. That it was a donation for my campaign. 

Senator Curtis. Did he say how much it was ? 

Mr. MoscH. Three hundred dollars. 

Senator Curtis, Did he do anything else for your campaign? 

Mr. MoscH. TheUAW? 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. MoscH. The U AW, do you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. MoscH. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Did they offer to do anything else ? 

Mr. MoscH. Well, it w^as a group over there, what they called the 
farm-labor political group, that put an ad in the newspaper, the 
Sheboygan Press, which I had nothing to do with it, only authorized 
it. 

Senator Curtis. And some of the UAW people supported that ? 

Mr. MoscH. I believe so. 

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

Senator Curtis. A^nio were some of the people that supported that 
activity that were identified with the UAW ; do you know ? 

Mr. MoscH. One fellow's name was Carl Kutnec, I believe. 

Senator Curtis. A bit ago there was testimony that, when arrests 
were made, both strikers and nonstrikers would be arrested. What 
would the nonstrikers be doing when they would be arrested ? 

Mr. MoscH. The nonstrikers ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. MoscH. I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Would it be when they were trying to get through 
the picket line? 

Mr. MoscH. It could be, or if they would be into some scrap across 
the street. I couldn't answer that. 

Senator Curtis. You do not know ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

Senator Curtis. Was it a violation of law for them to try to come 
to work ? 

Mr. Moscii. Do you mean the Kohler workers ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. MoscH. No : it was not. 



8488 IMPllOPEli ACTIVITIE^S IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. The mass picketing was against the law ? 

Mr. Moscii. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mosch, when you received the $300 for your 
campaign, was that before or after you were bounced out of the Re- 
publican Party ? 

Mr. MoscH. Wliat was that ? 

Senator Mundt. When you received the $300 that you mentioned, 
that you said you are sorry you took from the UAW, was that before 
or after you were bounced out of the Republican Party ? 

Mr. Moscii. I am not sure if it was before or after. I couldn't 
answer that. The $300 was given in the fall of the year. 

Senator Mundi'. You have me a little confused. You said that this 
banquet where they closed the door on you 

Mr. MosGii. I think that was after. 

Senator Mundt. You said you were going to be invited by your 
under sheriff, who was running for sheriff. Were you also running 
for sheriff ? Were they having two sheriffs ? 

Mr. Moscn. No. Under State law, we can only succeed twice. I was 
unable to succeed myself again. 

Senator Mundt. So, your under sheriff, was that Mr. Schmitz ? 

Mr. Mosch. No. That was Mr. Federwisch. 

Senator Mundt. Anyhow, he was running for office for sheriff ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. They were paying you $300 for what ? I thought 
you were running, also. 

Mr. MoscH. That was in 1954, in the fall of 1954. 

Senator Mundt. You took the money in 1954 ? 

Mr. MoscH. In the latter part of 1954. 

Senator Mundt. When w^ere you bounced out of the party ? 

Mr. MoscH. That was after that. 

Senator Mundt. In 1956? 

Mr. MoscH. I believe it was in 1956. 

Senator Mundt. Was there any relationship between your taking 
that money and your getting bounced out of the party ? 

Mr. MoscH. I don't know. I suppose it could be. 

Senator Mundt. It could be, could it not ? Well, O. K. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. May I sa;^ ^^^^ witness has admitted receiving the 
money. To get your dates in proper perspective, according to the 
records, the minute records, of local 833, a motion was made at the 
meeting on September 9, 1954, for the $300 to be donated, or to request 
permission from the director of region 10 for them to make the dona- 
tion. That motion passed unanimously at that time. It must have 
been sometime after September. 

Senator Mundt. I think that jibes with the witness' statement that 
he got the money in 1954 and was kicked out of the party in 1956. 

The Chairman. This may be admitted into the record later, if any- 
body wants it, but it corroborates what the witness was saying. 

Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. I had one question on this whole point. Sher- 
iff, how much money does it take to run for sheriff in Sheboygan 
County? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8489 

Mr. MoscH. In the last campaign, the total amount, with the club 
and myself, was about $1,100 or $1,000. 

Senator Goldwater. So, about 30 percent of the money came from 
theUAW? 

Mr. MoscH. The club had $600, and $300 of that came from the 
UAW. 

Senator Goldwater. About $1,000 to $1,100 expenditure, and $300 
of it came from one source, the UAW local ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. l^efore we leave the monej'', Mr. Chairman, actu- 
ally, our friend, the witness, got $500, rather than $300, because the 
minutes of this motion on September 9, 1954, the minutes of local 833 
of the Kohler UAW-CIO carry the motion that you have been dis- 
cussing for the $300 to be given direct to Mr. Mosch. Preceding that, 
PAC Chairman John M. Martin recommended that tlie sum of $200 
be allowed for his committee out of the PAC fund for the purposes 
of mailing out literature in support of the reelection of Theo Mosch 
as sheriff of Sheboygan County. Actually, you got $300 directly. 
Two hundred dollare did not come to you, but was used to mail out 
literature. 

Mr. Mosch. That, I didn't see. 

Senator MuNDT. What was that? 

Mr. Moscii. That, I did not know anything about. 

Senator Mfxdt. You would not necessarily know about that, but 
I wanted to get the record complete, so it would not look as tliough 
you falsely testified. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Sheriff, prior to this election in 1954, had you re- 
ceived any support from labor officials or labor unions ? 

Mr. Mosch. I have always had the support of labor in our com- 
munity, due to the fact tliat in 1942 I went to all the defense plants, 
starting with the Kohler Co., and fingerprinted all the employees. 
From there I went to all the large plants in Sheboygan County and 
fingerprinted all of them. It was through friendly contact with 
working people that I happen to be their choice. 

Mr. Kenxedy. So, you had been endorsed by labor prior to this 
time ? 

Mr. MoscH. I have always been a friend of labor. 

Mr. Kexxedt. Had you ever received money from the UAW, other 
than this time ? 

Mr. MoscH. Never. 

Mr. Kexxedy. You never received it, other than this one time ? 

Mr. Moscpi. That is right. 

Mr. Kexxedy. And that was in the 1954 campaign ? 

Mr. Mosch. Right. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Did anyone else, other than the party that you men- 
tioned, suggest that you use firearms against the pickets? 

Mr. Mosch. No, sir. 

Mr. Kex-^xedy. No one else suggested it? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

The Chairman. No one with the Kohler Co. requested you ? 

Mr. ;Mosch. No. 

The Chairmax. None of their representatives ? 

Mr. Mosch. No. 



8490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiRMAX. Or anyone for them or on behalf of them? 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had a conversation with Mr. Capelle 
about it? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes ; we talked with Mr. Capelle, but that never come 
to his mind. There was one morning when we were out on the line, 
and I was talking to the chief, and he mentioned to me, "Perhaps we 
can do something this morning that would be backed up by tear gas." 
I said, "We wouldn't want to use that," and he agreed. I never saw 
any tear-gas guns, and we never did use any. 

The Chairman. Sheritf, would you call what you encountered down 
there peaceful picketing? 

Mr. MoscH. I do not. 

Tlie Chairman. There was sufficient force used that you could not 
grant to the workers who wanted to work their right to enter the plant 
so they might work ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did not understand you. 

The Chairman. There was sufficient force used in the picket line by 
massive assembly, by pushing and shoving, that you were unable to 
get any workers into the plant during the period of that mass picket- 
ing? 

Mr. MosGH. That is true. 

The Chairman. In other words, there was sufficient resistance to 
prevent those who had the right to enter from entering. 

Mr.MdscH. Eight. 

The Chairman. And, as sheriff, you could not do anything about it 
unless you did resort to stronger force ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you did not resort to stronger force, I assume, 
because you felt like, ultimately, maybe, it would work out and you 
would avoid bloodshed ? 

Mr. Moscii. Right. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Sheriff, about how many people were trying to 
get into the plant ; how many of the workers, would you say ? 

Mr. MoscH. In the early days of the strike, there weren't very many. 
But as the strike prolonged, then the group got larger. 

Senator Mundt. What would you say as to how large it got? 

Mr. MoscH. Well, one morning I remember about 40 of them come 
down the street to try to get in, and they couldn't get through, either. 

Senator Mundt. You were never able to get a single worker in ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is true. We never could get them through. 

Senator Curtis. I can understand how these workers would be 
blocked, but what I cannot understand is the refusal of the picket line 
to let tlie officers take workers through, their defiance of the duly con- 
stituted officers of the law. Did that not surprise you ? 

Mr. MoscH. It did. 

Senator Curtis. It is sort of mob violence, is it not ? 

Mr. MoscH. I would agree. 

Senator Curtis. Is that the same crowd that contributed to your 



campaign 



Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever make any arrests on the basis that 
mass picketing was illegal, not because of violence or because of fisti- 
cuffs, but because very active mass picketing was illegal ? Was it not? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8491 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever arrest anybody, the leaders or any- 
body, because they had broken that law ? 

Mr. MoscH. There were some arrests made by our department, but 
I do not know what happened to them. 

Senator Mundt. You did make some arrests simply because there 
was mass picketing ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. The undersheriff made some arrests; 
I think there were about 11 of them, but they were dismissed later on 
in court. 

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

Senator MuNirr. On what basis ; do you know ? 

Mr. Moscii. No ; I do not. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Sheriff, you have lived in this county, I think 
you said, all your life, or a large portion of it? 

Mr. Moscii. All my life. 

Senator Goldwater. And you testified, too, I believe, that you knew 
a lot of the people who worked in Kohler. I would assume, then, 
that you knew a lot of the people who belonged to the local. Am I 
right in that ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes; I knew some of them that belonged to the local. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you say from your knowledge of these 
people, having spent a lifetime witli them, that they could have con- 
ducted a strike like this without outside guidance? 

Mr. MoscH. I think it would have been better. 

Senator Goldwater. That does not answer the question. 

Do you think, from your knowledge of these people, gained over a 
lifetime, that they could have conducted a strike like this without 
outside guidance? 

Mr. AIoscH. I do. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think they could ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think that they did conduct this strike 
without any assistance or guidance from the outside ? 

Mr. MoscH. I did not understand that. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you understand the first part of tlie ques- 
tion ? 

Mr. MoscH. Would you repeat that, please ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. The first part of the question was this: 
Because of your lifelong knowledge of these people who are members 
or were members of the union, do you think that they could or would 
have conducted a strike such as was conducted, without outside 
guidance ? 

Mr. MoscH. Jesus, I don't know. I couldn't answer that. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you feel there was outside guidance in 
from Detroit? 

]\Ir. MoscH. There was. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know definitely there were people 
from Detroit in assisting in the conduct of this strike ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you mention some of their names earlier? 

Mr. MoscH. I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you recall a few of those at this point ? 



8492 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Moscii. Well, there was, I believe, Guy Barber, Fiore, Rand, 
Biirkbart, Vinson. 

Senatoi- Goldwater. Was Emil Mazey one of them ? 

Mr. MoscH. I don't know Emil Mazey. 

Senator Goldwai-er. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The CiiAiRiNrAN. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
a letter dated May 21, 1954. It is addressed to Mr. Lyman Conger, 
and apparently it is a letter from you. 

I ask you to examine it and state if you identify it as a carbon 
copy of the original. 

(Document handed witness.) 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 8. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 8735.) 

The Chairman. You requested in that letter the return of certain 
deputy sheriff certificates, did you not ? 

Mr. Mosch. I did. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a photostatic copy of what pur- 
ports to be six such certificates, and I am asking you if those are the 
ones that you requested the return of, and whicli were returned to 
you. 

(Document handed witness.) 

Mr. MosGH. They are. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 9. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 9" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 8736.) 

The Chairman. Did you receiA^e a reply to your letter to Mr. Con- 
ger, from the company ? 

Mr. Mosch. I did. 

The Chairman. I hand you what purports to be a photostatic copy 
of the reply you received. Examine it and see if you identify it. 

(Document handed witness.) 

Mr. ISIoscH. That is the letter I received. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 10. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 10" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on pp. 8737-8738.) 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Senator Goldwater. ]\Ir. Chairman, might I ask two short ques- 
tions ? 

The (^HAiRMAN. Yes. 

Senator (toldwater. Sheriif, how many special deputies did j'ou 
make after the strike l)egan ? 

Mr. Mosch. Offhand, I think about 40. I am not sure. 

Senator Goedwater. About 40. Were any of these strikers? 

Mr. Mosch. Well, we had no strikers on the picket line, but I be- 
lieve there might have been 1 or 2 that we used at night patrolling 
the highway. The reason for that was the chairman of our com- 
mittee, his brother was out of work, and the chairman came to me 
and asked me if his brother couldn't patrol with one of the uniformed 
men, and I said "Yes." 

Senator Goedavater. Thank you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8493 

The Chairman. The representative of the union requested the 
Chair to ask these questions. I will pass them to the members of 
the committee. I see nothing wrong with them, but I want the com- 
mittee to approve tliem. There is one tliat I can ask you because it 
already appears here. 

You did remove the deputy's badge of Mr. Herbert Kohler, be- 
cause that is shown on your certificate here. 

Mr. Moscii. I did. 

The Chairman. It is included in the exhibit 9 of your testimony. 

Mr. MoscH. Eight. 

The Chairman. Wliy did you take up all these certificates? "Was 
there any other reason other than what you expressed in your letter? 

Mr. MoscH. One Sunday night there was some trouble over at the 
main gate in the village of Koliler, and one of my deputies reported 
to me — I wasn't there, I didn't see it, but he re])orted to me that Mr. 
Kohler was out with a group of his men with chibs, and they almost 
had trouble out there in front of the main gate at the employment 
office. The next morning I spoke with my under sheriff, and talked 
to him. I was afraid that things were going to get out of hand. So 
after discussing with Larry Schmitz, under sheriff, I thought the 
best thing to do was to remove the deputy cards. 

The Chairman. When did you remove the tear gas, before or after 
the cards ? 

Mr. MoscH. The tear gas was removed, I believe, after the deputy 
cards were taken away. 

The Chairman. Afterward? 

Mr. Moscii. I believe so. 

The Chairman. Was there some court order to get the gas removed, 
some court action ? 

Mr. MoscH. I received my orders from the attorney general. 

The Chairman. You received orders from the attorney general? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

The Chairman. To remove the tear gas? 

Mr. MoscH. Right. 

The Chairman. How did you receive those orders? 

Mr. MoscH. By telephone. 

The Chairman. By telephone. 

Senator Mundt. In your letter to Mr. Conger, you have this 
paragraph : 

No release of this action will be made by me, either to the press or radio, 
so as not to cause any embarrassment to anyone concerned. 

Do you remember that paragraph ? 

Mr. MoscH. I do. 

Senator Mundt. In his letter to you, he says : 

Although you stated in your letter that no release of your action would be 
made by you to the press or radio, it has been announced by both, and, there- 
fore, we are making the contents of this letter public. 

AVas Mr. Conger's statement correct? Was it released to the press 
and radio? 

Mr. MoscH. I did not release it. I believe that the press reporters 
went up to the clerk of the circuit coiu-t, and that is on file up there. 
If they go up there and check the record, they could see for them- 
selves that they were removed. 



8494 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIEiS EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Your letter was on file with the clerk of the 
court's office? 

Mr. MoscH. Not the letter, but tliat indicated that the cards were 
taken away. 

Senator Mundt. You would not have received the cards as yet, 
because his letter states they are complying with your request. In 
that same letter he points out that there has been a release to the press 
and radio, and so he was releasing his letter to the public. 1 was 
wondering how the press and radio got the information, or maybe 
you changed your mind and decided to give it to the press and radio. 

Mr. Moscii. I believe they went up to the clerk of circuit court. 
I am not sure. But it would be on file up there. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chatr]max. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You said you received a report that Mr. Herbert 
Kohler and some of his men were using clubs ? 

Mr. Moscii. One of my deputies reported to me there was a fracas 
out in front of the main gate, and that they were out there and they 
had some billy clubs. 

Senator Curtis. Who was your deputy who said that ? 

Mr. Moscii. A1 Butala. 

Senator Curtis. About when was that ? 

Mr. Moscii. Well, tliat was before the lines were opened. It was 
the early part of the strike. 

Senator Curtis. The early part of the strike. You don't remember 
wliat month it was ? 

Mr. Moscii. I believe it was April or the early part of May. 

Senator Curtis. What year? 1954? 

Mr. MoscH. 1954. 

Senator Curtis. Did he say they used the clubs ? 

Mr. Moscii. Well, they didn't use tlie clubs, but they had them 
ready to use, and tlie pickets hollered something to Mr. Kohler, and 
he said "Never mind, I am the law." 

Senator Curtis. Was there any report that they were used ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

Senator Curtis. How old is Mr. Kohler? 

Mr. Moscii. I couldn't say. 

Senator Curtis. Well, how old ? 

Give an estimate. I have never seen him in my life that I know of. 

Mr. MoscH. I would say in the sixties, perhaps 64. I am guessing 
now. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Without objection, we will recess until tomorrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. 

We will reconvene in room 357 at that time. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 25 the committee recessed, with the following 
members present : Senators McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater, 
to reconvene at 10 a. m. Friday, February 28, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1958 

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 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in room 357, Senate Office Building, 
Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) pre- 
siding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republi- 
can, Arizona; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
A^ernon J. Johnson, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 
The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members present at the convening of the session were: Senators 
McClellan and Goldwater. ) 

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

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE J. MOSCH— Resumed 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn, and you will con- 
tinue under the same oath. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you for allowing me to ask the sheriff 
just a few questions relative to some of the testimony that he gave 
yesterday. 

Now, you testified along toward the close of the hearing that Mr. 
Kohler wielded a club. Did you see him wield the club? 

Mr, MoscH. I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. Who told you that Mr. Kohler had a club? 

Mr. MoscH. One of my deputies haj^pened to be near there or went 
by and he was told that he had a club, but I did not see that. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the deputy see Mr. Kohler with a club? 

Mr. Mosch. That I do not know. 

Senator Goldwater. Who was this deputy who told you that ? 

Mr. MoscH. Albert Butala. 

Senator Goldwater. How do you spell that ? 

Mr. Moscii. The last name is spelled, B-u-t-a-1-a. 

Senator Goldwater. Was the deputy at the gate where Mr. Kohler 
was supposed to be wielding the club ? 

8495 



8496 IMPROPER AC'TIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MoscH. No ; he was not there, and he was out for a ride that 
evening with some of his friends, and there was a commotion at the 
main gate, and he stopped and he was told that that is what trans- 
pired. 

Senator Goldwater. So the deputy actually did not see Mr. Kohler 
with a club ? 

Mr. MoscH. No; he did not. 

Senator Goldwater. So somebody else told the deputy, and the 
deputy told you ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is true. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever look further into that episode, 
that was reported third hand to you ? 

Mr. MoscH. No ; I did not. 

Senator Goldwa-i-er. Did you ever hear that what actually happened 
might have been that Mr. Kohler was trying to get into his own plant, 
an d he was stopped ? 

Mr. MoscH. That could be, and I could not answer that, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You could not answer ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Might it not be also that Mr. Kohler's chauf- 
feur or driver got out of the car, in an effort to get Mr. Kohler into 
his own plant, and was stopped by the strikers ? 

Mr. MoscH. That could be. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, I wanted, Mr. Chairman, to clear that 
point up about this club, because it was interpreted as the truth by 
one of our local papers, and I don't think that we can accept evidence 
like that coming in a third-handed way concerning the president of 
a company or as far as that goes concerning any participant in this 
hearing. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair say that, when the witness is before 
us, that is the time to clear it up. As long as they are here, they will 
be recalled for further testimony to clarify any points that may be 
clouded or in doubt. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, sheriff ; did you ever have a written opin- 
ion from the district attorney as to your duties in connection with the 
strike? 

Mr. MoscH. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I have here what purports 
to be a copy of a letter. I have what purports to be a copy of a letter 
written to Sheriff Theodere Mosch, from John G. Buchen, B-u-c-h-e-n, 
on April 13, outlining the duties of the sheriff. 

The Chairman. Do you know Jolin G. Buchen ? 

Mr. MoscH. I do. 

The Chairman. Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Mosch. He is the district attorney. 

The Chairman. Can you speak a little louder ? 

Mr. Mosch. He was the district attorney. 

The Chairman. Was he the one under the law that was responsible 
for giving legal advice during the time of the strike? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

The Chairman. He has that duty as district attorney, to give you 
counsel and instructions with regard to the law ? 

Mr. Mosch. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8497 

The CiiAiKMAN. In any legal problems on which your office might 
have been confronted? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you here what is stated to be or believed to 
be a 4- or 5-page copy of a letter or a memorandmn supposed to have 
been issued to you by John G. Buchen, on April 13, 1054, and I will 
ask you to examine it and state whether you recognize it and whether 
you identify it and state whether you received it and what you know^ 
about it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. MoscH. Yes ; I did receive that. 

The Chairman. You did receive that memorandum? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 

The Chairman. As I interpreted it, it is a memorandum of in- 
structions to you, or discussing the legal aspects of your duties in 
connection with the strike, is that correct? 

Mr. MoscH. That is true. 

The Chairman. That memorandum may be made exhibit No. 11. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 11", for refer- 
ence and nuiy be found in the files of the select conmiittee. 

The Chairman. That exhibit is made for reference, and is there 
any part which you wish to have incorporated in the record? 

Senator Goldavat>:r. Not in the record necessarily, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, sherift', did you print a part of this letter in the newspaper ? 

Mr. MoscH. What letter are you referring io? 

Senator GoLDWAn:R. The one that you just identified. 

The Chairman. It is a memorandum and not a letter. 

Senator Goldavater. You are correct, it is a memorandmn. Did 
you print part of this memorandum in the newspaper? 

Mr. Mt)SCH. I don't know if I did or not, and I could not ansAver 
that. 

Senator GoLowATEit. Don't you remember having part of this 
printed in the newspaper ? 

Mr. MoscH. I recall there being something in the paper but I do 
not know if I put it in or not. 

Senator Goldw^\ter. Didn't Mr. Buchen get rather mad at you 
because you did not print the entire context of the contents of that? 

Mr. Moscii. I don't remember that, sir. 

Senator Goldwaitcr. You don't recall having part of this letter 
printed in the ncAvspapers? 

Mr. MoscH. There was something in the newspaper, but I could not 
tell 3^ou truthfully if it was part or if it was all. 

The Chairman. "Wouldn't you remember whether you released a 
memorandum to the press or not, or any part of it? 

Mr. MoscH. I don't remember, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't say you did or did not ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

The Chairman. You don't know ? 

Mr. MoscH. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't remember ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

The Chairman. Is that right ? 

Mr. Mosch. That is right. 



8498 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwateh. ^[r. Chainnan, yesterday in the testimony, the 
sherilf said that his authority only went so far as escorting the non- 
strikers up the picket line. Now, in the niemorandum from Mr. 
Buchen, who was the district attorney, states the responsibility of the 
sheritf's office was to get nonstrikers through the picket line; is that 
not correct ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is true. 

Senator Goldw^\.ter. Yesterday you testified that your job was only 
to get them up to the picket line ? 

Mr. Moscii. Well, that was one of the opinions that I thought we 
got verbally. 

Senator Goldw^\ter. But you liad the written opinion from the at- 
torney, saying in etfect your job was to get them through that picket 
line ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Could you have made more strenuous efforts 
short of the use of weapons to get these men through the picket line ? 

Mr. IMoscii. We tried to do what we thought was to get them into 
the line without any bloodshed, and we tried our best, and as you saw 
the pictures yesterday, and the movies, under the circumstances we 
were handicapped, also. 

Senator Goldwater. Was the picket line then so effective, and so 
thoroughly organized and so obviously intent on violence, that in your 
opinion as a law enforcement officer to have exercised the full pre- 
rogative of your office short of the use of weapons, you w^ould have 
caused bloodshed and further violence ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater, Now let me ask you, do you recall an article 
in the Sheboygan Press of April 12, 1954, which said this, and I quote : 

County Sheriff Theodore Mosch, contacted by telephone this morning, said 
tliat Under Sheriff Schmitz was taking over temporarily, that he, himself, would 
remain in the office chiefly for a few days until he could cure a cold that he had 
contracted. The deputies, he said, were under orders to protect any employees 
who wished to return to work, and to take them as far as the picket line. 

Do you recall that ? 

Mr. MoscH. Ido. 

Senator Goldwater. Now^, wdiy didn't you instruct the deputies to 
take them through the picket line ? 

Mr. MosGH. We tried to get them through, but it was absolutely 
impossible. 

Senator Goldw^ater, Well, let us suppose that you had deputized, 
say, 200 men for the express purpose of forcing your way through that 
line without any weapons at all. Do you think that you could have 
gotten workers through with 200 deputies ? 

Mr, Moscii, I doubt that very much. 

Senator Goldw^ater, How many deputies do you think it would 
have taken to have gotten w^orkers through that organized picket line ? 

Mr,MoscH, About 400 or 500. 

Senator Goldav ater. In effect could you have gotten enough men in 
Sheboygan County to have accomplished the purpose that John 
Buchen said w^as your job, namely to get people through that picket 
line? 

Mr. MoscH. It would have been utterly impossible to get anybody 
in there. People that we tried to contact to be deputized, they would 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8499 

not do it because either their brother or their father or their relative 
or somebody was in the phmt. 

They absohitely did not want no part of being deputized. 

Senator Goldwater. Although you testified to this yesterday, then 
it is more and more obvious that this, under no convocation of words, 
could be called peaceful picketing ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is true. 

Senator Goldwater. It was violent picketing ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. And violent striking ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Senator Goldw^vter. Which you as a sheriff charged with the en- 
forcement of law of the county of Sheboygan, honestly felt you could 
not cope with and not create violence of the sort that would have been 
disastrous to the peace of the community and the county, is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Moscii. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, I have one more point, sheriff. You testi- 
fied that you had orders from the attorney general to confiscate cer- 
tain tear gas. Did you ever have a written opinion or order from him? 

Mr. Moscii. No, I received that by telephone. 

Senator Goldwater. You received it by phone ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Where was the tear gas when you took pos- 
session of it ? 

Mr. MoscH. It was in the village hall. 

Senator Goldwater. AVho had turned it over to the village hall ? 

Mr. Moscii. I do not know, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Had it been turned over to Mr. Capelle, the 
chief of police ? 

Mr. MoscH. I don't know; all I know is when I went over to the 
village hall, Chief Walter Ca])elle turned it over to me. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not go to the plant and take the tear 
gas out of the plant ? 

Mr. MoscH. No, sir. 

Senator Goldw\4ter. It had already been turned into the city hall? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the chief of police, Capelle, to your knowl- 
edge, have any tear gas other than that that was turned over to him 
by the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. MoscH. I could not answer that. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you confiscate the gas that Capelle had? 

Mr. MoscH. We took it over to the county jail, and kept it in 
storage. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, actually, the gas was not confiscated as a 
result of a John Doe hearing, was it ? 

Mr. MoscH. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwait.r. You testified to that yesterday, and I did not 
think that you wanted to have it stay on the record, that either your 
or your deputy, I think it was you, testified as a result of a John Doe 
hearing the gas was confiscated. 

xVctually, the John Doe hearing was held after the gas was turned 
over by tlie Kohler Co., to the chief of police? 

Mr. Moscii. That is rip-ht. 



8500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Is that cori'ect ? 

Mr. MosGii. Yes. 

Senator Goldwatek. Noaa", did you ever hear that the findinos of 
the John Doe decision was that the Kohler Co. had done nothing 
illegal in having the gas in their possession ? 

Mr. MoscH. I believe that is riglit. 

Senator Goldwatek. Do you think that you remember hearing that 
the Jolui Doe decision was that the Kohler Co. had done nothing il- 
legal in liaving the gas in their possession ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

Senator Goldwatek. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
you for the opportunity to clear this up. 

Tlie (yJiAiKMAX. I would like to get one matter clear. Was provi- 
sion made by the strikers or by the union and the Kohler executives 
to permit them free ingress and egress in and to their plant? 

Mr. MosciL Would you repeat the question, please ? 
^The Chairman. Ifow about the nuinagement of the plant, the 
Kohler officials and management '? Were they permitted freedom of 
ingress and egress to and from the plants Was any arrangement 
worked out for that ? 

Mr. MoscH. To my knowledge, they had free access to go in and 
come out. 

The Chairman. As I understand you, you are saying that the 
strikers, the union did not prevent them from going into the plant and 
leaving it at their pleasure ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is what I understand. 

The Chairman. What experience did you have ? Did you have any 
trouble or any complaint about them being able to get in or get out ? 

Mr. Moscii. No. 

The Chairman. You had no complaint of that nature ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

The Chairman. Not from any of the Kohler people ? 

Mr. MoscH. No. 

The Chairman. I that right ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is right. 

The Chairman. The strike, then, the obstruction and the force, and 
the mass picketing was used against employees who wanted to go back 
to work ? 

Mr. MoscH. That is right. 

The Chairman. And not against management going into and from 
the plant ? 

Mr. Moscii. That is true. 

The Chairman. What quantities of tear gas were turned over to 
you? 

Mr. MoscH. I think there were 3, or I don't remember offhand, I 
believe there were 3 crates of tear-gas shells. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Goldwater.) 

Tlie Chairman. Three crates ? 

Mr. MoscH. I am not sure. 

The CiiAiRjiAN. I don't know how much is in a crate. 

Mr. Moscii. They have the record there. I would only be 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with the record ? 

Mr. MoscH. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8501 

The Chairman, I present you here what purports to be a record of 
the tear gas that was delivered to you. Examine it and state if you 
identify it as being correct. 

(The document was handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. MoscH. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is correct ? That may be made exhibit No. 12. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on pp. 87'^l)-874().) 

The Chairman. I have no idea, just glancing at that, how to describe 
the quantity. You say three crates. How large is a crate? 

Mr. MoscH. I don't— I couldn't tell you exactly. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with tear gas ? 

Mr. MoscH. Not very well ; no. 

The Chairman. You don't use it? You never had occasion to 
use it? 

Mr. MoscH. No, I never did. 

Tlie Chairman. Did you keep it on hand in your office as sheriff ? 

Mr. Mosch. Yes. 

The Chairman. You were sheritf for 8 years ? 

Mr. Mosch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you didn't get familiar with it, how to use 
it, the quantity of it, or anything? 

Mr. Mosch. I have never used it myself. 

The Chairman. You never had occasion to use it ? 

Mr. Mosch. No. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to ascertain, since it is an issue 
here, is whether that is a vary large quantity, designed to meet mass 
resistance, or whether it is just like you would have a little on hand, 
sometimes, when you get somebody cornered in a building to shoot in 
there and drive them out. I am trying to get a relative idea of it. 

Mr. Mosch. I am not familiar with the tear gas. My under sheriff 
is the one that is more familiar with that than I am. 

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

If not, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Capelle. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear 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. Capelle. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALDEMER G. CAPELLE 

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

Mr. Capelle. Waldemer G. Capelle, 128 Lincoln Circle, Kohler, 
Wis., chief of police, the village of Kohler. 

The Chairman. Mr. Capelle, do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Are you still chief of police of the village of 
Kohler? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were during the strike period beginning 
in June 1954, or May 1954 ? 

:il243— 5S— pt. 21 12 



8502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Capp^lle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Capelle, how long have you been chief of police 
ill Kohler^ 

Mr. Capelu:. 11 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us approximately, how many people 
live in the village of Kohler ? 

Mr. Cappelle. Approximately 1,700 to 1,800 people. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as the operation of the village of Kohler, 
does the Kohler Co. play a large part in that operation? Is the 
Kohler Co. itself an important element in the community? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, they are the only plant in the community. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, what percentage of the taxes does the 
Kohler Co. pay in the village of Kohler ? 

Mr. Capelle. I don't know the definite figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately what percentage ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, not knowing the definite figure, I haven't access 
to the tax rolls, it is not in my 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, approximately how much ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, To percent, I would say. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 75 percent ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is just my opinion. I am not versed in the 
taxation of the village. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. And of the approximately 1,200 people that live 
in Kohler Village, what percentage of those work at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, there is between 1,700 and 1,800. 

Mr. Kennedy. What percentage of tliose work in Kohler ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, the greater percentage. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 90 percent of them ? 

Mr. Capelle. About 90 percent of them, I would say. 

Mr. Kennedy. They work in theKohler plant ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 90 percent of the people who live in Kohler 
Village work at the Kohler plant, is that right ? 

Mr. Capelle. Approximately. 

The Chairman. Are you paid as a salary as chief of police ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you paid a salary out of tax moneys ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Out of governmental revenues ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairjman. Are you paid anything by voluntary contributions 
by the Kohler Co. or by citizens of the community ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you are an official, duly paid by tax revenue, 
that are levied upon all, according to their responsibilities to pay 
taxes ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is correct ; sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time of the Kohler strike, how many deputies 
did you have? How many people did you have working for you? 

Mr. Capelle. At tlie beginning of the strike, April 5, 1954, I had 
approximately 90 special police. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ninety special police ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. sir. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8503 

Mr. Kennedy. And did they work during this period of time in 
which the mass picketing went on '^ 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. I had them working in three shifts, and also 
the fire department. They also were special police. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. How many are in the tire department ? 

Mr. Capelle. There were 12. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that in addition to the 90? 

Mr. Capelle, No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That makes up part of the 90? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had them working in three shifts? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people do you ordinarily have? 

Mr. Capelle. Four, with myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this was a tremendous increase, is that right? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that to deal w^ith this problem and difficulty? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you taken them on right after the strike broke 
out? 

Mr. Capelle. Xo. I had trained men previous to that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. When had you started to take on these men? 

Mr. Capelle. In May 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. In INIay of 1952 ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many did you bring on then ? 

Mr. Capelle. Approximately 45. It varied. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 45 people ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you select May of 1952 ? 

Mr, Capelle. Well, as a chief of police of the village of Kohler, 
I felt it my duty to be prepared for any emergency, or if there was 
any trouble, I wanted to be sure that I would be prepared to protect 
life, limb, and property, which is my duty. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt that there would be some problems and 
difficulties back in May of 1952? 

Mr. Capelle. It very much looked that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason for that ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, there was a little unrest in the people work- 
ing at the plant, and the new affiliation with the CIO which caused 
quite a bit of feeling in the area, in the vicinity, and amongst the 
people. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I remember, the UAW-CIO came in there in 
April of 1952, is that right ? 

Mr. Capelle. I am not sure of that. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, immediately following the vote by the people 
in the plant to affiliate with the UAW, you then got 45 new deputies; 
is that right? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you started training these deputies ? 

Mr. Capelle. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had some discussions with Mr. Conger about 
this ? 

Mr. Capelle. 



8504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Or Mr. Koliler ? 

Mr. Cappxle. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never even knew that you had the 45 deputies ? 

Mr. Capelle. AYhether he knew or not, I don't know. 

The Chairman. You didn't do it at their instance ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. sir. 

The Chairman. You did it out of a sense of duty as you felt it, 
growing out of your responsibilities ? 

Mr. Capelle. Y^es, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were not put up to do it, and 
there was no agitation or effort on the part of the Kohler people to 
get you to make some special preparation ? 

Mr. Capelij-:. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just felt that the fact that the Kohler workei-s 
had voted to affiliate and become members of the UAW-CIO, that that 
was sufficient to get 45 new deputies ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, that is part of it, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other reason ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, if any otlier union would have been in. It 
didn't make any difference what union got in, but I know if there 
would be any trouble, I felt I should be prepared for it. It made no 
difference to me whether it is the CIO, AFL, or wdiat. 

Mr. Kennedy. If a union comes into a community, that is a signal 
to you to get ready for trouble and difficulties ? 

Mr. Capelle. Not necessarily, no. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. But you felt in this case you should increase your 
force by 1,000 percent because of the fact that the UAW was com- 
ing in? 

Mr. Capelle. The way people felt, and the w^ay there was tension 
there, I felt that something may happen, and I wanted to be prepared. 

Mr. Kennedy. These people were all employees. They were all 
people working for the Kohler Co., or 90 percent of them. 

Mr. Capelle. Most of them, yes. I had no 

Mr. Kennedy. From wdiom did you take your instructions as chief 
of police l 

Mr. Capelle. I take instructions from the village board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the police commissioners? 

Mr. Capp:lle. And part of the village board, three of the members 
of the village board, compose a police committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the police committee? 

Mr. Capelle. They are aconnnittee that are members of the village 
board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they have anything to do with the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Capelle. At that time, two of the committee were working for 
the Kohler Co., and the chairman of the committee is a schoolteacher, 
or— yes, he is a schoolteacher, but at that time he was chairman of 
the police committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other two out of the three were employees of 
the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Capelle. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of positions did they hold in the Kohler 
Co.? 



IMPROiPEiR ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8505 

Mr. Cai'elle. At that time one was either a foreman or a super- 
intendent and the other one was a laborer in the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were their names ? 

Mr. Capelle. Jerome Regan, Bernard Meyer, and the chairman 
was Williard Wandschneider. 

JNIr. Kennedy. These 45 people that you deputized, were they em- 
ployees of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I believe so, maybe with the exception of one or 
two. 

Mr. Kennedy. The others were Kohler employees ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

"Sh: Kennedy. Was there any arrangement made with the Kohler 
Co. about your taking these 45 people and deputizing them? 

Mr. Capelle. At that time ^ No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, were any financial arrangements made with 
the Kohler Co. about these 45 men ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any arrangements made at a later time? 

Mr. Capelle. Insofar as pay ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, hospitalization or anything like that. 

Mr. Capelle. Well, yes ; that came later. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that arrangement? 

Mr. Capelle. That was at the start of the strike. They received 
a leave of absence and that their hospitalization and health and acci- 
dent insurance would continue during their leave of absence. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Kohler Co. agreed to that ? 

Mr. Capeli.e. Walter J. Ireland is the personnel director, and I saw 
him about that. 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of the letter dated 
xVpril 1, 1954, presumably from the Kohler Co. to you, and ask 
you to examine that and state if you received that letter. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

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

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 13. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 13" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 8741.) 

The Chairman. That is the letter that gave you the instructions 
or agreement that you have just testified to ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the Kohler Co. agreed to the hospitalization and 
certain other rights to continue for these people working as special 
police, is that right ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. Although they had to pay their hospitalization, 
like it had been before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Pay into the fund, you mean ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; pay for their hospitalization. 

]Mr. ICennedy. Let me go back. Then you took on some 45 at the 
time the strike came; you took 45 immediately after the affiliation; 
and then about the period of the strike you brought on 45 new 
deputies ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 



8506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that you were training these first 45 we 
are talking about in May of 1952. AVliat sort of things would they 
be learning ? 

Mr. Capelle. Regular, basic police training, which includes fun- 
damentals of our village ordinances, State statutes, how to operate our 
radio in the squad car, foot-patrol teclmiques and such. A regular 
course. I guess that is common in every police department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you speak a little louder? It is a regular 
course ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is common in every police department. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have guns that you trained them witli also? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. We had target practice. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of guns did you use ? 

Mr. Capelle. The guns that we have, which include revolver, shot- 
gun, submachinegun, and gas guns. 

Mr. Kennedy. You trained them with machine guns? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also with gas guns ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wlien did you start training them with the gas 
guns? In May of 1952? 

Mr. Capelle. No ; it wasn't then. It was later. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you start training them with gas guns? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, I don't remember what date it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were training them with machineguns 
also ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwatek. Mr. Chairman, might I interject a moment at 
this point? 

How many machineguns did you have ? 

Mr. Capelle. We have two, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were both of tliem soldered ? 

Mr. Capelle. We did at one time, so that they would only shoot one 
shot at a time. 

Senator Goldwater. When you trained on the machineguns, were 
they in soldered condition ? 

Mr. Capelle. At first, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. So, in effect, it was not a machinegun. It was 
not an automatic gun as long as it was soldered? 

Mr. Capelle. Not at the time; no. That was for a safety measure. 
After all, these fellows never handled a gun. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The first 45 men that you trained, were they selected 
by reason of tlie fact that they were company sympathizers ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

The Chairman. What happened to the first 45 when the strike 
finally came? 

What percentage of them were nonstrikers and what percentage of 
them became strikers ? 

Mr. Capelle. Out of the 45, I would say there were between 9^8 
or 9 that dropped out and they went on strike, went on the picket line. 

The Chairman. So tliey were not first selected witli a view of get- 
ting those who might oppose a strike? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 



IMPRiOiPEiR ACTRaTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8507 

The Chairman. You are sure of that, now ? 

The Capelle. I am. 

The Chairman. You weren't just trying to buikl up something to 
break a strike ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

The Chairman. When the strike finally came, the first 45 you had 
trained from May 1952, about 8 of the 45 went over on the side of the 
strikers ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; they did. 

The Chairman. Did they continue to remain deputy policeman ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

The Chairman. When they went on the side of the strikers, they 
were dismissed as deputy police; is that correct? 

Mr. Capelle. They asked to be. 

The Chairman. They asked to be released ? 

Mr. Capelle, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they were released. 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you mean at first about the machinegun? 
First you had them soldered off? 

Mr. Capelle. We had them soldered on the Thompson submachine- 
guns. There is a lever there for either single fire or rapid fire, and 
that lever was soldered for single. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that remained from 1952 on ? 

Mr. Capelle. I don't remember just when that was done, the dates. 
I mean, they also fired rapid fire. 

Mr. Kennedy. They also fired rapid fire ? 

Mr, Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both kinds. 

Mr. Capelle, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, then came the strike in 1954 and you brought 
in these new deputies, is that right ? 

Mr, Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, And the ones that you brought on at that time in 
1954, were they strikers or nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Capelle. The new ones in 1954, you mean ? 

Mr, Kennedy, Yes, 

Mr, Capelle. They were all nonstrikers. 

Mr, Kennedy, They went through this training too ? 

Mr, Capelle. No, not through the same kind of training that we 
had for the others. 

Mr, Kennedy. Were they trained with the gas ? 

Mr. Capelle, No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had less active training, is that right ? 

Mr, Capelle, They were with the other fellows, and I had a nucleus 
there, that there would be at least one who knew how" to operate any- 
thing, or any equipment that we had, 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, what would happen if the Kohler Co, wanted 
some of these people back to work and wanted them to perform any 
special task? Did you have an arrangement with them that they 
could leave the police force and go back to work ? 

Mr, Capelle. Well, if the man himself wanted to go back to work, 
he would tell me, and the time when I felt that we could cut doAvn on 



8508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the police dep;irtment, I Avoiild release him then. Any arranoements 
they made witli the company, as to when to start, they had to do that 
themselves. 

Mr. Kenneov. For instance, when Mr. Irian or someone from 
Kohler <rot in touch with yon that they wanted one of the deputy 
policemen hack to work on a particular day to perform a specific task, 
you would make some arranoements so that they could go back to 
work in the company, would you not ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, T would say there would be maybe two men that 
I remember, and T know Mr. Irian told me, "A^Hienever you can spare 
them, to let them go, we would appreciate it if you would.'' 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, when the strike began, you split this group into 
three different shifts? 

Mr. Capelle. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, tell the committee about the period of the strike. 
Mass picketing was going on, and it was impossible to get the non- 
strikers through the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mv. Kennedy. And people who wanted to go to w^ork were not al- 
lowed to go to work and not permitted through the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you request two officials of the union to open 
up the line? 

]Mr, Capelle. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they refused to do so ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee some of those peo])le 
that you requested to open up the picket line, and what their replies 
were ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, I talked to Robert Burkhart anj^ number of 
times, to get this thing, or the pickets to open up and keep them off 
Industrial Road. He would reply, "I will try," or words to that 
effect, but they were never obeyed. 

At times I would ask the people who were in front of me on the 
picket line, and a group in front of the main office or the main gate, 
to open up. It was never followed through. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would not open up ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What reason woidd they give you, or what would 
they state, that they were just not going to open up ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, they would yell and say, "Nobody gets in." 
They certainly made it definite that they made up their mind that 
nobody gets in, and they would chant it and yell it. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, they knew that you were 
an officer of the police ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. And you went and requested them to open up the 
line and they still refused to do so? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take any steps to arrest any of them when 
they refused tx) obey your instructions? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, uo, not any individual person. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any of them arrested by you or by your depu- 
ties during this period of the strike? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8509 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that for? 

Mr. Capelle. For different things. For instance, I remember on 
April 11, 1054, around midniglit, tliere were 2 men tried to get into 
the plant, and 1 man succeeded, and the other man was stopped and 
pushed back out on to the street. That involved, after investigating 
it, two men, and they Avere arrested for preventing persons from going 
to work, 

Mr. Kennedy. They were arrested for preventing people from 
going to work ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did those cases come out ? 

Mr. (\\rELLE. Tliey were dismissed in justice of peace court. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did you testify ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were they dismissed? 

Mr. Capelle. By J. John Schneider. 

Mr. Kennedy. What reason was given for their dismissal? 

Mr. Capelle. I forget the wording of the opinion. I remember he 
wrote no opinion, but he thought there was not enough evidence; 
that boils it down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : Did you ever arrest any of the pickets 
or the picket captains, or the international officials w^ho stood in front 
of you and would not allow the nonstrikers in to work ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, at that time, as the former under-sheriff testified, 
I think it was 12 men first. That was the only time that we arrested 
them. I believe we charged unlawful assambly or the district attorney 
did, and I am sure the right to work law was charged against them, 
too. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that case was dismissed, also; was it? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, why didn't you bring out all 90 of your depu- 
ties and tiy to open up the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, first, out of the 90, only 45 had any previous 
training, and I don't think we would have done much with only 45. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think that you could have opened the line 
up with the people that you had together with the people that the 
sheriff had? 

Mr. Capelle. That wouldn't have been enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive any instructions or requests 
from the Kohler Co. to use your 90 people to open up the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Mr. Ivennedy. They never requested that you do that ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Or take any steps to try to open the line so these 
people could get to work ? 

Mr. Capelle. I got a letter shortly after the start of the strike from 
the company requesting that the lines be opened and they quoted this 
law and a person having the right to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you find out, and what did you do, and 
what steps did you take then ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, we did what we could with the number of peo- 
ple that we had there. It would have taken more tlian we had to 
open up the lines. 



8510 IMPROPER AiCTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive any other requests from the 
company to open up the lines, any verbal requests to open up the line^ 
You had the most deputies and the most people working for you of 
any law-enforcement agency in that area, and did they ever get in 
touch with you to ask you to open up the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. I have had requests from the people that wanted to 
get in, but not from the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not from the company ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, could you describe generally how the strikers 
behaved in the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, in the morning there w^as always, at the start 
of the strike, there were, I would say, around 2,000, and the number 
varied, anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 pickets in front of the Kohler Co. 
on the sidewalk adjacent to what we call Industrial Road. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would you describe their activities and be- 
havior ? 

Mr. Capelle. Normally, I mean, they were loud and boisterous and 
they did a lot of singing, and then when somebody attempted to go 
to work, it seemed there would be quite a large gi^oup to meet them 
and stop them in front of the main gate. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were loud and boisterous though while they 
were on the picket line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there much destruction of property around 
there ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any destruction of property ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the violence that took place, or the pushing and 
fighting that took place, take place usually when the nonstrikers 
attempted to get into the picket line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were prevented from coming through the 
picket line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would come over and try to get to work and 
not be allowed to go to work ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the fighting that took place, took place at that 
period of time, when these nonstrikers came across the street and 
attempted to get in through the picket line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were practicing with the machineguns, 
what kind of targets would you use ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, we had a bull's-eye target, and the regular 
FBI E-target, which is the silhouette target. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used the silhouette target as well as the bull's- 
eye target? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a silhouette of a man ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the silhouette targets from ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8511 

Mr. Capelle. From William Williamson Co., who handles all po- 
lice materials, and he has his office at Appleton, Wis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Kohler Co. also have some silhouette tar- 
gets that they used ? 

Mr. Capelle. I don't know. They have a rifle club, and they have 
had a rifle club for many years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would you practice your shooting? 

Mr. Capelle. At the rifle range. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Capelle. The Kohler Co. allowed us to use it, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. These machineguns, where did they come from, the 
machineguns originally. 

Mr. Capelle. Well, I believe they were purchased in 1933 or 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1933 or 1934? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are the machineguns that had been used 
during this strike in 1934 ? 

Mr. Capelle. I don't know, and I imagine — whether they were or 
not, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have been left over from that difficulty ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the organization called the Humane 
Society ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, the Humane Society is for the prevention of 
cruelty to animals. 

Mr. Kennedy. '\Anien was that formed, the Humane Society ? 

Mr. Capelle. In the early part of 1955, I believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And by whom was it formed ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, our village attorney took care of the details 
of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wanted to take care of animals ? 

Mr. Capelle. 'Wliich is part of that, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. To protect animals, is that it ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, that is what the Humane Society is for. 

Mr. Kennedy. The village attorney suggested that you form a 
Humane Society to take care of animals ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other reason that the Humane So- 
ciety was formed ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, I was the main chief or officer of the Humane 
Society, which is a State office, appointed by the Governor. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are appointed by the Governor ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you became a State officer ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other reason other than to protect 
animals that the Humane Society was formed in 1955 ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, if there was any question, there has been quite 
a bit of ado made about our machineguns and tear gas, so if there 
was any question, our attorney thought that would be added protec- 
tion. 

Mr. Kennedy. '\Yhy would that be added protection ? 



8512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Capeijle. "Well, that is liis opinion. That is what he thought. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean if you were made a State officer, you could 
have machineguus and tear gas, is that right? 

Mr. Capelle. Then there would be no question about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And if you created a Humane Society, you would 
become a State officer, is that right ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so therefore you could keep machineguns and 
tear gas? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, that w^as his opinion. 

Mr. Kennedy. His opinion ? 

Mr. Capelle. It Mas his opinion before tliat, and he thought that 
I could have machineguns and tear gas without it, as far as that goes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted to make sure that that was covered, is 
that right? 

Mr. Capelle. Evidently. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there were two reasons, really, not just to pro- 
tect animals, but so that you could have a legal right to have ma- 
chineguns and tear gas ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, that was added. That was his opinion, and 
it was his setting up. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was called the Humane Society ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Mp.^Kennedy. Do most of the police forces in Wisconsin train their 
deputies in the use of machineguns and tear gas, and the rest of these 
kind of things ? Is that an ordinary procedure ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. For deputies ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the usual procedure? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To train them? 

Mr. Capelle. It is recommended by the FBI that you train them 
in all of the equipment that you do have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you done that ])rior to that time? How 
many deputies had you had prior to 1952 that you trained this way? 

For instance, had you ever trained anybody in gas prior to 1952? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; my own men. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you ever trained any deputies in gas prior to 
1952? 

Mr. Capelle. I had Sheriff Mosch. That might liave been after 
that, and I just don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about your deputies. Did you ever 
train any of your deputies in gas ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. I always had several special police to fill in 
during vacations, and times when we needed extra men. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean your deputies, these special de])uties, had you 
ever trained special deputies in gas prior to 1952? 

Mr. Capelle. I believe I have taken them down several times. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Capelle. I can't recall just what year, but 1949 or 1950, and we 
w^ould go down on the range. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had some special deputies then ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, although I only had 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 8513 

Mr. Kennedy. How many special deputies did you have ? 

Mr. Capelle. I had 5, and once in a while 3, 4, or 5. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you train them all in gas? 

Mr. Capelle. Some of them, and not all of them. When we 
would go down to the range, whoever could make it, we would go 
down. 

Senator Goldwatek. Might I interrupt, and ask was gas ever used 
during this strike? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwaitcr. To your knowledge, wouldn't it be dangerous 
for any person to use tear gas who hadn't been trained in it ? 

Mr. Capelle. You mean who would not know how to handle it? 

Senator Goldwater. That is right. 

Mr. Capelle. Not too dangerous, if you could tell them ; it is very 
simple. 

Senator Goldwater. Isn't it customary in police forces and sheriffs' 
forces, and the FBI, and all law-enforcement agencies, to train their 
men how to use tear gas, and how to use guns ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You weren't doing anything, and actually 
would have been remiss in your duties had you not trained men in 
the handling of all weapons that you had ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. But there was no gas used any time during 
this strike ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask the police chief, have you been 
chief of police very long ? 

Mr. Capelle. Eleven years. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Do you ever attend any State associations of law- 
enforcement officers ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir, I do. 

Senator Mundt. Do you talk with other police chiefs ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you talk with police chiefs in other States ? 

Mr. IVIapelle. At occasions ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. In talking with police chiefs from other States, 
do you find it is general practice among police departments to have 
target ranges and rifle practice, and training in the use of tear gas? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know what the purpose of all of the ques- 
tioning is, but I can tell you that out in South Dakota you wouldn't 
stay chief of police 15 minutes if you didn't train your men in the 
use of tear-gas shells, and target practice, and to be a good marks- 
man, because we want law-enforcement officers to have a background 
who can take care of violence when it develops, and can take care of 
it. And so I think that you are to be commended rather than criti- 
cized in the training of your men to handle firearms. That is part 
of the job of a good police officer. 

I know at public expense, in South Dakota, we send our men clear 
down to Washington, D. C, to the FBI Academy, and our police 
officers learn to do those things efficiently and properly. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 



8514 rMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. If the chairman has no questions, I would like 
to ask you a few. 

The Chairman. Counsel is not through, but go ahead. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Chief, you testilied, I believe, that in 
1952, you started to enlarge your force. 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldw^ater. And that you did this by adding deputies? 

Mr. Capelle. Special police, they were sworn in as, Senator. 

Senator Goldavater. Your authority lies only in the village of 
Kohler? 

Mr. Capelle. That is right, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Not outside ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is right. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Could you deputize anybody to be an assistant 
police officer from outside of the town limits of the village of Kohler? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir ; I could n.ot. 

Senator Goldwater. Wouldn't it be rather difficult to deputize any- 
body in the village limits of Kohler who didn't work for Kohler? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. The great majority of the citizens of the 
village of Kohler work for Kohler, isn't that right ? 

Mr. Capeele. Yes. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Goldwater. Was this the year that the UAW was recog- 
nized as the bargaining agent, in 1952? 

Mr. Caplle. No. I believe they were talking about an election at 
that time, although I think the affiliation came through somewhere 
in 1953. 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat was the reason that you gave counsel 
for increasing the force at that time ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, I felt there was quite a bit of unrest of some of 
the people that were employed at the Kohler Co., and if we were 
going to have trouble, I thought it would be better to prepare for it. 

Senator Goldw^4Ter. Did you at that time hear that the UAW-CIO 
were interested in moving into the plant ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Had you had any knowledge of previous 
strikes conducted by the UAW or the CIO ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I had knowledge of the strike they had there 
in 1934. 

Senator Goldwater. The question that I asked was : Had you any 
knowledge of the manner in which UAW or CIO strikes had been 
conducted in the past? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you or not, or, to put it another way, did 
this Imowledge convince you, that the pattern of violence that has 
been typical of strikes in this union, should cause you to start prepar- 
ing yourself for trouble? 

Mr, Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to comment 
further on that, but at the proper time evidence will be offered by me 
to show that the Kohler strike, and the Perfect Circle strike, is not 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8515 

an isolated instance of violence with the UAW or with the CIO, 
but that it is a typical pattern. 

I think the police chief was absolutely right in anticipating trouble 
and enlarging his force at that time. That is all of the questions 
I have at the present moment. 

The Chairman. The Chair will again state that if anybody has a 
witness who has testimony pertinent to this inquiry, that witness will 
be heard. I am not criticizing this police chief nor the sheriff. I 
think they had a most difficult job. Had they not been men of some 
discretion under those circumstances, there are many people living 
today who might not be. 

The situation that was built up there, it is perfectly apparent, was 
one where law and order did not prevail. 

People were denied their rightful pursuits because of mass picket- 
ing, because the mass picketing would not yield to the ordinary proc- 
esses of law and order. 

It is perfectly apparent. But I think we are all glad today that 
there wasn't a lot of shooting, a lot of tear gas, a lot of beating up, 
more than there was; we regret every incident that did occur that 
was unlawful and improper. 

