(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"

rB" 



%illLil5^l^ 




t 



Given By 

H S. SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS. 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LAJBOE OR MANAGEMENT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

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



MARCH 5, 6, 7, 10, AND 11, 1958 



PART 22 



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




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT PIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

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



MARCH 5, 6, 7, 10, AND 11, 1958 



PART 22 



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




UNITED STATES 

GOVERhfMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1958 



Boston Public Library 
Superinto.n?1pnt of Documents 

JUN 5-1958 



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, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona 

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

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

n 



CONTENTS 



United Automobile Workers, AFL-CIO, and the Kohleb Co., 
OF Sheboygan, Wis. 
Testimony of: Pasre 

Adlerman, Jerome 8833, 8843 

Bellino, Carmine 8853 

Bersch, William, Jr 9075,9119 

Born, Joseph M 9137 

Breu, Peter 8779 

Conger, Lyman C 8838, 8854 

Desmond, Girard A 8789, 8836, 8839, 9137 

Gosse, Mrs. Arleigh 8762 

Gunaca, John 9097, 9111, 9120 

Hoffman, Hon. Clare E 8938 

Holling, Conrad 8774 

Hensel, Robert 8751 

Mazey, Emil 8902, 8939, 8985, 9018 

McGovern, John J 8901 

Murphy, Judge Harold F 8968 

Pladson, Mrs. Ole T 8784 

Rabinovitz, David 8847, 8861, 9095 

Rose, Ernest L 8745 

Schlichting, Judge F. H 8980 

Sippel, Victor 8765 

Van Ouvverkerk, Willard 8867 

Veenendaal, Roland 9092 

Vinson, William 8873 

Williams, Warren 8769 

Yerkman, Carl 8758 

in 



EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

33. A group of photographs showing damage done to the prop- 

erty of Rol)ert Hensol 8754 (*) 

34. Two photographs showing damage done to the property of 

Carl Yerkman from paint bombings 8760 (*) 

35. A group of photographs showing damage done to the prop- 

erty of John Gosse from paint bombings 8765 (*) 

36. A group of photographs showing damage done to the auto- 

mobile of Victor Sippel from dynamiting 8767 (*) 

37. A group of photographs showing damage done to the auto- 

mobile of Warren Williams from acid 8771 (*) 

38. A group of photographs showing damage done to the home 

of Peter Breu from paint bombings 8783 (*) 

39. A group of photographs showing damage done to the home 

of Ole Pladson from paint bombings ' 8787 (*) 

40. Seven folders of affidavits and photographs of violence and 

vandalism committed during the mass picketing of the 

Kohlerplant 8793 (*) 

41A. Newspaper articles: "Shooting Story Seems To Be Hoax," 
Sheboygan Press, January 8, 1955, and January 7, 1955, 
"Continue Investigation of Alleged Shooting Near 

Waldo" 8830 (*) 

41B. Statement of Martha Joyce dated January 8, 1955 8830 (*) 

41 C. Newspaper article: "Admits No Shot Fired at Striker," 

Sheboygan Press, January 22, 1955 8830 (*) 

42. Reports received from Sheboygan Police Department and 

from the sheriff's office of Sheboygan County, "Kohler 

Co. Striker Complaints" 8835 (*) 

43. List of names, dates, and people reimbursed by Kohler Co. 

for damages done to their property by vandalism 8838 (*) 

44. Four volumes of Kohler Co. "spy records" or checks on 

individuals 8862 (*) 

45. Transcript of a CIO broadcast from station WHBL 

Sunday, November 21, 1954 8902 (*) 

46. Prepared statement by Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer, 

UAW, AFL-CIO -- 8907 (*) 

47. Comparison of wages currently paid by Kohler Co. and its 

principal competitors 9018 (*) 

48. Senate Report No. 6, part 3, 76th Congress, 1st session: 

"Violations of Free Speech and Right of Labor," Com- 
mittee on Education and Labor, 1939 9022 (*) 

49. List of candidates endorsed by the Wayne County CIO 

council in spring 1953 elections 9135 (*) 

50. Photograph of picketing at the entrance to the dock, 

Donald Rand in the foreground 9139 (*) 

51. Picture of the dock and the clay boat at Sheboygan 9145 (*) 

52. A group of pictures showing picketing at the clay dock 9153 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

March 5, 1958 8745 

March 6, 1958 8861 

March 7, 1958 8937 

March 10, 1958 9017 

March 11, 1958 9075 

•May be found in the flies of the select committee. 
IV 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Commiitee on Improper Actpv^ities, 

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 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 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Kepublican, 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 present at the convening of the session were: Senators 
McClellan and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ernest Rose. 

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. Rose. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ERNEST L. ROSE. ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH L. RAUH. JR. 

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

Mr. Rose. My name is Ernest L. Rose, and I live at 2518 South 
Ninth Stree, Sheboygan, Wis., and I work for the National Plasti- 
craf ter Co. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel, Mr, Rose ? 

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I^t the record show that Mr. Rauh appears for 
the witness. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You work at the Kohler Co. ? 

8745 



8746 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Rose, I did until the strike. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. And you worked from what year ? 

Mr. Rose. 1948. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what division? 

Mr. Rose. Foundry. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you joined the UAW? 

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And went out on strike ^ 

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Plave you o;one back to work ? 

Mr. Rose. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where are you working now ? 

Mr. Rose. National Plasticrafter Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you start going to work ? 

Mr. Rose. iVbout a year and a half after the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. About a year and a half ? 

Mr. Rose. Y"es. 

Mr. Kennedy. Y"ou stayed on strike for a year and a half ? 

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you have any damage to any of your property ? 

Mr, Rose. Yes ; my car was damaged, 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened and when it hap- 
pened ? 

Mr. Rose. It was shortly after the strike started. The right front 
fender and the right door were deeply scratched, and the back of the 
car was also splattered with white paint. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you report that to the police ? 

Mr. Rose. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Rose. I did not want to get involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the damages involved ? Did you collect 
from the insurance company? 

Mr, Rose. The insurance company paid it ; $28. 

Mr, Kennedy, Now, do you Imow of any other acts of vandalism 
against any of the strikers ? 

Mr. Rose. Quite a few against union members, 

Mr, Kennedy. You know of others against union members? 

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, Such as what ? 

Mr. Rose. Well, Allan Grasskamp's window was busted by a big 
rock thrown through the ])late glass window in the front of his house 
and several ))eople had their cars sprayed with acid, and one man 
claimed that he had asbestos put in his gas tank. That is about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were acts of vandalism, then, against the strik- 
ers, you found ? 

Mr. Rose. Y^es, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find out who was responsible for them? _ 

Mr, Rose. Well, in one occasion, they did. Wliere a man had his 
car painted and the police arrested a man and fined him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a striker ? 

Mr. Rose. He was a scab, 

Mr, Kennedy, He was a nonstriker ? 

Mr, Rose, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, That was one ; they solved one case then ? 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8747 

Mr. Rose. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there has been some testimony regarding the 
acts of vandalism in greater numbers against the nonstrikers, the 
wrecking of the cars and dynamite put in automobiles, or under 
automobiles, and the shotgun blasts into homes. 

Do you know anybody that Avas responsible for any of that ? 

Mr. Rose. No, sir ; I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You personally were not responsible for it ? 

Mr. Rose. No, sir ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive any instructions to participate 
in that kind of activity ? 

Mr. Rose. We always had instructions not to do that sort of thing, 
and we were on strike against the Kohler C'o., and we were on strike 
for better working conditions, and stuff like that, and we were not to 
damage anybody's property. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Is it your theory that the nonstrikers did the 
damage to their own property, and to each others property, to try to 
make it appear that the union was doing it? 

Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. . 

The Chairman. That is your theory ? 

Mr. Rose. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you believe that ? 

Mv. Rose. Would you repeat that ? 

The Chairman. Do you believe that ? 

Mr. Rose. Well, there is an example of a hoax. 

The Chairman. Where is a hoax ? 

Mr. Rose. There was a man went to work for the Kohler Co. Two 
days later he come up with this story that he shot at somebody who 
was fooling around his garage. Later on it was brought out in an in- 
vestigation, his wife signed an afRda^dt to that effect, that he never 
shot anybody, and three men from the Kohler Co. came out to his 
house, and instructed him to shoot into his garage. 

AVlien the sheriff went out there, they never found any pellets, 
and no evidence of a shot being fired whatsoever, and yet he claimed 
that he shot at a man. 

The Chairman. The sheriff of that county has never found any- 
thing ; has he ? If he has, we haven't been able to find it out. 

Mr. Rose. Can I read this statement of the man's wife ? 

The Chairman. Well, let us see the statement. 

(A document was handed to the chairman.) 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, that statement was given by the man's 
wife, of the man who perpetrated the hoax at the request of the 
Kohler Co. That statement was given by the man's wife to the dis- 
trict attorney, and we would like to allow Mr. Rose to read that 
statement. 

The Chairman. No, Mr. Rauh, we are going to let the little woman 
testify to it herself, if anyone reads it. This is not under oath. 

Mr. Rauh. It was given to the district attorney. 

The Chairman. I don't care who it was given to. People can state 
things to the district attorney without being sworn, and this appar- 
ently is not sworn to. I am not going to take statements like that if 
the witness can be made available. I don't know whether she can 
or not ? 



8748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Do you Imow anything about this witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. The witness has testified according to his informa- 
tion, that this fellow perpetrated a hoax, and that is your information 
about it. 

Mr, KosE. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He pretended that he shot at somebody and did not ? 

Mr. KosE. That is right. 

The Chairman. And reported it to the sheriff ? 

Mr. Rose. Twelve hours later he reported it to the sheriff. 

The Chairman. Well, 12 hours late or 12 days, he reported it to the 
sheriff and the sheriff did not find anything ? 

Mr. Rose. No, sir ; there was no evidence of a shooting. 

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

Senator Goi.dwater. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I think this 
question could best be directed to Mr. Rauh, and I don't think the 
Avitness would know about it. 

Was this fact, or was this fact that the witness has testified to 
brought out at the NLRB hearings '( 

Mr. Rauh. •'One moment. Senator Goldwater. I will get the an- 
swer for you. As far as we know, it was not brought out at the NLRB 
hearing. 

Senator Goldwater. Were any similar statements made at the 
NLRB hearing? 

Mr. Rauh. The hoaxes were, I am informed by counsel from She- 
boygan, not relevant at the NLRB hearing. The only one of these 
matters that was brought up at the NLRB hearing was the arrest 
and conviction of Banonse, who is the man who threw the paint on 
Mr. Rose's car. No, it w^as Mr. Holling's car. He was convicted; 
a man named Brown. 

Senator Goldwater. Who was Banonse? 

Mr. Rai^h. Banonse was a nonstriker back at work who was con- 
victed of having thrown paint on two strikers' cars. I understand 
he was to be a witness here, but I now understand he is not to be a 
witness. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, would you ask Mr. Rabinovitz why these 
so-called hoaxes were not brought up at the NLRB hearing. 

Mr. Rauh. I already have, and Mr. Rabinovitz said that the hoaxes 
were irrelevant to the hearing, at the NLRB. 

Senator Goldavater. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. Rauh. I am not going to go back there. I was not in on the 
NLRB hearing. Apparently, Mr. Rabinovitz reminds me that the 
General Counsel of the NLRB would be the right man to put that 
question to. He was the prosecuting official at that hearing. He 
could give you the answer, and I don't have enough judgment. Senator 
Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you ask Mr. Rabinovitz, because I know 
you knew nothing about this NLRB hearing, how many of these 
cases such as we have heard from Mr. Rose would he say occurred 
during the strike ? 

Mr. R.\uh. Are you referring to the hoaxes or the vandalism against 
strikers t 



IMPRiOPBR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8749 

Senator Goldwater. How many acts of violence have been testified 
to by affidavits, or how many of these so-called hoaxes would he guess 
there Avere. 

Mr. E.AUH. We know of at least three, and then it gets to be a 
question. There are three where the hoaxes were proved and then it 
gets to be a question of some other items, wliich we think were hoaxes, 
but they are all in the debatable stage. There are three of the same 
category where the hoax has beeii admitted, as in this Joyce case, 
where the hoax was actually admitted by the wife of the man who 
})erpetrated it, and she said it was done at the request of three Kohlei' 
men. 

Now, there are three like that, Senator, and there are some that we 
could debate about. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Do you intend to introduce the other two ? 

Mr. Rauh. I didn't realize we weren't going to be permitted to put 
to put in the wife's statement this way. 

Senator Goldwater. That is up to "the Chair. Well, then, there 
were only three that you know definitely of ? 

Mr. Rauii. Three hoaxes is some evidence of more, you know, 
Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not arguing. I was hoping that you 
might have some more substantial evidence of the fact they were 
hoaxes. 

Mr. Ratjh. I don't know what more substantial evidence we could 
produce here than the man's wife's own statement to the district at- 
torney that this was a hoax perpetrated by three Kohler men. 

Senator Goldwater. I might ask the counsel, is it your intention 
to bring this lady down here ? 

]\Ir. Kennedy. I have no intention. 

Senator GoLDWA^rER. As far as I am concerned, I think that it might 
be a good idea to hear her, but that is entirely up to you. 

The Chairman. Will you supply me a copy of this statement ? 

Mr. Rauh. I will have it done right away and supply it to you, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think everybody realizes my position. You can 
go out and get statements and bring them in here and they are not 
sworn proof, and you have no opportunity to cross-examine them. If 
that were in affidavit form, the Chair would be inclined to admit it. 
But just going out and getting statements, if we opened up the record 
like that, you will have more hearsay than we have facts before 
we get through. 

I am simply trying to preserve the integrity of the record, inasmuch 
as we possible can. I am not charging that on either side of it, I 
don't know, but I think that there is a charge in there, in the state- 
ment, that three Kohler men, or Kohler representatives, persuaded 
her husband to take such action. 

I think that is pretty serious. If we can identify the men who did 
it, I would like to cross-examine them a little. But I don't like to 
just clutter the record with complete hearsay. 

I hope I am right in the position I am taking, and I am perfectly 
willing to get the facts if we can get them under oath. 

Mr, Rauh. I do not disagree with that in any way, sir. I simply 
was told that she was not coming, and this was the only thing I 
could do. 



8750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I understand. 

IVIr. Kauii. If she would come, that would suit us fine. I think that 
we would be ]3ermiUed, though, under the rules you have followed to 
date, to offer the newspaper accounts of this hoax ; that is, if the secre- 
tai\v would hand this up to the Chairman. 

These are the newspaper accounts of this same hoax, and they have 
been offered by various witnesses, and I think it would only be fair 
if they were j^ut into the record. 

(At this point, the followino; members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Conger. ]\Ir. Chairman, may I make a statement at tliis time, 
as the charge has been leveled against the Kohler Co.? I think I 
have a right to make a statement. 

The Chairman. The Chair will hear you briefly. 

Mr. Conger. Thei-e will be a witness, I expect this afternoon, Mr. 
Desmond, who can testify to what actually happened, who apparently 
is 1 of the 3 men referred to. 

I am sure that he will testif}^ that the Kohler Co. investigated this 
report, found that it was a hoax, and so reported to everybody. 

The Chairman. All right. We may be able to establish by direct 
j^roof that we have a hoax here. We will try it. If we need to go 
further and get other witnesses, we will do so. The newspaper article 
we will hold until the witness comes on who can identify it under oath 
and so forth. 

Senator Goldwater. Before you leave, Mr. Kauh, you feel certain 
after consulation with Mr. Eabinowitz, that three is the number of 
hoaxes that you feel you can establish ? 

Mr. Rauh. We only feel that there are three definitely proven 
hoaxes. We feel that there were a lot of other hoaxes that we don't 
have the facilities for proving. 

It is not easy for a private organization to go around proving 
hoaxes. There are three that are practically admitted. We feel there 
were others, but we do not have the ability to prove them. 

Senator Goldwater. The reason I ask is because I think it is a very 
important thing to develop, in view of the fact that there are 800 affi- 
davits of violence on the other side. I thought you possibly would 
develop all that you could. 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to permit this press report to be 
filed as an exhibit so as to serve as a basis for cross-examination of 
witnesses who may appear on the subject. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, could we withhold that filing 
of an exhibit until the witnesses are here ? 

The Chairman. We will withhold it, then. 

Senator Goldwater. I will give you my reasons, if you wish me to, 
for my request. 

The Chairman. I am perfectly willing to withhold it. I think that 
would be more proper. But if you are going to interrogate witnesses 
about it, then I think w^e ought to put it in as a basis of the interro- 
gation. 

Senator Goldwater. If the Chair wouldn't mind waiting until we 
have the witnesses, I believe it would be better. 

The Chairman. We wnll wait until we get the witnesses on who 
have been referred to and then ask them about it. 



EVIPRiOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8751 

Mr. Rauii. Senator Golchvater used the figure of 800. If he means 
800 people received phone calls, that is one thing. But I don't believe 
anybody — I don't believe from our investigation there is any number 
like that. That is either a phone call recipient or kind of a joke. I 
don't know which, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. No, it is not a joke. Counsel informs me that 
there were 846 affidavits. "Wliether they cover paint throwing or dy- 
namiting, or car wrecking, I don't know. I haven't seen the 845 affi- 
davits of violence. 

Mr. Rauh. You haven't seen them, but you are willing to make a 
charge that they include violence, whereas we do not know that they 
do. You are willing to make a charge without having seen the affi- 
davits on which you base your own charge, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. The newspapers have been qouting that figure 
for 4 years. 

Mr. Rauh. You just objected to our putting in a newspaper clip- 
ping, Senator. Why don't you play fair ? 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't object to it at all. I wanted it admit- 
ted at the proper time. 

The Chairman. Let's interrogate the witness. 

Proceed. 

Are there any further questions ? 

If there are no further questions of this witness, he may stand 
aside. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Robert Hensel. 

The Chair3ian. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be tlie truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Hensel. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EOBERT HENSEL 

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

Mr. Hensel. Robert Hensel, 1912 North 21st Street, Sheboygan, 
Wis., enq:)loyed at the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mv. Hensel, you have been employed at the Kohler 
Co. since 1939? 

]\Ir. Hensel. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not join the U AW ? 

Mr. Hensel. I belonged to the union. I didn't join until after 3 
months that I had been in the plant, and I belonged until the time 
of the strike, when I stayed out for 4 months. After that time I figured 
there was sufficient time to settle it and I had to go back to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join the j^ickets ? 

Mr. Hensel. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you stayed out of work ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in the meetings where they 
voted to strike ? 

Mr. Hensel. No, I did not. 



8752 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kenxedy. You went back to work in — when ? 1954 ? 

Mr. Hensel. July 26, 1954, if I remember correctly. 

Mr. Kennedy. You live in Sheboygan. Did a group of strikers, 
citizens, of Sheboygan come to your home one day and demonstrate 
in front of your home ? 

Mr. IIensel. Well, they were two houses away. I think there were 
about 6 or 7 the first day. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many ? 

Mr. Hensel. Six or seven the first day. The second day it in- 
creased to about 15 and then about 30. Then it w^ent up beyond any- 
one's — nobody knew actually how many there were. They increased 
steadily. 

Mr. Kennedy. In front of your own home ? 

]\Ir. PIensel. At first not, no. I mean people next door to me, to 
the south, to the north, or across the street, wherever they might 
have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. These were peo])le that were working at the Kohler 
Co.? 

Mr. Hensel. INIany of them were, although I could not say if they 
all did. As much as I could see them 

Mr. Kennedy. The demonstrations were in front of the homes of 
those who were working at the Kohler Co. ^ 

Mr. Hensel. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did they demonstrate in front of your home ? 

Mr. Hensel. There were 5 of us in that same block that worked, and 
3 of us are real close together. 

Mr. Kennedy. They demonstrated in front of all of them ? 

Mr. Hensel. In front of all the homes, more or less. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people were in front of the homes ? You 
said a few at the beginning, but then it got larger and larger ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many, finally ? 

Mr. Hensel. Well, I would judge anywhere from 150 to 200 and 
possibly more. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were they doing in front of your house ? 

Mr. Hensel. They would stand around and holler, and yelled 
scab, yellow belly, or coward. Often times you didn't pay too much 
attention, because there was such a terrific noise, and then tension and 
strain, and you were glad to get out of there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did this go on for a period of time ? 

Mr. Hensel. It lasted, I believe, 2 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there demonstrations every day for 2 Aveeks ? 

Mr. Hensel. Every day except Saturdays and Sundays. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they always in front of your home and these 
other homes ? 

Mr. Hensel. Well, the people that were there, you might say they 
covered a whole block, there were so many people there, and cars. I 
imagine a good many of them were spectators or just looking on, but at 
the same time there were strikers. I didn't know all of them. Some 
of them I knew, quite a few. But you didn't stand around to watch to 
find out actually who they were. 

Mr. Kenne:dy. Were there women in the group, too ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, women and children alike. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8753 

Mr. Kennedy. Was your house ever damaged by a paint bomb ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes. I had two cases of vandalism. 

Mr. Kennedy. One on January 23, 1955 ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, and one on July 9, 1 believe, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. And paint was splashed on your home and in the 
second instance on your home and on your porch, is that right ? 

Mr. Hensel. The first time it was red paint, just on the front of 
the porch. The second time I believe it was a creosote oil, as much 
as we could find out, according to th« painter. 

It w^as creosote on the front of the porch which had just been painted 
3 weeks before this happened, also on the side of the house, the back 
of the door. I have a double garage and both doors w^ere smeared 
with it, and also the north side of tlie garage, and I had acid on the 
lawn, and it killed the grass. They tried to write the w^ord "scab," 
the way it looked, but it didn't work out too well. 

]Mr. Kennedy. They tried to write the word "scab" ? 

Mr. Hensel. I have a slight bank there, where it slopes down, and 
you could see where the acid had been thrown. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1955 that the acid was thrown? 

Mr. Hensel. It Avas at the same time that the creosote w^as thrown. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, as much as I could tell. I didn't notice it right 
away, but I could tell that there was a peculiar look on the grass. 
I rubbed my hand over it slightly and I could tell that it was wet, 
but I couldn't tell what it was. In time it dried and the grass deadened. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have telephone calls in addition? 

Mr. Hensel. We had many telephone calls for about 2 or 3 weeks, 
mainly at night when we were sleeping. 

We'wouktget quite a few of them. It got so bad at last that I put 
a switch on my telephone and I could shut it off and the telephone 
wouldn't ring sharply but you would only get a buzz. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would they say on the telephone? 

Mr. Hensel. Sometimes they wouldn't say any thing. Other times 
they would call you a scab, and a lot of times they would say, "Are 
you scared ? Are you still going to work ?" 

During the night they never actually said too much, but my wife 
had several telephone cjills during the day when I would be at work 
that I couldn't repeat. 

If I ever found out who they were, a person could sue them. But 
we don't know who they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they trying in your estimation to scare you 
out of going to work ? 

Mr. Hensel. I gathered that is what their idea was. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you continued to go ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that continuing at the present time, or is it pretty 
well stopped? 

Mr. Hensel. No, it is fairly well stopped now. 

Mr. Kennedy. This damage that w^as done to your home, did you 
have insurance? 

jVIr. Hensel. The first case I always w^as under the impression that 
my insurance took care of it. At least, that is the impression that 1 
got from the insurance man. When the time came and the investi- 
gator came over, he said it w^asn't covered. Then the Kohler Co. took 



8754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

care of it. The second time I put additional coverage on my prop- 
erty and the insurance company paid for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What damage was done the first time ? 

Mr. HexseT;. The first time was $75 and the second time was $177 
and some cents. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Kohler Co. took care of fhe $75 and the 
insurance company took care of the $177? 

Mr. Hensel. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything else that happened to you? 

Mr. Hensel. No, not that I remember now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you yelled at in going to work ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, that was more or less going on all the time. We 
didn't know who that would be, a particular person. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. I hand you a series of pictures and ask you to 
examine them and state whether you identify them. 

(The photographs were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hensel. They are all mine. 

The Chairman. They are all yours? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you mean those are pictures of the damage done 
to your property ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, they are. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 33-A, B, C, and so 
forth. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 33-A to 
K" for reference, and may be found in the files of tlie select commit- 
tee^ 

The Chairman. The $75 and the $177, did that cover all of the 
damage represented in these pictures ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, it does. The only thing that didn't cover it was 
I had rose bushes in the back of the house that were damaged. In 
other words, they died off, and also the grass. The insurance didn't 
take care of that. I took care of it myself. The Kohler Co. offered 
to pay me for it, but I didn't send in a bill. It amounted to maybe 
$15, so I took care of it myself. 

The Chairman. Are you still w^orking at the Kohler plant? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I do. 

The Chairihan. What department do you w^ork in ? 

Mr. Hensel. Pottery casting. 

The Chairman. Is that where you have the trouble with silicosis? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. What are those working conditions ? I would like 
to have somebody tell us a little about them. I don't know that it is 
the function of the committee to go particularly into working condi- 
tions, unless they are so inhuman or something that they constitute an 
inhuman labor situation. 

Mr. Hensel. There is dust in the place. We don't deny that. We do 
have respirators that a person can use. I also think if a person takes 
care of himself and watches himself, as far as when the periods of 
dust Jiiight be lieavier, and also things of operation that you do, if 
you will put the respirator on, you can protect yourself to a great 
extent. Althougli some people might be more susceptible than others, 



IMPROPEfR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8755 

like in TB. But in my case, I have had X-rays taken at the Kohler 
Co. and at my own doctor, and I have found no damage whatsoever. 

The Chairman. How long have you been working at that place ? 

Mr. IIensel. Almost 18 years. 

The Chairman. In this place where there is the complaint about 
the working conditions ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes. 

The Chairman. You have been working there about 18 years ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Has your health been affected by it? 

Mr. Hensel. Not that I can tell. I can do anything else a man my 
age can do. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have occasion to read the daily strike 
bulletins ])ut out by the union ? 

Mr. Hensel. Well, h.ere and there. Many times a person could see 
them or happen to get ahold of them. 

Senator Goldwater. Was your name ever mentioned ? 

Mr. Hensel. I belie^-e it was. I think right after I went back to 
work. My name and 1 think my wife's and my child. I don't know if 
they actually stated my wife's name, but they mentioned it as a wife 
and child. 

Senator Goldwater. When did your trouble start ? 

Mr. Hensel. I went back July 26, and the first week I didn't have 
any trouble whatsoever, but on the second Tuesday, the Tuesday of 
the second week, that is when it started in. 

Senator Goldwater. Would that be the second week in August? 

Mr. Hensel. I believe it would be, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Just to refresh your memory and to allow the 
committee the opportunity of hearing the type of peaceful propaganda 
that was put out, I will read from the daily strike bulletin of August 
10,1954: 

Jumpy nerves. Math Eberhardy, William Hartenberger, Marvin Hasenstein, 
and Robert Hensel live on Sheboygan's North 21st between Cleveland and Gar- 
field Avenues, half block south of St. Domenick's Church. All of them are scabs. 
Each night a royal reception awaits them when they arrive home from strike- 
breaking. The crowd of Kohler strikers and their sympathizers is increasing 
nightly. On AVednesday morning of last week, Attorney H. S. Humke was seen 
entering scab Eberhardy's house. 

Mr. Chairman, there are other excerpts from these strike bulletins, 
and as the opportunity arises I will read them into the record. 

The Chairman. Do we have a number of those strike bulletins? 

Senator Goldw^ater. Eight is the total that we have. 

The Chairman. At the proper time they can be made exhibits for 
reference. 

Senator Goldw^vter. Thank you. 

The Chairman. We will have someone identify them all and make 
them exhibits for the record. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 



8756 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. On hoAV many occasions was this paint and acid 
thrown on your property ? 

Mr. IIensel. Twice. 

Senator Curtis. Twice ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And the date of that was about when ? 

Mr. Hensel. The first one, if I remember correctly, was January 
23, a Sunday 1955, and the other one was on July 9, 1955. I believe 
that was on a Saturday. 

Senator Curtis. Did you report this to police officers ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I did. 

Senator Curtis. To whom? 

Mr. Hensel. I called the Sheboygan Police Department, and they 
would send some officer up to investigate. 

Senator Curtis. No arrests were made? 

Mr. Hensel. No, sir ; not that I ever knew of or heard of. 

Senator Curtis. These people that were milling around on your 
block there, calling you names and so on, did there appear to be a leader 
among them ? 

Mr. Hensel. Well, it was hard to tell. At the beginning it appeared 
as though there might have been one of the strikers in the neighbor- 
hood, but you couldn't actually tell, because there were 6 at first, and 
I believe 3 of them lived in the same block that I did, and — 4 in the 
same block that I did, and another 2 live in the block a block south. 

Senator Curtis. When they were there in their full numbers, did 
it cause any obstiTiction to the sidewalk ? 

Mr. Hensel. Most of tlie time I had enough room to get through, 
on most occasions. I mean, they didn't seem to block me out, as much 
as I could tell, although at times they closed in slightly or made ges- 
tures of possibly moving toward me, but I was never actually touched. 
One particular evening, on a Friday evening, I remember, I believe 
it was the second week that this was going on, I came home from work 
and my driveway was full of many people. 

At the time, I didn't know, but my neighbor told me he had stayed 
out that particular week and there were 26 strikers or people on top 
of my driveway. I know I only had about a foot or room to get 
through. 

I kind of expected that probably maybe they figured I was mad 
enough that I might do something, give somebody a push, but I knew 
what the score was, and I wiggled my way through and went into my 
home. I didn't touch nobody. 

Senator Curtis. You worked at Kohler for about 18 years ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you know quite a number of those people ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I do. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of other instances where Kohler work- 
ers were harassed by telephone calls, damage to their property, and 
these demonstrations in front of their homes ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes; from what I have heard and read in the news- 
papers, and fellows that I have talked to. 

Senator Curtis. Of those that have come to your knowledge, were 
any of the victims strikers ? 