It is the purpose of this committee to find out what was improper, 
what went on, so that we may report that to the Congress, and the 
> Congress may have that to enlighten them, as far as it will, with 
respect to legislation that may be needed. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^nien you had the increase in deputies, did you have 
to get an increase in the budget ? Did you have to get more money ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would that come from ? Where did you get 
your increase in the budget ? 

Mr. Capelle. The committee would request from the village board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the tear gas that was in the company ultimately 
turned over to you ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain what happened on that ? 

Mr. Capelle. I don't remember the date, but Eay Hanson, who was 
employed at the Kohler Co., came to my office and asked if he could 
place some things and crates in my protective custody. I wanted to 
know what was in them, and he told me that there was tear gas and 
tear gas guns in these crates, so I kept them in my protective cus- 
tody. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to those ? 

Mr. Capelle. After a while, I don't know just how many days 
after. Sheriff Alosch came and said that he was instructed by the at- 
torney general to confiscate the gas, or these cartons and packages 
that the Kohler Co. had left there in my protective custody. 

JNIr. Kennedy. So they were ultimately turned over to him ? 

Mr. Capelle. I turned them over to the slieriff. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if the Kohler Co. had any other arms 
or ammunition other than the tear gas 'i 

Mr. Capelle. None other to my knowledge ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know that they merely had the tear gas which 
ultimately was turned over to you ; is that right ? 



8516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Capelle, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they have guns to shoot the tear gas with ? 

Mr. Capelle. I found out later. I did not open these packages at 
all when that was placed in my protective custody. 

The Chairman. It takes a special gun, does it not ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Give us some idea about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a gun downstairs. 

The Chairman. Give us some idea about the quantity of tear gas. 
That is what I was trying to get a M'hile ago. AVere the three crates 
a large quantity or a small quantity ? 

Mr. Capelle. There were more than three crates. 

The Chairman. The sheriif, I believe said he thought there were 
three crates. Plow many were there ? 

Mr. Capelle. There were, to my best recollection, about 12. 

The Chairman. Twelve crates? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. How many loads or shots in one crate ? 

Mr. Capelle. "Well, all these crates were of different sizes. I 
couldn't say how many were in each one. 

The Chairman. We still have a problem. I don't know if it was 
a large amount of tear gas or small, relatively speaking. 

Mr. Capelle. I did not open the packages. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were 150 cartridges, as we understand, short- 
range cartridges, and 150 projectiles. We have some of those down 
in the office as well as the guns, if you would like to see them. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the witness, and we will send someone 
down there and have them brought up to be identified. 

Just a moment. That would be oOO rounds; is that correct? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. Three hundred shells. I suppose you call one shell 
a round in ammunition. That would be 300 rounds ; 150 of one kind 
and 150 of another ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. Well, this is the best information we liave at the 
moment. Now I begin to get some idea; if I had 150 cartridges, I 
would find out, I would know wliat it was. 

Senator Mundt. Didn't you find out from the attorney general? 

Did you say that the attorney general got the ammunition ? 

Mr. Capelle. No; the sheriff got the ammunition. He came out 
with the district attorney, and they told me tlmt the attorney general 
had ordered the sheriff to do that. 

Senator Mundt. It was the attorney general of the State? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The district attorney asked the sheriff to get the 
tear gas ? 

Mr. Capelle. Whether it was that way or the reverse, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say on this that Mr. Bellino 
has gone through the records of the Kohler Co. on this question, and 
has a list of all of that. Perhaps we could have him testify to that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of coun- 
sel ? I have no objection to looking at another gun. I have seen quite 
a few of tliem in my life. There has never been any denial by the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELI> 8517 

company that these guns were owned. There has never been any use 
of the tear gas, or use of the guns, in a strike, either by the union or 
by the company, or by the police or by the sheriff, 

I can't see what is so relevant about bringing a gun up here to dis- 
play before these people, and bringing tear-gas shells up. I have no 
objection to it, but I do not see what it is adding to this case. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just said that we had the gun down, if you would 
like to see the gun. If nobody wants to see the gun, that is fine. 

Senator Goldwater. I think it is fine that the counsel subpenaed a 
gun and brought it all the way down here from Wisconsin. 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to see the gun. I have never 
seen one. 

Senator Goldwater. Fine. But that does not answer my question. 
I asked what is tliis line of reasoning supposed to produce, inasmuch 
as there has never been any denial or use. 

The Chairman. I can point out some use of it. A situation de- 
veloped out there where law and order broke down, period. You 
had mass picketing on one side. The claim is going to be made that 
that mass picketing was inspired, to some extent, by preparations be- 
ing made on the other side, and by past experiences in a strike, out 
there. All I want is to get the whole truth, and I don't care where the 
blame lies. 

Senator Goldwater. I will ask the question then : Is there anything 
illegal in Wisconsin in the possession of shotguns or tear gas or tear- 
gas guns ? Has the company violated a law ? 

The Chairman. I don't know\ 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to have that question answered. 
Is it against the law ? 

The Chairman. Is it ? I will ask the witness. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not a lawyer, and counsel is. I am ask- 
ing if that is against the law. 

The Chairman. I am asking the witness. 

Senator Goldwater. I am sorry. 

The Chairman. Do you know ? 

Mr. Capelle. Not if you are a deputy. You may possess tear gas. 

The Chairman. As long as the Kohler men and officers were depu- 
ties, they could possess tear gas ? 

Air. Capelle. Yes, sir, that is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlien their deputy cards were withdrawn, then 
they no longer had the legal right to possession of it, is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Was it at that time that the deputy cards were 
withdrawn that the tear gas was turned over ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is right, sir. 

Senator Er\tn. If I may make an observation, I don't think any- 
thing has been admitted here by anybody. One of the reasons that I 
favor a procedure which would allow a spokesman from each side to 
state their contentions was because I thought that a great many 
matters might be eliminated from the case, from the matter under 
investigation, and we might save a great deal of time. 

That was the reason that I supported the motions to allow a spokes- 
man from each side to make a statement, a written statement, of the 
contentions of that side, and that is why I also believe that each side, 

21243— 58— pt. 21 13 



8518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

because this is, in a sense, different from any other investigation we 
have had in that we have contending parties for the first time, I think, 
before the committee — we have two separate groups making allega- 
tions. 

Of course, we did not have those preliminary statements. There 
have been no preliminary statements on the part of the Kohler Co., 
stating their contentions, and no preliminary statement on the part of 
the UAW stating their contentions, we have nothing admitted on 
either side. Therefore, it is necessary to bring out all of the facts. 
I would like to ask the chief a question at this time. I would like to 
state there is no use for us to try to keep a whole lot of things wrapped 
up in cellophane in this procedure. 

Chief, as a matter of fact, the training of peace officers in the use of 
tear gas is a part of the training of police officers against the eventual- 
ity of having to perform riot duty, is it not ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is part of the reasons. 

Senator Ervin. And the use of tear gas is the use of an instrument, 
of a weapon, or an agency, which is to suppress rioting, which is less 
harmful than the use of firearms, shooting a steel or a lead bullet, is it 
not? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And it is on the question of riots that the use of tear 
gas is a more humane thing, than merely allowing officers to be armed 
with weapons which are so lethal as revolvers and machine ginis, is 
that not true, according to theorists ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I will ask you this. I may be wrong in such in- 
ferences as I have thus far drawn, but from your observation of the 
strike there, did you not come to the conclusion that there was a very 
substantial number of the employees of the Kohler Co. who desired 
to go on strike, and also a substantial number of the employees of the 
Kohler Co. who did not desire to go on strike, but who preferred to 
continue to work ? 

Is that a correct statement ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And there was a great deal of interchange of re- 
marks between the two groups, was there not ? 

Mr. Capelle. Interchange of what ? 

Senator Ervin. Remarks. One group very frequently had some 
remarks to make about the other one, did they not ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And they were not very complimentary, were they, 
on many occasions ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And from your observation of conditions there, 
there was danger as a result of the tensions that had been built up, 
there was danger of serious trouble at any time, was there not, that is, 
during the mass picketing ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. So you deemed it important to have some men 
trained, if jiossible, in tlie use of tear gas so that in case some serious 
riot did develop, you could attempt to suppress it in that manner 
rather than by the use of bullets ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTrVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8519 

Senator Ervin. That is one reason I do not understand why the dis- 
trict attorney, or whoever it was, instead of organizing a humane 
society, didn't just come out and swear them and face the facts and 
not try to wrap things up in cellophane. 

I cannot conceive of the necessity of the police having machine guns 
to protect any kind of animals against any kind of humane treatment. 

I think that we might get along a little better in this investigation 
if we all assume that we are intelligent people, and we are a committee 
that is familiar with some of the facts of life, and who know that 
Clarence Darrow was not far wrong when he said that in strike situa- 
tions, where some of the folks want to go on strike, and some do not, 
where the management is fighting the strikers, a situation builds up 
in which the people involved on both sides have something of the 
spirit that people have in war, in which they yield to the temptation 
to do things, "w^iich, as reasonable human beings, uninfluenced by the 
tensions that surround them, they would never consider doing. Do 
you agree with what Clarence Darrow said about that, from your 
observations ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. There are a lot of them that have done things 
that maybe they wouldn't have. 

Senator Ervin. In that kind of a situation, officers that are trying 
to keep the peace are in a very unfortunate situation. They are trying 
to keep down violence, they are trying to protect the legal rights of 
parties ; at the same time, they realize that sometimes if they resort 
to drastic action, they might cause a situation in which lives would 
be lost, is that not true ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And it was your attempt as chief of police to attempt 
to prevent that kind of a situation from arising, if humanly possible ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. May I ask you, of the tear gas that you took up — 
just a moment. Just a moment. I am trying to interrogate the witness. 
Are these the two different kinds of shells that you referred to ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairjman. The one in my right hand, the red one, does what? 

Mr. Capelle. That is a long-flight or long-distance shell. 

The Chairman. A long-distance shell ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. If you had to shoot it a hundred yards, through a 
window, and try to get tliem out of the building or barricade, you would 
use this one, the red one ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is this other one for ? 

Mr. Capelle. The gas comes right out of the muzzle of the gun. 

The Chairman. Right out of the muzzle of the gun ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. It is a short-range shell. 

Tlie Chairman. A short range ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. Suppose from my position here, looking toward 
the audience, I wanted to dispell that group there, and I had this gun, 
I would just shoot right into them and the gas would all spread out 
right here among the group ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 



8520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chaikman. But if I wanted to shoot over into the building 
across the street, through a window, and get them out of there, I would 
use this red one ; is that right ? 

Mr, Capei.le. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What kind of a weapon is used for these ? 

Mr. Capelle. A 1.5 caliber gas gun. 

The Chairman. Is this the kind of weapon that is used ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now we have an idea of exactly what was going on. 
Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Chief, the tear gas is gas which irritates the eyes of 
people when it gets in them, and causes tears to flow, and makes the 
eyes smart, and makes it difficult to see, doesn't it ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And it does not cause a premanent injury to the eyes 
or the vision, does it ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin It is a temporary disabling thing ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Er^tln. That is all. 

The Chairivian. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the things that were taken from the Kohler 
Co.; is that right? 

Mr. Capelle. So I understand. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, may I interject there ? 

Were these taken from the Kohler Co. or did the Kohler Co. walk 
down and give them to you ? 

Mr. Capelle. The Kohler Co. came down to the police department 
and turned these packages over to me ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, once again, was there any violation of 
any law in the Kohler Co. having these guns or the tear gas? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goi>dwater. It was merely their preparation for what they 
feared might be a rough strike, and which has proven to be a rough 
strike ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I might say again that they had ample justi- 
fication for expecting a rough strike, because of 13 strikes that the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on, prior to this engaged in by 
the CIO, had 37 deaths. This is not an isolated example. This is 
an example of what this union has been doing in violence ever since 
its inception. I think the Kohler Co., I think the police chief, and 
the sheriff, were perfectly right in anticipating trouble. 

The Chairman. The Chair wants to say that I am only trying 
to get the facts. I haven't blamed the Kohler Co. for getting some 
tear gas and some tear guns, not at all. As I understood it, it was 
legal for them to have it as long as they had deputy commission cards. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When the cards were withdrawn, they came down 
a]id turned over these supplies ; is that correct? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am simply trying to get the facts. The Kohler 
Co. may have had full justification for assuming that they were going 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 8521 

to have considerable violence, and they may have assumed justly so, I 
don't know, that it took these kinds of weapons to protect their prop- 
erty and protect their rights. That I am not passing on. But let's 
get the facts and get it all out here. Then we can evaluate it. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I had asked in an earlier question, Mr. Chairman, 
about Mr. Bellino going through the records of the Kohler Co. and 
he has the records as to what preparations were taken along this line, 
if you want to put those into the record at the present time. 

The Chaieman. Come forward, Mr. Bellino. I do not want any 
misimderstanding about this. The Kohler Co. is going to be given 
an opportunity by its witnesses to say why it did this, because of its 
past experience, because of the reputation of this union, or any other 
reason it wants to give for justifying it. It will be heard and we will 
get all of the facts on the record. Each Senator of this committee, and 
Members of Congress and others who are interested, can draw their 
own conclusions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Beli.ino. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, you are a member of the staff of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have been employed by this committee since 
its inception ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were previously employed, and in fact 
you are on loan, I believe, from the Permanent Investigation Subcom- 
mittee of the Government Operations Committee ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, did you make an inspection of the 
company's books with respect to the ammunition and weapons it may 
have had on hand ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed to testify. 

Mr. Kennedy. As to the dates and everything, Mr. Bellino. 

Mr. Belling. With reference to the purchase of guns and ammuni- 
tion by the Kohler Co., I find that from 1952 through 1955 they 
purchased twenty 12-gage Remington shotguns, 20-inch barrel. No. 
M-870-R. Eight of them were purchased February 10, 1953, and 12 
purchased June 7, 1955. There were gas guns, li/^-inch, 37-milli- 
meter, gas riot guns purchased, August 12, 1953. There were 375 
gas shells on February 12, 1953. There were 25 speed-heater gas 
shells purchased and 50 short-range tear-gas shells. 

On April 8, 1954, there were 150 short-range gas shells purchased, 
and 150 speed-heater gas shells purchased, for a total of 375. 

The Chairman. Have you talked with the officers of the company 
about this, about these purchases ? 



8522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir, and they have furnished all invoices in con- 
nection with the purchases, which we could make an exhibit for 
reference. 

The Chairman. What you have testified to here is from their records 
which they supplied ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have talked to them about it and they 
agreed these records are correct ? 

Mr. Belling. I have not compared my figures with theirs, except 
they have given me an inventory, and they seem to be substantially 
correct, except that on ammunition, the inventory is as of February 
7, 1958, whereas these are all purchases, and some of it could have 
been used. 

The Chairman. The inventory that you have supplied by them may 
be made exhibit No. 14. 

(The document referred to was marked Exhibit No. 14 for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 8742.) 

Mr. Belling. That shows there were 18 12-gage Remington shot- 
guns on hand; 20 .38 caliber S. & W. pistols; 825 12-gage shotgun 
shells, 9,500 rounds of .38 caliber cartridges, and 2,500 rounds of .22 
long-range cartridges. They stated that they transferred to the chief 
of police in May of 1957, 2 tear gas guns and 375 rounds of tear gas 
ammunition. 

The Chairman. These shotguns were not transferred, so far as 
you know ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien was the transfer made ? 

Mr. Belling. In May 1957 was Mr. Conger's best recollection when 
he gave me this information. 

Mr. Kennedy. The court order shows August of 1955, but maybe 
that can be clarified. Do you want to go on with the records? 

Mr. Belling. Revolvers, there were a total of 22 purchased. I 
believe two of them might have been for pereonal use of the officers. 
In May 1952, May 13, 6 were purchased ; June 13, 1952, 5 ; August 1, 
1952, 1 ; February 13, 1953, 6. .38 Cobra 2-inch barrel was purchased 
February 25, 1953, and two of them on February 25, 1953, .38 special 
S. & W. Chief, two-inch barrel, purchased April 24, 1953 ; and a .45 
ACP Colt Commander, Zephyr, purchased June 24, 1952. 

Ammunition: .38 special cartridges, a total of 24,000 rounds, pur- 
chased from May 13, 1952, through March 3, 1953. 

Senator Ervin. What caliber was that ? 

Mr. Belling. .38, special. Also in ammunition there was 2,000 
rounds of .22 long rifle, high speed, purchased June 16, 1952, and 600 
rounds of .45 caliber purchased June 16, 1952. There were 12,000 
rounds of primers, 6 cans of powder, 9,200 shotgun shells, 12 gage. 
Some of it, which was 00 buck, and most of it was number 7 and a 
half trapload shot, purchased from July 7, 1952, through June of 
1955. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question : Is there anything in 
the record to indicate now whether a lot of this ammunition and so 
forth you are talking about was purchased for the purpose of the 
strike ? 

I understood they had a shooting range down there, and they have a 
trap — I don't know, but I think they have one of these places, these 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8523 

trap things, where they practice shooting chxy pigeons and so forth. 
Is a lot of this material you are reading now adaptable to that sort of 
sport ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Some of it is not necessarily the kind of equipment 
you would buy to engage in a riot ? 

Mr. Belling. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It might be used as well for training purposes? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The fact that all of this stuff was purchased, could 
T ask if it was purchased out of company funds? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Paid for out of company funds ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I think the company, of course, should have the 
right to come in and explain what was purchased for one purpose or 
another, and what part of it was purchased for anticipating a strike. 
They can so state and explain, whether they did it out of fear and 
violence of destruction of their property, or whether they did it for 
some other reason. They will be given the opportunity to tell us 
about it. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Bellino, is there a rifle club or a club of 
that nature at Kohler ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir; there are indications that there is a rifle 
range club at Kohler. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there a skeet range or a trap range for 
shooting clay pigeons with shotguns ? 

Mr. Belling. I have not seen it, but I presume there would be, by 
the type of ammunition they have purchased. 

Senator Goldwater. You went through the books, did you not? 

Mr. Belling. I have examined their books ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there any indication in the books that 
there was this kind of an organization ? 

Mr. Belling. Well, the bills that I have indicate there is a rifle- 
range club. 

Senator Goldwater. How do the bills indicate that ? 

Mr. Belling. They would send the order through in some cases. 

Senator Goldwater. Who would send the order through ? 

Mr. Belling. An officer from the rifle-range club, through the 
plant. 

Senator Goldwater. Were they employees of the plant ? 

Mr. Belling. I would presume so, but I didn't question, Senator, 
to determine whether they were or not. 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat percentage of the ammunition that you 
listed would be ammunition purchased for the use of this club ? 

Mr. Belling. I don't have it broken down, but I will be glad to 
work it up. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. I want that. Will you please do that? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. What percentage of the weapons or guns 
that you listed are of the type that would be used for rifle-range pur- 
i2 



8524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. It depends upon their range, Senator. I don't know 
what their range is. We would have to inquire and detennine that. 

Senator Gold water. How many guards does the plant have, do you 
know ? Just regular guards on their payroll. 

Mr. Belling. I have a schedule to be more accurate. I am guess- 
ing now, and I would say 20, but I am not certain. 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to have you supply the commit- 
tee with that information. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have any bills there that you could 
show us that indicate the purchase of ammunition for the club? 

Mr. Belling. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to see them. 

On 12-gage, No. 8 traploads, how many rounds of ammunition did 
you indicate on that ? 

Mr, Belling. On the traploads ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Belling. No. 8 ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Belling. 3,500 rounds. 

Senator Goldwater. They have it listed as two cases. How many 
rounds are in a case ? 

Mr. Belling. The shooters' bible is downstairs. I don't know 
offhand. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you break all of these down from case- 
loads to individual rounds ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. There was only one that had to be broken 
down by caseloads. The invoices showed the individual rounds. 

Senator Goldwater. This says : 

Please enter our order for 2 cases of 12-gage, No. 8 traploads, Remington, 
regular shot shells. 

Why did you break that down into 3,500 ? I am interested in why 
you didn't mention two cases? 

Mr. Belling. Because the invoice that is in here shows that on 
August 30, there was No. 8, 1,000 rounds, August 30, 1954. 

Senator Goldwater. What year was that ? 

Mr. Belling. That is 1954. 

Senator Goldwater. I am talking about Marcli 22, 1955. 

Mr. Belling. March 22, 1955 ? There is 1,000 rounds on March 22, 
1955. 

Senator Goldwater. That would be 500 rounds to a case. Did the 
inventory mention rounds or cases ? 

Mr. Belling. I would say it said rounds. I am not certain now on 
that particular invoice unless I looked it up. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have the invoice handy ? 

Mr. Belling. I don't see it in the order in which it should be. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, not to hold up the hearing, would you 
supply that to me for the afternoon hearing ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Bellino, in looking through the invoices 
and the records, did you find any invoices for clay pigeons ? 

Mr. Belling. I believe there was some reference to that. 

Senator Goldwater. You looked through the books. Do you know 
or don't you know ? 



IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8525 

Mr. Belling. I believe — yes, sir ; there were. 

Senator Gold water. Do you have records of those ? 

Mr. Belling. Bhie rock targets, I believe, are the clay pigeons. 

Senator Goldwater. How many did they buy, how many clay 
pigeons? 

Mr. Belling. They purchased 2,400 clay pigeons of various targets. 
Of blue rock targets, they purchased 2,000. 

Senator Goldwater. Blue rock targets. That is, I believe, the clay 
pigeons. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater, How about targets for small-bore range work ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. Police-training targets and also paper tar- 
gets and other targets, 400. 

Senator Goldwater. How many ? 

Mr. Belling. 400 of those. 

Senator Goldwater. This is for the whole period that you are dis- 
cussing from 1953, 1 think you said ? 

Mr. Belling. These targets were purchased, according to the rec- 
ords, in 1952 and 1953. 

Senator Goldwater. Have there been any purchases in 1954, 1955, 
1956, and 1957 « 

Mr. Belling. We didn't find any of any targets ; no, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Have you checked these records up to date ? 

Mr. Belling. I checked what was given to me, which I presumed 
was up to date. I cannot say that I had every one. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. What were the latest invoices you had on am- 
munition, guns, or targets ? 

Mr. Belling. The latest I recall were in June of 1955. 

Senator Goldwater. Is the gun club still active ? 

Mr. Belling. I couldn't answer that question, Senator. 

Senator Ggldwater. Did you ask the question while you were 
there? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Didn't you think it was pertinent ? 

Mr. Belling. My mission was to get what was in the records at this 
point. 

Senator Goldwater. Your mission was to 

Mr. Belling. To determine what was in the records. 

Senator Goldwater. You weren't interested in what they were pur- 
chased for? 

Mr. Belling. I know what they were purchased for. There is a 
rifle range there, Senator, in addition. That is one of the purposes, at 
any rate. I don't know what the rest of the purposes were. 

Senator Goldwater. Would it be possible for you to check and see 
what has been purchased since 1955 for the purposes of rifle-range 
and clay-pigeon shooting ? 

Mr. Belling. I might say, Senator, I recall Mr. Conger telling me 
that the purpose of buying the guns and ammunition was to protect 
themselves and protect their property. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not disputing that. I think that has been 
pretty well exhibited here this morning. But I would be interested 
to know if the purchase of target types of ammunition and the targets 
themselves, target-type rifles or hand guns, had any unusual pattern 
during the years of 1953 to 1955, how long the rifle club has been in 



8526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

existence, and what type of purchases have been made since then. 
I would appreciate your trying to get that information so we can put 
it into the record. 

Mr. Belling. I don't know quite what you would mean by unusual 
patterns, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, here we have a pattern of 1952, 1953, 
1954, and 1955. We have a period of about 4 years. Was there 
more ammunition purchased for target purposes during that 4 years 
than the previous 4 years, or, if you Avant to break it into 2, in the 2 
years since ? 

Mr. Belling. Most of the ammunition was purchased in 1952 and 
1953. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you look at the books prior to 1952 and 
1953? 

Mr. Belling. I looked at the books principally for 1954. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you look at any books with the idea of 
obtaining information on the purchase of guns or ammunition prior 
to 1952? 

Mr. Belling. Senator, I asked for their invoices on gim purchases, 
and they handed me their folder, which we photostated — most of the 
invoices — and this is what they had in their folder, which was kept 
separate for purchases going back to 1952. 

Senator Goldwater. It isn't answering my question. Did you go 
back into the records prior to 1952 ? 

Mr. Belling. No. sir. 

Senator Goldwater. The next time you have a chance to look at 
their books, would you do that, so we might make a complete record 
for comparison? I don't Imow how long the gun club has been in 
existence. 

Mr. Belling. The company hopes there is no next time. 

Senator Ggldavater. I imagine all of us hope there is no next time. 
I think it is important information to have. I have one other ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether you got all of their records 
or not? 

Mr. Belling. I would say. Senator, the way the treasurer kept 
these records was their folder of all gun purchases, and they seemed 
to have a very good system of recordkeeping and accounts. 

I would say that I do have most of them. 

The Chairman. The question is, what years did you request in- 
voices for with respect to this information ? 

Mr. Belling. I requested all of their invoices on gun purchases, 
and they handed me their folder which covered purchases from 1952 
on. Apparently, I would say, they didn't buy any before that, and I 
don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, you made a request, and as I understand, 
they were cooperating, and they were supplying any records you re- 
quested ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They were not subpenaed, because they had agreed 
to supply them, is that correct ? 

Mr. Belling. We did issue one subpena to Mr. Conger, but they 
were giving us any i-ecords whether they were in the subpena or not 
and they were cooperating. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8527 

The Chairman. That is what I mean. They were cooperating 
and they were giving you any records that you asked for ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And these are the records that they gave when 
you asked for their records of ammunition ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I just wondered if there was any question about 
it, as to whether you got all of the records or not. I understand it 
was a kind of voluntary arrangement. If there is any doubt about 
whether all of the records have been given to you or not, I would 
want to call a responsible party representing the Kohler Co. and 
inquire whether all of the records have been supplied. 

Mr. Belling. Insofar as the guns and ammunition, I would say 
they did hand me everything, but I don't know, of course. 

The Chairman. Is there any doubt about it? I would be very 
glad to call around a representative of the company and inquire right 
now. If we do not have all of the records, we will get them. 

Mr. Conger. Might I intervene at this time ? 

The Chairman. You are attorney for them, are you ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who do you have here representing the company 
that can testify with respect to these records, whether they are all 
of them or not ? 

Mr. Conger. I am sorry, I guess I am the only one, because I am 
the one that Mr. Bellino contacted and the only one who could say 
what he asked for. 

The Chairman. All right, come around. Will you be sworn? 

You do swear that the evidence you shall give this Senate select 
committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Conger. I do. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chief, will you stand aside for a moment, 
and Mr. Bellino remain right there. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER 

The Chairman. State your name and your residence and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Conger. My name is Lyman C. Conger. I am attorney for 
the Kohler Co. and also chairman of the management committee, and 
also hold the title of assistant secretary. 

The Chairman. Mr. Conger, in the capacity you occupy with the 
company, are you in charge of its records and invoices of purchases ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir; I am not directly, but when Mr. Bellino served 
the subpena upon me, calling for certain records, I didn't quibble 
about whether they were actually in my custody or not. We turned 
over to him everything that he asked for. 

The Chairman. Are the records that you turned over to him all 
of your records with respect to the acquisition and purchasing of 
ammunition and weapons? 

Mr. Conger. By no means, Senator. We have had a gun club 
there, a rifle club, at least 35 years, and we have pistol clubs, and we 
have trapshooting clubs. 

The Chairman. Is that trapshooting? 



8528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Conger. It is trapshooting and not crapshooting, Senator. 
And we turned over to him the records of the years that he requested. 

The Chairman. What years were those ? 

Mr. Conger. The years, I think he asked for 1954, 1953, and 1952. 
He made no request of me for any records prior to that time. 

The Chairman. For the 3 years ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So these do represent the records for t]ie 3 years? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, but I may say. Senator, that they reprCvSent rec- 
ords which included a great deal of material that went to the trap- 
shooting club, and a great deal of material tliat was used for training 
of guards, the .38 caliber cartridges that are mentioned in here. 

I might state, if I had been asked the question at the time, that the 
4 pounds of powder went to me personally, and that I used it for 
hand-loading pistol cartridges which were used for training the guards 
in the plant. 

The Chairman. All of this we will get to. You will be given a 
chance to make every statement about it that you think is proper and 
the committee thinks proper. I was just trying to determine now what 
records we actually had. We have them, according to you, all of your 
records for those 4 years, or 3 years. That is 1952, 1953, and 1954. Is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, but, Senator, I would like at this time to enter 
a protest against this procedure of having an investigator come out 
and take certain records, not ask anyone what those records were, 
whether they had any connection with the strike or not, and then 
come here and introduce them and say the company can come along 
later and explain them. 

The Chairman. Now wait a moment. This witness that you are 
referring to is not the committee. The committee is doing this, and I 
am trying to be just as fair to you as I know how. I called you in 
liere now to get an explanation of whether these are all of the records, 
and there has been some question about it. The Chair has already 
stated that probably a lot of this ammunition and so forth was being 
used for other purposes altogether unrelated to the strike. I do not 
know how to be any fairer to you, and I can't have two witnesses talk- 
ing at the same time and get any sense. 

Mr. Conger. I am not criticizing the chairman, please make that 
obvious. 

The Chairman. Well, you are. I am the one that placed him on 
the witness stand, and I am trying to get the truth about the records. 
What is the objection to that ? 

Mr. Conger. My objection. Senator, is that I would have liked to 
have had Mr. Bellino ask us at the time what these records meant, and 
what they were. 

The Chairman. We get the records, and we are going to ask you 
what they mean, and what they are. This is the place where the testi- 
mony is to be developed. 

Are there any further questions ? I want to say tliis : I want the two 
of you, Mr. Bellino, and I want you and Mr. Conger to go over these 
and come in here with an accurate breakdown of these 3 years, at least, 
of that part of the ammunition and equipment and so forth, and arms, 
that Mr. Conger wants to testify is unrelated to the strike, or unrelated 
to this difficulty. I want to get the facts. That is all. 



IMPBOPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8529 

I suggest you two work it out togther, so we can have the truth laid 
right before us. 

Are tliere any further questions? 

Senator Mundt. You are dismissing the witness ? 

The Chairman. I asked if there are any further questions, and I 
haven't dismissed the witness. 

Senaor Goldwater. Before Mr. Conger gets off the stand, had 
you given this information to investigators prior to Mr. Bellino 
coming up tliere? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, I gave part of it, I gave the information on the 
gas to Mr. Vern Johnson, an investigator for the committee, about 4 
or 5 months before Mr. Bellino came there. I also believe I gave him 
the information on the shotguns, and I am not positive of that. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, Mr. Conger, briefly, why did you think 
the company should prepare for violence in 1952 or 1953 or whenever 
it was? 

Mr. Conger. Because we knew of the past record of the UAW in 
the strikes that they had conducted, and we had very little confidence 
in receiving protection from the sheriff of Sheboygan County. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

All right, you may stand aside. 

Are there any other questions of Mr. Bellino ? 

TESTIMONY OF CAEMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to make snre we get it all in the record. 

Mr. Bellino. There are 6 binoculars purchased February 8, 1953, 
about 300 Army cots purchased on February 7 and April 13, 1954, for 
a total of 308 Army cots, and 300 sleeping bags purchased February 7, 
1953, and 8-bumer restaurant-type Magic Chef stoves purchased Feb- 
ruary 13, 1953. A burner gas stove purchased Febniary 13, 1953, 
and a round stove purchased February 14, 1953. 

The Chairman. 'Wliat do those stoves have to do with it ? 

Mr. Beixino. This is what they had among their invoices that were 
purchased at that time, and I don't know. We could ask them what 
the purpose of it was. Senator. 

The Chairman. I can understand the purchases of ammmiition, 
but did he turn over the purchases of stoves and so forth ? 

Mr. Bellino. These were all among the invoices, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. On what basis, what did you ask him for specifi- 
cally, and I don't quite get what cots and stoves have to do with it. 
In response to what request did he give you that information ? Could 
you read the subpena request, or could you clarify that ? 

Mr. Bellino. I believe my request may have been for purchases of 
material — sleeping bags or Army cots and so on — in connection with 
the preparation for a strike. That is my recollection. But I think that 
these were all in the whole batch of invoices that they brought in to me 
when the gun invoices and so on came in, and I can't say for sure on 
that. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a copy of your request in writing? 

Mr. Bellino. No, sir; it was not made in writing; no sir, and we 
don't usually make our requests in writing. 

Senator Mundt. I can see how, if you ask him, "What purchases did 
you make preparatory to the strike or prior to the strike?" maybe 



8530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

sleeping cots and stoves could have bought on the assumption 
that a workingman gets in and he couldn't get out. 

The Chairman. They may have anticipated some kind of a siege 
and were making preparations. 

Senator Mundt. May I ask you what years did you ask him to 
supply the material for ? 

Mr. Belling. I would say from 1952 on, that is the only informa- 
tion on it, that I had any question of any union activity in which there 
was preparation for a strike, and I asked from 1952 on. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't go back before 1952 ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. They had their own Kohler workers associa- 
tion in there before, and the last strike was in 1934, and I didn't want 
to go back to 1934. 

Senator Mundt. I was just trying to get some basis of comparison, 
whether they were buying more for their range, or rifle clubs and pistol 
clubs, and so forth, in these years than in prior year; and, unless you 
have some norm to go by, you can't tell whether they stepped it up or 
not. 

Mr. Belling. We could get that from the company and compare it, 
but I didn't do it for that purpose. 

Senator Mundt. You asked them for all purchases which could con- 
ceivably be considered preparatory to a strike, beginning in 1952 ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That is how you got your stoves in there ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir, and they also purchased 50 McDonald-type 
T safety hats on February 5, 1953, and on April 29, 1954, 11 referee 
whistles were purchased, and May 1, 1954, 4 wooden barricades. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wooden barricades ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I may need one of those barricades. 

Mr. Ivennedy. These purchases started in 1952 'i 

Mr. Belling. In February of 1952, 1 believe they started. 

Mr. Kennedy. April, I believe it was. 

Tse Chairman. Will the police chief come back to the stand? 

Senator Goldwater. I have one more question. Mr. Bellino, while 
you were up there looking at the company's records, did you make a 
request of the union to supply you with invoices that they might have 
had in preparation for a strike ? 

Mr. Belling. I asked for invoices in connection with their strike 
expenses. 

Senator Goldwater. How about their prestrike expenses ? 

Mr. Belling. I did not know of any prestrike expenses to ask for. 
Senator, and I can't think of anything that they would have prestrike, 
because the union does not ordinarily laiow they are actually going 
on strike until the actual day of the strike. 

There is always some way of getting together. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you think there might be guns or gas 
or cots or sleeping bags in the possession of the union ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir ; I had no reason to think so. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you find out ? 

Mr. Belling. I had no reason to believe that or to ask. 

Senator Goldwater. Why didn't you ? 

Mr. Bp:llin(). You don't ask questions unless you have some reason 
to ask the question, and I had no reason to ask the question. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8531 

Senator Goldwater. You did not have any reason to ask ? 

Mr. Belling. As to whether they had sleeping bags before April 5. 

Senator Gtoldwater. I am talking about guns ; and can you testify— 
you are supposed to have looked at the books and I think that is what 
you were sent up tliere for — that the unions had no guns or tear gas? 
I am not saying they did, and I haven't even heard that they did. 

Mr. Belling. I can't testify that they either did or did not, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not look at the books for that purpose ? 

Mr. Belling. Any of the invoices I saw, I did not see any gun pur- 
chases that I recall. 

Senator Goldwater. You looked at one side of this, but not both 
sides ? 

Mr. Belling, I looked at both sides. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. But did you not look at both sides with the 
same scrutiny ? 

Mr. Belling. I looked at both sides with the same scrutiny. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I think the question is, Did you ask specifically 
for the same information from both sides ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir ; I asked for all invoices and a summary of 
their expenses. 

Senator Mundt. I haven't finished my question. You told us what 
you asked the company, to give you all of the invoices which might 
conceivably indicate purchases preparatory to a strike. I think that 
is what you said you asked the company ; is that right ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir ; because I had seen a schedule of purchases 
that they had, that the company had. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ask the same specific question of the 
union and get from them a sworn statement on the same question ? 

Mr. Belling. I did not see any schedule of any purchases before 
the strike. Senator, with regard to Kohler. 

Senator Mundt. Now, could you answer "Yes" or "No" ? Did you 
ask the same specific question of the union, for the same information 
preparatory to the strike ? . . . ' 

Mr. Belling. I did not ask the same specific question ; no, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I wanted to get. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Bellino, you have been to Detroit? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you look at the union books in Detroit ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you find any indications in Detroit from 
the union books that would indicate preparations for a strike? 

Mr. Belling. Of this same nature ; no, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. No ; this strike. We are not talking about any 
old strike ; this strike. 

Mr. Belling. I did not find anything prior to April 5, Senator. 
I recall reading the minutes. 

Senator Goldwater. What year? 

Mr. Belling. Of 1954. I recall reading the minutes of one of the 
unions, that they indicated the Kohler workers were inexperienced in 
strikes, and that they should send some of their men from Detroit to 
help them out and conduct a strike. 

I recall that, and that was around possibly April 20, of 1954. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 



8532 IMPROPETl ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairmax. Did you have any information that the union had 
purchased weapons preparatory to the strike ? 

Mr. ]^ELLiNO. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Or ammunition ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir; nor have I any to this date. 

The Chairman. Tliere is a little confusion here about the years 
that you inquired about. I think Mr. Conger said maybe that you 
only inquired for 3 years, 1952 or 1953 and 1954 ? 

Mr. Belling. That may be correct, Senator, because I did not go 
prior to 1952. I had no reason to. The union was not in there prior 
to 1952. 

The Chairman. Did you go into 1955 and 1956 ? 

Mr. Belling. We did not have time to go into 1955, other than 
what they handed us. Senator. There are some 1955 bills in here, 
because they are all kept together, and those I examined. 

But there are thousands of invoices, and thousands of checks in 
1955 and 1956. If we had to look them over we would still be there. 
It was a question of getting what they had put together, and that 
was sufficient for the committee, I felt, to understand what the situa- 
tion was. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Kennedy. I came in late, Mr. Bellino, and there seems to 
be some indication that you were more thorough about the company 
than you were about the union. Now, I personally resent that, as 
you have been one of the most valuable members of the staff during 
many different investigations, 
knowledge sent up to investigate the union ' 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. What was his name ? 

Mr. Belling. Mr. Robert Worrath. 

Senator Kennedy. How long was he up there ? 

Mr. Belling. I believe he started with the union books either in 
September or October of 1957. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he have the responsibility of investigating 
the company, too ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Did he investigate the company ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. He investigated both the company 

Mr. Belling. He had the responsibility, and whether he examined 
any of the records I don't know. 

Senator Kennedy. Is there a record of his examining into the 
company, or did he just examine into the union ? 

Mr. Belling. We would say from our knowledge, he did not ex- 
amine any records of the company. 

Senator Kennedy. He examined just the union's records? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, when you went out there, as I understand 
it, because there had not been an adequate investigation made of the 
company's books, you were specifically charged with investigating 
them, because an investigation had already been made of the union's 
books, is that right? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir ; and if you will recall Senator, we felt that 
if we are going to look into the records, we must look at the records 



IMPBOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8533 

of both the union and the company. I was sent for that purpose to 
look at both the union records and the company records. 

Senator Kennedy. You went to investigate both, or just the com- 
pany, because Mr. Worrath investigated the union ? 

Mr. Belling. Mr. Worrath had examined or he had all of the 
records available for some reason or other, he ordered them all to 
go back to the union. So at the time that we were looking into the 
matter, the records were back in the possession of the union. So we 
felt that we should look at both the union and the company. 

Senator Kennedy. From your long experience with this conunittee, 
and with the FBI beforehand, was as detailed an examination made 
of the union by either you or members of this staff, of their books, 
as was made of the company ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir; just as detailed as it possibly could be done. 

The Chairman. You have had no instructions to whitewash any- 
body, have you ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir ; under no circumstances, nor would I. 

The Chairman. If you ever get them, you will never get them from 
the. Chair. 

Mr. Belling. Nor would I do it. Senator. 

The Chairman. I don't think that you would. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to say as a member of the Subcom- 
mittee on Investigations, the permanent subcommittee, since Jan- 
uai-y 1, 1955, that I have had opportunity to witness the conduct 
of Mr. Bellino and I have never seen in my life a fairer man. If I 
had any cause and my life depended on it, I would be willing to put 
my life in his hands, knowing that I would receive impartial treat- 
ment. 

The Chairman. If there are any other records, the Chair wants 
to say if there are any other records any member of this committee 
wants, we will get it, and we will examine it. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to ask this question : While you were 
at the Koliler plant, conversing with any of the representatives of 
the Kohler Co., did any of them inform you that they had any reason 
to believe that the union had purchased arms as a preparation of 
the strike ? 

Mr. Belling. I did not get the the first part. 

Senator Ervin. Was it ever suggested to you during the course of 
your investigation at the Koliler plant, that the union had purchased 
arms or firearms for use in connection with the strike ? 

Mr. Belling. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask a question so we get straightened out ? 
We felt that the company was cooperating, did we not ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so when you asked regarding the books of 1955 
and 1956, isn't it the usual procedure to follow when you are making 
an investigation, to request information from the company or the 
union ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so you requested the information regarding 
these matters from the company, from 1955 and 1956, isn't that 
right, on these invoices ? 

21243— 58— pt. 21 14 



8534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Belling. I asked for all of their purchases and they ended in 
1955, in my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they turned over those invoices to you ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Upon your request ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, on the question of asking, whether you asked 
identical questions of the company and of the union, didn't you find 
it necessary to ask the union and union officials certain questions 
which you did not ask the company ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir ; absolutely. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Which would indicate or imply that there was per- 
haps possibly some derogatory information regarding them? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that that information and those requests were 
made of the union, but we didn't make the same requests or ask the 
same questions of the company, because we did not have that kind 
of information about the company ? 

Mr, Belling. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that true ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went up there upon instructions to do the 
job completely on both sides ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. As you have always done for this committee ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I just had one question I wanted to ask. Mr. 
Bellino, were you aware of the reports that Mr. Johnson had turned 
in after his trij) to Sheboygan, of Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Belling. I have never seen their report. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Might I ask Mr. McGovern, were those re- 
ports turned in by the company ? 

Mr. MgGgvern. Yes, Mr. Johnson got the bill of lading, and all 
other documents pertinent to the ammunition, and the shells, and 
the guns that the Kohler Co. had in its possession and those docu- 
ments were turned in to the committee. 

The Chairman. Are they any different from these that we have 
here? 

Mr. MgGgvern. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Then we have them. Is there anything further? 

I have a little bit of good news, I think, for all of us. When the 
committee resumes this afternoon, at 2 o'clock, we will meet in room 
318. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m. in room 318, Friday, February 28, 1958.) 

afternoon session 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the ses- 
sion were : Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 
The Chairman. Will the chief of police come around, please. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8535 

TESTIMONY OF WALDEMER G. CAPELLE— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Capelle, a member of the committee wanted 
to ask j^ou some further questions. 

All right, Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Chief Capelle, when a striker wanted to go 
to the medical department of the Kohler Co., could he go through 
the line without any difficulty ? 

Mr. Capelle. A striker, you mean ? 

Senator Goldwater. A striker or a nonstriker. A nonstriker, 
pardon me. 

Mr. Capelle. No, we had quite some difficulty. Some of these 
people especially that lived in the village, and people that were having 
medical treatment at the Kohler clinic, the picket captain who was 
stationed there in front of the medical building would tell these 
people that they would have to get a pass from the soup kitchen to 
enter the medical department. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there any other hospital or clinic in the 
village of Kohler ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. "VVHiat would happen, or did this happen: 
Say a person not connected with Kohler, if he became ill or became 
injured, and he had to have hospital treatment, would he have diffi- 
culty getting through the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, we had difficulty at the line to get them in. 

Senator Goldwater. What would you have to do to get that sick 
person or that injured person through the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, when I was on the scene there, I would push 
my way through the line and get the person into the medical de- 
partment. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, on April 12, do you remember April 
12, 1954? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. There were some nonstrikers who asked for 
assistance to get through the picket line so they could go to work, and 
you ordered the pickets to open up the line, and did the pickets open 
the line? 

Mr. Capelle. They did not. 

Senator Goldwater. They didn't ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Senator Goldwater. ^\niat happened to you and the nonstrikei-s 
when they denied you permission to go through ? 

Mr. Capelle. We tried to force our way through, and usually when 
anybody attempted to go to work, there would be anywhere from 75 
to 100 pickets in front of the main gate, and as they advanced, this 
group would form in front of the main gate. 

They got up to the group and then, if they tried to advance further, 
there would be a surge and a push to keep these people out of the 
plant. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, were you here yesterday ? 

^Ir. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you see the moving pictures ? 



8536 IMPROPBR ACTIVITIESi IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you say that that was an accurate 
representation of wliat took place during the period of violence ? 

Mr. Capeixe. Yes, it is. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you ever knocked down when you tried 
to get nonstrikers through the picket line ? 

Mr. Capelle. At one time I went down on my left knee. 

Senator Goldwater. Now yesterday, during the testimony of the 
sheriff, he said he figured that it might take 400 or 500, if I 
remember correctly, deputies to enable him to open up the line. 

Do you think that that figure is an educated guess as to what force 
it would have taken to get through the line ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I believe it would take about that many. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, again on April 19, did you order the 
picket line to open up to get nonstrikers in ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, I did. 

Senator Goldwater. And what happened ? 

Mr. Capelle. They again refused to open the line, and the same 
method was used as before. 

Senator Goldwater. They were not only violating the law by mass 
picketing, but they ignored the requests or orders of the chief of 
police ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, on April 26, of 1954, there were some 
nonstrikers in 5 or 6 cars who tried to get in the main gate. How were 
they prevented from getting in ? 

Mr. Capelle. This same thing occurred again. These pickets would 
form in front of the main gate and the cars were stopped because of 
the mass of people in front of them. 

(At this point. Senator Ervin came into the hearing room.) 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know James Fiore ? 

Mr. Capelle, Yes, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know what his position is with the 
union ? 

Mr. Capelle. International representative, I have been told. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a resident of Kohler Village ? 

Mr. Capelle. He was not. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a resident of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he come from Detroit ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, he did. 

Senator Goldwait^r. On that day, April 26, when these 5 or 6 cars 
tried to get in the plant, did he stand in front of the lead car ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; he did. He was the first one who stopped tl\e 
car. 

Senator Goldwater. Now was there a sound truck moved into 
this event ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes; shortly after that a sound truck was pulled 
across the entrance to the main gate. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ask that the truck be moved ? 

Mr, Capfxle. I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Was it moved ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. I finally had to call the wrecker and have 
it moved out of there. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8537 

Senator Gold water. Why couldn't you move it yourself ? 

Mr. Capelle. I asked first the driver to get out of the station wagon 
and to open the door, and he refused that or he locked the door and 
turned the window up. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he take the ignition keys ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir ; he took them out, and at that time he handed 
them to William Vinson who came into the station wagon from the 
other side. 

Senator Goldwater. Now did you and your deputies try to push 
the truck out of the way ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. What happened then ? 

Mr. Capelle. We encountered some force from the other side, the 
pickets pushed the car from the front, and we tried to push it from 
the rear. 

Senator Goij)water. During this incident, did you recognize a 
Frank Sahorske ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; he was there at the picket line. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a resident of Kohler Village ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a resident of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Capelle. I believe he lives in Milwaukee or somewhere in Wis- 
consin. 

Senator Goldwater. Now getting up to May 10, again you were 
asked by some nonstrikers for help in getting through the picket line, 
and again you ordered the line to open up. Did they obey your order 
on this date \ 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you recognize other members of the union 
on this date ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. As a rule, I couldn't say for sure if it was any 
specific date, but there would be Bob Burkhart who would be out 
there, and do you want me to mention some of the names? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes; if you would, some of those that were 
there. 

Mr. Capelle. James Fiore, Jolin Gunaca. 

Senator Goldwater. Now John Gunaca, was he from Kohler Vil- 
lage? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he a resident of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he from Detroit ? 

Mr. Capelle. He was from Michigan. 

Senator Goldwater. He was from Michigan ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; but I don't believe it was Detroit. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if he was an officer in the union 
at that time ? 

Mr. Capelle. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Goldwater. A^^io else did you see ? 

Mr. Capelle. Just Ferrazza. 

Senator Goldwater. Is he a resident of Koliler Village? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Is he a resident of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 



8538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Is he from Detroit ? 

Mr, Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were their others that you recognized that I 
haven't covered ? 

Mr. Capelle. Guy Barber, Emil Mazey was there several times, and 
Don Kand, and Boyce Land, Harry Kitzman, and then local persons, 
also. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you. Chief : Did you at any time 
during this strike go to these people who were from Detroit and who 
you had reason to believe were directing the strike, and talk to them 
about the possibilities of relaxing the picket line? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes; I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Whom did you talk to ? 

Mr. Capelle. I talked to Robert Burkhart most of the time, because 
he was in charge of the strike at that time. 

Senator Goldwater. Robert Burkhart ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he from Kohler Village ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Or Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Capelle. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Where was he from ? 

Mr. Capelle, I believe he was either from Detroit, and I think he 
did have an address in Milwaukee at one time. 

Senator Goldwater. What did he say to you when you asked him 
to relax a bit? 

Mr. Capelle. Usually using the lines of "I will try but they are all 
excited and I can't do much with them," 

Senator Goldwater. And these sound trucks that we have men- 
tioned, we have mentioned one, how were they used in the course of 
the strike ? 

Mr. Capelle. On April 7 and on April 8, they did use a sound 
truck, but on both occasions they used it contrary to our orders, and 
we placed the person using the sound equipment under arrest. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever hear any transmission over the 
sound truck that you could interpret as inciting trouble ? 

Mr, Capelle. James Fiore, who used the sound equipment on April 
7, he did some talking and some playing of music. I remember at 
that time he made some remark, "Yesterday they brought in the pota- 
toes, and today they brought in the cheese for the rats," and things of 
that sort. 

Senator Goldwater. Getting back to this schedule of events, on 
May 17, you again ordered the pickets to open up ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And did they open ? 

Mr. Capelle, No, sir, 

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

Senator Goldwater, On May 24 of 1954 you once again ordered the 
picket line to open up, and did they yield to your orders ? 

Mr, Capelle, No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater, Who did you recognize on that day — anybody 
in addition to the ones you have mentioned on previous days ? 

Mr. Capelle, Usually they were the same group there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8539 

Senator Goldwater. Now I want to just get back to this tear-gas 
gun again. Did you go out to the Kohler plant and physically take 
over that equipment ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How did you get a hold of it? 

Mr. Capelle, It was brought to the police department. 

Senator Goldwater. By whom ? 

Mr. Capelle. By Raymond Hanson. 

(At this jDoint the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Goldwater. Of the company ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. It was entirely voluntary ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was this done on the order of any court or any 
person ? 

Mr. Capelle. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Goldwater. You had tear-gas guns and ammunition that 
belonged to the police department ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you remember how many rounds you had ? 

Mr. Capelle. Well, no. I have an inventory of it. 

Senator Goldwater. After the hearing, if you would supply that 
to me, I will see that it gets into the record, or I will ask that it be put 
into the record. I cannot say that I will see that it gets into the record. 

The Chairman. What is the request. Senator ? 

Senator Goldwater. The number of rounds of ammunition and tear 
gas that the police department had at that time. 

Mr. Capelle. I have it here in my grip, sir. 

The Chairman. You can supply it. 

Mr. Capelle. Now ? 

The Chairman. Yes. I did not know what time the Senator was 
directing his questions to. 

Senator Goldwater. This same general period, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you have a prepared statement of it there, a 
prepared inventory ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes ; I do have. 

The Chairman. Do you have a complete inventory in your posses- 
sion that you prepared ? 

Mr. Capelle. I will have to retract that. I don't have it. 

The Chairman. You will have time to get it arranged by the time 
the committee returns. This is a rollcall vote. The committee will 
have to stand in recess until the members can go over and vote and 
return. 

(Brief recess. Present at this point are Senators McClellan, 
Ervin, Mundt, and Goldwater. ) 

(At the reconvening of the hearing after the taking of the brief 
recess, the following members are present: Senators McClellan and 
Goldwater. ) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Proceed, Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Chief, I have just one last question. 

These people that you saw on the line that you have repeatedly 
identified, did they seem to you to be the leaders of the strike ? 



8540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Yesterday in the picture, I noticed that there 
would be occasional large movements of people from one point to 
another point. How would those movements be ordered? 

Mr. Capelle. I believe that happened twice, where some of the non- 
strikers who attempted to get into the main gate moved over to an- 
other gate, and as they moved over, of course, some of the pickets 
would move along with them. 

Senator Goldwater. Were there any verbal orders given by the 
sound truck for them to move ? 

Mr. Cappelle. No, sir. The sound trucks were only used twice. 

Senator Goldwater. Just to sum this whole thing up, and I think 
you have answered this before, would you, as a police officer of some 
years of experience, consider this to be peacf ul picketing ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We were on some of your records, an inventory 
awhile ago. Have you been able to check that ? 

Mr. Capelle. I don't have it with me. I placed a call and they 
are preparing it. 

The Chairman. You were mistaken about having it ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. I thought I did, but I was mistaken. 

The Chairman. Wlienever you supply that, you will supply it 
under oath, and then it may be placed in the record or made an 
exhibit. 

Mr. Capelle. I will have that. They are preparing it now. I 
will give them a call back. 

The Chairman. All right. 

I have just one question. You mentioned a number of labor 
leaders or representatives of the International UAW, I believe, whom 
you have identified as being present. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I believe in answer to Senator Goldwater's last 
question you said that they appeared to be leading the strike or in 
charge of it, giving directions and so forth. 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did they ever at any time during this period of 
mass picketing offer to assist you in providing ingress and egress for 
the people who wanted to work ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did they ever obey any orders that you gave in 
your official capacity as chief of police with respect to permitting the 
ingress and egress of those who wanted to work ? 

Mr. Capelle. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, all they gave you was opposition, 
obstruction, and mass picketing to prevent it? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So they are bound to have known mass picketing 
was going on to the extent that it provided a resistance that denied 
those the right to go in who wanted to go in, and the only thing that 
could have been done, in your judgment, is to have used greater force 
in order to open the way up ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 



IMPRIOPEIR ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8541 

The Chairman. And you did not use that greater force, as I under- 
stand you, because of the conditions existing, and you realized that it 
would mean a lot of bloodshed ? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is the true condition that prevailed there, 
is it not? 

Mr. Capelle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Although you were prepared, although you had 
tear gas and those things you might have used, you did not, out of 
deference in trying to preserve as much order as possible. 

Mr. Capelle. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that correct, now? 

Mr. Capelle. That is correct, sir. 

Febbuaet 28, 1958. 
Memorandum from Waldemer G. Capelle, chief of police, Kohler, Wis. 
To : Senator John L. McClellan, chairman, Senate Select Committee on Improper 

Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 
Subject : Inventory of tear gas of the Kohler Police Department, Kohler, Wis. 

No. 115 Federal triple chasers grenades (CN) 71 

No. 112 Jumbo Speede grenades (CN) 2 

Lake Erie No. 34 grenades (CN) 4 

M-29 Billy cartridges— gas shells (CN) 20 

M-39 Federal Billy cartridges blast-type shells (CN) 8 

Federal Jumbo grenades (CN-DM) 11 

Note.— Use before July 1, 1937. 

No. 850 Federal projectile shells (CN-DM) — 1.5 caliber 72 

Note.— Use before July 1, 1937. 

No. 203 Federal short-range shells — 1.5 caliber 55 

Long-range shells (CN-KO) 1.5 shells 24 

Note.— Use before July 1, 1937. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Call the next witness, Mr. 
Counsel. Come forward, Mr. Bellino, and bring your records. 
Mr. Kitzman, you stand by a moment. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn today. 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You testified this morning from a number of rec- 
ords, did you ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have those records ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have them all in one package ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the Chair will make this pack- 
age of records from which you testified this morning exhibit No. 15, 
for reference, the whole package being included rather than trying to 
identify each document. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 15" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear 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. Kitzman. I do. 