Mr. Hensel. Do you mean that had the damage ? 
Senator Curtis. Yes ; the victims of the damage. 



IMPBOPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8757 

Mr. IIensel. The only one that I ever heard about or read about 
Allen Grasskamp, if I remember correctly. 

Senator Curtis. But all the others were nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Hensel. As much as I know, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of any of the nonstrikers who carried 
on campaigns of harassment by telephone? 

Mr. Hensel. Of the nonstrikers that did ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hensel, Not that I know of . 

Senator Curtis. You never heard of any campaign on the part of 
the nonstrikers to harass people all night long by ringing their phone? 

Mr. Hensel. Not that I know of ; no. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of any home demonstrations that 
were put on by the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Hensel. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of any escapades where they would 
go out and damage people's property and throw paint and terrorize 
women and children b}^ attacks on their home, that were carried on 
by nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Hensel. The only one I heard of, I guess, was mentioned before, 
and the testimony will be brought up later. That is the only case of 
a nonstriker that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Just that one case ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You heard of a good many that were strikers, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Hensel. I don't quite get the question, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You only heard of the one case where the offender 
was a nonstriker ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. But of the other side, among the strikers, you heard 
of a number of cases ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hensel. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Are you acquainted with some of the people who 
had their property damaged ? 

Mr. Hensel. Yes, I am. I know some of them. Offhand I don't 
remember too many. 

Senator Curtis. And those that you know about, the damage was 
genuine and not a hoax ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hensel. I would say so. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness. 

Thank you very much. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Carl Yerkman. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senator select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
trutli and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Yerkman. I do. 



21243— 58— pt. 22- 



8758 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF CARL YERKMAN 

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

Mr. Yerkman. My name is Carl Yerkman. I live at 927 South 22d 
Street, Sheboygan, Wis. I am employed at the Kohler Co. 

The CiiAiRiNiAN. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been working for the Kohler 
Co. 

Mr. Yerkman. About 7 years, sir ; 7 years, sir. 

The Chairman. In what department or division ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Foundry, sir. 

The Chairman. The foundry ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you belong to the UAW ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they went on strike, you did not support the 
strike ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the mass picketing ended, you came back to 
work? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive telephone calls after you came back 
to work ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes ; a lot of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did they come at all times of the night and early 
morning ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would they say to you on the telephone ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Well, most of the time they were calling they would 
just get you to the phone and hang up, in most cases. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say anything to you ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Well, they called me a scab over the telephone, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. On September 13, 1954, your living-room window 
was broken by a rock ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then on March 20, 1956, while you were at work, 
and your wife was at home, two glass pint jars were thrown into your 
house ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Thrown through the window and into your home ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes ; one of them went in. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of them got in and the other did not ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it cover the room with this mixture ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it ? Did you find out what it was ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Well, this one that went in the house wasn't really a 
paint. It was a lacquer, lubricating oil and what have you, all mixed 
together. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8759 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it go all over the living room ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the jar almost hit your wife ? 

Mr. Yerkiman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It just barely missed her ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. What did she do ? 

Mr. Yerkman. She ran outside to see if she could see anybody. 
There was a car parked pretty close to the house there. She seen two 
fellows get in it, and they beat it, with their lights turned off, of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was at night ? It was about 10 : 30 at night ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. She couldn't identify anyone ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever find out who was responsible ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you report it to the police ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The police were not able to solve the case ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the damage that was done ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Well, in the first case there were the rock. I be- 
lieve that only amounted to a few dollars, about $5, or something like 
that, if I am not mistaken. It only was really two windows that was 
broken the first time with the rock, but in the second case I don't 
remember what that cost. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the insurance company take care of that ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir, the Kohler Co. did. 

]Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember how much it was ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, not the second time. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was it, approximately ? 

Mr. Yerkman. I would say around between $20 and $30 or some- 
think like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Between $20 and $30. Did anything else happen to 
you ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Well, nothing besides that, no, 

Mr. Kennedy. You were yelled at when you went to work ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, plenty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you called a scab ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that the responsibility for this situation 
rests with the strike that was going on ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any trouble like this before ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you will say you feel that it arose out of this 
strike situation, the bitterness between the strikers and nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They called you scab. What did you call them ? 

Mr. Yerkman. I didn't call them anything, sir. 

The Chairman. I was just wondering. That seems to be their 
favorite term to apply to you who wanted to work. You were scabs. 
I wondered what you applied to them, when they called you up and 
called you a scab. What did you do ? What did you say ? 



8760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Yeukman. Well, you usually couldn't say anything, sir. They 
usually hung up. They would call you that and hang up. 

The Chairman. They would call you a scab and hang up ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

The Chairman. Not give you a chance to call them anything back ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

The Chairman. You felt like saying a little something at times, 
didn't you ? 

Mr. Yerkman. At times, yes. 

The Chairman. I hand you a couple of ])]iotographs and ask you 
to examine them and state whether you identify them. 

(The photographs were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir ; that is it all right. (3ne shows the interior 
of the house, and the other the exterior. 

The Chairman. Those are pictures of the damage to your property ? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 34 and 34A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 34 and 34A" 
for reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. How many of a family did you say you have ? 

Mr. Yerkman. I have five children, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How old is the oldest one ? 

Mr. Yerkman. The oldest one is about 12 years old now. 

Senator Curtis. Over how long a period of time did you have this 
harassment of telephone calls ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Well, 1954, 1955, in through there ; 2 years. 

Senator Curtis. Was it a considerable disturbance in your house- 
hold insofar as you and your wife running the household and care of 
the family and carrying on your work to have this ? 

Mr. Yerkinian. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did it frighten any member of your family ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yerj much so. The children, by golly, I couldn't 
get them to sleep for about 5 or 6 night after that roclv attack. 

Senator Curtis. Is that right ? 
Mr. Yerkman. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That was after they tlirew the rock? 

Mr. Yerkman. That is right. And a little more I would like to 
add. On that particular night, the little one was only 3 months old, 
and my wife had trouble with her. She had a stomach ache or some- 
thing, and she had her in the front room there. SJie was watching 
television. She couldn't <^o to sleep anyway, because of the child. 
So she turned off the television, turned off the front room light, and 
was going to go and warm the baby's bottle. In the meantime this 
rock came through this window and just barely missed that baby, by 
inches. The glass, in fact, laid in the crib. 
Senator Curtis. The glass went i)ito the crib? 

Mr. Yerkman. The glass from the window, yes, it laid into the 
crib. I call that a dirty, lowdown, sneaky trick, if anybody ever 
pulled that. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did that happen ? 
Mr. Yerkman. That was in 1954. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8761 

Senator Curtis. Did you report that to any police officer? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. To whom ? 

]\Ir. Yf.rkmax. To Sheboygan Police Department and also reported 
it to the company. 

Senator Curtis. But no arrests were ever made ? 

Mr. Yerkmax. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. AVell, now, do you know of other people who went 
through torture like this, of having little children terrorized, and not 
necessarily glass in their crib, but went through as victims of such 
harassment? 

Mr. Yerkman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Those people that you know about, were they strik- 
ers or nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Yerkman. Nonstrikers. One in particular, my neighbor got it 
at the same time I got mine. 

Senator Curtis. Did they ever have any home demonstration in 
front of your home ? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Senator Cui^tis. But you know about some of those ? 

Mr. Yerkman. I heard about them. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever hear about any of those that were car- 
ried on in front of the home of a striker? 

Mr. Yerkman. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I think that we 
can take judicial notice of the intermediate report of the trial exam- 
iner in the Kohler case now pending before the NLRB for decision. 
Here is the finding of the trial examiner. 

The Chair]man. Has that report been made an exhibit here ? 

Senator C urtts. Yes. I think it has. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. The union strike bulletin of August IT stated, for 
example : 

Reception committee : In a few days, the activities of the Twelfth Street Re- 
ception Committee for the homecoming scabs has grown to such proportion that 
it now equals anything the northsiders can put on. The gathering of people 
formed in front of 2216 South Twelfth, shortly after 3 : 30 on Monday, to welcome 
scab Robert Healy. Five more homes were visited before the demonstrations 
came to an end. 

That is the end of the cjuotation. 

Continuing with the finding of the trial examiner, he says this : 

Though disclaiming that the demonstrations were planned by the union, the 
union's publicity was plainly designed to inspire and encourage their continua- 
tion and spread. 

That is the end of the quotation. 

I think the trial exn miner's finding certainly coincides with the pre- 
ponderance of evidence here that these acts to terrorize people, and to 
frighten little children and women, and to damage property, was not 
spontaneous but it was a part of the program planned and carried out 
by these UAW ])eople in charge of that strike. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is Arleigli Gosse, G-o-s-s-e. 



8762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiKntAisr. 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. GossE. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ARLEIGH G. GOSSE 

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

Mrs. GossE. I am Mrs. Arleigh Gosse, and I am from Sheboygan 
Falls, Wis., and I am employed at the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. You waive the right of counsel, do you ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I didn't quite understand you. In what capacity 
are you employed by the Kohler Co. ? 

Mrs. Gosse. I work in the brass building. 

The Chairman. What building? 

Mrs. Gosse. I am employed in the brass building. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You worked at the Kohler Co. for how long ? 

Mrs. GossE. Three years last September. 

Mr. Kennedy. You came to work in September of 1954 ? 

Mrs. GossE. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was while the strike was going on ? 

Mrs. Gosse. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Kohler Co. was looking for people to replace 
the strikers ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, And you went to work in the brass division at that 
time? 

Mrs. GossE. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, after you started to work there, did you start 
receiving telephone calls ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what would they say in those telephone calls ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Well, they called around il : 30 or 12 o'clock at night, 
and I would get up and I would ansAver, but most of the times tliey 
didn't say anything to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. They just called ? 

Mrs. Gosse. That is"^ right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever say anything to you ? 

Mrs. Gosse. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never said anything ? 

Mrs. Gosse. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have anything happen to your home ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, we had two paint bombs thrown into my house. 

Mr. Kennedy. At different times ? 

Mrs. (tIosse. On January 18, we got both bombs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both bombs on Januaiy 18 ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? Would you tell what happened ? 

Mrs. Gosse. One bomb went into my in-laws' room, bedroom, and 
one went through my front window. 



IMPRIOPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8763 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything in them? Were they paint 
bombs ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes, it was ahnost like a dye. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it spread ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes, sir. My mother-in-law was in bed at the time, 
and she was splattered. Pier face was full, and her hair was full, and 
her eyes were full. And my front room was damaged. 

Mr. Kennedy. All filled with the paint ? 

Mrs. GossE. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the police come out ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes. AVe called the sheriff. 

Mr. Kennedy. The s]ieriff*'s department ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they come out ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they able to solve it ? 

Mrs. GossE. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever able to find out who was responsible ? 

Mrs. Gosse. No, sir. 

Mr. Ken nedy. Do you feel it arises or grows out of this strike ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the Kohler Co. ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the bitterness between the strikers and the non- 
strikers ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the damage that was done to your home ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Will you repeat that ? 

jMr. Kennedy. AYliat was the amount of damage ? 

Mrs. Gosse. I don't know offhand what it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have the place insured ? 

Mrs. Gosse. No, we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You got it from the Kohler Co. ? 

Mrs. Gosse. The Kohler Co. came out and took care of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was it, approximately ? 

Mrs. Gosse. I don't know just offhand. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately how much was it ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Over $100. 

Mr. Kennedy. About $100 ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Over $100. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you ever had any trouble like this prior to the 
strike? 

Mrs. Gosse, No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything else that happened to you? 

Mrs. Gosse. Well, it was in September shortly after I started to 
work, it was harvest time, corn time, and our corn chopper was 
damaged. They put a good sized bolt in the cornstalk, and when my 
husband went to chop, it ruined our whole chopper. 

Mr. Kennedy. It ruined the corn chopper ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How nnich was the damage to the corn chopper ? 

Mrs. GossE. I wouldn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know that ? 

Mrs. Gosse. No. 



8764 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Koliler Co. reimburse you for that ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how much he got ? 

Mrs. GossE. No, I don't. 

INIr. Kennedy. Was there anything else ? 

Mrs. GossE. No 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. You live on a farm, do you ? 

Mrs. GossE. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And what is your husband's name? 

Mrs. GossE. Harley Gosse. 

Senator Curtis. Now, about this incident of the damage to the corn- 
cutting machine, when he discovered that it had broken down, he 
got out or he went to examine what caused the knife to break, and 
what was it he found ? 

Mrs. Gosse. A good sized bolt had been tied into the stalk with 
binder twine. 

Senator Curtis. Now, in examing other rows of corn, did he find 
any other bolts tied on to them ? 

Mrs. Gosse. That is right, we did. 

Senator Curtis. Quite a number of them ? 

Mrs. Gosse. We have a few at home, yes, that we found, and besides 
those that went through the chopper. 

Senator Curtis. And apparently it was tied on there by someone 
in order to damage the machine ? 

Mrs. Gosse. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. How much of a family do you have ? 

Mrs. Gosse. I have one boy. 

Senator Curtis. How old is he ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Fifteen. 

Senator Curtis. Did you get any telephone calls, too ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, we did. 

Senator Curtis. Over how long a time did that extend? 

Mrs. Gosse. We didn't receive just too many, but off and on we did 
get calls, but they never said anything to me. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find this throwing of paint or dye and the 
phone calls and the damage to the farm machine an upsetting and 
disturbing experience around your home? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes. It scared my mother-in-law very much. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of some other instances where peo- 
ple were harassed in this manner, or in a somewhat similar manner 
and they had their pro]:)erty damaged ? 

Mrs. Gosse. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Those cases that you know about, were the victims 
strikers or nonstrikers? 

Mrs. Gosse. Nonstrikers. 

Senator Ci rtis. Now, of the cases that you do know about, were 
there any of the victims strikers? 

Mrs. Gosse. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And living in the country, you reported this to the 
sheriff's department l 

Mrs. Gosse. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did the sheriff' himself come out ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8765 

Mrs. GossE. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Which instance did you report to the sheriff or the 
slieriff's office ? Was it the damage to the house, or to the corn-cutting 
machine ? 

Mrs. GossE. To the house. 

Senator Curtis. He sent a deputj^ out or something ? 

Mrs, GossE. That is right. There were two of them out there. 

Senator Curtis. How long were they out there? 

Mrs. GossE. Just a few minutes. 

Senator Curtis. Just a few minutes? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did they ever come back ? 

Mrs. GossE. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They never came back to get further information 
or to make a report, either one ? 

Mrs. GossE. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When tiid you say that was? 

Mrs. GossE. It w^as in January when we got the paint bombs of 
1955. 

Senator Curtis. Of 1955 ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That was a few months following the election, 
where the UAW had helped the sheriff finance his campaign ? 

Mrs. GossE. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I present to you a series of pictures, and I will ask 
you to examine them and state if you identify them, please. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mrs. GossE. Those are the pictures of my home. 

The ChxVirman. Those are the pictures of the damage done to your 
home ? 

Mrs. GossE. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. Thev may be made exhibit No. 35, A, B, C, D. and 
so forth. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 35, A, B, C, D," 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 
Thank you very much. 
Call the next witness. 
Mr. Kennedy. Victor Sippel. 

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. Sippel. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF VICTOR SIPPEL 

The Chairman. Be seated, and state your name and your place of 
residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Sippel. 'My name is Victor Sippel. I live at Mount Calvary, 
Wis., and I work for the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. You waive the right of counsel ? 

Mr. Sippel. I do. 



8766 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiRjuAN. How long have you worked for the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I believe it was November 1?>, 195-1:. 

The Chairman. You started to work for the Kohler Co. after the 
strike, and after the mass picketing had ended ? 

Mr. SippEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. I see. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You lived out in the country ? 

Mr. SipPEE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you understand that the Kohler Co. was 
looking for employees ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you came in and went to work, in August of 1954 ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. This Avas November of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you started to go to Avork, did you receive 
telephone calls ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. No, I never received any telephone calls. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you used to go to work, did you OAvn an auto- 
mobile at that time ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you own an automobile ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of an automobile did you own ? 

Mr. SippEL. I OAvned a 1941 Ford, and also a 1952 Ford. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you used to drive your 1941 Ford to a road junc- 
ture and you Avere picked up by someone else and came to work? 

Mr. Sippel. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was your Ford, was it damaged or destroyed ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee Avhat happened ? 

Mr. Sippel. Well, this particular morning I left the automobile at 
the usual place, at a road juncture, and I rode with the other workers. 
After I got to the plant somebody, another worker that starts at a 
later hour, noticed that my car had been blown up and he reported 
it to me at the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever find out who was responsible ? 

Mr. Sippel. No, sir,! didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Hoav far away from the Kohler Co. is that ? 

Mr. Sippel. Where this automobile Avas bloAvn up, you mean ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Sippel. It was about 23 miles. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have insurance on it ? 

Mr. Sippel. I found out I Avasn't covered, but the insurance com- 
pany did pay me $50. 

Mr. Kennedy. They gave you $50 ? 

Mr. Sippel. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the Kohler Co. give you anything ? 

Mr. Sippel. They also gave me some to make up for the expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much ? 

Mr. Sippel. I believe it was $63, and I am not too sure on that. 
But it was close to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received about $115 ? 

Mr. Sippel. Tliat is about it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8767 

Mr. Kennedy. For your automobile ? 

Mr. SipPEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. You had an old car, just something to get to and 
from work ? 

Mr. SippEL. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything else happen to you in con- 
nection wdth this strike ? 

Mr. SippE.L No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody was ever arrested in connection with it ? 

Mr. SipPEL. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that the damage to your automobile 
or the destruction of your automobile was caused by this strike or 
arose out of this strike ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Oh, yes, definitely I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the bitterness that existed between the strik- 
ers and the nonstrikes ? 

Mr. SippEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. This explosion, this blowing up of your car, oc- 
curred in the daytime or at night ? 

Mr. SiiM'EL. This must have occurred between 5 : 30 and quarter of 6 
in the morning, in early morning, and it was still dark. 

The Chairjian. In the early morning ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. I hand you a series of pictures, and I ask you to 
examine them and state if you identify them. 

(Documents were handed to the wituess. ) 

Mr. SiPPEL. These are tlie pictures of my car, or the remains of my 
car. 

The Chairman. They are dift'erent pictures, or pictures showing 
the condition of your car after it had been blown up ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. They m;>.y be made exhibit No. 36 for identification. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 36" for reference 
and may be found in tlie files of the select committee) . 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Senator Curtis. What was the date of this damage to this car ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I believe it was February 24, 1955. 

Senator Curtis. What damage was done to the car? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Well, it actually was a complete wreck. 

Senator Curtis. Upon examining it, did you have any theory as 
to what had been done to it ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Well, it looked to me as though dynamite was placed 
inside of it. 

Senator Curtis. Inside of it ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Perhaps under the hood ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I believe that is what they found it to be. 

Senator Curtis. Did you report this ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Yes, immediately. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did you report it ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I reported it to the county sheriff of Fond du Lac 
County. 

Senator Curtis. Was an investigation made ? 



8768 IMPROPER ACXrV'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Siri'EL, Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Now, that is the adjoining county ? 

Mr. SippEL. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. No arrests were ever made ? 

]\Ir. SiPPEL. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were there aii}^ other workers that yon know of 
that had their cars damaged ? 

Mr. SippEL. "Well, I have heard of quite a few, but living away 
from the plant that far, I didn't know these people personally. 

Senator Curtis. And how far did you live from the plant? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Twenty-five miles. 

Senator Curtis. So ;^ou escaped some of the home demonstrations ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

Senator Curits. And if they were going to call you up, would they 
have to call you by long distance ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Yes, sir, and they would have to go through the opera- 
tor, and so I never had any trouble. 

Senator Curtis. You were beyond the reach of these people who 
were carrying on this planned reign of terror there, weren't you ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I guess so. 

Senator Curtis. ThatisalL 

The Chairman. How long had you been working before this oc- 
curred ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I started on October 13. 

The Chairman. On October 13 ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. I think it was the 13th of October, and this happened 
February 24, of 1955. 

The Chairman. You had been working some 3 or 4 months before 
this happened ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you receive any warning or any threats prior 
to the time of the damage to your car ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. Well, nothing other than the usual thing when we went 
through the picket line, that "You had better watch it,'" or "Some day 
you will get it," or things like that. That was the usual thing. 

The Chairman. Did that occur repeatedly when you went through 
the picket line ? 

Mr. SiPPEL, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There were implied threats that "You had better 
watch out," or "You are going to get it," and so forth? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. So had you been apprehensive, or had you been 
suspecting something like this to happen ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. No, I hadn't, because I had never an "out" with anybody 
and I never had an argument with anybody, and so I really didn't 
expect anything like that. Nobody ever contacted me as far as want- 
ing me to quit or anything like that. 

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

The Chairman. All that was ever said to you was as you would 
enter or depart from the plant ? 

Mr. SiPPEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. That would be said bv the pickets on the picket 
line? 



EVIPBOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8769 

Mr. SippEL. That is right. 

The Chairman. Tliank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Warren Williams. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before tliis Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so lielp you God ? 

Mr. Williams. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WARREN WILLIAMS 

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

Mr. Williams. My name is Warren Williams. I live in Cascade, 
Wis., and work for the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. How long have you been working for the Kohler 

Mr. Williams. I started in January of 1951. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Williams, you did not join the UAW ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did you remain a member ? 

Mr. Williams. I signed a checkoil and paid dues for a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they went out on strike, had you gone to the 
meeting to vote on the strike ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not join or attend the meeting ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join the pickets ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. When the mass picketing ended, did you go back to 
work ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any telephone calls ? 

Mr. Williams. Just occasionally. There would be a call on the 
phone, and you would pick it up, and you would hear somebody 
breathing, and sometimes a little noise in the background, but they 
never talked. 

]Mr. Kennedy. They never talked? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often did that happen ? 

Mr. Williams. Just occasionally. Maybe once or twice a week. I 
worked a swing shift and when I was working at night my wife got 
the phone calls. I never got any. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was at night while you were away at work ? 

Mr. WiLLiAiVis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was never anything said ? 

Mr. Williams. Never anything said. But we did, after a couple 
of calls, call back to the long-distance operator and found out that 
they were local calls. They were not long-distance calls. We live in 
the county. We checked to see if it was the neighbors or people close 
by that were living. 



8770 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. How far out of Sheboygan do you live ? 

Mr. Williams. About 18 miles. It is about 14 miles from the 
Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it had to be in that area 'i 

Mr. WiLiJAMS. It had to be in that area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive some damage to your automobile ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that a 1954 Chevrolet ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was parked in front of your home ? 

Mr. Williams. Right in front of tlie house. 

INIr. Kennedy. Did you find that someone at night had sprayed 
paint remover or some substance on the car? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have the car insured ? 

]Mr. Williams. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you collected insurance on it ? 

JSIr. Williams. Yes, I did, 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the insurance ? 

Mr. Williams. The repaint job was, I don't know, $112, $114, or 
$120. I had 3 or 4 estimates. That is the way the insurance company 
works, but I went to trade that car in this year, and the first thing 
the man said — of course, they look them over — he said "This car was 
in a wreck." I said, "No, it wasn't." 

He said, "Then why was it repainted ?" 

I told him why, and he said, "You know, that knocks off the value 
of the car, too, when it is repainted." 

The Chairman. It has what ? 

Mr. Williams. It knocks the value off when it has been repainted. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you ever find out who was responsible ? 

Mr. WlLLL\MS. No, 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you report the damage to the sheriff ? 

Mr. WiLLL\Ms. Just as soon as I found it, 

Mr, Kennedy. What sheriff w^as that ? 

Mr, Williams, Sheriff Mosch, Sheboygan County. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever solve the case ? 

Mr. Williams. No, they never did. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never found out who was responsible ? 

Mr, Williams, No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel it arose out of the strike ? 

Mr, Williams, Yes, defintely. You see, where we live in Cascade 
there is no industry of any kind, so practically all the able-bodied 
people w^ere working at the Kohler Co, There were 6 or 8 of us that 
stayed off of the picket line and aw ay from the Avhole area. I, myself, 
had other jobs lined up before the strike ever started, and some of the 
other fellows did, too, but then jobs run out and we figured it was 
time we got to earning a living again. So we went through one gate 
for several weeks, because that is where most of the people went 
through. Then we went through the south gate. That is where we 
usually go through to go to my job, and all of my neighbors had 
friends that were on the picket line and were on that gate. Of course, 
when }^ou go by your neighbors and that, there was quite a lot of 
discussion of one kind and another. 



IIVIPRIOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8771 

Mr. Kennedy. There was great bitterness ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Between friends, former friends ? 

Mr. Williams. Former friends, acquaintances, neighbors, people 
you went to church with and everybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. Bitterness between those who remained on strike and 
those who went back ? 

Mr. Williams. People you went to church with one Sunday and 
as soon as the strike started or as soon as you went back to work, 
they wouldn't talk to you, they wouldn't look at you. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel the damage to your car arose out of this ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. When you went through the picket 
line they would say, "Well, you are next," or "Your turn is coming," 
or "You think you are pretty smart but your turn is coming." 

Mr. Kennedy. These were from the people who remained on the 
picket line ? 

Mr. Williams. The peop>le on the picket line. 

The Chairman. So that is the only kind of warning you had ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right, except the night it happened. My 
wife got two calls, and when she answered there was, of course, no- 
body there. When I got home in the morning the damage had been 
done. While I was in the plant, before I went home, t^yo of my 
neighbors came and told me that they had it in the night, paint bombs 
and that through the window. Then I got home, I have quite a large 
window, not a picture window, I drove up to my place and thought, 
"Well, at least they didn't get my window," and then there was my 
car. 

The Chairman. They did get your car ? 

Mr. Williams. They did get my car. 

The Chairman. I present to you some pictures and ask you to ex- 
amine them and identify them. 

(The photographs were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Are those pictures of your car and the damage to 
it? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, those are pictures to my car. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 37A, B, C, and so 
forth. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 37A to E" 
for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis. How many are in your family ? 

Mr. Williams. I have three children. 

Senator Curtis. How old are they ? 

Mr. WiLi-iAMS. At the time of the strike they were 5, 8 and 11. 

Senator Curtis. And part of the time you worked a night shift, 
did you ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Were these telephone calls that you did receive or 
that your wife received have a disturbing or terrifying effect on your 
family ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. We had quite a system set up at the time. 
Right after people from Cascade start going back to work, they were 
visited by delegations of strikers, mostly local boys but some we didn't 
know. And a carload of 4 or 5 would come to a man and try to tell 



8772 IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

him not to go back to work or persuade him that he had done the 
wrong thing to go back to work. 

Senator Cuutis. Did they call on you in that manner ? 

Mr. Williams. No. But we had it set up. My oldest girl had a 
flash camera and I gave the boy a pencil, and if somebody came to 
call on me, I told them that the girl would take the flash camera, 
take the flash pictures and the boy would take the license numbers. 
I told them that and that they would be responsible, and nobody 
came to see me. 

Senator Curtis. You told of this business of how it separated 
neighbors, and how individuals that you would meet at church and 
other gatherings would later be separated. Did this bitterness exist 
to such an extent that it caused all of the people to commit violence ? 

Mr. Williams. No, I Avouldn't say that. Mostly it was just name 
calling and such. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't engage in harrassing people at night 
with telephone calls? 

Mr. Williams. No, I didn't. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't damage anybod}- 's automobile or throw 
paint bombs in their house? 

Mr. Williams. No. Most of us sat at home, like me, I worked one 
shift that is 3 in the afternoon to 11 o'clock. I would sit at home 
with the lights all turned off and maybe the television going but 
shaded so it couldn't be seen from the outside and a shotgun laying 
across my lap in case they came by again. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of any nonstrikers who did engage 
in property damage or harassment of other people ? 

Mr. Williams. No. I think they were mostly home hoping or try- 
ing to perhaps get a chance to protect their property or perhaps catch 
somebody in the act. 

Senator Curtis. But you know of none of the nonstrikers that went 
out and damaged the other people's property ? 

Mr. Williams. No, not a one. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think that these manv, many cases of har- 
rassment and property damage was worked as whole plan on the com- 
munity by someone ? 

Mr. Williams. Well, I think somebody had to know who the people 
M^ere. Somebody had to be telling somebody who the people were 
that were Kohler workers and Kohler strikers so they would be able 
to separate out, because it never happened to a Kohler striker. It al- 
ways happened to a Kohler worker. 

Somebody had to know. 

Senator Curtis. And the offenses would be somewhat similar ? 

Mr. Williams. They followed a pretty close pattern. 

Senator Curtis. So it looked like a pattern, a design, of carrying 
on the struggle there at Kohler by engaging in these acts, did it ? 

Mr. Williams. It just looked as though they were trying to give 
everybody a visit of one kind or another. 

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

Senator Curtis. And you live in the country ? 

Mr. Williams. I live in a little village, away from Kohler. 

Senator Curtis. Did you report to any officer ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8773 

Mr. Williams. Yes. We called the sheriff's department right away 
when I discovered the damage. 

Senator Curtis. What did they do to you ? 

Mr. Williams. They sent a deputy right away and the sheriff and a 
group of either 3 or 4 men, they came also. 

Senator Curtis. There were never any arrests made? 

Mr. Williams. Never any arrests made. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. This campaign of vandalism and annoyance, har- 
assment, did you know whether it deterred anybody from going back 
to work ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. It is something that just made them mad. I 
don't think it ever stopped anybody. They just got mad and went 
anyway. 

The Chairman. That is what I wanted to determine, whether it 
actually had the intended effect, or whether it had the reverse effect of 
that intended. 

Mr. Williams. Not anybody that I ever knew. 

The Chairman. You don't know of anybody they were able to 
frighten away ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

The Chairman. Do you think it rather irritated them to where they 
were determined to go on back to work ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that the way you felt about it ? 

Mr. Williams. That is the way I felt about it. I got mad. That 
night when the sheriff came with a group of men, I thought maybe it 
was somebody coming to call on me, to say "Look, it happened to you, 
so maybe you better not go back to work." 