8542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF HARVEY KITZMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., COUNSEL 

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

Mr. KiTZMAN. My name is Harvey Kitzman. I am director of 
region 10 of the UAW-AFL-CIO, and I live at 929 North Hackett 
Avenue, Milwaukee, Wis. 

The Chairman. I didn't quite understand your position with the 
union. 

Mr. Kitzman. I am regional director of region No. lU. This also 
makes me an international union executive board member. I live at 
2932 North Hackett Avenue, Milwaukee, Wis. My jurisdiction is 
made up of six States : Wisconsin, Minnesota, North and South Da- 
kota, Montana, and Wyoming. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kitzman, did you occupy this same position 
during the period 1923 up to the present? 

Mr. Kitzman. 1923? 

The Chairman. 1953. I am sorry, 

Mr. Kitzman. I did. I was first elected as regional director in 
July of 1949. 

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

The Chairman. And you have been regional director since that 
time, for the area that you have stated ? 

Mr. Kitzman. That is right. 

The Chairman. You have counsel with you. Let the record show 
that Mr. Rauh is counsel. 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr, Kauh is present representing the witness. 
Proceed, Mr, Kennedy, 

Mr, Kauh, Mr, Chairman, we have a 3-stage statement. We could 
not meet the 24-hour rule, Mr. Chairman, because we did not know 
until this morning that the committee was calling Mr, Kitzman this 
afternoon, I would like to submit the 3-page statement. 

The Chairman. Do you have copies for the members ? 

Mr, Rauh, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, We will grant you that right, I hope, though, 
so far as you can, those of you who expect to present statements, will 
comply with the rules. We just have to lose time to read it now, 

(The document was handed to the committee,) 

The Chairman, All right. Is there any objection to the statement 
being read ? 

Senator Goldwater, I have not finished it, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The Chair has glanced at the statement, and while the other Sena- 
tors are finishing reading it I would like to make the observation, 
and a suggestion, to those of you who are going to testify on opposite 
sides of this with your charges and countercharges. My suggestion 
is that you use language to describe what you mean, but, in some man- 
ner at least be temperate. If you are going to use provocative lan- 
guage, of course, the other side will use provocative language, too. 
Let's try to remember that. I am not criticizing this statement, but 
I can see where this can well lead to. I can take it if the rest of you 
can, but it will not be a very pretty show before the country. 



IMPROPEiR ACTrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8543 

Let US all bear that in mind and try to use language such as to state 
our position, so that each one can clearly understand what it is. But 
at the same time, respect the other fellow's feelings and prerogatives. 

Are there any objections ? 

Senator Goldwai-er. No; Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this 
statement. I understand the circumstances surrounding it. But I 
will insist that in the future all witnesses adhere to the 24-hour rule. 

The Chairman. The Chair is prepared to enforce that rule here- 
after, except if you get somebody up here miexpectedly and they have 
not had time to prepare. Then we always take it into consideration 
and submit it to the committee. I think the rule is a good one. I 
think generally it should be enforced, unless there are some good rea- 
sons to make an exception. The Chair would then be inclined to make 
an exception. You may proceed, Mr. Kitzman. 

Mr. Kitzman. I am a native of Wisconsin, and I have lived in that 
State all my life. I have been a union member for the past 24 years, 
and a member of the UAW since 1936. I was elected director of re- 
gion 10 in 1949, and I have been reelected 5 times since that date. My 
first personal contact with the Kohler Co. and its own brand of 
labor relations came in 1950, when several Kohler workers came to me 
and asked whether the UAW could not somehow and in some way help 
them improve the conditions in their plant, conditions that they were 
forced to work under. 

Since that date early in 1950, I have had a good deal of experience 
with Kohler Co. and its relations policies. I was present at various 
times during the organizational drives that led to the vote by Kohler 
worker to join the UAW, I have been present in the course of every 
series of collective bargaining negotiations held between local 833 and 
the Kohler Co., including the 7 months of negotiations which led to 
the first contract ; and 2 months of negotiations which occurred in the 
summer of 1953 at the time of negotiations on the wage reopener, and 
negotiations on the second contract, before and after April 5, 1954, 
when the strike began. 

It was I, along with Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer of our union, 
who, in February of 1953, recommended to the members of local 833 
that they accept a contract which most of them knew offered far less 
than they were entitled to. 

It was I, who with Jess Ferrazza 

Senator Mundt. Will you identify Jess Ferrazza ? 

Mr. Kitzman. Jess Ferrazza is the administrative assistant to sec- 
retary-treasurer, Emil Mazey. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Mr. Kitzman. It was I, who with Jess Ferrazza, in August of 1953, 
when the fii-st contract was open on the wage question, recommended 
that the members accept a 3-cent an hour wage increase, which they 
knew did practically nothing to close the great gap between their 
wages and the wages of Kohler Co. comf)etitors. At this August 
meeting, both brother Ferrazza and I were greeted with a round of 
boos when we urged the members not to strike the plant. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the membership of the union ? 

Mr. Kitzman. The membership of the union. We attended a mem- 
bership meeting which was called, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of 
ratifying the agreement. The membership had asked for something 
like 14 cents, if my memory serves me correctly. The company would 



8544 EMPROT^E'R ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 

only grant three. The membership did not want to accept this. We 
urged them to accept it, and not to strike the plant, in spite of the 
fact that they had taken a strike vote which had carried by an over- 
whelming majority. 

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

Senator Goldwater. Before you leave that point, Mr. Kitzman, 
what was the difference between the wages of Kohler's people and the 
Kohler competitors ? Do you have those figures ? 

Mr. Kitzman. The only way we have ever been able to compare 
wages in Kohler is the paycheck stubs, and which are not an accurate 
picture, because the union has never been able to get from the Kohler 
Co., even to this date, an adequate payroll. They compute everything, 
overtime, premium pay, and it is all thrown into one category. To 
m;^ knowledge, at least I, who spent a good many days at that bar- 
gaining table, have never actually seen a breakdown of the actual 
earnings, both piecework — particularly piecework. Daywork is a 
different problem, because there you have cents per hour, and that is 
pretty easy. But not on piecework. 

Senator Goldwater. For instance, do you have any information as 
to a comparison between what an enamel worker would get at Kohler 
and an enamel worker, say, at — do you have Crane organized? 

Mr. Kitzman. Crane is organized, but they are not in the UAW. 

Senator Goldwater. What companies are you acquainted with ? 

Mr. Kitzman. I am acquainted with American Beautyware and I 
am acquainted with Universal Rundle. Universal Rundle happens 
to be in Milwaukee, and they come closer to the exact operations of 
the Kohler Corp. than any in the near community. 

Senator Goldwater. What do they pay an hour on enamel workers? 

Mr. Kitzman. Do you mean at the t Jni versal Eundle plant ? 

Senator Goldwater. The one that you are acquainted with in Mil- 
waukee. I think that is the one. 

Mr. Kitzman. I would have to check that, to be exact as to what 
their earnings are per hour. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know what the enamel worker at 
Kohler makes an hour ? 

Mr. Kitzman. I only know what they make as a take-home pay. I 
have seen some of those checks. I have been told that the earnings 
are somewhere around $2..50 an hour. 

Senator Goldwater. At Kohler ? 

Mr. Kitzman. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. And you do not have the figures for the other 
company you mentioned? 

Mr. Kitzman. At Universal Rundle, the enamel workers run a 
little over $3 an hour. 

Senator Goldwater. I wonder, in view of the fact that you stated 
that there was a great gap between the wages of Kohler and Kohler's 
competitors, if you could compile some examples of competitors' 
hourly rates or piece rates, however they are paid, and also put down 
what you know about Kohler. 

I do not loiow what their rates are. But you have stated that there 
is a great gap. I wanted to know what that gap was. 

Mr. Kitzman. Take the question on the hourly paid workers, such 
as a sweeper. The Kohler rate at the present time, I believe, is $1.48. 
The Briggs rate, which is a competitor, is $1,885. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8545 

Take the question of the stock clerk. The Kohler rate is $1.53, and 
the Briggs rate is $1,855, or $1,885. Take the question of the ele- 
vator operator. The Kohler rate is $1.50, and the Briggs rate is 
$1,885. 

Senator Muxdt. Is Briggs in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Briggs is in Detroit, but they manufacture the 
Briggs Beautyware, which is bathtubs and plumbing ware. 

The Chaikman. I believe it would be oetter to let the witness 
finish his statement, except as to something for clarification. Then 
we can go into all of it. I will defer to your wishes, however. 

Let's finish your statement. If there are any questions for clari- 
fication, you can go ahead, but otherwise, after the statement we will 
go into all of these. 

Proceed. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. At that time, and earlier in the case of the ratifica- 
tion of the first contract, the international representatives assigned 
to help Kohler workers and the leadership of local 833, pleaded 
with Kohler workers to accept contract provisions and wages which 
they, the workers, knew to be less than simple justice called for. In 
both cases, we urged restraint and convinced the workers not to 
strike and to accept the inadequate company oifer. 

We told Kohler workers that it took time and experience for a 
company such as Kohler to learn how modern labor relations worked. 
KoWer management had never dealth with a responsible and legiti- 
mate labor union and we Imew it would take time to build mutual 
trust and confidence, so we asked the Kohler workers to give manage- 
ment time to make the adjustment. 

Beyond this we told Kohler workei*s that they had so far to go, 
that their wages and working conditions were so far inferior to work- 
ers at Kohler competitors, that it would take time for them to achieve 
equity. 

Unfortunately, however, while we tried to build trust and con- 
fidence and understanding between the workers and the Kohler Co., 
Koliler Co. prepared for war. 

I was one of those whom workers had come to and told on many 
occasions that there were being brought into the plant tear gas, gims, 
and clubs. 

Mr. Chairman, I was shocked this morning to find out the large 
amount of tear gas, guns, and clubs. I didn't think there was that 
much there. I didn't believe the rumors. 

The Chairman. Let me suggest to the witness, now, if I am going 
to give you the opportunity to finish your statement without too 
much interruption, I will have to ask you to observe the same request. 
Then you may make comments. We are not going to keep you from 
testifying, but I am trying to get some continuity. All right, proceed. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This committee has already heard reports on the company arsenal, 
the training of special troops and its open and brazen preparations for 
industrial warfare. 

It was in such a climate of distrust, fear, and suspicion, generated 
by these open company activities, that bargaining began in 1954. 
Bargaining on the second contract and wage demands, the company 
refused to concede on even the smallest matter in dispute. 



8546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

On this occasion in 1954 — even if I and otlier international repre- 
sentatives assigned to help Koliler workei-s had wanted to — and we 
didn't — we could not have prevented the Kohler workers from strik- 
ing this arrogant and dictatorial company. 

In the final few days of negotiations prior to the April 5 strike, I 
convinced the local union to concede a number of points in the hope 
that we could reach agreement. Despite all our concessions, it became 
obvious to me and to everyone on our side of the table, that this com- 
pany didn't want to settle. They wanted a strike. 

The company's desire to force a strike, which we recognized back 
in April of 1954, has become apparent to everybody since the man- 
agement, in the 45 months since that time, has stubbornly refused to 
make any real concessions and has refused to agi-ee to mediate or 
arbitrate by numerous public-spirited citizens and officials who have 
offered their services. 

There's been a good deal of reference in this hearing and prior to 
it, on the issue of mass picketing. There was mass picketing. No 
one denies that. But to condemn the actions of more than 2,000 men 
and women without understanding these actions is to do those workei-s 
as well as the American public a serious injustice. 

iVt first, tlie strikers came out on the picket line because they were 
afraid. They were afraid of what the company might do to them 
for striking. And then, as the strike wore on and the Koliler Co. 
announced in full page ads that they were going to hire strikebreak- 
ers, they were afraid that some outsider was going to steal their most 
valuable possession. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to do this at this time, explain 
that point. Here is a paid full-page ad by the Kohler Co., in which 
they point out that by actual count, since the start of the strike — 
and this ad was run on April 9, 1954 — in their own words, that "By 
actual count tliere have never been more than 800 Kohler employees 
on the picket line." 

So what actually happened here is that this was a challenge to those 
workers. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. That may be made exhibit No. 16. 
Proceed with your statement and you can come back to it. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 16" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr, KiTZMAN. At first tlie strikers came out on the picket line be- 
cause they were afraid 

The Chairman. You have read that. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. And then as the strike wore on, and the Kohler Co. — 
I have read that — were going to hire strikebreakers, thej^ were afraid 
that some outsider was going to steal their most valuable possession, 
and that is their jobs. That is all these workers had, their jobs, to 
protect in that plant. 

It takes a man of rare patience to stand up, or to stand by, and 
w\atch someone steal his job. They knew that in 1934 company guards 
had opened fire on another peaceful picket line. They knew these 
company guards had killed 2 men and wounded 47 men, women, and 
children. All but two persons were sliot in tlie back. And so they 
were afraid and they know that in numbers there was at least some 
safety, since they figured the company wouldn't open fire on such a 
large group of unarmed Avorkers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8547 

Finally they knew that since the beginning of the strike, the com- 
pany had been shouting about local 833 did not represent the will 
of the majority of Kohler workers. 

And here, again, this brought them out on the picket line in order 
to point out that this was not the facts. 

And so they showed the company, in the only way they knew how, 
that they, the people of Kohler who had more than 23,000 years of 
service with the Kohler Co., that they believed in their union, and 
that they were willing to stand up, or, if necessary, to be shot down 
for their union. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me read that statement. 
There are some other things I would like to say in connection with 
that. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Mmidt, and Gold water.) 

The Chairman. The Chair will permit you, unless there is objec- 
tion now, to make any additional statement you wish at this time, 
before you are subjected to examination by the committee. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. No. 1, Mr. Chairman, I would much rather sit at the 
bargaining table today than before this committee. 

The Chairman. We would rather have you there. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. If there were a chance to settle this strike. But I 
personally do not think that that chance exists. 

As a responsible officer of our international union, I did everything 
I knew humanly possible in the days before that strike started to try 
to get a settlement, because I remembered 1934, and I remember the 
feeling that still exists in the city of Sheboygan, because many of the 
same strikers that are on the picket line today and are still on strike 
today, were also in the Kohler plant and on the Kohler picket line 
in 1934. 

I, probably more than anyone else sitting at this bargaining table, 
realized what could possibly happen here. Therefore, I made numer- 
ous suggestions as to how we ought to move. On the last meeting, 
the last meeting on April 3, 1 believe it was, if my memory serves me 
correctly, I finally said to the company, not in any harsh language, 
and not in any boast or demands, but I was pleading with them, that 
since there was no chance of settling this, and since there obviously 
was going to be a strike here, that we ought to sit down as men and 
agree to some rules, that we ought to agree to some rules. And the 
company management asked me, "What are you talking about, rules 
of war ?" and I said, "Yes, that is what this is, rules of war," 

I pointed out to them, that even Hitler sat down with his enemies 
and said they were not going to use gas. I was talking about working 
out an orderly procedure as we do in hundreds of other places where 
we have strikes, where the union is interested, and they were interested 
in this case, to protect this property, and to protect tlieir jobs and see 
that their jobs would be there when they got back, so that watchmen, 
and fire protection men, and guards or whatever they needed, would go 
into that plant unmolested, but that the company does not try to hire 
strikebreakers. 

I pleaded with the company not to follow the road they followed 
in 1934 because, I said, "that will lead to serious trouble. It is serious 
trouble which the union does not want, and which we don't want in 
the community of Sheboygan, and which I am sure you don't want." 



8548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I was flatly told, "Look, you run your business and we will run 
ours." And 1 said, "I am sorry that that is the situation, but we will 
be here tomorrow," which was on a Sunday, April 4, "and if there is 
any last hope we ought to have a meeting, if we have to meet at 9 
o'clock Sunday morning, or 2 o'clock, or 3 o'clock, or Sunday night. 
If this strike can be headed off, we ought to do it." 

The meeting broke up, and I knew then that there was no hope. I 
also pointed out to the company that I thought that they had a re- 
sponsibility in this, and I said I thought that they had made bargain- 
ing harder as far as the employees were concerned because it really 
wears your patience thin when you sit at the bargaining table every 
day, day after day, and week after week, trying to work out an agree- 
ment, and then you watch — up on the roofs, and shanties being built, 
and equipped with floodlights, sound systems put in, and food hauled 
into the plant, and cots hauled into the plant, preparing for war. 

Now what kind of business is that, Mr. Chairman ? It is something 
exactly as happened in 1941, when Mr. Karichi sat here in the city of 
Washington talking about peace, while the different bombers were 
already on the way to Pearl Harbor. 

That is why these people had the kind of feeling they had. This 
did not seem to bother the Kohler Co. at all. I became convinced, 
and this is my opinion, I became as convinced as my name is Kitzman 
that by April 3, long before this, but particularly in the meeting of 
April 3, the company made up its mind to take this union on. It was 
something they wanted to do on February 23, 1953. But they were 
not quite ready yet, and thank God a guy like L. L. Smith came in and 
saved the situation. Because when he came in, he made enough con- 
cessions, so that the contract was able to be taken back to the member- 
ship and signed. 

Otherwise, this trouble might have occurred as early as 1953. 

The Chairman. I wanted you to make any statement and you are 
making more or less of a speech now. I want to indulge you as long 
as we can, and if there is any additional facts you want to state. 

You can go ahead but I want you to know that we want you to keep 
it down to facts, what they were doing wrong, and you had a feeling 
they were not willing to pay the wages and sign the kind of a contract 
you wanted, and you had a feeling that they were preparing for a long 
strike, which you called a war. And I don't know, it may be termed 
that in some terminology of law. 

Go ahead, Mr. Kitzman is ready. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just one this question of their preparing for war, the 
first illegal act that was taken by the union on April 5, and no matter 
what you thought they were going to do, the first illegal act was the 
starting of the mass picketing on April 5, 1954, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Kitzman. It was not an illegal act. Here were a group of 
people. I have said there was mass picketing, and here was a group of 
people that came out April 5 to protect themselves. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine, they were going to protect their jobs, 
and the company was inside. You say that they were taking steps in 
order to get ready for what you term a war, but the fact is that the 
first illegal act, the keeping of employees out of the plant, was taken 
by the union. 

Mr. Kitzman. Well, any union that has a picket line certainly does 
not expect w^orkers to go in. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8549 

Mr. Kennedy. They might not expect workers to go in 

yiv. KiTz:\rAN. They were protecting their jobs. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are an awful lot of picket lines going on 
throughout the United States that are not having some 2,000 people 
out there to keep the employees out of work. There are picket lines 
that are going on in the United States at the present time, in which 
that is not being done. 

Wliat you were doing, the starting of the illegal action, in this whole 
strike was started by your union. It was by keeping the employees 
v\ho wanted to go to work, keeping them out of the plant. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. First let me say to you • 

Mr. Kennedy. And you talk about what happened 

Mr. KiTziNiAN. First let me say to you, that I have said this was mass 
picketing, and I have tried to tell you the reasons why, and as soon 
as the NLRB issued an injunction, and an order, to disband that mass 
picketing, that was done. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 57 days later, and not until a court intervened. 

Mr. Kitzman. Up until tliat point, those strikers were out there, 
many, many of them were out there to prove that what was being said 
by the company on the radio, that the strikers were not favoring the 
strike, was not true, and therefore, they showed up on the picket line. 

Mr, Kennedy. You spent 30 minutes telling the committee about 
what a terrible thing the company was doing in all of this. If the 
company did not want to sign with the union or felt that the demands 
of the union were too great, they had a riglit to take that position. 

Ultimatel}', when the strike came along, the first illegal act was 
done by the union, and that remained for 57 days until the court 
intervened. 

Mr. Kitzman. Until the WERB order came along, the union did 
not consider this an illegal picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was done by the international officers of which 
you were one, and of which there were at least a dozen others out 
there. 

Mr. Kitzman. And condoned by the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. The mass picketing was condoned ? 

Mr. Kitzman. Because they could have gone to the WERB long 
before the 57 days were up, but they did not have the record built any 
sooner than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe they needed the record built in court in order 
to get the mass picketing removed. But there were international or- 
ganizers there, and international officers of the UAW were present, 
and this mass picketing went on for 57 days until the court intervened. 

You can't get away from those facts. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? Is there any further 
statement you wish to make? 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes. 

I also want to point out that in June after this strike had started, 
there were a couple of meetings after the strike started, but we got 
nowhere. In June, I believe it was, of 1954, 1 went to see the govn-nor, 
the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. His name w^as Walter J. 
Kohler and a nephew of the president of the Koliler Co. 

I told the governor that if there was anything that his office could 
do to break this loose, and to get some negotiations going, or break 

21243— uS^pt. 21 15 



8550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

through somehow in this, I certainly would appreciate it. He told 
me he did not know how much he could do, that he was no longer con- 
nected officially with the company, and that they booted him out, and 
that maybe his intervention would be more hindrance than good. I 
finally said to him that I would agree for the union in advance that 
he ought to set up a factfinding panel of three members, recognizing 
that the factfinding panel would not have any final authority, other 
than to make a public statement. 

And that factfinding panel ought to come in and examine the de- 
mands the union was asking for, and he ought to examine what the 
company was offering, and then they independently ought to make 
a statement as to what they thought was wrong here, and what, in 
their opinion, could be done to settle this strike. 

The Chairman. I did not quite get the time of that conference, 
Mr. Kitzman? 

Mr. Kitzman. It was sometime in June, and I don't recall the exact 
date, but sometime toward the latter part of June. It was in 1954. 

The Chairman. Was that after the mass picketing had ceased ? 

Mr. Kjtzman. Oh, no. Pardon me; yes. There wasn't any mass 
picketing out there, and there was just a handful of pickets around 
each gate. 

The Chairman. I thought you said in your statement, or you had 
said in your statement that there was mass picketing, and it did not 
break up until the labor board or a court order required it, and that 
is what I was getting at. 

Mr. Kitzman. The board order came down before this June date 
that I went to see the governor. 

The Chairman. That is why I wanted to get it in proper per- 
spective. 

Mr. Kitzman. I don't have the exact date, Mr. Chairman, but I 
know that the board order was down already. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. I^TZMAN. I suggested this factfinding panel to the governor, 
and as I pointed out, he did not think he could do anything about it 
and finally I said to him, "If I may be so bold as to make a sugges- 
tion, I think what is bothering you is we might ask for people on this 
factfinding panel who are completely prounion. So here again, I will 
take it upon myself to obligate the union that we will accept a three- 
man factfinding panel made up — " and I named the people for him, 
the corporation attorney for Allis-Chalmers Corp., Harold Storey; 
Ward Hector, ex-State supreme court justice of the State Supreme 
Court of Wisconsin, and anyone the governor wanted to choose. 

The governor said to me, "Well that is not a group of CIO organ- 
izers." iVnd I said, "I agree with you." But we were perfectly Avill- 
ing to have those gentlemen sit down and see what the facts are, and 
we were perfectly willing to say publicly, what they thought we 
should accept, and we would have done it. 

The governor called me a few days later, and he said he had failed 
in his mission, and he called me about midnight, and he said he had 
tried this on for size, on at least two of the gentlemen that I spoke 
about, and that both of them said if this were a sane situation, they 
would probably move into it, but the kind of a situation that existed, 
they did not want to do anything about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8551 

I went back to the governor again, and I said, "Isn't there some- 
thing else we can do?" 

The Chairman. Wliat was the date of your second trip, approxi- 
mately? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. It was quite shortly after he called me, or along about 
June 29. I said to the governor, "Isn't there something else we can 
do ? Do you have any suggestions ? " 

And he said he did not. I requested the governor that he ought to 
talk to both sides about submitting this whole business to arbitration. 
He gave me no answer whatsoever, and he did not say "Yes," and he did 
not say "No." 

But on July 8 he did send a letter, a letter to the Kohler Co., and a 
letter to the union, and a letter to myself, in which he outlined this 
whole business that was going on in Kohler. 

The Chairman. Did he send the same letter to all of you ? 

Mr. Kitzman. The same letter, as I understand it, went to the com- 
pany, to the union, and came to myself. 

The Chairman. At any rate, you have the one that came to you ? 

Mr. Kitzman. I have a copy of the one that came to me. 

The Chairman. You have a copy of it ? 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 17 for refer- 
ence. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 17," for reference, 
and may be found in the liles of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kitzman. I did want to read the last paragraph of that letter. 

The Chairman. You may now read it. 

Mr. Kitzman. The last paragraph of that letter states : 

In considering this request, both the company and the union should bear in mind 
that the refusal to submit the issues to arbitration undoubtedly would be inter- 
preted by the public as indicative of a lack of desire to see the strike at an end, and 
a lack of confidence in the merits of its case by the party which declined. 

That is signed "Walter J. Kohler, governor." 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Mundt, and Goldwater. 

Senator GoLDWATER. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Before we get too far away 

Mr. Kitzman. I just wanted to add to this, if I may, Senator, I want 
to point out that when we got that letter the bargaining committee of 
the local met, they went over the letter, they sent the governor a wire, 
and said they accepted this proposal. 

The Chairman. In other words, your people accepted it ? 

Mr. Kitzman. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right 

Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. Before we get too far away from some of these 
points, Mr. Kitzman, did the union anticipate tliis strike ? 

Mr. Kitzman. Did the union anticipate this strike ? 

Senator GoLDWAi-ER. Yes. 

Mr. Kitzman. Well, my good Senator, when you are sitting at the 
bargaining table, and you see barricades being built in front of the 
gates of the plants, shanties being put up on the roof, floodlights being 



8552 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

put on them, platfonns being built to put movie cameras on, what else 
could the union think but that there was going to be a strike? 

Senator Goldwater. What did the union do in preparation for the 
strike? 

Mr, KiTZMAX. Franlvly, the union was scared, Senator. The anion 
until the day 

Senator Goldwater. That isn't the question, Mr. Kitzman. AVhat 
did the union do of a similar nature to prepare for the strike? 

Mr. KiTzarAN. The union did everything they could to avoid it. 
If you are talking about the union making open preparations for the 
strike, tliey made no such preparations. 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't? You made no preparations for 
a strike ? 

Think it over, now. 

( The Avitness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Kitzman. I might say this, Senator, if you are talking about 
the union looking for a soup kitchen, renting a soup kitchen, and that 
the union started to hold meetings and making some preparations that 
if a strike took place— if you mean that, that is correct. They did 
that. 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't want you to say that you hadn't made 
any preparations, because 

Mr. Kitzman. Believe me, Senator, I didn't want to leave that im- 
pression with you. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me finish, please. On February 19, 1953, 
in the Kohlerian, there is an article in that paper that tells of Peter- 
son's being picked for strike headquarters. It goes into rather some 
detail as to there being ample space for a strike kitchen and tables 
for men and women doing strike duties, strike planners, and so forth. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this as an exhibit 
for the record, and call attention of the committee to the point that 
this was a year before the strike took place. In fact, it was more 
than a year before the strike took place. 

I am not condemning the union for doing this. I am merely point- 
ing out that the company made some arrangements for striking, and 
the union also was making arrangements for striking. 

The Chairman. The Chair 

Mr. Kitzman. I would — could I say something, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kitzman. I think the record has to show that that bulletin, 
or that paper, was printed in February of 1953 and there was no strike 
took place in 1953. Quite to the contrary, a strike was prevented 
in 1953. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not talking about a strike, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Did you want this made an exhibit ? 

Senator Goldwater. Just the article in the upper left hand corner. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of 
an article that appeared in the Kohlerian, on February 19, 1953; the 
article is entitled "Pick Peterson's for Strike Headquarters on Lower 
Falls." 

Is that the article you wanted, Senator ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes, Mr. Chairman ; thank you. 

The Chairman. I present this photostatic copy to you and ask 
you to examine it and state if you identify it. 



IMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8553 

(The document was handed to tlie witness.) 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

Mr. KiTZMAX. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a copy of the Kohlerion, 
and I assume that statement is correct. It is dated February 19, 1953. 

The Cpiairmax, Is that a publication published by the union? 

Mr. IviTZMAN. That was published by the union. 

The CiiAiRMAx. At that time ? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. At tliat time, tliat is right. That was 1953 and it 
had nothing to do with the 1954 strike. When the contract was signed 
in 1953, all of this was abandoned. 

Tiie CiiAiKMAX. That may be made exhibit Xo. 18. 

(Tlie document referred to was marked "Exhibit Xo. 18" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The CirAiRMAX. The witness says it had notliing to do with this 
strike. 

Mr. KiTziMAX. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater, Mr. Kitzman, during negotiations on the wage 
reopen demands from May 23, 1953, to August 20, 1953, did the union 
take a strike vote!' 

Mr. KiTZMAX. Senator, I believe they did. 

Senator G(»li)Water. IIow many strike votes did 3^ou take during 
the period 'I Let me put it tliis way. How many strike votes did you 
take after tlie UAW ])ecame the bargaining agent? 

Mr. KiTziNEAX. I believe three. 

Senator Goldwater. Three. Well, isn't that practically every time 
you talked about negotiations? 

^Ir. KiTZMAX. No. Xo. You want to remember the 1953 negotia- 
tions, that was actually two sets of negotiations. Tliere was a wage 
reopener every 3 months, which I cautioned the company against, 
because tliose are no good in anj^ agreement. But, nevertheless, they 
had them. So the wages were actually opened long before August. 
But tliey dragged over clean into August. 

Senator Goldwater. I said JNlay 23. Xow, Mr. Kitzman, three dif- 
ferent strike votes in this period. Are you surprised that the com- 
pany thought there would be a strike : 

Mr. KTrz:\iAX. Frankly, I am not surprised. 

Senator Goldwater. You made every noise like there would be a 
strike. 

Mr. KiTZMAX^. I wish you would have been at the bargaining table 
with me. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Xo ; I don't want to get into that. 

Mr. KiTZMAX'. I hope some day I can have you as a partner of mine. 

Senator Goldwater. You might be surprised. 

Mr. KiTZMAX^. With this particular company, I mean. 

Senator Goldwater. I mention that to you because it seems to me 
tliat tlie threat of a strike was rather hanging over their heads con- 
stantly. I am not surprised in vieAv of tliese repeated strike votes that 
they thought a strike might be coming. 

The Chairman. May I ascertain if all of those strike votes were 
favorable at this point, for a strike? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

The Chairman. Were the strike votes you took in each instance 
favorable for a strike ? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, yes. 



8554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Go ahead. I just thought we would clear that up. 

Senator Goldwater. You mentioned in your statement that you 
knew in 1934 company guards had opened fire on another peaceful 
picket line. Mr. Kitzman, did you see the movies yesterday ? Were 
you here ? 

Mr. Kitzman. I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Did that picketing look like peaceful picket- 
ing to you ? 

Mr. Kitzman. If you say that that was mass picketing, I will agree 
to it. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't say that was mass picketing? 

Mr. Kitzman. I will agree that it was mass picketing. 

Senator Goldwater. We have that behind us now. Would you call 
that peaceful picketing ? 

Mr, Kitzman. Yes, because there was no rough stuff in that picket 
line. 

Senator Goldwater. We had a woman testify that she got her 
shoes kicked off by one man from Detroit. We had testimony from 
the chief of police that he was knocked to one knee. 

And another man we saw pictures of where somebody had done a 
pretty good job on his eye. 

What is peaceful picketing to you? What does it mean? 

Mr. Kitzman. First, let me point out to you, Senator, that cer- 
tainly somebody probably got his feet stepped on, certainly probably 
somebody got shoved. The pictures showed that. I wouldn't sit here 
and deny that. I wouldn't deny it if I hadn't seen the pictures. 
Because I think this committee is looking for the facts. I want to be 
helpful and give you the facts. But I want to point out, Senator, that 
there is a big difference between mass picketing and peaceful 
picketing. 

There wasn't any guns in that picket line. There weren't any clubs 
or gas there. All these poor fellows had was their hands and elbows 
to do a little shoving with, which they did. 

Senator Goldwater. I have been in situations where hands did 
pretty good jobs on me. They didn't need clubs or guns. The ques- 
tion I am asking you is: Do you consider that strike to have been 
peaceful picketing ? 

Mr. I^tzman. I do. 

Senator Goldwater. You do ? 

Mr. KrrzMAN. I do. 

Senator Goldwater. You honestly do ? 

Mr. Kitzman. I do. 

Senator Goldwater. I would hate to see something you would call 
rough. 

Mr. Kitzman. Well, again I want to point out that I wasn't there 
every day. 

Senator Goldavater. No, but I am talking about these pictures 
yesterday. We sat and looked at them. 

Mr. Kitzman. I didn't see any rough stuff in those pictures out- 
side of a little pushing. 

Senator Goldwater. It is pretty good pushing when you push a 
man the size of the police chief to his knee, and kick the shoes off a 
small woman, and get a man into shape where he needs a few stitches. 
I am only mentioning a few of the things. My memory does not 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8555 

recall all of the acts of violence. But you consider that to be peaceful 
picketing that we watched on the movies yesterday ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. In the movies yesterday, I didn't see any shoes get 
kicked off of a lady. 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't say that. You saw some men get 
kicked down, you saw violent shoving. 

Mr. KirzMAN. I didn't see anybody get kicked down. I saw some 
])eople get pushed, and some people get pushed down but there is a 
difference between using a club over a guy's head and just pushing 
them. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's say we didn't see the movies, but we rely 
on the testimony of the witnesses before us, who stated they were 
pushed down, were kicked, were kneed and so forth. On the basis of 
the testimony of the witnesses, would you call this peaceful picketing? 

Mr. Kitzman. On the basis of what testimony ? 

Senator Goldwater. Of the testimony that has been presented to us 
by various witnesses. 

(The witness conferred with his coimsel.) 

Mr, Kitzman. Well, at least one of the witnesses, we claim, per- 
jured himself if he didn't do anything else. 

Senator Goldwater. We will say, Mr. Kitzman, and your attorney 
may say, that Avhat we have accepted as evidence are two different 
things. 

Do you consider this to be peaceful picketing in view of the testi- 
mony that we have received that you have not questioned ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. You do ? 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. You are aware of the Wisconsin law that pre- 
vents mass picketing, aren't you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. ChaiiTnan, might I ask a question of the 
Chair ? Is it the purpose of counsel in these hearings to propose ques- 
tions or is it merely to advise when the witness asks ? 

The Chairman. A counsel's purpose at these hearings is to advise 
the witness of his legal rights. 

Mr. Rauh. This was a peculiarly legal question that was asked. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

We frequently indulge counsel or someone sitting near, the privilege 
of refreshing the witness' memory giving him information that he 
may be asked about, where he may have to check with someone else 
related to the proceedings or to his interests. It is improper for 
counsel to, as we say, put words in the witness' mouth. 

Counsel will refrain from doing it. 

Mr. Rauh. There has been none of that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I didn't say there had been. 

Mr. Rauh. This question put was a very legal question about what 
the law in Wisconsin was. I don't suppose the witness would be asked 
to answer a question about what the law in Wisconsin was without 
some help from some lawyer. 

Senator Goldwater. There were other questions prior to that, Mr. 
Counsel. 



8556 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiKMAX. The witness may answer: Do you know what the 
hiw of Wisconsin is with respect to mass picketing? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. The WERB, Wisconsin Employment ReLations Act, 
Avord for word, I do not know it. 

I know generally what it is. 

Senator GoLDWATER. Well, generally, does the law prohibit picket- 
ing that prevents a man from going to work if he desires to go to 
work ? 

Mr. KiTzivrAN. Yes ; I believe that is in the law. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know that before the strike com- 
menced ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater . Well, did you have a feeling that you were 
violating the law when you set up mass picketing? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Because I felt that these people w^ere out there trying 
to protect themselves, and that these people were out there because 
there was a question as to whether the union represented a majority or 
not. I felt that the company, because of their ads and their radio 
programs, was more responsible for that picket line than the union 
was. They were goading them into coming out. 

The CiiAiRMAX. Senator, would you yield to me at this point just 
for one question ? 

Senator Goldw^ater. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Could not you have had your mass demonstration 
at a location where it would not have violated the law and still made 
the same demonstration, where you would not have, by mass force, 
preventing ingress and egress into the plant ? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. No, no, Mr. Chairman. If you Avould have done 
that, you would have had to be out on the higliways or miles away 
from there, which wouldn't have had any effect at all. 

The Ciiair:max. Well, of course, we just as well be factual about it. 
We all know the purpose of holding it at those gates and running 
crowds from one gate to another was not to demonstrate that the 
majority of the Kohler workers wanted to strike, but it was to keep 
out of the plant workers who wanted to work. That is the truth 
about it; isn't it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KiTZMAX. Yes, absolutely, yes. 

The CiiAiRMAX. All right. 

Senator Goldwater. I will yield to Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Did you say you did know or did not knoAv the 
Wisconsin law on this subject? 

Mr. KiTz:\rAx. I said I knew the general terms of tlie law. I don't 
know it word for word. 

Senator Muxdt. Let me read you the law, and restate the question. 
The law says, and I am quoting from the statutes of the State of 
Wisconsin — 

To prevent or hinder by mass picketing, threats, intimidation, force or coercion 
of any l\ind. the pursuit of any lawful woi-k or employment, or to obstruct it. 
interfere with entrance to or egress from any place of employment, or to obstruct 
or interfere with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, 
railways, airjiorts oi- other ways of travel or conveyance. 



IMPRiOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8557 

Xote the pertinent phrase of this inquiry is whether there was 
picketing established to hinder or prevent by mass picketing, threats, 
intimidation, force or coercion of any kind, the pursuit of any lawful 
work or employment. 

I don't presume that you would deny this picketing was set up to 
prevent the pursuit of lawful work or employment, would you ? 

Mr. KiTzikUAX. I didn't quite get the question. 

Senator Mundt. I say I don't suppose that j^ou would deny this 
picketing was established in order to prevent the pursuit of any lawful 
Avork or employment on the part of the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. KiTZ]\rAx. This picket line was established to demonstrate that 
there was a strike at the plant, and certainly to try to persuade 
anyone who might want to go in, to not go in. 

Senator Munixt. To try to persuade, and if you couldn't persuade 
them, then to try to prevent them, is that correct ? 

Mr. KitzjMax. Well, I don't know whether they actually — whether 
a yes answer to that would actually be right. Certainly the strikers 
did not want to see someone go into that plant and take their jobs 
away from them. If that is what you mean, that is certainlj'^ correct. 

Senator Mundt. Having seen the pictures together, and you saw 
them for the first time yesterday and so did I 

Mr. KiTZMAx. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. They were walking almost in lockstep. There was 
no room for a man, a Avoman or a midget to pass between the picketers 
to get to work. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Had I seen that picture earlier, I might have been 
able to make corrections on it. That was not a completely true picture. 

Senator Mundt. We will take the part that we saw. The Chair has 
said, and we concur, that if you have other pictures to introduce, we 
would like to see them. But certainly from that picture, there was 
no chance to squeeze an employee through that picket line. It was 
established to prevent somebody from the outside who wanted to get in 
from having the opportunities to get in and go to work. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. The picket line was established for the purpose, as 
I pointed out, of advertising the strike, and, certainly, to see that 
no one went in and took the jobs of the strikers away from them. 

Senator Mundt. All right. It presented them. That was an illegal 
picket line, was it not ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. No, it w^as not. Look, Mr. Chairman 

Senator Mundt. I yield to the chairman. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I don't like to be put into the position all the time, 
and I am going to ask this of you, Mr. Chairman, because, as I pointed 
out earlier, I want to be as helpful as I can in this thing, and it is 
close to me, because I spent a lot of time there. I am constantly being 
put in the position that I knew the Wisconsin Employment Eelations 
Act was illegal. If I understand the law in Wisconsin, the Employ- 
ment Relations Peace Act, it is not illegal until you have been cited 
by the WERB, and there has been a court order issued on it. Up 
until that point, it is not illegal. And when that was done, and the 
Kohler Co. could have done this the first week of the strike, when 
that was done, the union did abide by the law, and did prohibit mass 
picketing. 



8558 IMPROPER AiCTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. T^t the Chair say that would be a legal question. 
From the Chair's standpoint, whenever a law says something shall 
not be done, the doing of it is illegal, and whenever something done 
is illegal, of course, there is a remedy where you may go into court 
and enjoin the continuing of an illegal act. I would assume that it 
was illegal, or otherwise the court would not enjoin it, and otherwise 
the board would not so rule. Let's get back 

Mr. &TZMAN. There is tliis point, Mr. Chairman, if I may : Under 
the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act, when the company charges 
a union or a union charges a company, because this works both ways, 
of having done something illegal, the WLRB then has either an in- 
vestigation or a hearing or, in some manner, an ascertainment of the 
facts. 

The Chairman. They have to find out whether it has been done 
illegally. If it has not been done illegally, they would never find 
out that it has been. 

Mr. Kjvtzman. In many instances, they do not issue the injunction. 
So you actually don't know until you got the hearing, whether you 
have an illegal situation on your hands or whether you don't. In this 
case, the minute it was found it was illegal and the order was issued, 
the union disbanded it. 

The Chairman. Let me say this : The act itself is illegal. The man 
may be charged with the act. It may never be proven that he did it. 
He may never be convicted. But that does not keep the act from being 
illegal, if the law says it is illegal. So it isn't a question of getting 
caught and convicted, or a court order issued. The court order that 
establishes the fact that it is illegal and issues an injunction against 
it, of course, makes a finding that it is illegal. 

But there have been many acts committed, crimes committed, that 
we know are crimes, but we don't know who did it. We might get 
the wrong person up and try them. We might get the right person 
up and try him and yet he wouldn't be convicted. 

So the question, as to whether the act was illegal, under the law as 
read, I would assume it was. But irrespective of whether you think it 
is illegal until that time, all right, that is a difference of opinion. 

But let's get back to the factual things. You said that the pickets 
were there to keep othei-s from coming in and taking their jobs. 

Mr. Kitzman. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. They were also there, as you said they 
were there to keep anyone from taking their jobs away from there, they 
were also there to take away from those who wanted to work, who were 
employees of the company, their right to work and their right to go 
in and continue in their jobs ; were they not ? 

Mr. Kitzman. They probably were there for that purpose, too, fully 
realizing that this company would hire people on the outside that had 
never worked at Kohler before to take their jobs away, because that 
had been done before. 

The Chairman. Now, just one moment. I don't know. Have you 
got any proof that anyone came there during that mass picketing? 

Mr. Kitzman. I don't believe they started hiring en masse until after 
the mass picketing. 

The Chairman. In other words, during the mass picketing period, 
you knew the people you were keeping out of the plant, keeping away 



IMPRlOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8559 

from their work, were people that were in the employ of the company 
when the strike came ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Yes; but again these people remembered what hap- 
pened to them in 1934 when they did exactly that same thing. Many 
times they said to us that their jobs were taken away from them in 
1934, and that they certainly weren't going to stand idly by and see that 
happen again. 

The Chairman. I can appreciate that may have been their mood. 
I am not questioning that. But I am talking about what the practical 
results were. 

So far as those who actually worked there, and who were known 
to have worked there, you could have ascertained that, and they could 
have been permitted to go in, except that you wanted to keep them 
out and keep the plant completely closed down. I don't think there 
is any question about that. 

Senator Ervin, did you want to ask a question ? 

Senator Ervin. The fact is that in this dispute as in many labor 
disputes, each side has what they consider weapons. The management 
has the weapon of hunger, and that is the necessity that most people 
have to eat bread. On the other hand, labor has a weapon of the strike. 

In this situation, is it not a fact that a substantial part of the workers 
of Kohler were supporting the strike, and a substantial number of 
them were opposed to the strike ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KiTZMAN. The facts are that the overwhelming majority were 
in support of the strike, and there were a few who were in opposition 
to the strike. You are right. 

Senator Ervin. Was it just a few or a substantial number that were 
opposed to the strike ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I have no way of knowing other than what showed up 
to try to go into work. 

Senator Ervin. Do not the pictures indicate, these pictures that 
were shown indicate, that a rather substantial number of people were 
trying, at times, to enter the plant ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KiTZMAN. If my memory serves me correctly, some witness 
testified here on the other side yesterday and said that he thought 
there were 40 or 50 of them. 

Senator Er\tn. As a matter of fact, I think we might as well get 
down to the actualities, and not to shadowbox. 

As a matter of fact, how many workers were there in the Kohler 
plant? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. At the time of the strike ? I believe there were about 
3,300 or in that number. 

Senator Er\tn. Well, now, if all of the 3,300, except 40, were in 
favor of a strike, don't you know they could have closed down that 
plant without having any pickets there at all? We might as well 
face realities. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Senator, if the company did not hire new employees, 
I agree with you. But if the company would have started hiring 
new employees, all 3,300 that were working there could have been 100 
percent in favor of the union and you would have had the same scene 
and the same picture that you saw yesterday. 



8560 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ekvin. It would have been difficult for the company to have 
gotten 0,300 skilled workers to take their place within any short period 
of time, wouldn't it ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. It would, but it coidd have been done, and at the 
point the people would have seen outsiders come in to take their jobs, 
you would have had that mass picketing there. That is all these 
workers had to protect, was their jobs in the plant. It was making 
a livelihood with their 10 fingers. That is all tliey had. 

Senator Ervix. I am not holding a brief on either side of this 
matter, but I am trying, so far as my own individual conclusions 
are concerned, to reach them just as if I was a jury who took an oath, 
like the jurors take in my State of North Carolina, to hear the evi- 
dence and render a verdict accordingly. 

As a matter of fact, when a strike occurs, the strikers' main ob- 
ject is to put an end to production in the plant, isn't it ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And to cause a threat to an economic loss to the 
employer to such an extent that the employer will see that it is to 
his advantage to enter into negotiations and see if the matter cainiot 
be adjusted? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Generally, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. So when you put out a picket line, the object of 
your picket line is primarily to keep persons from going into the 
plant so that you can put an end to the production, is it not ? 

JNIr. KiTZMAN. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And you hope to do that, if you can, by peaceful 
persuasion ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And when you resort to mass picketing, as shown 
in these pictures, where the pickets are walking in lockstep, the object 
of that mass picketing is to keep the pers(jn from penetrating your 
picket line to get into the plant, isn't it, without using fists or clubs ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is right. That is the only means the workers 
have. 

Senator Ervin. That is right. I am just trying to keep from us 
shadowboxing. So when you cannot persuade a person by peaceful 
words not to try to enter the plant, then the next mildest thing to do is 
to have mass picketing with lockstep as shown in these pictures, and 
the object of the lockstep and mass picketing is to keep a man, by the 
mere mass of the bodies of others, from entering the plant ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is the only means these men have. 

Senator Ervin. I do not want to have any shadowboxing about this 
matter. My own opinion is that in the hnal analysis, the interests of 
management, the interests of stockholders, and the interests of the 
employees of anj' company are substantially the same, and that these 
matters ought to be settled if they could be humanly settled by men 
sitting around a conference table and trying to act in an intelligent 
and reasonable manner. Is that not correct ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Senator, I agree with that 100 percent. I sit in 
many negotiations. I have 86 local unions in my jurisdiction, going 
clean up into the Dakotas. I have 108 contract to service. We are in 
negotiations all the time. 

Ill fact, when I leave here this evening, that is wliere I am going, 
back into negotiations tomorrow with one of the little employers. I 



IMPRlOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8561 

]iave always believed that. I have always believed it and will always 
continue to believe that when a company prospers and grows, the 
union can prosper and grow. 

We want to prosper and grow with the company. We want to pros- 
per and grow with the community. We want to prosper and grow 
with the State and the Nation. 

As a union, we Avant to be an instrument, an instrument of credit to 
the American society. But Avhen you run into a situation where a 
company takes the attitude that "We are the judge, the jury, and the 
prosecuting attorney, and we don't owe the workers anything beyond 
this, we pay them an hourly wage and beyond that we have no obliga- 
tion to them, we liave no obligation to the community, this is our plant 
and we are going to run it as we damn see fit" then you are up against 
a rough, rough situation. 

Senator Ervin. I feel sorry for everybody involved in these kinds 
of affairs, regardless of their views and all of that, because, after all, 
management, tlie workers who are on strike, and the workers who are 
not on strike, the}^ are all human beings, and they are caught in a 
situation which is a very difficult situation. 

Having in this country the right of freedom of thought, manage- 
ment has a right under our laws to be opposed to all unions, if they 
want to take that view. There are some that are opposed to all 
unions. There are some people, on the other hand, that believe every- 
body ought to be compelled to join a union whether they want to or 
not. 

Then you have these people on strike, and, as you say, they know 
that the only way they can support their family is by earning their 
bread by the SAveat of their brow. They think tliat if people go into 
tlie plant, they will deprive them of their jobs. 

On the other hand, a'ou have some people who want to go in and 
work, and they have some mouths to feed. It is a question of trying 
to find some kind of a way to sti'ike a balance between a lot of diver- 
gent interests. 

That is tlie reason it is a tragic thing wlien a strike comes, accord- 
ing to the way I see things. 

Mr. KiTZMAx. You are dead right, Senator. 

Senator Ekvix. But it takes reasonable men on both sides of the 
bargaining table to take and reach a reasonable agreement. It has 
to be from both sides. 

If you have unreasonable men, either on the side of management 
or on the side of labor, you are not likely to reach a correct conclu- 
sion, are you ? 

]Mr. KiTZMAX. That is correct. Senator. I want to point out to you 
in this situation that even after this strike started, I made a number 
of efforts, by meeting with 1 or 2 people, in trying to bring about a 
settlement in tliis strike. When I was told pointblank, not on one 
occasion but on several occasions by that management, "Look, Kitz- 
man, we didn't start the strike. The union started it and we are 
going to teach this union a lesson," that is a far cry from reasonable- 
ness at a bargaining table. 

We have to remember that you cannot organize a plant, and I 
have a number of them in my union, you cannot organize any plant, 
no matter how many organizers you have on it, where there is real 



8562 IMPROI^ER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

reasonableness on the parts of managements. You cannot organize 
a plant in the Garden of Eden. It is conditions that organizes unions. 

No union ever went on strike. It is conditions inside of a plant 
that go on strike. 

Senator Eimx. On that last observation, I know some manage- 
ment where you could not possibly organize a union. 

Mr. KrrzMAX. I have some in my region where you cannot organize 
a union. 

Senator Ervix. Just so we will not have any shadowboxing, I do 
not know the law of Wisconsin, but I imagine the law of Wisconsin 
is based on the common law, and in common law, whenever a man 
stands in front of me, and just his physical presence prevents me 
from going where I want to go, if I have a right to go there, he is 
committing an assault on me, regardless of labor laws. 

Frankly, while I am trying to keep my mind open on all of these 
propositions, I am under the impression that this picketing, this 
lockstep picketing, as shown in tliese pictures, was illegal under com- 
mon law principles, because I think it was designed and intended and 
did have the effect of keeping the people from going where they 
wanted to go. 

Therefore, I think we might as w^ell concede those tilings and go 
on to matters that there could be some dispute about. 

(Witness conferred with liis counsel.) 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater? 

Senator Goldwater. I want to get back to Mr. Kitzman and his 
statement. You said during the course of your statement that the 
Kohler Co. announced in full-page ads that they Avere going to hire 
strikebreakers. 

What is your definition of a strikebreaker ? 

Mr. IviTzurAN. My definition of a strikebreaker is someone w^ho will 
go in and take the job of a man who is out on strike, fighting for a 
better way of life, for higher wages, and better conditions in the 
plant that he works. 

Senator Goldwater. In your opinion, is that illegal ? 

Mr. Kitzman. Are strikebreakers illegal ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Kitzman. As far as I know, there is no law that says it is il- 
legal to be a strikebreaker. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know before you went out on 
strike 

Mr. Kitzman. The only law I know is against strikebreakers is to 
transport them over a State line. I know there is a law against 
transporting strikebreakers over a State line. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Kitzman, did you know or did your at- 
torney advise you prior to the strike that the company had a right to 
hire strikebreakere ? 

Mr. Kitzman. If our attorney advised us whether they had a right 
to bring strikebreakers? 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know or did your attorney advise you 
that the company would be Mithin their legal bounds in hiring 
strikebreakers or replacements, whatever you call them? 

Mr. Kitzman. I don't believe I ever asked an attorney that 
question. 

(At tliis point. Senator INIcClellan left the hearing room.) 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8563 

Senator Goldwater. Did your people that went out on strike know 
that the company would be within their legal bounds? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I don't think they ever considered that. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you feel a responsibility of telling your 
members the dangers of going out on strike in this instance where 
3'ou didn't have 100 percent membership ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Believe me. Believe me, I told the membership at 
the membership meeting what the responsibilities were, and I pleaded 
with not only the membership but with the community 

Senator Goldwater. Before we leave this subject and to keep the 
record straight, I want to read a very short paragraph from a Su- 
preme Court decision, NLRB v. McKay Radio and T elegra'pli^ United 
States Supreme Court, 1938, (2 L. L. R. M. GIO) . 

They say in paragraph 10 : 

The second group of economic strikers have a limited right of reinstatement. 
They may claim their former jobs if permanent replacements have not been 
hired, but the employers, during the strike and prior to the strikers application 
for reinstatement, may protect his business by hiring replacements or by dis- 
continuing the job for business reasons. If permanent replacements are hired 
befoi'e the strikers apply for reinstatement, the application may be rejected 
without subjecting the employer to liability for unlawful discrimination. 

I read that just to point out that I think that you, as a member of 
the union, a responsible official of the union, shovild have told your 
members that if they go out on strike, particularly when you do not 
have 100 percent of the membership of the workers, that there was 
the danger of their jobs being replaced by other people. 

Senator Erat^n. We will stand in recess. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Just a very brief answer. Strikebreaking may be 
legal. Unfortunately, it may be legal, but it certainly is not moral. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess for a few mo- 
ments. 

(Brief recess at 4 : 10 p. m.) 

(Members present at the taking of the recess were: Senators Ervin, 
Goldwater, and Mundt.) 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Earlier today, the committee requested of the wit- 
ness Mr. Capelle an inventory of the tear gas of the Kohler Police 
Department, Kohler, Wis. He has submitted an inventory, or a 
statement as to tlie amount that they had on hand, of anununition, 
grenades, and so forth. 

That Avill be printed in the record at the conclusion of Mr. Capelle's 
testimonv. 

(The document referred to appeai-s on p. 8541.) 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think there was one 
thing that I had meant to do that slipped my mind. You will re- 
member I told you about the letter that the Governor sent to the com- 
pany and the union, asking that they submit the matters in issue to 
arbitration. 

The Chairman. Yes. I put that letter in. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Yes, but there is also another letter which I have a 
copy of, a letter which the company sent to the Governor, tuiTiing 
down flat his proposal. 

That letter is dated July 9, 1954. I would like to read the last two 
paragraphs. 



8564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Cjiaihmax. The first thing the Chair wants to know is are you 
prepared to swear that this is a true copy of tlie letter that tlie com- 
pany sent to the Governor ? 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

The CiiAiKMAN. 1 am sure you are confident it is. 

Mr. Rauh. We have an ad in the paper, a copy of the ad in the 
paper, with the letter in it, from which this was taken. All we have 
to do is submit this, which was their own advertisement, with the copy 
of the letter which we are happy to do. 

The Chairman. May 1 present to you here a copy, of wliat purports 
to be a copy of an ad that appeared in what paper 

Mr. KiTZMAX. The Sheboygan Press, dated July 10, lO.")-!. This 
was the day after they wrote the letter to the Governor. 

The Chairman. Who published the ad ^ 

Mr. KiTZMAN. It is signed "The Kohler Co." 

The Chairman. That ad purports to be the copy of the letter that 
the company sent in reply to the Governor's letter of suggested arbitra- 
tion ? 

Mr. Kitzmax. Yes. The reason I asked to read the last paragraph 
is because they say here 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Let's get it established. 

Have you compared the ad with the copy of the letter that you have? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

The Chairman. Well, we will just use the ad. I will make the ad 
exhibit No. 19. 