I almost met him at the door with a gun, but I am glad I didn't. He 
might not have looked at it just right. 

The Chairman. He might not have looked at it just right. I won- 
dered what effect this had on the people that wanted to return to work, 
that were willing to work. I think it had just the opposite effect of 
what it was intended to have. 

Mr. Williams. That is my belief. 

The Chairman. It had an opposite effect on you ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, would you please put these questions to 
the witness, sir : 

(The document was handed to the committee.) 

The Chairman. Do you know William Bonanse ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

The Chairman. Bonanse? Do you know him ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

The Chairman. Did you ever hear of him ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. I have heard of him. 

The Chairman. Do you know him personally ? 

Mr. Williams. No. 

The Chairman. Didn't you know that he threw some paint on a 
striker's car ? 

Mr. Williams. Just what I read in the papers. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 3 



8774 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You read in the papers that he did? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

But that is not my personal knowledge. I do not know the man. 
I do not know any of the circumstances. 

The Chairman. You had heard of him ? 

Mr. Williams. I had heard of him, sir, sure. 

The Chairman. And that he had thrown some stuff on a striker's 
car? 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything further ? 

If not, thank you. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Conrad Holling. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were 
present: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The ChairjNIAn. 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. Holling. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CONRAD HOLLING, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. 
RAUH, JR., COUNSEL 

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

Mr. Holling. My name is Conrad Holling. I live at 1715x1 In- 
diana Avenue. I am a Kohler striker, now employed at the Empire 
Petroleum Co. in Sheboj^gan, Wis. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. 

Mr. Rauh, you represent the witness, do you ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will let the record so show. Proceed, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holling, you worked at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. From what peri od of time ? 

Mr. Holling. From the fall of 1949 to the time the strike started. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you a member of the KWA ? 

That is, the Kohler Workers Association ? 

Mr. Holling. I can't remember that off hand. I might have been, 
and then I later joined the UAW. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join the UAW ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes, t did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were you working at the time you joined? 

Mr. Holling. In the ground-coating division of the enamel shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you felt the UAW could assist you or help you ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join the pickets ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You joined pickets outside the plant, marching up 
and down ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you taking your instructions from at that 
time? 



IMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8775 

Mr. HoLLiNG. I didn't have any instructions at all. I just joined 
the line by myself. I saw the line and walked in with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you do that ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. For better working conditions in the plant and I felt 
in later life if my children wanted to go there, I felt it was a good way 
to improve conditions for them when they wanted to go to work, when 
they were old enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt conditions in the enamel plant were not 
satisfactory ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any damage done, or did you have 
any t hreats or telephone calls ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. I have never had any threats, but my car was paint- 
bombed as it stood out in front of my house one night. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell what happened ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. During night or early morning of October 9, my car 
was paint-bombed, and I first found out about it when my son left 
to go to Sunday school in the morning. 

As he went outside to leave for Sunday school he came back up 
and he said that there was also paint over the left side of my car, 
and as soon as I found that out I called the police department and they 
sent up an officer. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? Did they make an investigation ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody ever arrested in connection with it ? 

Mr. Rolling. Yes, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was arrested ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. A Mr. Bonanse was arrested later on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell what happened when they found 
out about this Bonanse? Had he paint-bombed your car and an- 
other car ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Yes, I believe it was that same night he had paint- 
bombed another car, and it was the information from that other fellow 
that led to the apprehension of Mr. Bonanse. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was another striker's car? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. No, it was not. It was a commercial fisherman in 
Sheboygan. 

Mr. Kennedy. He paint-bombed the two cars ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was tried in the municipal court and found 
guilty, was he ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he paid the costs and damages ? 

Hr. HoLLiNG. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bonanse, as I understand it, testified that the 
reason he threw the paint on your automobile was the fact that 
you made a gesture or a statement to him regarding his brother, who 
had just died, when he came through the picket line. 

Mr. HoLLiNG. I don't think I would ever do that, because in my own 
family I had two deaths, my mother and family, and I felt in my own 
mind that I knew what I had gone through, and it would be very 
foolish and unwise, I mean, to do something like that to him, because 
I knew what he was going through. 



8776 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He made a statement to the effect that when he came 
through the picket line, you held kind of a noose up, and indicated by 
a noose, that his brother had died and he would die. 
Mr. HoLLiNG. No, I have never done that. 
Mr. Kennedy. You never did anything like that ? 
Mr. HoLLiNG. No, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do you remember his coming through the picket 
line? 
Mr. Rolling. Yes, I do. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything to him ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. I called him a scab and told him he should stay home. 
Mr. Kennedy. But you never said anything about his brother ? 
Mr. HoLLiNG. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you swear to that under oath, that you never 
made any statement about his brother ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. I do. I never made no statement about his brother. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know him personally ? 
Mr. HoLLiNG. No, I did not. 
Mr. Kennedy. You did not ? 
Mr. HoLLiNG. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^our families attend the same church? 
Mr. HoLLiNG. His wife and daughter went to church that I did, yes. 
^ Mr. Kennedy. And you remained on tlie picket line during the pe- 
riod of the mass picketing ? 
Mr. Rolling. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever stop any nonstrikers from coming 
through the picket line ? 

Mr. Rolling. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any instructions to stop them? 
Mr. Rolling. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were aware of the fact that nonstrikers were 
unable to get through the picket line ? 
Mr. Rolling. That I was aware of, yes. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in that? 

Mr. Rolling. Well, I was walking in the picket line at that time, 
yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the feeling amongst the people, the pick- 
ets, as far as having these people come to work ? 

Mr. Rolling. Well, they felt that they shouldn't be let in, be- 
cause they were fighting for a cause which in time would benefit both 
the fellows on the picket line and the fellows that were trying to get 
in to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair3Ian. If a fellow called you a scab, M'ould you resent it? 
Mr. Rolling. I believe I would. 

The Chairman. Do you think Bonanse had the right to resent your 
calling him one ? 

Mr. Rolling. I imagine so. 

The Chairman. So he was under a little bit of provocation, was he 
not, from you ? 

Mr. Rolling. Do you mean 

The Chairman. You called him a scab, you said. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8777 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Well, I believe in the testimony in the trial, he said 
that he never had an argument the night he had thrown the paint on 
my car at all. 

The Chairman. There is something in here about some reference to 
his brother, and his hanging himself with a rope around his neck. 
You say you didn't say that to him ? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. I never did, no, sir. 

The Chairman. But you said you called him a scab. 

Mr. HoLLiNG. That I did, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I asked you if you would resent being called one 
and you said you thought you would. I just thought it might also 
cause resentment in others to be called names like that. 

Mr. Holling. It may. 

The Chairman. That is the purpose of calling them that, to make 
them mad, to make them resent it, wasn't it, that is why you called 
them names, to insult them. 

What other purpose is there to calling them names, except to insult 
them, to offend them ? Can you think of any other purpose ? 

Mr. Holling. None that I can think of. 

The Chairman. All right. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. How many times did you call him a scab ? 

Mr. Holling. I couldn't recollect. I can't recall how many times. 

Senator Curtis. More than once ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. How many times? About how many times? 

Mr. Holling. Roughly I couldn't even name a number. 

Senator Curtis. Did it happen on more than one day ? 

Mr. Holling. No. Just the day while I was picketing and he came 
out of the plant. That was the only time. 

Senator Curtis. But it happened several times ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say anything else to him besides calling 
him a scab? 

Mr. Holling. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Curtis. No other names of any kind ? 

Mr. Holling. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. No threats ? 

Mr. Holling. No threats whatsoever. 

Senator Curtis. And there was a conviction in this case ? 

Mr. Holling. There was. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any other conviction ? 

Mr. Holling. In which way do you mean that question sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Any of these offenses. I am delighted to know that 
in at least one instance they enforced the law there. Destruction of 
people's cars should not be tolerated by anyone for any reason. 

Mr. Holling. That is the only one that I know of, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I have before me here what appears to be a state- 
ment signed by William Peter Bonanse, given to the Sheboygan Police 
Department on October 9, 1955, at 10 a. m. 

Mr. Rauii. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of your ruling earlier, this 
is a statement not under oath, which we were prevented from putting 
in this morning. 

The Chairman. Is the stat ement not sworn to ? 



8778 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. No, 

The Chairman. The statement may not be put in the record, but 
lie may use the statement to interrogate this witness, to ask him if tlie 
statements in there are true or not true. 

Mr. Rauh. It is simply going to put the record in that way, which 
we were blocked from doing this morning. 

The Chairman. I don't think you will be. The questions were asked 
the witness. You wanted to put the statement in the record. I am 
not going to permit this one to go into the record if it is not sworn 
to. But he is cross-examining a witness, and he has the right to ask 
the witness. I didn't have the statement of Mr. Bonanse here, and 
I asked the question of you when submitting it. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Bonanse has been here, he has been interrogated, 
and he was sent home. I think Mr. Bonanse ought to be here. 

The Chairman. Maybe you think so. I can't have everybody here 
all at once. Let us proceed. 

Senator Curtis. The first paragraph recites who he is, and then that 
he is making this statement before the police department. Then it 
goes on and says : 

I had been in an argument with my wife that day and drank very much during 
the day and evening. I don't know what gave me the idea then but I got 
paint from home and threw it at these cars. These fellows gave me a hard time. 
I was mad at Royal's because they attempted to hit me and said let's kill him. 
We had been friends for 20 years. This man HoUing called me a lot of names and 
insults. I did this between the hours of 11 and 2 a. m. I did not at any other 
time ever do any vandalism of any kind at any other time. 

It is signed William Peter Bonanse. 

The Chairman. That is a statement of counsel. That is not evi- 
dence. That is the only way the Chair can handle it. 

Senator Curtis. Am I in violation of the rules, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. I am simply stating that you can read 
a statement if you care to and ask the witness any questions about it, 
but the statement that you read is not evidence. It is a statement of 
information that you have. If we are going to just take all the state- 
ments and put them into the record, we will not have a very intelligent 
record. I am simply trying to keep it in its proper perspective and 
keep as much of the hearsay evidence out as we can. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is any different 
than we liave followed throughout the months of hearings. 

The Chairman. If you want to overrule the Chair, I am ready to 
be overruled. I am just going to do it the best I know how. 

Senator Curtis. No. I think there have been a number of things 
received here all through the months, and there has been considerable 
latitude on it. All I want to do is ask the witness 

The Chairman. Ask him about those things. Tell him you have 
information to that effect, that you have a statement before you that 
says so and so, and ask him about it. That is perfectly all right. You 
do not have to have it under oath to say "I have information." You 
can say "I have information in a statement that a fellow said so and 
so." But what the man said in the statement is not evidence before 
this committee. That is the only distinction the Chair is trying to 
make. I believe I am right about it. 

Senator Curtis. I have no quarrel with that at all. 

The Chairman. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8779 

Senator Curtis. Wliat time, day or night, did this happen to your 
car? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Well, I had gone over to the church that I go to. We 
have a bowling alley. That night it was my night to work in the hall, 
or take care of the bowling alleys, I had left the house at 7 o'clock at 
night, and I had locked up the bowling alley around 11 o'clock at night 
to come home, which is a block or roughly two blocks away from my 
home. At that time, 11 o'clock, I did not notice nothing wrong with 
my car, until my son had left the house to go to Sunday school at a 
quarter to 9 in the morning. 

Senator Curtis. It did take place, then, between 11 and 2 probably? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. He said that you called him a lot of names and in- 
sults, and your version of that is that you called him a scab more than 
once? 

Mr. HoLLiNG. Yes, that is right. 

Senator Curtis. So there is just that much variation between the 
account of the two of you with regard to what happened ? 

Mr. Rolling. If he means by violent, I mean vile language, I have 
never used that in my life. I can swear to that. 

Senator Curtis. He says here : 

This man Holling called me a lot of names and insults. 

Your recollection of that is that you just called him a scab ? 

Mr. Holling. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be accused of coaching 
the witness. ' Would you ask him whether Mr. Bonanse, who was con- 
victed of this paint bombing of his car, is still working at Kohler. 
please ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. It is perfectly all right to know it. 

Is he still working at Kohler ? 

Mr. Holling. Yes, he is. 

The Chairman. Has he testified already ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. I understand he is here. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He might be. 

The Chairman. Well, all right. Call the next witness, 

Mr. Kennedy. Peter Breu. 

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

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. Breu. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER BEETJ 

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

Mr. Breu. My name is Peter Breu. I live at 1546 Johns Court, 
Sheboygan. I work for the Kohler Co., in the pottery division. 

The Chairman. How long have you worked for the Kohler Co. ? 



8780 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Breu. About 30 years. 

The Chairman. How long? 

Mr. Breu. Thirty years. 

The Chairman. Thirty years ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Breu. I do. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Breu, did you join the UAW ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt that you did not want to join up with them? 

Mr. Breu. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they went on strike, you did not support the 
strike ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And after the mass picketing ended, you came back 
to work ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes ; then I come back to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you receive telephone calls after you came 
back to work ? 

Mr. Breu. We did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would they say in the telephone calls ? 

Mr. Breu. Well, that said "scab" or something and then they hung 
up. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Breu. They said names, scab or something, and then didn't 
say nothing and just hung up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sometimes they would say nothing and sometimes 
they would call you scab ; is that right? 

Mr. Breu. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to work ? 

That didn't frighten you away from working ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. You continued to go to work ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive damage to your home ? 

Mr. Breu. Was that on December 30, approximately, 1954? 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a light bulb filled with white paint that 
was thrown into your living room ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Came through the window ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And white paint splattered all over the living room 
on the new rug? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on a davenport and chair; is that right? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the damage that was done? 

Mr. Breu. I don't know exactly, but I think it was around $400. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was that insured ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8781 

Mr. Breu. Well, partly. I had insurance, and I called up my in- 
surance a^ent and he called me back, and he said I was not covered 
for that. So I went to the Kohler Co., and I showed them my policy 
and they said I should ^o back to my a^ent again, and maybe t should 
collect on this. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened finally ? 

Mr. Breu. Later they sent me a release for a certain amount of 
money. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you get from the insurance company ? 

Mr. Bred. I can't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy, But you did collect from the insurance company ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. You think it was about $400 ? 

Mr. Breu. I don't know how much I collected from the insurance 
company. 

Mr; Kennedy. Did you receive anything from the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you receive from them ? 

Mr. Breu. The balance of what the damage amounted to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how much you received from them ? 

Mr, Breu, No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were there also home demonstrations that took 
place at your home ? 

Mr, Breu, Yes ; there was, 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee about what happened 
there? 

Mr. Breu. That started on a Monday, but I came home from work 
and there were about 8 or 10 standing across the street. They shouted 
at me until I was in the house. Then on Tuesday, there were more. 
I could not say the exact figure, but there were still more, maybe about 
30 or 35. 

Thursday and Friday there was — I don't know because I did not go 
home and I went to a friend's house, and I called home because they 
left around 6 : 30 and I went home at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many were out there then ? 

Mr. Breu. We looked at the block and it was filled. There were 
maybe 400 there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were they saying ? 

Mr. Breu. Shouting names like "scab," or something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there strikers there ? 

Mr. Breu. There was ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also some of your neighbors ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And some women and children ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there great bitterness in Sheboygan because 
of the strike ? 

Mr. Breu. I would think so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Great bitterness between strikers and nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anybody ever arrested in connection with the 
paint bombing of your home ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 



8782 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kjinnedy. Did you report it to the police department ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the police department, were they ever able 
to solve it ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were not ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that it grew out of the strike, the paint 
bombing ? 

Mr. Breu. Personally, I would say, "Yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. And because of this feeling between the strikers 
and the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Breu. I would think so ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anything else ever happen to you ? 

Mr. Breu. Not that I can think of at the moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had an incident as I understand it, where even 
a bartender would not take some money. 

Mr. Breu. Oh, yes; that is right. That was a Sunday. I was in a 
tavern with a friend of mine for a glass of beer. The bartender would 
not give us a drink. 

Mr. Kennedy. He would not what ? 

Mr. Breu. The bartender said, "He is a scab, and I don't serve no 
drinks to scabs." And I was with a friend of mine who does not 
work for Kohler, and he said, "This is a public place, we should get 
a drink." 

So finally he did give us a drink and I paid for it and it was 20 
cents, there was another fellow in there, and he said, "I know him, he 
is a scab," he says, and he said I should come outside with him, but 
that is all what happened there. I paid for two beers and then we 
walked out. 

And the same night around midnight, the owner from the place 
came up to my house, and he woke my wife up, I was sleeping and 
I could not hear anything and he said he wanted to see me, and he 
told my wife and so my wife woke me up, and so I went to the porch. 
And he said, "You were in my place at noon, and you spent 20 
cents." And I said, "Yes." Then he said, "Here is your 20 cents." 

So I took the money and he said he does not take no scab money. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went into the bar and ultimately you got 
him to accept the 20 cents, and serve you beer? 

Mr. Breu. That was his bartender, and the owner himself brought 
the money back. 

Mr. Kennedy. The owner was not there ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. The bartender would not serve you originally, be- 
cause of the fact he felt you were a scab, and then the owner of the 
bar brought the 20 cents back that night ? 

Mr. Breu. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that an indication of the bitterness that existed 
in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Between those who were strikers and those who 
were not ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8783 

The Chairman. You got a free drink because you were a scab, is 
that what it amounts to ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that what it adds up to ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

The Chairman. You got your money back, didn't you ? 

Mr. Breu. I did. 

The Chairman. He did not get the drink back, did he ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

The Chairman. I present to you some pictures, and I will ask you 
to examine them and state if you identify them. 

( Document was handed to the witness. ) 

The Chairman. Do you identify those pictures as pictures of the 
damage at your home? 

Mr. Breu. I do. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 38. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38," for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. All right, are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Breu, you have some neighbors who also worked at Kohler? 

Mr. Breu. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Was that a Mr. Kepler or Kopler ? 

Mr. Breu. That is my neighbor on the north. 

Senator Curtis. And a Mr. Maxie ? 

Mr. Breu. Maxie ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Were they strikers ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Senator Curtis. Did they have any damage done to their home? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was it about the same time as yours ? 

Mr. Breu. The same night, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Were there demonstrations carried on on your 
street, home demonstrations, too ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, you were asked about the bitterness and 
the feeling that existed there. 'Was this bitterness existing to such an 
extent that you nonstrikers, did you go out and conduct home demon- 
strations in "front of strikers' homes ? 

Mr. Breu. No, I don't think so. 

Senator Curtis. Did you or any of the other nonstrikers that you 
know of damage people's homes and throw paint bombs ? 

Mr. Breu. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So in testifying that there was bitterness there, 
you do not mean to imply that the bitterness was an excuse for the 
vandalism that went on, do you ? 

Mr. Breu. No. 

Senator Curtis. Now, do you know a Walter Meyer ? 

Mr. Breu. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Did he come by as you were painting the outside of 
your house at one time ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Tell us what happened. 



8784 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Breu. I was painting, it was on a Sunday I believe, and he was, 
I would say, about 100 feet down the road, and he hollered at me names 
and then he said, "You will have to paint it over again anyhow." That 
is what he said. 

Senator Curtis. This man, Meyer, that you spoke of, where does he 
work or where did he work ? 

Mr. Breu. He worked at Kohler. 

Senator Curtis. Was he out on strike ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. As you were out there painting on the side of your 
house he called you names ? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. As a scab? 

Mr. Breu. Yes, and he said, "You have yellow streaks all over you, 
and you have to paint it over anyhow again." And what he meant by 
that, I don't know, but that is what he said. 

Senator Curtis. You got telephone calls, too ? 

Mr. Breu. We did, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Was this a disturbing factor in your family, so far 
as your wife and children were concerned ? 

Mr. Breu. It was. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, call the next witness. 

Thank you sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Pladson. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence given be- 
fore this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mrs. Pladson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MRS. OLE T. PLADSON 

The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and 
your occupation. 

Mrs. Pladson. My name is Mrs. Ole T. Pladson and I live at 1321 
North Ninth Street, Sheboygan, and I am employed at Freddies, Inc. 

The Chairman. Yon are not working for the Kohler Co.? 

Mrs. Pladson. I have never been employed by the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. You have never been employed by Kohler Co. ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

The Chairman. All right, you waive counsel, do you ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mrs. Pladson, your husband was an employee of the 
Kohler Co.? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was an employee there from 1939, approxi- 
mately ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Approximately, it was after that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he an employee at the time that the UAW went 
out on strike ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was there employed at that time? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8785 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did he join the UAW? 

Mrs. Pladson. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not support the strike ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. He went to work, went back to work after the mass 
picketing ended ? 

Mrs. Pladson. After a couple of months, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. After he went back to work, did you receive any tele- 
phone calls? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what would they say in the telephone calls ? 

Mrs. Pladson. "Scab," or else they would just hang up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just call and hang up ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would they come at all hours ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Early in the morning? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you find them very annoying ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they continued for what period of time? 

Mrs. Pladson. Beg pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They continued for what period of time ? 

Mrs. Pladson. For several months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have some damage done to your home? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened ? 

Mrs. Pladson. My youngest daughter, Joan, and I were home and 
my husband worked 11 to 7 a. m. 

Senator Curtis. I cannot hear the lady. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was about 7 o'clock in the morning of November 
23, 1954. 

Mrs. Pladson. My husband was on the shift from 11 until 7 a. m. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your husband was not present ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

Mr, Kennedy, You were upstairs ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. My youngest daughter, Joan, and my- 
self were home alone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your daughter Joan and yourself were home alone? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir, and she got up about 7 o'clock in the morn- 
ing to attend high school, and she went downstairs and discovered 
that we had been paint bombed and she came back upstairs crying to 
me and, well, we notified the police department and we called the 
Kohler Co. and reported this. 

Mr. Kennedy. A paint bomb had been thrown into your home? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir; tliere had been 3 paint bombs and 3 rocks. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did it cover your living room ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. With paint? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, and a portion of the dining room, 

Mr, Kennedy, And it went all over your drapery ? 
, Mrs. Pladson. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy, Your couch and your rugs ? 



8786 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs. Pladson. Kij^ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your walls? 

Mrs. Pladson. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. And even the school books of your children? 

Mrs. Pladson. That is rio;ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was yellow paint? 

Mrs. Pladson. Black enamel, green, and yellow paint. 

Mr. Kennedy. Three different kinds? 

Mrs. Pladson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your neighbor's house was also splattered with 
some of this paint? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not awakened by the paint bomb being 
thrown and you were not awakened by the rocks being thrown in ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No ; I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You reported it to the police ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you have insurance ? 

Mrs. Pladson. We thought we had, but when we contacted our in- 
surance man, he informed us that that particular insurance company 
had discontinued vandalism insurance just a month before this hap- 
pened. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you did not collect from the insurance company ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Kohler Co. paid you ? 

Mrs. Pladson. We were reimbursed by the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was that ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Approximately $500. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever find out who was responsible ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did the police department ever find out who was 
responsible ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody was arrested in connection with it ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that it arose out of the strike at the 
Kohler Co.? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, I surely do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not have any trouble like this before ? 

Mrs. Pladson. I have never had any trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did not have any enemies that would have 
done it ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel it arose out of that ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there great bitterness between the strikers and 
the nonstrikers ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything else happen to you ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

The Chairman. Did your husband continue working after this 
violence to your home ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8787 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, he did. 

The Chairman. Had you had any threats prior to the violence, 
any warning ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Just the telephone calls. 

The Chairman. Just telephone calls ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know whether he had had any threats 
or not, personally, while he was working? 

Mrs. Pladson. Well, yes, I guess he had, on the line, and I don't 
know. 

The Chairman. You mean from the picket line ? 

Mrs. Pladson. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, had you anticipated or were you apprehensive 
that something like this might happen ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, I certainly was not. 

The Chairman. It was all unexpected to you ? 

Mrs. Pladson. It surely was. 

The Chairman. You could not believe it had happened to you? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, I just could not. 

The Chairman. Did you know prior to this it had been happening 
to some of your neighbors and some of the other workers ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes ; I knew of it happening to a lot of people but 
I didn't think it would happen to me. 

The Chairman. You just did not think it would happen to you? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

The Chairman. I hand you a series of pictures and I will ask you 
to examine them and state if you identify them. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Are those all pictures of your home, showing the 
damage that was caused by the paint bombing of it ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir; they are and the neighbor's house which 
was splashed on. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 39. 

(The pictures referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 39" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. They will be lettered for identification. All right, 
is there anything further you wish to say, or do you have any other 
information you can give us ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Your husband is still working for Kohler ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, he is. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Cltitis. Over how long a period of time were you harassed 
by telephone calls ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Well, it was for several months. 

Senator Curtis. For several months ? 

Mrs. Pladson. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Were most of these calls at night ? 

Mrs. Pladson. They were at night because we were both employed 
and there wasn't anybody home during the day, so they would have 
to be at night. 

Senator Curtis. Did your husband have to work a night shaft 
sometimes, too ? 



8788 IMPBOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mrs. Pladson. He worked three shifts. 

Senator Curtis. And these calls would come at times that you 
would answer and sometimes he would answer ? 

Mrs. Pladson. That is right. 

Senator Crirns. It lasted several months? 

Mrs. Pladson. I would say so. 

Senator Curtis. How many children do you have ? 

Mr, Pladson. Well, I have 4, with only 1 home at the time. 

Senator Curtis. And that was the daughter that you mentioned 
that reported to you of the bombing ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know of anyone else, and you do not need 
to name them but I want to know if you know of other cases where 
they were molested by telephone calls and throwing of paint in their 
house. 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Curtis. The people who were the victims of these acts, 
were they strikers or nonstrikers ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Nonstrikers. 

Senator Curtis. Among the nonstrikers that you know of, did 
any of them go out and conduct home demonstrations or commit 
vandalism ? 

Mrs. Pladson. No. 

Senator Curtis. But the damage seemed in the great majority of 
the cases to occur to nonstrikers ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any similarity in the containers, whether 
it was light bundles or cans or jars or what not that this paint would 
be in, in the different acts that would be committed ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Mine happened to be light bundles when it hap- 
pened to me. 

Senator Curtis. That happened in some other cases ; did it not ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Yes ; it did. 

Senator Curtis. So far as you know, the police never found out 
the common source of those light bundles and the paint ; did they ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Not to my knowledge. I never heard of anyone who 
found it. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a feeling in the community that the 
police were giving ample protection to the nonstrikers ? 

Mrs. Pladson. Well, I think they were doing their utmost to pro- 
tect everyone that they could. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

All right, the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 10 p. m. the hearing recessed to reconvene at 
2 p. m. of the 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, McNamara, Goldwater, Mundt and 
Curtis.) 

Mr. CoKOER. May I make a statement at this time, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. All riffht, Mr. Conner. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8789 

Mr. Conger. This morning, Mr. Chairman, a very serious charge 
was leveled at the Kohler Co., in that it was charged with a perpetra- 
tion of a hoax. I have checked into that, and I want to state that that 
charge in itself is a deliberate attempt to perpetrate a hoax on this 
committee and on the American public, and to distract attention from 
what has come up. 

The Chairman. Do you wish — I think you have been sworn as a 
witness. Do you wish to make that statement as a witness? 

Mr. Conger. I am now making a statement as counsel, but if Mr. 
Kauh in the future will be sworn to his statements that he makes be- 
fore this committee, I will be glad to be. 

The Chairman. The Chair was asking you for information. 

Mr. Conger. This is just a statement at the present, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We will pursue the matter further as we get to it. 

Mr. Conger. The document that Mr. Kauh produced here and that 
he states supports those charges, and which he distributed to the press, 
although it has not been yet accepted by this committee, does not sup- 
port the statement that he made regarding it. 

The clear implication of his statement 

The Chairman. Let us try now. The Chair has no control over 
what either of you gentlemen wish to give to the press. If there is 
any statement you wish to make for the benefit of the press, you may 
make it, but I don't want to take up the time of this committee now 
just making charges and countercharges. 

In the course of hearing a witness, when some statement comes up, 
you may feel as free as Mr. Eauh to make any suggestions or submit 
to us any questions you would like to have the witness asked. 

The committee then can use its best discretion as to whether the ques- 
tion should be asked or not. 

Mr. Conger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to ask 
that the witness be called and it is possible that while he is testifying, 
or before he is testifying, he may want to make some statement. 

The Chairman. What is the name of the witness ? 

Mr. Conger. Girard Desmond, D-e-s-m-o-n-d, and I believe he was 
the regularly scheduled witness to be heard. 

The Chairman. He probably will be called during the afternoon. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think he is going to be called right now. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Call the first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Desmond. 

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 notliing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF GIRARD A. DESMOND, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, LYMAN C. CONGER 

Mr. Desmond. May I get some documents that I have with me ? 
The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

Will you state your name, and your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please ? 



21243—58 — pt. 22- 



8790 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Desmond. My name is Girard A. Desmond, and I live at 504 
Valley Road, Kohler, Wis., and I am a member of the legal staff of 
the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. All right. I assume then, or do you have counsel 
present ? 

Mr. Desmond. I have Mr. Conger, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have an associate counsel present ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Conger appears also 
as counsel for the witness. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Desmond, during the course of the strike start- 
ing on April 5, 1954, there were certain acts of vandalism that were 
committed in the city of Sheboygan and the surrounding area ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these were committed by and large against 
people who continued to work at the Kohler plant ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, when there was an act of vandalism reported, 
or where you had some information regarding an act of vandalism, did 
you make an investigation or study of that ? 

Mr. Desmond. I did, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. You or somebody under your direction, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And would you go out and take pictures and obtain 
affidavits as to what had occurred ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. I always took affidavits, and if I was not there 
at the time, I had somebody else take the affidavit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Affidavits were taken ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where possible, pictures were also taken? 