(The document referred to was marked Exhibit No. 19 for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

The Chairman. Now you can use it. Do you wish to read the last 
paragraph ? 

Mr. Kitzmax. The last two. 

We do uot accept your suggestion that we turn the making of a contract and 
the decision as to wages over to an arbitrator. You are so far wrong in your sug- 
gestions that our refusal to let an aribtrator write a contract for us will embar- 
rass us before the public that we shall see to it that the stand we have expressed 
in this letter gets the fullest publicity. 

and they ran the full letter. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Just a moment. The Chair ]ust happened to observe there was no 
member of the other side present. Mr. McGovern, will you check 
and see if they are I'eturning ? 

Go ahead with your other point. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. My other point was that it was a suggestion made, 
or it was pointed out to me, that the union committed the first illegal 
act. I don't subscribe to that because in the trial examiner's report, 
on the last page, in conclusions, he found that the first illegal act was 
actually committed by the company, when they refused to give the 
union data as far back as March 6, 1954, a month before the strike, 
data which the union was entitled to, to make an intelligent proposal 
and bargain intelligently. That is right in the trial examiner's 
report. 

The Chairman. That is what the National Labor Relations Board 
examiner has found ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is right. 

The Chairman. And he reported that to the Board. 



I-MPRiOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8565 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Yes. You see, the unfortunate part about that is, 
Senator, that the union being charged with committing an illegal act, 
the company could have gotten a remedy Avithin 10 days, if they chose, 
before the WP^RB. Yet if you follow, the right Avhich the company 
chose was to force the union to hie unfair labor practices, which have 
been in the mill since 1954, and, if they appeal them to the Circuit 
Court of Appeals, and to the IXnited States Supreme Court, it could 
very well be another 2 or 3 years before there is a decision. 

So what happens to a union if they have to litigate in the courts for 
5, (), 7, and 8 years, without a chance to take up grievances or anyhing 
else ? Obviously, that union dies on the vine. 

The Chairman. I am not saying who actuall}^ committed the first 
act. I would not know. You say you have a finding there. But from 
the time of the strike, the strike obviously started with an illegal act, 
if mass picketing is illegal. What happened in the negotiations back 
there is subject to testimony, of course. One other thing I think you 
should do to make the record clear, is this : You stated that the union 
did send a letter to the governor accepting the proposal. Can you pro- 
cure for us a copy of that telegram? I think that should go into the 
record. 

Mr. KrrzMAX. Yes, I think the boys can do that. 

Mr. Rauh. We will get it, Mr. Chairman. We do not have it right 
here with us. 

The Chair:man. I am just trying to make the record as it should 
be. If you will supply it under your oath, we will insert it in the 
record. I believe that will be made exhibit No. 20, so we will have 
that also. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 20," for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 8743.) 

The Chairman. What did you find out, Mr. McGovern ? 

Mr. McGovERX. I understand they are on the way over. 

The Chairman. We will suspend for a moment, then. 

Well, Senator Ervin, did you have a question ? 

Senator Ervin. I have one that ma}^ not be relevant to the issues, 
pjirticularly, but I can understand why the workers at the Kohler 
plant would like to fit in with a strong union. 

But I am curious to know why the UAW was interested in organ- 
izing the workers of a plumbing manufacturing plant. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Well, as I pointed out in the statement that I made, 
in 1950, several of the Kohler workers came to me. The UAW was 
organized all plants where workers wanted an organization. We have 
advised them and if they actually have wanted the union in the plant, 
we have taken them. We have plumbing ware plants. Universal 
Rundle is a plumbing ware plant in which we have never had a labor 
dispute, and in which we have negotiated a fine contract, at least the 
last couple of times. 

Senator Ervin. I was thinking that if I were a UAW worker, I 
might object to the union taking part of my dues and supporting the 
plumbing manufacturing employees while on strike. 

Of course, I cannot see why the UAW would be organizing the 
employees of a plumbing manufacturing plant, unless they are either 
an eleemosynary institution, bent on doing what they conceive to be 
good, or if the}^ are merely interested in extending their power. 

2124.'.— .ns— pt. 21 16 



8566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(At this point, Senators Mundt and Gold water entered the hearing 
room.) 

Mr, IviTZMAN. It is the workers wlio decide what union they want, 
and here the workers evidently decided they wanted the UAW. After 
all, the workers decide. 

Senator Ervin. I can understand why the employees of a plumbing 
company would like to join a strong union, but I am so far puzzled 
as to why a union which is primarily a union of automobile worker's 
would be interested in organizing the employees of a plumbing 
company. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Well, of course, the Kohler Co. also builds a power- 
plant, which is a gasoline engine. And, by the w^ay, it is a good one. 

Senator Ervin. Fanners always use gasoline engines, and so do 
lawyers. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation. We started 
a moment ago, and I did not observe that the gentlemen were not here. 
But, during the time, we have only covered two things, and that is to 
place in exhibit the letter tliat the company wrote in answer to the 
governor's letter which they published in an advertisement in the 
paper. That has been made an exhibit. And also the letter that the 
union sent in reply to the governor's letter has been made an exhibit. 
I believe that is all that has transpired. 

I am trying to rush along, hoping to get througli with this witness, 
if we can, because there are others who are expecting to use this 
caucus room after 5 o'clock. So we are doing the best we can. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Senator, I would appreciate that very greatly, as I 
pointed out earlier. I am watching the clock as I have a plane to 
catch. 

The Chairman. I cannot tell how much longer the hearing will go. 
T am going to run until 5 o'clock if necessary. 

Are there any further questions ? Senator Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. I want to clear up in my own mind, Mr. Kitzman, 
about your function. You are UAW region 10 director ? 

Mr. Kitzman. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And you are elected, I presume, by the unions of 
that area ? 

Mr. Kitzman. The unions that make up region 10. 

Senator Mundt. Is your salary paid by those unions or from De- 
troit ? Where do you get your salaiy ? 

Mr. Kitzman. I am paid for out of the per capita tax of all of 
the unions that make up the whole UAW. 

Senator Mundt. It is a union regional office which tlien sends you 
a check for payment ? Is that the way it goes ? 

Mr. Kitzman. That is correct. My payment is made by the na- 
tional office that collects all of the per capita tax. I am j^aid the same 
as every other elected union official is. 

Senator Mundt. Where is that headquarters ? 

Mr. Kitzman. It is in Detroit. 

Senator Mundt. You are paid from Detroit. But Detroit, in turn, 
collects from your constituent unions and pays you your salary? 

Mr. Kitzman, That is correct. Where this money comes from, I 
don't know, because it comes out of the per capita tax, and it might 
be workers in Wisconsin. 



IMFROiPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8567 

Senator Mundt. I think I have the picture. You are elected by 
I he people of your region, and your salaiy comes from Detroit? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is ri^lit. 

Senator Mundt. As regional director, were you sort of in charge 
of these negotiations and in charge of the ensuing strike? Was that 
part of your responsibility? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. The local union is actually in charge of negotiations, 
and also in charge of any other activities that they liave. The respon- 
sibility of the regional director is to help them; and, as such, I did 
participate in a good many of those negotiations, although I was 
not there every day. 

Senator Mundt. On page 3 of your statement, you have a sentence 
I cannot quite interpret. You say "At first the strikers came out on 
the picket line because they were afraid. They were afraid of what 
tlie company might do to them for striking.'' 

Suppose they had not gone on the picket line, but had simply gone 
on strike and stayed home? What were they afraid was going to 
happen ? 

5lr. KiTZMAN. Well, what I reallj" meant was that they came out 
on the picket line to prove that they were in support of the strike, 
and also they all came out there — they didn't want to come out there 
only 10 or 15 at a time, because every striker that goes on strike, 
every striker, really has a right to go on the picket line and protect 
his job. 

Now, knowing what had happened once before, and some of tliese 
strikers were the same people that were in there in 1934, they felt 
by coming to the picket line, as they did, they would have some 
measure of safety and security. 

Senator jSIundt. Then maybe you left a word out that you intended 
to put in. Maybe you meant to say the strikers came out because they 
M-ere not afraid. I do not see how they would come out because they 
were afraid. It did not add up to me. 

Mr, KiTZMAN. 'Wliat I really meant was safety in numbers. I didn't 
know until late that I was going to be on today. I dictated that last 
night, while I was tired, and maybe I did leave a word out. 

Senator Mundt. You left me kind of confused. I thought you were 
trying to imply that the strikers were afraid to stay home, and so they 
came out to the picket line where they could be seen and be out in 
the open. They were afraid that something was going to happen. 
That apparently was not what you were trying to say. 

Now we are back to the main reason, I presinne, that you were 
called and the main purpose that you serve as a witness. It is to 
determine the point of controversy thus far in the hearing, and that is 
whether or not this picket line was a legal or illegal instrumentality. 
I think I understand you correctly, now, but I want you to go on the 
record, under oath, on which every position you take. I do not want 
to put words in your mouth, but I think* I understand correctly 
that you hold the position that you feel this was mass picketing, and 
that you recognize mass picketing as illegal in Wisconsin. If that is an 
incorrect summation, you correct me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Xo, Senator, I said that that was mass picketing. 
I agreed to that. 



8568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator ]\[rNDT. You said that very definitely. 

Mr. KiTZMAX. But 1 did not agree that it was illegal. 

Senator ^Irxivr. I read you the law from AVisconsin which says 
very speeitically that it is illegal, and you had said that mass ])icket- 
ing was what took place. How could you arrive at any other con- 
clusion? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. My position was that under the Wisconsin law, 
when a com]iany or a union, it works both ways, makes a charge of 
something illegal, there is a hearing held to ascertain the facts, and 
if the facts at the hearing prove out. that something has been done 
illegally, then they issue an oi-der, which the Board did in this case, 
and at tliat ])oint the union complied with the Board's order. 

So I feel tliat up until that time, thej^ hadn't done anything illegal, 
other than to show up on the picket line, which any striker has a 
I'ight to do. Even including yourself. Senator ]Mundt, if you were 
a worker in a plant and went on strike. You have a right to go to the 
picket line. 

If everyone in that sti'ike came to the picket line, then I would 
assume that you would not feel that you were doing something illegal. 

Senator Mt'xdt. There is no question but wliat every striker has a 
right to go into the picket line. 

He puts himself on the picket line and Avhen the fellow worker 
wants to go in, he should have a right to go in. The law specihcally 
states that if a picket line is so set up and so operated as to keep people 
who wanted to get employment from getting employment, then it was 
considered to be illegal. 

Mr. Kttzman. Again, I have to say as I said to you before, that the 
union did not consider this illegal until there was a Board order, and 
at that time they abided by it. 

Senator Muxdt. At that time they complied with the law. But 
up until that time they had been in violation of the law, because the 
law prohibits mass picketing. 

^Ir. KiTZMAX. We are just going around in a circle on that. 

Senator Mi'Xdt. As the chairman pointed out, there is a law 
against murder. Sometimes a man is accused of murder and he gets 
away, or he is found inncK-ent. Sometimes he is found guilty. But 
the crime was in committing the murder. It is not in just gettiai-g 
caught. I take it you would not want to testify under oath. Mr. 
Kitzman, that you feel that this was not an illegal ])icket line^ 

Mr. KiTZMAX. I believe I already did that. 

Senator ]Mitxdt. You certainly haven't done it in my presence, 
^'ou might have done it. 

Mr. KrrzMAX. I think I already did that. 

Senator Muxdt. I^t me ask you the question: Do you want to 
testify under oath that to the best of your knowledge as a union 
official, a regional director of HAW region 10, tliat this was not an 
illegal picket line? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. Again, I will have to answer the same as I did 
several times, that I did not feel, as the workers in the Kohler plant 
did i!ot feel, that this was a violation of anvthing until there Avas a 
WERB Older. 

I admit that when the order was issued, that you have to comjily 
witli the oi'der. But the order could have also been dismissed, which 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8569 

would luive then just simply proved that it wasn't illeo-al, which has 
been done in many strikes. 

Senator Mundt. Who was it that made this finding? The board? 

Mr. Kirz:ktAN. The WERE board. 

Senator Mundt. The WERE board then found it was an illegal 
picket line, is that right? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. The board order, and I do not know extictly what it 
said, said that this was an illegal picket line, and limited the amonnt 
of pickets to each gate. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. So M'hen the board holds that it 
is an illegal picket line, and the law, as I read it from the books, 
and related it to the pictures, indicates it clearly to be an illegal 
picket line, it is entirely possible that some workingman on the picket 
lino might not have felt he was breakhig the law. Eut very fre- 
quently a man who is caught in the toils of the law' does not think 
he has been violating it, though the court holds that ignorance is no 
defense under the laAv. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KiTZiSiAN. I am not a lawyer. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You have a good lawyer giving you counsel, 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I am a farm boy like you are. 

If I understood this order cori-ectly, the order said this is what we 
could not do in the future, and this is how we had to conduct, or they 
said to the local iniion — I did not get the order but the local union got 
it — that this is how they would have to conduct themselves in the 
future. 

Senator Mundt. As one farm boy to another, the board said, "This 
is what you cannot do in the future because you have been doing it 
illegally in the past.*' 

Is that not correct ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. No, they said, "This is how you have to conduct 
your-self in the future?" 

That is when they limited the number of pickets and everything 
else. 

Senator Mundt. Right, because what you had been doing in the 
past was illegal. Let's come clean with it. That is why the board 
made the statement. 

The legislature was not in session. Nobody passed a new law. 
The board looked the situation over and said, 'Now, look, in the fu- 
ture, you have to do it 'so and so," because what you have been doing 
in the past is illegal." 

That is why they made you change the nature of the picket line. 
There is no use to quibble about that, but I want to get it into the 
record. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I did not read the order. I was told that was 
what was in the order, and that is the way the boys conducted them- 
selves from the date that the order came down. Eut I think, Senator, 
we have repeatedly said that there was not a striker out there that 
believed that he was doing something illegal. 

He believed he was out there protecting his job. This went all the 
way up to including myself. I have said it. 

Senator JSIundt. I am not arguing about these things tliat moti- 
vated the striker. I can see how the striker mieht well have felt 



8570 IMPROPER ACTIVrTTES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

that he was protecting himself, if he had kidnaped a strikebreaker 
or roughed him up pretty good, and he might have had a lot of mo- 
tivation. 

But I am talking about the law. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. It is illegal to steal, and when somebody charges 
me that I have stolen something when in my heart I believe I have 
not, I am not guilty until they prove I am guilty. 

Senator Mundt. If it is illegal to steal, as I believe it is in your 
State and my State, you are guilty of stealing something at the point 
that you committed the theft, not when you get caught 6 months later 
taking it to the pawnshop. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. If I did not steal anything, I would not consider 
myself guilty until I was proven guilty. 

Senator Mundt. It is not a question of what you considered your- 
self. It is if you had stolen it. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I have never stolen anything in my life. 

Senator Mundt. I did not bring that in. You brought that in. I 
am sure you have not. 

But we have to get this before us. The purpose of your testimony. 
I presume, is to plead that this was a legal strike and a legal picket 
line. You have done it so far, because what you have testified to sO' 
far convinces me that the earlier testimony stands, because you have 
said that "I agree it is a mass picket line." 

A mass picket line is illegal, the board so held it to be, and the 
board so held that you cannot do it in the future because it is illegal 
up to now. Furthermore, we have the testimony of the sheriff and of 
the police department, that they actually made some arrests because 
people were engaging in what they understood to be an illegal picket 
line because it was picketing. 

The law enforcement officers said it was illegal. The mere fact tliat 
a poor, innocent striker out there to protect his job did not have a law- 
book in one hand and a lawyer's brief in the other so he could defend 
himself, doesn't prove anything at all. We was engaged under the 
direction of you, or his local, or whoever led the strike. I am not 
saying who led the strike, because I don't know. I don't suppose they 
spring spontaneously into being. 

I presume they have to be organized. Whoever was leading it may 
not have known, either. But that does not change the situation. You 
were still in violation of the law. That seems to be the point of 
contention. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Kitzman, just as we departed to vote, you 
made a statement that you thought it was morally wrong for the com- 
pany to hire strikebreakers. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think it is morally wrong for an offi- 
cial of your union to take this attitude, and let me read this statement. 
It has a]:)peared in numerous places. This happens to have appeared 
in the Wall Street Journal of August 9, 1956 : 

Mr. Rand shakes his head as he leans against a huge "Don't Buy Kohler" 
placard in the UAW office and says, "It seems to me that it is almost sinful to 
have any labor dispute degenerate to the point where this one has, where we 
actually have to wreck the company. That's what we are doing, wrecking the 
company." 



IMPRO'PEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8571 

Is that a good moral statement for a member of your union to make? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I don't know whether Mr. Rand said that or not. 
But if Mr. Rand said that the union was wrecking the company, that 
is wrong. I, personally, do not believe in that. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't believe in it. I am glad to hear 
you say that. We will get a chance to ask Mr. Rand, I suppose, as to 
whether he said it or not. It has been fairly well kicked around by 
the press. 

Now having established your feeling on that, it has been testified to, 
yesterday and today by the sheriff of Sheboygan County and by the 
police chief of the village of Kohler, that on several occasions he 
asked members of the picket line or ordered members of the picket 
line to stand aside so that people could get into work, and they 
refused to obey peace officers. 

Do you feel that that is morally right ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I never heard the sheriff. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you here when he testified ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That is right. I was here when he testified. I was 
never in the picket line anywhere where the sheriff made that request. 
So I don't know whether the sheriff ever made that request or whether 
he did not. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, you were here today 

Mr. KiTZMAN. And if he made the request that the picket line be 
opened, I don't know what the pickets told him. Therefore, I am in 
no position to answer that. 

Senator Goldwater. How about the chief of police ? He said that 
he had made several requests of pickets to stand aside. 

Mr. I^TZMAN. I am in the same position with him. I never heard 
the chief of police make a request of anybody. 

Senator Goldwater. The men were testifying under oath to this 
effect. We have to assume, in the absence of any evidence of perjury, 
that they were telling the truth. 

Do you think it is morally right to disobey police or sheriff orders? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. It all depends on what the order is. 

Senator Goldwater. Here was a case 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Here was 

Senator Goldwater. Let me fuiish. 

Here was a case where the law was being violated in mass picket- 
ing. You admit there was mass picketing. The sheriff and police 
chief have, on numerous occasions, ordered the pickets to allow people 
in to work and they refused to do it. 

Whether you heard it or not, do you think that is morally right? 
We are interested in morals. 

Mr. I^TZMAN. I think that people have a moral right to protect 
their jobs. I don't know what this police chief said to them. I would 
be unable to answer on that. 

I think those pickets had a moral right to protect their jobs. 

Senaotr Goldwater. Mr. Kitzman, right there, didn't the people 
who wanted to get in to work have the same moral right to protect 
their jobs? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. I did not get the question. 

Senator Goldwater. Didn't the people who wanted to get through 
the picket line in to their jobs have the same moral right to protect 
their jobs? 



8572 IMPROPER ACTIVrTI'bS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witneSvS conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator (toldwater. Does this morality only ap])ly to tlie union 
menibei-s? Doesn't it extend to nonunion members also? 

Mr. KrrzMAN. I believe it does. 

Senator Goldwater. The man that was trying to get through that 
picket line was just as interested in keeping his job as the pickets 
were, wouldn't you assume t 

Mr. KiTZMAN. You see, if I give you a "yes" answer to that, you 
only have half of the story, because there was a firm belief on the 
part of the strikers that these nonstrikers were, many of them, and 
later on they said so, some of them, really coached and told to go 
through the picket line, and the union members believed that thej' 
should not go in and take their jobs. 

On the basis of that, they kept their picket line, mitil it was proven 
that they ought to have a different type of a picket line, at which time 
they complied. 

Senator Mundt. I wonder if you could straighten me out a little 
on your definition of a strikebreaker. Let's say Tom, Dick, and 
Harry work for Kohler, and Tom and Dick join the union and Harry 
does not. Tom and Dick go on strike and go in the picket line and 
HaiTy does not. 

Harry wants to go to work Monday morning and Tom and Dick 
stop him. How al^ut Harry '^ Doesn't he have a right to work? 

Mr. KiTZMAX. I wish you would use a different company than the 
Kohler. Here is the way it would work out. I personally would 
consider Harry a strikebreaker and the Kohler Co. would consider 
him a loyal employee. 

Senator Mundt. T[e is not a new man, but Tom and Dick and 
Harry all came to work together. After 10 years, they have a dif- 
ferent sense of opinion, which is American. Harry wants to keep on 
working on the same old job in the same old way, and Tom and Dick 
believe the union would be helpful, so they set up a picket line. 

He is a strikebreaker because he tries to work at his old job? 

Mr. KiTZMAx. The union would consider him a strikebreaker. 

Senator Mundt. I always thought a strikebreaker was someone 
brought in from outside, but in this case he would be considei^ed a 
strikebreaker ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. No, not necessarily. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you said he would be considered a strike- 
breaker by the union ? 

Mr. Kitzman. No, I think it was another question. I think the 
question was whether or not a strikebreaker or strikebreaking was 
illegal, and I said to my knowledge it was not illegal, but only when 
you brought them across State lines. 

Senator ]Mundt. I am getting to your definition of a striker, when 
the third man on the team wants to continue to work and earn a liv- 
ing for his family, whether he is a strikebreaker because lie tries to go 
through the picket line and earn a living on his job. 

Mr. Kitzman. If he goes in and takes the job of the other two • 

Senator Mundt. This is his job. He has a right to his job. There 
are ?> machines, and '3 men. Tom, Dick, and Harry each have a 
machine. Tom and Dick say they want to strike, and Harry says, 
"I w^ant to work on my maclii ne." Is he a strikebreaker ? 

Mr. Kitzman. The union m ould consider him a strikebreaker. 



IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8573 

Senator Mundt. That is what I wanted to find out. It wasn't a 
question of whether it is legal or illegal. 

Senator Goldwater. In effect, then, what you are saying is 1:hat 
anybody who works in a plant who disagxees with tlie union is a 
st I'ikebreaker ? 

Mr. KiTZMAN. That, of course, is not correct, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. You just said that. 

Mr. KiTZMAx. Xo, I didn't say that, and don't you put words in my 
mouth. I know what I said, myself. The union firmly believes that 
Avhen there is a strike called l)y the workers in the plant and a ma- 
jority have participated in such a meeting called for that purpose, 
and tlie majority have voted to take tliat action, that anyone who has 
an opposition to that has the right to say so at the union meeting. 

But once the will of tlie majority has been taken, then the minority 
ought to go along with it. Therefore, if anyone wanted to go into 
work, the union would consider them a strikebreaker. 

Senator Goldavater. Mr. Kitzman, on that point, let's get some 
more of this union philosophy, because it is very interesting. 

I believe there were 3,300 and some people working in the Kohler 
plant at the time the strike was called. If my memory serves me 
correctly, there were about 2,500 of those 3,300 who were members 
of the union. About 50 percent of the union membership, or about 
1,250, about 1,254, participated in the vote; 1,105 of those, and these 
are union members, voted "yes,'' and 148 voted "no," and 1 drew a 
blank. 

We are not talking about the majority of the people in this plant. 
We are not even talking about the majority of the people in the union, 
because less than a majority of the people voted. A majority of those 
who showed up for the meeting, yes, I will agree with you, they voted. 
But you are talking about a majority. You are not talking about a 
inajority of the workers. 

Wliat actually has happened in this case is about one-third of the 
l)eople decided that tlie other two-thirds should go out on strike. 

Xow, let's say that the members of the union who didn't vote can 
be bound by the vote taken in this meeting. But where do you get 
any moral right to bind those people to strike who aren't members of 
the union, who don't want to belong to the union for some reason or 
other ? 

You are on very weak grounds here, because you do not have a ma- 
jority to start talking about. 

!Mr. KiTZMAX. First let me point out to you, Senator, whenever 
there is a strike vote taken, or a strike vote called, by our constitution 
the union is required to post a notice in the plant, saying that on such 
and such a date there Avill be a meeting for that purpose, which was 
done in this case. 

As I understand, there were some 2,700 union members, 2,700 or 
2,800. I don't know how many attended that meeting, but those fig- 
ures you give me, I assume, are correct. 

I am also told that a good many of them left the meeting and said 
"Whatever is done here, we are for it,'" because the voting was taking 
a long time. 

l^ut the ])oint I want to make is that every single member had a 
right to attend that meeting. If the member doesn't clioose to use that 
right, then the union, the balance of them that take that position, 



•8574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

ought not to be blamed for it, because every member had a right to be 
at that meeting, every single one of them. 

Senator Goldwater. I agree with you that they not only had a 
right, but I think they should have been there. 

What we have heard over this period of time is rather appalling. 
But what I am talking about is that you don't represent in this vote 
the majority of the workers. 

In effect,' what you are saying is that one-third of the workers, and 
that is about it, 1,105 is about one-third of 3,300 workers, one-third 
of the Avorkers said they were going to walk out on strike, and, there- 
fore, the other two-thirds have to go with them. Let me repeat myself. 

I will agree with you that the union members who didn't vote 
might be bound by virtue of the fact that they didn't vote, bound 
to the action of the union. But how about those, the 1,100 people, 
who didn't belong to the union, who didn't want to belong for reasons 
of their own, who wanted to continue to work in Kohler, and you 
prevented them from working by preventing them from going 
through the picket line. 

I can't get that all to add up to your moral reasoning on the com- 
pany versus the strikebreaker. 

Mr. KiTZMAN. Well, again, I have to point out that everyone had 
a chance to be there. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not arguing that. 

Mr. Kitzman. If they didn't come there, the union ought not to 
be blamed for that. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not blaming you. 

Mr. Kitzman. The majority of those that were there, not only a 
majority but two-thirds, or nine-tenths of them 

Senator Goldwater. Eighty-eight percent. 

Mr. Kitzman. Eighty-eighty percent ; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. But the 88 percent was less than half of your 
luiion membership. 

The Chairman. You will need this witness again Monday ? 

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

Senator Goldwater. No. 

The Chairman. You gentlemen cannot be here tomorrow ? 

Senator Goldwater. No, I am sorry, I cannot. 

The Chairman. Will you need this witness again Monday ? 

If not, you may be excused. 

The committee will stand in recess until Monday afternoon at 
2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
^ p. m., Monday, March 3, 1958.) 

(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess were : 
Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Goldwater.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, MAKCH 3, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Seleci^ 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 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Pat McNamara, 
Democrat, Michigan ; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona ; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Carl T. 
Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel ; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel ; 
Margaret W. Duckett, assistant chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. O'Neil, will you come around, please. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE O'NEIL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Neil, you are being recalled as a witness. 
You testified under oath one day last week, I believe? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. 

At that time you were requested to procure and deliver to the com- 
mittee the remainder of the lihns that were taken during the course 
■of the strike, or the mass picketing. 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You stated at that time, I think, j^ou had some 400 
feet that you did not have with you that had been taken out ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. From the others ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you procured those films ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir, I have. 

The Chairman. You have them here ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

8575 



8576 liMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chaiioian. Xow, those that you Imve liere. togetlier witli wliat 
the committee has, constitute all of the films or all of the pictures 
that were made, the moving pictures of the strike I 

Mr, O'Neil. Of the mass picketing, sir, and not tlie strike. 

The Chairman. Of the mass picketing? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. You have other still pictures, do you? 

Mr. O'Neil. We have other stills, and other moving pictures which 
were introduced in the NLEB hearing. 

The Chairman. IVliich were introduced in the hearing? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. They may be delivered to the couunit- 
tee at this time, and they will be made exhibit No. 21 for reference 
only. 

(The film referred to was marked "Exliibit No. 21" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. There has been some question raised about the 
validity of the pictures, as to whether they had been doctored in any 
way or something, and of course the committee cannot pass upon tliese 
until we have had an opportunity to see them. 

It will not be necessary for them to be shown at this time, but the 
committee will view them at its pleasure at some other time. But I 
did want to get all of the pictures in here. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, might I offer a suggestion for 
correction, that immediately after you asked Mr. O'Neil if he had 
other pictures, and he replied saying that he had stills and movies 
of other phases of the strike, and you said that they will Ije made an 
exhibit, I know j^ou were only referring to the two cans of film that 
he had. 

The Chairiman. I mean these here, those that he is delivering will 
be made an exhibit. 

Senator Goldwater. He hasn't offered the pictures that were shown 
before the NLEB as evidence. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

All right, are there any other questions of this witness ? 

You may stand aside, Mr. O'Neil, a moment, and Avill you remain 
where you are, Mr. Conger, please. 

Mr. Frank Concellare, will you come around to the witness stand, 
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. Concellare. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK CONCELLARE 

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

Mr. Concellare. Frank Concellare. I work with the United Press 
News Picture, and I live at 109 South Utah, Arlington, Va. 

The Chairman. Who are you working for today ? 

Mr. Concellare. The United Press News Pictures. 

The (^tiatrman. '\'\'Tio else ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8577 

Mr. CoNCELLAKE. Tluxt is Avlio I aiii working for. That is all I 
know. 

Tlie. CiiAiR^rAx. Have you had any special arrangements made 
with you by anyone involved in this controversy to be here and take 
certain pictures if you got a chance to do it ? 

Mr. CoNCELLARE. My office told me to make pictures of Mr, Rauh 
whenever I could. 

The Chairman. And who else ? Let us get the facts. 

Mr. CoNCELLARE. With anyone ; just anything concerning Mr. Kauh. 

The Chairman. I understood you have been employed especially 
to make pictures of members of this committee if they are seen talking 
to anybody representing the union. Is that true ? 

Mr. CoNCELLARE. I was told this morning by phone to make any 
pictures at all of Mr. Rauh. 

The Chair:man. What were yon told the day before this morning, 
or last week ? 

Mr. CoNCELL.\RE. I wasii't here last week. I was covering the Wliite 
House for the last month. 

The Chairman. You weren't here last week ? 

Mr. CoNCELLARE. No, sir. 

The (^HAiRMAN. Who was the other man ? 

Mr. CoNCELLARE. There were some other members of my office 
who might liave had the same oixlers, and I don't know. 

The Chairman. Mr. Conger, may I ask you a question. I under- 
stood that you had made a special arrangement to employ this gentle- 
man here sitting by you, and also — what is the name of the other 
man — Mr. Treddic — to try to get pictures of members of this com- 
mittee talking to some representatives of the union; is that true? 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Eesumed 

Mr. Conger. I know of no such arrangement, sir. 

The CHAiR:\rAN. You didn't make any such arrangement ? 

Mr, Conger. No, sir. I have not asked anyone to take pictures 
of this committee, as far as I know. 

The Chairman. We had better know about it. 

Mr. Conger. As far as I know, none of my people have. 

The Chairman. Do you know George Gallati ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is he here ? 

Mr. Conger. I believe he is. 

The Chairman. Did he make any arrangements for you ? 

Mr. Conger. Pie has made arrangements to take pictures. 

The Chairman. Call him around here, and let me run this down. 
It is either true or not true, and if it is true, I want the record to 
show it. 

Come around, Mr. Gallati. 

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. Gallati. I do. 



8578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE C. GALLATI, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, LYMAN C. CONGER 

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

Mr. Gallati. I am Geor^re C. Gallati, and I live at Kohler, Wis.. 
and I am employed by the Kohler Co. 

The Chairmax. Are you here as one of their representatives? 

Mr. Gallati. Yes, sir, I am. 

The Chairmax. Have you made any special arrangements to have 
pictures made of members of this committee talking to union mem- 
bei^? 

Mr. Gallati. Not any special arrangements, no. 

The Chairman. What is the name of that fellow ? 

What arrangements have you made ? 

Mr. Gallati. I did make an arrangement with tlie United News 
Pictures to have a photograph taken of a picket walking in the street 
in front of the AFL-CIO Building, and I noticed the other news- 
papers had similar pictures taken, and then I asked for a picture or 
two taken here that we could use in the employee publication of 
Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. What kind of a picture did you want ? 

Mr. Gallati. Principally I wanted one of Mr. Conger on the stand. 

The Chairman. You made no arrangements with either of these 
photographers that we have been talking with here to take pictures, 
particularly of members of the committee if they happened to catch 
them in conversation with the attorney or any other representatives 
of the union ? Did you not do that, or did you ? 

Mr. Gallati. May I speak to the counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you would know. 

The Chairman. Wait a moment. You are both under oath. As 
far as I am concerned, I want to know the facts. 

If you did it, say so, and if you didn't, say you didn't. 

Mr. Gallati. I suggested it to him ; yes. 

The Chairman. You did, to whom ? 

Mr. Gallati. I don't recall his name. 

The Chairman. A photographer ? 

Mr. Gallati. In a conversation with the bureau manager of the 
United Press Pictures here, George, and I don't recall his last name 
now. 

Tlie Chairman. I see. What kind of pictures do you want of ils ? 

Mr. Gallati. I don't care for any. 

The Chairman. You decided now you don't want any ? 

Mr. Gallati. Yes, sir, I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gallati, didn't you make an arrangement with 
the United Press that they would have a photographer up here to 
take pictures of any member of the committee or any member of the 
staff that was talking to Mr. Eauh, as the representative of tlie union, 
yes or no ? 

Mr. Gallati. Yes. 

Tho Pttatrman. You are going to pay them especially for it? 

Mr. Gallati. If he took any and if there was a bill. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8579 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon had a special photographer up here on Friday, 
that was here for the sole purpose of taking a picture of any member 
of the committee or any member of the statf who were seen talking to 
the union attorney ? 

Mr. Gallati. He came very late. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't care whether he came late, but didn't you 
make those arrangements with the United Press ? 

Mr. Gallati. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made the same arrangements for today, to 
have the representative of United Press take pictures of any member 
of the committee or any member of the staff who was talking to the 
attorne}^ for the United Automobile Workers '? 

Mr. Gallati. I asked him if he would ; yes. 

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

Senator Mundt. I don't know w^hat this is all about, but speaking 
as one member of the committee, I don't object to a photographer 
taking pictures of me talking with anybody, and I don't know what 
this is all about. 

We have a lot of photographers around here, and they take pictures 
all of the time, and if they want to take pictures of me talking to Mr. 
Rauh, or Mr. Kohler, or Mr. "X," if he has legitimate business in 
the committee room and he is testifying, I would think that would be 
their privilege. 

I don't know whether the United Press has done something wrong 
or not, but I just don't like to have the whole committee get in a 
position of condemning the press service with what information I liave 
available to me. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to make an observation. 

Senator Mundt. This is the first I have heard anything about it. 

The Chairman. The Chair wishes to make this observation : I have 
no objection on earth to taking my picture anywhere at any time, but 
to hire a photographer to come up here especially to try to get a picture 
to lend some color of truth to what otherwise is intended to get some- 
thing to try to smear members of this committee, in my book, it is pretty 
low. It is pretty rotten. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, there has been no such attempt, and 
there certainly hasn't been any such result or intention. 

The Chairman. We wull see what pictures come out. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether or not it 
has been the practice of this committee to prohibit parties who are 
subject to our investigation from taking pictures of the proceedings 
here ? 

The Chairman. No, sir; they are all welcome, but when a special 
arrangement is made like this, I am going to expose it. 

Senator Curtis. Has there been any search by the staff to ascertain 
whether the UAW have taken pictures here, or hired anybody to 
take pictures ? 

The Chairman. We will call them around right now and ask them. 

Mr. Kennedy. We should straighten out that this is no reflection 
on the United Press and it wasn't intended as any. It was a question 
of their being hired. 

Senator Curtis. I was asking not whether or not there had been 
such pictures taken, but I asked whether or not the staff had ascer- 
tained whether there have been any. 



8580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I haven't ascertained, but I am goino- to ascer- 
tain right now. 

Senator Curtis. I had a little experience with this. A year ago 
I sei-ved on a Su})committe on Privileges and Elections of the llules 
Committee, and we had before us Mr. Walter Eeuther. He not only 
brought his own photographers to take still pictures, but he brought 
his own movie cameras. 

He even hired a free-lance photographer to take sound pictures, 
and he came into the committee and there was an extra microplione, 
and this isn't the responsibility of the distinguished chairman from 
Arkansas, I realize that, but he came in the committee and there was 
an extra microphone in front of every committee member, put there 
by Walter Reuther of the UAW. 

Now, what I want to know is this : I don't care whether a photog- 
rapher is here or not, but I want to know whether or not tlie staff 
have ascertained up to this time whether or not they are taking 
pictures here. 

The Chairman. I don't know whether they have or not. Do you 
have any information that they have hired someone, too ? 

Senator Curtis. I did not hear of any of this until just now. 

The Chairman. I did not either until a little while ago. 

Have you any information that the union is doing the same thing, 
Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. I^NNEDY. I have no information that they are doing the same 
thing at all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. What I want to know is if they have checkod. 

I would like to know from the chief counsel whether or not he has 
checked. 

The Chairman. Have you checked or made anv check against 
that? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I have not. 

Senator Curtis. Have you had anybody else make a check of it ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. I had some information that this was being done, 
that the Kohler Co. was hiring a photographer to take pictures of 
any member of the committee or any staff member who was seen talk- 
ing to the representatives of the UAW. 

This seemed to me to be an unusual situation which I brought to 
the attention of the chairman. I have no information that the UAW 
has requested a photographer to come up and take pictures of any 
member of the staff or any member of the committee who is seen 
talking to Mr. Conger. 

If I had tliat information, I would liave reported it to the com- 
mittee. 

Senator Ervin. I have been out and could not get here to the com- 
mittee meeting, but do I understand that the Kohler Co. has made 
arrangements to have snapshot pictures made of arfy member of the 
committee that happened to speak or be spoken to by a UAW counsel 
or officer ? 

Mr. Concier. No, sir; not on my instructions, certainly not. 

I have suggested to our people that they take special news photo- 
graphs for our purpose, and for our publication, and for our record 
of this proceeding. I see nothing wrong in it, and I have not asked 
anyone or instructed any member of my staff to take particular photo- 
graphs of members of this committee. 



IMPRiOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8581 

Senator Ervin. I was just wondering, because I am frank enough 
to admit that I do not think that anybody would want a photograph 
depicting my particular store of pulchritude for esthetic purposes, and 
I was just curious to find out for what purpose anyone might want 
to take my picture under those circumstances. 

You disclaimed for yourself, and did the other gentleman disclaim 
directions or making arrangements to take pictures of Senators who 
happened to speak to members of the UAW who were spoken to by 
members of the UAW ? 

Mr. Gallati. That was not the request ; no, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What was it? 

Mr. Gallati. It was a request that the counsel — or any pictures 
that he might see of the UAW counsel talking to committee investi- 
gators. That was all. But we wanted other news pictures for use 
in our own publication, and that was the principal reason why we 
engaged United Press. 

Senator Ervin. Did you instruct them not to take pictures of com- 
mittee people that happened to speak or be spoken to by counsel for 
the UAW? 

I would like to know in plain and simple English whether or not 
arrangements were made to take pictures of members of the com- 
mittee that were spoken to. 

Mr. Gallati. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. If a member of or any official of the Kohler Co. 
wants to speak to me, just introduce himself to me, or a member of 
the UAW staff, I am a peace-loving man and I am not going to 
knock anybody down that introduces himself to me and wants to 
shake hands, or wants to speak to me. 

On the other hand, I don't like to be put in the appearance of run- 
ning away from anything. I just can't understand such a procedure. 
I am, I think, very fair and impartial in this hearing, and I have so 
far as I am concerned, although I have been accused of things, I am 
not conscious of possessing any bias one way or the other. 

I have had 15 years of my life spent as occupying judicial offices. 
I have always tried to give everybody that came before me a fair 
hearing, and I have also made it a practice in my life never to reach 
any judgment, final judgment or to come to any final conclusion about 
anything until I have heard all of the evidence and all of the explana- 
tions, and I expect to do that in this case, as I have always striven to 
do in all other cases. 

This is a ratlier strange thing to me. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, in order that we might get this 
show on the road, and to clear things up, I will be very happy to pose 
with Mr. Rauh, and everybody that wants to take a picture of the two 
of us can do it, and maybe we can get on with the hearing. 

The Chairman. The Chair has already posed with him for the 
benefit of those who were interested in getting such a picture. 

I will accommodate you any time, I don't care. But I just think 
it is pretty low and pretty rotten to go to hiring photographers to come 
around to get pictures to use under circumstances maybe to corroborate 
a smear. 

Mr. Conger. I cannot see any sinister implication in it. Senator. 
I believe that I have a right to speak to any Senator on this committee 

21243— 58— pt. 21 17 



8582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

at any time, and I believe the UAW has an equal right, and I believe 
that none of us need make any secret about it. 

And I believe if certain pictures are taken it would be well to await 
the event as to whether any improper use is made of them. I think 
this is completely premature. 

Senator Ervin. You see, in this situation I know counsel for the 
UAW, having met him on one occasion, and he and I both appeared 
on a panel for discussing the question of the right of unpopular clients 
to have legal representation. 

While he and I disagree on many things, my only prior contact 
with him was most pleasant personally. I might say the same thing 
with reference to Mr. Conger, and I have just met him. 

But I just can't imagine any legitimate object that could be served 
by the taking of such photographs because some of the members of 
the committee staff, their pulchritude is just about the same general 
caliber as mine. 

Mr. Gallati. Mr. Chairman, could I have one word ? 

No pictures have been taken here at our direction, none whatsoever. 

The Chairman. It just isn't necessary to do it that way, and if you 
want my picture with any of them, because I will be glad to accom- 
modate you. I am going to see anyone who wants to talk to me about 
this investigation, or any other matter, if I think they have business 
worthy of my attention. 

It does not matter with me whether it is Mr. Kohler, or Mr. Reuther, 
or Mr. Anybody else. I don't feel under any restraint whatsoever 
when I try to carry on public business, about who I am seen with, 
and who talks to me. 

If it is public business, and in line with my official duties, I don't 
care about you getting the picture any time. But I do think that 
such an arrangement, it had a little bad odor as far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Rauh, will you come around. You have been sworn ? 

Mr. Rauh. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Let us get at it. 

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 ? 

JNIr. Rauh. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. KAUH, JR. 

The Chairman. State your name. 

Mr. Rauh. Joseph L. Rauh, R-a-u-h, Jr. 

The Chairman. What is your address ? 

Mr. Rauh. 1631 K Street, Washin^on, D. C. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Rauh. I am an attorney at law. 

The Chairman. Whom do you represent here ? 

Mr. Rauh. I represent the United Automobile Workers. 

The Chairman. Do you have any information that they have been 
hiring photographers to take special pictures of members of the 
committee when seen talking to anyone else ? 

Mr. Rauh. On the contrary, since this matter came up, this after- 
noon, I liave checked with all of the responsible officials here, and I 



IMPROiPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8583 

am informed tliat we have made no arrangements for pictures nor 
taken any in this room. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Eauii. I might say tliat I hope the Senator does not sutler in 
Arkansas, from a picture with me. 

The Chairman. If I do, it is in line of duty. 

You may stand aside. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Curtis, Mundt, and Gold water.) 

Senator Ervin. I might state in that connection I believe you and 
I, Mr. Rauh, although we didn't know each other at the time, I be- 
lieve you and I both attended Harvard Law School. 

Mr. Rauh. We were on the law school forum on representation on 
unpopular clients and I can't remember any argument we had that 
was relevant that went on there. 

Senator Ervin. I would just like to say in that connection sometime 
ago I spoke to the Harvard Law School Association of New York. I 
was introduced by Dean Griswold. I told him that some time before 
that I had made a public speech in North Carolina, and one of my 
introducers had told the audience that I was a graduate of Harvard 
Law School, but he was glad that nobody would ever suspect it. I 
told Dean Griswold that I didn't know whether he was speaking in 
defense of Harvard Law School or my defense. 

Mr. Rauh. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Konec, come forward, please. You do sol- 
emnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate select 
committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
trutli, so help you God ? 

Mr. Konec. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN KONEC, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. RAUH, 
JR., COUNSEL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and busi- 
ness or occupation. 

Mr. Konec. John Konec, I live at 1902 South 12th Street, Sheboy- 
gan, Wis., and I am a tavemkeeper. 

The Chairman. You have counsel ? 

Mr, Konec. Yes. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Rauh appeai-s as 
counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were working at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what period of time ? 

Mr. Konec. Well, I worked there on several different occasions. 
The last time that I went back to work for the Kohler Co. was in 1951, 
I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 1951 ? 

Mr. Konec. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you work there prior to that time ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have lived in Sheboygan all your life, have you ? 

Mr. Konec. No. Since 1927. 



8584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Since 1927 you have been living there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position in the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, at the time we went on strike, I was a molder in 
the brass foundry. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you vote to affiliate, that the KWA affiliate 
with the UAW? 

Mr. KoNEC. No. I don't believe I was there at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you joined the UAW ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when they went out on strike, you became a 
picket yourself ? You went out on strike with them ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I went out on strike, but I was appointed chief picket 
captain by local 833 strike committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you an official of the local prior to that time ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, I was chief steward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you appointed or elected chief steward ? 

Mr. Konec. I was elected chief steward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any opposition ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was it a secret ballot, an open ballot or what ? 

Mr. Konec. It was an open ballot. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, when the union went out on strike, you became 
the picket captain, did you say ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes ; I was appointed by local 833 executive board. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^'\^io makes up the local 833 executive board ? 

Mr. Konec. That is made up of the president, the vice president, the 
recording secretary, six chief stewards, guide, and sergeants at arms. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they all members of the local ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are not any outsiders m that group ? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were your duties and responsibilities as chief 
picket captain ? 

Mr. Konec. Well, when we anticipated there was going to be a strike 
they called me in and asked me if I would take the job at first, when 
the board appointed me, and I told them that I would. So they called 
me up to a meeting and they told me that my duties — the first duty that 
I would have was to select picket captains at all the gates or entrances 
to the Kohler Co. 

I don't know everybody that works at Kohler Co. ; so I asked the 
chief stewards, and we had some cards made, whether or not they 
wouldn't take them back into their various departments and ask people 
to become gate captains, turn the cards over to me, and it was up to me 
to select gate captains out of the file of cards I received. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you perform those responsibilities ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were your instructions to the pickets m front 
of the company ? 

Mr. Konec. In front of the company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What were your instructions to the pickets ? 

Mr. Konec. Well, we had a strike committee meeting, of which I 
was a member. I had a voice but no vote. Shortly before the strike we 



IMPRlO'PEiR ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8585 

decided that, if there was going to be a strike — we knew it was going to 
be at the last meeting, that the Kohler Co. did not call and want to nego- 
tiate any further ; so we set up a set of rules. That was the Sunday 
before the strike. That was April 4, 1954. 

We set up a set of rules which consisted that everybody be out on the 
picket line, that nobody come out there intoxicated, have no intoxicat- 
ing drinks when you do come out there, that you behave yourself in an 
orderly manner, and you carry no weapons whatsoever. That is the 
set of instructions we gave the pickets orally at the mass meeting. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you give them any written instructions ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Later we did, but at that time we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the pickets came out there, who made the ar- 
rangements for them, as far as where they would stand, where they 
would walk, and how they would behave ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I made those arrangements for the first few days of 
the strike. We had nothing prepared, so at that mass meeting at the 
end, we announced — I don't remember exactly who it was — we told 
them to picket the gate that they normally entered. Well, there are a 
few entrances at Kohler Co. that are locked, but they could be used as 
entrances. So I selected picket captains, and I had the picket captains 
stay after the meeting and instructed them to pick 25 or 30 people to 
picket those gates, even though they were locked, but to picket them 
anyway. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there international organizers, international 
representatives of the UAW present at the time the picketing began ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. They were your superiors, were they not? You 
would take instructions from them if they had anything to say? 

Mr. KoNEc. Well, they would make suggestions. I would not say I 
took instructions from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were well aware of the fact that during the 
time of the picketing, there Avas mass picketing going on, and that 
the nonstrikers were unable to get into the plant ; were they not ? 

They were aware of that fact ? 

Mr. Konec. On April 5 and 6, I don't remember seeing any non- 
strikers there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's take it for a few days after that, when the 
nonstrikers attempted to get into the plant. You had people from 
the international UAW present at that time ; did you not ? 

Mr. Konec. They were present. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were aware of the fact that the nonstrikers 
could not get in to work ? 

Mr. Konec. Do you mean if the international representatives were 
aware of that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Konec. I imagine they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they take any steps that you know of to open 
up the picket lines and let the nonstrikere into the plant? 

Mr. Konec. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were some of the international organizers who 
were present during this period ? 

Mr. Konec. Well, at various stages there were different ones there. 
There was Guy Barber, who was there, Jime Fiore, Don Rand was 



8586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

there at different times, Ray Majerus was there, Harvey Kitzman was 
there, Emil Mazey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Emil Mazey ever take any steps to try to get 
the picket line opened up ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else w^as there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, John Ganuca was there. There was one fellow 
tliere by the name of Boyce Land. I seen him a few times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever take any steps yourself to try to get 
the picket line opened up so tliat people who wanted to go to work 
could go to work ? 

Mr. KoNEc. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't want to let the nonstrikers into the plant ; 
is that right? 

Mr. Kcnec. Well, I didn't think they should go in. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had so many pickets out there that it was 
impossible for them to get in ; is that right ? 

Mr. Konec. Let me explain this to you. Whether or not I would 
have been appointed chief picket captain or not, I felt it was my duty 
to be out there on that picket line, and I imagine everybody else did. 
We had around 3,000 pickets out there that morning. I was on the 
picket line in 1934 with my dad, so I felt it was my duty to be out 
there. I went on strike against Kohler Co. and it was my duty to be 
there. I imagine everybody else felt the same. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you see it your duty also to make sure that those 
who wanted to go to work could not get into the plant and go to work ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I didn't stop anybody from going to work I just 
picketed the place. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people under your direction stopped people 
from coming into work. 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't know who they would be. They were all 
pickets. They were all members of local 833. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. There were some people out there, obviously, non- 
strikers, who wanted to get into work. You admit that ; do you not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. KoNEC. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. There were nonstrikers who wanted to get into work; 
were there not ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Very few. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Well, there were some ? 

Mr. KoNEc. There were some. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. And it was impossible for them to get into the plant? 

Mr. KoNEC. No ; it wasn't impossible for them to get into the plant. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. They would have to climb over 15 rows of men to 
do it. 

Mr. Konec. No ; they didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. How would they get into the plant ? 

Mr. KoNEc. They would just have to come around a little later. On 
our strike broadcast and on our radio programs, we made it known 
that Kohler Co. always printed majority, that they had the majority 
of the people that wanted to go to work. The only way we could prove 
majority was to ask all our people to be out at certain hours of the 
morning, and that was the early morning hours of the morning when 



IMPBOPEIR ACnVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8587 

the first sliif t started to work. We would preach tliat to our people, 
through the medium of the radio, our strike bulletin, and sometimes 
we inserted ads in the paper. We wanted to get all of our people out 
there to show the Kohler Co. that the majority of people were on our 
side. We were successful in doing that. 

The only time these people wanted to go to work was when the 
majority was on the picket line. If they cam^ around to 7 : 30 or 8 
o'clock, after these fellows were assigned to different shifts, and they 
were all gone, and maybe only 15 or 25 people at the gates, at 7 : 30 or 
8 o'clock, if they came around with the chief of police or something, I 
don't think they would have any trouble in getting into the plant. 
But they seemed to disperse before that time happened. They didn't 
want to go to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. What time did the shift start ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Normally the day shift at Kohler Co. started at 6 o'clock 
in the morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then if there were some employees that came by, 
they tried to get in at the beginning of their shift, did they not ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had 1,800 or 2,000 or 2,500 pickets outside ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it was impossible for them to get in ? 

Mr. KoNEC. At that time, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. At 6 o'clock in the morning it was impossible for 
them to get in ? 

Mr. Konec. If they wanted to go through the picket line, the people 
were marching single file and close together, unless they wanted to 
push through. They tried and they didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the policy of local 833, to keep the non- 
strikers out of the plant ? 

Mr. KoNEC. We told the men to keep their hands in their pockets, 
to march single file, keep moving and that was it. We didn't tell them 
how close to march together or what. 

Mr. Kennedy. As picket captain, you knew they were marching close 
together, did you not ? 

Mr.KoNEC. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The purpose of that was to keep the nonstrikers 
out of the plant, was it not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Konec. Yes, that was true at that time. 

Senator Ervin. I am glad you admitted that, because your testi- 
mony up to that point reminded me of the man who took the pistol 
and shot another fellow right through the head and killed him and 
he said he didn't intend to kill him, but he merely intended to cure 
a little headache he had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Konec, did you take part in any of the home 
demonstrations ? 

Mr. Konec. Let me put it to you this way: Actually, I don't be- 
lieve I took part in them. I was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were demonstrations that took place when 
large numbers of people came out to the homes of those who wanted 
to continue and were continuing to work at the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. Konec. That is right. That is what they call a home demon- 
stration. 



8588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately how many of those did you go to ? 
Mr. KoNEC. Two. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Just two ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever call up any of the individuals and tell 
them that there was going to be a demonstration in front of their 
homes ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Let me explain that to you. The Kohler Co. has af- 
fidavits against me. I have seen them and I have read them. They 
have an affidavit signed by a fellow named Tank. I forget his first 
name. 

On the day of the strike when I was picketing, this fellow came 
by, and I imagine some of these people want to be heroes, so they 
go into the company and cook up a story and sign an affidavit. First 
of all, I will answer your question. I have never called anybody 
on the telephone. If I want to say something to somebody, I will 
tell it to them to their face. I am not afraicl to talk to anybody. 
This Tank signed an affidavit against me and it was brought out in the 
NLKB. He said I stood on Memorial Drive, the Upper Falls Road, 
and called him names every day in the Month of June. 

I knew right away that wasn't the truth. It couldn't be. I checked 
with the hospital. I was hospitalized from June 11 to 21, but this 
guy signed an affidavit that he saw me on Memorial Drive every day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Robert Herling ? 

Mr. Konec. I know him very well. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a nonstriker ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever call him about the demonstrations in 
front of his home ? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any conversations with him? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know he has made a statement that you did 
call him ? 

Mr. Konec. No. I read the affidavit. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not true ? 

Mr. Konec. That is not true. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not call him up ? 

Mr. Konec. I did not call him, or anyone else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take part in any of the violence yourself? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. None of the paint bombings? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you Imow anybody who is responsible for it ? 

Mr. Konec. I do not, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the international have anything to do with your 
selection as picket captain ? 

Mr. Konec. They did not. I selected them on my own basis, and 
as they left and got 

Mr. Kennedy, What about your selection personally? Did the 
international have anything to do with that ? 

Mr, Konec, No. I told you that was the local 833 executive board. 



IMPRiOiPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8589 

Mr. Kennedy. And the picket captains that served under you, the 
international had nothing to do with that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I selected them myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know a Clark Weeden ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was he a nonstriker ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any conversations with him ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I will tell you. Let me tell you the whole story of this. 

Senator Curtis. If it isn't too long. 

Mr. KoNEC. Just a minute, sir, you can't get the true picture unless 
you hear the whole story. 

Senator Curtis. I will be the judge of that. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. KoNEc. I don't remember the date. I was standing on Memorial 
Drive where I usually stood and watched the nonstrikers go into work. 
He came out, and I know the way the shifts work. He was coming 
out earlier than his shift, before his shift time was over. I called him 
a scab, I will admit that. I said, "How come they are letting you out 
early?" And he mentioned something, I forget what he said. So I 
said, "Why don't you go home, you scab ? " It is a double-lane highway, 
and he drives across to the other side of the road, and he comes across, 
foaming at the mouth, and said "Now you are going to get it." I stood 
on the edge of the road, and he come back and bumped me, and said, 
"You are ascared to fight." 

Let me also explain that the Kohler Co. had a camera mounted on 
a scaffold in back, from the fence, about 5 or 600 feet from the highway, 
aimed at our direction. I said, "Look, I am not going to be foolish. I 
am not going to take a swing at you. I see the camera." He said, 
"Well, you go ahead and take a swing at me." 