Mr. Desmond. And in many, many of the cases of vandalism, actual 
photographs were taken at times. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, the pictures that we have been placing 
in the record in the hearings so far have been, as I understand it, from 
records that you people have taken ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so to support the affidavits that were made you 
had a photographer go along and take pictures of the damage, or take 
pictures of what had occurred ; is that right ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In these acts of vandalism ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for the most part these acts of vandalism are 
supported by affidavits ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during the period of this strike, over the last 
4-year period, there have been over 800 acts of vandalism involving 
individuals who were not supporting the union ; is that right ? 

Mr. DEs:vroND. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Their families, or people who wanted to continue to 
work at the plant, or their families ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8791 

Mr. Kennedy. Somebody associated with the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. And that has occurred since the beginning of the 
strike on April 5, 1954 ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have, for submission to the committee, 
affidavits and the records showing these acts of vandalism over this 
period of time? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you would like to submit those to the committee 
at this time ? 

Mr. Desmond. I would. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair understand. You have affidavits that 
you have taken from witnesses regarding acts of vandalism ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir; and from the actual individuals them- 
selves. Senator, those who were vandalized, affidavits were taken from 
them or from their wives or someone who was home at the time, when 
the vandalism occurred. 

The Chairman. What I mean is this: They pertain to these dif- 
ferent acts of vandalism that we have been hearing about ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

The Chairman. And testimony about ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

The Chairman. These affidavits were all either procured by you 
personally, or procured under your direction and supervision ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. 

The Chairman. You were in charge of that part of the work repre- 
senting the company, to try to make a check on those things, and to 
get as much information about them as you could ? 

Mr. Desmond. Xliat is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You have how many affidavits ? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, I don't have an actual count of them here, but 
I have the files that I just brought over here with me, and I think 
that it contains all of the eight hundred-and-some-odd that we gave 
to the committee. Now, I got that from the committee this morn- 
ing, or rather I should say from Mr. McGovern, and I think it con- 
tains all of them, and I can't be sure. 

The Chairman. Eigtli hundred-and-some-odd affidavits? 

Mr. Desmond. Affidavits of violence, yes, or vandalism. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to get the record straight, so I 
can understand it at least. Are these 800 separate acts ? 

Mr. Desmond. Eight hundred separate acts, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Separate acts of vandalism ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have approximately the same number of 
affidavits? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

Well now I might make a correction there if I may. Senator. In 
some instances an affidavit was taken where several acts of vandalism 
were covered, and so there may not be eight hundred-and-some-odd 
affidavits. 

The Chairman. So there may be less ? 



8792 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE iABOR FIELD 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir; and actual acts. 

The Chairman. Now the Chair is of the opinion — and may I have 
the attention of the members — the Chair is of the opinion that these 
can be received and marked an exhibit for reference, and therefore 
then they may be referred to in any questioning that we want. I 
don't think that you would want the whole 800 affidavits printed in 
the record at this point. 

I don't think that would be necessary. I think the better way is 
to receive them in bulk and make them an exhibit for reference and 
the stall' can ascertain the number and such other information as to 
identify them so that they will be properly a part of the record. 

Is there objection to that ? 

Senator Mundt. I have no objection. I would suggest that per- 
haps if the witnesses desire, they might select at random 5 or 6 so-called 
typical affidavits, for inclusion in the printed record, and I don't think 
we would want to encumber the record with 800 repetitious cases. 

The Chairman. I tliought the witness would probably refer to some 
of the cases, and you may make reference to your affidavits as you 
testify, but I am trying to get the record in some shape here, so that 
they will be official from now on. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the receipt 
of the evidence, and I think it should be received. I also can under- 
stand that it would be quite cumbersome to print in the body of the 
record all of these affidavits. I wonder if it would be in order for 
the committee to request either the staff or the witness to submit for the 
record a list of these affidavits, giving the name of the person who 
makes the affidavit, and the particular act of violence that it relates to. 

The Chairman. Do you have a list or do we have a list? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe we have a list. 

Senator Curtis. My request is that that be printed in the record. 

The Chairman. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the 
list of the affidavits may be printed in the record, and the affidavits 
proper will be held as exhibits for reference. 

Senator Curtis. That way we have a description of them. 

The Chairman. Did some member of the staff prepare this list? 

Mr. McGovern, did you prepare this list ? 

Mr. McGovERN. This was prepared by the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. You did submit a list ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you are prepared to testify that that list is 
accurate, according to your best knowledge and belief? 

Mr. Desmond. That was done by a member of our staff, and as 
far as I know it is absolutely correct. 

The Chairman. It was done under your supervision? 

Mr. Desmond. It was under my supervision. I assisted in a way, 
and it was under Mr. Conger's supervision. 

The Chairman. To the best of your knowledge, it is accurate ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. That list may be printed in the record, and the 
affidavits now will be filed in bulk as exhibit No. 40, and they will be 
available in official documents for reference for further j)roceedings, 
and of course in the course of your testimony if you desire to make 



IMPRiOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8793 

reference to any particular affidavit, or read any excerpt from it, you 
will be at liberty to do so. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 40," for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Goldwater. I might, Mr. Chairman, say this : Do you have 
the entire group of affidavits and pictures with you ? 

Mr. Desmond. As far as I know, Senator, I do. 

Senator Goldwater. Where are they ? 

Mr. Desmond. Right in back of me, and here also is one, too. This 
is one part of it. 

The Chairman. I am trying to keep the record straight on it. The 
affidavits have been made exhibit No. 40, and a list of them now has 
been ordered printed in the record at this point. 

Now what other documents have you ? 

Mr. Desmond. None, sir. 

The Chairman. So if we have the affidavits in properly, and a list 
of them properly, then we have all that you had in mind to present ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Desmond. If the Senator please, I might comment on some of 
these, if you will permit. 

(The list of affidavits is as follows :) 



8794 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



•a" o Ik: 
2 o '? -^ 

l-il si 



I 



5c" 



c/;.g-g-Sss 
.§ ^ S § a s 






? s lis |l 



; buxj r 



o 

.a fem 

^-.i III I%li?s5|is 

""" -'a;aa-«'^^ ■ 



II 



I a ® 



! a c g fe 



i.a 



'C ■>- =" ,„ 03 m Qj 3 ?i a w": ■" i gas., 
o o'S'S'Sd 5e.ia ao5 ° o o5"'3^ 



■§■3 



C3 O O'C ^ 



>" J< C o 

£ o:!l 

iilfi 

fl-" C3 Sg O 
-^£1 OJ » 3 

c -w a a" 






! g ; 3 o 



■CO ojTS -o 









3>ocno 



'^ 3 3 3 § iSsSa 1333 



122g 

, CD OJ CJ 

13 3 3 



f^Q 



|.gj J s I i i I ; 3 3 J 

3jo &1:: 3 °'& 3 c3 £ s 
i: 03-^ CO c3 o 3 jC ot3 oii 



^1 

^ '53 

=3^^233 
■SsSu^.2 

^3^ g^ t. 



§ala 

WM3M 



< S M (N IM (N CS C^ ( 






IMPRlOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8795 






•S'2 t? fe S) g 

■5 3 .g t< 6 2 






gf- 



aj5 



03 44 2 



o ■« 






I o^ 



a s. 



a^-. 



■^■S- 



«& 



■5&: 









iilliliftllllilililillilliilillili 



X!" 



l^->.-fea1sa -g ^g 

^ 2 0.2 o £-2 g ^S~ «o 

g5f?|fe5£||§e-^-gS 
S.^r-i4 g'w «-S-2s £ '-•^ 



■>t: c3 e. 






>"a I. 



~ - "i u ca o 



25 ■^■^'S a3 toiS o3_g s o ^ 



;ss 



■g 3 3 d a 




soiCT-^;^ 



il sss 



-CMO 1^ —I 



§§9 



■> y P»> >» >i >> >. >> ■ >i >> bieitiiM 
; ii^ "3 "3 "3 "g "g "3 I '5'3 3 3 3 3 



3 3 .- ® 3 






!^35|pp3|§ 



^i_: OH 



3x2 
1^ 



a o) o fe o 

301 o^ S 



3 g-g 

P«,o 



gm-S S I oj 

<fl c:^ S m ci 2 






cEo UH^ 



li 

ml 






-«< UTO t^ 00 0> O 

•V Tj< -a< ■* ■* tt 10 






8796 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



Is 



3 CO 
o "3 tan 



^ o c a 
ox) c3 a 



.35 
jsx) 



,0 OS 



!^'£ 5 



11^ 









a^lsSfjSs 






o" £ a tie 

SHI'S ^ 

3-2 2 ir =! 

Sifl I 

«3 e s M » 









p c 



^ -.-I -b fe n ^ rt > o rt o a n ■= 






B^ ^i 



C o S-^X: 



>- o 

2 2 



S--S 



^ ^ e £t3.H o 

SSE.-aliilil 






1° 

el 



2^ 



2c 
S.fe 

SI o . 



"2° 



•^ c ^ 3 " o3S 

bit-S « O-^ o5 O O . 






SooOf 
was 



is:SSo 



■<cccotBai 



■O'S^j'O^-'a^.^- ^ x) 



»0 Oi 05 05 



M iCCOTOjCB 






22SS?f§1 






J I 



« w i" S 5r Ki - 






o5o(§So-< o 



HO 2^"«^ 
» >> a>= 3 a 

£•2 ££;i;o-5 






=3g g ss §S§§2 



11 

■5- 






a ^ 5 



IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

m M M .; o a 



8797 



a o 

fl i 

o S 



..a 5 



?feS ss 



^ £ 



2 I !■« 

" o OJ . 









.•2 °ii 

B 



o « 



o » 
B-s.B 






1 >.-^, 



"2° 



a|a§g§-g.a|o||o 



o"« S c ° ^r 

'^•sd-cEf £:;sa1|-s§||^ 



•^ a 5 ox; id; 
"" a 2 o ,. "O < 
"O x:"^ S d 



d ca ; 



!|liipiiil!!l 

; 2pS o 0.3 ^^ a fe § ■' o d_g a 
■-•"So 



■« d rt S D. 



^o^ 



•§ « I 

sin 
- I ^ 



i-wS^ 






M ;;^i5=o3 



.j: d : 
iE|£og 



y o c^t? - 

^ a § « D-.2^ 

^ » J-| g M JH „ 

^ b£ ? 1- cd 

xij.o dS-og" 



ao>^aS=P.2-d( 



•d.dO-<id.dj».3.d03c3J3o03 



.23 « M o-e-S 



■!iPl!fe-a 

•dtda,"T-,E>aj 






fe HIS 



dtda-o d.aS"3« o 0. 



11 a.as| 

"S.clldoS'S-^a 



.a 
aliilall 

3 m a ftd D. o<p 
H P w !? 



o c 2 



g S222; 



00 o o o 00 o o 0000 






■V S.d 



!i a I 



=2 ipx: s 

§"s-ed 



w ►J ^ 



•IN M ■* 



8798 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 






3 ^ 









2'-"' 



^S'S 



bCx3 
is 



..J II iiiis mm hs 



.s a " 



§ 5 

a ^-^-sl^ 



li I 



o be 



SS" 



a^ 



I .1" 



9? = 



» s^it; i 









12-1 



ill^!ll!iLPr°ijlS:l!!t|l 
Jll liiltli;i!i|l liii III 

2 2 fe S ,u ^ g3-g5Sj3 g-o ■* i S =-2 ^ > £.£!>2-§^-3^ g g-fl 

Sf:s;i||ilai|a-l|l:i::§°|£aB|fi;S-||1 

is ili| If III mihtmu^mi^^^B^i 






;'s o o 






:?2 Eh 



is 



S I fe^ 



2 ^ i 

•S m "= 
■g 2 § 



1 J 



o rt o -<!m 



;a i -§2 






O .-I N 



ss 



CC' CO O S CO CO 



IMPBOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOH FIELD 



8799 






•g :: 



C =3 



£1 a^ 



IS 

III 
I" >^ 






a s. 



>J2 5 






o:S " fe a 



^^ s al 

2 a 

03 ^ 



^- O C3 



a& 



■^2 „:6fi'5S2 a o' 



6/'^ a s 



s-^llla 



&| So-". 
af§i|' 

o g ^ o j3 



Sfeao 



'Pi 
;§og 



;■«« a^ 












a'H.'d 
oa « 



g M S) f 03 rt a " 

1 o H - 



■fe3aac-9'^.a2c 



£30.5 ^a 

•2 -g^lS og 

■S-di^a- C.2. 

i§.a 



i %. 2 ^ ":s o S"r, 'h J 



i.3i 



t--d =3 



.9 13 -2 .a hca-^E^'n-" 1 



! h~ o 



OTd u 



§a" 



2 M-g^ S o §, g g o^ 










llg«|-^ 1-9 ^21 

f=OMO«=3 ^S -S-l 

.i-'^"tt>«'7-i .taO" aS* 

3 O) 03'rJ j^ 03 ^ a> d OJ 7 

3 a^-^ m a^.:, c a a 



a-S-S'„-^aaa 






-al^l^S" 

o 






gaaf 
3 o ° ® 



S o 000 



»o »o »c uo 10 10 10 10 u:i ^ 



Oi O^ OS Oi 

00 00 









:s S S 



t; d .( 






J-E"go S:3 md X 

2 'SmCjCLi ■ 3 3^^=3 §a3S . 2n as > 

I S2||||i l|§|a ^m tl II i 






Tj-O 03 1^ 



8800 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



S BSa 



! § 



U 



lis 

B-c'S 
2 o o 



§S 



':2-i: o, 



S 03 ° 



bcO -"be 

DP V c3 I 

2 ^ •« ! 

*^ OS .J3 a; 



0.2 5^5 

5^ii|:§ ■■ 

'.2q g.^"-S a" 
- c £ s =* y, c . 

a g 03 U CO 03 "^ 
__aj_*j g 3 « o I 






0) o . 
II I 



■S 3 « o rt _e y^ -^^ _ - =; fl 



£ ax: 






lE-B 



.35 SS.S 

w) o ^ a <fl 



5i'« 9ti'« B- 



as 



® a 

1 t-X! 



lis " lilies o||^|| 

oa>> aj«2°o?i his Tl,^ i^ 

^^ a b> o-^*. a|5 SJ.« £.^§^2^ 
- ' - - jfe^Se-s'g.B'l 



£ga«oo3^o . 



Ia^i§l^^l^, 



cap e a^jaX2X! 

J3i^a)«a>— c:'od.5caiai»J2i3x:aa 
a3.fc1il.fcl ftS o 3 ^;rii.fc; o ax; sy-g-g 



O 00 I5> CU 

Z 'ZZ OP 



s ss s 






Oi Cft^^03 OS" OS 



lira Sosc 



rH .flTc-je^ o-«^ oorttxT tc5. 



;z:0 ^Q ;z: I? p^ 0:2 qpq ip ppp pppp 



PPP 



oj.b — 

a S-a 



?3B:3 
0S.B3 



^s 



1'^ 






III 



S§^ SS SSSi 



li^g l^i igl§ §ss 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8801 



li 



-"■a a 






g|| 



■-dJ2 ra 

: c -r; • 1- 

> c3 13 ■" S 






£ a 



'i'l I g 

^ tjj *j >> 

2.S 2 ■'^ 

i^^. I'll 



03 " a> c a 



J O 0<„ 



oJ >^ i-.'O " s 






""-- g^£as 

O C3 O OJ2 
,.b O S B3 -g C 






t: a > sir's -2 s c &:« « 



o 



tuo _■ lJ 

•Sis 



§1 ao-5 



I -a 



~ •■=' h ^ 
c b S a o " 



III! 



^.S^ 



OS go 

at? dS 



O ! 

a 03 M !: 3 -"^ I 



a.s £fe.s^ 









o2 -=3 I 

'■see 






iililii : 









s|S|l-||ai 

agttSg-'a-g: 
.^ag8|g||j 









'",2 — o: a 3 •'t i" Dij-= -^ ID r- x3 -:= j^ =• 

5^^'T3C_c""!-,-=lO+2SSi3o3-SS 

3^:S5-^2§2d|§fl^g| 

2 i ° I g o-s 






'8-2 



.c o- 




'ft"3 ^ o'X5-- or «S.fci^X!xfS^ 



M^ lO lO ir3 lO irj 

»0 03 05 O) 05 Oi 



OQ 






tN 0!N O 



^M 






S S SS SSiS, 






gs 






S^: 



O 3 M 03 



13 03 

2S 



111 






■35=2 






sii i§S 



8802 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 



o B 



t: E 



Sap |:si zi I 

g £ « ^ ^ !: bj-^ a ^ g ^ I 



1 « G -C ~ 



e^^s 



I ^''^ -ii*"ii I 






i!ll 



1 & O 11 
..S OS 



§ ac £ c £ 






' 2 o biS~- 






J«: C "^ ■c-S 

5 " E -c 2 o a 

5 £0 S g~g S 



aia M ■« ^ 03 g 52 ca 
Eoa^bfTa-ogg-a 

:^£5&ssa«-ss 

= J= 9- "•a si" fl 2" 



•" " q>^ t-je ot; o 

o.go..Sa^^§G 



?? is o o b 



1 i3 o 



;J=^ 









>3 6 = 









>i 22 S i2222 

3 10 cs2 ^ ooimS^^, 



iilgi 



3'a ci-g a 



i?3?5S;; 



1^2 S^ 



fl.S 

g a^ 12 p ti n 



»?^-^-s 



'^ §:!^ 



i.2«a oga C3 









g o 









l?5?5S5E55^^ 



3a 2 SS3" 



SSSS§ 



Sgg^ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8803 






^Xi i~ aj a 



:B2t 



^a 



5 £; 



m g C gi Cm Ci2-il;2 



C.3 



•S a* o 



a^5s 






C C-C 



S :^r 2"-^ Si's 1^-5^ B°?§^- 



= ^ a ' 



p o 



OS ! 



^ ^ e S MT3 q ; - 



OiS i 



g 3^-5 .a a bit: 



■^ o 



03 'E 



a^ 



lia|i^|g'^^°||g 

m *; bi at fe 73 to M^ P 2 • 

PI =s D 3 5 03 p C M-s^' „_ 

- gT3 °^l ||||-s::^ a °f all 3| -S-S^' =25 






g-£-- g|| ^1- 

ilPlfs 

•- Jg C3 O T- -P ^ 



cow 

.s ° 

11 'c 

^ C M 



:'=^a'a 

3 « tH-"^ O 



,•? ^' 



^X^Xi 



2 C3 " ." K 

"rfialal-Sosa 

te K o o ^ o •" bijJ2 o o 

^■s*^*^c*-cac+^*- 

C bX;.S .5 'ce a 'o3 n M C g 

r 03 ca 03 ft 03 ft'C ft 03 03 



3 g ftS 

o 03 o O 



I^hs 



^ c i:°r.S 

a^ °^o^ 

It Wll 

c- P^l. 



?5o§ 



>rat~ooo OO) Ort.-io 



ss 



[i, (x,;^;^pr, ^^ 



■goc 






SI 






Is'Hs 






33 

S3 



;hhKPh w<; 



3 CSS 



0-5 3 j 



" § oj a- fc-3 li S 

;=2|e-gi3a3 



>- 3 03 Q, 






3 ■»» 

"35 §c 

m c £ c 
^^ c35 



SS: 



SS 



8804 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 



2 3 
■60 •£ 

^ C aj " 

l!|f 

>.fe-e2 



- i- « M g 3^ 



5JO 



t: "3 



.5 



§ ^ 



o ^ 



-a CI S 



as 



3^ 



t= w O 






1 i^iiK 

-^ a Ss flaw bB J3 t: 

SHl£ 3 fl > 6-73 C3 g c 






:Sa a| 






^,3 



^ l^lil^llllipl i!|S||||| |!lil| 

Si a-£-"= =3 a £ feJsS *'S:^t3t3 C3 <si >>2 ^ Sl^is SsciMt-'S 

ll|!|giai|l||E|Jl|illl!:il II ! 

0.2 o oi 2 o g 05 3 o^.i3 o.2j-a 3 o 2 o^ o'^ oi «■«.« £ E-o o 




a a 






g p WQwS !z; ^ 



I I'illililllii w liiii i II I 






»r5 »rD icocoo c 



icoMrocof 



IMPROCPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8805 









■g a> -g % J4 

a ^ a o 



sSoS'S 



III I J 






.g ^ 
5 3 .a 












-^ o 



^ a 



^-1 i~5 

i"s^f.'2gaoSa^ ^« -« %•■« 

„^°|l^^g.S^^,| i^ I g|i 

• o'-j.s-L-s'^ a^) §-2^ 2 ^ ^fe-^--- 



i 2:2 a.g"S'3 g g.S o g a o c 3 mo a § g 



§ ^ 




S§ 



.• .• o . 



I™ .m" T^CO'I 



o .S g 5 a-S-g?,T;° t: aS ?V, 
o 2 fl =* "a > £ rt 5?c3 3 3 S3 Si 



21243— 58— pt. 22- 



8806 



IMPROPER ACrrvmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



I I 



31 



I ^ 



S a 

to o 






c3 g fl 



■M I I 

p— d bo's g,g 03 ta 

5.Ss£§pgg2" 



a ^ti£q§°.gg. 



.fc^S^-^H- 



33 2 






SooT 



^og 






5J2 C 






- -2 • D.S^ a d S M S fl'^ ?^ ?■"■" P J* ? £ 



!gc3« g 

' S= 2 2 p o o 



2§ 



S O S tJOiS ©5 03 03 o 03 



ie:s;!Ss«^ 



5 o'S S'5'5^ oi-g-s «^ 2 2^^^^ 



.2 ^ §^S 



IS 



ggg g g||| 

33 ^^ l-j )-5-<1<!<J 



'SS 



.. .; IQ iQ IQ O 

S5SS222 



ccmOOOO 



o 



oo 



2122 

.a . 
> » > 

O u u ' o^ o 



Q o3 • 

o o o 



S S 



as 



_„ _ lO lO iC lO 

S-^SS:S'o-.i >*'S'^2222 



:> Oi Oi ^ Oi CT" 



•rirt^^OCB 



3 Shj'S 3 o 3 a 3 S S- oS-ooooo looooouoOoo .o3ooo 'OSo 

^ m ^<o<«^^ omooooo iooooooo:z;oo ;o^:z;^^ ;:2;,?^; 



S>^C3 



fes 



32 



§■§5 



s^ii'i 



S'9 E 



g,3f 






g cB^io g M 



'5°s"::gtf«t:so 



IfeSfcS 



3 o a ■a^ o o a.a S'j- Sa ^a^'S- 2 Sr tr-o 5 " w^'' o 5 a o*; g ^„^ ^„_^« 

a « <! wS«W,?ao§ ouo^^fe^??:<:swp3tftf?JKp;wo<jfeHSSrtS^<< 



;= -c ? i:.2 1 



^^,<(,^,^^^^ ^^^^^^^^<-^^<-^^<.^<-^^^^^<-^^^^^ 



'io^t^ocdio^ (MrC'^'Ocot^obdict- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8807 



5 ° 

2 A' 






°5 



o'c3 O 



s 5§| 






5§ 



•3 O 
■w O 

•s ':, 



1^ 









l.§iill|iiJ 



a3§-9»2^Cfe|e 






«'3 






^ 3 "^ 

°3§ 



isS5 § Ss"2'?r-S;b o £.g |.§.b.§ d d di.h.fa d 

5::««5^::i2j---E::Q::::'3::::::ppo:::-::n 




-«!-<<;<<!->!<; <!<^<< <;<<i<<j-!;<;-i;<^ <;-<<! <;-< <;<<<i;<i <;<;<;<; -< «^ ^^ <;<-<<--< <^ <-< <j <;<! <j <; 



o^^«cc4*ubcD 00030 ^^ N CO -^ »A) o r^ QO OS o ^^ c*» co-^" Jstit^oo dso-^ c 

^ ^ -^ -^jt -^ ^ -^ -^ -^ lO 0»0 iC "t lO »C »C lO »0 coo O ^OO «C CO «C 25 CO t* t>» t 






8808 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES M" THE LABOR FIELD 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8809 



?— o 



llillsll iiiail 5.1 

iiiiiii • itmim 



J = -a-S 5 = 






c 






03 


-eg 


&s 






















■§1 


S^ 


o 


1 






11 

Pi? 


8^ 

If 


o 








p 




^^ " 


rt Xi"^ 


P^-§ 


&.« 








III 


llll 


11 



g rt .•- tax: ca «■>. S i'^ Z! >- a. e-^ ° -^-^^ " 
3 tS^"'''^-'-' - '- 



§^ §5 



-.S s C^ -y 



K o ? =: t; •« 
fe t.^ 2 S « 
0<Nm ^ d-g 






= - - s V. >, B > ": ; 

„ „ ._, .-, - ^ - ~ ? S J5 b " M O -; 



B 



-H O— -H C 



icmS 



i i-9 !§SS 

cc r-T.S S - - - -Ncf 
S e^ -ti ro <N CO t~ o rt ,-1 



U5 iO| 






O C3 O 05 C-. O Cj 



I 






-O C CO ^ 

.TIKI'S 

Cd o3 ^ c3 c3 C3 o3 



?3S 

§2 



S « S S ^ "o "^ >« 












o^ C"? c~ S ^ 



&H<;-5rt5 t=;^aoc< oS ^-<o<!;«o<cooc;^^oE w 






3 Ot± 



:Kffi2;SS;:^,^ ;P4 (X, 






8810 



IMPROPER ACTHTnES liN^ THE LABOR FIELD 

II 1 

§ g . 1 ^ 

^ -rt a S 



-go tl 

* -2 . rt 



i If 






tSC! 



° a 






.a •« 



£5° 



la bi 



V^ a o.ti 2-S g ""fl >- " c & m' 



X! [s g >> >. a 



O O ! 



IS:?] 



)Ai so o ox)S 



11 " ^ >.§ 

■pl Ill's 



C o S-ci«|igo3 j3 ^ 
-^gxlSteO 5-, Coo 



'.!3 ■" XI .S S .b .fa "c3 .i3 o « o fe 



^ q-S'a'O'2-2 § 

03 .S 3 ca 03? taoXl 03 



I "^ 



2 oj s O a 

ia-^|l 
s § g ° 



■a 3 2 o 

C3T3 d c 



d^sga 

2 ° S "r, .2 

■Ssg^> 



da 



05 r-, ^ 

"3 33 



rH ^ 3 

"33 



3.3 3 



SSSg 






: lo ic »o lo lo *o i 



•g-g-g 3^ s-g-g-g sg 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3333 



S ^'2" 



o -: -j o 



■a a.' 
3^ 



^?f|j- 



.2^.g 



_ jd 1 li«|p li^lil 1 1 i iil!l|?i i| 



^P2 

i 3 ^ 



o.Hh:).^)^ feS2 «":_'' 






000SO.-HMC0 Tj< locor^ oooso 

t^t^OOOOOOOO 00 000000 000003 



»o ci r^oo 05 o ^ <Nco "^^ ^ CO t^ 00 Oi o >-< (M cc -4* »o 
a=cna>o>o.o.o>o.oooooo oooojjjh j. ^^^ 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8811 



-S 


a 


s^ 


ft 














^ 




-3 


^ 


g 


•a 



aa 



«^as 

tut) d 2 M 



•ao^ 


S ^Sg 


fcg 


II 


t» «• >> a « 


^■S ...-S 


roken b 
maged. 
ith pain 
roken b 
g equip 
1 substa 


sickets 
nowno 
gate. 

s farm, 
g nail, 
ng nails 
rd's fre 


11 
II 


ndowinhomeb 
motor in car da 

me splattered w 

ndowinhomeb 
and'sexcavatin 

maged by foreig 


outheast gate. 
J scratched by j 
amaged by unk 
eked, northeast 
g nail. 

d on employee' 
3ast gate, roofln 
heast gate, roofl 
rinted on landlc 
th paint. 


■R- 


&S5is3-§ 


:^g^fe<gS5d5? 


if 
II 


Thermopane 
Sugra in oil p 
Nonstriker's 
Thermopane 
Damage to h 
Motor in car 


Car dented a 
Cart dented 
Corn choppe 
Car window 
Flat tire, roo 
Grass fire sta 
Flat tire, sou 
2 flat tires, sc 
Word "scab- 
Car smeared 






■a 03 a 03 C a c3-« 3 ^"CJ 

^ d_2dect/, d3o§d 
-" "^ fe C'g'S • d "x:, I* 



iSoj-S-a = 

"S-o-S d ° 
^•3 m3 ^ o ^ 



a .a ^«^i^-isl>>isr§'" "" 



53 m -S a '^O'S'^'S'"^ 






i^^ 



"-^Si 



3 .2 .S ^ fl bor; ^' 



.d dr- 3 — — '-^r^r-'r^; 



yii 



I .:ii .ii .is c3 fl bj)~ .iv t3 ^ o a = 5-.:;; ^^ .i:;tn a-.ii.:ii.iS.r »-".iS « 



^M MM^^-ii^ a|.aa|.S.a|,'^ 
■<-«1 <1-<-<-<a)cQ maK/jcocccocoM 






aaa 



., ^mioco t 



00 o 00 00000 



a §2 a «d 



SggS 



sss. 



10 Jg ic ic 10 Jg 






?:§ 



tit:I,osd'«t;a jT3.d -^ 



„alig|lil'g|i:^ 

._2r*' 2S25 • N "O SS O 

tH 2:d bs d S >- dS » b M 
^aSgd-ggg^s^ga 

s3^SsSi:io:?;S2;WS 



III 

g^gS-sc'l'^-.Soo';;; 
2>.SS^g5-g^g|| 



jit^oocB i -ii e^j JO 4< ub 



(M (N C^ (N CO CO CO CO M CO CO CC ffQ CO -^ -"^ 
(M C^ CS d !N C^ CS CS IN <N CS (N C<l (N CS (N 



1^ - 



4<iociiJ-cc<ici-^ciico4'ioorioo 



8812 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EN' THE LABOR FIEILD 



i § 









2r.a 






bfi^ Si-S &■)! i 









111 

oX3 o 






.goo 

oB-S 

r -5 -S P -S 



" •" o 
u o " 

111 



Is!! 