I said, "You swing first and see if I hit back." He wouldn't and I 
wouldn't. Then we stood there and argued. He also signed an affida- 
vit which said I threatened him, which is untrue. 

Senator Curtis. Did you testify about this at the NLKB hearing ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I did. 

Senator Curtis. Did you testify that you said to him "If you don't 
watch out, your wife and kid will have to do all the f armwork" ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes. I told him he was burning the candle on both 
ends, trying to run a farm and work at the Kohler Co. At that time, 
I believe he worked in the enamel shop, one of the worst jobs at the 
Kohler Co. 

Senator Curtis. Isn't it true that on September 7, 1954, that Clark 
Weeden's home was the scene of one of those home demonstrations ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The only thing I know about Clark Weeden is what I 
read in the newspaper. I don't know the guy personally. 

Senator Curtis. Well, did you read in the newspaper that there 
was a demonstration at his home ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And was there any vandalism there ? 



8590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Ko>rEC. From what I read in the newspaper, there was. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. "\^^iat instructions did you give people in the 
picket line about securing the names of the nonstrikers or their auto- 
mobile numbers as they came through there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. To take their license numbers. 

Senator Curtis. "What was that purpose for ? 

Mr. KoNEC. We wanted to know who the nonstriker was going to 
be. In case we knew anybody that knew this fellow, that we could talk 
to him and ask him not to go to work at the Kohler Co., or talk to him 
in any way to try to convince him not to enter the plant. 

Senator Curtis. Tell me again just what persuasion was used to 
get a nonstriker not to go through the picket line and go to work ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Simply by talking to him. 

Senator Curtis. Nothing else ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Nothing else. 

Senator Curtis. If that talking did not convince him he ought not 
to go through, he got to go through ; is that correct ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The majority of times he got through. 

Senator Curtis. Were you here when the former sheriff testified ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. You heard him state that he took a number of 
people up to the line and asked that they be gotten through, and that 
they did not get through ; is that correct ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, that is right. 

Senator Curtis. How do you reconcile your story and his ? 

Mr. KoxEC. Well, pardon me, I thought you were talking about later 
w^hen people were coming to apply for jobs after we had the injunction. 
You are talking about the early days of the strike when the so-called 
mass picketing was going on ? 

Senator Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. KoNEc. Well, no, they didn't get through then. 

Senator Curtis. Well, then, it is not true that all you used was just 
persuasion, and that if they did not turn back because you had them to, 
they got to go through the line ? They did not get to go through the 
line, did they ? 

Mr.KoNEc. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And some of them got hurt ; did they not ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Not that I know of. 

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

Senator Curtis. You never read that in the paper either ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Of who getting hurt ? 

Senator Curtis. Anybody. 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir ; I never read it in the paper, not on the picket 
line. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know a James Sweeney ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know the guy. If he was standing right here, 
unless somebody told me who he was, I wouldn't know him. 

Senator Curtis. You do not know whether you saw him on the 
picket line ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know the man at all. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know Harold Curtiss ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes ; I know him. 

Senator Curtis. Did you see him on the picket line? 



IMPROiPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8591 

Mr. KoNEC. Not on the picket line ; no. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you see him ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Standing on the west side of High Street. 

Senator Curtis. Standing where ? 

Mr. KoNEC. On the west side of High Street. 

Senator Curtis. Was he a nonstriker ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any talk with him ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I tried to persuade him to go home and not cross our 
picket line. 

Senator Curtis. Is it true that in June of 1954 he had a shotgun 
blast at his home ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Only what I read in the paper, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But you did read that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So it must have happened. You referred to the 
strike committee. Who made up the strike committee ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The president, the vice president, the recording secre- 
tary, the treasurer, six chief stewards, a guide, a sergeant-at-arms, and 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Any international representatives ? 

Mr. KoNEC. They were at the meetings, but they weren't considered 
a member of the strike committee. 

Senator Curtis. But they attended ? 

Mr. KoNEC. They attended. 

Senator Curtis. The strike committee met every day, did it not ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat would be discussed ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Any thing in the development of the strike. There 
were many things discussed. 

Senator Curtis. Were home demonstrations discussed at any time ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Only after they begmi. 

Senator Curtis. Only after what ? 

Mr. KoNEC. After they begun. We knew nothing of them until 
after we heard about them, and then we discussed them. 

Senator Curtis. You discussed them after they happened ? 

Mr. KoNEC. After they had — after the first one had started. 

Senator Curtis. Where would this strike committee meet ? 

Mr. KoNEC. In the UAW office. 

Senator Curtis. Name the international representatives that at- 
tended the meetings of the strike committee. 

Mr. KoNEc. Kobert Burkhart attended. At the beginning of the 
strike, Robert Burkhart was there. Emil Mazey was there. Donald 
Rand was there. Harvey Kitzman was there. James Fiore would 
attend. Buy Barber would attend. 

There may be more, but I don't remember them right off. They 
were there off and on. They weren't there every day, but they would 
be there when they felt like coming up. 

Senator Curtis. This mass picketing was ruled to be illegal by an 
agency of the State of Wisconsin, was it not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



8592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, the way I understand it, I didn't believe the 
mass picketing was illegal. I am not a lawyer. I don't know the law. 
I have never had any opportunity to study law. All I know is that 
everybody was on strike, and they were out tliere. The only time I 
heard of WERB, I never knew that agency existed until they gave 
us a cease and desist order, and at which I think I had to appear, and 
after that we complied with their orders. 

Senator Curtis. Now^, up until you had that order, you, as a picket 
captain, did not put your instructions in writing, did you ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, some of them. 

Senator Curtis. Some of them. Did you give all of your instruc- 
tions in writing ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Throughout the length of the strike, did you give 
all of your instructions in writing? 

Mr. KoNEC. Throughout the lengtli of the strike ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What instructions did you not put in writing? 

Mr. KoNEC. What instructions did I not put in writing? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEC. The first order of WERB wasn't put in wi-iting imme- 
diately. It was advised verbally to the pickets. After tliat, when 
we found out "I never heard about it," so we decided to put it in 
writing and we put it in writing. 

Senator Curtis. Coming back to this getting the names of the non- 
strikers, or their automobile numbers, what did you tell the pickets 
to do in reference to that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I didn't hear the question. I didn't want to inter- 
rupt you. 

Senator Curtis. In regard to getting the names of nonstrikers who 
came to the picket line, or their automobile numbers, what instruc- 
tions did you give your men in regard to that? 

Mr. KoNEC. We just told them that if they seen a person approacli- 
ing the employment office to look for a job, that they should go up 
and talk to the fellow, find out who he was. If he was reluctant to 
talk to them, then they should watch where he parked his car, take 
his license number, and turn it over to me or anyone on the strike 
committee. We would check the license number, find out who the 
person was, find out if anybody on our side knew him, or his minis- 
ter, where he went to church, or anything like that, so we could talk 
to him and try to persuade him to stay out of the plant. 

Senator Curtis. If somebody jotted down the name of someone 
they knew, to whom would they turn that in ? 

Mr. KoNEC. To me — I usually made a few trips around the plant 
every day — or anyone on the strike committee. 

Senator Curtis. What would you do with it? 

Mr. KoNEC. I would try to find out if somebody knew the person, 
who the person was, and then send somebody out to talk to the per- 
son, to try to persuade him not to go to the plant. 

Senator Curtis. Where would the names be compiled ? 

Mr. KoNEC. At local 833 office. 

Senator Curtis. And a list was kept tliere ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 



IMPROiPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8593 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever compared that list with the list of 
the people who, it was reported by the newspapers to have had a 
disturbance at their home ? 

KoNEC. No, sir ; I have never compared that list. 

Senator Curtis. You never have done that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No. 

Seantor Curtis. You said that you attended two home demonstra- 
tions ? 

Mr. KoNEc. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat was the first one ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, let's put it this way : I didn't attend them volun- 
tarily. That was shortly after I was released from the hospital, and I 
wasn't going out to the picket line. There is a neighborhood tavern — 
as I told you at the beginning, I am a tavern operator — where I used to 
tend bar occasionally. I took a walk to that bar, and I was sitting in 
the bar, which is right next door to where a fellow named Sessler 
happened to live. 

Senator Curtis. How do you spell it ? 

Mr. KoNEC. S-e-s-s-1-e-r. 

I was sitting in the tavern. I got there about a quarter to 2. I 
was sitting around there ; well, we were talking, and we looked outside, 
it was in the summertime, and a crowd of people gathered outside. I 
heard about the demonstrations, but I had never been to them. 

I went out there, and the people were there, and I knew a lot of people 
out there, so I talked to them. 

Senator Curtis. How many people were there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Men, women, and children, all together totaled about 
150 to 200 people. 

Senator Curtis. What time of day was this ? 

Mr. KoNEC. This was around a quarter after 3 or 3 : 30. 

Senator Curtis. In the afternoon ? 

Mr. KoNEc. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Who was home at this home that they were gath- 
ering at ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Who was home ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr.KoNEC. I don't know. I wasn't in the house. 

Senator Curtis. Did you see anybody on the porch or otherwise ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long did the crowd stay ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Until approximately 4. 

Senator Curtis. And what took place ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Nothing. The people were just walking up and down 
on the sidewalk. 

Senator Curtis. Anything else ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes. He came home and he came in through the back, 
and somebody seen him and hollered, "You dirty scab," and he rim 
in the house and that was the end of it. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any other talking or noise of any kind ? 

Mr. KoNEG. Just what do you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Other than calling to him and telling him he was 
a dirty scab. Is that all that was said by anyone ? 

Mr. KoNEc. I don't know what they all hollered. I didn't make 
a recording of it or anything. I don't remember what they all said. 



8594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Did they all go home at once ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio seemed to be leading it ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Tliere didn't seem to be any leader there, as far as I 
was concerned. 

Senator Curtis. Did they all stay on the sidewalk ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curits. Where else did they go ? 

Mr. KoNEC. They were on lawns, on people's porches. 

Senator Curtis. On people's porches? Do you mean additional 
houses other than that one ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes; that was a neighborhood there. I know most 
of the people in the neighborhood, and most of the people there knew 
the people in the neighborhood, and they were on the porches. 

Senator Curtis. They were on the porches of neighbors ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Not all of them. You said, "Where else was some 
of them ?" and I said, "Some of them were on porches." 

Senator Curtis. They were on lawns? What were they doing on 
lawns ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Standing there conversing in groups of 2 or 3. 

Senator Curtis. Were any on Sessler's porch ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They did not come close to his house ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What was the purpose of the gathering ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You were there entirely by accident ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. There entirely by accident. 

Senator Curtis. You do not know what the purpose of it was ? 

Mr. KoNEc. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of these home demonstrations happen at 
the home of anybody who was on strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now where was the second one you went 
to? 

Mr. KoNEC. The second one was the same day. 

Senator Curtis. The same day ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The same day. 

Senator Curtis. What was his name ? 

Mr. KoNEc. Harvey Schmidt. 

Senator Curtis. S-c-h-m-i-d-t ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I think that is right. 

Senator Curtis. What is his address ? 

Mr. KoNEc. Let me explain to you. These fellows both live in the 
same block, only on 02:)posite sides of the street. So the people were 
milling back and forth between both of the houses at one time. 

Senator Curtis. About how many people were there ? 

Mr. KoNEc. The same amount. Well, I told you they were in the 
area of a whole block. There may be 100, 150, 200 people, men, wom- 
en, and children in the area, in 1 block area. They weren't all in front 
of one house. 

Senator Curtis. Did you recognize any of these people ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 



IMPRiOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8595 

Senator Curtis. Wlio were they ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Some were my neighbors, some were neighbors that 
lived in the neighborhood that had nothing to do with the Kohler Co., 
some were Kohler strikers. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. Of the adults, what portion of them would you say 
were Kohler strikers ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, the portion of Kohler strikers, did you say ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEc. Less than 50 percent, I would say. 

Senator Curtis, Less than 50 percent of them ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Of the adults ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The majority of the people there, I would say, were 
more women and children than there were men. 

Senator Curtis. Why would that be ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know. Why do people gather w^hen there is an 
accident outside^ It is something going on, and they want to see 
what is going on. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat was going on ? 

Mr. KoNEC. A home demonstration. That is what you called it. 

Senator Curtis. Put on by whom ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. IVlio does know ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Certainly the nonstrikers would not be putting on 
demonstrations in front of their own homes, would they ? 

Mr, KoNEc. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Then who put them on ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Do you expect us to believe that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't care what you believe. I believe they were spon- 
taneous. I am here to tell the truth, and what you believe is up to you. 

Senator Curtis, I did not ask you whether they were spontaneous 
or whether they were planned. I asked you who put them on. 

Mr. KoNEC. I told you I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know. If I did, I would tell you. 

Senator Curtis. You have no idea whether it was the strikers or non- 
strikers ? 

Mr. KoxEC. I don't know who put them on. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think it might have been the nonstrikers? 

Mr, KoNEC. I didn't say that. 

Senator Curtis, I asked you. Do you think it might be ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know that. I have no idea whatsoever. All I 
know is I didn't have any idea of them going on there, and that is 
all I care about. If I did know, I would tell you. 

Senator Curtis. Were you at a home demonstration on the south 
side of Sheboygan ? 

Mr. KoNEC. What we were talking about is considered the south 
side. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. Were you at a man's home by the name of Schoen- 
born ? 



8596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoNEC. I heard the name, but I don't know the gentleman. 

Senator Curtis. Did you give any testimony about that before the 
NLRB? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did you testify about that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I said I was in the vicinity. 

Senator Curtis. Were you asked, "Did you tell anybody there what 
to do?" 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You were not asked that question ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't remember whether I was asked that question 
or not, but I didn't tell anybody what to do, no. I told them to keep 
moving. 

Senator Curtis. What did you mean by that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. There was an officer there going back and forth, and 
he said it is against the law to congregate and stand around, and I 
said to the people, "If you don't want to get in trouble, keep moving." 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who put on that demonstration? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Why did you butt into their business and tell them 
to keep moving so they would stay out of trouble with the officer if 
you do not know who was to put it on ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I just told them to keep moving so they would stay out 
of trouble. We were getting into plenty of trouble. Everything that 
happened was blamed on the local union. 

Senator Curtis. But you have no idea that the local union was 
putting on these local demonstrations ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. I don't have any idea who did it. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think the local union did it? 

Mr. KoNEC. No. They were spontaneous. Nobody did it. 

Senator Curtis. Now, were home demonstrations discussed at your 
strike committee meetings ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, they were. 

Senator Curtis. Were any of them discussed before they happened ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What would be said about them at the strike meet- 
ing or strike committee meetings ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The only thing we knew, it disturbed the nonstriker, 
and we didn't know, as I told you before. We didn't know how they 
started, and we didn't care who did it, and we thought it was effective, 
and we weren't going to try to stop it. 

Senator Curtis. Were they referred to in any strike bulletins you 
got out ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe they were. 

Senator Curtis. What would it say about tliem ? 

Mr. KoNEc. They were just after the incident happened, and they 
would give a report of the home demonstration. 

Senator Curtis. Was it referred to in your union radio program? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe they were. 

Senator Curtis. What would it say about them ? 

Mr. KoNEC. About the same thing. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, were you down at the dock at the time- 
this clay boat incident happened ? 

Mr. KoNEC. We were, prior to the incident. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8597 

Senator Curtis. At the time it happened ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I was down in the vicinity on Pennsylvania Avenue, 
yes. 

Senator Curtis. Had that been discussed, the arrival of that boat, 
at your strike committee meeting ? 

Mr. KoNEc. Oh, yes, that was discussed. 

Senator Curtis. What was said about it? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, we knew there was a boat coming. 

Senator Curtis. How did you find out that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. It was on the radio, and it was in the paper, and it 
was all over, and several weeks before the boat arrived. 

Senator Curtis. How did you get that information several weeks 
before it arrived ? 

Mr. KoNEC. In the paper, and on the radio. There was a clay boat 
coming in for the Kohler Co. 

Senator Curtis. All right ; continue on with your account of what 
was discussed. 

Mr. KoNEC. At the meeting we knew the boat was coming, and that 
is all we talked about. We knew it was coming, and we were won- 
dering who was going to unload it, because at one time I think we 
talked to this Mr. McKenn, and the majority of the drivers belong- 
to the teamsters local, and he promised that he was going to fulfill 
all of his obligations and we knew of nobody else in town that had 
been in touch w4th the boat. 

Senator Curtis. Did you discuss about picketing ? 

Mr. KoNEc. No, sir; we talked about it, but we decided we would 
have no picket line. 

Senator Curtis. You would have no picket line ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a picket line there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Not that I seen. 

Senator Curtis. There was no picket line at the time of the arrival 
of the clay boat ? 

Mr. KoNEC. At the arrival of the clay boat ? 

Senator Curtis. At that time ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The clay boat arrived a few days before what they 
called Black Tuesday or Monday, or whatever it was. The clay boat 
arrived several days ahead of that. 

There were a few of us down at the dock when the boat was com- 
ing in, and there were a few motor boats down there, and I got into 
a motorboat with somebody and if you call that going out to get the 
clay boat, certainly the clay boat, if we had assigned a picket line, 
I was picketing the clay boat out in the harbor. 

Senator Curtis. You were in a boat out there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Circling the clay boat ? 

Mr, KoNEC. Circling the clay boat. 

Senator Curtis. Was any communication or word sent to the clay 
boat? 

Mr. Ko]srEC. What ? You mean we were going to circle it ? 

Senator Curtis. No ; I mean while you were circling it. 

Mr. KoNEC. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. No one said anything to them ? 

21243— 5&—pt. 21 18 



8598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoNEC. No. 

Senator Curtis. Not on a loud speaker or otherwise? 

Mr. KoNEc. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. You just merely circled the clay boat ? 

Mr. KoNEC. In the boat I was in, that is all we did. 

Senator Curtis. How many other boats did tliat ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I think there were two other boats there. 

Senator Curtis. Did either of those other two boats say anything to 
the clay boat ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That I wouldn't know. We had a fairly large circle 
around there, and the motor was going, and if anybody shouted any- 
thing to members on the clay boat, I wouldn't be able to hear it. 

Senator Curtis. How far out in the harbor did you meet them with 
these three boats ? 

Mr. KoNEC. When I got out there, they were just entering between 
the two piers. 

Senator Curtis. How far would that be from where they would 
usually dock? 

Mr. KoNEG. About a mile. 

Senator Curtis. You met them about a mile out there, and what 
was the purpose of goin^ out ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Advertising that the sailors on that boat were carrying 
clay for a strike plant. 

Senator Curtis. How did you get that word to them ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The message that I had was either in Scandinavian or 
some other foreign language, and I don't even know what it said, but 
I imagine that is what it had on it. 

Senator Curtis. How did you deliver that to the sailors ? 

Mr. KoNEC. How did I deliver it ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEC. It was a big sign, and I just held it up while the other 
guy maneuvered the boat. 

Senator Curtis. So you held up a sign ? 

Mr. KoNEc. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a sign on each boat ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe there was. 

Senator Curtis. And it was in Scandinavian so you don't know 
what it said? 

Mr. KoNEC. Mine was in Scandinavian, and I don't know what the 
others were. 

Senator Curtis. About what time did you arrive at the dock at 
Sheboygan ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The clay boat, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEC. It was on a Saturday morning, some time, and I don't 
remember exactly what time it was. I think it was Saturday, Friday 
or Saturday. 

Senator Curtis. And there was no picket line around there? 

Mr. KoNEC. Wliere, at the boat when it landed ? There were a lot 
of people, but there was no picket line. 

Senator Curtis. A lot of people, how many ? 

Mr. KoNEC. What date ? 

Senator Curtis. When the boat docked. 



IMPBOPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8599 

Mr. KoNEC. I couldn't even judge. They were split out. It was 
quite a long area, and there were people there, and I wouldn't even 
judge how many were there that day. 

Senator Curtis. More than a hundred ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I would say there w^ere more than a hundred ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. How long did the boat stay in that position ? 

Mr. KoNEC. What position, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. In the dock there. 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, let me see, I don't know if it came in on a Friday 
or Saturday, but possibly 5 or 6 days, and maybe 4 or 5 or 6 days. 

Senator Curtis. And then it left? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any picketing any time while it was 
there? 

Mr. KoNEC. Not that I know of. I didn't instruct anybody to 
picket that boat. 

Senator Curtis. And was there any crowd gathered ? 

Mr. KoNEC. There was a crowd gathered there ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you recognize any of them ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. "\V1io were they ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, the week on July 5, it is normally vacation week 
when all of the plants shut down in Sheboygan. There were a lot of 
people there, and I don't know all of them, and I knew some of them. 
There was a large crowd, a very large crowd there, on that day. 

Senator Curtis. "W^iat portion of them were employees of Kohler? 

Mr. KoNEC. Strikers of Kohler or employees of Kohler Co. ? 

Senator Curtis. Both. 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't attempt to guess. I didn't see everybody 
who was there, and I don't know everybody who was there. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Konec, there is one thing about your 
testimony that I can't reconcile, and that is what happened in this mass 
picket line. Both versions cannot be true. 

The sheriff — and I don't know whether he is still sheriff or not- 
testified that even when he, as an officer of the law brought men up 
to get them through the picket line, that he would have to go back, 
and that they couldn't get them through. 

Now, your testimony is that all you used was just verbal persuasion, 
and you asked people not to go through, but if they didn't heed your 
words, they could go on through. 

Now, you still say that your version is correct ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Mr. Senator, I thought I straightened you out on that. 
When you asked me that question, I answered you, and I thought that 
was after the WERB decision, and that is what we were doing. I 
admitted to you when the sheriff came to the picket line that nobody 
went in, and if you will go back through the testimony, you will find 
that I said that, and I tried to straighten you out on that. 

Senator Curtis. Straighten me out now, and I am talking about 
in the early days of the strike. And then you did use means besides 
just asking people not to go through. 

Mr. Konec. We used no means. The pickets walked in single 
file, and they couldn't get through, and it wasn't my fault. 

Senator Curtis. Who couldn't get through ? 



8600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoNEC. The nonstrikers could not get through. 

Senator Curtis. Then you did use means, and you blocked them, 
didn't you, if they couldn't get through ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe everybody has a perfect right to show they 
are on strike and if they were walking, they were walking that close 
together, and they couldn't get through, and it is no fault of mine. 

Senator Curtis. Then you did block them from entering, isn't that 
correct ? 

Mr. KoNEc. I didn't block any. It is a citizen's right to walk on 
the sidewalk. 

Senator Curtis. I am not asking about anybody's rights. 

Mr. KoNEC. Why do you say I blocked them 'i I didn't block any- 
body. 

Senator Curtis. I am not speaking of you. 

Mr. KoNEC. I am not standing in front of anybody. 

Senator Curtis. I am not speaking of you as an individual, but 
whoever was doing the picketing out there and you are a captain of the 
pickets when the strike began, and until you were ordered to cease 
a)id desist with your mass picketing 

Mr. KoNEC. That was complied with. 

Senator Curtis. But prior to that 

Mr. KoNEc. Prior to that 

Senator Curtis. You did so conduct that picket line that people 
couldn't get through, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. KoNEC. You just ask everybody to come out who was on strike 
and I think it is everybody's legal right to go out on strike and to walk 
in a picket line, and if you have that many pickets there that walk 
back to back, or shoulder to shoulder, that nobody else could get 
through, I didn't think that I violated the law. I am not a lawyer. 

Senator Curtis. I am not asking what you thought. I am asking 
you, isn't it true that you so conducted that picket line that no one 
could get through ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I just told them to march in single file, and they did 
that, and they were marching in single file, and we had so many of 
them out there, I admit they couldn't get througli. But it is no fault 
of ours or the pickets, and they had a legal right to be there. 

Senator Curtis. Then you did so conduct the picket line that they 
couldn't get through. That is true, isn't it ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I just conducted a picket line, and I told them to march 
in single file, and that is exactly what they did, and if they couldn't 
get through from there, it is not my fault. 

Senator Curtis. But you did conduct it so they couldn't get through, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't see what you are driving at. Senator. I am tell- 
ing you 

_ Senator Curtis. I want to know "yes" or "no", did you conduct a 
picket line that wouldn't let somebody through ? 

Mr. KoNEc. No, I didn't do it. I didn't do it knowingly, that no- 
body was going to get through, and like I told you, if they wanted to 
get through and if they came back a little later, we were showing 
solidarity and strength on the picket line, and we had more people on 
strike than the Kohler Co. had that wanted to go to work, and we had 
them all out there to show our strength. And when our strike was on 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8601 

there there was such a large number of people marching single file 
back and forth that they could not get through at that time in the 
morning. 

But if they came back later, I don't think that they would have en- 
countered any difficulty in getting through. 

Senator Curtis. When your picket line was in operation, it was so 
operated no one 

Mr. KoNEC. Mine was in operation 24 hours a day, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But when it was in operation at full strength, it 
was so conducted no one could get through, is that correct? 

Mr. KoNEC. It was not conducted that way. It was not planned 
that way, and nobody could get through, and we were showing 
strength. 

Senator Curtis. This whole thing was an accident, and I presume 
the finances of it to the tune of $10 million was an accident, too. 

But it is not true, then, as you earlier stated, that the only bar to 
somebody going to work was a request that they not go to work? 

Mr. KoNEC. I never said that. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I will just rely on the record. I won't take 
the committee's time. 

That is all for the moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muxdt. Mr. Konec, I think that you testified that you were 
captain of the picket line, and as I understood your testimony, that 
meant you were captain of the captains, and you were sort of the boss 
captain of the picket line. 

Mr. Konec. I was the chief captain ; that is true. 

Senator MuNDT. So that the establishment of the picket line, and 
whatever instructions were given to the men in the picket line, came 
from you ? 

Mr. Konec. From me and the strike committee, and we met in the 
moniing. 

Senator Mundt. The strike committee would probably determine it 
and you would relay it to the strikers ? 

Mr. Konec. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. When they strike was at its peak, and prior to the 
determination of the law that it was illegal, and it was operated as 
a mass picket line, you instructed the pickets to walk, I think you said, 
close together, or did they just happen to walk close together? 

Mr. Konec. I tell you, sir, there were so many pickets out there, in 
order for them to walk and keep single file, they had to be close to- 
gether. 

Senator Mundt. Did you see pictures that were shown of the picket 
line ? 

Mr. Konec. I have seen a number of pictures that were shown. 

Senator Mundt, In the committee room ? 

Mr. Konec. Not in the committee room. 

Senator Mundt. I think after you see them you will want to cor- 
rect one part of your testimony, because one argument a fellow never 
can win is an argument with a picture. 

Mr. Konec. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. The picture clearlj^ shows that this was not single 
file, that there were two single file lines, each walking in opposite 
directions. 



8602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. So it was a double file, and you testify under oath 
it was a single file, and I wanted you to get a chance to see that the 
picture showed it was a double file. 

Mr. KoNEC. I should have said it was single file in one direction and 
there were two lines. 

Senator Mundt. One moving one way, and one the other ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Who gave them instructions to walk in different 
directions ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Who gave them the instructions ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEC. I did. I told them to form a circle and walk the picket 
line. 

Senator Mundt. You told them one single file to walk in one direc- 
tion, and the other single file to move in the other direction ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. Every once in a while we would reverse 
them again, reverse them again. 

Senator Mundt. I think you admitted to Senator Curtis, and I 
think you straightened out the record, and I agree with you, you did 
straighten it out earlier but he didn't catch itj that during the time 
when the mass pickets were in operations, durmg the time when one 
single file was walking east and the other one west, or north and 
south, a* the case might have been, it was impossible at that time for 
anybody to get through the picket line, who might want to go to work. 

Mr. KoNEC. Without bumping anybody, it was impossible. 

Senator Mundt. The picture also showed that some people tried to 
get through, and they did bump into people, but they got bumped 
back so they couldn't get in, and you would not deny that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. You would not deny that some people tried to get 
through, and ran into interference, and abandoned ship on the 
idea? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. If that is their version of violence, if the 
Kohler Co. brought all of their pictures along, and if I would see 
them, or if you gentlemen when you investigate them and look at 
those pictures, you will see that they are policemen their laughing and 
pickets laughing and it seems like anytliing but violence to me. 

Senator Mundt. I would't deny anybody was laughing but it also 
shows some pickets who were not laughing who were pretty grim, and 
who were shoving and the pictures show people falling down and 
being stepped on, and a melee, and I think that perhaps when you 
have a jostling crowd 

Mr. KoNEC. There would have been no one laughing if there was 
violence, and I don't think I would have been very happy if there 
was violence, and I was on the picket line in 1934 when my dad was 
on strike, and I went out there that evening when they had that riot 
out there, and I didn't see anything of the riot. But I will tell you 
one thing. 

I had a scar from it and maybe that is because I could run, but 
when tlie Kohler guards were standing down where you turn over the 
Lower Falls Road, and we were just walking down the highway, on 
the main highway, and somebody fired shotgun slugs, a fellow with 



lAlPRlOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8603 

me got 11 pellets in the neck and I got one in the hand, but it was not 
even a skin wound. 

But I was hit with a shotgun pellet, and I went home, and I don't 
argue with a gun. 

Senator Mundt. You are not talking about this strike, and you 
are talking about some other strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. In the 1934 strike. 

Senator Mundt. I have no first-hand information from anybody on 
that strike, so that I am talking about the strike that occurred within 
the last few years. 

I am a little curious about your answers to all of this home 
demonstrations, and it seems that these things sprang up so acci- 
dentally and everything went along so strangely, that I would like 
to ask you a couple of questions about that. 

You did attend three of them, you said ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I attended 2 of them, on 2 different dates. 

Senator Mundt. I think a little later you mentioned that you at- 
tended another? 

Mr. KoNEC. Senator, let me tell you, that on the first day 

Senator Mundt. You attended two the first day ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I attended more than two. 

Senator Mundt. More than two ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, and like I told you, I explained to you earlier, I 
was in this tavern, and I went out to the street. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that picture. 

Mr. KoNEC. There were 2 women and 2 children, and they said 
they were going by Schoenborn's house, and they had no car, and I 
had my car there, and they said, "Let us take a ride over there, and 
see what is going on," and I said "O. K." 

On the way over there, I had to cross a street, and I believe he 
lived on Seventh Street, and I am not positive, but I ran into a 
Kohler Co. car, driven by Mr. Desmond. He was parked on the 
intersection so I could not cross the street, I put my head out of the 
window and I told him to back his car out and leave, and I asked if 
he thought he was in the village of Kohler and he could block the 
streets in Sheboygan, and he said something to me, and then I went 
on, and we stopped, and I believe it was some place, and I don't 
know for sure who lived there, but these women seemed to know 
where it was. 

Senator Mundt. You say you bumped into his car. Are you talk- 
ing figuratively or literally ? 

Mr. KoNEc. AVliat is that ? 

Senator Mundt. You said you bumped into his car ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I did not. I shouted out of my car into his. I shouted 
so that he could hear it. 

Senator Mundt. You did not bump into his car ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No ; there was no accident there. 

Senator Mundt. You attended 2 demonstrations that day, 1 on 
each side of the street, is that right ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, I told you I went to Schoenborn's house the same 
day, or maybe it was the same day and maybe it was not, and there 
were two different days, demonstrations. 



8604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Regardless of the day, you attended home demon- 
strations at three different homes ? 

Mr. KoNEC. On 2 days. That I am positive of . 

Senator Mundt. At how many homes ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Maybe 5 or 6 altogether, in the 2-day period. 

Senator Mundt. Six homes? 

Mr. KoNEC. Probably. 

Senator Mundt. These were all between 3 and 4 o'clock in the 
afternoon ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Between 3 and 4 : 30, 1 would say. 

Senator Mundt. In the afternoon ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you see any strikers at any of these demon- 
strations ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you see any nonstrikers participating in them? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be a safe deduction to make, therefore, 
that the strikers were conducting these demonstrations rather than the 
nonstrikers ? 

Mr. KoNEC. There were people there from all walks of life, I would 
say. 

Senator Mundt. Always wherever you have a crowd, you will have 
some hangers-on, there is no question about that, but we are talking 
about those who were conducting it, and you say you saw strikers, and 
you did not see nonstrikers, and it would seem to me to be a safe con- 
clusion that whoever instigated it or whoever gathered there spon- 
taneously, with the strikers rather than the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. KoNEC, I would not say that. 

Senator Mundt. How come you did not see any nonstrikers ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, I don't know. I have seen strikers and that does 
not mean that they instigated it ? 

Senator Mundt. But you did not see any nonstrikers ? 

Mr. KoNEC. It could have been people from other plants, because 
there were a lot of them there. We have a lot of union plants in town, 
and maybe they started it, if their neighbor was a scab or something 
like that, and I don't know who started it and I can't put the blame 
on anybody. 

Senator Mundt. Is your testimony that it was started by union 
members from other plants ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't say that they started it either. I say it was spon- 
taneous, that is all I can say. 

Senator Mundt. You did see strikers there ? 

(At this point the witness consulted with counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. From the Kohler plant ? 

I doubt if that is a legal question but if your lawyer wants to coach 
you 

Mr. Rauh. I will tell you exactly what it was, Mr. Mundt. I said 
there was a confusion here on the word "nonstriker," and that is a 
legal question. You have been using the word "nonstriker" to mean 
everybody there and this witness not understanding the word "non- 
striker" has not given the answer that would have been correct in this 
situation. 



mPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8605 

Most of the people there were neither strikers nor nonstrikers, and 
tliey were citizens in Sheboygan who don't like scabs, and I was trying 
to explain that by your clever use of the word "nonstriker," you were 
confusing him, and I consider that a legal question. 

Senator Mundt. How did you define my use of the word "non- 
striker" to him then ? 

Mr. Rauh. How did I define it ? I explained that the word "non- 
striker" was ambiguous, and it could either mean people who were 
working for Kohler, or it could mean anybody who was not striking. 

Senator Curtis. Would you yield there? Did you see any of thos» 
demonstrations ? 

Mr. Rauh. Did I? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Rauh. No, but I spent the last week talking to people who did, 
and so I am very familiar with them, Senator Curtis. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want to confuse your witness with a simple 
little word like "nonstriker." When I use the word, I meant to be a 
nonstriker, a fellow who is an employee of Kohler, and did not go on 
strike. I was not talking about the ordinary citizen. 

Mr. KoNEC. That is the way I expected it to be. 

Senator Mundt. That is the definition ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So you don't want to change your answers now that 
you know my definition ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I said there were people from other plants. 

Senator Mundt, You and I don't consider them nonstrikers in the 
instant case. We are talking about nonstriker, as a fellow who has 
a job at Kohler, and who did not join the strike, and who wanted to 
go back to work. 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Mundt, You did not see any of those at the plant ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No. 

Senator Mundt. At the homes? 

Mr. KoNEC. No. 

Senator Mundt. So I think that there was no confusion in your 
mind, or in mine, and I am glad that your counsel has a confusion he 
raised from his mind. 

(At this point the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan, Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, Curtis and Gold- 
water. ) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater, Mr, Konec, do you know John Gunaca? 

Mr. KoNEC. I know who he is ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he attend your strike meetings ? 

Mr. Konec. On occasions he did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know William Vinson ? 

Mr.KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he attend the strike meetings ? 

Mr. KoNEC. On occasions. 

Senator Goldwater, Were both of these men members of the local ? 

Mr,KoNEC, Local 833? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 



8606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Where did they come from ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I belieA^e they both came from somewhere in Michigan. 

They were international representatives. 

Senator Goldwater. Both of them were international representa- 
tives ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is what I believe. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know how they were paid ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. But the local didn't ]^ay them ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't know, sir. Like I told you, I was on the 
strike committee. I had a voice but no vote. When the hnances 
were made out, they were made out strictly by the executive board. 

Senator Goldwater. Both Gunaca and Vinson were international 
representatives ? 

Mr. KoNEC. As far as I know ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. On that point, will you yield for a question ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. I meant to ask you this question, purely for infor- 
mation. I wanted to know in your position as captain of captains, 
was this a labor of love or did you get paid? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. I received the same strike assistance as any- 
body else. 

Senator Mundt. You got no special payment ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir; no special payment. 
_ Senator Goldwater. Before we get too far away from interna- 
tional representatives, because we have talked quite a bit about them, 
and will in the future talk about them, I want to read a few short 
paragraphs from the constitution of the international union, UAW- 
CIO, article XIV: International Kepresentatives : 

Section 1. International representatives' commissions must be approved and 
signed by the international president and shaU be countersigned by the inter- 
national secretary- treasurer and be subject to the approval of the international 
executive board. 

Sec. 2. International representatives shall work under the jurisdiction of the 
international president subject to the approval of the international executive 
board and under the direct supervision of the international executive board 
member of the region to which he is assigned, unless otherwise commissioned. 

Sec. 3. No i)erson can be appointed an international representative unless he 
is a member in continuous good standing of the international union for a period 
of 1 year. 

Sec. 4. Appointed international representatives may be removed by the inter- 
national president subject to the approval of the international executive board. 

Sec. .5. An international representative shall not, while holding such position, 
be eligible as a candidate for, or hold, any elective office or position in the local 
union, but an officer of a local luiion may be appointed to act as an interna- 
tional representative on a part-time basis for parts of the day, or for full days 
not to exceed 90 in any calendar year. An international representative shall 
be eligible as a candidate for an elective office in the international union or in 
the Congress of Industrial Organizations or a subordinate body of the Congress 
of Industrial Organizations or for a delegate to the international convention or 
to conventions of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. 

Mr. Konec, were international representatives in attendance at 
each of your meetings of the strike committee ? 

Mr. Konec. Were they always there ? 

Senator Goldwater. Was there a representative of the interna- 
tional representatives at all of your meetings ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8607 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were they there at most of the meetings? 

Mr, KoNEC. At the beginning they were there at most of the meet- 
ings. After a while in the strike, they were there just off and on. 
They weren't there all the time. 

Senator Goldwater. Were they there at the first meeting ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I believe you said, but I am not certain, and 
I will put this to you again, that you said you had a voice on the com- 
mittee but no vote ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the international representatives have 
a vote ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Who had the vote on the strike committee? 

Mr. KoNEC. Just the executive board. 

Seenator Goldwater. Just the members of the executive board ? 

Mr.KoNEC. That is right, of local 833. 

Senator Goldwater. They were automatically members of the 
strike committee ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you present at the first meeting? 

Mr. KoNEC. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the international executives offer advice 
as to the conduct of the strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, we had what you call a general discussion on 
the strike. There were things brought out here, and I imagine most 
of that morning was spent on the solidarity of the strike. When we 
took the strike vote, it was brought out here that we only had a small 
percentage of members voting. There was a reason for that that 
wasn't explained to this committee. It was a secret ballot vote. Each 
member had to show his union card and he had to be in good standing 
before he got a ballot to vote. 

The majority of the people, I would say, that were in the armory 
that afternoon didn't want to waste time. They wanted to go home. 
Soo they walked out of side doors and all over and they did not vote. 
So when the final vote was counted, it seemed like there was a very 
small membership. I didn't know how the people felt. I don't be- 
lieve anybody else did. But when we went out there on April 5, and 
we seen all those people on the picket line, we thought right then 
and there that we had the majority — we knew we had a majority 
and a great majority. I can read it to you out of the first strike 
vote that was published. If you care to hear it, I will read it to you. 

Senator Goldwater. I think that that has been amply covered. 
People walked out of the meeting. We didn't discuss that or argue 
that. The fact that you had a minority has not as yet entered into 
this thing as far as I am concerned, 

I wanted to get on with this strike commitee. "Wliat control did 
this committee actually have over the strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I didn't hear the question. 

Senator Goldwater. What control did this committee actually 
have over the strike ? 

Mr. Koxec. The committee, I believe, had complete control over 
the strike. 



8608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Gold water. So that had you wanted to refrain from mass 
picketing in which you were in violation of a Wisconsin law, the strike 
committee could have prevented that, is that correct ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct, if we knew we were in violation. I 
didn't know we were in violation. 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't accuse you of knowing you were in 
violation. You exercised control over it to quite a considerable ex- 
tent, though, because on May 7 and 8, and I believe the 9th, picketing 
was abandoned, mass picketing was abandoned. Am I correct? 

Mr. Konec. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. At whose order was that abandoned ? 

Mr. Konec. The strike committee. 

Senator Goldwater. But, again, on May lOth, it was resumed ; am 
I correct? 

Mr. Konec. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And on whose orders ? 

Mr. Konec. There were no orders. We didn't believe that we were 
in violation in the first place. 

Senator Goldwater. No 

Mr. Konec. Just a minute. The Kohler Co. said they would not 
bargain 

Senator Goldwater. Wait a monent. They were off strike or off 
the picket line, oft' of mass picketing on May 7, 8, and 9, if my memory 
is correct, and they went back on mass picketing on May 10. 

Mr. Konec. Eight. 

Senator Goldwater. Did the strike committee order that ? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. Not at that time. 

Senator Goldwai er. When did it order it ? 

Mr. Konec. If the Senator will please let me explain, I will explain 
the whole thing to you. 

Senator Goldwater. I am trying to get at this point. I don't 
think it takes a long explanation. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Konec. What was the question again, sir? 

Senator Goldwater. Who ordered the mass picketing to resume on 
May 10? 

Mr. Konec. I believe it was understood that when we said we were 
going into bargaining, that if the bargaining would continue, we 
would continue, we would continue to have an opening in the line. 
The minute bargaining dropped oft', the line was to go back the way 
it was. 

Senator Goldwater. So under that understanding, the strike com- 
mittee did order the resumption of mass picketing on May 10? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Konec. May I tell you the story, sir ? 

Senator Goldwater. You just told me the story. 

Mr. Konec. Not the complete story, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't know how much more complete ex- 
planation you have to make, other than you had an understanding 
when the mass picketing was called oft' on the 7th, that if you were 
unable to get the company to negotiate over the weekend, and we 
understand perfectly that they refused to negotiate, that the strike 
was to resume on May 10. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8609 

I don't know what more explanation there is of that. I understand 
that. I am saying to you, or I am asking jou, if you want to correct 
it, am I not correct in assuming that by virtue of the fact that you 
ordered a secession of mass picketing for May 7, and with the tacit 
understanding that if you weren't able to bargain, you would resume 
on May 10, that the strike committee in effect ordered the mass pick- 
eting to resume on May 10. 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel.) 

Mr. Rauh. The witness has asked for a chance to explain. He 
has asked me. I am being very careful in view of Senator Curtis' 
and Senator Goldwater's accusation. Wliat the witness has asked me 
is "May I have a chance of explaining my answer." 

I will have to appeal to the chairman 

Senator Curtis. Wliat have I accused you of ? 

Mr. Rauh. Of coaching the witness, either you or Senator Gold- 
water. 

I will simply report what the witness said to me and appeal to the 
chairman in all fairness. The witness has asked may he give his 
answer in his own words. 

Mr. Chairman, I will leave it entirely to you. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record 
searched. I have not accused him of coaching the witness. 

Senator Goldwater. In order to clear it up and to clear the record 
up, I have accused the counsel of coaching the witness. If he doesn't 
stop it, I will bring it up again. 

If the witness considers he has a more adequate answer, but can 
keep the answer down in length, I will be happy to hear it. Go 
ahead. 

Mr. KoNEC. There were WERB hearings going on at the time, and 
I don't know how this went about behind the scenes, but the Kohler 
Co. always said they would not bargain under duress, that they still 
insisted that the majority of the people would go to work. They said 
that the only way they would bargain is if the lines were opened, 
that anybody could go into the plant or out of the plant any time 
they wanted to. So we had a meeting. We wanted to get this con- 
tract settled. 

We believed we were legal in the first place. But if that is what 
they wanted, that is what we gave to them. 

I believe that was a concession. We let anybody go in to work that 
wanted to, and after that we resumed our normal picketing. 

Senator Goldwater. That is the 7th, 8th, and 9th ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't agree with the Wisconsin board 
findings, is that correct ? 

Mr. Konec. There was no findings at that time yet. The hearing 
was broke off so that the company and the union would have a chance 
to bargain. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that your explanation ? 

Mr. KoNEO. That is my explanation. 

Senator Goldwater. That is exactly what I understood it to be, 
that it was the understanding that if negotiations had not been satis- 
factory or entered into, mass picketing would resume by May 10. 

I think that pretty well establishes the fact of your control, 1 say 
the committee's control, over this strike, and all aspects of it. 



8610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoNEC. That is riglit, Mr. Senator. But I will also tell you 
this, that if the negotiations were successful like you have said, there 
would have been no picketing line there May 10. 

Senator Goldw^ater. I think any reasonable person would assume 
that. Tliat is the purpose of striking, to hurry up negotiations. 

Mr. Chairman, I think in view of this discussion, and the fact that 
it has been brought out clearly that the strike committee had com- 
plete control over this, that it might be well just to read a sentence 
from the NLEB International Report in this case on line 45 of 
page 70. It says : 

It is concluded and found on the entire evidence tliat respondent liad suffi- 
cient cause for discharging Grasskamp, Bauer, Kohlhageu, Kalupa, Breirather, 
Oskey, Gordon Majerus, Raymond Majerus, Gross. Nitsche, Nack, Prepster, and 
Konel, because of their direction and control of the strike from April 5 through 
May 28. 

I have one more question, Mr. Konec. Was there a strike manual 
issued in connection with this strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. A strike manual? Will you explain that, please? I 
don't know what you mean exactly. 

Senator Goldwater. A manual that would contain instructions on 
how to picket, et cetera. 

Mr. Konec. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever see one? 

Mr. Konec. A strike manual issued on how to picket, alone? 

Senator Goldwater. Not how to picket alone. Covering instruc- 
tions for the whole strike. 

Mr. Konec. I don't believe — if I have seen it, I don't remember 
it, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you have any knowledge of it? Did you 
hear of such a manual being printed ? 

Mr. Konec. I doesn't come to my mind now that I have ever 
seen one. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever hear of one ? 

Mr. Konec. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Were you present at the meeting in the plant when 
the strike vote was originally taken, not by the strike committee but 
by the members, the workers ? 

Mr. Konec. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That was held in the afternoon, I take it? 

Mr. Konec. Well, there were so many meetings in such a short 
space. I will agree with you, tliat it could have been held in the 
afternoon or evening. 

Senator Mundt. You described the situation. You said they ex- 
amined the badges of the men to be sure they were eligible to belong 
to the union. 

Mr. Konec. Union cards, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Union cards. So the voters had to all be mem- 
bers of the union. 

Mr. Konec. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. And arguments were advanced at the meeting, 1 
presume, by those in favor of the strike as to why they should strike. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8611 

Mr. KoNEC. They ivere given exactly what went on in negotiations, 
how far the bargaining connnittee got, and they got no phxce. They 
were asked to vote whether they wanted to go on strike or not. 

Senator MuNixr. How many members attended that meeting ? You 
must have an actual count because you examined the cards. 

Mr. KoNEC. No; we don't have an actual count, sir. I told you 
that so many of them left there without voting. 

Senator Mundt. How many came in ? How many were there orig- 
inally ? 

Mr. KoNEc. We didn't count them as they came in. 

Senator Mundt. How many union members did you have at that 
time? 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't know exactly, but it was between twenty- 
five and twenty-seven hundred. 

Senator Mundt, Let's say 2,600. Is that a fair compromise? 

Mr. KoNEC. Your guess is as good as mine. 

Senator Mundt. Couldn't be over a hundred wrong either way, 
could there ? Out of the total employment of how many on the pay- 
roll ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't know that exactly. 

Senator Mundt. We heard the ligure of 3,380 batted around here. 
Is that reasonably correct? 

Mr. KoNEC. It could be somewhere around there, within a hundred 
or so. 

Senator Mundt. Would you give it to us, Mr. Rauh? Do you 
know ? 

Mr. Rauh. I think it is about 3,300, Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me that is what it was. And there 
were 2,600 members of the union. Of the 2,600 you wouldn't know, 
even roughly, how many attended the meeting ? 

Mr. KoNEc. I would say about 2,500 of them were there. That is 
the guess that was in the newspapers. 

Senator Mundt. And before the vote w^as taken, how many went 
home ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Before the vote was taken ? Well, they all stayed there 
until after the meeting. That is when the vote was taken. I don't 
know exactly how many went home. 

Senator Mundt. How many voted ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That I don't know for sure myself either. But I 
know that 

Senator Mundt. Somebody must know how many voted. 

Mr. KoNEC. Sure. They had an election committee there. 

Senator Mundt. You don't know how many voted ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I have heard that there were about 1,100 or 1,200 votes. 

Senator Mundt. Well, we will compromise again; 1,150. 

Mr. Konec. What? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Curtis says 1,254 voted. 

Mr. KoNEC. That could be correct. 

Senator Mundt. How did they vot« ? How was it broken up ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe it was about 80 or 90 percent in favor of the 
strike. 

Senator Mundt. I have been advised there were 1,105 ayes, 148 
noes, and 1 blank. Would that seem to be reasonably accurate? 

Mr. KoNEc. That could be right ? 



8612 IMPRO-PEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I was not here on the first day of the hearing. I 
understand that was brought out at that time. So just about, to all 
intents and purposes, I would say a third of the members who worked 
at the plant voted to strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That could be correct. 

Senator Mundt. And of those who were eligible to vote, something 
under 50 percent voted to strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Why did so many go home? You had 2,500 
people there. Before they voted, over half of them went home. 
That was the thing I was trying to bring out. 

Mr. KoNEC. I talked to a great many of the people that didn't vote. 
They said "Why should I stay there and waste my time ? You know 
how I feel about it. I will be out on the picket line." If you had 
been there April 5, 1954, you would have seen that they meant it. 
They were all out there. 

Senator Mundt. This was a secret ballot ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. So you didn't know who the 148 were who voted 
"No"? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't know who the 1 was who couldn't make 
up his mind, and you didn't know who the 1,105 were that made up 
those that voted for the strike ? 

Mr. KoNEc. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me that is a much fairer test of the 
sentiment of the people who want to go on strike, than those who can 
be whipped up to go out on a picket line. I mean social pressures, a 
lot of other things, can induce a man to go on a picket line. But 
when he votes, he votes his conviction. I was wondering why less 
than half of those who attended the meeting even stayed there to vote. 

How long did the meeting last ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't know exactly. I wouldn't remember. 

Senator Mundt. You were there ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I know it. 

Senator Mundt. Did it last a half day ? 

Mr. KoNEC. No. It started in the afternoon. I don't remember 
exactly what time. 

Senator Mundt. Was it over before midnight ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Sure. 

Senator Mundt. Was it over by suppertime ? 

Mr. KoNEC. When I left there it was around suppertime. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, but you probably stuck around for the count- 
ing, if you were interested. 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. About what time would you say the ballot was 
taken, according to your best judgment ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I wouldn't say exactly, but I will let you pin me down 
between maybe 4 and 6 o'clock when the voting was going on. 

Senator Mundt. So we will compromise and say 5. 

Mr. KoNEc. You can compromise but I will say it was between 4 
and 6. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8613 

Senator Mundt. All right. Tlie meeting lasted, then, roughly about 
2 hours from the time it started until the time that the vote was taken? 

Mr. KoNEC. I would say that is a fair answer. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out this point. It seems to me 
that men whose livelihoods are involved, men who have working con- 
ditions which either are distasteful to them or are acceptable to them, 
men who in the period of a strike have their income reduced, men who 
like to look forward to a better M-age scale if they have a strike, this is 
pretty important business for the 2,500 people who were there. I am 
curious to know why over half of them go home. I can see where it 
is pretty hard to get people to vote Republican or Democrat, to get 
half of the vote. 

But here, where a meeting is called attended by 2,500 people, cer- 
tainly a lot of personal problems were being settled by that vote, as 
far as the people were concerned, whether they had wage grievances, 
working conditions grievances, or Avhether they were happy with 
things as they were. 

I am trying to find some plausible reason why over half of the 
people involved, who had paid dues for the privilege of voting, went 
home and didn't vote. You cannot shed any light on it ? 

Mr. KoNEc. No, sir, I camiot tell you why, unless it is just that 
they didn't want to stick around. But I have something in here that 
says "Wlien the membership of local 

Senator Mundt. What is that ? 

Mr. KoNEC. The daily strike bulletin, April 5, 1954. This is the 
first publication: 

The membership of the local is to be commended lor its efficient and orderly 
conduct which accompanied without violence that which the company consid- 
ered impossible, the presence and spirit of approximately 3,000 pickets was a 
tremendous expression of workers' solidarity which surpassed the expectations 
of the union leadership. There were some on the picket line who were not even 
union members. Several asked union representatives "Where do I go to sign 
up in the union V" 

Senator Mundt. That does not throw any light on my question as 
to why so many of them went home. It seems to me this is curious 
phenomenon to me, that when you do provide a secret ballot, and I 
think it was commendable that you did that, when you do explain 
to the group the problems confronting them, that the negotiations 
have broken down, and somebody undoubtedly was suggesting the 
strike and pointing out what they might win by a strike, that over 
half of them would go home. I remember Elmwood Hubbard one 
time said, ''It would be a hell of a parade if nobody stood on the side- 
lines to cheer." I recognize you cannot get them all to vote. I recog- 
nize you can get them to go to a picket line and with different reasons 
you can get them to vote. 

I wondered if j^ou could give a reason to the committee in addition 
to what you have already said, that over half of the people who came 
to the meeting less than 2 hours later went home and said "Whatever 
you fellows do is Jake with us."' 

Mr. KoNEC. The only reason I know is they didn't want to stay 
there and wait in line. I can also tell you that 16 months later we took 
another vote to continue the strike where there were over 1,800 people 
that voted to continue the strike. That was another secret ballot. 



21243— 58— pt. 21- 



8614 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara ? 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of ques- 
tions. I would like to ask the witness what he said WERB stood for. 

Mr. KoNEC. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. 

Senator McNamara. That is an official board of the State of 
Wisconsin ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is correct. 

Senator McNamara. You make reference to the fact that the strike 
committee was in charge of all the activities on the picket line and such 
things. Did you work under the strike coimnittee, too ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I was a member of the strike committee. 

Senator McNamara. You were a member without vote ? 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right. 

Senator McNamara. You acted more or less in an advisory capacity ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Well, before anything came up, like we discussed dif- 
ferent things, we w^ould all discuss it and I could get into the discus- 
sion, but when the vote was taken, I had no vote. 

Senator McNamara. Tell me this : How did the executive commit- 
tee become designated as a strike committee ? Was this by a vote of 
the local union ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe that was a vote by the membership. 

Senator McNamara. The membership voted to designate the execu- 
tive committee of the local as the strike committee ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I believe that is right. 

Senator McNamara. I do not think that was brought out in the 
previous discussion. I thought maybe it would be important to find 
out how they got the authority. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. That second vote must have been taken at this 
initial meeting, then, is that right ? 

Mr. KoNEC. Pardon me, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. The vote designating the executive committee as 
the strike committee must have been taken after the ballots were 
counted at this first meeting? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't think that was taken after that. 

Senator Mundt. When was it taken ? Did you have another mem- 
bership meeting between the time they voted to strike and the time 
they actually did strike ? 

Mr. KoNEC. I don't know exactly when it was taken. I don't even: 
know if I am correct in saying that it was a membership vote that 
got it. I was not on the executive board. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know that it is material, but if you are 
correct in saying that the executive committee was named the strike 
committee by vote of the membership, it seems to follow it must have 
been at a vote at the initial meeting, following the counting of the 
ballots when it was found that a majority of those voting had voted 
to strike. You don't recall that? 

Mr. KoNEC. No, I don't. 

Senator Mundt. You said you stayed until almost the bitter end. 

Mr. KoNEC. That is right, but I don't recall that at all. Actually, 
to tell you the truth, that was just a guess when I said the member- 
ship voted for it. I believe that is democratic way of doing it, and 
I believe that is the way it was done. But if I was to say I am sure 
it was done that way, I couldn't say it. 



iMPRiOPE'R ACTI^'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8615 

Senator McNamara. I think it would be important for the record 
to determine how it was done, if it was done in a. democratic manner. 
Maybe previously the understanding was that the executive board, 
Avhich is in charge of all of the affairs of the local between meetings, 
might cover it. But I think it would be of interest to the committee 
to know where the designation came from and by wliat authority. 