" 2 ° " s ° 

||'E|g| 



iSSJ 









fxj^a -c i^r" I--C 'Sc' S Sis 

£.g^£2;:^.§|sggo 






fa 



=3 -3 5 O-g C.' 



O to ^C 

ti a CSX! m 



3J333 03 0« c3 

, OOMfeO 






ig^j 



too -oco 



?5^-«2 



Q ;q pq 



g g 






US « 



^ bi 




->1<;<1<^-i1<j<j-<<l<i<j<j<!j<1 <-<1<j<^<j<1<j<^<;<)<!i<;<<^<^ <j<j <^<1<1-^ <J <;<|<<i<- 



I (M ?j c5 ci CN o5 c5 mc^cnSc^Sc 



538S^ 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8813 



B 



§i 



_J2X1 



a| « 



SfS 



llpllii 

. s oi'g'g'o Q.a 



"3 ^'> ^ ^"g 



> t^ o . - O ' 



it I 

^9 o •= 



S CO •« 

■^ Si 'D 



C bf M 



' p-r !- :> H-S C 



•r* o ' 



.-§3 



« c5 



•?|e.s 



c! c- M 2: o > ; 



si 




5 

1 


s< 1 

1 1 


£^ 


-'2>. 


a 


11° 


p p 


CO g5 


O^T) 


o o 








c a 


p-^§ 


n 


^"~! 


i 


ail 

III 

1^^ 




fl-^ g 

lii 




do^^ 


2^a5^ 


ESssb-go^ 


Spo-=^ 


^^«S§53 


as^-g-sg 


Eh^El.Pi,QO 


hJ 


PQcoQ 



■a -a-o 



§1 



«o- 






I li 



« ^K-r^^^i^i: 






c 5 5= -2 






2c.r3 ■ Scd 















^d ^t 






a ooo 






<! <;«;^<j!<^<J <!<i<-j;-j;-j1 <.«^<;<j<| <!j<;<^<j<<! 
Ji'i r!. oOCT^^rli'jv! r:SSJ.~:2S ojcd-hcnm SJ^^tf-coA 



3???3 



CO« MCOC 



SIS? 






8814 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FTEILD 



2Sb 



a Swiss's 

° o ° > i^J3^ '^ 

' og.£fig 



I i 

"-'■rt C 

B 1^ I 

I II i 



ifPllllil III °lri^ sgfr 



5: is 










4 ^ S'A?c^i;i; A g:*;igJ^goi^gcJ;4;J;i!;!;Sffi 






^.^^i 









IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



8815 



£l 


^ g.s 


.2:^ 


a 


a -n^ 


Sd 


2 


iH 


Sfi 




S '^5 


M 


»fl 


o B^ 


aX2 


M o 


1 ii 


II 




^ ^« 


la 


a.s 


til 








2 .a^H 



ar 

2 ?= 



1 g^ 

i o 

:s.a§ 



s.e5sas3 



^-H "a 
£«-■;; a" 

5 .a .g o "g 

^a 



£5 I 



■=> ^ -rj 










.s 


,0 










g 




S 


M 










-Q 




M 


;-' 
















<n 


'3 


^ 




Fl 


■^ §> 


S 


i=i 




southeast gate. 
. broken hy rock 
home. 

northeast gate. 
:)stance thrown 


III 
III 


1 


.3 

1 
.1 
•i 

a 



mhhm 



•Sc|a|>||^^ -^ 
|^flt5|£^".-a^ ^. 

r^itfiim I, 



?5: a 



^s! 



■2 5te = -Sa3! 



^'E.aSl^.SlS. 

03n Ph(N tHCQJ 



"^"-•^c 






^= 



^5^ 






. a o gwM 5 
^g.Qa<N;aj " 



o.«^ s fe o a 






0«5 
M CS M IN — I OC 05 — 1 1-1 

l: ^' ^- 1: >.>>>. >. t^"^ 

^ c3 o3 ^ c3 



'^iili 



sss 



islll I 






ss s 



03 ca 



>nio>o 



SS 



i-Hrt cqooto 

c8 c« c3 a g 



" t- CO- O 



I I 

a p 






£■^2 a 



a!^.2s 



oSk« OQ >^° K 



131 

1 


Ills 


>5 
II 


lis 


iiii 


II 



^•g Qa' 






■■£•3 



■S-aa:Sa5s-g^s 
aa-s^flgsaa-s 

o >> 2- fcj £• g -1-^ o >> S 



i2>l 






CO-* loti 






-«!<5 



3 coco CO CO CO 



OO OOOOOrl -< ^-H r- ^ S^SJSS 



8816 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EV THE LABOR FIELD 



i-g 3 a -s 






feca 












: 5 i3 'C ^ S ^ 
a^^goo&ga 

g-:§G::::a|8 









saglS'&s'a^ 



1 






1 


Jp 




g 


JS 


£;& 







Q Q^^>5 






m OOQi; 



Q ^.^ 



£22 



^al 






M.a§s 



;§5^ ^o 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8817 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, McNamara, Senator "Kennedy, Mnndt, Curtis, and Gold- 
water. ) 

The Chairman. The Chair announced that you might select some 
or make some selection and comment upon them. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, for the record, do I understand 
that the list has been accepted as a sworn statement now or not? 

The Chairman. It is under oath as of this moment. I just asked 
the witness. I would not put them in without some identification. 

Senator McNamara. That is the part I wanted to clear up. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Desimond. I would like the committee to understand that all of 
the cases of interior damage that liave so-called been brought to the 
attention of the committee is not all of such damage. The first of the 
paint bombings that occurred, occurred on June 22, and it was to a, 
man by the name of Jacob P. Denboer. I have here various photo- 
graphs of paint damage to the outside of his home, a broken window 
through which the paint bombing was hurled, and interior damage of 
quite an extensive nature. 

The Chairman. I am trying to keep this record straight. Along 
with the affidavits, are there attached some photostatic copies of the 
damage to which the affidavits refer ? 

Mr. Desmond. Along with the affidavits. Senator, is also attached 
in many instances photographs of the actual damage that occurred. 

The Chairman. That is what I am asking. So wherever the Chair 
has ordered the affidavits made an exhibit for reference, the attached 
photographs which were acquired in the same manner and under your 
services, they will remain attached to the affidavit to which they are 
now attached, and that will become a part of the exhibit for the 
record. 

Mr. Desmond. In addition to the one I just mentioned, the first shot- 
gun blast to a nonstriker's home occurred on June 28, 1954, to a man 
by the name of Harold Curtiss. 

' I went to his home and investigated that fully. There was some ex- 
tensive interior damage to the inside of his home. The pellets went 
completely across the living room and imbedded themselves into the 
far side of the wall, as the photographs attached to the affidavit will 
v^erify. He has not testified, and I don't know whether he intends to be 
called. 

The Chairman. Does the affidavit reflect the amount of damage 
caused in dollars and cents? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir ; I don't tliink it does. The affidavit just states 
the circumstances of the vandalism itself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you about that ? 

Mr. Desimond. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the ai'rangement as far as the reimburse- 
ment for damage? Did the Kohler Co. have some arrangement on 
that ? Could you explain that to the committee ? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, the arrangement w\as this: After I took ihe 
affidavit and investigated the vanadalism, and after the damage was 
repaired, if the man did not have insurance, the company undertook to 



8818 IMPROPER ACXrV^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIEILD 

reimburse him, to put him back into the same position that he was in 
before the vandalism occurred. If he had insurance, he would get 
nothing from the Kohler Co., because he would be put in the same posi- 
tion as he was before, by the insurance company. 

In some cases, the insurance company did not give the full extent of 
the man's damage, and in that case, if I found it to be correct, after 
checking into it, I would, in some cases, recommend that he be put 
up to the position that I thought he should be put up to in order not 
to suffer any damage at all. 

I think one of the cases this morning was brought to the attention 
of the committee. There were cases where I thought that no reim- 
bursement should be made, because it was not, in my opinion, strike- 
related to the extent where we could reimburse the man. The manner 
in which it was done was I would always write a memorandum to the 
personnel director. He would then also take it up with the executives, 
and a decision would be made to reimburse the man. 

The Chairman. May I ask at this time whether you are prepared 
to give us a statement, or to state, the total amount you have paid out 
to your employees to reimburse them in these cases? 

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

Mr. Desmond. Senator, I don't know myself, personally, but I think 
that Mr. Bellino has that information, if I am not mistaken. 

The Chairman. We will want to get that into the record at some 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger, do you have it ? 

Mr. Conger. I have it, and have turned a copy of it over to Mr. 
Bellino. Do you want the total amount now, Senator? 

The Chairman. Well, I thought it would be proper to get it into 
the record sometime. If you have supplied it here, we will get it into 
the record. Go ahead. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, on Harold Curtiss, what was the situa- 
tion as far as the reimbursement of Harold Curtiss ? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, now, Mr. Kennedy, I don't know offhand what 
the specific arrangement was in that case. I don't know from my own 
knowledge at this time whether he had insurance or not. If he had in- 
surance covering the vandalism to his window and inside, he didn't 
get anything. But if he did not have insurance, then we would have 
him have the repairs made, submit a bill to us, I would check over the 
bill, and if I thought it was in order then I would make a recommenda- 
tion for payment to be made. 

In that case, I don't know just what the situation was. 

Mr. Kennedy. The record here shows that he got, I believe, $12.95 
for the repayment of tlie window, the glass in the window. 

_Mr. Desmond. It might be that he had insurance on the interior of 
his home. Tliere were eight hundred and some odd cases of vandalism, 
and they hapi>ened over a period of a couple of years. I just don't 
liave that present recollection of it to he able to state. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't know whether you liad a record of it for the 
committee. 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir ; I don't. What I am now testifying to are 
the actual affidavits that were taken, together with the photographs 
that are attached to them. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8819 

Senator McNamara. Would you describe for us just what you mean 
by a paint bomb ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes ; I will be very glad to do that. A paint bomb 
was a very large light bulb, the top of which was cut off right below 
the metal portion that fits into the socket. That part was filled with 
paint and then friction tape, generally black friction tape, was taped 
aroimd the top, which was cut off, and that was thrown into the homes 
by the windows. 

Senator McNamara. The term bomb doesn't indicate dynamite or 
powder or anything, but it was just glass with this tape around it to re- 
inforce it, was that the idea ? 

Mr. Desmond. There wasn't anything to explode it, except when it 
went through the window it burst and then exploded all around the 
home. In addition to that. Senator, there was an additional type of 
so-called bomb, and that was glass jars, pint jars, with the regular 
screw top. 

Senator McNamara. Mason jars, do you mean ? 

Mr. Desmond. Mason jars. That was filled with paint and also 
hurled through windows and when it hit, it generally smashed and 
splattered all around. 

Senator McNamara. What confused me was the term "bomb." 

Generally that means dynamite. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Did you personally visit the locations where the 
vandalism took place ? 

Mr. Desmond. I visited many, many of them, because there would be 
too many of them. In one day there may be 5 or 6, and I couldn't 
examine all of them. 

Senator Curtis. But you investigated what had been found on the 
scene after the so-called paint bombs had been thrown in ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you find a similar debris and material running 
through all of the cases ? 

Mr. Desmond. That I did sir. In one particular night, if they van- 
dalized 3 or 4 homes, generally speaking, the same type of vehicle was 
used. For example, if they used the pint jar on that night, the pint jar 
would be found in all of the homes where the damage occurred. If 
they used the electric-light bulb, such as I described, then generally 
that would be the vehicle that they would use on that particular night. 

Senator Curtis. What size liglit bulb would they use ? 

Mr. Desmond. A very large one. I would say about like that 
[indicating] from the evidence that we were able to see, from the 
debris that was remaining on the premises. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever find one that hadn't exploded ? 

Mr. Desmond. I did not find one, a light bulb, that had not exploded, 
but there was a pint jar that was brought to my attention, in Kohler, 
which had not broken. 

Senator Curtis. Were you ever able to reconstruct how they got 
the material in tlie light bulb and then sealed it up? 

Mr. Desmond. The only way that I could determine and analyze 
from the scraps of evidence that we had was that they had cut off, 
in some manner, and how, I don't know, the top portion of the light 



8820 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FTE[LD 

bulb close to the metal portion that goes into the socket. They would 
tlien fill it and then tape it with friction tape. 

Senator Curtis. Were you ever able to locate the place where these 
bombs would be assembled ? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir ; we were not. 

Senator Curtis. Were you ever able to locate where the ingredients 
were purchased ? 

Mr. Desmond. Xo, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Not the fruit jars or the light bulbs or anything? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir. 

Senator Curits. Did you conduct any investigation in that regard? 

Mr. Desmond. I did not conduct any investigation in that regard, 
but I think that the police authorities might have. 

Senator Curtis. They might have. But the company did not. 

Mr. Desmond. The company did not, to my knowledge. Someone 
else might have suggested that that be done, but I was not aware of it, 
and I don't know whether they did or not. Somebody else might have. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not aware of that, Mr. Desmond ? 

Mr. Desmond. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know there was anything being done 
along those lines by the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Desmond. Not along the lines that the Senator mentioned, and 
that is the paint, the actual substance of the paint, where that might 
have been procured, or where the pint jars might have been procured. 
I, myself, don't know whether the company did that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that they were taking any steps of 
any kind to try to determine through their own agencies, who was 
responsible ? 

Mr. Desmond. Who was responsible? Yes, T do, Mr. Kennedy. 
The company did hire a detective agency. I think it is the Matson 
Detective Agency. That was to assist us in trying to find out just how 
this vandalism was being perpetrated. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Was anybody prosecuted for the shotgun 
blasts or this other damage ? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Was anybody charged with these acts of van- 
dalism ? 

Mr. Desmond. The culprit was never apprehended. Senator. 

Senator McNamara. Never apprehended in any one instance out of 
all of these eight-hundred-and-some cases ? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, I will qualify that. I think in one case, in 
Sheboygan Falls, someone was apprehended for throwing some paint 
through a window of the mayor of Sheboygan Falls, Wis., which 
did some interior damage, and also some damage to some of the stock 
that he had, refrigerators, stoves, and some appliances of that kind. 
Two of the fellows were apprehended and they were arrested. 

Senator McNamara. Were thev prosecuted ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir, I think they were, and I think they were 
found guilty and fined. The exact circumstances I cannot recall at 
the moment. 



IMPROPER ACTrVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8821 

Senator McNamara. The mayor wasn't a striker or a nonstriker. 
He wasn't directly involved, was 1 



Mr. Desmond. He, himself, was not, but his son was a Kohler Co. 
nonstriker, if I remember correctly. 

The Chairman. All ri<;ht. 

Mr. Desinlond. Miojht I make another remark, if the Senator please? 
This morniiio- a man by the name of Mr. Williams testified that he re- 
called some vandalism that had been perpetrated in his community. 
In that connection, Ehner Grahl was building a new home in Cascade, 
Wis., which is approximately 10, 15, or 18 miles away from Kohler. 
He had paint thrown throug-li his window, which completely dam- 
ao:ed the inside of his home. He had a new rug just installed a few 
days also before that. It completely damaged a whole section of the 
rug. His new furniture, which he had just procured a short time be- 
fore that, was splattered with paint. In exhibit 40 there is an affi- 
davit which I took from him, and ]Dhotographs of his home, showing 
the damage, which I went to at the time. 

Incidentally, I might mention this, Senator, that these men whom 
I have mentioned have not been vandalized once. They have been 
vandalized more than once, some of them 2 and 3 times. I think the 
list will show the extent of the damage. Mr. Denboer, that I men- 
tioned before, he had, at a later date — I think it might have been a 
couple of months later, after the interior of his home was com- 
pletely vandalized, it was a shambles, paint bombs were again thrown 
at his home. But this time he was fortunate in that the paint bombs 
did not go inside. They were on the exterior of his house. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is the mayor of Sheboygan Falls listed in here ? 

Mr. Desmond. Offhand I don't know, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought in answer to Senator McNamara's ques- 
tion you indicated that that was one of them. 

Mr. Desmond. No. He asked me, if I am not mistaken, whether or 
not anyone was apprehended, and I said that they were apprehended, 
and I think I explained the circumstances. 

Senator McNamara. I was referring to the testimony you were giv- 
ing about shotgun blasts and paint in these cases, and this was one, 
I assume, that was in these cases, because the son was an employee. Is 
that not right ? 

]\Ir. Desmond. I think it is in. Senator, but I just can't be sure. 
There are so many cases, I just can't, from my memory, testify as to 
each individual one. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is one of those listed. You say that some- 
body was apprehended in that case? 

]\Ir. Desmond. Somebody was apprehended. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a striker ? 

Mr. Desmond. To my knowledge, he was not a striker. They 
are two brothers, if I remember right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the mayor of Sheboygan Falls is listed in here, 
and the people were caught and apprehended, and they were non- 
strikers ? 

Mr. Desmond. I don't know whether they are listed in here. 

Mr. Kennedy. The mayor of Sheboygan Falls is listed in here, 
but it doesn't say in there that the people that were apprehended w3re 
nonstrikers. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 6 



8822 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Desmond. I don't think, Mr. Kennedy, that anywhere in this 
is a listing of people who were apprehended or who were not ap- 
prehended. This is a list of affidavits together with the photographs. 
It is not intended to be a list showing those who were apprehended 
in any case at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. It might not have anything to do with the strike at 
all, therefore ? 

Mr. Desmond. Except in one respect, Mr. Kennedy, and that is that 
it just happened along the same lines and the same way, and at the 
same time, as all these other acts of vandalism that were going on 
to nonstrikers. 

Mr. Kennedy. But I am just taking the one example that you 
gave. You gave the mayor of Sheboygan Falls. That is listed in 
liere as one of the acts of vandalism that you are reporting. 

That case was solved, and the individuals found responsible were 
nonstrikers. For that reason, that you brought the case up, I thought 
the record should be clear. What is the name of the mayor ? 

Mr. Desmond. Kohlhagen. 

Senator McNamara. In that connection, did you find many indi- 
cations that the employees, in order to get a new paint job on their 
car or in their home, might do this themselves ? Was there any evi- 
dence of that existing ? 

Mr. Desmond. Xo, sir. There is no evidence of that kind. 

Senator JNIcNamara. In the case that you brought out, the one 
about the home of the mayor and the mayor's son, there is an indication 
there that they were not strikers, and maybe somebody just wanted to 
get a free paint job or a job at the expense of Kohler. Do you think 
there was an element of that in this one ? 

Mr. Desmond. I don't think so. 

The Chairman. Do I understand that the parties who were con- 
victed of vandalism on the mayor's home were nonstrikers ? Or were 
they strikers ? 

Mr. Desmond, I think they were nonstrikers. 

The Chairman. Nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Desmond. Excuse me. 

The Chairman. Which way ? 

Mr. Desmond. Let me correct myself, please. They were not em- 
ployees of the Kohler Co. We will put it that way. If I made any 
reference to nonstrikers, I was completely wrong. 

The Chairman. I am not sure you did. 

Mr. Desmond. If I did, I want to correct myself. Senator. 

The Chairman. I am trying to get some identification in this par- 
ticular case to see if it might or might not be related to the strike. 

Mr. Desmond. They were not employees of the Kohler Co., they 
were not out on strike, and they were not nonstrikers. 

The Chairman. In other words, they were not workers of the 
Kohler Co., strikers or nonstrikers. 

Mr. Desmond. Correct. If I made any testimony in that regard, it 
was a slip of the tongue, I would like to correct the record in that 
regard, if I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of having it in here, it is listed 
twice in your reports, and once in a Sheboygan Press article, that 
red paint was thrown on the store of Albert Kohlagen the mayor of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8823 

Sheboygan Falls. The number listed is No. 11 A, an affidavit from 
Mrs. R. Luker, showing a Avindow broken and appliances damaged 
in the store of the mayor of Sheboygan Falls. 

Mr. Desmond. That was two separate cases, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. 

Mr. Desmond. One was on the outside. I think the first one was 
on the outside, and the second one was through the window and in- 
terior damage. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is listed here as item No. 3. 

Mr. Desmond. I see. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat would be the reason for putting it in here if 
the peo])le apprehended had nothing to do with it, if they were not 
strikers or nonstrikers? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, we think it was related to the strike, because 
it was the same set of circumstances. His son was a worker, and in 
that regard, I think that they were trying to get at the son by getting 
at the mayor. 

The Chairman. How old is the son, do vou know ? Was he mar- 
ried? 

Mr. Desmond. He was married. 

The Chairman. Was he living with his father at the time ? 

Mr. Desmond. I think he was. I am not sure. Senator. 

The Chairman. Was he interested in the father's business, do you 
know ? 

]Mr. Desmond. I think he was to some extent, yes, sir, if I am not 
mistaken. I think he went down to the store once in a while to mind 
it and so forth. I am not positive of that, however. I have no defi- 
nite information on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they paint bomb his home ? 

Mr. Desmond. No, but at one time I think they put a slug through 
it, through the window. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the people that were apprehended in this case, of 
course, had nothing to do with the strike. That is the only reason 
that I 

Mr. Desmond. I don't know that they had nothing to do with it. In 
my opinion 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a marble, I think, that was thrown through 
the window? 

Mr. Desmond. Something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. A marble ; not a slug. 

Mr. Desmond. I am not sure it was a marble. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your report says it was a marble. 

Mr. Desmond. All right. Then it was a marble. 

Senator Goldwater. May I ask a question? Did you list these 
oases as strikers or nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir. 

I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. Where was the trial held for these two men 
who threw the paint through the mayor's window^ ? 

Mr. Desmond. It seems to me. Senator, that it was in a justice 
court in either Sheboygan or Sheboygan Falls. 

I can't state definitely. 



8824 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator GoLinvATER. Do 3-011 recall any findings of the court as to 
M^ho these men might be 'i 

Mr. Desmond. I don't recall, Senator. I do know their names, how- 
ever. I think their names Avas Shraeder. 

Senator Goldwatek. Would it be possible for you to find out the 
name of the court so that we might attempt to get a transcript of that 
trial? 

Mr. Desmond. I think it would be very easy to do that, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, would it be out of line to sug- 
gest that we get a transcript of that, not for exhibit purposes, but just 
for investigative purposes ? 

JNIr. Desmond. Senator, might I make a statement in that regard? 
I am not sure whether justice courts in our State — well, I don't think 
that they have any record. That is the point. It is not a court of 
record. 

The Chairman. What you mean is they do not have a transcript 
of the testimony ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. It is not a court of record. 

The Chairman. They have a docket entry or a judgment entry show- 
ing the disposition of it. 

Mr. Desmond. Tliat is right. But in some of these cases a trans- 
script was made, and it is possible that in this particular case there 
is one. 

Senator Goldwater. With the permission of the chairman, if you 
will funish us with the name of the court, we can try to find out if 
they made a transcript. 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We can contact the court, if you will give us the 
-name of it, and ascertain whether a transcript might be made avail- 
able or if there is one in existence. 

Mr. Desmond. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr. Desmond. I just wanted to point out a few cases. Senator, of 
acts of interior vandalism, and I have some others here. 

The Chairman. The Chair has given you that permission. Go right 
ahead. 

Mr. Desmond. Another case of interior damage was to a man by the 
name of Frederick Kuehlman. He is a man who had more than 25 
years of service to the Kohler Co., and who, incidentally, is a cripple. 
He has something wrong with his feet. It is not that that has anything 
to do with it, but I am pointing that out. He had some interior dam- 
age to his home, where a paint bombing of one kind or another was 
thrown through his window. It damaged his rug. very severely. It 
liit the side of the Avail. It smashed over the furniture. 

He, incidentally, also had several acts of violence against him. 
His tires were slashed once, and there were other acts of vandalism 
to his home. 

If I remember correctly, there were about four to that man. 

The Chairman. These affidavits and documents that you are now 
referring to are part of the large exhibit 40? 

Mr. Desmond. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8825 

Senator McNamara, In connection with the one that you just 
testified to, did the company buy new tires for the individual in 
the case where the tires were slashed ? 

Mr.DESMOND. Senator, I don't know at the moment. I can only 
say that he did not have insurance, and I think that the company did. 

Senator McNamara. Thank you. 

Mr. Desmond. Another case was the employee by the name of 
Gilbert Charles. 

Senator Goldwater. Before you leave that last one, I notice that 
in looking over the 844 acts of violence, there was quite a number 
involving slashed tires or punctured tires. Could you give us any 
idea how these tires were punctured ? 

Mr. Desmond. Well, I recall sometimes a very sharp object, such 
as a knife, was used in slashing the sidewalk In other cases, I recall — 
I recall once where a very pointed stick about that long [indicating] 
where the stick had been pointed, was propped in front of the car 
while it was parked, and when the car went over it, it worked its way 
into the tire and punctured the tire. I think generally I would say 
that the slashing of tires was done by a sharp instrument of some kind, 
similar to a knife. 

Senator Goldwater. I noticed that there were a large number of 
these tire cases as being punctured by tacks or nails. 

Is that true ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, there was a very large number of tires that 
were flattened out by roofing nails. 

Senator Goldwater. What kind of nails ? 

Mr. Desmond. Roofuig nails. They were used to a very large de- 
gree. First they had galvanized, and they would strew them around 
on the road leading to the company plant. Every day, for a long 
period of time, our company had to send out our tractor where it 
had a big magnet attached to the front of it in order to pick up all 
these tacks that were thrown on the driveway to the entrance to the 
company parking lot. In addition to that, and later, they threw 
aluminum roofing nails, and the magnet could not pick them up, so 
our men had to go out and pick them up by hand, in order to prevent 
our workers from driving over them and getting flat tires. It was 
nothing for a worker to come out of work about 3 :30 and find a flat 
tire. 

Sometimes there would be 3 and 4 flat tires in the yard. It got to 
such a point, Senator, that what we did was we had a crew of men do 
nothing except go around to each and every one of these cars in our 
parking lot and examine them and take the tire off the car and have it 
repaired in our own garage. In some instances, the man would come 
out and he wouldn't even know that the tire had been repaired. 

Mr. Kennedy. On that, did you include in this 840 instances where 
there were tacks or nails put on driveways ? 

Mr. Desmond. There were some. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even where there had been a flat tire that resulted ? 

Mr. Desmond. We did not include all flat tires in this. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of the 840 were instances dealing with 
tires or where there were nails put on ? 

Mr. Desmond. I would have no idea, Mr. Kennedy. 



8826 IMPROPER Acrrv^iTiES ix the labor field 

Senator Goldwater. For counsel's information, I checked that list 
rather carefully after Mr. Rauh suggested that I do that, and I believe 
there are 19 cases in there that just refer to a flat tire, which has no 
reference to tacks or knives. But there is a large number that just 
says flat tire, with no explanation. 

I think if counsel will check through the list, he will find a consider- 
able number of the 844 as tires punctured by slashing or tacks or other 
means. 

Mr. Kennedy. We found, adding them up, that there were some 
280 different instances dealing with either tacks put on, nails found in 
driveways, or with knives. 

Senator Goldwater. Just remembering it, I would say that would 
be very close to it. The 19 I remember just said flat tire. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire ? 

Of that 280 where it involved some damage to tires, in some of those 
cases was there other vandalisms ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. These are all separate acts of vandalism. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Desmond. Another case. Senator, was the case of Gilbert M. 
Charles, who was a new employee of the Kohler Co. His house was 
also vandalized on the interior by a paint bomb, and the photographs 
are attached to the affidavit. 

He also had other acts of vanadalism perpeti-ated against him. Win- 
dows were broken. I can't recall the others, but there were a few 
others. 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask you this question. You are a practic- 
ing attorney in the State of Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. Well, I will qualify that. It depends upon 
what you mean by a practicing attorney. I am an employee of the 
Kohler Co. I have no private practice. 

I am a member of the bar, however. 

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

Senator Curtis. Apparently not many of these cases reached the 
point of trial. But under the Wisconsin law, what could these people 
be charged with, where material such as a paint bomb, whether it is 
a light bulb or the mason jar, is thrown through a window and the 
damage done inside ? 

Wliat sort of offense is that under Wisconsin law, do you know? 

Mr. Desmond. I think it would be malicious destruction of property^ 
if I am not mistaken. 

Senator Curtis. It would be no greater offense, the fact that it was 
a residence ? 

Mr. Desmond. I don't think so ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Or that there had to be a breaking in order to com- 
mit the vandalism inside ? There would have to be, wouldn't there ? 

Mr. Desmond. You mean a breaking to what extent, Senator? 

Senator Curtis. Breaking the window or breaking the door. 

Mr. Desmond. No, I don't think tlie Wisconsin law distinguishes be- 
tween exterior or interior damage. I think damage to property, 
whether it is an automobile or the house or the interior or exterior 
does not make very much difference. 

It is still malicious destruction of property. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8827 

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

Senator Curtis. And whether or not that would be a misdemeanor 
or a felony would depend upon the amount of the damage ? Or is 
it a misdemeanor only ? 

Mr. Desmond. I think it is a misdemeanor. I am not a criminal 
lawyer, however, and I have not gone into that to any extent. 

Another case was Eaymond Phiffen. He also had the interior of 
his home damaged by paint bombs. The photographs here are quite 
illustrative of the extent of the damage. In addition, he had also a 
window broken by a steel ball. I just happen to have one here of the 
type. I think it is his, as a matter of fact. 

This is the kind of a ball that they used. It might even be lead. 
I think it is a lead ball. 

The Chairman. Used for what ? 

Mr. Desmond. It was used against Eaymond Phiffen, the one I 
just mentioned, I have an envelope that says, "From Ray Phiffen" 
and I think he brought that to my office at the time. 

The Chairman. Was that shot into his house? 

Mr. Desmond. I am not sure whether it was shot into his house. 
It might have hit the building. Senator, and dropped down. A lot 
of these things did not go into the window. Sometimes one would 
go into the window or two. 

The Chairman. What was the means of propulsion? Were they 
shot out of a gun ? 

Mr. Desmond. That I don't know, sir. 

The Chairman. Or thrown? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir ; I am reasonably sure that it was not thrown. 
It went in quite frequently with a high degree of force, to go all the 
way across the room and sometimes make a very dented impression 
on the far wall of the room. 

The Chairman. It would go through the window ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAiRivrAN. And it would break the window ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. 

The Chaiioian. It was used to break the window ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir; it was used to break the window and any- 
thing else that might be in its path, too. 

The Chairman. Just looking at it, it would make a very good load 
for a slingshot or a bean shooter, as I used to call it. 

You have no way of knowing how it was employed, other than it 
was found on the premises ? 

Mr. Desmond. The only thing I can say. Senator, is that when it 
did go through windows, it went in with a high degree of force, from 
the stresses I made of the interior damage to the property. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Desmond, I do not want to take the committee's time to go 
through all of these acts. I just wanted to give an additional sample 
to thecommittee of the type of interior damage which was in addition 
to the testimony that was given to the committee this morning. 

The Chairman, You may proceed. 

Mr, Desmond. I have no further comments. 

The Chairman. Have you any questions, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy, I don't have any questions about that. 



8828 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Have you finished about the acts ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Goklwater, did you want to ask a question ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. Relative to some statements made this 
morning, during the testimony of Mr. Rose— I think that was the first 
witness' name — we got into a discussion of hoaxes. The Joyce incident 
was brought up and an attempt was made to introduce testimony into 
the record of a Mrs. Joyce. 

At that time I objected because I felt we should have a full explana- 
tion of this before it w^as accepted as evidence. 

"VVliat are the circumstances surrounding the Joyce incident ? 

Mr. Desmond. The circumstances surrounding the Joyce incident, 
Senator, are these : 

I received a telephone call in my office one morning from the employ- 
ment office, stating that the man was over there reporting that he had 
shot at a man at his home out on the farm. 

I told them to send the man over to my office so that I could interro- 
gate him. He told me that the night before, or if it was 2 nights 
before — I don't know exactly because I have not refreshed my recol- 
lection on it— he had heard someone prowling around in his garage, 
which was kitty-corner from the end of his house. 

He said he got his shotgun and opened the door of the little vestibule 
that goes into his house, and discharged the shotgun at a man whom 
he saw coming out of the garage some distance away from the door, 
and he heard the man yell and the man ran away. 

I tlien went out with Mr. Joyce to his home, which is somewhere in 
the vicinity of Cascade. It is not too far from Cascade, something 
like 15 or 20 miles away from Kohler. He was renting a house in a 
rural area. 

I had him show me where the man came out of, and what he did. 
Then I went back to Kohler and discussed it with Mr. Conger. 

A man by the name of Al Adams, who was an associate of Elmer 
Matson, of the Matson Detective Agency, and I went out with Mr. 
Joyce and a photographer. We had him reenact for us exactly what 
happened. Mr. Matson and I made a very thorough examination 
for evidence of shot, the pellets from the shotgun. 

We went inside tlie barn, and that is where he stored — it was an old 
barn. It wasn't used for a barn, because it wasn't operated as a farm, 
but he stored his car in there. We made a very thorough examination 
of the floor in there to see if we could come up with any evidence of 
shot. 

We examined the door of the barn. I will refer to it as a barn, 
because that is what it actually was used for at one time. We could 
find no identification of the shot. We examined the ground in front 
of the door of the barn, and could find no evidence of any shot. 

We went back to Kohler and discussed it with Mr. Conger again. 
Mr. Adams and I again went out to Joyce's house, and we discussed 
this matter with him, that we were unable to find any evidence of the 
shots. If he had discharged a shotgun, there would be some evidence 
there. 

We examined the wdiole area. It was in the wintertime, if I remem- 
ber correctly. He said that after he had shot the gun the man ran to 
the east, and Mr. Adams and I went over the whole area looking for 
footprints. We could not find any. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8829 

We then liad Mr. Joyce ^o around the building to a different location 
and had him stand the same number of paces away from the door 
where he claimed this man came out, and his screen door, and had him 
fire a few shots into that side of the barn in order to get the pattern 
that would be made by the shotgun at that distance. 

He did that. We went back and we discussed it again. We were 
very much of suspicion that the man was not telling the truth, be- 
cause the facts just did not bear it out. We decided to have him take 
a lie-detector test, and the man voluntarily did so at our instance, and 
the lie detector test was made, if I remember correctly, up at Wausau, 
Wis. 

The results of the lie detector test showed that the man was lying, 
and we completely dropped it from then on. 

Senator Goldwater. Did three Kohler men tell Mr. Joyce to shoot 
his gun against a garage? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes ; I told him that. I was one of the ones. Mr. 
Adams was there, I was there, and I think the photographer was 
there. In order to get the pattern on the side of the barn, so that we 
could tell where to look for the shots that he claimed he fired at this 
man, we wanted to see what kind of an impression it made on the side 
of the barn. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you give this man a lie-detector test? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwati^r. What did the lie detector test show ? 

Mr. Desmond. I don't know the exact terminology of it, but it indi- 
cated in substance that he was not telling the truth. He admitted it 
afterward. Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. He admitted it? 

Mr. DEs:\roND. He admitted it afterward. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, this morning Mr. Rauh wanted 
to have this statement of Mrs. Joyce introduced into the record, and 
I didn't object to it being introduced, but wanted it withheld until 
we heard the story. 

Having heard the story, I have no objection to it being introduced 
into the record. In fact, I ask that it be introduced into the record. 

The Chairman. Do I understand that this fellow Joyce later ad- 
mitted that he had misrepresented the facts to you ? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right, sir. He didn't admit them to me, but 
he admitted them to the man who took the lie-detector test at Wausau. 
I was not along at that time. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was given a lie-detector test, and 
after having taken that test, he admitted, himself, that he hadn't told 
the truth about it? 

Mr. Desmond. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. That there had been no one there, and he had not 
shot at anyone? 

Mr. Desmond. That is ricfht. 

The Chairman. So, therefore, according to your best information, 
the statement is substantially correct, of the wife ? 

Mr. Des:mond. Yes. But that statement does not say, Senator, that 
representatives of the Kohler Co. told him to shoot at the barn in 
order to create a hoax of anv kind. 

The Chairman. According to the statement, he does say that the 
three Kohler men told him to shoot his gun against the garage. 



8830 IMPROPER ACTIVTTIES Dv' THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Desmond. That is right. We certainly did ; yes, sir. We admit 
that. As I explained, it was in order to get the pattern. 

Senator, might I say this : that was after the man allegedly said 

The Chairman. This shot, then, when you had him shoot his gun 
against the garage, was after he had given you the story? 

Mr, Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were getting him to demonstrate how the 
thing happened ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he later admitted that all of it was a fraud ? 

Mr. Desmond. Eight. 

The Chairman. Without objection, then, the newspaper account and 
also the statement of Martha Joyce will be filed as exhibits Nos. 41 and 
41-A, for reference. 

Mr. Conger. Might I have the privilege of seeing that newspaper 
account? I was just going to ask to introduce one in evidence myself, 
maybe it is the same one. 

The Chairman. It might be the same one. This says Sheboygan 
Press, January 7, 1955, and another one is Sheboygan Press, January 
8,1955. 

Mr. Conger. I have one from Sheboygan Press, Saturday, Janu- 
ary 22, 1955, that I would ask the committee to receive in evidence 
also. 

The Chairman. All right, we will receive this, and all three of them 
may be made exhibits Nos. 41-A, B, and C. 

( Documents referred to were marked "Exhiibts Nos. 41-A, B, and 
C," for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Curtis. The witness Rauh this morning made a statement 
this morning in regard to this, and I believe passed what purports 
to be the statement of Martha Joyce out to the press. It was my under- 
standing, and I do not wish to do the witness Mr. Rauh an injustice, 
but he presented it to the committee as evidence of Kohler men par- 
ticipating in a hoax. 

I wonder if Mr. Rauh has any further statement ? 

Mr. Rauh. He certainly has. In the first place, we are glad at 
long last to hear the Kohler Co. admit in public, and under oath, that 
there were hoaxes in this entire matter of vandalism. This is the 
first time Kohler has ever admitted anywhere that there were hoaxes. 

Senator Curtis. Just a minute. I mean about this statement here. 

Mr. Rauh. I am coming to that. In the second place, Senator 
Curtis, there is a conflict in testimony between Mr. Desmond and this 
statement of Martha Joyce, and I suggest you call Martha Joyce and 
ask her whether the Kohler Co. was involved in the hoax. 

There is no question there was a hoax, and there seems to be some 
question whether the Kohler Co. was involved, and I suggest you call 
Martha Joyce, whose statement I hold in my hand, and whose state- 
ment seems to indicate that the Kohler Co. was involved in the hoax. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I am asking you. You have circulated this 
here, and you presented it with this statement underlined : 

Three Kohler men told him to shoot the ^m against the garage. 

This may have left the impression with many that that shooting 
was done as a part of the deception. We now have the sworn testi- 



I:MPR0PER ACTrVTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8831 

mony that the shooting was done afterward in an attempt to recon- 
struct how it was done. Now, is it still your contention that three 
Kohler men, or any Kohler men, participated in a hoax in this in- 
stance involving the Joyce place ? 

Mr. Rauh. Senator Curtis, I will now read you — 

Senator Curtis. I want to know. 

Mr. Ratjh. You make speeches^ and now I have a chance to answer. 

Senator Curtis. I asked you if you still contend whether or not 
Kohler was involved in a hoax in this particular instance. 

Mr. Rauh. I do, and I would like to read my answer. 

Martha Joyce, the day after the incident, and not now a long time 
afterward, said as follows : 

I know, however, that Henry was in bed or with me throughout the night, and 
I know he didn't get out of bed to shoot his gun at anybody. If he would have 
gotten up, I would have awakened, and further, if there would have been a shot- 
gun blast, I certainly would have heard it. The three Kohler men told him to 
shoot his gun against the garage. 

That is all in one paragraph. I haven't talked to Martha Joyce, and 
I think that you ought to call Martha Joyce. I think that there is a 
conflict of testimony between Martha Joyce and Mr. Desmond. 

Senator Curtis. No, I think not. I think Mr. Desmond testified 
that he came to the conclusion that the story was untrue. I think Mrs. 
Joyce's statement indicates that the story was untrue. There is no 
discrepancy. 

Mr. Rauh. I think that there is, Senator, and I point out to you 
that the letter which was given out here also without being introduced 
to the district attorney, telling this story, is 2 weeks after this 
event. Martha Joyce's statement is the day after. Kohler made its 
statement to the district attorney on January 20, exactly 12 days after 
this. 

I think there is a conflict, and the committee ought to get to it, and 
I suggest you call Martha Joyce to resolve it. 

The Chairman. The Chair has heard the suggestion, and the com- 
mittee determines that, who it shall call, and I think there is a great 
deal being said and time wasted here over something that is not 
greatly material. Let us proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state this : That 
Mr. Rauh circulated an unsworn statement here and that it is presented 
in what he says is in conflict with the sworn testimony of Mr. Desmond. 

Now, the effect of it is that both people contend that Mr. Joyce's 
story was not true. I was hoping that Mr. Rauh would retract his 
statement, or the inference in his statement that the three Kohler 
men had assisted in perpetrating a hoax. 

Mr. Rauh. I have no statement except what Mrs. Joyce said, and 
she implies in here, it not directly states, that the Kohler Co. was 
involved in this hoax. I would suggest again. Senator Curtis, if you 
want to find out the truth, why don't you call Mrs. Joyce ? 

Maybe Mr. Desmond is correct, and maybe there is a mistake here. 
I don't know, but this statement certainly conflicts with Mr. Desmond's 
testimony. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Rauh, would you answer a question there ? 
Would you answer "Yes" or "No"? Is this a sworn statement that 
you have presented to this committee ? 

Mr. Rauh. This is a statement^ 



8832 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. I asked you if it was a sworn statement. Is 
it a sworn statement ? 

Mr. Rauh. No, it is a statement to the district attorney the day after 
the event. I believe a statement to the district attorney the day after 
the event is usually accepted, particularly when it is against your 
own interests. 

This was an admission by Mrs. Joyce, and in legal parlance, Senator 
Goldwater, is an admission which is something which is almost always 
accepted against the party. This was an admission by Mrs. Joyce. 

Senator Goldwater. But it was not a sworn statement and we have 
had sworn testimony here now, and do you want to swear to anything 
that you are offering ? 

Mr. Rauh. I will swear that is a true copy of what Mrs. Joyce 
told the district attorney. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the only thing at issue is whether three 
Kohler men helped perpetrate the hoax. That is all there is at issue. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that we get 
this cleared up and we ask the district attorney and Mrs. Joyce to 
come down here and be sworn and be interrogated on this point ? 

I think this has an important bearing on the case, because this case 
is going to drag out, and Mr. Rauh is going to be with us a long time, 
and I want to have the type of testimony that he is offering carefully 
scrutinized. 

Mr. Raugh. I think it would be nice now to have once and for all 
accepted that there were hoaxes perpetrated in Sheboygan, and a good 
deal of the vandalism was not responsible but were actual hoaxes. 

The Chairman. If it will help to expedite this hearing, the Chair 
now declares that all parties agree that a hoax was perpetrated. 

Mr. Rauh. Good. 

The Chairman. May we proceed ? 

Senator Goldwater. Can we find out who the hoax was perpetrated 
by ? I think that has a bearing on it. 

The Chairman. I think it is pretty well established. It is by Mr. 
Joyce. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, Mr. Rauh has attempted to leave the 
inference that the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. The Kohler Co. denies it and they are here. 

Senator Goldwater. In fairness to Mr. Rauh's reputation, I think 
we should ask the district attorney and Mrs. Joyce to come down here 
to testify. 

The Chairman. We are spending Government money, and I am will- 
injET, if you suggest, to have Mrs. Joyce, to have a subpena for her and 
bring her down here at Government expense. But I do not know that 
the district attorney would add to it, except she gave him this 
statement. 

Would it be necessary to have him here to testify that she gave him 
the statement, which she will probably say she did give him ? 

Senator Goldwater. I would leave that up to the legal judgment of 
the Chair. 

The Chairman. In all fairness, I see no necessity at this time for 
having the district attorney. 

Sonator Goldwater. I will settle for Mrs. Joyce. 

The Chairman. The clerk will bring around a subpena, and the 
Chair will issue a subpena now for Mrs. Joyce. Now let us proceed. 



IxMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8833 

Mr. Conger. Might I have just one-tenth of the time Mr. Kauh has 
taken? 

The Chairman. I will make it one-tenth. 

Mr. Conger. He has again made a distortion of what is in this state- 
ment he is talking about. This statement says that this is a statement 
that on the midnight of January 4, 1955, inferring that that is when 
this thing took place. The statement is dated January 8, 1955, and he 
has repeatedly stated on this record that this was a statement given the 
day after. I submit the statement itself rebuts that. 

The Chairman. I submit that the statement is now public informa- 
tion for everyone to read, and they can make their deductions and draw 
their conclusions and form opinions and so declare them. 

Now let us proceed. 

Mr. Rauh. We have some questions we passed up, Mr. Chairman, 
to Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. I thought maybe there were some further questions. 

Let me see. Has the staff checked to see how many of these incidents 
were reported to the police department ? 

May I inquire, do we have a report from the police department as to 
how many of these acts of vandalism were reported to the police de- 
partment ? Do you have that inf ormataion ? 

Mr. Desmond. Me, sir ? No, but in that connection I would like to 
make this statement : In questioning people regarding this vandalism 
in every case I asked them whether it was reported to the sheriff if 
they were out in the county or the police if they were within the city. 

Quite frequently, as the affidavits will speak for themselves, they 
said, "Yes," but in many, many cases they said, "No, I did not. Why 
should you report it to the sheriff's department ? They don't do any- 
thing anyway." 

The Chairman. Do the affidavits you have filed reflect in most in- 
stances whether they said they had or had not reported it ? 

Mr. Desmond. I cannot say; in most instances, no, but they do in 
many instances. Senator, 

The Chairman. I do not think it is important to have the exact 
number, but if we can get it, all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think Mr. Adlerman can check that. 

The Chairman. Have you checked that ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I have had it checked in the office by some of the 
staff members. 

The Chairman. Come around and be sworn. 

Mr. Desmond. Shall I move out of the chair. Senator ? 

The Chairman. Now, w^e will let you be at ease for the moment. 

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. Adlerman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JEROME ADLERMAN 

The Chairman. State your name. 
Mr. Adlerman. ^ly name is Jerome Adlerman. 
The Chairman. You are on the staff of this committee; are you 
not? 

Mr. Adlerman. lam. 



8834 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ES" THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. On loan from the Senate Permanent Subcommit- 
tee on Investigations ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As assistant counsel to this committee, have you; 
made a check with respect to determining how many of the incidents — 
we are talking about this vandalism — were reported to the police' 
department? I assume counsel also means to the sheriff's office,, 
or either. 

Mr. Adlerman. I have asked the Police Department of Sheboygan 
to submit to us their records showing the number of complaints 
that they had resulting from this vandalism, and I have also made 
the same request of the sheriff's office of Sheboygan County. 

According to the computation made by the staff members under my 
direction, there were 636 complaints connected with the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. During what period ? 

Mr. Adlerman. From 1954 through 1957. 

The Chairman. There were 636 complaints of vandalism during 
that period of time ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Complaints to whom ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Complaints of both strikers and from nonstrikers. 

Mr. Kennedy. To whom? 

Mr. Adlerman. These were made to the Police Department of 
Sheboygan. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were 636 to the police department? 

]\Ir. Adlerman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many were made to the sheriff's office ? 

Mr. Adlerman. To the sheriff's office for 1954, 1955, and 1956, there 
were 202 complaints. 

The Chairman. How many is that ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is 202 complaints. 

The Chairman. Now, you have no way of knowing how many of 
those were duplicate ? 

Mr. Adlerman. No. 

The Chairman. Wliere they may have been reported to both ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Well, I assume that those that occurred in the 
city of Sheboygan would be reported to the police department of 
the city and those that occurred outside of the city and county would 
be reported to the sheriff's office. 

The Chairman. There is no way to be certain about that? 

Mr. Adlerman. No. 

The Chairman. At any rate, there were a good number reported,, 
636 and 202? 

Mr. Adlerman. However, I think that we should notice that out 
of these, these are complaints, and they are not acts of violence, and 
out of the complaints apparently 258 involved actual acts of vandalism 
for the police department, by complaints of nonstrikers, and from 
1954, 1955, and 1956 and 1957. 

The strikers at the same time had 30 acts of violence committed 
against them. 

The Chairman. The strikers reported 30 acts of violence against 
them, and the nonstrikers reported 259 acts of violence against them ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8835 

Mr, Adlerman. Yes ; the balance of the compLaints are such things 
as phone threats, or prowlers, or suspicious cars, or merchandise sent 
to the home and so forth. 

The Chairman. The reports you received from the police depart- 
ment and also from the sheriif's office may be made exhibit No. 42 
for reference. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 42" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You have given a compilation of the figures 
which you have ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many acts of actual violence would appear to 
have occurred as arising out of the strike during this 4-year period, 
from the reports that were made to the police department? 

Mr. Adlerman. To the Police Department of Sheboygan City, 289 
cases; an analysis shows 289 cases which actually involved some type 
of vandalism. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many to the sheriff's office ? 

Senator Cuinis. Did you say vandalism? 

Mr. Kennedy. Any kind where there is some property damage. 

Mr. Adlerman. One hundred-fifty for the years 1954, 1955, and 
1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would include both strikers and nonstrikers? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it would appear from the records that the ratio 
of those against whom the acts were perpetrated was approximately 
8 to 1 against the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made any compilation? The Kohler Co. 
had a record of 840 acts of violence. 

Mr. Adlerman. We had those checked as best we could against the 
names in the police department and 105 cases out of the 836 cases on 
that list were rei^orted to the Sheboygan Police Department. 

We have no way of knowing how many cases were reported out of 
that list to the sheriff's office, since the sheriff's office list did not con- 
tain any names. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would it appear from the other records that you 
have made a study of, that most of the acts of violence occurred in 
the city of Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Adlerman. It is my belief, and I base that on the fact that 
the witnesses that we had' in the last 2 days, I think we had 16 wit- 
nesses who testified as to the types of vandalism, and T think about 
10 or 11 lived within the city' limits of the city of Sheboygan and 
about 5 lived in the outlying county. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you consider about two-thirds of the acts of van- 
dalism were perpetrated in the city of Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That would be my conclusion. 

Senator Curtis. Would your analysis of those statistics indicate 
that there were some acts that were reported to the police officers or to 
the sheriff that were not included in the list provided by the Kohler 

Co.? . ^ 

Mr. Adlerman. I have no way of knowing, Senator.. 
Senator Curtis. I see. 



8836 IMPROPER ACTIVTTIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Adleuman. It is possible, but I have no way of knowing. As 
a matter of fact I would say "Yes" because, for example, the van- 
dalism perpetrated against the striker would not be included in that. 

Senator Cuktis. Did you gather any figures as to convictions or 
pleas of guilty? 

Mr. AuLERMAN. We have some data on that and I have not analyzed 
it very thoroughly, but it seems to me that there were very, very few 
convictions. There were a great many cases where they were tried, 
where the cases were dismissed, or they were adjourned and no action 
taken. 

Senator Curtis. A fact which probably would cause a lessening of 
the lunnber that would be reported to authorities as time went on. 

Mr. Adlerman. I think that had a great deal to do with the number 
of arrests that were made because I think that they felt perhaps it 
would not get a result. 

TESTIMONY OF GIRARD A. DESMOND, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, LYMAN C. CONGER— Eesumed 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Desmond, do you have any information as to 
why the people did not report these things to the police and the 
sheriff? 

^Ir. Desmond. From my knowledge, Senator, after having talked to 
these various people who were vandalized, non-strikers, they had in 
their own mind an opinion that the sheriff of Sheboygan County was 
definitely in favor of the strikers. 

They had no confidence in the sheriff, and many of the people would 
come to me and say, "Why should I report this to the sheriff? He 
wouldn't do anything about it anyway." 

It was the same with the police department. In many instances the 
people would say, "They won't do anything about it anyway." In 
every one of those cases, I would always tell them that, "It doesn't 
make any difference what you think. The sheriff's department, even 
though you might think he is favorable to the strikers, is a law-enforce- 
ment agency and these things should be brought to that department's 
attention." 

It was the same with the police department. I always told them 
that, "Regardless of what you think, the police department should 
know about this so that they can take some steps to do something." 

That is why in many cases they never reported to the police depart- 
ment or the sheriff's department and I might also mention this: There 
were many cases outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Sheboygan, 
many cases in Sheboygan, and 1 don't know whether Mr. Adlerman's 
report included any reports from the Sheboygan Falls Police Depart- 
ment. 

There were many cases out of the county. On one morning I investi- 
gated four cases of vandalism, of paint bombs on homes outside of the 
county of Sheboygan. There were many cases outside of the county 
of Sheboygan. 

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

Senator Curtis. People that had driven 25 miles or more to work ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8837 

Senator Curtis. And those people gave affidavits wliicli are included 
in exhibit 40, and also in the list that is printed in the record? 

Mr. Desmond. If I made the investigation, Senator, outside of the 
county of Sheboygan, I did not take an affidavit, because I am a notary 
public in Sheboygan County. I took a statement. But in cases 
where I interrogated them and investigated in Sheboygan County, 
there is an affidavit, because I am a notary. 

Senator Cltrtis. This exhibit has all affidavits ? 

]Mr. Desmond. No, sir; it has some statements as well. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator JNIcNamara. Isn't it generally a requirement of the in- 
surance company before they make a settlement in a case, that it must 
be reported to the police authorities? 

]Mr. Des:\[ond. I don't think so. Senator. I don't think it is. 

Senator McN.vmara. In my experience with car thefts or things 
stolen from the car, it is always a requirement of the insurance com- 
pany before the}' make any settlement, that you do report to the police 
authority. I thought that was pretty good practice, and generally 
assumed it to be true. 

Did the Kohler Co. require of these people, where they assumed 
the responsibility, the financial responsibility for the damage, that 
the case be reported to the police ? 

Mr. DEs:sroxD. We made no requirement as such. As I mentioned, 
I always told the people when they came to see me, that they should 
report it to the law-enforcement authority, regardless of how they felt. 
That is one thing they should do. It was a crime, a misdemeanor, 
if you will, and the police and sheriff should know about it. 

Senator INIcNamara. I think you indicated that you feel strongly 
about this, but while you were agreeing for the company to pay for 
these things, you had a good instrument to make them report it to the 
police. Otherwise, you wouldn't pay them for their tires and things. 
I think if you felt so strongly then as you do now, you should have 
required these people. I think may be it was a mistake that you didn't. 

Mr. Desmond. In that connection. Senator, I felt this: I felt that 
there might have been some justification for the people who felt that 
way. 

Senator INIcNamara. Even though there were, you had a chance to 
insist on them reporting it to the police department, which wouldn't 
do you any harm. Or would it ? 

Mr. Desmond. Let me make this statement, if I may. I took the 
affidavit or the statement after vandalism had occurred. I told them 
"Now, you didn't do it. The vandalism has happened. But if it hap- 
pens again, please tell the police department." 

I had no opportunity to say, "Tomorrow, report it to the police 
department," because I didn't know just what was going to happen 
to them. 

Senator IMcNamara. The insurance companies do it all the time. 
I don't know why you couldn't. If I make a claim a week later, they 
say, "You report it to the police or we will not pay the claim." 

I think it is just good sense. I don't know why you didn't do it. T 
am surprised that you didn't do it. 

ISIr. I)es:mond. I don't think it has any connection. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 7 



8838 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McNamara. That is all. 

The Chairman. Did yon make a compilation of the amounts paid 
to each claimant for vandalism, which your company paid ? 

Mr. Desmond, I don't think I did, Senator. 

The Chairman. Then you cannot testify to it ? 

Mr. Desmond. No. I can't testify to what you have in your hand. 

I produced it to Mr. Bellino, but I didn't prepare it. I produced it 
for the company. I think Mr. Conger might be able to testify to it. 

The Chairman. Can you testify to it ? 

Mr. Conger. I believe I can. I think I produced it, rather than Mr. 
Desmond. Mr. Desmond was just the messenger of bringing it over. 

Mr. Desmond. I was the means of getting it into Mr. Bellino's hands. 

The Chairman. Have you been sworn ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. 

The Chairman. You remain under the same oath. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Conger, you have before you the original list 
giving names, dates, and amounts to the people, your employees, to 
whom you paid reimbursements for damages they sustained by reason 
of the vandalism ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you supplied that to the committee ? 

Mr. Conger. I supplied that to the committee. 

The Chairman. Do you have that original list before you that you 
supplied ? 

Mr. Conger. I have. 

Tlie Chairman. According to your best knowledge and belief it is 
accurate and correct ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. It was made up by our accounting department, 
and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is entirely correct. 

The Chairman. I present you here what appears to be a photostatic 
copy of it, which I should like to use for the record instead of the 
original, if you can verify that. Does that appear to be a photostatic 
copy of it ? 

(The document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Conger. Yes. I am sure that is a photostatic copy. 

The Chairman. The photostatic copy of that will be made Exhibit 
No. 43, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 43" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I believe it shows a total of $21,297.88, am I cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. But included in that total are some items of re- 
wards paid. I think the total awards paid is $1,500. Am I correct? 

Mr. Conger. The total of rewards paid is $1,500. I, frankly, have 
not checked this to see whether that is included in that total of $21,000 
or not, but the figures will show whether it is or not. 

The Chairman. I am a little confused about whether the rewards 
paid, the $1,500, is in addition to the total of $21,297.88 ? 

Mr. Conger. I cannot answer that question, correctly. Senator, with- 
out 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8839 

The CiiAiKMAN. According to our staff, $1,500 total amount of re- 
wards paid is in adition to the $21,297.88. 

Mr. Conger. I would accept that if that is what the staff found. 

Tlie Chairman. That is what the staff says. Now we have each 
item that you paid out in the record as an exhibit and also the total. 

Senator McNamara. What period of time, Mr. Chairman, does this 
cover ? 

The Chairman. I do not have it before me. Will you state the 
beginning to the last payment ? 

Mr. Conger. I can check it in a moment. 

The Chairman. It seems to have started on July 21, 1954 — am I 
correct ? I think you will find it on the last page. 

Mr. Conger. Somebody has changed the order of these pages, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, according to this photostatic copy I have in 
my hand, the first payment w\as made on July 21, 1954, to Linda L. 
Dohl of Cleveland, Wis., in the amount of $12.18. 

Mr. Conger. Yes, Senator, I liave located that noAv, and that is cor- 
rect. 

The Chairman. And according to the photostatic copy I have, the 
last payment was made on December 5, 1957, to John Bosma, in the 
amount of $14.10. 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You have found that and you verify it by the 
original ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The staff has checked, and if anyone wants this 
verified — of course, then it reflects itself, whatever the facts are, but 
according to the staff's examination of it, claims paid under $5 were 88 
in a total amount of $210.71. 

Claims paid $5 to $25, 114, amounting to $1,529.60. Claims paid 
from $25 to $50, 46, amounting to $1,580.76. Claims in the amount of 
$50 to $100, 39, totaling $2,750.36. Claims paid of $100 or more, there 
were 55, amounted to $15,226.46, or a grand total for all of them of 
$21,297.88. The total number of claims, I believe, amounts to 342. I 
believe now we have the record complete. If the Chair has made an 
error, a check on the exhibit itself will correct it. 

TESTIMONY OF GIRARD A. DESMOND— Resumed 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Ervin ? 

Senator Ervin. I was unable to be with the committee all the time, 
and this question may have been asked and answered. 

As a general rule, were the persons from whom you obtained affi- 
davits or statements concerning acts of vandalism afele to identify the 
perpetrators of those acts ? 