Mr. KoNEC. It must have come from the members. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Kauh, you can supply a witness to speak to 
that accurately rather than this gentleman? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes. 

Mr. KoNEC, I think you will have a witness that will know more 
about that. 

Senator McNamara. Can you suggest who it will be? 

Mr. KoNEC. The recording secretary, Mr. Kohlberg. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KoNEC. May I ask the Chair a question? Am I excused to 
go back home ? 

The Chairman. Does anyone want this witness any further? 

You are excused to go home, as far as I am concerned. 

Mr. KoNEc. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Burkhart is on the way, may 
we have the National Labor Relations examiner's findings made an 
exhibit to the record? It has been referred to in minor parts from 
time to time, and I would prefer to have it in the record in full. We 
have offered to acce])t it, but it is now being used against us. I think 
the whole thing ought to be in. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not going to order it printed in this 
record. It is a public document. I assume we have an accurate copy 
of it. If we have, without objection, it could be quite proper that it 
be made an exhibit for reference. 

Is there any ob j ection ? 

The Chair hears none. 

It is so ordered. It will be exhibit 22. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22," for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Burkhart, do you solemnly swear the evidence 
you shall give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT BURKHART 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and busi- 
ness or occupation. 

Mr. Burkhart. My name is Robert Burkhart. I live at 7962 La 
Mesa Way, Buena Park, Calif. I am an international representative 
for the United Auto Workers. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Rauh is appearing as your attorney, is he ? 

Mr. Burkhart. He is, sir. 

The Chairman. The record may so show. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Burkhart, you are in California now ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Working for the UAW ? 



8616 nrpROPER actrities in the labor field 

Mr. BuRKHART. I am, as an organizer. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a period of time you were with the UAW as 
international organizer at the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I was. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. During what period of time ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I arrived in Sheboygan in September of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were there until what time ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I left there, I believe it was in late July or, possibly, 
in August of 1 955. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. So, you were there for a period of approximately 2 
years ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes ; I would say approximately that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were tlie international organizer in charge 
during that period of time ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a member of the UAW ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I joined the IT AW, in a sense, before it was the 
UAW. I belonged to local 18384 of the old American Federation of 
Labor in 1935, when I was 16 years old. This later was one of the 
groups which became one of the first units or locals of the United Auto 
Workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first become an officer ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Shortly after I went into the plant, I became a 
departmental steward. I would say maybe a year or 2 years after 
I went into the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become an international organizer ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I became an international representative of the 
union for the first time in 1942. I was on the staff, that was the 
regional staff, of region 2-B, in Toledo, for approximately 1 year. I 
then returned to shop again. 

Mr. Kennedy. You held that position from 1942 to 1943 ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes ; 1942 and 1943, for about 1 year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then when did you become an organizer again ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. In June of 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, during at least part of your life, 
you were a member of tlie Socialist Workers Party ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were you a member of the Socialist Workers 
Party ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I place it 1944 to 1947. 

Mr. Kennedy. During 1944 to 1947 ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not an international organizer during that 
time? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that Socialist Workers Party on the Attorney 
General's list during that period of time ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't believe, Mr. Kennedy, that there was a list 
at that time. I believe that the list was published sometime in the 
year 1947, to the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, it was put on the Attorney General's 
list? 



EMPRlOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8617 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a subversive organization ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say tliat you got out of the Socialist Workers 
Party in 1947? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you resign ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well 

Mr. Kennedy. Or get out, or whatever you do ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. It has some connection, I suppose, with my reasons 
for getting in. I had gone into the organization in the first place 
because I had thought that it perhaps was a solution to some of the 
problems which had affected me as a young man during the depression. 
I think that there were many of my generation who went into such 
organizations, and found that the solutions did not lie there. 

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

Mr. BuRKHART. I left the organization because I no longer believed 
in its principles. I felt that the solutions to our problems lay within 
the framework of our free-enterprise system and our constitutional 
form of government. 

Mr. Kennedy, You were not a member of the Socialist Workers 
Party or had anything to do with it at the time you were an inter- 
national organizer in the Kohler strike ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were your responsibilities in the Kohler 
matter? 

Senator Curtis. Would you yield for a question right there? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Did you join any other organizations, other than 
the International Socialist Workers Party ? 

Mr. BurkhxVRT. Any other organization, sir? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I belonged to other organizations; the 
YMCA, for example. 

Senator Curtis. You were speaking of your motivations back there 
in the IOPjCs, by reason of your experiences in the depression which 
caused you to join this. Did that or similar reasons cause you to 
join any other organizations? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, in a sense, sir, I was once a meniber, a very 
close member, of the church. I was looking for solutions in that field 
at one time. I was a Sunday-school teacher, a president of a young 
people's society. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever belong to any other organization 
that was labeled as subversive by the Attorney General ? 

Mr. Burkhart. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were your responsibilities and duties 

Senator jVIundt. Before we leave that point, I have a question, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. The International Socialist Party, was that the 
name? The International Socialist Workers Party? Was that the 
name of tlie organization ? 



8618 IMPROPER ACTnTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKHART. I believe the name of the organization was Socialist 
Workers Party. 

Senator Mundt. And you joined it in what year ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I believe it was 1944. 

Senator Mundt. And you got out in what year ? 

Mr, BuRKHART. I believe 1947. 

Senator Mundt. Why did you get out ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Because I no longer believed in the tenets of the 
organization. I did not believe that the solution to the problems 
of the working people lie in that direction. 

Senator Mundt. Did you believe, at the time you went in, that it 
was dominated by the Communists? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Dominated by the Communists, sir? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. BuRKHART No ; I did not believe vSo. 

Senator Mundt. Did you believe that at the time you got out? 

Mr, BuRKiiART. Dominated by the Communists ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, 

Mr, BuRKiiART No. There had always been, as I recall it, sharp 
divisions between them and the Communists. 

Senator Mundt. I think it depends upon which branch of the 
Communist Party you are talking about. 

Mr, BuRKHART, * That is possible. There are so many of them. 

Senator Mundt. What attitude did the Socialist Party take on the 
war which was then in progress ? Do you recall ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. There was general opposition. There were dif- 
ferences of opinion, as I understand it, within the organization. 
There were some people who were paci fists. 

Senator Mundt. What was the official party position? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I believe that there was general opposition to the 
war. 

Senator Mundt. Do you recall how they defined the war in those 
days ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I am sorry^, sir, I do not. At that time I was a 
trade unionist. I was not particularly interested in theory. 

Senator Mundt. As a member of the party for those 3 or 4 years, 
you probably knew something about its position on something as sig- 
nificant as the war. I was wondering if you could tell the committee 
what the official position of the party was. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't feel qualified, sir, to do that. 

Senator Mundt. In another capacity, in another body of the Con- 
gress, on a different committee, I had some relationship with that 
party. Would you deny that the position of the party was that this 
was an imperialistic war, and that consequently they stood in opposi- 
tion to it ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. BuRKHART. I believe that that is correct, that that was their 
position, to the best of my recollection. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is correct. 

Were any of their leaders later convicted under the Smith Act ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I beg your pardon, sir. 

Senator Mundt, Were any of the leaders at a later time convicted 
under the Smith Act ? 



IMPRlOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8619 

Mr. BuRKHART. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. You are not sure ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART, No. I am not sure. 

Senator Mundt. Getting out of a bad situation, and I can sympa- 
thize with you for getting trapped in it, because some pretty decent 
Americans in that era got trapped in not only front organizations 
but other subversive organizations, and, as a matter of fact, into the 
Communist Party itself^I am interested in the steps that you took to 
get out. 

A\niat was the procedure by which you got out ? 

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

Senator Muxdt. Did you rise up and condemn it for its opposition 
to war? 

Did you rise up and condemn it because it was fraternizing with one 
wing of the Communist Party ? 

Did you rise up and condemn it because its basic concepts concern- 
ing private enterprise were in anathema to our American system, or 
what did you say ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I objected to lack of democracy within the organ- 
ization, and then I just discontinued activities. I didn't go to meet- 
ings and things of that sort, didn't pay any dues to the organization, 
and let it be well known to the people in the plant where I worked 
that I was no longer associated with the organization. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever make any public statements, so that 
your friends and associates would know that you no longer belonged to 
the party ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. At that time I was in no position to issue public 
statements on the matter. I was active in the trade-union movement 
at the time, and I let it be known to all of my associates that I was 
no longer associated with the organization. 

I might point out that at this juncture I had noticed that where 
I had been a popular trade-union leader up until the time that I had 
gotten into the organization, that gradually the people, the very 
people I was trying to help, because I had come from them myself, 
had drifted away from me. They no longer seemed to trust me. It 
had to be my closest friends for me to talk to without an attitude of 
suspicion. That was one of the 

Senator Mundt. Was that suspicion derived from the fact that you 
joined the party or that you had gotten out ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. That I had gotten in. This grew at that time. 
Ever since I was 18 years old, tlie one thing I wanted to do was to do 
a good job in the trade-union movement. I had taken a wrong path, 
and then 1 did my best at a later date to rectify that. 

I can tell you very sincerely. Senator, that it hurt me deeply to 
attempt to run for office in a trade-union election and be defeated by 
people whom I knew were friends of mine. One of my best friends 
ran against me and told me quite frankly why he ran against me. 
I began to reevaluate my whole position. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure everybody at this whole table can sym- 
pathize with your feeling about being defeated in an election. We 
can understand that. Your friend ran against you, told you he ran 
against j^ou. Why ? 



8620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, he said, "I do not think you are yourself any 
more. I don't think you are talking for yourself. We feel that you 
are being influenced." 

Senator Mitndt. Was his implication that you were being influenced 
by your membership in this Socialist Party ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you were known among your 
friends and fellows as a member of the party ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

I would also like to say here at this point that at that time the posi- 
tion of the Socialist Workers Party was violently in opposition to the 
Reuther trend in the international union, and has been so rather 
consistently. 

Senator Mundt. I was not relating it to Walter Reuther. I was 
thinking in terms of its political philosophy, and its economic philos- 
ophy. 

You said you were not in a position at the time you withdrew to 
make any public statement. I wonder if you could dilate on that a 
little bit. 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, I had no particular means to do that. I 
wouldn't write a letter to the newspapers and say, "I am no longer 
associated with the Socialist Workers Party." The circles that I 
moved in were in fact tremendous, in my union, and these were the 
people that I talked to. 

Senator Mundt. I thought that was what you tried to imply, that 
you were not at that time an important enough individual in the labor 
movement to have a national approach, perhaps, in which to air your 
statements. 

Mr. BuRKHART. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. I have one question before we let this pass. 

Did you state the purpose of the party as you understood it when 
you were a member ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. The purpose of the party ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't believe I did, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Can you tell us what you undei-stood the pur- 
pose to be ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. As I understood it, the purpose of the party was to 
change the economic system under which we lived, and provide more 
advice for the working people. This was the objective, as I under- 
stood it. 

Senator Goldwater. Has not that organization always stood for 
the violent overthrow of the Government ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

Senator Goldwater. Jins not that organization always stood for 
the violent overthrow of the Government ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't Iviiow that, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You never heard that when you were attend- 
ing meetings ? 

Mr. Burkiiart. No, sir. I never heard anybody advocate violent 
overthrow of the Government in any meeting I attended. 

Senator Goldwater. I did not suggest you heard them, but was 
that not the purpose of the party ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Not to my knowledge, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8621 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Burkhart, as I understand it, you were out of 
the Socialist Workers Party and had nothing to do with it for 6 or 7 
years at the time you went to Kohler, Wis. ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. I had to attempt to rebuild myself in 
my shop organization, and I did not go to work for the international 
union until sometime later. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went up there in 1953 ? 

Mr. Burkhart. In 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who appointed you as an international organizer to 
conduct the affairs of the Kohler Co. of local 833 of the UAW'^ 

Mr. Burkhart. I liad been working as an organizer in Phila- 
delphia, and I got the Kohler assignment not by design, but more or 
less by the flip of a coin. I sort of wished now that it had dropped 
the other way. 

I was called into Detroit and I met with International Secretary- 
Treasurer Mazey, Martin Gerber, the regional director of the United 
Auto Workers for region 9, which is one of the internal regions — I 
had been working in his region, I think is the reason he would be in 
the meeting — and Richard Gosser, a vice president of the interna- 
tional union. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of sending up an interna- 
tional organizer, as it was discussed at that meeting, or as you found 
out later ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, there were two serious situations in Wiscon- 
sin at that time. One was the JIK situation, in Racine, Wis., and 
the other was the Kohler situation. 

It was determined, inasmuch as the organizer who was finally 
assigned to JIK lived in the Chicago area, that I would be the one to 
go into Kohler. The purpose was to attempt to assist the local union. 

At the time of the election, at the time of the first signing of the 
first contract, rather, in 1953, they had been assured that they would 
get a couple of organizers to come in and assist them in setting 
up this new local union, where they had had a backgromid of 18 
years of companj'- domination in the old KWA. It was my purpose 
to go in and to assist the local union. Further than that, many griev- 
ances had piled up in the period from the signing of the first contract 
until September, when I went into the situation. 

The steward body was falling apart, because of the ineffectiveness 
of the local in settling grievances. Many people refused to become 
stewards. Some departments had no stewards whatsoever. 

It was necessary for me to go in and give the local union the assist- 
ance which had been promised them earlier this year. Frankly, Sa- 
horske, the assistant regional director, had been servicing the local, but 
because of the fact that he had other duties, he was not able to spend 
as much time in Sheboygan as probably should have been done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take part or participate in the bargaining 
meetings between the UAW and the company ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Are you talking about the period prior to the 
strike, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also handled grievances for the union ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, I did. 



8622 IMPR'OiPElR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, Were there any other international organizers or 
international representatives at Koliler at the time you were there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Will you give me again the period, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, let's take prior to the strike. 

Was there anybody else from the international union there ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I believe on several occasions Frank Sahorske came 
up to give some advice and assistance, inasmuch as he had been assigned 
to the local prior to that. I believe Don Rand came in on 1 or 2 
occasions, but I could not say that with certainty. 

Mr, Kennedy. What was the position of the international? 

What was the position of the international toward the calling of 
the strike in April of 1954 ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. The position of the international, as enunciated to 
the local union membership, was that we seemingly could get no fur- 
ther with the bargining, with our attempts at bargaining, with the 
company, and that it was necessary for them to take the strike vote to 
demonstrate the solidarity and to give the necessary strength at the 
bargaining table to their bargaining connnittee. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the strike was called in April of 1954, did some 
other international organizer come up to Sheboygan, up to Kohler ? 

Mr. BuRitHART. Yes, sir; some did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were some of those ? Jess Ferrazza ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, Why did Jess Ferrazza come up to Kohler ? 

Mr. BuRKHART, He was administrative assistant to the interna- 
tional secretary-treasurer, and he came in to give assistance to the 
bargaining table prior to the strike. 

Mv. Kennedy. Was he up there while the strike was going on? 

Mr. BuRKHART. He was up there part of the time, yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. And Donald Rand i 

]\Ir. BuRKiiART. Donald Rand was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Donald Rand's position up there? 

Mr. BuiiKHART. Donald Rand was, as I recall it at that time, asso- 
ciated with the skilled trades department of the UAW, and was in 
to give assistance on such problems as those, and he had been in She- 
boygan on several occasions in the past. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were both of those people, Ferrazza and Donald 
Rand, paid their salaries out of international funds ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I would suppose that they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your salary was paid out of the international? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. What about Ray Majerus, he was up there also? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Ray was a former member of local 833, who had 
been discharged by the company, in the enamel shop incident, and he 
was at that time a regular international representative working for 
Harvey Kitzman, and he came up to be of assistance, and he knew 
everybody in the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was William Vinson doing up there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. William Vinson ? 

Mr. Kenedy. Yes. 

Mr. BuRKHART. He was a member of, I believe, the Briggs' local 
in Detroit, and this is a competitive shop to the Kohler plant, and he 
was fully aware of the situation in his own local in regard to type of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8623 

work and was up tlieie to discuss these nuxtters with people being able 
to talk because he had some familiarity w^ith that type of work. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to come back to these people but I want to 
see if we can get their names in tlie record. John Gunaca, where did 
lie come out of ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I believe John Gunaca was also out of the Briggs 
local. I had not known him before he came in. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason for his coming up ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Similar reasons to those of Mr. Vinson. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Joseph Burns 'i 

Mr. BuRKHART. Joseph Burns, I can't remember the name of the 
department at the moment, but he was in the community service de- 
partment of the UAW, which specializes in commmiity services 
problems, and one of their jobs is to assist in liandling strike assist- 
ance problems. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who paid Joseph Burns, do you know that? 

Mr. BuRKHART. He was paid by the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy- What about Frank Stallons, S-t-a-1-l-o-n-s, do you 
know anything about him i 

Mr. BuRKHART. Frank Stallons is a member of one of our locals in 
Wisconsin, and I believe in Kenosha. I do not know how he was paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know for what reason he was up there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. For wluvt reason he came up ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Dan Prested ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Dan Prested at that time was working out of the 
Milwaukee office of the UAW, and he came up at the beginning of the 
strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason, why was he up there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. To give general assistance around the situation, and 
he drove a sound truck part of the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about James Fiore ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. James Fiore was from Detroit, and I think he also 
was out of the Briggs local 212. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who paid him ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir ; I don't know who paid him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Clayton Carpenter ? 

Senator Mundt. He was the man who drove the sound truck but he 
would not come all the way from Detroit to drive a sound truck, and 
he must have been in charge of the microphone that made the announce- 
ment. Wouldn't that be more accurate ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I think that I said that the men who came from 
Milwaukee, that was one of his jobs. 

Seantor Mundt. Even so, I suppose they could find a sound-truck 
driver closer to Sheboygan or Kohler than that. Were his duties in- 
volved in part in broadcasting from the apparatus in the truck, rather 
than steering the truck around the streets ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, yes ; he had something to do with that, except- 
ing there was a sound-truck ordinance in the village of Kohler, and the 
sound trucks were not used for that period, with the exception of, I 
believe, or a test case that we made of it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. And Clayton Carpenter, what was he doing up there ? 



8624 IMPBOPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKHART. Clayton Carpenter is an international representa- 
tive who Avorks for Harvey Kitzman, out of the Milwaukee office. He 
came up with Kitzman, and I believe he drove Harvey up on a number 
of occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he stay up there ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. He was up for a short period of time, Mr. Kennedy, 
and I don't know exactly how many days, but I believe he went back 
to Milwaukee, and probably came in again on a couple of occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have mentioned Kitzman and Sahorske. 
He was paid by the international ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Yes ; he was the assistant to Harvey Kitzman at that 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Boyce Land ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Boyce Land was from Detroit. I could not say with 
certainty which one of the locals he was from. I think it was from the 
Briggs local, though. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who paid for him ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much time he was up there ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I would say about a month. I am not sure of that, 
no. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Frank Wallich ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Frank Wallich in the early part of the strike was 
in charge of our publicity. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who sent him up there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I l>elieve he was assigned by the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Guy Barber ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Guy Barber was there, and I don't know who paid 
him and I imderstand he was from local 7, the Chrysler local in Detroit, 
and I believe he brought the sound truck in when he came. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, is it the ordinary strike where you have maybe 
15 or so individuals from the international or from locals that are sent 
into an area all to guide and advise the local people ? 

Is that an unusual situation where you had so many people? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I would say it is somewhat unusual. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it nceessary to have all of these people up 
there in the case of this strike ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. We realized this was a very tense situation, and that 
the tensions of the last 20 years had been building up into the situation 
that confronted us, and we were interested in having people there who 
could exercise some measure of advise in the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you requested by the local to send these people 
up? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. The local wanted assistance. 

Mr. Kennedy. They wanted all of those people up there? 

Mr. Bi RKiiART. I believe they would have liked it if we had fur- 
nished them with more assistance than what we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have more people than the ones whose names 
I have read to you ? 

Mr. BuRKTiART. I do not recall more than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^\nio coordinated all of this for the international to 
make sure that the people came from the Briggs local, from the inter- 
national, from Kenosha, and from Milwaukee? Who was responsible 
for that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8625 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't know with certainty. It came from the 
Detroit office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would you report to, for instance ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Who would. I report to ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, I reported to people who were my superiors. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was that ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. That would be Mr. Ferrazza, Mr. Kitzman, and Mr. 
Mazey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were they reporting to in Detroit, and who was 
coordinating all of these activities at the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, the secretary-treasurer's office, to the best of 
my knowledge, was handling the a"ffairs which affected the inter- 
national. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be Mr. Mazey ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. And the regional director. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that be Mr. Mazey, then ? 

'Mr. BuRKHART. Mr. Mazey is the secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was out of his office, was it, that these activities 
were coordinated and it was decided ayIio would go up there, and what 
their function would be ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. In deciding who would come into Sheboygan and 
assist local 838? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and what their function would be once they 
got up tiiere. 

Mr, BuRKHART. Well, I think that the question of function was 
somewhat determined after they got there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who decided that they v/ould be sent up there? 
There must have been some need for it and it has to be cleared through 
someone, and was that the secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I believe it was the secretary- treasurer's office in 
conjunction with the regional office in Milwaukee. 

Senator Mundt. Who specifically asked you to go there, to Wis- 
consin ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. The international secretary-treasurer's office, and 
I say there were three officei-s in the meeting at the time, and I was 
asked if I would accept the assignment up there. 

Senator Mu^dt. This was quite a crew from Detroit, some 15 or 20 
names, and wlio was the boss man of this outside ci-ew making the 
decisions of coordination, and activity on the spot? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, the Avord was that I was in general charge of 
the situation. Hov/ever, I was outranked up there on most of the 
occasions. I was in general charge of the situation. 

Senator Mundt. In theory, then, you were the boss man, and you 
were outranked by whom ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, I was outranked to begin with by the local 
union committee, the strike committee. Further than tliat, by Mr. 
Ferrazza, and Mr. Kitzman, and Mr. Mazey, or Mr. Sahorske. 

Senator Mundt. They were all superior to you in the union echelon 
of leadership ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. But as far as your instructions went, you were 
the man who made the decisions on the spot, unless they were circum- 
vented bv 1 of those 4. 



8626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEvS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I would say that that is correct, exceptiiio- that this 
was a strike of an autonomous local union of the Ignited Auto Work- 
ers, and the local union strike committee comprised of the executive 
board of the local, phis the chief stewards from the various divisions 
of the plant, were in overtdl cliar<ie of tlie sti'ike itself. 

Senator Mtnot. Yen, but 1 am talkino- primarily about the outside 
crew that came in. Somebody had to be kind of in charge of them, 
and if 1 understand it correctly now, and you correct the record if I 
am wrong, thatas far as the visiting firemen were concerned, you were 
the chief unless some decision that you made seemed to I'un contrary 
to some higher policy in which case any 1 of 4 people outranked you, 
and could negate your decision. 

Mr. BtTRKiTART. I frankly don't like to be called an outsider in the 
situation. I have been at Sheboygan for about 7 months. 

Senator Mundt. The connotation was that you were a visitor from 
outside Wisconsin. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I can remember, though, that on mj^ 38th birth- 
day, which was in June of 195-1:, the local union threw a party and 
I didn't know what its purpose was, and they invited me in, and they 
gave me a present m ith a big sign on it which said, "To Our No. 1 
Outsider," in quotation marks, because, of course, the company had 
been attempting to brand all of us as outsiders. 

Senator Mundt. By "outsider" I simply meant somebody who 
didn't work at Kohler, and who didn't live in Wisconsin, and by that 
definition would you be an outsider? 

Mr. BuRKiiAK'i'. I lived in Slie))oyu!in. 

Senator Mundt. Well, then, you wouldn't qualify as an outsider 
in my definition. You did not work at Kohler, or did you work there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I never worked at Kohler, thank goodness. 

Senator Mundt. But you lived in Wisconsin; in what town? 

Mr. BuRKirART. In Sheboygan, 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did the international bring in any other peo- 
ple to walk the picket line, for instance? 

Mr. BuRKTiAKT. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any people brought in from outside to 
walk the picket line and walk up and down and carry on this mass 
picketing ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No. The picket line was 99 and some tenths per- 
cent Kohler workers who had worked in the plant for some period 
of time and this was not an outside picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say under oath that the international did not 
make arrangements for hundreds of outsiders to come in and walk 
the picket line? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I certainly could. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were no outsiders brought in for the specific 
pui')>ose of walking up and down in front of the plant, as pickets. 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, I think there were other persons who came 
to the picket line, who were not members of the Kohler local, but not 
in large numbers. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am talking about, in large numbers. 

Mr. BuRKUART. Not in large numbers. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were not brought in from the outside in order 
to walk the picket line? 



IMPRiOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8627 

Mr. BuRKHART. Not to my knowledge, and I think that I knew 
nearly everybody out on the picket line by name by the time the 
strike took place, and they were Kohler workers. 

I will say that on occasions, someone would come over from the 
tannery or the brewery, or one of the other plants, to show their 
solidarity, and step into the line, but this was a very minute group. 
The strike itself, the picketing, was that of Kohler workers, and this 
is not a case of large numbers of stranger pickets coming into a com- 
munity, in spite of some of the propaganda that I have seen of the 
matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you in charge of the instructions given 
to the pickets, and the picket captains, as to how they should operate? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No. These arrangements, or the picket captains 
reported to John Konec, who, in turn, was present at the meetings of 
the strike committee. I was present at many of the meetings of the 
strike committee, and attempting to give them advice. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony before the committee from 
certain law enforcement officials, that they approached you and re- 
quested that you make arrangements that the picket line be opened, so 
that the nonstrikers who wished to go to work could pass through the 
picket line and get into the plant. 

Did you have any conversations witli them along that line ^ 

Mr. BuRKiiART. 1 listened very carefully, and 1 have been here 
every day, and I listened very carefully to the testimony of the law 
enforcement officials. At no time did any law enforcement officer 
come to me and say to me directly, ''1 demand that you open up the 
picket line." Such orders were not given. 

Now, Chief Cappelle did say to me on several occasions, "Let us keep 
this thing orderly here, and get these people back up on the sidewalk 
and keep the place clean around here," and numerous other orders of 
that sort, but on no occasion did the chief say directly to me that he 
wanted me to open up the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. You speak about ordering you, but did he ever ask 
you to open up the picket line ^ 

Mr. BuRKHART. I do not recall any occasion where he asked me to 
open up the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. As the international representative, did you 

Mr. BuRKHART. He did ask me to assist him in maintaining order, 
and I assured him that I would do everything within my power to do 
so. 

Mr. Kennedy. As the international representative, did you ever 
take steps to open up the picket line so that the nonstrikers could go 
into work ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir; I did not. The thought never occurred to 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the policy of the international, that the 
nonstrikers who wished to go to work would not be allowed through 
the picket line ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Again, Mr. Kennedy, this is a strike of an autono- 
mous local union of the United Auto Workers, and I had no authority 
to tell this local union what it had to do. I think honestly that if I 
had gone up and said, "'Fellows, open up a path here and let these 
l)eo])le in," they would have ridden me out of town on a rail. 



8628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. Now, you had some 12 or 15 or more international 
representatives up there to help and assist the strikere. They were 
there to tell them, as I believe, how it should be operated and how they 
should conduct themselves. 

But one of the things you could have told them, as international 
representatives, was that they should allow the nonstrikers who 
wanted to work to go through the picket line. Did you ever take any 
steps along that line ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir ; I did not tell them to open up the pickets. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever ask any of the local people to open up 
the picket line so that the nonstrikers could get in to work? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the policy of the international, not to allow 
the nonstrikers in the plant ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. It was not the policy of the international, but it 
was tlie policy of the local union. And the policy of the international, 
to my understanding, did not call upon me to tell the local union that 
they had to open up their picket line and let people in. 

I would like to say further in that regard that I closely watched 
the motion pictures that were played here the other day, and I have 
never seen such a distorted version of what happened in the strike 
as I saw in those pictures. 

Now, the pictures were doctored, in my opinion, and I don't think 
that they gave this committee a fair representation of what occurred 
on that picket line at all. It is true that on a couple of mornings 
the people came across the street, but by and large this was not a 
picket line where there was this surging back and forth, and so forth. 

These pictures were taken in a period of a few moments, and then 
they are pasted together to try to give the impression to you gentle- 
men, who were trying to get an objective view of this situation, that 
this was an extremely violent picket line. But such was not the case. 
I have seen more violence in the New York subway than I saw in tlie 
Kohler picket lines. 

Senator Goldwater. How did that man get his eye cut open ? 

Mr. BuRKHAKT. I would like to answer that question, sir. On two 
occasions I stepped between the two contestants in this altercation, 
and it did not occur on the picket line. It occurred across the street. 
It was in Kohler Village. These two men had had hard feelings with 
each other for a long time prior to the strike, dating back to some- 
thing I don't know about. 

They bristled up to each other on a couple of occasions, and in 
each occasion I stepped in between them. Unfortunately on this par- 
ticular occasion I was not present or I would have done so again. 
This was a fist fight between two men and not on the picket line, 
but across the street from the picket line. 

I believe that the thing has been tried in court, and I don't remember 
now^ the exact result. 

Senator Mundt. Were both of these men strikers ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No. 

Senator Mundt. Both of them were nonstrikers ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. One was a man by the name of Leland Dyke, and 
it is difficult for me to use the terminology "nonstriker," as Mr. Rauh 
has pointed out ; it is not too clear. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8629 

Senator Mundt. So we understand each other, when I use the word 
''nonstriker," I am talking about a man who had a job at Kohler be- 
fore the strike came, and who couldn't go to work after the strike 
started, and tliat is what I am talking about. Were either of these 
men "nonstrikers," according to the Mundt definition of a nonstriker? 

Mr. BuRKHART. According to the Mundt definition, Mr. Leland 
Dyke was a nonstriker. 

Senator Mundt. Was the other fellow also a nonstriker ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. His opponent in this was a striker. 
Senator ^Iundt. O. K., so the altercation was between a striker and 
a nonstriker, as we understand the terms. 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Yes, and I was merely pointing out it did not occur 
on the picket line, and there is no question but what the heat of the 
situation probably aggravated some ancient quarrel that they had 
with each other. 

Senator Curtis. What were your duties as being in general charge 
of this strike ? What were the things that you were supposed to do ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, mj^ biggest job was collective bargaining. I 
sat at the bargaining table, and I attempted to get an agreement with 
the company. 

Senator Curtis. I mean more particularly with the conduct of the 
strike. What were you assigned to ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I met every morning with the local union executive 
board and we discussed various situations which came up during the 
course of the strike. I also had the job of going around tlie commu- 
nity and meeting with various people in different seg-ments of the 
community life, and businessmen, the ministers, and shopkeepers, and 
so on, and I attempted to tell them how we felt about these things, 
and to build community support for the strikers. 

If I may say so, between my efforts and those of other people, I 
think that we had considerable success in the city of Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Were there communications sometimes sent from 
the strike committee to Detroit or reports of some kind ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. It is possible that some letters were sent by the 
secretary-treasurer or by the secretary of the local imion, to Detroit. 
Now, I w^ould be very surprised if there w^eren't some sent, but if you 
would ask me specifically what letters, I couldn't tell you. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any international officer that would re- 
port to Detroit what was going on here ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes; I think that Mr. Eand went into Detroit on 
several occasions, and would give a report. I think Mr. Ferrazza was 
down at several occasions and went back to Detroit. Mr. Kitzman 
came in from Milwaukee, and other international representatives came 
up from Milwaukee on occasion, and would report back to the regional 
office. 

Senator Curtis. Who would they report to in Detroit ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't know if they reported to the entire execu- 
tive board of the international, or to the officers, or to Emile Mazey 
directly, and I think probably most of the reports went to the secre- 
tary-treasurer's office. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you were then an international representa- 
tive? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

21243— 58— pt. 21 20 



8630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any reports about this strike as it 
went along? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes; I talked to Mr. Kitzman, and to Mazey on a 
number of occasions, concerning tlie events of the strike. 

Senator Curtis. By telephone? 

Mr. Burkhart. I believe that I called on the phone on several 
occasions. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any trips to Detroit ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I think that I went in on 1 or 2 occasions, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. You did call them ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who would you teleplione ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I would telephone to Mr. Ferrazza or to Mr. Mazey. 

Senator Curtis. Did you call anybody else in Detroit? 

Mr. Burkhart. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any written reports ^ 

Mr. Burkhart. I don't recall any written reports, Senator.^ I may 
have sent some letters in connection with the strike. I wouldn't recall 
oifhand. 

Senator Curtis. Who would you correspond with ? 

Mr. Burkhart. If I sent the communication to Detroit, it would 
have been sent to the secretary-treasurer's offce. I frankly don't recall 
any such communication, however. 

Senator Curtis. Did any matters ever come up in the strike com- 
mittee that the advice and counsel of the Detroit headquarters would 
besought? 

Mr. Burkhart. Will you repeat the question, please ? 

Senator Curtis. Did any matters ever come up in the strike com- 
mittee as they met from day to day that would be referred to Detroit 
for counsel and advice ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I don't recall any such. I would not deny 
that there may have been some. I don't recall any oft'hand. You see, 
I have now been disassociated from that situation for about 2i/^ years, 
and it is difficult to remember each one of these things. 

Senator Curtis. Xow, Jesse Ferrazza, what were his duties in 
Kohler? 

Mr. Burkhart. Jesse Ferrazza ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, Jesse came in, as T recall it, shortly befoi-e the 
strike, and he was administrative assistant to Emile Mazey and he par- 
ticipated in the bargaining, and he has had considerable experience at 
the bargaining table. And I believe that he was sent in to attempt to 
negotiate a contract to obviate the need of the strike. 

Senator Curtis. But in the conduct of the strike, what Avere his 
duties? 

Mr. Burkhart. In the conduct of the strike ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. BxTRKHART. He was on the picket line on several occasions when 
he was out there. I don't know exactly how nuich time he was in 
Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. AVere any particular matters referred to him as 
the strike went along? 

Mr. Burkhart. No ; I don't believe so, that I can recall. 

Senator Curtis. What was Donald Rand's duties ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8631 

Mr. BuRKHART. His duties in the strike ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, it was being on the picket line, niinglino- with 
the people of Sheboygan, and attempting to build up morale in the 
situation. 

Senator Curtis. And Eay Ma jerus, what were his duties I 

Mr. BuRKHART. Ray Majerus was an original Kohler worker, and a 
citizen of Sheboygan, and we felt that his presence would be of assist- 
ance in the strike because he knew so many people there, and his job 
was to talk to people and bolster spirits and that sort of thing. 

Senator Curtis. How long before the strike did you put him on the 
payroll? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, this was before my time in Sheboygan. I 
knoAv he was discharged by the Kohler Co. from the enamel shop in 
1952, and I remember seeing that there was an NLEB case on that. 
1 don't loiow exactly Avhen he was put on the payroll, and I think 
you will have to get that information from someone other than myself . 

Senator Curtis. It was before you came there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When did you come there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. September of 1953. 

Senator Curtis. 'N^'lien did the strike start ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. The strike started on April 5, 1954. 

Senator Curtis. And Majerus had been placed on the payroll some- 
time before you came there ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. He wasn't an organizer, was he ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. He wasn't an organizer ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I believe he did organizing work in Milwaukee, 
and I believe that the fact that the Universal Rundle Co. is now 
organized in the UAW is attributable, to a great extent, to Ray's 
efforts there. 

Senator Curtis. What were the duties of William A^inson, in con- 
nection with the strike ? 

Mr. Burkhart. William Vinson, his job was to be at the picket 
line, to talk to people in other places and tell them of the experiences 
of the Briggs local in collective bargaining, and to talk to people who 
did the type of work that he had done in the plant. 

Senator Cuifris. He didn't bring in a sound truck, did he ? 

Mr. Burkhart I don't know for sure. 

Senator Curtis. How many sound trucks did you have arrive 
there ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I believe there were 2 or 3. 

Senator Curtis. Two or three ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And they were all brought in from outside ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, later in the strike I believe that the local union 
itself purchased a sound truck, but the 2 or 3 I am talking about did 
come in from outside. I think 2 of them were from Michigan, and 
1 was from someplace — I think it belonged to the CIO council in Mil- 
waukee, and I am not certain of that. 

Senator Muxdt. I have been thinking about what you said about 
that picture. 



8632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKHART, Which picture, sir? 

Senator Mundt. The one that we saw, the motion picture, and 
you said it was a doctored picture. That could imply 1 of 2 things. 
It could imply that the person who prepared it took a scene here and 
a scene there, and took a scene some other day, and placed them to- 
gether, and showed a particular picture designed to convey, by whoever 
prepared it, what was considered to be the excesses in the strikej or it 
could mean that something was injected into the j)icture which did not 
actually occur in the picket line. Now, by doctoring the picture, what 
do you mean ? Do you mean there is something there that didn't take 
place on the picket line ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, let me put it this way: Since I have been 
here in Washington, if you had taken pictures of all of my actions 
and then you had clipped this to show me at the dinner table, you 
could get a picture which would show that I did nothing here but 
eat. This is also true of sleeping, or any other form of activity in 
which I might participate. This is what I meant by "doctored" ; that 
it was deliberately contrived to show something that was not true, 
and to create an impression which was not true. 

Senator Mundt. Well, the impression it conveyed to me was that 
this was a picture contrived to show that. No. 1, there was some vio- 
lence on th.e picket line, and, No. 2, that the picket line was so con- 
strued or devised that a fellow who wanted to work couldn't get in. 
I didn't get the reaction that this is something that went around the 
clock 24 hours a day. I recogTiized that they didn't show the full 
strike all of the way through. 

Mr. BuRKHART. It wasn't intended to show anything good about us. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is correct; and that is why I sug- 
gested to Mr. Rauh that if he had any pictures to show any good things 
about the strike, we would be glad to see them. I am sure we would. 

Mr, BuRKHART. There were some. 

Senator Mundt. It is not your testimony that there was anything 
injected into this picture which did not actually take place ? In other 
words, there wasn't a studio job done on it and stuck in? 

Mr. Burkhart. No ; I watched it, and I didn't detect anything of 
that nature, and it was merely that the things that were shown were put 
together in such a way as to create a false impression. 

Senator JSIundt. What we looked at were some of the excesses, and 
these did not occur around the clock on every day on the picket line. 

Mr. Burkhart. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. You also saw the pictures, I presume, of the shot- 

fim blasts at the homes, and the paint bombs and things of that 
ind? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes ; I did see those. 

Senator Mundt. Sitting in, as you did, at these meetings of the 
strike committee, and hearing the discussion on this rough stuff at 
people's homes, what was done by the union to stop that, by your 
group? 

Mr. Burkhart. You mentioned the shotgun blast as one item, sir. 

Senator Mundt. To the home ; yes. 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. I remember the time that happened. We 
were in bargaining with the company early in June, and for the first 
time we thought we had begun to see some movement on the part of the 



IMPRIOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8633 

company, and we were very hopeful. At that time we issued some 
press releases, that we were hopeful that maybe finally we could arrive 
at settlement of this thing and have the people go back to work again, 
even though the contract, obviously, would not be what we wanted. 

One night, one afternoon, we were meeting in the Grant Hotel 
at that time, we had just broken up the meeting for the day, and I 
had a call, and a fellow said, "I am from the Sheboygan Press." He 
identified himself, but I don't remember the name. He said, "I am 
a reporter. Is there any truth in the rumor that the Kohler Co. is 
going to break off negotiations with you tomorrow morning?" 

I said, "Not to my knowledge. It seems to me that we have made 
more progress in this particular period that we have at any time 
in the negotiations." 

It was that night that someone fired the shotgun blast through the 
window of this fellow Curtiss. The following morning, the company 
came in and didn't even open their briefcases. They said, "This is 
it. We are not negotiating under such conditions as these," and thej'' 
walked out. 

These incidents which occurred were a source of great embarrass- 
ment to we people who were sitting at the bargaining table, striving 
with all sincerity to attempt to negotiate a contract with this 
company. 

I don't know whether enemies of the labor movement did these 
tilings, whether these things were in some instances self-inflicted, 
whether they grew out of the 20 years of bad labor relations that 
permeated the whole atmosphere there in Sheboygan, or what caused 
it. I only know that we did our best to stop that sort of thing. 

I am not a violent person, myself. I never have been in my life. 
But if there is one thing I am violently opposed to, it is this sort of 
thing. I don't know what my future will be, or v.here I am going 
to be, or whether I am going to be in charge of a situation such as 
this again, but if I can do any more in my position to stop this sort 
of thing. Senator, I assure you I will do it. 

I have here a clipping from the Sheboygan Press, Thursday, July 
1, where we offered a reward. We offered a reward for the appre- 
hension of people who would do things of this sort. It seemed to 
me that this stuff intensified after the company offered indemnifica- 
tion to people. It seemed to me that this was almost an open invi- 
tation to people to inflict self-damage upon themselves. 

For example, if your house was pretty shabby and needed a coat 
of paint, what would be easier than to splash it with paint and then 
say to the Kohler Co., "My house was splashed with paint last night. 
I need a new paint job now." There were hoaxes up there that were 
deliberately contrived. 

I remember one involving a man by the name of Joyst, who it later 
was shown had fired a shotgun blast into his own barn and later 
blamed it on the union. This was proven up there. 

I personally issued many statements. I went on the radio on at 
least 20 different occasions and spoke out vigorously against this 
sort, of thing. If there was anything else I could have done — I is- 
sued press bulletins, I talked to the picket captains, I talked at mass 
meetings on this question. If there was anything more I could have 
done, I would have done it. 



8634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I have some transcripts of your radio addresse.- 
that I am going to discuss with you tomorrow. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I do not have transcripts of them. 

Senator Mundt. They are transcripts of his radio talks. I know 
he was on the radio. 

This purports to be a transcript, and I want to find out from you 
tomorrow whether or not you said what you said, and what it means 
or implies to me. Of course, I know nothing about who shot the 
shotguns. 

An interesting hypothesis that can develop is that maybe Mr. 
Kohler took one of those shotguns out and shot the shotgun through 
an employee's window. I do not know. You have no evidence to 
support that other tlian the theory, have you ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I certainly wouldn't believe that myself. 

Senator Mundt. I was curious to know wliat the attitude of the 
union was in connection witli these so-called home demonstrations, 
with acts of vandalism, and what you did to stop them. 

You did mention that you offered a reward where people sliot off 
shotguns in that particular case. What did you do about the home 
demonstrations ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Did you ask me a question, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

The Chairman. May the Cliair interrupt I 

I do not think it is possible to conc1u(U> with this witness this 
afternoon. I guess there are other questions from other members. 

Senator Goldwater. Yes, sir; I have quite a few. 

The Chairman. I thought before you opened up another subject 
and got started, we would come back tomorrow. 

Senator Mundt. The witness did not get the question anyhow, so 
we can start over fresh tomorrow. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. 

(Thereupon, at 4: 55 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a. m., Tuesday, March 4, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1958 

United States Sexate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, 
Xorth Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Sena- 
tor Bariy Goldwater, Republican, Arizona ; Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Ne- 
braska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J, McGovem, assistant counsel; 
Margaret W. Duckett, assistant chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Burkhart, will you resume the witness stand, 
please. 

Senator Mundt, I believe you were interrogating the witness when 
we adjourned yesterday. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT BURKHART— Resumed 

Senator Mundt. I think there was an unanswered question on 
which we concluded the hearing last evening. Do you have a copy of 
the proceedings ? 

The Chairman. You were about to go into another phase of it, I 
think. 

Senator Mundt. The witness didn't get the question, and I have 
forgotten what the question was. 

Mr. Burkhardt, I liad asked you the question, which you didn't get. 
I said I was curious to know what the attitude of the union Avas in 
connection witli the so-called home demonstrations involving acts of 
vandalism, and what you did to stop them. 

8635 



8636 IMPROPEiR ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You did mention that you oflered a reward where people shot off 
shotguns in that particular case, in which you had developed the in- 
teresting hypothesis which you described yesterday. 

Wliat did you do about the home demonstrations? That was the 
question. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I have not had the advantage of seeing what the 
transcript says. I am just continuing from where I w^as yesterday. 

Now that you reread the question, the question is vandalism con- 
nected with home demonstrations, and Senator, there was no vandalism 
connected with home demonstrations. 

Senator Mundt. Maybe we are using words which don't mean the 
same to each of us. I thought that the home demonstration involved 
an act of vandalism, and maybe these were separate incidents, and 
maybe a home demonstration was simply where people marched 
around the home and shouted "scab" at the fellow when he came back 
from work or something of that kind. 

We discussed that, and so we don't need to go into that phase of it. 
I was interested now in the part where there were paint bombings, and 
pictures of paint on the rugs, where there were broken windows, and 
one young man came in and said he had been stoned when he was carry- 
ing six men to work. And there was a picture of the automobile w^here 
somebody had thrown a rock or a sharp hard instrument and shattered 
the glass. 

There were acts of that kind, where there was property destruction. 
Apparently it was not against the company, but against the non- 
strikers. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Now you are interested in vandalism rather than the 
home demonstration at the moment. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Our attitude was in complete opposition to any such 
tactics as those. But the thing that you have to remember. Senator, 
is that no one on the union side connected with the situation has ever 
been found guilty of any of these things. 

What we did to stop it was to issue statements to the public press, 
statements in the strike bulletin, and we talked on the radio concerning 
these matters, and in each mstance we took the position that when the 
perpetrators of these outrages were found, they would be found to be 
people unfriendly to the labor movement, people attempting to harm 
us in our collective bargaining. 

We couldn't say that with any certainty of course because we didn't 
know. What we did know was that in the city of Sheboygan we had 
not made a situation, and we had inherited hatreds which went back 
over 20 years. 

It would be impossible for us to know who would do these things, 
whether they were ancient grudges, or whether they were something 
which came out of this situation. 

I tried to express to you yesterday that there was a possibility that 
some of these tilings were self-inflicted. They came to a peak immed- 
iately after the company offered indemnification of these people. 

I believe I made quite clear, or I attempted to at least, what our 
position was on this matter. 

Senator Mundt. Now your testimony in general was that you did 
nothing to incite violence, and nothing to encourage violence, and you 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8637 

could not be responsible for incidental examples of violence because 
nobody was pointed out who did it, and it was unable to determine 
whether it was done by your friends or your enemies. 

Mr. BuRKHARDT. Yes ; that is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Of the 15 men who were imported into Wisconsin, 
or who came into Wisconsin or who are representatives of the inter- 
national union in one way or another, would you identify those who 
were in charge of the rough stuff, those whose responsibility it was 
to do whatever roughing up had to be done on the picket lines, or 
elsewhere ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I couldn't do that, sir, because no one had any such 
responsibilities. 

Senator Mundt. Let us put it another way. Did any of them by 
their actions indicate that that was their assigimient in Sheboygan? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. To your knowledge, none of these 15 were ever 
involved in any rough stuff? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I believe there were a couple of incidents, but they 
w^ere certainly not directed by our organization. 

Senator Mundt. Well, would you name whatever international rep- 
resentatives were involved in incidents, then ? Let us put it that way, 
to the best of your knowledge. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I 

Senator Mundt. One of them went to jail, and one is a refugee 
from justice; so it isn't any great secret, but I thought we ought to 
have it in the record. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I know of these things, and I was not present wlien 
these things occurred. 

Senator Mundt. I am certainly not trying to involve you as being 
responsible for them as a man, Mr. Burkhart. You don't look like 
a rough-stuff guy to me, and I don't think that you would engage in 
it, and I have no evidence or belief that you did, but we are trying 
to establish the record here. 

You were the man in charge, subject to four people who outranked 
you ; and so, as the man in charge subject to the four people who out- 
ranked you, I ask you the question as to which members of your team, 
daspite your own individual desires not to have violence, did get in- 
volved in rough stuff to the extent at least that they were hauled into 
court ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Mr. Vinson was convicted of an incident, and paid 
the penalty for it. 

Senator Mundt. And 

Mr. Burkhart. Mr. Gunaca, I understand, at the present time, is 
under — I am not familiar with legal terms — under indictment, I be- 
lieve the term is, in the State of Wisconsin. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Do you want to add something after your counsel 
talked to you ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I was merely going to say that under our 
American system of jurisprudence a man is innocent until he is proven 
guilty. 

Senator Mundt. Our American system of jurisprudence, I think 
the counsel will advise you, also has a tactic called extradition; so 



8638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

that, as long as you want to get into that, had Mr. Giinaca ever been 
extradited ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Not to my knowledge, sir. These proceedings have 
been taking place since I have been disconnected from the Sheboygan 
scene. 

Senator Mundt. AVliy has he not been extradited, and the eJffort has 
been made by the Wisconsin authorities many times and what 
happened ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I am not in a position to give you that answer, sir. 

Mr. Eaugh. Senator Mundt, I handled that case ; and, if yon w^ould 
be interested in the facts on it, I would be happy to state them. 

Senator Mundt. We are going to go into that in detail a little later, 
and I was just trying to establish this phase of the situation at this 
time. 

Mr. Burkhart, you talked yesterday about the fact you were on the 
radio. You referred to something that you had said. 

Did the union have a regular program of broadcasts in Sheboygan 
during the strike or during part of the strike? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes; at one time. I don't know what the situation 
is now, but at one time we had a nightly radio program. 

Senator Mundt. Were you in charge of that ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Our publicity department handled that. 

Senator Mundt. Was that Mr. Wallich ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I believe it has been under the general direction of 
several people, and Mr. Wallich did handle it at one time. 

Senator Mundt. I have forgotten whether Mr. Wallich was a 
Detroit representative or whether he was a local man. 

Mr. Burkhart. He was from Milwaukee. 

Senator Mundt. He was from Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Working out of the Detroit office ? 

Mr. Burkhart. No ; out of the Milwaukee office. 

Senator Mundt. Well, what relationship did the Milwaukee office 
have to Kohler ? 

Mr. Burkhart. The regional office is in Milwaukee, which covers 
the States of Wisconsin and your home State, incidentally, and several 
others. 

Senator Mundt. We don't have many strikes, and we don't want 
these strikes, and we are doing all right out in South Dakota at the 
moment. 

Mr. Burkhart. You don't have as much industry up there, as I 
understand. 

Senator Mundt. What we have is doing pretty well, and we don't 
want it to get into any trouble with any strikes. 

Mr. Burkpiart. I hope you have none. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Who financed these broadcasts, and was this a public-service broad- 
cast on the part of the station ? 

Mr. Burkhart. No, sir ; it was not. 

Senator Mundt. Was it financed by the Detroit international or by 
the strikers' funds ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I never got involved in the finances of the situation 
in any way, but it is my understanding that the money came from the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8639 

Detroit office, in the final analysis, and it miglit have come from the 
Milwaukee office, and I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Well, both would be offices outside of the local 
luiion, at least, to put it that way, and it came from some outside 
union source other than the local union, I presume, and I understand 
the local union was relatively new and probably did not have any 
great amount of resources. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't know the technicalities of exactly how it 
was sponsored, but I don't believe that at that time the local union 
would have been in a financial position to have financed it. 

Senator Mundt. Xo, I would doubt that. I want to ask you a few 
questions about the broadcasts, Mr. Burkhart, at least your part in 
them, because you told us yesterday that you did everything you could 
to discourage violence, and you said you are not a violent person, and 
I think that that is correct, except you said you were violently opposed 
to violence and you look like you are not a violent person. 

But I want to read you these transcripts, and you are under oath, 
and so any time you want to say "I did not say it," I am willing to 
accept your word, and waive that question until such time as we play 
the tapes if you want us to play the tapes, and all I know is this is 
supposed to be a factual transcript of the tapes, and the tapes are 
available, and you have a right certainly to ask that they be played to 
correct some statement which might not appear properly in this tran- 
script. 

Mr. Burkhart. May I ask a question concerning the tapes ? 

I would like to know if these are the tapes which the company took 
of radio broadcasts and then transcribed. 

Sneator Muxdt. I would not be able to tell you, and I don't know. 
All I know is that I have available tapes which are supposed to be 
the tapes of the broadcasts over station WHBL. 

Mr. Burkhart. We do not have those. Wlien you told me yester- 
day that you were going to ask me questions about them, inasmuch 
as I spoke on the radio on a number of occasions, I wanted to have 
the opportunity myself to hear them. 

We do not have them available. 

Senator Mundt. As I say, as I ask you these questions, if some- 
thing appears as a quotation from you which you imder oath want 
to say "I did not say that," we will just jump over that question, and 
we will try to get the tapes played in the connnittee room, so we can 
find out then whether your version is correct or whether this is correct. 

I am going to assume that this version is correct, except where you 
tell me that you did not say so, and I think that is fair enough. You 
did broadcast over WHBL? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Was 6 : 30 p. m. the time that your broadcast came 
on ? 

]Mr. Bu-rkhart. I think that is right, immediately after the Rosary 
Hour, I remember. 

Senator Mundt. The affiant deposes not on that question. I hold 
in my hand what purports to be a transcription of a broadcast in 
which you spoke on May 9, 1954. You were in Sheboygan on May 
9, 19.54? 

^Ir. Burkhart. Yes, sir ; I was there, and I was trying to place in 
my mind the events of that period. 



8640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I will quote a paragraph. Mr. Burkhart, you 
were introduced on that occasion by another speaker who had gone 
ahead, to help you put this in its proper framework, as I understand 
it, this was a transcription that the union had played over station 
WHBL of the tape that they had taken at a union meeting, which was 
a ddressed by you. Was there such a program ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I spoke at a number of meetings, and on occasion 
my remarks at the meeting were transcribed. And I believe played 
back on the radio station, and I could not give you the complete 
answer. 

Senator Mundt. That is what this sounds to be, and so I am just 
trying to help you locate the place, and Frank Wallich began the 
program, and tells about the meeting that you had, and that you 
spoke, and that the Kohler family was there singing and so forth, and 
he said, "You will now hear by tape recording your Kohler family 
singing the favorite union song, Solidarity Forever, and immediately 
afterward you will hear the voice of Bob Burkhart reporting to the 
membership this afternoon on the negotiations last Friday." 

That may help you get the framework. 

Then you go ahead and say : 

There have been thousands and thousands of photographs and Kenny Nitchie 
was taking some pictures at gate 1, and Kenny Nitchie saw a Kohler photogra- 
pher taking pictures and had a little argument. 

Then you go ahead and say : 

Now we recognize as American citizens that the law is supposed to be for 
rich and poor alike, for high and low alike, employer and employee alike, but 
the Kohler Co. does not look upon the law as a written statement of what we 
consider justice in our society. 

They look upon the law as a tool or as an instrument and in this particular 
instance they have done that again. They have used the WERB recommenda- 
tion, and our voluntary compliance with it as merely a can opener to pry off the 
lid of our union solidarity in this strike, and to let in a few germs which would 
pollute that solidarity. 

The type of germs that I saw go into the plant the other day, in my estimation, 
are not going to pollute the solidarity of our strike. 

Was that your pet name for the strikers, Mr. Burkhart, to call them 
germs ? 

Mr. Burkhart. No, sir; this is not my pet name for them, and I 
would not say that I did not call them that on that particular occasion, 
and I know of no other occasion during the strike when I used that 
term, and so it could hardly be a pet word. 

Senator Mundt. Looking backward as a man of peace, don't you 
think that some other term might have been a little bit more con- 
ducive to good will and happy feeling in Sheboygan and the mainte- 
nance of peace than to talk about these people who were trying to sup- 
port their families by going to work, different from you as to the 
way they should work, that is an American privilege, iDut don't you 
think that "germs" was a little harsh term to use and wouldn't you 
rather looking backward have said something else now ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, Senator Mundt, the term was an analogy, and 
I did not mean they were actually germs, but I was referring to the 
solidarity of the organization as a body in itself, and that these were 
people who were there to destroy that solidarity. 