Mr. Desimond. Not by name. Senator. Sometimes they would see 
somebody running aAvay from the home, sometimes they would see 
them get into the car and the car would speed away. 

Never by name. It would always happen at night and they wei-e 
unable to eret the name. 



8840 IMPROPER ACTIVTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. So even if you had a diligent law-enforcement officer 
there, it would have been a difficult task in many cases to ever ascertain 
the identity of the party to apprehend them, wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Desimond. If they were there to apprehend them, they could get 
it, the identity. 

Senator Ervin. You mean if they had been on duty at the time ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions of the witness ? 

Mr. Conger. I would like to submit a written question for this wit- 
ness, to the Chair, if I may. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any other responsibilities, other than 
checking these things, these acts of vandalism? 

Mr. Desmond. I had responsibilities of generally investigating 
misconduct during the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Misconduct ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did that entail ? 

Mr. Desmond. That entailed misconduct on the picket line, any- 
thing that might have happened around the plant. Items like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have people working under you that would 
do that? 

Mr. Desmond. I was the one that made all the investigations the 
interrogations, and making the affidavits, sometime Mr. E. J. Hammer, 
another attorney for the company, would assist me. But it was gen- 
erally my responsibility to check all acts of misconduct that had any 
relation to the strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make then a report on any act of miscon- 
duct ? Did you make a memorandum ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, I submitted memorandum to Mr. Conger. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep files on all of that material ? 

Mr. Desmond. I kept files on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. On any act of misconduct, you kept a file on the 
individual ? 

Mr. Desmond. Not in all cases, Mr. Kennedy. In some cases we 
did and in some cases we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. But any act which you felt was of interest or ma- 
terial, you made a note of that about the person, is that right? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many people did you check in that manner ? 

Mr. Desmond. I don't recall at the moment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some books on that, do you, some rec- 
ords ? 

]Mr. Desmond. Yes, we have records. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think some of those have been submitted to the 
committee. Are these records that you made on the strikers? 

Mr. Desmond. That is a set of books that was kept concerning vari- 
ous things that ha])pened. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are on the people that were on strike ? This 
is all the information regarding the strikers ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you would write down things about them ? 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8841 

Mr. Desmond. I be^ your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You would write down or make memorandums on 
misconduct ? 

Mr. Desmond. I didn't. Someone who was working for me did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just taking a few out of here 

Mr. Desmond. Incidentally, may I see them, please? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Here is James Seubert. The record on him is — 

2-12-55, 1 of the 6 pickets dressed as Abe Lincoln in 2-12-55 photo in the 
Milwaukee Journal. 

Mr. Desmond. Might I make a statement in that regard ?. That is 
not a strike misconduct list. That is a general information list, where- 
by all information, regardless of whether it was strike related or not, 
was put in. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were making an investigation of all the strik- 
ers, and whatever they did ? 

Mr. Desmond. I thought it would be general information to Mr. 
Conger if everything that we had from the newsp)apers and the af- 
fidavits that were taken, and anything at all, was put in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. So any time anybody posed as Abraham Lincoln, 
you felt that would be of interest and help to Mr. Conger ? 

Mr. Desmond. That connection, if I remember correctly, they 
were picketing with Abraham Lincoln's attire at the time. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. Here is 6-12-54, on John Melger : 

6-12-54, was with a group who made general nuisance of themselves at Paul 
Lindekugel's 15th wedding anniversary. 

Mr. Desmond. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that that was helpful to Mr. Conger? 

Mr. Desmond. I thought that Paul Lindekugel, being a nonstriker, 
had a right to have a wedding recei^tion without strikers coming and 
u])setting it, and I thought that that should be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is one on Carl Gorr, Jr. : 

On 2 occasions his son, about 12 years old, molested Carl Merta's 5-year-old 
daughter, calling her names and saying her daddy is a scab. The second time 
he flicked his finger in her eye. 

Then you have "See Merta's affidavit." 

Mr. Desmond. In that regard, I did not put that into the record. 
It happened to be in some memorandum or some statement that was 
made at some time, not by me, but somebody else. It might have 
appeared in the affidavit. The party whose responsibility it was, un- 
der my direction, just picked it out and put it in. 

Information like that was never given any consideration. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is all in your reports. 

Henry McGray, .5-2-55, playing catch with J. Van Engen, another striker, 
on the road at Northeast Gate. Came on company property several times to 
retrieve the ball. 

jVIr. Desmond. It is just general information. 

Mr. Ivennedy. This is John Greiner, Jr., 3-25-55. 

Shown in 3-25-55 Milwaukee .Journal picture releasing balloons with messages 
urging workers to stay out of plant until the strike was settled. 

Mr. Desmond. It was just general information, anything that 
happened about the man was put in the book, whether related to the 
strike or not. 



8842 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. Here is one about where he attended summer school. 

Here is another man whose wife appeared on the CIO radio broad- 
cast. You have reports on 742 different strikers, and on these kinds 
of incidents and others of a more serious nature. 

Mr. Desmond. Those incidents were put in just because of the fact 
that the man was on strike, and we wanted as much information 
as we coidd get on them. I did not direct that it be put in. It was 
put in by the girl who did it. 

If I had known that it was, if I had checked it over carefully, I 
probably would have said, "We don't want this information." 

Senator Ervin. If I may be pardoned an investigation, it would 
appear that the girl or whoever kept those records was much more 
thorough, I hope, than the recording angel. 

Mr. Des]\iond. Anything that happened, she put it in the book. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is Stanley Baboshek. 

4-25-54, Chow wagon. 

AVhat is that? What does that mean? Did he go to the chow 
wagon ? 

Mr, Desmond. I don't laiow. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is a man that opened up Harvey's shoe store 
on Union Street in Sheboygan. To supplement his income. 

Mr. Desmond. There, again, I think the girl must have read it in 
the strike bulletin. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are quite a few\ It is not just a question 
of 4 or 5, but tliere are an awful lot that are exactly like that. You 
were trying to check, as I understand it, any kind of information 
you had whatsoever on any of the strikers, and make a record of it, 
is that right? 

Mr. Desmond. Whether it was related to the strike or not. The 
girl didn't know, and she just put it in. 

Senator (^urtis. May I ask the chief counsel something? Are those 
entries that you have read, in the opinion of chief counsel, typical 
of all the entries ? 

Mr, Kennedy. No. There are certainly entries in there which, as I 
said, indicate a far more serious nature, and certainly I would under- 
stand the company making a note of that. 

I thought, though, it would be of interest to the committee that they 
were making notes on strikers of their personal activities, what their 
children were doing, where they were attending school and that type 
of business. 

Certainly, in these books on the 742 strikers on which they have 
these detailed records, there is information of a more serious allegation. 

Senator Goldwai-er. Mr. Chairman, miglit I ask that inasmuch as 
we have heard some of the trivial things, that the counsel read these 
few" that I have just quickly gathered from looking through that book, 

Tlie Chairman, Let me get one thing straight now. Are these your 
records that you have turned over to the committee ? 

Mr. Desmond. I would assume they are. Senator. I have not seen 
them yet. 

The Chairman. Let us have tliem identified. Examine them and see 
if they are your records. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8843 

Mr. Desiniond. I might make the observation, Senator, that this is 
marked here "Union" on the records. We did not turn them over to 
the committee. It was marlvcd "Union" in red. 

The Chairman. They are not your records ? 

Mr. Desmond. We did not turn them over to the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe we got them from the National Labor Re- 
lations Board. 

The CHAiRjNrAN. Did you turn them over to the National Labor 
Relations Board ? 

Mr. Desmond. I do not know if they are the National Labor Re- 
lations Board records or not, but I am making the observation that in 
red pencil there is "Union" here. 

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

The Chairman. What I am trying to find out is this: There has 
been a question raised about the records. What I am trying to find 
out is if these are tlie records of your company. If they are not, they 
probably have no place in here. 

If they are records of your company, then I want to get them 
identified to make them a matter of reference. 

Mr. Desmond. The only statement I can make is this, that we have 
similar records of this kind, but I do not know whether this is it. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether these are photostatic copies 
of them ? 

Mr. Desmond. I can't say. There are so many pages here, Senator, 
that I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. May we inquire where these books came from? 
This one that I hold has something pasted on the back that says "Ex- 
hibit 87, Kohler Co. spy records A-F." 

The Chairman. That is exhibit 87. 

Mr. Kennedy. We can tell you where they came from. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to have the staff tell you where they 
came from. 

The Chairman. Mr. Adlerman, you have been sworn. Make your 
statement under oath. 

TESTIMONY OF JEROME ADLERMAN— Resumed 

Mr. Adlerman. These records were supplied to the committee by 
the union. They are part of an exhibit of the NLRB proceedings. 

Senator Goldwater. That label that Senator Curtis referred to, 
was that label put on by the union or by the company? 

Mr. Adlerman. The union. 

Senator Goldwater. It is a union label that it is Kohler spy 
records ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Correct. 

Senator Curtis. Are these the exhibits that belong in the NLRB 
case or are they copies ? 

Mr. Adler^vian. I believe they are copies of the exhibits that were 
in the NLRB hearing. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire who, representing the union, turned 
them over to you ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I believe it was Mr. Rabinowitz. 



8844 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Is lie one of tlieir attorneys ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Was this in response to a request by the staff ? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is rig,ht. 

Senator Goldwater. May I ask if the trial examiner mentioned 
these in his report to the NLRB ? 

Mr. Adlerman. I would have to examine the trial examiner's 
report to determine that. 

Senator Goldwater. Might I ask Mr. Conger ? 

Mr. Rauii. Yes, he did. 

Senator Goldw^vter. I did not ask Islr. Rauh. I asked Mr. Conger. 

Mr. Conger. He referred to the fact that we kept records. I think 
he gave quite a description as I recall the report, Senator — and I don't 
have it right here with me — of how these records were kept, and for 
what they were kept. 

I do not see in his record any criticism of our keeping these records. 

Senator Goldwater. Was any mention made of these records in a 
critical way to the NLRB in his report ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. I would like to know whether these books or copies 
of them were made exhibits in the NLRB hearing. 

Mr. Conger. Without checking them in detail. Senator, I cannot tell. 
There was an exhibit in the NLRB case of the record books which we 
kept and of certain lists which we kept, including the strikers who were 
discharged and those who were not discharged. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire at that point ? 

This material, would it become of the value both to the employee and 
to the company should an issue of reinstatement ever arise ? 

Mr. Conger. No. Very much of it would not. 

Senator Curtis. Would some of it ? 

Mr. Conger. Some of it would be. 

Senator Curtis. I refer particularly to a reference made by the chief 
counsel of an entry concerning an individual's outside earnings in a 
shoe store. When someone is ordered reinstated with back pay, earn- 
ings that they have made in the interim are a factor at times; isn't that 
correct ? 

Mr. Conger. That is correct. May I make a statement of how these 
books came to be ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Conger. I instructed Mr. Desmond, who is, in my opinion, a 
competent lawyer, but not a labor laAvyer specialist, to keep records as 
well as he could. I told him not to try to be a labor lawyer, not to try 
to turn the people under him into labor lawyers, but to err on the safe 
side of reporting everything that he thought might be of interest to 
me, and that at a later date, when I had time, I would cull them over 
and extract the significant from the insignificant. 

He did that and he did it with the assistance of a couple of girls 
who just put in what they thought might be of significance, what they 
thought might be of significance in connection with something else that 
might happen later on. 

For example, this man Mertz that was referred to had several in- 
stances of vandalism at his home. It might have been that the way 
his children were conducting themselves had some connection, or it 



I 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8845 

could be establislied later on. I did not try to turn 10 or 15 i)eople 
who might have been making these reports into labor lawyers over- 
night. 

May I also say that the reason that these reports were started, and 
the principal reason, Avas to get evidence to use before the Wisconsin 
Employment Relations Board to get the mass picketing stopped and 
later the violence and the vandalism stopped. 

Senator Goldwater. Were they exhibits in the WERB case? 

Mr. Conger. These particular reports ? No, Senator, but many of 
the things that are in these particular reports were testified to in the 
WERB case. These particular books were not. 

Senator Goldwater. When you turned these records over to the 
WERB— or did you turn them over to the WERB ? 

Mr. Conger. Not these records. Senator. At that time they were not 
kept in this form. They got so cumbersome that we finally adopted a 
practice of putting them in books like this. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you turn any records of this nature over 
to the WERB? 

Mr. Conger. No. The procedure before the WERB, Senator, is a 
little different than before the NLRB. In the procedure before the 
WERB, the complaining party comes in and tries his own case and, 
based on these records, we put witnesses on the stand to testify to things 
that had happened there. 

I do not believe that we put anyone on the stand to testify as to these 
particular records. 

In the NLRB, however, we used these records to justify or, rather, 
I should say these are the original records and we made later lists of 
them, and we used the incidents that are included in these books to 
justify before the NLRB the discharge of the people that were dis- 
charged. 

Senator Goldwater. When you turned these records or similar 
records in to the NLRB. did you liave them labeled "Kohler Co. spy 
records" ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir. If there was any label on them, and I am not 
sure they were actually labeled, we used to refer to them as a "Strike 
incident list." 

Senator Goldwater. I asked the chief counsel 

Mr. Conger. Excuse me. Mr. Desmond corrected me. It is the 
"Strike incident file." 

Senator Goldwater. I asked if the chief counsel would read the few 
incidents I have marked in the book. 

The Chairman. What the Chair is trying to do is to establish the 
identity and validity of the records. I am still at some loss about it. 

Mr. Des^niond. Senator, I don't know whether these are the books 
that are an exhibit in the National Labor Relations Board. I say that 
we did have an exhi})it in that hearing of books of this kind. AVhether 
these are the ones, the only way I could verify that, would be to check 
every single page. I do not know whether this was doctored or not. 
I really do not know. It came from the union files, apparently. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do the items I read to you sound like yours? 

Mr. Desmond. I was just going to say, Mr. Kennedy, if I may, I did 
not recall specifically any of the instances that you asked me. If you 
had had the National Lat)or Relations Board book, I would have taken 



8846 IMPROPER ACTI\TriES IN- THE LABOR FIELD 

it for granted that it appeared there. I have no present recollection 
of anything that you read. 

If I may, I would like to retract my answers in that regard because 
I do not know whether it is in the National Labor Relations Board 
hearing or not. I do not know. 

The Chairman. The only thing the Chair is trying to do is to 
establish the validity of the record. You say you cannot testify to 
these? 

Mr. Desmond. I cannot testify to that; no, sir. 

The Chairman. You say you kept books along this order ? 

Mr. Desmond. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. It says "CL" in one of these, 21792. What does 
"CL" stand for? 

Mr. Desmond. Clock number. 

Senator Kennedy. At what ? 

Mr. Desmond. A clock number. A man has a clock number when he 
is employed. 

Senator Kj;nnedy. What is your guess as to where these came from ? 

Mr. Dresmond. I don't know. I can't say. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask if you will turn over your 
books to us that were in the exhibit of the National Labor Relations 
Board. Then it would be possible to check very quickly as to whether 
these are the same reports and books that were turned over to the 
National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr, Conger. May I answer that, Senator? We have our books, 
which are duplicates of the exhibit in the NLRB case, and I am quite 
sure we have them here in Washington. 

Mr. Desmond. We do. 

Mr. Conger. We will be glad to turn them over to the committee. 

Senator Kennedy. "Wlien can we get them ? 

Mr. Conger. As long as it takes someone to go over to the hotel to 
get them. 

Senator Kennedy. Fine. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, prior to the question being raised 
as to the origin of these books, certain excerpts v/ere read. I think 
at this time the request of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater, 
is perfectly in order that the excerpts that he requested be read. 

Senator McNamar A. Mr. Chairman, before we leave the ones that 
have already been referred to, I would like to ask the witness a ques- 
tion. 

Did you recognize the notation on the one dealing with the opening 
of a shoestore ? 

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

Senator McNamara. You did not recognize that one ? 

Mr. Desmond. No, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Then you do not know the significance? 

Mr. Desmond. No ; I do not. 

Senator McNamara. I wonder if the significance was that this ex- 
employee opened a shoestore on Union Street. That would not be the 
inference ; would it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8847 

Mr. Desmond. I do not think so, sir. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the Chair wishes to establish the va- 
lidity of the record, if we can, and then, of course, everything? in it 
may be read, if anyone wants it read. I would like to do that just 
to keep the record "straight. I did not know there was any question 
about these records. If there is, and you say you cannot verify 
them — you do not deny them, but you cannot verify them. 

Mr. Desmond. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. From whom did we get the records ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Rabinovitz. 

The Chairman. "W^io is he? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is an attorney for the UAW. 

The Chairman. Come around, and let us see what you know about 
it. 

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

Mr. Rabinovitz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID RABINOVITZ 

The Chairisian. State your name, and your place of residence, and 
your business or occupation or profession ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. My name is David Rabinovitz, and I am a li- 
censed practicing attorney at Sheboygan, Wis. I live at 3015 Ever- 
green Parkway, Sheboygan, Wis. I represent the UAW at She- 
boygan. 

The Chairman. I guess you waive the right of counsel, do you? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I do. 

The Chairman. Did you represent the union, the UAW in the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board controversy with the Kohler Co. which 
involved the strike ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you delivered to this committee certain rec- 
ords, three volumes I believe it is, of books we have had here dis- 
cussed in the last few moments? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. My recollection is, and Mr. Desmond can correct 
me if I am wrong, my recollection is that there were four volumes. 
Is that right, Mr. Desmond ? 

Mr. Desmond. I think that he might be right, and I am not positive. 

Mr. Rabinovitz. My recollection is that I either delivered — the com- 
pany produced these four volumes, as I remember, as an exhibit, and 
I think that they were at the request of the general counsel, however. 
The company furnished me with a copy of the exhibit. 

It is either my exhibit that I turned"^ over to this committee, or a 
photostatic copy that the union made. I am not sure whether I gave 
mine directly to the committee, or whether I gave mine to the union 
and they made a copy and gave that to the investigators. 

The Chairman. As I understand, these books, if they are copies, 
the original of these records were introduced in proof or as exhibits 
in the National Labor Relations Board hearing? 

Mr. Rabino\t[tz. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If they are accurate, if these are y)hotostatic copies, 
then this is a part of the record of the National Labor Relations 
Board? 



8848 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kabinovitz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Of the proceeding in which the union and the 
Kohler Co. were involved, which related to this strike ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire. Now is this a part of the copy that 
the Kohler Co. delivered to you when they responded to the request 
of the NLRB to furnish these ? 

Mr. Rabixovitz. Is that exact, the cover and all of that, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I don't think so. I think that cover and the title 
that you read was placed there by the union. 

I have my set, I think I have my set in the hotel room here in 
Washington. 

Senator Curtis. Who made this set ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I think the copies were made by the union. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who made them? Do you know 
whether they are true copies ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz, I think that they are true copies. 

Senator Curtis. But you would say the label was not true ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. The L^l^el I am sure was put on by the union. 

Senator Curtis. That "Kohler Co. spy records" ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I am sure that was put on b}^ the union. 

Senator Curtis. Was any other change made in it ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. May I see it. Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. Here it is. 

(A document was given to the witness.) 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I am not sure, but the "A-F'" may have been put 
on tliere to indicate the extent of the alphabet covered by this book, 
or it may have been put on by the company. I am not sure of that. 
But outside of that, I don't think the original exhibited any title to it 
at all. I don't think it had anything on it at all. It was just blank. 

Senator Curtis. How was this made, and how was this copy made — 
just having a girl type it ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I did not do it. Senator. It appears to me to be 
photostated. 

Senator Curtis. Was it done under your supervision ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. No, sir. I knew nothing about it. 

Senator Curtis. Now you are familiar with the Taft-Hartley law, 
aren't you ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I think I am. 

Senator Curtis. It is a violation of the law for an employee to spy 
on an employee, and they have an offense that I believe they call sur- 
veillance ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. RABIN0^^TZ. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now what is the fact? Did the trial examiner find 
that the keeping of these lists constituted an offense of surveillance? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. No, he did not. But one of the reasons, Senator, 
that he did not make that finding was, as I remember, the General 
Counsel either failed to include that in his complaint, or included it 
at too late a date, and I believe the examiner refused to allow the 
amendment of that complaint. 

Senator Curtis. But they did not find it ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. There was no finding made of surveillance. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8849 

Senator Cuktis. I think since yon have expressed a reason for the 
lack of a finding, ]Mr. Conger, do you have anything you wish to say 
on that? 

Mr. Conger. I wouhl just like to ask the committee not to take my 
word or that of Mr. Rabinovitz for that, but I think the various 
complaints filed by the NLliB General Counsel should be incorporated 
here. There was a charge, as I recollect it, of surveillance in the early 
days, and there was an attempt to amend that which was not allowed 
but there was no finding of illegal surveillance by the NLRB trial ex- 
aminer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you, in that connection, Mr. Conger, did 
you have any surveill ance ? 

Mr. Conger. We had no illegal surveillance. We do not make any 
secret, Mr, Kennedy, of the fact that we were trying to get all of the 
evidence possible that we needed to go into court to try to get this 
sort of thing that was happening to us stopped. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any surveillance ? 

Mr. Conger. I would not call it surveillance. We gathered evi- 
dence for prospective cases because we anticipated that men like Mr. 
Burkhai't would get on the stand in those cases, and say that there 
was no more violence on this picket line than there had been in the 
New York subway. 

Senator Curtis. Did the trial examiner call it surveillance ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir ; he did not. He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you in fact, whether the trial examiner 
knew it or not, did you in fact have surveillance ? 

Mr. Conger. No, we in fact did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anybody walking the picket line, for 
instance, a representative or a detective agency or representative of 
a detective agency walking the picket line to find out what the pickets 
were saying among themselves ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir. What we did was to take and keep records 
of what men were doing out in open public view. 

Mr. Kennedy, Just answer the question. Did you have anybody 
walking, a representative of the company or a detective agency that 
you hired, walking the picket line to determine what was going on ? 

Mr. Conger, No, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. You had none of that ? . 

Mr. Conger. None of that, 

]\Ir, Kennedy, Did you have any informants working among the 
pickets, the strikers ? 

Mr, Conger, I believe that the private investigative agency that we 
hired did have some informants who went over to the strike kitchen 
or were at the strike kitchen. And I want to tell you now, let us 
get this in, exactly what that detecitve agency was instructed to do. 

Mr. Kennedy, Wait a minute, 

Mr. Conger. They were instructed to get evidence of criminal acts 
of violence and vandalism. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Conger 

Mr. Conger. I believe we have a right to do that, 

]\Ir. Kennedy. I am not going into that, but just on the question 
of your answer to Senator Curtis regarding the surveillance, I would 
consider spies, people working, paid informants reporting to you on 



8850 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

the activities of the strikers and the pickets, that that certainly would 
get into the category of surveillance. 

Did you or did you have informants working in the strike kitchen 
to keep you informed as to what was going on or keep your detective 
agency informed as to what was going on ? 

Mr. Conger. No, sir ; we did not. 

My instructions to the 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not saying what your instructions were, and I 
am asking you if you had that going on. 

Mr. Conger. I am saying that, to tiie best of my knowledge, we never 
had it; and if there was any such thing it was never reported to me; 
and it would liave been a violation of my instructions. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say that this was not reported to you that you 
had an informant, a paid informant, working in the strike kitchen 
while the strike was going on. Do you say that under oath ? 

Mr. Conger. No, Mr. Kennedy ; I have tried to say that I have not 
said that we had somebody, the detective agency had somebody, work- 
ing there to find out who was dynamiting these cars, and who was 
doing these acts of vandalism and violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a 

Mr. Conger. I do not believe that the law prohibits us from trying 
to find out who is doing a criminal act, whether it is a striker or a non- 
striker. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conger, I am not getting into whether you 
violated the law. and whether you yourself committed a criminal act 
by doing this. All I am asking is the question as to whether you had 
a paid informant working in the strike kitchen keeping you informed 
of the activities in the strike kitchen. Now yes or no, and you can 
give any explanation you want. But did you not have a paid in- 
formant working in the strike kitchen ? 

Mr. Conger. Not keeping us informed of the general activities in the 
strike kitchen. I want that made clear. 

_ Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a paid informant working in the strike 
kitchen ? 

Mr. Conger. We had a paid informant who was to the best of my 
knowledge — and we did not have it but the investigative agency had a 
paid informant, to the best of my knowledge, reporting to them any- 
thing that she could find out about these criminal activities that were 
going on. 

Mr. Kennedy. But now didn't they keep you informed, or didn't 
you have informants working elsewhere ? We can go into all of this 
now, Mr. Conger, if you want to ; but didn't you have informants work- 
ing a number of other places, to keep you informed as to what was 
going on ? 

JNIr. Conger. No, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, Didn't you have detectives going around to the vari- 
ous bars, listening to what the conversations were? 

Mr. Conger, They were going around to try to find out who was 
committing these acts of vandalism, because we weren't getting law 
enforcement. 

We wanted to do something about it if we could. I also hired a 
detective to find out who did the kidnaping of Oosdyke, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8851 

Senator Curtis. I renew my request or urge the request of the Sena- 
tor from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater. 

The Chairman. All right. 

You may proceed. I am trying to get these records so we can admit 
them. 

Will you bring your original records, the records that the company 
delivered to you as a copy of their exhibit ? 

Mr, Eabinovitz. I will deliver to you what I have. I am not saying 
that they are the originals, Mr. Chairman, I think that they are. May 
I add this, too 

The Chairman. I thought that you said that you had those that 
the company delivered to you, as a copy of the original exhibits filed. 

Mr. Kabinovitz. I believe they are and I shall check them, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. Will you check them and see and bring them up, 
whatever you have, and let us see if we can get this record straight. 

Mr. Rabino\ttz. May I say this, Mr, Chairman, that about the 
picket line, in front of the employment office, this company maintained 
a concealed microphone wired to a place over 200 feet away, and after 
the message was received it was transcribed, picking up any ordinary 
social conversations that these pickets may have had between them- 
selves on the picket line. That was developed at the hearing but for 
some reason or another it was not pursued by general counsel. 

Mr. Conger. I think that I have a right to make a statement in 
answer to that one, too. That was developed at the hearing, and it 
was developed that the purpose of that was to get some information on 
which we later convicted 16 of these people at the employment office 
for contempt of court, for violation of the injunction. 

I believe we do have a right to get evidence to enforce the orders, 
lawful orders of a court. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not undertaking to pass upon this now 
as to what was or was not right at the time or under the circumstances. 
Of course, it is the function of this committee to investigate improper 
practices in labor-management relations. We might pursue something 
and find out or come to the conclusion it is not an improper practice, 
and we might pursue something that we do conclude is an improper 
practice, such as might require some legislative attention. 

The very fact that the National Labor Relations Board found or did 
not find such a thing is not conclusive because this committee can go 
beyond the National Labor Relations Board and inquire into acts that 
it might conclude would be or should be declared improper, and thus 
recommend legislation accordingly. 

Now I am not saying what you have done is right or wrong, and I 
don't say whether I would have done it or would not under the same 
circumstances. But we have a strike here that has been going on 4 
years, and it has had a lot of publicity, I am sure there have been a 
lot of things said that were not true, and probably there have been a 
lot of things said that were true. 

Since we are in this thing, all I want is to get the facts, and we want 
to get the facts now about these books, just what they were, and the 
committee then can pass on whether any of it was improper, or what 
part of it was improper. 



8852 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Conger. I would like to make one more statement and I agree 
thoroughly with what the chairman has said. I just want to point out 
that any investigative report that we ever had was turned over to this 
committee staff as soon as they arrived at our place. 

It was done voluntarily. 

The Chairman. Any investigative report ? I Avould regard this in 
the nature of an investigative report, and was that turned over to the 
staff? 

Mr. Conger. I wouldn't regard it as that, Senator, and I don't want 
to quibble with you over phrases, but that was not turned over. That 
was this investigative report that Mr. Kennedy was talking about. 

This was not turned over, although it was in our files, and I think the 
staff people knew about it. They didn't ask us for it, and we didn't 
give it to them, and probably that might have been because they got it 
from the union and didn't want it twice. 

We certainly didn't make any secret of it, because the reports we 
had 

The Chairman. There is no secret about it, and I mean the original, 
because it is a public document as of now. 

Mr. Conger. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on this question of whether there were any of 
the detective agency, or representatives of the detective agency serving 
on the picket line, I have this report that I would like to have Mr. 
Conger identify. 

Senator Goldwater. Before we go any further, could we have those 
four places read that I referred to ? 

Tlie Chairman. You might have them read while the Chair looks 
at this. Read them, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) . 

Herbert A. Hall, clock No. 7G51, July 1, 1954, grabbed in the car window of 
Edward C. Bunke, as he was leaving the plant, then withdrew and yelled "I'll 
bash your head in." See Bunke's incoming call, .July 8, 1954. Very vile lan- 
guage and congesting traffic. See William Sullivan's affidavit, August 21. 

Eleanor Kalk, clock No. 7266, August 30, 1954, with group picketing resi- 
dences. See Edwin Taubenheim's affidavit, September 1, paragraphs 4 and 6. 

June 12, 1955, provoked the incident in which Carl Darovich was struck on 
the right chinbone by Walter V. Meyer at the E & R Grill in Sheboygan. See 
Carl Darovich's affidavit, June 15, paragraphs 2 to 7 inclusive. 

George Klauser, picket captain, April 11, 1954, involved in incident at main 
gate in which he forcibly tried to prevent Arthur Haefke from entering the 
plant. Arrested for assault and battery. See Arthur Haefke's affidavit, May 
14, 1954, and Robert Schoemer's statement to NLRB representative, dated 
April 29, 1955, paragraph 3. 

Is this your line ? 