I might have said parasites, or I might have used some other term, 
and I don't know. When you are speaking in front of a mass meet- 



IMPRiOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8641 

ing you are carried away, and I don't speak from written text, and 
I never liave. I try to speak from the cuff, and say what is in my 
mind. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Mundt, Kennedy, Goldwater and Curtis.) 

Senator MuNm\ Yes. I read your speech with interest. I used 
to have a little business in the speech held. I conuuend you on your 
phraseology. I don't like vour choice of words very well, but I think 
you are a pretty good speaker. 

I think you did quite a job on these fellows and spoke quite ef- 
fectively. You have good synthesis, balance, and your speech goes 
some place. I like that in a speaker. But we get back to the use of 
the term "germs."' I am sure you didn't intend to designate them as 
microbes. But that is a pretty harsh term for a man of peace to be 
using, trying to do two things at one time, keep the people with a 
feeling of solidarity, and keep them from being stirred up so that a 
hot-headed individual throws a stink bomb in a house or gets into 
some other altercation. I am wondering if looking back on it, seeing 
it in print, if speaking extemporaneously you couldn't have found a 
better term to describe the fellows who were trying to support their 
families. 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I am sure you can understand the paradox of my 
situation at that time, that we did have a job of maintaining solidar- 
ity among our own people, and to show^ them that we w^ere militantly 
supporting their point of view. Yet on the other hand, we did not 
urge them to any violence or any vandalism. You are taking one 
statement there out of context of a rather lengthy speech. 

Senator Muxdt. I am coming to some more statements. 

Mr. BiTtKiiART. Probably so. It is also true that this is one state- 
ment that was made during the strike. Many statements were made. 

I think it is difficult to take one sentence that a man said in a mo- 
ment of heat and then divorce it entirely from many other things that 
were said, and the attitude, and the manner which it was said, and 
the associations which I had with the people in the commimity. I 
will tell you very frankly that it is difficult for me, with a background 
of working in a factory since I was 18 years old, to feel kindly toward 
people who walked through a picket line, 

St-nator Muxdt. Just as one good ordinary American to another, 
Mr. Hurkhart, can't you imagine that the other fellow had a little 
difficulty feeling kindly, too, if he was one of the two-thirds of the 
workers at Kohler who didn't vote to strike. He had been going 
along woi'king at a place, and there was a vote to strike, a strike vote 
was held, and he was locked out of his job. His income was reduced. 
Don't you think maybe some of those fellow^s had some justification 
for thinking unkindly about what they thought these big city boys 
from Detroit were coming in and messing up things for them ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. If they thought the big city boys from Detroit 
had come in and messed this up for them, they were not reflecting 
the overwhelming sentiment of the people in Sheboygan County at 
that time. 

Senator Ml'xdt. I am talking about the hundred percent of the 
people tluit worked in the plant, only 331/^ percent of whom had voted 
to strike, so tliat we don't know what the other fellows did. You 



8642 IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

said they would have voted to strike if they had stayed there. Maybe 
that is true and maybe that is not true. 

Mr. BuRKHiVRT. I didn't say that. I think some previous witness 
said that. 

Senator Mundt. I beg your pardon. 

"Well, that is a ^ess, and the guess may be right. But at least 
for the record, a third of the people who worked there voted to strike. 
The others either did not vote at all or voted against it. 

So as a consequence, I am asking you as one American to another, 
and you say that some of these fellows on the picket line got to feeling 
]n'etty bitter. I can understand that. But I am w^ondering about 
the fellow who is locked out, who goes to work some morning, who 
had a good job, who had a place to live, a good income, the door is 
closed, and the picket lines are moving back and forth. 

He tries to get in, but gets pushed back. He might get to feeling 
kind of bitter, too, especially after he turns on his radio after the 
Holy Kosary Hour and hears himself called a germ. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Senator, you have asked me at least a half dozen 
questions there. 

Senator Mundt. Pick out any one you want to answer, 

Mr. BtJRKHART. I certainly would like the opportunity of debating 
this matter with you in front of some other forum at some other time. 
But I am here, of course, to answer questions. As one American to 
another, I intend to do so to the best of my ability. 

To begin with, one of the fine things about democracy is that you 
cannot force anybody to vote. There are many people who disen- 
franchise themselves. I know that in our elections which we have, 
our parliamentary elections, many a man comes to Congress or to the 
Senate without the support of a majority of the people of his con- 
stituency. 

Many people disenfranchise themselves. I don't know how in a 
democratic society w^e could say to people "You absolutely must vote." 
You simply cannot do that. The method that we attempt to use in 
our union 

Senator Mundt. We are not quarreling about the fact that the vote 
was held, that a vote was cast in the majority. "We are not arguing 
about that. A third of the people in the plant voted, and of those 
who voted, a vast majority voted to strike. I am just asking you the 
question whether you do not concede that w^iile the man that voted 
to strike might have a sense of bitterness against the fellow who wanted 
to work, whether you didn't also feel that the man wdio wanted to 
work and did not vote to strike could have an equal sense of bitternCvSS 
against the fellow^ who denies him his job. 

That is the question. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, the answer to the question is that it would be 
foolish for me to sit here and say that — you don't want me to use the 
term "germ." I suppose you don't want me to use the term "scab,'* 
either, but it is common in trade-union movements. 

Senator Mundt. "Scab," I think, is a common accejjted term. 

Mr. BuRKHART. It is in Webster's dictionary. But they do definitely 
have a bitterness toward other people. I would be amazed if they 
didn't have. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is quite understandable 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8643 

Mr. BuRKHART. I would like to point out that, while you say only 
one-third of the people voted to strike, that only one-thirty-third 
voted not to strike. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is right. A lot of people didn't get to 
vote at all. You told nie you examined the badges and just about half 
of the people were eligible to vote at all. 

Some of them that didn't belong to the union — whatever percentage 
that was, the figures speak for themselves — of course, they didn't get 
a chance to vote. 

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

Mr. BuRKHART. I would like to point out that the Kohler situation 
is probably one of the outstanding examples in America that the open 
shop is not a panacea for trouble with labor-management relations, 
because here they had an open shop, and there has been trouble there 
from time immemorial, almost. 

Senator Mundt. They didn't have an open shop in the polling place, 
did they ? You told me that they examined the union card and you 
had to be a union member to get in, I thought. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Certainly. 

Senator Mundt. There wasn't any open shop in the polling place. 
You are not trying to tell me that. 

Mr. BuRKHART. No. I am talking about the overall situation in 
Kohler, that the open shop was not a panacea there. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure the open shop is not a panacea any- 
wdiere. You have problems involved in all kinds of labor-management 
relations. Then you went on to say : 

What hurt the negotiations? The thing that hurt the negotiations was that 
on Tliursday a handful of people went into the plant. They were people who 
were too cowardly to try to enter the x>lant when we were conducting our picket 
line otherwise than what we have been. 

Wliat was the connotation of that sentence? 

Mr. BuRKHART. There, again, it is a sentence out of context of 
what went on either side of it. 

Senator Mundt. Your position was that the men who did not walk 
in the picket line were cowards, and that those who walked in the 
picket line were heroes ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I think there is something heroic about going on a 
picket line in front of the Kohler plant where people were murdered 
in 1934. I think it took real courage and nerve to do that. 

Senator Mundt. Nobody got shot at this time, did they ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. I can tell you that on the morning of April 5 
when I walked out there, when I left home that morning, I didn't 
know whetlier I was coming back or not, and I don't think anybody 
on tliat picket line knew whether they were coming back or not. 

Senator Mundt. That is true about all of us. I will grant that. 
The question was. Did anybody shoot at you in 1953 or 1954 ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No. We had turned the white spotlight of pub- 
licitv on the companv preparations and there wasn't any shooting, 
thank God, in 195-1. 

Senator Mundt. So the heroics were on the part of the men who 
fought the battle in 1934 rather than the men in 1954. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I tliink we build on their heroics. 

Senator Mundt. (I'eading) : 

Now the total of those people — 



8644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and you are talking about a few more people around Sheboygan who 
worked at Kohler and who didn't work at Kohler who came to the 
gates. This must have been a gathering during a truce period, when, 
apparently, your picket line wasn't wholly operative. 

Now the total of these people is extremely small. It is a minute minority in 
comparison to the great mass of Kohler workers, but those are the people who 
are directly responsible for the failure of negotiations in the Grand Hotel ; and 
those are the people that should have that stigma attached to them in this 
community for the rest of their lives — 

that is a long time, by the way — 

because they are the ones who are prolonging this strike, and anything that 
happens to those people will — and I am not saying this as any plea to violence 
against them in any sense of the word — but anything that happens to them as 
being accursed from now on out, if I can use such a term as that, certainly they 
have got to live with it. They have made their bed and they have got to lie 
in it. 

Now, we know who they are. We have taken pictures of them. We have 
taken down the license plate numbers, we have made notes of what their names 
are, and just like anything else in life, every action has a reaction. You cannot 
do anything in this life but that something happens in consequence for your 
actions and those people should not go without those consequences. 

As a man of peace, what do you denote by that ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I do remember those statements. There are, ob- 
viously, several thoughts contained there. One of these at the begin- 
ning — it slips my mind at the moment — I Avonder if you could give me 
the first sentence of that again. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Mr. BuRKHART. I am talking about where you started reading. 

Senator Mundt. "Now the total of people is extremely small." 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes. That refreshes my memory. We had been 
in negotiations with the company during this so-called truce period, 
and the company came in and sat there and listened to us plead for a 
settlement of the situation. They made absolutely no movement what- 
soever. Finally Mr. Conger told us in practically these words, that 
he was not interested in being there to bargain. He was interested 
in how many people were going to go into the plant the following 
Monday morning. So it was not only I that said that these people 
were detrimental to the negotiations, but in the mouth of Mr. Conger, 
in another context, of course, were the same words, that he was in- 
terested in how many people were going to go into the plant on Mon- 
day morning. 

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

Mr. BuRKART. To continue, when I was a senior in high school in 
Toledo, there was a strike at Toledo, at the Auto-Lite. Toledo 
was one of the birthplaces of industrial unionism, as you probably 
know. During that strike, a number of people went through the picket 
line. I knew very little about this, excepting what I read in the news- 
paper, being a high school boy at the time. But the stigma of going 
through the Auto-Lite picket line had lived with these people down 
through the years, and I knew that this was a consequence of such 
action. Not only was I talking to the strikers themselves, but I knew 
that my voice would eventually be heard by some of these people, and 
I wanted them not to do this thing, which would bring a stigma upon 
them. There were people, and you will probably hear from them later, 
on the very strike coimnittee in this strike who, in 1934, had gone 



IMPRIOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8645 

through the picket line. They were scabs in 1934 ; they were strikers 
in 1954. 

It took them a generation to learn the lesson of working together 
with their fellow men. I don't know what is going to happen now. 
I don't know what will happen in 1974. But I think it is distinctly 
possible that some of those people sitting back there in this room 
will be leaders of a new union movement at that time. I know the 
Kohler Co. 

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

Senator Mundt. Then you go on a couple of paragraphs later, and 
you say "in my home community" — is that Toledo, your home com- 
munity, or Sheboygan ? 

Mr. BuRKART. I graduated from high school in Toledo. I was on 
relief in Toledo. I was an NYA school policeman in Toledo. I 
would say if I had a hometown after these years, I would consider 
it Toledo. 

Senator Mundt. A little later — and I think this refers to your newer 
home in Sheboygan, because I notice the term "Sheybogan County," 

in my home community it isn't necessary to have a picliet line around the plant, 
not 35 pickets, not 6 pickets. We usually station 1 or 2 guys out there and 
sometimes, as I said before on other occasions, we merely put a sign on the gate. 
I predict to you that the time is coming in Sheboygan County, after these people 
learn the lesson they have coming to them, that it will not longer be necessary 
for us to have large picket lines either. They will have learned their lesson 
and will have learned it well. 

That, to me, was a kind of startling statement. I don't know just 
what you are threatening them with, or what you meant. If you 
have some good, plausible explanation, I would like to hear it. But 
when I read it I was kind of disturbed. It seems to me that this 
involved some kind of a threat or intimidation or something. You 
said, "These people will learn their lesson and learn it well." 

Mr. BuRKHAKT. I wanted to make it clear that there was a lesson 
to be learned, and the lesson that we have said again and again here 
was the lesson of social ostracism against people who do the type of 
things that these people were doing. There was no indication there, 
nor did I ever say at any time, that we wanted any physical violence 
against these people, or anything of that sort. But we did want the 
community to scorn these people. It certainly is not, in realty, neces- 
sary for me to say that. I wish these hearings could be conducted in 
the city of Sheboygan, so that it would not be a question of prepared 
witnesses sitting here and talking to you Senators. But some of the 
ordinary people of Sheboygan could come here and be able to talk. 
Then you will find what they actually think. 

Senator Mundt. On that point, this committee will be very happy 
to hear any witnesses you think should be brought in from Sheboygan. 
We are just looking for the facts. We are trying to get the informa- 
tion. If there are witnesses who have testimony to tell on either side, 
we will hear them. It isn't necessary for us to go to Sheboygan. They 
can come here if they want to be heard. We are calling in those that 
we think should be heard, but certainly you, as well as the nonstrikers, 
have a right to ask us to hear some witness who has some firsthand 
information to report. 

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

21243—58 — pt. 21 21 



8646 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Muxirr. Now you <>o on and point out a little later that 
"The major portion of tliis job" — apparently as I gather it this speech 
must have been given at a time when you had a truce, and men were 
going into the plant for the while, and you had called off the truce, 
and negotiations had broken down, and you were going to reestab- 
lisli the picket line, as I understand the context of this meeting. 

The company has violated its agreement, you say, and they must 
face tlie consequences, and — 

We will now go on, as far as I am concerned, and reestablish what we consider 
legal picketing under the law. The major portion of this job must fall on your 
shoulders — 

talking to the workers. 

Now what I mean by this is that you must use every means you can in talk- 
ing to your neighbors, calling people on the phone that you know have gone into 
the plant — I don't care how many times you call them. You can use what lan- 
guage comes to your mind. I would advise you not to threaten or coerce any- 
body or anything like that, but I would say to you that you should use expres- 
sive language in asking these people to stay away from the plant. 

I guess that is the paradox you were trying to work on, and you 
were doing a pretty job, of staying on both sides of the fence at that 
stage of the ^ame. I think you were trying to get your idea across 
without exciting them to violence, as far as that phrase is concerned. 

Now, we have given these people an opportunity to show if they ai-e the 
majority. They have proved themselves to be an infinitesimal minority. They 
no longer can masquerade or parade in front of the Sheboygan public as any 
major section of the Kohler workers. Knowing that, as all of us know it at 
the present time, let's do everything we can to keep them away from the plant 
before they get to the picket line. As for the smaller number of them who would 
have even— 

I think you left out a word — 

as for the smaller number of them who would have even courage enough — and 
I hate to use a decent word like courage in this respect — to come to the picket 
line in spite of the fact that they know the picket lines will be fully manned, as 
for them, they are going to have to take their chances when they get there. 

Just how was that going to avert a showdown of force on the picket 
line, when you announced on the radio and to your strike team at the 
meeting that those who had the courage — although you hated to use 
that word "courage," and that you didn't find a good synonym for it 
at the moment ; so you stuck with it — that those who came to the picket 
line in spite of all the eiforts to keep them at home, by the telephone 
calls, by the expressive language and so forth, in spite of the fact that 
they know the ])icket line will be fully manned, as for them they are 
going to have to take their chances when they get there. 

"VVliat do you mean by that? They didn't have much cliance of 
getting through the picket line. That couldn't have been Avhat you 
meant. 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, these people who came across the street — and 
in watching tlie movies I heard the company's narrator speaking at 
the time, pointing out that there were nonstrikers across the street, 
which was not a true statement, of course. There were many spec- 
tators gathered on the other side of the street. 

Senator Mundt. Why would spectators be walking up against the 
picket line just to get shoved around, if they didn't want to go to 
work? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 861:7 

Mr. BuKKiiART. I didn't say that. I said they were across the 
street. 

Senator Mundt. We saw some people coming across tlie street, and 
walking up to the picket line and getting jostled back. Is it your 
testimony that those people were not nonstrikers, but just spectators? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I think those people in the main were nonstrikers. 

Senator Mundt. I think what you are trying to tell me is that all 
of the people on the other side of the street were not nonstrikers, that 
there were some spectators and other people there, but you are not 
trying to tell me that the people that we saAV marching across the 
street trying to get through the picket line were just nonworkers, 
and nonstrikers, just for a thrill. 

Am I riglit ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. There was a small handful of them that did come 
across the street on several occasions. 

Senator IMitndt. Those are the ones I am concerned about, and not 
the s})ectators. Is that your explanation of what you had to mean 
when you are saying that "they are going to have to take their chances: 
when they get there" ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Tlie fact remains that no one has been hurt or 
injured on the picket line itself. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I don't know. This fellow that had stitches 
in his eye, somebody might say he was hurt. There might be a different 
definition of terms on that. 

Mr. BuRKHART. If you will recall, I told you about that incident 
yesterday. It did not occur on the picket line or when anybody came 
across the street. 

Senator Mundt. I remember the interesting hypothesis you de- 
veloped, that here was a striker and nonstriker slugging it out with 
each other, but the strike had nothing to do with it, that they had a 
quarrel going back to when they were shooting marbles. 

Mr. BuEKHART. This is not a hypothesis. This was a case in court. 

Senator Mundt. Let me be sure I get that. Do you mean this 
particular altercation was tried out in court and that the court held 
that the strike situation was not involved in the fight ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't remember 

Senator Mundt. If that is correct, that should be in the record. 
That will throw a different light on it. Is that what it is ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. May I answer ? 

Senator Mundt, Surely. 

Mr. BuRKHART. The altercation that occurred, occurred after I 
had on previous days stepped in between these 2 fellows, on 2 different 
occasions. They had been bitter enemies and had gone back for some 
years. When they did get into fight, my understanding of it was 
that the nonstriker swung and nussed and the picket swung and didn't 
miss. The thing was tried. I think they both preferred charges 
against each other. It is dim in my memory now, just what the results 
were. We had been talking about people coming across the street 
to the picket line. This incident, if I had been on the scene at the 
time, I assure you that I would have been in between them again. 

Senator Mundt. You have the permission of the committee, as far 
as I am concerned, Mr. Burkhart, to bolster your remarks by inserting 
at this point the findings of the court on this. I didn't knoAv what 



8648 IMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

it was. I think this is not a debatable subject. If the court made a 
decision, we have to assume that the court was right. If you can put 
that in at this point, that is pertinent testimony, and that will elimi- 
nate for all time to come any further speculation as to whether the 
fellow got his eye hit. 

Mr. BtjRKHART. He got his eye hit. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have that? Do you want to put that in, 
and firm it up in your memory so that you think that court record will 
be helpful to you ? 

I don't want you to put something in to refute your own statement. 
We could put that in from this side of the table. 

Mr, Bttrkhaet. I am not worried about it, Senator, one way or an- 
other. I really don't think it is a matter which is of great considera- 
tion here one way or another. 

Senator Mundt. At least let the record show that you have the 
opportunity to put the court record in at this point if you want to, 
so far as the findings of the court are concerned. 

You see, what disturbs me, and you and I have both given enough 
speeches to know what the audience hears is not what the speaker 
says, and you are talking to people in a rather exciting situation, in 
an emotion-packed situation. I can see how you would get up and say, 
with your great oratorical prowess, that people who are going to go 
there are going to have to take their chances when you get there, with 
gestures, facial expressions and everytliing. 

Some poor fellow on the picket line may misinterpret that. 

He may say "I know what the boss meant from Detroit. If any 
fellow comes near me, he is going to get it." 

Mr. BuRKHART. I am not a boss man from Detroit. 

Senator Mundt. Well, a friendly neighbor, recently moved to She- 
boygan. Whatever the position; a representative for men to move 
from the top. In other words, you were giving the speeches, and you 
were representing the international union and paid by the interna- 
tional union. So we will eliminate all descriptive language and con- 
fine it that way. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Senator, the descriptive language that I used at 
that time, I think, fades into insignificance when I recall some of the 
descriptive language that has been used against our union which Sen- 
ators themselves have used. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know. At least I have never used any de- 
scriptive language against your union, but I have been the recipient 
of some very descriptive language by your union, if you want to get 
into that. One of these days I am also going to start talking. Up to 
now I have been playing baseball on the basis of catching. If you 
boys keep pitching long enough, we will tlirow this both ways. Up to 
now I have used no descriptive language on your union, on you, or 
your leaders. 

Mr. BuRKHART. In the heat of debate, I think that many things are 
said. You may call a man a worm or something like that. You don't 
mean that he actually is one. This is a descriptive term which comes 
to mind at the moment that you are speaking. 

Senator Mundt. And the man who uses these terms, uses them to 
create a feeling on the part of the audience. Of course, he doesn't 
expect to have the man disappear and come up a worm. But he is 



IMFBOPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8649 

trying to set up in the mind of tlie audience an attitude so that he is 
going to look with some greater contempt on the individual involved. 
Mr. BuRKHART. So when you take all of these things together, and 
then summarize them by saying that the men who go to the picket 
line are going to have to take their chances when they get there, I am 
not saying that you were trying to excite violence or anything. You 
look to me to be a peaceful man, and I think you are. But when you 

five it in that kind of environment, I can see easily enough how home 
emonstrations could stem from that kind of a statement. I could 
see how excesses could take place on the picket line. I agree with you, 
they apparently have been gratifyingly few in number. But I can see 
also how they lead to these more devastating crimes where murder 
is committed and a man went to jail for breaking a man's neck. 

Simply because he had not been extradited from the State of Michi- 
gan does not erase the crime. 

So some of these things get out of hand, not because of what you 
are saying, but because you create an atmosphere in an environment 
by making statements of that kind. 

Senator, the environment and atmosphere was in Sheboygan 
long before the auto workers ever came to town. Senator. A 
moment ago we were talking of descriptive language. I think 
this is descriptive language that you were using. I am not a mur- 
derer. 

Senator Mundt. No, let's get the record straight. I am not accus- 
ing you, Mr. Burkhart, in any way, shape, or form, on the basis of 
any evidence I have heard or seen, of having anything to do with 
the man who was murdered, who had his neck broken. 

Mr. Burkhart. There was no murder in the situation in 1954, in 
1934 there was. 

Senator Mundt. Well, the courts kind of disagree with you on the 
1954 thing, and they seem to feel when you break a man's neck and 
he dies, that is murder. 

Mr. Burkhart. I think you probably should have before you the 
coroner's report. 

Senator Mundt. That is not you, I am talking about the situation 
that is involved. 

Mr. Burkhart. I did not want someone incited to strike me out in 
the hall, because it seems that things that you say may affect someone 
else. 

Senator Mundt. As far as this particular Senator knows, there are 
no allegations against you, to say nothing of murder, or either of 
violence. In your connection with fisticuffs, as far as I know on two 
different occasions, you tried to stop them. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the chairman on this par- 
ticular point. A shocking distortion has been made by Senator 
Mundt. There was no death resulting from this strike, and the sug- 
gestion put in this record is an evidence of bias on his part, and I 
appeal that we now have a chance to straio-hten out this very problem, 
instead of having to wait here while this unfair charge against a 
union which sought to keep the peace is rebutted. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. A Senator, a member of the com- 
mittee, has the right of course to his own views and to interrogate 
witnesses according to his own judgment with respect to questions 



8650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

necessary to bring out the facts in which he is interested. As I under- 
stand the controversy now, Senator Mundt in his questioning has 
assumed that somebody died as a result of violence in this strike. Is 
that correct, Senator ? 

Senator Mi xdt. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I was asking a question. 

The Chairman. As I understood this matter, you have assumed that 
somebody died as a result of violence. 

Senator Mundt. Let me say, I am not talking of murder in the tech- 
nical sense and I am not a lawyer, and I am talking about the case of 
the man who was feloniously assaulted and died. To this layman, that 
is getting pretty close to murder. I am talking about the case of Mr. 
Gunaca. 

The Chairman. I think we can straighten it out. 

Senator Mundt. Maybe it isn't murder, but here is a man felo- 
niously assaulted who died as a result of the assault. 

Mr. Rauii. May I just say this, Mr. Chairman, that tliere are two 
cases. One is the case of Mr. Vinson. The man that Mr. Vinson 
allegedly assaulted will be a witness before this committee. He could 
hardly be dead. The other case is the case of Mr. Gunaca. He has not 
been tried but in his case the man who died, there is a death certificate. 

It was a heart attack and not resulting from any assault. Your 
charges here against a clean union are a simple effort, it seems to me, 
to distort the record. I think if you are going to make that charge, we 
ought to have the witnesses that know the facts on those and not make 
them in interrogating Mr. Burkhart, whom you concede is a peaceful, 
peace-loving man. 

Now I just think it is unfair to bring in these other cases, when we 
don't have a chance to answer them. There was no man w^ho died as 
a result of any assault in 1954. The deaths occurred in 1934, when the 
Kohler Co. shot down the workers. 

Senator Mundt. It could not have been in 1934, because the man 
could scarcely have died of a heart attack in 1934 when he was not 
assaulted Until 1954. Whatever killed him, whether the excitement 
of the assault caused him to have a heart attack, or whether he died 
from some other reason, I think we understand the terms, and I am 
talking about murder. And I am not talking about a murder charge, 
I am using a layman's phrase, and I am not trying to involve Mr. 
Burkhart, except to point out that I think these speeches of this type, 
in this emotionally packed environment, tend to excite people, to do 
things which they might not normally do. 

Now I doubt very nnich, to be perfectly honest with you, that you 
either excited Mr. Gunaca, or Mr. Vinson, because they also were paid 
from national reju'esentatives who probably knew what they were 
doing, and I don't think that your speeches affected them one way or 
the other. 

NoAv I come to another point. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation : I am going 
to proceed with the witnesses as we have planned. The Chair has 
indulged the attorney to make a statement. I think with his statement, 
and with the questions that Senator Mundt has asked, the record is sub- 
stantially clear as to what the situation is. 

Wliat further proof will show of wrong I don't know, but there was 
an assault, and that we all know, at one time out there. 

Mr. Rauii. There is an indictment for assault, Mr. Chainnan. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8651 

The Chairman. Let us say an indictment for assault, and in other 
words there is an assault charge. Later a man died. The man that was 
assaulted died, or whom the charge was made against. Whether he 
died from the ettects of that violence, 1 am not prepared to say. 

We may later show that one way or the other. But I think that the 
statements that have been made keep the record pretty clear and let us 
move on now with the rest of it. 

Go into any other aspect of it or finish this. 

Senator Mundt. This is a concluding portion of your speech that 
same 4ay : 

You say — 

Appearing in newspapers all over the United States now very shortly are going 
to be full page ads, paid for by this international union, explaining what the issues 
are in the Kohler strike, explaining the position of the working people here, and 
explaining the position of the company and their failure to negotiate. Now this 
is a faucet of this thing we have not turned on until now. We wanted to give 
this company every opportunity to settle this on a decent basis. 

We are also going to arrange a meeting with the head of the plumber's union 
in Washington, D. C, the former Secretary of Labor, Martin F. Durkin [ap- 
plause]. 

Some may say, why have you not done this before? Because we recognize that 
in telling these things all over the country, it is going to deal a body blow to the 
Kohler Co. At the same time customers that they lose to Crane and American 
Standard, and Briggs, and the others are going to be difficult for them to get 
back again. 

The reason I read that, Mr. Burkhart, is to ask you this question : 
Were you in charge of, and I may not be using the term properly, and 
your illustrious counsel will give me the proper vocabulary I am 
sure if I don't — were you in charge of what I call the secondary 
boycott ^ 

Were you in charge of the program conducted by the union to induce 
communities and corporations not to purchase Kohler material during 
the strike ? 

This would sound to me as sort of a kickoff to that campaign. I 
found it in your speech and maybe that is why I ask you the question. 

Mr. Burkhart. In actuality, it was not the kickoff of our primary 
consumer boycott of Kohler products. We had on several occasions, 
you might say in a sense, threatened the company with this primary 
boycott. We were hopeful that they would recognize the fact that the 
trade union membership across the country is a large section of the 
consumers who ordinarily buy Kohler products. 

And we were hopeful, or we were trying everything we possibly 
could to get this company to come to some sense at the bargaining table. 

I did make that statement at that time. However, we did not turn 
on the boycott at that time, and I was not in charge of the boycott. 
The boycott started in the fall of 1955, 1 believe. 

Senator Muxdt. This speech was in 1954, 

Mr. Burkhart. At that time I was no longer on the scene in She- 
boygan. 

Senator Mundt. This was just a sort of a forensic threat to the 
company, and not really the beginning of the boycott ? 

Mr. BuRKHARDT. You See, it is difficult 4 years later in the context 
of 1958, to realize the situation. We had gone into this truce much 
against the wishes of a large section of the membership, and at the 
time that I made this speech I was one of the persons who advised 



8652 IMPRIOPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to the strike committee that we go into this truce thing, and we had a 
diiRcult job selling it to the membership. 

Then when the whole thing failed, and it became apparent that 
the company was not going to bargain, the membership was very 
angry about this whole thing. I must admit to you that living so 
close to the situation, and living the situation in a sense, I was not 
completely immune from the feeling that existed in the community 
boycott, I should say, was not until the fall of 1955. 
at that time. 

However, the remarks about the boycott and the starting gf the 
boycott, I should say, was not until the fall of 1955. 

Senator Mundt. The reason I asked the question, I found this in 
your speech, and it is the first evidence that I had come across about 
the beginning of the boycott, and so I wanted to ask you under oath 
whether this was the beginning of it, and you say it was not. 

No. 2, it was whether you were in charge of the boycott which you 
tell me you were not. Let me ask you this final question in that con- 
nection, because you are a poised and polished international repre- 
sentative of the CIO, and I value your counsel on this : Do you con- 
sider what I think you called a primary consumer boycott, is that the 
technical term now or official term ? 

Mr. BURKHARDT. YcS. 

Senator Mundt. Do you consider a primary consumer boycott which 
uses pressures on municipalities to boycott the products of a plant 
which has been struck, do you consider that to be a proper and appro- 
priate labor practice ? 

Mr. BuRKHARDT. You are asking me for my personal position on 
the matter ? 

Senator Mundt. That is correct, and this is not necessarily in con- 
nection with the Kohler strike at all, because this committee is charged 
with trying to find answers to some pretty difficult problems, and for 
one thing we get a lot of complaints about this type of thing. 

I am asking you now and you can take it out of framework of 
Kohler entirely if you want to, and I am asking you as Bob Burkhart, 
a poised, and polish, and persuasive member of the CIO. 

Mr. Burkhart. I appreciate your compliments, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. You surely may. 

Mr. Burkhardt. In the trade-union movement, and I think I can 
speak with some little authority on it, having been in it since the age 
of 18, in collective bargaining we are confronted with alternative. 
The methods you use to obtain to gain for workers in the plants what 
we feel is rightfully theirs, and what they feel is rightfully theirs, we 
are not bosses of these people, and we are representatives of these 
people. I feel more like an employee of the people in my home plant 
than I feel that they are any sort of employees of mine. 

Maybe I am what you would call a trade-union idealist, and I have 
always tried to be. But when you get to a situation where there 
seems to be no way of achieving the objective, then you are always 
searching and seeking for ways. 

I was reading in the newspaper last night and I am not sure whether 
it was you or one of the other Senators, made a statement to the effect 
that possibly out of this hearing would come a ban on what you call 
mass picketing. I am doubtful, in my own mind, in my experience in 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8653 

the trade-union movement, whether such a thing would be any more 
successful than the Volstead Act was. 

You must leave people alternatives. You cannot say to a large 
employer, in this case a millionaire, that "If you force your employees 
on strike, we will guarantee to you that every part of the minority, 
and this is minority rule in a sense, every part of the minority will be 
in to work, and they will be the nucleus, and then you can hire outside 
people to take their jobs, and the union will be broken and smashed, 
and what are the alternatives for the workers ? 

It would seem to me that such a situation as that would lead to 
violence. 

Now, to get back more closely to the point that you are talking 
about, the consumer boycott, this is another method that we attempt 
to use to gain the objectives of the workers in the plant. If you take 
that away from us, I can assure you that we are going to seek for 
something else. 

Senator Mundt. I certainly wouldn't object to Bob Burkhart, a 
labor leader, on the radio asking the fellow members of my union 
to discontinue buying product A because it was manufactured by com- 
pany B, which was unfair to organized labor. That is certainly no 
different from a man walking in a clothing store, a union member, and 
buying a shirt, and he says, "Does it have a label on it?" and he wants 
to buy a shirt with a label on it. There is nothing wrong with that. 

You didn't get to the question that I asked you, the part I was con- 
cerned about, was this : Do you consider it a fair, proper, and appro- 
priate labor practice for labor unions to go to city commissioners and 
induce them to pass resolutions boycotting products made in a plant 
with which you happen to have a labor altercation ? 

To me, this impinges on the freedom of somebody else, and the 
ireedoni to win a strike, that you believe in, with some merit, and the 
freedom of the unions to utilize tools and devices to keep themselves 
more or less in balance with management, with its certain advantages. 

It seems to me those freedoms have to end when they begin to im- 
pinge upon the freedoms of innocent people, who are not involved in 
the strike on either side, and who live in Bristol, Conn. 

They are trying to build a schoolhouse, and if labor union comes 
into Bristol, Conn., and induces the mayor and city council to boycott 
certain products, maybe they wind up with no schoolhouse, and the 
kids have no school. 

Now, just where do you feel that the freedom of a union to enjoy 
its victory ends and the freedom of the rest of the community begins ? 
That is what I am trying to ask. 

Mr. Burkhart. I would like to answer that question as I understand 
the question. The labor unions in America do not operate in a vacuum, 
and there are many other forces in the United States here which are 
also operating, including the Kohler Co., and the National Associa- 
tion of Manufacturers, and various chambers of commerce, and you, 
for example, are a Senator and a part of the highest legislative body 
in the country and people come to you and they will try to persuade 
you this way, to vote on a bill and try to persuade you that way to 
vote on a bill. 

I don't know you too well, but I suppose on many occasions some 
of these people influence you in the final analysis and you do what you 



8654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

figure is your own best judgment. But the facts probably have to be 
ascertained from other people and you can't be everywhere. 

I think on the lower governmental level, these people who are in 
the city councils, are not faceless nonentities, and they evidently have 
been elected to their position because they have some leadership in 
their community. 

If I go in and talk to them, and I haven't, but if I should go in to 
talk to them and try to convince them of the justice of our position, 
I am certain that as soon as this is found out, that Mr. Conger or 
Mr. Kohler are going to have somebody in there giving the other side 
of the story. 

Now, this is a democratic deliberative body. They will make a 
decision for us or against us, and I would not want to take away from 
them that right, nor would I want to take away from the citizen the 
right to go and importune his Senator, or his city councilman, and 
his State legislator or whatever it might be. 

To me, this is a democratic system. I don't pretend to be as smart 
as you are, and I don't think that I have had the experience that you 
have had in these matters, but it seems to me that the thing that we 
are doing is a fair sort of thing. 

I would like to point out that much has been made of tlie UAW 
boycott against Kohler, but nothing has been made of the Kohler 
boycott against the UAW. 

The night before last I had a call from Los Angeles, Calif. One 
of the organizers there called me. Last year we lost an election in a 
small plant there by 1 vote, 135 to lo6. I stood in the room and 
watched the count and when the final ballot fell against the union, 
I was sick, because I thought we had that plant, and I thought we 
had won. 

For the record, I will name it, H. C. Smith Oil Tool Co., in 
Compton, Calif. 

We held our organizing committee together, and this time we had 
over 50 percent of his people in the plant signed up and we had 
a good organizing committee, and the boys had learned from the 
experience of last year. 

I had a call, I was called out of town 2 weeks before the election 
took place, and I wanted to be there for the punch on the end of the 
organizing campaign, but I had to come here. 

Eddy Madrykowski, our international representative in this com- 
pany, wdio was in charge of the situation, called me, and he was al- 
most in tears, and he said, "We lost the election. We got 92 votes, 
and the company got 216 votes." And I said, "What happened?" 
He said, "On the last day of the election, the company put out the 
whole Kohler package." And this Kohler package is all over the 
country, and every antilabor public relations firm that supplies em- 
ployers with this material has this. It goes all over the country 
against the UAW. 

And further than that, this company not only put out the Kohler 
Co.'s propaganda, but they said, "This is the very UAW which the 
Senate committee," I believe they called it the McClellan committee, 
"is now investigating." 

I asked him to send me this material by airmail, so that I would liave 
it here, and I would like to point out to you that this very invest iga- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8655 

tion is being used by antilabor forces in America to try to deprive 
working people of their rights of collective bargaining 

This is Avhat is done. So it is not simply our boycott against the 
Kohler Co., which you might consider, but 1 think it is necessary that 
perhaps you should consider the boycott of some of these antilabor 
companies against the American trade-union movement. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I certainly don't pose as an authority on the 
subject of boycotts, and I have said that I see no great inequity of a 
labor union per se boycotting a product from a plant tliat it doesn't 
like because of its labor practices, and that would be a direct boycott, 
as I would understand it. 

Xow, 1 would see no great inequity for a management that doesn't 
like a UAW union of trying to boycott the union direct; that is, direct 
fighting, and you have got to have some kind of controversy and out 
of that you get compromise, and that is the way we operate this 
country. 

But 1 am concerned about when you involve innocent school kids. 
In one case I understand that hospital patients of a hospital some 
place, wlio were waiting to get some plumbing or something else, 
were tied up in a boycott. It seems to me that when you use the 
great political autliority of the union to induce a city commission 
to pass an ordinance, that you certainly are emphatically correct and 
eloquently accurate wlien you say that this is not opposition vacuum. 

You are not operating in a vacuum under those circumstances. I 
I note in your speech, and I haven't quarreled with what you said, 
you talked to your labor people liere and they said, ''Maybe this bad 
law on the books that the WERB or whatever it was in Wisconsin 
used, to finally invalidate our strike, maybe that's our fault, and we 
liaven't been organized politically, and we haven't been active enough 
politically, and we haven't exercised our political influence. That 
is the way to make political decisions." 

But you and I know that it wasn't just the arguments used on the 
city councilmen pro and con. It was the fact that the union in those 
areas is a strong political force. 

I am just wondering whether, as a nnitter of equity, you, as a dis- 
tinguished labor leader, feel this is an appropriate and proper method 
to employ in trying to win labor arguments in America tind exercise 
the political force and influence of the labor union to induce city 
commissioners to pass ordinances boycotting products. And I am 
divorcing this from Kohler, and I am talking about standard oper- 
ating procedure. 

A lot of Americans, if you believe that, Mr. Burkhart, disagree 
with you, who are friends of the labor movement and who have no 
reason to be against it. I place myself in that category, because as 
you said, unfortunately we don't have many industries in South Da- 
kota, and we don't have many labor unions in South Dakota. 

I have every reason to look at this from an objective corner, although 
I do resent sometimes some of the snide remarks made by labor leaders 
against me. And while I, too, am a peaceful man, and a good-natured 
fellow, perhaps some day I am going to start fighting back against 
those who are fighting that way against me for a long time. But 
now it is not so. 

Mr. Burkhart. We would prefer to have you in our corner. 



8656 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I don't want to be in anybody's corner, and I want 
to stay out in a good old neutral corner, South Dakota, where we 
have neither the problems of management, where we have to have 
some people who can look at this objectively, and who recognize there 
are problems on both sides. 

I have worked in the ranks of labor. I wasn't a union member 
because the plant wasn't organized, but I can appreciate the problems 
the laboring man has, 

I didn't want you to discuss this for the record, because this is 
something on which at least we are going to be called to legislate, 
whether we can elicit the wisdom of Solomon and find the proper 
answer, and our answers I think should keep in balance the authority 
of labor and the authority of management. If either gets too strong, 
this is not good for America. 

Senator Goldwater. I have a few questions relative to your testi- 
mony of yesterday. Yesterday you stated you joined the Socialist 
Workers Party in 1944. What were you (ioing between 1941 and 
1944? 

Mr. BuRKHART. In 1941 1 worked in a factory in Toledo, Ohio. In 
1942 I became an international representative on the regional staff in 
northwestern Ohio. In 1943 I was back in the plant again. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you retain your international representa- 
tive status in 1943 ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir, I was back working on a machine in the 
shop. 

Senator Goldwater. And in 1944 you joined the Socialist Workers 
Party ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Yesterday, during your testimony, you said 
that you joined the Socialist Workers Party because you wanted to 
do something for the working or laboring man, and I forget just how 
you described him, and you also said because that party, you felt, 
could do something for this person. 

You also stated that the depression had a lot to do with your joining 
the Socialist Workers Party. 

One thing I would like to ask you right there is this : The depression 
wasn't on in 1944, so in view of that, did you really join the Socialist 
Workers Party because of the depression ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, Senator, I don't think that a man can divorce 
himself from his youth and his experiences in that period. I think 
the teen age and twenties are very formative stages in any man's life. 

I can remember at that time some people would say I have done a lot 
of reading, and this is true, but much of that reading was done by a 
street light which shone in my bedroom window, because the electric- 
ity had been turned off in our house, the refrigerator had been taken 
out, and the stove had been taken out, and my father was on relief at 
that time. 

Senator Goldavater. And you felt that the Socialist Workers Party 
offered an answer to further depressions ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I did, at that time. 

Senator Goldwater, Now, in the other part of that answer, when 
you said that you joined because of your concern for the workingman, 
why didn't you join the Communist Party or the Socialist Party? 
They both professed great interest in the workingman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8657 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, you are askinjr me to go back 14 years and 
examine my motivations in that period. I am not sure that I can. I 
was vigorously opposed to the Communist Party, and I couldn't tell 
you exactly why. 

Their program in the trade-union movement always seemed to me to 
be dictated from elsewhere. I didn't think that there was any basis of 
democracy there, and I didn't want any part of it. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, as you recall it, was there much democ- 
racy in the Socialist Workers Party ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I discovered after being in for a time that there 
wasn't. 

Senator Goldwater. You discovered there wasn't ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That it was controlled from the top like the 
Communist Party was ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, I would say that it was controlled from the 
top, but I didn't believe it was controlled by a foreign power. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, are you familiar with the teachings of 
the Socialist Workers Party ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I am not a theoretician. I may be more of one now 
than I was in those days. I don't know exactly what you are talking' 
about. 

I would like to point out here also that yesterday I answered these 
questions just as openly as I possibly could, and I intend to continue to 
do so. But I don't want to he put in a position of now attempting to 
defend a philosophy which I evidently espoused at that time, but 
which I no longer espouse. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not accusing you of that. I am just in- 
terested in this background, and I will bring out the reason shortly. 

For the record, I would like to read from the congressional publica- 
tion, "Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications" prepared 
and released by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the 
House of Representatives, from page 80 : 

Socialist Workers Party : 1. Cited as subversive and Communist organization 
which seeks to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconsti- 
tutional means. 2. A dissident Communist group not affiliated with the Commu- 
nist International, or officially recognized by either the Communist hierarchy in 
Moscow or the Communist Party in the United States of America. 

Essentially, however, both the official and unofficial groups base themselves 
upon the teachings of Marx, Angles, and Lenin. The Social Workers Party are 
followers of Leon Trotsky, who was expelled from the Russian Communist 
Party. The official Communists are followers of Joseph Stalin. 

Now, Mr. Burkhart, the Socialist Party was essentially a Trotskyite 
organization, and did you understand that when you were a member 
of it? 

Mr. Burkhart. The Socialist Party, you mean ? 

Senator Goldwater. The Socialist Workers Party. 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, I did. 

Senator Goldwater. And did you understand the main distinction 
between the Socialist Workers Party and the Commmiist Party is the 
fact that the Socialist Workers Party advocated revolution at all 
costs, while during the war the Communist Party line was to go along 
with the United States because we were their allies, and we were the 
allies of Russia ? 



S658 IMPRiOPBR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKHART. Well, as I understand it, the Communist Party 
flip-flopped back and foith on several occasions. 

Senator Goldwater. It had flipped pretty prominently to be 
friendly to the United States because we were an ally of Russia at 
the time. 

Mr. BuRKHART. There was a time of pact between Stalin and 
Hitler when such was not the case. 

Senator Goldwater. I will agree with you that the Communist 
Party flips all over the place, but at that particular time during the 
war it was pretty solid in its stand as being with the United States. 

Did you understand when you joined this organization that you 
were joining an organization that was determined to overthrow the 
United States by violent revolution or any other means? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Xow, let me ask you this question : Is it not a 
fact that the Socialist Workers Party is the solcalled intellectual 
elite of the Communists ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. It is what, sir ? 

Senator Goldwater. The intellectual elite, those people who pride 
themselves on their militant stand on world revolution. 

Mr. BuKHART. I had never heard that phrase before, Senator, and 
I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. After listening to you, I think that they 
probably are the intellectual elite. 

Did you know, and I think you testified on this yesterday, that a 
number of members of this party had been convicted under the Smith 
Act as early as 1941 ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir ; I did know that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Burkhart, have you ever been known by 
any other name? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Was that name Robert Kendall? 

Mr. Burkhart. That was a party name w^hich I had in that period. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you write for the magazine Militant ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I have discussed this with my counsel, of course, and 
I have been trying to remember. It is possible that I wrote an article 
or maybe two articles in that period. The one thing that I can remem- 
ber is that the articles did not come out the way that I had anticipated 
they would. 

Senator Goldwater. That was one of the publications of the Social- 
ist Workers Party ? 

Mr. Burkhart. The Militant was the organ of the Socialist Work- 
ers Party at that time. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you not think that not knowing what the 
Socialist Workers Party stood for and having this expressed interest 
in the workingman, that it was an irresponsible act to join an organ- 
ization like that? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, Senator Goldwater, in another society and 
perhaps in a satellite country, when they have hearings people will 
get up and beat their breasts and say, "mea culpa," "I was to blame that 
I was this and that." 

I don't think that this is a proper thing in our American society. 
I was a young man at the time, and I had the experiences of the depres- 
sion, and I do not espouse those views at the present time. I don't see 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8659 

why I should now have to be put in a position where I am attempting 
to defend something- which was part of my feelings at that time. 

They say in Roman mythology that Minerva sprung fully formed 
from the brow of Jupiter. I was not that fortunate and I came into 
this world naked and I had no political philosophy. I had to develop 
one and 1 had to develop one the hard way. It seems to me that this 
is the essence of democracy, this experimentation, this attemj^ting to 
find things out and this making of mistakes. 

I hope that we never drop a cloak of orthodoxy over our young 
people so they can't do things of that sort. I do not espouse those 
views today and I would not espouse them. But I only admit that I 
did in that period. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Burkhart 

Senator Ervin. If I may be permitted 

Senator Goldwater. Just a moment. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to say 

The Chairman. Does the Senator yield ? 

Senator Goldwater. It depends on what it is for. 

Senator Ervin. I want to make an observation. 

Senator Goldwater. I am always glad to hear his observations. 

Senator Ervin. I think one of the finest things a person can adopt 
as a source of conduct or course of action is the capacity to say at sun- 
set each day, "I am wiser today than I was yesterday." 

Senator Goldwater. That is a very brilliant observation. 

Now, Mr. Burkhart, you have mentioned the fact time and again that 
you were a very young man when you did this. You mentioned the 
age of 18 years in one connection and I gathered that that might have 
been the period when you joined this party. 

Mr. Burkhart. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I liave not finished yet. 

Yesterday you testified to your age and it would lead me to believe 
you w^ere 28 years old when you joined this party and that you were 
32 years old when you renounced your membership. 

Now, you are not exactly a kid at 28. Do you still cling to your 
story that you were rather innocent in going into this organization 
and that you did not know^ what it stood for and that you felt that it 
might help the w^orkingman so you wanted to go into it ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, "innocent" is your choice of words. I sup- 
pose that you can be innocent in one context, such as a political con- 
text, or uninformed in others. It is another matter in others. 

Senator Goldwater. You were over 21. 

Mr. Burkhart. You say 28, and I think that I was 27. I am not 
sure. 

Senator Goldwater. You had been around by your own admissions. 
Now, you might have given these yesterday and I did not hear them. 
Could you give me some of the reasons that led you to leave the So- 
cialist Workers Party ? 

]Mr. Burkhart. I did, I believe, give some yesterday. 

One w^as that I came to believe that this was not the method of 
solving the problems which had prompted me to go into the organ- 
ization in the first place. I believe that I said that the solution to 
the problems of working people were in the framework of our con- 
stitutional form of government and the free enterprise system. 



8660 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Further than that, I found that inasmuch as my aspirations had 
been, since going into the shop at the age of 18, to become a leader of 
some value to my fellow workers, I found that I wasn't accomplish- 
ing that at all and I had merely succeeded in isolating myself from 
them. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Mundt, Curtis, and Gold water.) 

Senator Gold water. Were you exempted from the draft ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. In the year 1941 or 1942 — 1942 — as I recall it, 
there was an exception. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you recall Avhat it was based on ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Well, as I recall — I can't tell you for certain, Sen- 
ator, but I Imow that at that time there was considerable racial ten- 
sion in the city of Toledo, and this was one of the things that I was 
working on. I was also in charge of collective bargaining in several 
large plants there. 

I suppose it is a matter of record. 

Senator Goldwater. For participation in an essential industry ? 

Mr. Bltrkhart. This might have been prior to the time that I, for 
a short period of time, was an international representative. How- 
ever, in 1943, I was called up, 1943 — ;^es, I was called up — for exami- 
nation, and rejected. 

Senator Goldwater. For physical reasons ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Burkhart, yesterday you told us that the 
UAW-CIO had offered $1,000 reward for the arrest of any person 
known to have coumiitted an act of violence in the Kohler strike. 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that true ? 

Mr. Burkhart. May I have the privilege of reading you the clip- 
ping from the Sheboygan Press ? 

Senator Goldavater. Answer the question and then you can read it. 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me put the question to you again, be- 
cause you are under oath. Yesterday you stated that the UAW-CIO 
had offered $1,000 reward for the arrest of any person who was 
known to have committed an act of vandalism during the Kohler 
strike. Answer that and read the clipping. 

Mr. Burkhart. I answered it to the best of my recollection at that 
time, and it was my impression that such a reward had been offered. 

Senator Goldwater. Wouldn't you have laiown about it, in your 
connection with the strike committee ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, I would have at that time, when it was fresh 
in my memory. 

Senator Goldwater. You have a pretty good memory. Did you 
offer that reward for the arrest of any person who was known to 
have committed an act of vandalism in the Koliler strike ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I have just 

Senator Goldwater. Just tell me yes or no, and then you can read 
the story. 

Mr. Burkhart. That is what I said yesterday. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you say it today ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I just glanced at this article, and I see it is for a 
specific incident. I am not sure 



IMPEOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8661 

Senator Goldwater. Go ahead and read the article, tlien. 
Mr. Btjrkhart. The article is from the Sheboygan Press, dated 
Thursday, July 1, 1954. It says : 

Rewards offered for information about vandalism. Rewards for information 
leading to the apprehension and conviction of persons responsible for vandalism 
in the Sheboygan area were offered today by both the union and the Kohler Co. 
Through Emil Mazey, International Secretary-Treasurer at Detroit, it was an- 
nounced that the UAW-CIO union is offering $1,000 for information that will 
lead to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for the shotgun blast 
at the Harold J. Curtiss home Monday evening. The Kohler Co. offers a $500 
reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons guilty 
of vandalism or malicious destruction of property of nonstriking employees of 
the Kohler Co. 

Senator Goldwater. I wanted to clear that up. I did not want the 
record to show that your answer was not true when you said they 
had offered a reward for the arrest of any person who was known to 
have committed an act of vandalism during the strike, when the re- 
ward was offered for a specific case, and that, I believe, was the Cur- 
tiss case. 

Mr. Burkhart, are you familiar at all with the proletariat party 
of America ? 

Mr. Burkhart. The proletariat party of America ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. Did you ever come in contact with it? 

Mr. Burkhart. It seems to me, Senator, that years ago I read some 
literature of theirs. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you remember it as a Trotskyite organ- 
ization, similar to the one that you belonged to at one time? 

Mr. Burkhart. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Burkhart, do you know Eichard 
Gosser ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, I do. 

Senator Goldwater. How well do you know him ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I would consider that I know him rather 
well. He is vice president of the international union, and is my 
superior at the present time. 

Senator Goldwater. Is he your direct superior at the present time ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I guess there are a couple of administrative 
assistants between us, and departmental heads, but he is. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't want to get into this in any great 
length at this time, but I just want to mention this to show another 
example of the violence that seems to permeate all levels of this union 
in making decisions. I am reading from the statements of a special 
Toledo investigating committee, Edward Kote, international execu- 
tive board member, Michael Lacy, international executive board mem- 
ber, held on Thursday, June 1, 1950, in Toledo. 

It was reported in here, and I will read it so it will not be quoted 
out of context, starting at a place that will not do that — 

Balloons were purchased from an original supplier for $35 for a Labor Day 
parade, yet a bill was received from the Colonial Hardware for that very same 
item in the amount of $40. Randolph Grey questioned this bill and did not 
approve of paying it. Robert Burkhart was told when he left the staff of Gosser, 
who was then regional director in 1943, "Burkhart, I don't want to see your 
path and mine ever cross again because if I can't beat you up physically, I have 
people around me who can." 



21243^58— pt. 21- 



8662 IMPROPEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Then it goes on to say " 'Brother Burkhart will tell you that this is 
a true statement, and I believe Brother Schick can tell you he heard 
the same from Brother Burkhart.' " 

Did Mr. Gosser ever say that to you ? 

Mr, Burkhart. Well, at the time that I left the staff in 1943, there 
was an angry exchange. I cannot remember at this date what the 
words were. I do know that whatever they were, they were never car- 
ried out. 

Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield to me ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes, I will be glad to yield. 

Senator Mundt, I have to leave for a radio program on another 
subject. I either have some good news or a bad disappointment for 
Mr. Rauh. I will get this on the record at this time. I am slowly 
but surely getting a legal education as a member of this committee, 
the hard way. Mr. liauh addressed the Chair and said I had en- 
gaged in shocking distortions when I referred to a situation as a 
murder a while ago, 

I want to call to your attention, Mr. Rauh, an item which I believe 
supports my point of view. This was sent me by the pastor of a very 
eminent Lutheran Church in the city of Detroit, Mich. It is an edi- 
torial from the February 28 issue of the Detroit Free Press. If you 
are right in saying this was a shocking distortion, this is the answer to 
a lawyer's prayer, because you and the UAW have never had a better 
libel case against a newspaper that can afford to pay a libel assessment 
in your life than this one. 

If I am right, this is a disappointment to you because there is no 
dividend in suing because it will not stand the test of the court. I 
want to read this by eliminating one name, because it mentions a high 
political official. I don't want to get him dragged into this. 

The editorial is from the Detroit Free Press, February 28, 1958, 
entitled "At the Kohler Hearing, Lots of Noise but No Headway." 

The concluding paragraph 

Senator Ervin. What was that ? I didn't hear it. 

Senator Mundt. Lots of Noise, but No Headway. 

Something more illuminating would result, possibly, if the committee would 
ask — 

then comes the name of the high public official, whose name I will not 
mention — 

to take the stand and explain why he has so consistently refused to extradite 
John Gunaca, a UAW official, who is wanted in Wisconsin in connection with 

and here comes your great opportunity, Mr. Rauh — 

in connection with the fatal beating of a Kohler worker during the strike. 

Unless my grassroots legal education is entirely in error, a fatal 
beating comes so close to murder that I don't think it would be a shock- 
ing distortion of the facts. 

Mr. Rauh. You addressed that to me, so I presume I have the right 
to respond. 

The Chairman. Since counsel has been addressed by the Senator, 
the counsel may reply. 

Mr. Rauh. The Detroit Free Press is hardly a UAW house organ. 

Senator Mundt. Tliat is why I suggest you sue them if your defini- 
tion is right and mine is wronij. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8663 

Mr. R.AUH. We are going to produce the death certificate right here. 
I asked if we have it now, but we will put it in after lunch. 

The death certificate states the cause of death that occurred many 
months after the events, and we will answer this. In the second place, 
I don't know whether we would sue for this or not, or whether Mr. 
Gunaca will sue for this. I can assure the Senator, though, that if he 
will make an unprivileged charge of murder, we will sue Jiim. 

Senator Mundt. I don't doubt that, because you have harassed a 
lot of people a lot smaller than I am. I don't doubt that a bit. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Muxdt. I ask that this editorial be placed in the record, 
Mr. Chairman, deleting the name of the high public official. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. 
I don't think there is any use to delete the name. Everybody knows 
who you are talking about. 

Senator Mundt. Well, put him in if you want to, but I just sug- 
gested that. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

[From the Detroit Free Press of Friday, February 28, 1958] 
At the Kohleb Hearing, Lots of Noise But No Headway 

The Senate's McCIellan committee has openetl hearings on the long-drawn-out 
Kohler stril^e for the presumed purpose of determining its cause, its effect, and 
attempting to establish some better pattern of labor-management relations so 
that such a bitter dispute would be less likely to occur in the future. 

Those aims were not materially advanced by the verbal donnybrouk in which 
UAW President Walter Reuther and Senator Barry Goldwater engaged. 

Moreover, Mr. Reuther seems to have left himself oi)en to criticism for having 
borrowed a Senate caucus room to hold a press conference at which he got ofE 
his blast at the Senator. 

There are, we are certain, witnesses who can shed a good deal of light upon 
what happened at the Kohler plants in Wisconsin — people who were on the picket 
line, or barred from their jobs by the dispute. Neither Mr. Reuther nor Senator 
Goldwater qualify, we suspect, as firsthand witnesses. At least not to the extent 
of someone who was in the thick of the fray. 

It's too bad then, that they took advantage of the hearing to convert it into 
personal and private soap boxes from which they could declaim their dislike 
of each other. Each has previously done that with the utmost eloquence, and 
the public is aware of the low esteem in which each holds the other. 

Something more illuminating would result, possibly, if the committee would 
ask Governor Williams to take the stand and explain why he has so consistently 
refused to extradite .John Gunaca, a UWA oflBcial, who is wanted in Wisconsin 
in connection with the fatal beating of a Kohler worker during the strike. 

There are a good many citizens of Michigan, where Mr. Gunaca has been 
granted sanctuary by Governor Williams who would be as interested in an expla- 
nation as would members of the Senate committee. 

Senator Goldwater. I thought I had gotten completely away from 
this interesting transcript of the Toledo investigating committee. 
There is one question I wanted to ask Mr. Burkhart, and I think it 
will have some bearing on future parts of this investigation. 

Are you acquainted with the fund called the flower fund ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that a fund that is confined only to this 
Toledo local 12? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



8664 IMPRiOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Let me put it another way. It is mentioned 
in this Toledo local 12, a flower fund. Do you find it in other locals 
of theUAW? 

Mr. BuRKHART. In locals, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

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

Mr. BuRKHART. I don't know. I don't have a canvass of the lo- 
cals of the UAW. I don't know of any. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there a flower fund in the international ? 

Mr. Burkiiart. I believe that among some of the international 
representatives there are. 

Senator Goldwater. You were assistant to Mr. Gosser under local 
12. Am I correct? 

Mr. BuRKHART. No, I was not. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if these flower funds, like the 
one in local 12, are audited. 

Mr. Burkhart. No, I don't know, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. They are cash accounts ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I can't give you that answer, because I know 
nothing about the bookkeeping. 

Senator Goldwater. How would you contribute to the flower fund 
as an international representative ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, by a voluntary contribution which would be 
sent in. 

Senator Goldwater. Was it deducted from your pay? 

Mr. Burkhart. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you turn around and write a check out 
and give it to the local or the international for the flower fund ? 

Mr. Burkhart. No. 

Senator Goldwater. If you wanted to contribute to it, how would 
you do it ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I would contribute by cash. 

Senator Goldwater. Cash. Would you be allowed to contribute 
by check? 

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

Senator Goldwater. You have never tried it? 

Mr. Burkhart. I have never tried that. 

Senator Goldwater. We will get into that later. I thought you 
might know a little bit more about it than you evidently do. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, this isn't as much in the nature of a question 
as it is a statement. We have been accused. I will say this editorial 
that has just been read charges this committee with lots of noise and 
not much progress. 

I think that the committee is making progress. I think it is slow 
progress. I think it is going to continue to be slow prograss. We are 
in a very, very difficult and intricate field. But it seems to me that 
we have begun to show patterns developing in this case, one of which 
is that violence is the cornerstone of strikes in this organization and 
in the CIO. It is also peculiar — and I do not say this in a manner 
in which it might sound, because I recognize that this organization, 
since 1950, has been ostensibly divorced from influence of the Com- 
munist Party in any way — that violence is also the cornerstone of the 
Communist Party and its front organizations. I recall that last year 
11 members of the UAW-CIO appeared before the Senate Internal 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8665 

Security Subcommittee, and one man submitted an affidavit. Of 
these 12, 4 men were international representatives of the UAW-CIO. 
The other 8 were all officers of varying degrees of importance. Dur- 
ing the testimony, 7 of them, all local union officers, took the fifth 
amendment when asked about their Communist affiliations. The 
eighth local officer admitted having been a Communist from 1939 to 
1940. Four international representatives all admitted having been 
Communists and two of them took the first amendment when asked 
about their associates in the party. 

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

Senator Goldwater. One of the four stated that he has disaffiliated 
himself from the party, but is an obvious fellow traveler. 

It is beginning to appear that this witness, who was chosen by the 
leadership of the UAW-CIO under the provisions of their constitu- 
tion to lead what has turned out to be one of the longest and one of 
the most expensive strikes in history, was a member of an organization 
solely dedicated to violence and revolution. 

On February 27, Congressman Clare Hoffman put into the Con- 
gressional Record a list of strikes in which the CIO, and I emphasize 
here that there are none that I see mentioning the UAW, had par- 
ticipated in from the years 1937 to 1946, and' from May of 1937 to 
December of 1941 the CIO participated in 13 strikes, during which 
37 individuals were killed. From December 1941 to 1946 there were 
5 strikes and 5 individuals killed. 

We are talking about Kohler ; we are going to get into other strikes. 

In the summer of 1954, during the Kohler strike, the North Ameri- 
can Aviation Co. at Columbus, Ohio, was subjected to a series of 
bombings by members of the UAW-CIO and the Columbus Dispatch 
of August 13, 1954, states "Eight sentenced for bombings in North 
A-merican strike," and it brings out that those men were members of 
the UAW. 

I think the Perfect Circle strike investigation that will come along 
will show more violence, and certainly before we are through with 
the Kohler strike we will see a great deal more of the violence. 

Again I say it seems strange that violence, which was originally 
associated with the Communist Party and its fronts, is so closely asso- 
ciated with the strikes that we have been talking about and the 
strikes in which this organization is engaged. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we are making progress. I think we are 
beginning to show the American people a pattern, and it is a pattern 
that I feel ultimately has to be described and circumscribed by law, so 
that we prevent this type of occurrence again on the picket lines of 
America. 

I think in the writing of this legislation, we have to be extremely 
careful that we do nothing to the right of unions to strike, because I 
think it is one of their most precious and valuable tools, and we should 
see that it works better instead of the way it does. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make his observation : Wlien Sena- 
tors express their views for the record, that is their privilege. But the 
fact that the Chair does not himself make any statement one way or 
the other is no indication that he necessarily subscribes to the views of 
other members. 

If I do not subscribe to them, or if other members do not subscribe 
to them, that is their privilege. If I actually do subscribe to them, 



8666 iivrpROPER activities in the labor field 

I will frequently associate myself with them. In this instance, the 
Chair wishes to state that he has reached no decision. I do not be- 
lieve this hearing has progressed sufficiently far so that I could arrive 
at a decision on some of these important matters. I have some tenta- 
tive opinions, but I am going to hear the evidence all the way through. 
If there is anything to show that this union has any connection, di- 
rectly or indirectly, with communism, and if we can get the testimony 
here, it will certainly be developed. But I myself am not going to 
charge anyone with being a Communist until we have some positive 
proof of it. 

I know there is a lot of talk about this union, and a lot of talk 
about leaders in this union. There is a lot of talk about members of 
this committee. To tell you the truth, and speaking about criticism, 
I feel this would be a pretty sorry committee if it didn't get criticized. 
I think the emotions, the feelings about it, the tensions, are just such. 
When I started to serve on this committee— and I have had no reason 
to change my mind since — I didn't anticipat-e that I could do any kind 
of a job without invoking some criticism, and some of it may be con- 
structive and may be deserved. But criticism or no criticism, so far 
as the Chair is concerned, this committee is going on. We are going 
to plow through and try to do the job that the Senate has given us to 
do. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation ? For 
the consolation of the Chair and tlie other members of the connnittee, 
there is something in the Scriptures which says "Woe unto thee when 
all men speak well of thee." 

So I think the members of this committee are at least earning tlie 
blessing that is implied in that Scripture. 

The Chairman. I am willing to receive any blessings there may be. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the last sentence of Senator Gold- 
water's statement said — 

Again, I say it would seem strange that violence originally associated with 
the Communist Party is so closely associated with the UAW-CIO. 

The inference I would draw would suggest tliat the Communist Party 
has infiltrated with success into the UAW and, therefore, stimulates 
violence in the UAW. 

So far in the Kohler strike, I have not seen evidence of this. I 
would prefer to judge the violence which we heard discussed on its 
own platform and not in context with a suggested inference that it 
was Communist controlled, directed, or inspired. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chai)'man, that the record might be 
straight, I think this was said before Senator Kennedy came, or per- 
haps when he was engaged in other conversation. I tried to make it 
clear that I recognized that this organization, I think in 1950, has 
cleaned out the Communists in their organization. 

I don't charge that this is a Communist-infiltrated or Communist- 
dominated strike, or that the actions in the other strikes are. But 
they are the tactics that were employed by the Communists. I merely 
commented that it is a strange coincidence. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, my brother's name is Joe and 
Stalin's name is Joe. The coincidence may be strange but I don't 
draw any inference from it. I think in this case for the Senator to 
arcociat? V.12 two together as strange, I think if ho believes that there 



IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8667 

is a direct connection, I think it should be stated. Otherwise the 
inference is certainly suggested. 

Senator Goldwater. I thought I made it perfectly clear in my 
previous statement that I don't suggest that there is a direct connec- 
tion with the Communist Party. If the Senator objects to the word 
"strange," let's use the word "peculiar." 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions. I do not 
know whether you want me to go on or not. 

The Chairman. The Chair usually tries to continue until about 
12::50. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, may I just at this point read a 6-line 
provision from the constitution of our union, w^hich is really relevant 
to the discussion that has been going on, and I believe would settle 
it. May I be so permitted ? 

The Chairman. Is there objection ? 

Do we have copies of the constitution ? 

Senator Goldwater. What page is this on ? 

Mr. Rauh. I am using tlie 1957, sir. I see you have a green one, 
wliich is probably 1955. 

Senator Goldwater. Nineteen hundred and fifty-five. 

Mr. Rauh. It will probably be the same provision. Mine is in light 
type, which means it has not been changed. It is article X, section 8 : 

No member of any local union shall be eligible to hold any elective or appointive 
position in this international union or any local union in this international 
union if he is a member of, or subservient to, any political organization such 
as the Communists, Fascists, or Nazi organization, which owes its allegiance 
to any government other than the United States or Canada, directly or indi- 
rectly. 

The reason for the Canadian reference is that we also have unions 
in Canada. Of course, in addition to this, we have the rule that no 
witness may take the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Curtis. May I ask you, in that connection, this question : 
That provision of your constitution relates to current membership 
in the Communist Party ; does it not ? 

Mr. Rauh. Correct. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have a provision with reference to pre- 
vious or past connection with the Communist Party in your constitu- 
tion? 

Mr. Rauh. No, and I would be most shocked if we did. It seems to 
me that what we require is present anticommunism. If somebody 
made a mistake, we don't penalize them, nor would I want us to penal- 
ize them. 

Senator Curtis. You have no provision for prohibiting them from 
holding office ? 

]\Ir. Raul. If a man has been a member of anything whatever, if 
he has changed and come clean, we are glad to have him. We believe 
in the repentant-sinner doctrine. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask the 
witness. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 



8668 IMPRiOPElR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Burkliart, yesterday you volunteered this in- 
formation : 

Well, in a sense, sir, I was a member, a very close member of the church. 
I was looking for solutions in that field at one time. I was a Sunday-school 
teacher, and president of the Young People's Society. 

Mr. Burkhart, when did you move to Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Burkhart. When did I move to Sheboygan ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Burkhart. In 1953. 

Senator Curtis. About when ? 

Mr. Burkhart. September of 1953. 

Senator Curtis. September of 1953. Wliat is the name of the offi- 
cial paper of local 833 ? 

Is it the Kohlarian? 

Mr. Burkhart. It was the Kohlarian at that time. 

Senator Curtis. In the Kohlarian of September 24, 1953, on page 
1, carried this statement: 

Mr. and Mrs. Burkhart are already settled in an apartment in Sheboygan. 

That would refer to you, would it not? 

Mr. Burkhart. I believe it would, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if it would 
be possible to find out exactly what connection the present line of 
interrogation has with the strike. That is, the Kohler strike. 
^ Senator Curtis. It goes to the credibility of the witness, and I be- 
lieve it will so show. 

The Chairman. The Chair can't determine at this point what ques- 
tions are going to be asked or what relation they may have. 

Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. I wonder what the objection of the Senator from 
Massachusetts is for me asking this witness when he moved into She- 
boygan, the place where this strike was located that we are investigat- 
ing. 

Senator Kennedy. I have already indicated I have an idea where 
I think the Senator is going, and I have already said that I did not 
think it had anything to do with the strike. But, continue. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the questioning. 

Senator Curtis. In a subsequent issue of that paper, on November 
12, 1953, there is an article and a picture concerning a woman's auxil- 
iary to local 833. Was there such a woman's auxiliary ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir ; there was. 

Senator Curtis. And in it there is a picture of a Grace Burkhart. 
Is that the Grace Burkhart referred to in the previous issue that I 
referred to of September 24, 1953 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, as a matter of fact, she wasn't Mrs. Burkhart, 
■was she ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Burkhart. Senator 

Senator CmTis. Answer the question yes or no. That is a simple 
question. Was she Mrs. Burkhart ? 

Mr. Burkhart. I would like to appeal to the chairman. 

The Chairman. You may appeal to the Chair. What is it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8669 

Mr. BuRKHART. Mr. Chairman, this question relates to my relation- 
ship to the woman who is now my wife, and I would prefer that I 
would not have to answer this line of questioning. 

I listened very carefully when you gave the reasons for the setting 
up of this hearing and this committee, and I am willing to testify about 
my activities in the Kohler strike. I am willing to testify about my 
previous political affiliations. I have tried to be a good witness here 
and I have tried to answer everything openly. But it seems to me that 
now the honor of my wife is involved here, and, sir, I appeal to you 
as a gentleman that we do not get into this particular line of ques- 
tioning. 

The Senator from Nebraska has prefaced his remarks by saying 
something about the church. He has taken that out of context from 
what I said yesterday. 

Senator Curtis. Just a minute. I haven't taken it out of context. 
I read it verbatim. What I am quoting here is not any scurrilous 
literature, but the paper of our own local. 

I insist, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman answer the question. 

The Chairman. What is the question ? 

I don't think it has any particular relation to this, but if your pur- 
pose is to discredit the witness, if it goes to his credibility, if there is 
anything wrong — I don't think I know what it is all about. 

You say the honor of your wife is at stake. Is that what you say ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ratjh. The lady in question, Mrs. Grace Burkhardt, is today 
Mr. Burkhardt's wife. The question put by Senator Curtis could 
have no possible relevance to the Kohler strike, it could have no 
relevance to anything except to smear Mr. Burkhardt and Mrs. 
Burkhardt. We appeal to a Senate committee not to allow its proc- 
esses, its dignified processes, to be used in this fashion to hurt decent 
human beings. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. I shall not press the matter farther, but I do not 
want the self-serving statement of the counsel to stand. It is not 
correct. It is not what I had in mind. It goes to the very credibility 
of this witness. I did not bring in any reports from antiunion sources. 
But here is the official of the union, and they carry in their paper what 
is purported to be a statement that he and his wife have moved into 
the community, living at a certain address. A picture is carried of the 
lady, and her name is given as Grace Burkhardt. 

Her name was not Grace Burkhardt. She was not his wife. He 
had a wife living in Toledo, and two children there. Yet the deception 
carried to the workers and the good people of that community, was 
carried on by this gentleman and by the publication involved. 

I do not have any desire to drag it out here. I think when you are 
speaking of the rights of people, that the two children born up in 
Toledo have a few rights, too. As a matter of fact, I will ask the 
gentleman one more question. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make a little comment. 
_ Ordinarily we go to at least reasonable lengths in undertaking to 
discredit a witness, to challenge his credibility. Speaking for the 
Chair, I do not believe that it is necessary to go into a man's family 



8670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

affairs and his domestic relations. I doubt the wisdom of this com- 
mittee's getting ort' on that track. 

1 appeal to my colleagues on the committee. There are the eyes of 
the American people on this committee, and the prestige and dignity 
of the United States Senate are involved in these proceedings. When- 
ever we want to question a witness about crimes he has connnitted, 
and so forth, I think it quite proper to do so, to reflect upon his credi- 
bility. I know there are things that happen in family life that happen 
between man and wife, their relations, that are sacred. I doubt the 
wisdom of airing it in public unless it has some direct relation to 
something that is in issue here before this committee. 

That is the way I feel about it. 

Senator CurtIwS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall bow to the Chairman's 
ruling, but I want to remind the Chair and state on the record that that 
is not the procedure that has been followed here ; that the chief counsel 
did proceed to put such evidence into the record, not even by direct 
testimony, but by reading into the record and questioning certain 
things in reference to other unions. I can cite one : The Bakers Union, 
with Mr. Cross. 

The Chairman. Let me point out to the Senator in that instance, 
the Bakers Union funds were being used to support the woman. That 
was the proof. That is quite diiferent. 

Senator Curtis. I insist that union funds were used to carry this 
publication, that their man had come to town and was living there 
with Mrs. Burkhart. 

The Chairman. All right. The Chair has stated his position. If 
the Senator wants to proceed with it, he may do so. 

Senator Curtis. No, I shall bow to the wishes of the Chair, but I 
point out it is not the rule that has been followed in reference to other 
unions. 

The Chairman. As far as I am concerned, this union is going to 
get the same treatment as others. If you have any doubt about it, 
proceed with the questioning, and I will let you take the responsi- 
bility for it. 

Senator Curtis. No, I shall not. But I think it goes directly to 
the credibility of this man's statements and his reliability as a witness. 

The Chairman. Can we proceed ? 

Are there any further questions ? If not, the Chair wishes to ask 
a question or two. 

Mr. Burkhart, I want to get back to what I think is a very im- 
portant matter in connection with your testimony. If I recall cor- 
rectly, and I have not read the transcript, on yesterday you testified 
that the international — this is the impression I got from your testi- 
mony — you testified that the international union had no responsibility 
for the mass picketing that occurred at this plant. Is that correct? 

Mr. Burkhart. The picketing was carried on under the jurisdic- 
tion of the local union strike committee. 

The Chairman. I understand it is carried on under the jurisdic- 
tion of the local committee. That is true ; is it not ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the local committee is under the jurisdiction 
of the international ; is it not ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAm^iAN. That is correct : is it not ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 857] 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is no doubt in your mind ; in fact, you know 
as an international representative of the union, and as one who was 
reporting to higher officials of the international on the progress of the 
strike and so forth, that the international union knew and had full 
knowledge of the fact that mass picketing was going on, did it not ? 

Mr, BuRKHART. They had full knowledge of the nature of the 
picketing ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They had full knowledge of it. And they did 
nothing to stop it until a court order or a board ruling was made, a 
desist order ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. We did not attempt to order the opening of the 
lines, that is correct, until the injunction was obtained. 

The Chairman. So you cannot say, it cannot be said, if the mass 
picketing was wrong, that the international union has no responsi- 
bility for it? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I would be inclined to agree with you, sir. 

The Chairman. You agree with me ; do you not. 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is all I had. 

Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. As I understand you, your previous testimony, you 
would agree with me on these three things : that the mass picketing 
was resorted to, first, to show the nonstrikers that a very substantial 
number of the employees of the Kohler Co. were supporting the strike ; 
second, to show the Kohler Co. that a very substantial number of the 
employees of the Kohler Co. were supporting the strike; and, third, 
to prevent employees of the Kohler Co. who might desire to get into 
the plant to work, to prevent them from doing so. Is that not so ? 

Mr. Burkhart. We did not w^ant— the answer to the first two is 
certainly yes. 

On the last one, we did not want, the local union nor us, neither of 
us, any of these people to go into the plant. 

Senator Ervin. That is right. In other words, one of the ways for 
a strike to be effective is to curtail the production of the employer; 
is that not so ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And the most efficacious way of curtailing the pro- 
duction of the employer is to prevent the employees who are desirous 
of working from doing so ; is that not so ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, we wanted to withhold all production from 
the company ; that is true. 

Senator Ervin. Now, as a matter of fact, where you have mass 
picketing as a means of preventing entrance into the plant by those 
who desire to work, you ordinarily have less violent acts, that is, of 
a serious nature, then where you do not have mass picketing ; is that 
not so? 

Mr. Burkhart. Well, I would say, sir, that where there are large 
numbers of people on the picket line, that there is less likelihood of 
any serious clash occurring. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the mere presence of numerous 
pickets deters persons who may desire to enter from attempting to 
do so, because they see that they do not have the necessary force to 
go through a mass picket line ; is that not so ? 



8672 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES JN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And while it is a method to prevent ingress to the 
plant, it is a method which is likely to prevent ingress by less violence, 
that is, less substantial injury, than the other method? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Correct. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, it is a form of force, but the effect 
of this form of force is, as far as its serious impact, physical impact, 
on individuals, it is likely to be less than where here is no mass pick- 
eting, where great tensions have been stirred up ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. This is what we were hopeful of. 

Senator Ervin. As a matter of fact, strikes are a form of industrial 
warfare in which you have, as in this particular case, you have man- 
agement, which is composed of human beings, the nonstrikers, who 
desire to continue work, who are human beings, and the strikers who 
were attempting to curtail production, who are also human beings, 
where the tensions of these persons in all groups is built up ; is that not 
true? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Yes, sir. The strike is significant of the breakdown 
of the collective-bargaining relationship. 

Senator Ervin. And wherever you have a strike of that character, 
you are likely to have sporadic cases of violence, despite all efforts 
that may be exerted by everybody, the peace officers, the union, the 
management, and everybody else to prevent them, is that not true, in 
mass picketing? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And all of this tends to show that m the ultimate 
analysis it is always desirable for reasonable men to sit down around 
a council table p.nd see if they cannot resolve controversies of that 
nature in a reasonable manner to the advantage of all parties; is that 
not true? 

Mr. Burkhart. I wish that that were still possible in this situation, 
Mr. Senator. 

Senator Er\t[n. As a matter of fact, Mr. Burkhart, in the final 
analysis, are not the real interests of management, stockholders, and 
employees the same ? 

]Mr. Burkhart. And the consuming public. 

Senator Ervin. And the consuming public. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Burkhart, I did not hear all of the question- 
ing of you, but have you expressed your opinion on the mass picketing? 

It seems to me picketing is to give information, and mass picketing 
is an abuse of it, no matter what the arguments involved in the dispute 
may be. Do you feel that, or what do you feel about it, having seen 
it operate ? 

Mr. Burkhart. Senator Kennedy, I did speak on that a few mo- 
ments ago. I will not recap it entirely, but I think that the basic 
thing that I tried to say was that if you take away the right of a union 
to conduct a primary boycott, if you take away the right of workers 
to picket in large groups, then you must provide for them some alter- 
native for the solution of their problems. 

I know that you gentlemen are going to be considering this matter 
very carefully. I think that when the time comes that you do speak 
of legislation, that you must think what happens to the workers. 



IMPRiOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8673 

I said a while ago that I was fearful that if you bottled the workers 
up entirely as far as their attempts to win gains at the collective- 
bargaining table, that your legislation might not be any more bene- 
ficial than the Volstead Act was. There has to be a way to go, is what 
I am trying to say. 

When a company takes the attitude that the people be damned, 
then where do you go from there ? 

If they say at the collective bargaining table, "This is our position, 
and we are not moving from it. You can do what you want to" ; when 
you recognize that that position would smash your union, we have to 
have someplace to go. I don't consider myself smart enough to know 
what it would be. 

Senator Kennedy. We might have to redefine what really is collec- 
tive bargaining and what merely sitting at the table and refusing to 
negotiate is. That definition may have to be redefined. 

But, on the other hand, it does not seem to me there is any defense 
of mass picketing. That is merely attempting to enforce your rights 
and denying rights to others. While I know it causes great distress 
to see workers cross the line, and, therefore, break down the force of the 
strike, I do not see any justification for a minority or even a majority 
to place themselves in such a position that others cannot do what they 
desire to do. 

I think if this hearing has any advantage, I am hopeful that that 
position can be clarified. As I say, we may have to redefine the defi- 
nition of what is collective bargaining. 

Mr. BuRKiiART. This is one reason that we were particularly inter- 
ested in attempting to get an arbitration clause in the Kohler contract. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I have a question on this point. 

I agree with Senator Kennedy in the observation that mass picket- 
ing, which is a species of force, is illegal. I believe you concede there 
was mass picketing from April 4 until the time of the issuance of the 
order by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes. sir. 

Senator Ervin. I have not read the order of the Wisconsin board, 
but I infer from what was said here that the board issued an order 
requiring the union to restrict the number of pickets ; is that correct ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I say I have never read the order of the Wisconsin 
board, but I infer from the testimony that has been given here that 
the board order required the union to restrict the number of the 
pickets ? 

Mr. BuRKHART. Yes, sir, and along with that, they sent a memo- 
randum which condemned the company very severely, saying it was 
fantastic that in this day and age a company would go into this arsenal, 
and things of that sort. 

I wish you would read the order and the accompanying memo- 
randums. 

Senator Ervin. After the order was issued, did the union comply 
with it; that is, with reference to reducing the number of pickets? 

Mr. BuRKHART. We were having a conflict at that time. I know 
Senator Ives said something about the Taft-Hartley Act early in the 
hearings. It was the union's position that the Taft-Hartley Act pre- 



8674 IiMPRiOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

enipted rhe field. But when the WERE order was backed up by a 
court injunction, then we obeyed tlie court injunction. 

Senator Ervin. And the court injunction, did that restrict the num- 
ber of pickets ? 

Mr. BuRKiiART. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I am of the opinion that mass picketing is also in 
common Law and assault, not nec^ssarily battery, a simple assault 
in common law States, where a person is prevented from going where 
he desires to go and has a right to go. 

I am frank to state that in the present state of our law, under the 
preemption doctrine, I do not know exactly to what extent the Taft- 
Hartley law, as now held by the courts, goes to preclude State action. 
The more I read these decisions, the more confused I become on that 
subject. 

Mr. Rauii. That is pending, Senator Ervin, in the Supreme Court 
now, in the Russell case, that very question of the right of State action 
under common law action as against the Taft-Hartley. 

Senator Ervin. I just made that observation because what I had 
learned in times past may no longer be sound. 

The Chairman. Senator Gold water. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Burkhart, one last clearing up. 

Senator Ervin asked you if when the board order came down, did 
you order your pickets to stop, and I do not believe you answered. 

Mr. Burkhart. I did answer. 

There was a mass meeting held of the Kohler strikers. I think it 
was on the 7th of May. Wetiien entered into this WERB trust period 
that I believe you heard mentioned. Then, on the refusal of the 
company to bargain collectively with us, another meeting was called 
of the local union membership on Sunday. 

On Monday, the original form of picketing was resorted to, and 
then an injunction was handed down against the union. At that 
point the local union obeyed the injunction. 

Senator Goldwater. Just to keep the record perfectly clear on 
that point, and for Senator Ervin's and all of our information, I want 
to read from the Daily Labor Reporter on the trial examiner's report 
on this particular incident. I quote from page 20 of that publication : 

In the meantime, WERB proceeded with its hearings, and on May 21 it issued 
its order directing the union to cease and desist from certain specified conduct, 
including obstruction or interference with ingress or egress from the plant, 
hindering or preventing by mass picketing, threats, intimidation, or coercion 
of any kind, the pursuit of work or employment by persons desirous thereof, 
the intimidation of the families of such persons, and the picketing of their 
domiciles. 

Then in the next paragraph : 

The union informed its membership that the order was not enforcible and 
would not change the picketing in any way. 

That is al II have. 

Senator Ervin. I might state in this connection, to keep the record 
straight, as a member of the North Carolina Supreme Court, I always 
took the position that the State had a right to restrain violence, and 
its laws Avere not superseded. But I do not know what the Supreme 
Court of the United States will do. I must confess that it and myself 
are not always entirely in agreement. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8675 

Is tliere anythino- further from this witness ? 

The coniinittee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Members present at the taking- of the recess were: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Kennedy, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 30 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Elsesser. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Burkhart be excused, sir ? 

The Chairman. Does anyone think that they will need Mr. Burk- 
hart any further ? 

Thank you very much. You may be excused. 

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. Elsesser. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN ELSESSER 

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

Mr. Elsesser. My name is John Elsesser. I live at 1420 Annie- 
court, Sheboygan, Wis. I work at the Kohler Co., in the iron foundry. 

The Chairman. You waive the right to counsel, do you, Mr. 
Elsesser? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you working at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr, Elsesser. Continuously, or accumulated time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, prior to the strike. 

Mr. Elsesser. I have been working there since February of 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are working in the foundry department? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^^NNEDY. Now, you did not join the UAW ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when they went out on strike, you did not sup- 
port the strike ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I did not support the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the picketing, the mass picketing ended, you 
came back to work ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you continued working in the foundry de- 
partment ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during that period of time when you came 
back to work, did you receive telephone calls ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Will you repeat the question? 

Mr. Kennedy. After you came back to work, did you receive tele- 
phone calls ? 



8676 IMPBOPEK ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of telephone calls did you get? 

Mr. Elsesser. Just regular ordinary telephone calls, and they 
called me scab and dirty names, and things like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they continuous? Did you get a lot of them? 

Mr. Elsesser. Intermittent, day in and day out, and in the course 
of the evening, 11 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning, just so I would 
be awake most of the evening. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they threatening telephone calls ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Not threatening. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just calling you names ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, on March 26, 1955, had you planned to go out 
to a movie ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go out to your car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you attempted to start your car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you you notice there was something wrong? 

Mr. Elsesser. It wouldn't start. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you do ? 

Mr. Elsesser. So my wife got out of the car and she went into 
the house, and I believe it was for a flashlight, if my memory serves 
me right, and in the meantime the car started. 

So I pulled the car ahead to the picket fence so my wife could get 
in better and she was out and as she was going to get in tlie door there 
was an explosion in the rear end of the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the rear of the car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was she at the time ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I believe she was on the side of the door, ready to 
open the door. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were in the car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I was in the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat happened? 

Mr. Elsesser. Well, the explosion occurred and she held her ears, 
and she screamed, and I thought there was something under the hood, 
and I couldn't tell from where the sound was coming from, and she 
screamed and held her ears and she said, "I have a broken eardrum" 
and I imagine she had a pain in the ear. 

We called the police and they came over to investigate and found 
several fuses in the rear. 

Mr. Kennedy. Several fuses? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they determine what had caused the explosion ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They determined it was dynamite. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was dynamite in the rear of the car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how had it gone off ? Had it been a fuse ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They found fuses right in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the dynamite, if you hadn't moved the car for- 
ward, would have gone off right underneath the car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8677 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the car completely wrecked ? 

Mr. Elsesser. The car was not damaged one bit. It landed be- 
hind the car, and I had pulled the car forward so my wife could get 
in better. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. So the car was not damaged ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But your wife suffered a broken eardrum ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has that affected her hearing now ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I don't know whether it atiects her hearing but she 
still complains of pain in tlie otiv. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know whether it has affected her hear- 
ing or not ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to the doctor ? 

Mr. Elsesser. She had treatments taken. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did those treatments continue. 

Mr. Elsesser. She paid two or three visits and I don't remember 
how many times she went there. 

Mr. Kennedy". You reported that to the police at that time ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy'. They came up and made an investigation ? 

Mr. Elsesser. What investigation ? I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy". Did they make an investigation ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They investigated, the police did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever determined as to who was responsible 
for the dynamiting ? 

Mr. P^lsesser. 1 don't know. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Now, ou March 27, did you find that five windows of 
your home had been busted '? 

Mr. Elsesser. The number I don't recall. It has been a long time, 
but there were a number of windows broken. We took a check, and 
my dad had gone to the house at the time, and I reported to him, and 
he reported to the insurance company. 

Mr. Kennedy". Did you collect insurance on that ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much insurance ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I wouldn't know. My dad took care of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was for approximately 4 or 5 windows? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy". Do you know how they were busted or broken ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I thought it was from the concussion. The children 
were in the house, and they said tlie house shook tremendously, and 
they weren't broken before, and that is what caused it. 

]Mr. Kennedy". It might have been the concussion from the explo- 
sion ? 

Mr. P^LSESSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy". But whoever was responsible for that was not appre- 
hended either, is that right ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On Friday evening, December 23, 1955, were j^ou sit- 
ting at home watching television with your wife ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I was sitting in the living room holding my daughter. 

21243—58 — pt. 21 — —23 



8678 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. With your daughter in your lap ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what happened ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I was sitting there watching TV and, well, someone 
from outside had thrown some object in, in the living room, and into 
the bedroom simultaneously, and I saw paint splashed on the rug and 
on the drapes, and I knew right away what it was. It was charged 
Avitli paint, and they had thrown them into two rooms. 

Mr. Kennedy. They threw jars filled with paint into two of your 
rooms ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they splattered all over? 

Mr. Elsesser. All over. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have insurance on that ? 

Mr. E^lsesser. I had insurance for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And from the insurance company, do you now re- 
member how much it was 'i 

Mr. Elsesser. It was in excess of $700, and I don't remember ih^ 
amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there was paint all over the rugs 't 

Mr. Elsesser. All over the rugs and the drapes and wall and ceilings 
and front porch, and inside and out. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. Did they ever find out who was responsible for that? 

Mr. Elsesser. I don't believe so, sir. I never did hear. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you think in your own mind as to who was 
responsible, or did you have any evidence as to who was responsible ? 

Mr. Elsesser. 1 had no evidence, no, and I had no idea who it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think it was something that arose out of 
the strike? 

Mr. Elsesser. I believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no evidence or information, but you feel 
that it probably arose out of the strike ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Diet you have any other enemies at the time, serious 
enemies ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I really don't think that I had any enemies before 
this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had anything like this occurred before to your 
home or to your car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. To my car. I believe it was previous to that. I had 
paint remover thrown on the hood. 

Mr. Kennedy. But other than during this period of the strike, 
had anything like this occurred ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were going to tell us, or you told us about 
the dynamite, and the paint bomliings in your home, and then you say 
that your car was paint bombed ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir, and the hood of the car was covered with 
paint remover, and I believe that was in the latter part of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out who was responsible for that? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir, I didn't, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything else that happened to you ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Well, there was a sort of a ball bearing or a pellet, 
from a pellet gun. Evidently it was a shot from outside the house, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8679 

and sounded like a gun went off, and at the same time it hit the win- 
dow, and 1 went out and investigated and all I found was a ball bear- 
ing, about o or 4 times the size of a pea, and a round whole was in 
the window. And I looked around and I couldn't see anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you think happened then — someone threw 
that at the window ? 

Mr. P]lsesser. Evidently, either thrown or shot. It sounded like a 
shot or a backfire of a car. I thought it may have been from an air 
pistol, and I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't it have gone through the window if it was 
shot? 

Mr, Elsesser. It might have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they find out who was responsible for that ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever physically beaten yourself ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Just kicked, and not seriously, but I was kicked, 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien were you kicked '( 

Mr. Elsesser. I wouldn't know that exactly. I would say it was 
about 3 years ago. This happened in the local tavern. 

Mr. Kennedy. In a tavern ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ( 

Mr. Elsesser. I might explain. There were two of us went into 
this particular tavern, a friend and myself, and I believe we were 
the only Kohler workers in there, and we were at the bar 10 or 15 
minutes and there was another fellow in there, and I know him but 
I just can't think of his name. 

And he kept calling us "scab,"' and "scab," and different names, and 
we never paid any attention to him and we just ignored him. After 
about 15 or 20 minutes, Roger Bliss, and Roger Fredericks, local 
union boys came in, and about six other fellows behind them. 

They came in and harassed us, and called us names. We paid no 
attention to them, and they started kicking. They kicked me 2 or 3 
times and I went back to the bar and put my elbows on the bar, and 
so I figured if they did come to me, I would be prepared. 

So the other fellow turns his back to him. Roger Fredericks, he 
came from the rear and kicked him as hard as he could from the rear. 

I said, to the man at the bar, "Why do you let this go on? Why 
don't you call the police?" He said, "It is no concern of mine. Do 
you want to call the police?" And I said, "No, I will call my wife." 
And I figured that way we could call the police. And this bunch of 
fellows got in front of the telephone, and said, "What do you want 
to do?" 

I said, "I want to call my wife." But really I wanted to call the 
police, and I figured that was the only way I could get through. 
They started kicking me in the groin, and kneeing me m the grom, 
and I went back to the bar again, and I gave the" bartender a dime 
and asked liim whether he would call a taxi for me, and he said "Yes," 
and he would call me a taxi, and asked, "Do you want to leave?'' 
And they wouldn't let us out the door again. 

So we did worm our way out of there, and there were 3 or 4 people 
ahead of me, and I gave this 1 fellow a shove, and he went halfway 
through, and he finished up and as soon as he was through, I got 



8680 miPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

behind him and in a cab and drove about 2 blocks and I came back, 
and I walked back and took my car, and it was across the street, and 
I went down to the police department and reported it. 

I served a warrant on Roger Bliss and Roger Fredericks, and I 
believe they picked them up. 

Mr. Kennedy. They picked him up where ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They picked him up ; I believe they are out on bail. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are out on bail ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the case? 

Mr. Elsesser. I dropped the case personally, I am not too sure, 
I think about 8 months ago. This particular fellow was in California, 
and they had brought it up several times, and it was always adjourned. 

Now the district attorney said, well, they are going to try it now, 
but the fellow isn't here ; he is in California. 

So he said all he would get would probably be assault and battery, 
and it is best to drop it and that is what I did. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Was there anything else happen to you in connection 
with this matter ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I had roofing nails thrown into my driveway. 

Mr. Kennedy. Broken nails? 

Mr. Elsesser. Roofing nails. I had milk bottles thrown into my 
front lawn. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVliat is that ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Milk bottlas broken, and a brick thrown. This was 
shortly after the paint bombing, a brick thrown through the front of 
the house. They were aiming at the window and hit the drain pipe. 
That is all I remember offhand, I am sure there was more. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a very active time? 

Mr. Elsesser. I sure did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And other than the incident in the tavern, nobody 
was arrested in connection with the matter ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir ; they were both picked up later on, but they 
were released on bail. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you feel that all of this tension that was directed 
in your direction, grew out of the strike, in the altercation ? 

Mr. Elsesser. There is one more incident, the clay-boat incident. 
This is in February. Do you have the date, I believe it is 1955, in 
February. 

Mr. Kennedy. July, I think. 

Mr. Elsesser. It was July, and this particular day my wife and 
three children and my wife's aunt had decided to go for a ride, and 
we were riding around Sheboygan, and we went down around the 
lake, toward Pennsylvania Avenue, and we saw many people on both 
sides of the street lined up. 

Of course, I knew what they were down there after when I got 
there, and in fact I heard it before, but I did not think there would 
be that many people. Anyway I got caught in the traffic and I could 
not get out. So I had to follow them. So I got about halfway 
through, and I noticed a small fellow on the left of the road, pointing 
to my car. 

He said, "There is Elsesser," and at the same time, both lines on 
both sides closed in, and they smashed my windows, and surrounded 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8681 

my car completely and I could not get out. Cars ahead of me moved 
out and I was sitting there alone. 

They smashed all of my windows, and kicked at my car, and fend- 
ers, and my hood and trunk, and I had to have my whole car finished. 
There was 1 fellow, I did not identify anybody, because my 3 chil- 
dren and my wife and my aunt, they were so excited, they were all 
over me and it was hard to hear, but my wife's aunt she identified 
one as Jim Bailey, and he said, "There she is, and I am going to 
get her." 

It took me a good 15 or 20 minutes to get out of there. There was 1 
policeman there, that I noticed, and he was just standing there, and he 
didn't even attempt, the crowd was so great, and finally I worked 
myself down to the armory, which was 2 or 3 blocks, and there he came 
to my rescue and got them off, and I went away, and I reported it to 
the police at the station. 

Mr. Kennedy. That happened down at the clay boat ? 

Mr. Elsesser. At the clay boat ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When the clay boat came in ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing there ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I was riding around with my wife and children. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the crowd there before you came in ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I believe they were. They were there when I got 
there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took your wife and children in there ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They were on both sides, not on the road. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see the crowd down there ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you bring your wife and children down 
there ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Wlien I was in traffic, I couldn't get out. Cars were 
lined up all through there. I normally go to the lake all the time. 
It is a nice ride for the children, 

Mr. Kennedy. You could not see the crowd ahead of you ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir. There is a bend in the road. If you know 
how the road comes from the lower section, by the coalyard, it winds 
around, and you couldn't see it. There is sort of a hill. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I can't think of it right offhand. 

The Chairman. I present to you here a group of five photographs. 
Will you examine them and state if you identify them ? 

(The photographs were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Elsesser. This looks like the alley where the dynamite caused 
the hole, this one, yes. 

The Chairman. Do you identify those photographs ? 

Mr. Elsesser. As my home, yes, where I lived at the time. 

The Chairman. They are photographs of what ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Of the explosion, the dynamite explosion. 

The Chairman. Of the dynamite explosion. At the time, was an 
attempt made to dynamite your car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 23-A, B, C, D, and so 
forth. 



8682 IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 23-A 
through E" for reference, and may be found in the files of the select 
committee. ) 

The Chairman. I have here another series of photographs, some 
7 or 8 of them. I will present those to you to examine them and state 
if you identify them. 

( The photographs were handed to the. witness. ) 

Mr. Elsesser. This is my home that was paint-bombed and the 
contents that were damaged, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Those show your home that was paint-bombed 
and also damage that was done to it at different times ? 

Mr, Elsesser. Yes, sir. At this particular paint-bombing, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, they may be made exhibit No. 24, A, B. 
C, and so forth. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 24-A 
through 24-H" for reference and may be found in the files of the 
select committee.) 

The Chairman. As I understand you, when your car was dyna- 
mited, had you not fortunately moved your car from where you first 
got it started, when you first got into it, would not the car have been 
bombed and you, too ? 

Mr. Elsesser. It certainly would. There is Kudy's ambulance 
across the street, and they sit by the window and watch the traffic go 
by and wait for calls. After this happened, he came over and he 
said just after he came out of the house, somebody came through with 
a Kaiser, I believe he said a green Kaiser, and somebody threw some- 
thing under the car that looked to him like a cigarette. That is evi- 
dently what happened. 

The Chairman. Had it been placed in the car or merely underneath 
it? 

Mr. Elsesser. Underneath the car. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon 'I 

]Mr. Elsesser. Underneath it. 

The Chairman. It had just been thrown underneath the car and 
had not been placed in the car ? 

Mr. Elsesser. It was underneath. 

The Chairman. As I understand, you had never had any previous 
trouble ; you had never had any vandalism committed on your prem- 
ises or property, or anything prior to this strike ? 

Mr, Elsesser. Prior to the strike, no, sir. 

The Chairman. And on the occasion when you were down in the 
tavern, you did identify the people who molested you there? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And they were union strikers ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, they were. 

The Chairman. You knew them personally ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I knew them both. 

The Chairman. You do not know, you have no proof as to who 
committed these acts of violence on your property ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I have no proof. 

The Chairman. Did you ever make an effort to find out who did it? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir, I did not. 

The Chairman. Are you afraid? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8683 

Mr. Elsesser. I am not afraid of anybody. I figured it was no use. 
You get the guilty party and they would lie out of it anyway. I let 
the law enforcement officers take care of that. 

The Chairman. You were never able to get the others prosecuted 
when you identified them, were you ? 

Mr. Elsesser. It seems like anyone done something from the union 
side, you would get them to court and it was always postponed or 
dropped. 

The Chairman. Always postponed or dropped? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They seemed to have tremendous power there at 
that time, did they ? 

Mr, Elsesser. Yes, sir. I am just one man and I am not strong 
enough for a big outfit like that. 

The Chairman. There was never any doubt in your mind about 
who was causing this damage ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I don't believe so ; no, sir. We never had trouble be- 
fore. It just started since the strike. 

The Chairman. You had no trouble before. 

Are there any questions ? Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You do not believe that your neighbors caused 
this trouble for you just spontaneously because they thought you 
were a scab, do you ? 

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

Senator Cltrtis. No one else does either. All of this testimony 
here of denials of responsibility for it and lack of knowledge, I don't 
think is impressing anybody. I do not believe anyone is believing it. 

Did other coal workers have experiences somewhat similar to yours ? 
That is, of being molested in their homes and cars and one thing and 
another ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Sure. There is many instances. I read in the paper 
many times. 

Senator Curtis. Did you know some of those people that you read 
about ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Some of them I did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The people who were violent and molesting of 
various kinds, were any of them strikers ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I do not believe I know of any, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It was always directed against you people who 
were not joining in the strike ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir, to the best of my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. You need not repeat the unbecoming language, 
but tell me a little bit more about these telephone calls that you would 
get that would disturb you in the night. 

Mr. Elsesser. Well, they would start late in the evening, say from 
8 or 10, and they would wait another hour or two and then there would 
be another call. Many times they never even talked back. AVlien you 
answered, there would be no voice on the other end at all. You would 
just hear the click of the receiver. Just so you would get out of bed. 
Especially at 2 or 3 in the morning when they knew you were sleeping. 

Senator Curtis. It was evident they were calling to torment you? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. If they did engage in any conversation, what type 
of conversation would they engage in ? 



8684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Elsesser. Filthy language. 

Senator Curtis. And call you a scab ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir, with a few swear words to boot, s. o. b., scab, 
and things like that. 

Senator ('urtis. Did you ever recognize any of the voices? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir, I never did. 

Senator Curtis. Were they always men ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Not always. One instance that I know of there was a 
woman that called. 

Senator Curtis. And if they started this up some night, they would 
call you several times during the night ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. I got calls as late as 5 : 15 in the morning, 
and I normally get up at say, 5:15 or 5 : 30. 

Senator Curtis. In the course of your acquaintance around there, 
aid that happen to anybody else that you know of, who were tormented 
by telephone calls ? 

Mr. Eisesser. Many people had teleiphone calls. 

Senator Curtis. By telephone calls, you mean the annoying type of 
calls you described ? 

Mr. Elsesser, Yes, sir, both types. 

Senator Curtis. Those people who got the calls, were they strikers 
or nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They were nonstrikers, working. 

Senator Curtis. So it just did not happen to you alone ? 

Mr, Elsesser. No, sir, I am not the only one. 

Senator Curtis. Now, relating to this time that you were assaulted 
in the tavern, who were the two men you identified ? 

Mr. Elsesser, Roger Bliss and Roger Fredericks, 

Senator Curtis. Roger Bliss and Roger Fredericks? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where do they live ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They live in Sheboygan ; they are both local boys. 

Senator Curtis. Where are they employed ? 

Mr. Elsesser. They were employed at Kohler, prior to the strike. 

Senator Curtis. Were they strikers ? 

Mr. Elsesser, They were both strikers. 

Senator Curtis. There was some conversation before you were 
assaulted ? 

Mr. Elsesser. We didn't even talk to them. There was no con- 
versation whatsoever. It was just all one sided. We never even 
answered them. We never paid no attention. 

Senator Curtis, What you are saying is, you did not talk to them? 

Mr, Elsesser, No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But they said something to you ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What would be the nature of what they would say ? 

Mr. Elsesser, Dirty scab and filthy names. They wanted to tor- 
ment, just make us mad enough they thought probably we would fight. 
But this other fellow with me, I had to quiet him down. He was 
getting pretty wound up. He did not want to take that. There 
was too many people in there. 

Senator Curtis. Wliere did he work? 

Mr. Elsesser. He worked at Kohler Co. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8685 

Senator Curtis. Was he a striker ? 

Mr. Elsesser. No, sir, he was a nonstriker. 

Senator Curtis. Was he kicked, too ? 

Mr. Elsesser. He was hurt worse than I was. 

Senator Curtis. What was his name ? 

Mr. Elsesser. His name was William MuUer. As a matter of 
fact, he lost 3 weeks' work that time. 

Senator Curtis. At the time you and your family were molested 
in your car near the clay boat, about how many people came out and 
took part in that molestation ? 

Mr. Elsesser. It is hard to judge. I judge there were 2,000 people 
there that day. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, but how many of them came out and bothered 
you? 

Mr. Elsesser. They were swarming me with people. I have no 
idea. I would say at least a hundred. They converged from both 
sides, they all did, all that could get around the car. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you lived in that community? 

Mr. Elsesser. Since about 1923. 

Senator Curtis. In that big crowd down there at the clay boat, did 
you recognize all of the people as being residents of that community ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I didn't recognize anyone that night. I was in a 
hurry to get out of there, and I had no time to look at anyone. With 
my wife and children screaming, I didn't have time to look. They 
knocked my car out of gear and I had to get out the best I could. 

Senator Curtis. Did they talk to you or shout to you as they were 
doing this? 

Mr. Elsesser. They were screaming, yes, screaming and hollering. 

Senator Curtis. How much damage was done to your car? 

Mr. Elsesser. I don't know the actual cost, but the complete body 
was dented all the way around, dented and scratched, and all my side 
windows were broken, all but the windshield and rear window were 
broken. 

Senator Curtis. How much of a family do you have ? 

Mr. Elsesser. I have four children. 

Senator Curtis. How old is the oldest one? 

Mr. Elsesser. The oldest one is 15. 

Senator Curtis. Fifteen ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir, he was not along. The three youngest chil- 
dren were along. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find this general experience of the tele- 
phone calls, paint cans coming through your window and harming 
your car, a disturbing factor so far as your wife and children were 
concerned ? 

Mr. Elsesser. Yes, sir, my wife and children, it made them very 
nervous. My wife still has a nervous condition because of it. 

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

Senator Curtis. The police, at least, were not successful in doing 
anything about apprehending and punishing those who had tormented 
you? 

Mr. Elsesser. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a general feeling around there that it 
was somewhat useless to try to prosecute ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Elsesser. I believe so, sir. You had a feeling it didn't do any 
good to take anyone to court. It was either dropped or dismissed. 
It was just useless. 

Senator Curtis. I want to say to you I think you have been a very 
good witness. I hope that before this hearing is over the people who 
have directed this campaign will come forward and admit it because 
I, for one, do not believe that these things were spontaneous, but that 
this was a well-organized campaign in which about $10 million was 
invested. 

I think in fairness to the fine working men and women of the coun- 
try, both organized and unorganized, that the people responsible for 
this reign of terror ought to accept the responsibility and admit it, 
thus removing the blight on unions generally for these things 
happening. 

The Chx\irmxVn. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, this morning I promised to submit the 
death certificate of tlie man to whom Senator Mundt referred to as 
having been murdered. I told him that that was a distortion, I 
hold in my hand the document proving beyond anj^ doubt that it was 
a distortion. 

The Chairman. Let us see the document. 

Mr. Rauh. May I offer it? May I describe it? I will show it, 
certainly. I would like just to be sure that it is described. 

(The document was handed to the committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have another one ? What does it say ? 

Mr. Rauh. "Heart disease, arterial sclerosis, congestive failure." 

The Chairman. May I inquire of the staff if anyone has checked 
into this and laiows whether this is correct or not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have never seen this document before. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask a question or two in the way of 
foundation before he introduces this. 

The Chairman. I have not admitted it yet. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask a question. Whose death cer- 
tificate is this ? 

Mr. Rauh. This is the death certificate of Mr. William Bersch 
whom Senator Mundt this morning said had been murdered by Mr. 
Gunaca. This document contains the words, "Cause of death : Heart 
disease, arterial sclerosis, congestive failure." 

Senator Curtis. I did not ask you for all of that. I asked you who 
it was. 

The Chairman. I think this sliould be taken up when Senator 
Mundt is present. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, 10 minutes ago I sent word to Mr. Mc- 
Govern that we asked for Senator Mundt to come. 

The Chairman. Just one moment, please. 

I feel that Senator Mundt should be present if this matter is to be 
received in evidence. The raised the question and I thought he should 
be present. Does anyone know whether he is going to return to the 
committee ? 

Mrs. DucKETT. The report from his office is that he is to return. 

The Chairman. He is to return ? 

Mrs. DucKETT. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8687 

The Chairman. Then we will withhold the matter until Senator 
Mnndt returns. At that time, I will be glad to go into it again. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask my question then ^ 

The Chairman. Certainly, Senator. I was just trying to extend to 
Senator Mundt a courtesy. 

Senator Curtis. That is all right. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness, please. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bernard M. Daane. 

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 ? 



TESTIMONY OF BERNARD M. DAANE 

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

Mr. Daane. My name is Bernard M. Daane. I reside at Rural 
Route 2, Sheboygan Falls and I am an enameler at the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Do you waive the right to counsel ? 

Mr. Daane. Voluntarily. 

The Chairman. I say do you waive the right to counsel ? 

Mr. Daane. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you want an attorney present ? 

Mr. Daane. No, I do not. 

The Chairman. You waive it, then. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were working at the Kohler Co. for how long? 

Mr. Daane. It will be in 1955—1 started on February 27 or 28, 1955. 
That will be 3 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You started working there after the strike ? 

Mr. Daane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where had you come in from ? 

Mr. Daane. The farm. 

Mr. Kennedy. From a farm? You knew that the Kohler Co. was 
trying to replace the people that had gone out on strike ? 

Mr. Daane. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy.^ Had you seen one of their advertisements in the 
paper ? 

Mr. Daane. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were aware of the fact that they were trying 
to replace the strikers ? 

Mr. Daane. I just went in voluntarily on my own basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you started to go to work there in February of 
1955? 

Mr. Daane. Right. 

JNIr. Kennedy. After you started to go to work there, did you receive 
any telephone calls? 

Mr. Daane. Numerous telephone calls. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was said in those telephone calls ? 

Mr. Daane. Everything. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, were you threatened ? 

Mr. Daane. I had not been threatened for my life, no ; but I had 
been called everything, and my children have answered the phone and 
have been called everything, vulgar words. 



8688 IMPROPER AcrrviTiES in the labor field 

Mr. Kennedy. Vulgar words on the telephone ? 

Mr. Daane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And have they called you a scab? 

Mr. Daane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And used vulgar language ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on March 21, 1955, at 1 : 50 in the morning, 
about 1 : 50 a. m., were you awakened by a loud explosion ? 

Mr. Daane. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee w^hat happened ? 

Mr. Daane. On March 21, at 1 : 50 a. m., I had went to bed about, 
I would say, approximately a quarter to one, and my wife came shortly 
afterward. She, just about 7 minutes prior to the shotgun blast, went 
down to turn the oil burner down and was right in the line of fire. 
She just laid down to retire and the blast came. She would have 
been in the line 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat kind of blast was it? 

Mr. Daane. It was from a 16-gage shotgun. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did the blast come from ? 

Mr. Daane. A man stood — his footprints were right in front of my 
window. He was at ground level with my picture window. 

Mr. Kennedy. He fired into th