Senator Goldwater. I just drew that so you didn't read the whole 
page. You can if you want, but it isn't necessary. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say that there are 3 pages on him, or 4 
pages. [Reading:] 

Kenneth Knowles, clock No. 8079, January 27, 1956, was in group of fellows 
who razzed and threatened Kohler workers and called them names in Willad- 
sen's Tavern in Glenbeulah. See Sylvester Schmitz's affidavit, January 13, 
1956, paragraphs 2 to 5 inclusive. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Tlie Chairman. I hand you what purports to be two reports made 
to your company, and one says "re Kohler" and I will ask you to 
examine these documents and state if vou recognize them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8853 

Let each witness examine them. Possibly Mr. Conger should ex- 
amine them first. I believe they are reports perhaps made to him. 

(Two documents were handed to Mr. Conger.) 

The Chairman. I think those are supposed to be reports, copies 
of reports, that were received by you" from your investigator, or your 
detective, or whoever he was, that you had making the reports to you. 

Mr. Conger. I do not recognize these reports, I do not think, and I 
would have to check them. They are quite voluminous reports that 
I turned over to the staff, but I don't recognize these as anything that 
came from my file. 

The Chairman. You do not recognize them ? 

Mr. Conger. I cannot positively say that they did not come. Sena- 
tor, now, without checking against everything. But I don't recognize 
either of these reports or that they came from my file. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, these are copies of reports that came 
from the Shindler Detective Agency, which is one of the detective 
agencies that Mr. Conger and the Kohler Co. hired in connection with 
this matter. 

The Chairman. Did you employ this Shindler Detective Agency ? 

Mr. Conger. We employed the Shindler Detective Agency to try 
to ascertain who kidnaped Costdyk, and for that simple purpose only. 
We didn't take a pleasant view of kidnaping. 

Mr. Kennedy. They operated under the name of Briggs Supply 
Co.. or at least the records appear in the Kohler Co. under that 
name, and those reports which are copies of the reports that Shindler 
indicated that he made to Mr. Conger of the Kohler Co. indicate that 
on tw^o different occasions the detectives w^ere marching on the picket 
line. 

Mr. Conger. I see nothing in these reports to indicate that detec- 
tives were marching on the picket line. I would not so read them. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will read them, and then everybody can make 
their own determination. 

The Chairman. Who got them from the detective agency? Let's 
get them identified for the record. 

Senator Curtis. Could we see them, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They were obtained under Mr. Bellino's direction. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, you can answer the question here. 

TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO— Resumed 

The Chairman. Where did you get the reports that you have here, 
the two I have just shown the witness ? 

Mr. Bellino. Those were obtained from Mr. William Shindler, of 
New York City. 

The Chairman. Under your direction ? 

Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who is William Shindler ? 

Mr. Belling. He is one who operates a labor detective agency, and 
was employed by the Kohler Co. in the early part of April 1954. 

The Chairman. Was that obtained under subpena? 

Mr. Belling. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Bellino, did you obtain these personally ? 

Mr. Belling. Xo, sir. They were obtained by Mr. Cheasty of the 
New York office. 

21243— 5S—pt. 22 8 



8854 IMPROPER ACTI\'TTTES IN' THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Are these copies or originals ? 

jNIr. Belling. I believe those are copies that were in his files. 

Senator Curtis. Copies in M^hose files '? 

Mr. Kennedy. Shindler. 

Mr. Belling. And some of them we got from Chicago, the Chicago 
agency that Shindler employed, engaged. We obtained some of the 
reports from them. 

Senator Curtis. How many are we dealing with ? Just these two ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have other reports. 

Senator Curtis. How many are you inquiring about ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Those two I wanted to identify on the question of 
whether there were detectives marching Avith the pickets. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Bellino, I will hand you this one and ask yon 
where you obtained it. 

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

Mr. Belling. This one came from Shindler in New York. The 
others came from the Interstate Detective Agency, in Chicago, which 
was an agency engaged by Shindler in New York. 

Senator Curtis. And it was obtained by whom from Shindler? 

Mr. Belling. By Mr. Cheasty, of our staff. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I will hand you another paper which has not 
been identified as an exhibit. Where did you get that? 

Mr. Belling. This is from the same office in New York. 

Senator Ggldwater. Might I ask Mr. Conger a question relative 
to this, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGER— Resumed 

Senator Goldwater. During the time that you had the microphones 
at the front gate, or wherever they Avere 

Mr. Conger. It was on our property and the emploATuent office. 

Senator Ggldwater. Was that during the 2 months of illegal pic- 
keting ? 

Mr. Conger. No, Senator, it was not. It was at a later date when 
there was some illegal picketing in front of the employment office, 
when the men were trying to keep anybody from going into the em- 
ployment office to apply for a job. 

^Ve watched that. We took movies of it. We took some micro- 
phone recordings which didn't amount to much. We didn't get much 
results from it, Init we, frankly, tried. We eventually secured the 
conviction of 16 of these men for contempt of the injunction for that 
violation in front of the employment office. 

Senator Ggldwater. That injunction was against mass picketing? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. That was under the WEKB injunction, and it 
was, in my opinion, a type of mass picketing. What they would do is 
when someone api^roached the employment office to try to get in, would 
be to gang up in front of him and mass around him, and in some cases 
he was kicked, spit upon with tobacco juice, and so forth, and we were 
quite interested in some of the language that was being used. 

We, by that time, were quite familiar with this old dodge that, "We 
were just talking to him nicely and not using any bad language." 

Senator Ggldwater. Mr. Conger, was this mass picketing at the 
employment office after the WERB had ordered a cessation of mass 
picketing in front of the plant ? 



BylPROPER ACriVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8855 

Mr. Conger. Yes. It was not only after that, but it was after the 
circuit court of Sheboygan County had entered an injunction. It 
began in about October. The injunction was entered about September 
1, 1954, and this, I would say, began in October. 

In December, January, and Februaiy it reached some real heights 
that we had to take cognizance of. 

Senator Goldwater. Then under the WERB and, I believe, also 
under the Taft-Hartley, this was illegal picketing. Am I correct? 

Mr. Conger. We certainly thought so, and the judge who found 
these people guilty of contempt agreed with us. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you another question relative to 
this. During the time that you hired this detective agency, was there 
illegal picketing going on ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes; there was. I might say — I want to put in the 
whole record — I don't want to carry the impression that that was the 
only thing we hired the detective agency for. I also hired them to get 
some evidence for me that I intended to use as a defense in the NLRB 
case. The records will also show that I vised them to serve subpenas. I 
used them to keep track of one John Gunaca so that we could serve a 
subpena on him. 

At one time I had them keep track of the whereabouts of Mr. Robert 
Burkhart, whom we wanted to recall as a witness in the NLRB pro- 
ceeding, to be sure that he would be available and we could find him 
when we wanted to serve a subpena on him. 

The Chairman. May I ask one question at this point? Was this 
employment office on your property, on the company property ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where the picketing took place, and where you had 
used your mike, or whatever it was, to pick up the conversations ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes. The mike was hung from the eave of the em- 
ployment-office building, our property. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. I just wanted to find out if this occurred 
on your property. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the purpose you hired the Matson 
Detective Agency for ? Was that to find out about acts of vandalism ? 

Mr. Conger. That was one of the purposes, Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. What were the other purposes ? 

Mr. Conger. Another purpose was to prepare evidence for us in 
the NLRB proceeding. 

Senator Kennedy. What sort of evidence were you looking for ? 

Mr. Conger. Evidence of a subversive background of one Robert 
Burkhart, which has been brought out here. That was one of the 
things. 

Senator Kennedy. ^Yliat were the others ? 

Mr. Conger. Well, we checked — that was the principal thing in 
that respect that I can think of now. 

Senator Kennedy. You can't think of anything else, Mr. Conger? 

Mr. Conger. Pardon me ? 

Senator Kennedy. You can't think of anytliing else ? 

Mr. Conger. That is the only thing I can think of right now that 
we employed them for. We emploj^ed them one time to serve sub- 
poenas. At one time Mr. Matson suggested that he could make some 
recommendations as to our plant security. 



8856 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy, Aren't 3'ou forgetting one of the most important 
things that tlie Matson Agency did for you ^ 

Mr. Conger. Maybe I am, if you Avill tell me about it. 

Senator Kennedy. Here is a letter, "Ee Kobert Burkhart," and you 
obviously employed the Matson Agency to prepare material on Robert 
Burkhart, you indicated that. They wrote you a letter on April 3, 
1955, addressed to you, in which they stated, and I .quote : 

Mr. Couger furnished information at this time to the effect that he was in- 
terested iu Ivuowing exactly where Burkhart was living at the present time, 
and whether or not he was still living in the state of husband and wife with 
Grace Chilson, mentioned in previous reports. 

Then he went on to saj^, your correspondent : 

However, since the confidential informant source was highly reliable, it was 
decided to discuss this matter with Lt. Henry Kuszewski of the morals squad 
of the Milwaukee Police Department. The complete background of Burkhart 
was given to Lieutenant Kuszewski at this time, and he advised that his depart- 
ment would be very much interested in knowing whether or not Burkhart was 
living at that address with a woman who was not his wife, but whom he held 
out to be his wife. 

And then: 

Upon arrival in Milwaukee, Wis., Lieutenant Kuszewski was furnished with 
photographs of Burkhart and Grace Chilson, and also the marriage application 
of Robert Burkhart and Margaret Ileplogle, his true wife, and information from 
Kotowicz to the effect that these two parties who were married in Toledo, Ohio, 
in 1939, had never been divorced. 

Lieutenant Kuszewski advised that as far as could be ascertained, Burkhart 
was due back from the convention at Cleveland over the week end of April 
2, 3, or 4, and that this would be an advisable time to have his men make a spot 
check of the area. Lieutenant Kuszewski advised that if he determined that 
these people were living together as man and wife at this area, that his men 
would follow with an arrest if it was desired. He said that this arrest would 
be made during the middle of the night when it could be positively proven at 
the time that tliey were living together as husband and wife. You will be ad- 
vised further as to the results of the surveillance and the activities of Lieutenant 
Kuszewski. 

If that isn't the most despicable business that a company can be 
involved in. It has nothing to do with the union business; it has 
nothing to do with subversive activities, but merely an attempt to 
smear and discredit the leader of the union with nothing that was any 
of your business, but just his private business. 

K^enator Curtis. Just a minute. 

Senator Kennedy. You have been asking all afternoon. Just a 
minute. 

Senator Curtis. You objected to me putting it in the record yes- 
terday. 

Senator Kennedy. It is all in the record. It is a matter of public 
information. 

Senator Curtis. What I want to know is 

Senator Kennedy. I know that the Senator may be anxious to in- 
terfere in this discussion, but I would like to have Mr. Conger answer 
the question. 

The Chairman. Answer the question. Senator Curtis may then 
inquire. 

Mr. Conger. We were interested in Mr. Burkhart 's marital status 
for two reasons, Senator. One is that at that time the NLRB case 
was proceeding against us. We expected Mr. Robert Burkhart to be 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8857 

a very impoitant witness, find we were looking" for any impeacliment 
material possible. 

I think, Senator, the fact that a man wnll live and hold out a woman 
as his wife publicly, who is not his wife, reflects very much on his 
credibility as a witness in any proceedino^. 

Senator Kexnkdy. What we are talking about, Mr. Conger, is your 
detective agency attempting to have him arrested on that basis. 

Mr. CoNOER. May I answer that one ? 

Senator Kennedy. Of course, you did that. 

]\Ir. Conger. I do not know whether the Senator was in the room 
when Mr. Burkhart called us murderers, but I think w^e have every 
right to let the ])ublic know what kind of a character is calling us 
murderers and other uncomplimentary names. 

I will tell you that as soon as I got this information about Mr. 
Robert Burkhart, T turned it over to the chief of police of Sheboygan, 
who didn't seem to be interested in taking any action. I turned it over 
to the district attorney of Sheboygan County, wdio didn't seem to be 
interested in any action. The police of Milwaukee did seem to be 
interested in it. 

Senator Kennedy. Ultimatel}^ he was arrested as the result of the 
activity of your detective agency in serving as a guide and exploring 
into Mr. Burkhart's personal life. 

Mr. Conger. That was not Mr. Burkhart's personal life. That was 
apart. Senator, you are going to find out later that this woman was 
very active in union activities there. So her status and her credibility 
went into this picture very much. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Mr. Conger, inasmuch as this subject has been 
brought up, was Mr. Burkhart married at the time ? 

Mr. Conger. He was married, but not to the woman he was represent- 
ing as his wife. 

Senator Goldw^vter. Where was his wife living ? 

Mr. Conger. She was living in Toledo, Ohio. 

Senator Goldwater. Had he had any children at the time ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, he had two children. 

Senator Goldwwter. It think it is rather despicable on INIr. Burk- 
hart's part to act like that. I cannot condone it. 

The Chairman. All right, gentlemen. The Chair held yesterday 
that he did not think that this was pertinent to this inquiry. How- 
ever, I said at the time that if anybody w^anted to overi'ule the Chair, 
they were at liberty to do so. Now you have it all in the record. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I will say, and the Chair is free 
to comment on it, the matter was put into the record yesterday. "\^niat 
I was interested in was the employment of a detective agency in order 
to investigate the personal life of an adversary in an industrial strug- 
gle, and an attempt not only to investigate and determine the facts, 
but also to stimulate and encourage the police force to make a raid. 
T am not defending Mr. Burkhart's conduct at all. 

What I am talking about is your conduct, JNIr. Conger, in stimulat- 
ing a raid on a man's home in order to arrest him and a woman in 
order to discredit the union. 

Mr. Conger. I will say, Senator, that in my opinion, any cil:izen 
has a right to report a criminal act to the police at any time. 



8858 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, All right. We have it in the record, gentlemen. 
Let's proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I made reference, when this arose, to previous 
precedents of this committee, on evidence of that type. I think it is 
pertinent that I ask these questions now. 

Do you know, Mr. Conger, whether or not Mr. Burkhart and this 
woman that has been referred to were arrested ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, they were. 

Senator Curtis. Where ? 

Mr. Conger. In the city of Milwaukee. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who appeared as attorney ? 

Mr. Conger. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Curtis. Who was it ? 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Max Raskin, state counsel of the UAW-CIO. 

Senator Curtis. He is a paid employee of the UAW-CIO? 

Mr. Conger. That is my understanding, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the charge ? 

Senator Curtis. I don't know what the charge was. 

The Chairman. Do you know what the charge was ? 

Mr. Conger. Disorderly conduct, I understand. 

The Chairman. Disorderly conduct. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you finished ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. I just want to establish that the point was 
raised against me yesterday that it was inadmissible because there 
weren't any union funds involved. I now have been able to complete 
my showing that there were union funds. 

The Chairman. The Chair makes rulings and sometimes he is right 
and sometimes he is wrong. But I have to rule, just like in a court. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know, Senator, did the union attorney get 
paid by Mr. Burkhart ? 

Senator Curtis. I never got to ask him. I was shut off. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have these two records regarding the picketing, 
the people on the picket line. This is on the question of whether you 
had a representative of the detective agency on the picket line. One 
of the reports is dated May 18, 1954, from operator No. 371, of the 
detective agency, and it states, in the opening sentence : 

After serving on picket duty again today with Smirke, headquarters soup 
kitchen was visited. 

Can there be any question after that ? 

Mr. Conger. I do not recall those reports. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said that the reports did not indicate that they 
had served. 

Mr. Conger. To the best of my knowledge, they did not, and I don't 
think that that report does indicate that the man was walking the 
picket line with the pickets. He was at the soup kitchen, certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. It says, "After serving on picket duty again today 
with Smirke, headquarters soup kitchen was visited." 

If you don't think that shows he is serving on the picket line 

Mr. Conger. I doubt it, because Mr. Smirke, as it is properly pro- 
nounced, is a tavern keeper in Sheboygan and was never, to the best of 
my knowledge, a striker. He runs a bar in Sheboygan. Of course. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8859 

there were some Sheboygan people that sometimes came out on the 
picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. You state that that does not state that he served on 
the picket line, "After serving on picket duty again." 

Mr. Conger. I didn't recall that report at all. I am not sure now 
that it would mean to me, when I read it at the time, that he was serving 
on the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking you that, Mr. Conger. You stated 
you looked at the report and it didn't show that he served on picket 
duty. I am not asking you if you remember. 

Then on May 15, 1954, "Operator was invited to take part in the 
picket line, which he will do tomorrow morning." 

Mr. Conger. "Which he will do." I don't know whether he ever did 
or not. 

The Chairman. All right. Is there anything further? Is there 
anything further with this witness ? 

We will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Present at the time of recess : Senators McClellan, Kennedy, Gold- 
water, and Curtis.) 

( Wliereupon, at 4 : 45 p. m. the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 a. m., Thursday, March 6, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. 0. 

The select committee met at 10 a. m. pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room. Senate OiRce 
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; Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; and Carl T. Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome S. Alder- 
man, assistant chief counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; 
and 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, Ives, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Desmond. 

Mr. Conger. I would like to make a statement. 

The Chairman. Just one moment, let us get order. 

The Chair was going to ascertain, Mr. Conger, whether you have 
checked those records, you or the other attorney have checked those 
records to ascertain whether you had the original copies. 

Mr. Conger. You mean of the big book ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Conger. No, we do not. Excuse me. Senator, Yes, we do have 
i\\% original books ; yes. 

The Chairman. You have the original ? 

Mr. Conger. I was positive of that yesterday. 

The Chairman. Now let me see, who is the attorney we were ques- 
tioning yesterday. 

Mr. RABINO^^Tz. I think that I am. Senator. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID EABINOVITZ— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Rabinovitz, yesterday you stated that you 
thought you had the original records down at your hotel. That is <:he 
copy of — what do you call this — incidents records. Have you made a 
search and have you found them ? 

8861 



8862 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. RABINO\^Tz. I have, Mr. Chairman. I find that what I have is 
identical to what the committee has, and as I remember the records the 
Kohler Co. gave me, and which was a copy of what was introduced at 
the hearing were of the color of black, and they were black books, and 
those I believe are in Sheboygan. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Have you compared your records with those that 
the committee has, as provided it by the union? 

Mr. Rabinoa^itz. You mean these that I have ? 

The Chairman. Have you compared the records that you still have, 
with those of the committee ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I have not. Your Honor, but I am sure they are 
alike. And I am sure, to, I have used these records so frequently, I 
am sure, that the records that the committee has are exact copies of 
what the General Counsel introduced at the hearing, and of which the 
company now says they have a copy here in Washington. 

The Chairman. Do you have any doubt now, Mr. Conger, about the 
authenticity of the copies that the committee has ? 

Mr. Conger. I cannot say one way or the other, Senator. I have 
never seen these documents and I have never had a chance to check 
them against the original. I would be willing for the committee to 
accept them subject to any errors that we may find in them, but they 
are not our copies, and certainly something has been added to them, 
at least on the back, in the description of them. 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to order them made an exhibit 
temporarily, exhibit No. 44, in order to get them in the record, subject 
to correction and revision if any errors are found, or they contain any 
errors. 

(Documents referred to were market "Exhibit No. 44," for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

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

Senator Curtis. May I inquire whether or not these books that have 
been received in evidence have had any title or tabs placed on them 
that were not a part of the books as delivered by the company? 

The Chairman. Senator, may I sa}^, I appreciate your reminding me 
of that. I wanted any record of any tab removed from them as an 
exhibit, because that is in issue, and that is in controversy, and so all 
I want made an exhibit is the record itself. Anybody can put any kind 
of a title on it they want to from there on. 

The Chairman. Do you have your records ? 

]Mr. Kennedy. You haven't your records here ? 

Mr. Conger. They are at the hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought the understanding last evening when there 
was a question raised about these records, was that you were going 
to bring your records in this morning. 

Mr. Conger. I did not, unfortunately, have that understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would have made it very clear, as to whether 
these records yesterday wei-e accurate or not, regarding these checks 
on these individuals. If you brought your own records, we could check 
them. 

The Chairman. Do you have any doubt about the validity now 
and authenticity of the records that I have made an exhibit? 

Mr. Conger. As we go along, Senator, and things are read out of 
them, we will have a chance to check against our records. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8863 

The Chair^ncan. No ; bring your records in. I don't want to have 
an eternal liaranuue and wrangle here about whether these records 
are coi'iect oi- not. 

Mr. Conger. I am willing to bring our records in, certainly. 

The CiTAiRivrAN. Get your records and let us make a comparison and 
settle it once and for all. Mr. Counsel, appoint a member of the staff 
here to confer with a menibei- of the company and compare the records, 
and tlien let them report back to us whether thei-e is any discrepancy 
or anything that needs correction. 

Let us get this thing settled once and for all. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say that we checked, we did not know about 
the fourth volume, but from checking the fourth volume, yesterday 
1 reported some T()0 names and actually the Kohler Co. had reports 
on some 952 different individuals from those reports. 

The Chairman. Is there a fourth volume? 

Mr. CoNOER. There are four volumes as submitted to the NLRB, 
and as we have it in our records, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are 952 names. 

The Chairman. How many volumes did we make and exhibit here? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just three. 

The Chairman. The fourth one would be included in this exhibit, 
and a comparison will be made now by designating some member of 
the staff', Mr. Counsel, to confer with their attorney, and examine 
them, and let us ascertain whether there is any further challenge as 
to the validity of the records that I have made a temporary exhibit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Domiell will check it. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. O'Donnell will represent the staff, 
and you designate someone rei^resenting your company, and let us 
have the com])arison made, and then get the issue settled. 

Mr. Conger. All right. 

The Cpiairman. All right, Mr. Conger, do you have something to 
say? 

Mr* Conger. At ,the conclusion of my testimony yesterday after- 
noon, the situation arose that I feel called on to bring to the attention 
of this committee. 

As I was leaving the witness stand here, Mr. Emil INIazey, secre- 
tary-treasurer of the International TTAW, a]^proached me, in a threat- 
ening manner. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Emil Mazey, secretary-treasury, and unloosed 
against me such foul language that in deference to this committee I 
would not repeat it, unless specifically directed to do so. 

That language did not intimidate me, but I think such treatment 
could very well intimidate future witnesses appearing before this com- 
mittee, and I think it is mv duty to call it to the attention of the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation : If I find, and 
if the proof is before us, that anyone is undertaking by threats of 
violence or any other kind of threats calculated to intimidate any wit- 
ness who has been called or who is expected to appear before this 
committee, if proof of that is established I believe it would constitute 
contempt of the United States Senate. 

I will undertake to proceed accordingly. Wliether that ruling can 
be enforced, or whether it will be upheld, I do not know. But this 



8864 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

committee in its effort to do tliis serious and important work must 
not be interfered with by improper practices and improper conduct 
on the part of anyone. 

The Cliair gives that warning. I am sure that there may be still 
a great deal of feeling between individual people representing dif- 
ferent interests in this controversy, and there obviously is still con- 
siderable bitterness. That is something that you folks settle outside. 

If you want to have a quarrel with each other that is your business. 
But any attempt to intimidate, coerce, or frighten witnesses to keep 
them from coming before this committee and giving their version of 
what the truth and the facts are, I shall regard, and I trust the com- 
mittee will agree with me, as an act of contempt of the United States 
Senate. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mazey informs me 

Senator Mundt. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I am not a lawyer 
but I think I am enough of a lawyer to loiow this is not testimony. 
If Mr. Mazey is in the room, and he has been charged with something, 
we don't want to have the lawyer saying Mr. Mazey informed him. 

Mr. Rauji. We have had a charge made against us, and I have a 
right to answer it. 

The Chairman. Listen, just a moment. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Conger stated a lie. 

The Chairman. Now just a moment. I happen to be chairman of 
this committee, and I am going to do my best to keep order. 

Senator Mundt. It is about time we found out who is running this 
committee. 

The Chairman. The Chair will recognize you at the proper time, 
but when a member of this committee wishes to speak, the member 
of this committee will have the preference. 

Senator Muxut. Thank you. My point, Mr. Chairman, is this, and 
I submit it to you as a distinguished lawyer and as chairman: 

I say if this charge, and I know nothing about this, but we have 
a very serious charge, in my opinion, that somebody in the commit- 
tee room has been using foul language and trying to intimidate a 
witness. That is the charge. 

Now, we have a lawyer coming in saying that Mr. Mazey tells him, 
and I submit that isn't evidence. And if Mr. Mazey is in the room, and 
wants to talk and deny it, we should subpena him under oath and let 
him do so. 

But if I have learned anything in my law education at this com- 
mittee table, it is that this kind of indirect hearsay should not be sub- 
mitted before us when we have the witness in the room at the moment. 

The Chairman. Now let the Chair make this observation: The 
Chair is not accepting and it is not intended that these statements be 
accepted as evidence. They are charges, and they are addressing the 
committee to report incidents to the committee. I have made a state- 
ment here, and I trust the committee backs me up in it. 

Senator Ives. We do. 

The Chairman. With respect to the statement we made that we 
would regard it as contempt of the United States Senate, any attempt 
to interfere with 

Senator Mundt. I not only back you up in that, but I back you up 
in your very commendable reprimand of this counsel Avho has been 
interrupting us over and over again more than any counsel we have 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8865 

ever had before any committee of which I have been a member, I am 
glad that yon have brought that to the attention of the counti-y and the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Let the chairman make this observation again. 

Gentlemen, this is a difficult task I have. I am trying to be as lenient 
and as liberal as it is possible to be, and keep order, decorum, and rea- 
sonable proper procedure. I am doing my best to, and I would like 
the cooperation of everyone. 

Senator Mundt. May I say that is true except when this young man 
gets up and tries to make more noise and outtalk the members of the 
committee. It seems to me that he should realize that this is not his 
committee. 

The Chairman. Well, this young lawyer as you refer to him, or no 
one is going to out talk this committee as long as I have got this gavel. 
I can promise you that now. 

All I ask of you gentlemen on both sides is to address the Chair, and 
when the Chair recognizes you, then we will indulge you for what we 
consider to be proper. But if you persist in a course of conduct that I 
deem, and the committee sustains me in deeming to be improper, 
obstreperous or disrespectful, you will be invited to retire and your 
presence will no longer be permitted. 

If that isn't plain enough, and if you have any doubt about what I 
mean, why I will try to explain so there will be no misunderstanding. 

Now, then, the Chair will hear you. 

Mr. Eauh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I meant no disrespect, and 
I mean none whatever. I am here representing a union in a trial, 
really, your honor, and it is a little different than ordinary hearings. 

I would like to say that what occasioned the incident yesterday, sir, 
was that Mr. Conger told Mr. Mazey that he had spies following Mr. 
Mazey, and it was that that I wanted to bring before this committee, 
that Air. Conger admitted to Mr. Mazey that he had been following 
him, and it seemed to me that was something that your committee 
should know, that this man who is testifying here had our secretary- 
treasurer shadowed. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The Chair makes this further observation. If you 
folks want to have a quarrel and fuss with each other and cuss each 
other, get out of here to do it. That is all I can say to you. 

We are not going to tolerate it here. But anybody who attempts to 
intimidate a witness, coerce him, or try to frighten him from testify- 
ing or from appearing here and cooperating with this committee, I 
have announced my position with respect to it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, the counsel did not present a point 
of law, and he attempted to recite facts, and he did not state whether 
he heard the conversation he referred to, and I do not believe he is 
under oath. 

Now, I have two suggestions to make : If this matter is to be pur- 
sued, I think the best evidence should be used, and it should be under 
oath. I also believe that it might contribute to orderly procedure if 
that space back there reserved for witnesses just before they take the 
witness stand, and counsel, if that space could be cleared out. 

There nre a number of people sitting there. I don't know who 
they are, but I would like to have them identify themselves. There 
is quite an aggregation back of Mr. Rauh there. 



8866 IMPROPER ACT^IVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

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

The Chairman. My understanding is some of them are attorneys. 
Mr. Smith is an attorney, and the attorney we just had on the witness 
stand a moment ago, and these other two gentlemen in front are at- 
torneys. Those folks in the back, I don't know who they are. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I think it would help clarify this 
situation, if Mr, Mazey is in the audience, if he will stand up, so we 
will know whether he is in a position to intimidate witnesses or not. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Mazey has informed me tliat he is prepared to 
testify on the incident of yesterday afternoon. 

Senator Mundt. Is he in the audience, Mr. Rauh, and, if so, would 
you have him stand up ? 

Mr. Mazey, I am Emil Mazey. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Mazey, you are now identified. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio are the other members back there? 

The Chairman. Each one of you stand up, and we will see wlio 
you are. 

Mr. Conger. Me, too ? 

The Chairman. You, yes. All of you. Start here and repeat your 
name and address. 

Senator Mundt. And position. 

Mr. Conger. Lyman C. Conger, counsel for Kohler Co. 

Mr. Smith. Ellison D. Smith, Jr., counsel for Kohler Co. 

Mr. Desmond. Girard A. Desmond, attorney for Kohler Co. 

Mr. Rauh. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., counsel for UAW. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. David Rabinowitz, counsel for UAW. 

Mr. Conway. Jack Conway, administrative assistant to the presi- 
dent of the UAW. 

Mr. Breirather. Leo Breirather, chief steward of local 833. 

Mr. Kranz. Harry Kranz, assistant to the president, UAW. 

Mr. Mazey. Emil Mazey, secretary-treasiu-er of the UAW. 

Mr. Ferrazza. Jess Ferrazza, assistant to Emil Mazey. 

The Chairman. All of you gentlemen who are not attorneys, step 
back and take seats in the back. 

Are there any further questions of these witnesses ? 

All right, you may stand aside. Call the next wntness. Counsel. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Rauh. INIr. Mazey has requested that a table be set up equal 
to the one that was supplied to the company back here. We didn't 
get a table like the com]iany did there, so our people sat here. Would 
it be possible that Ave could have equal facilities as that table? 

The Chairman. Where is the custodian of the building? Get them 
a table. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. 

Tlie Chairman. See if they need some pencils, too. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole tnitli and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Van Oitwerkerk. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8867 

TESTIMONY OF WILLARD VAN OUWERKEEK 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence and busi- 
ness or occupation. Let 's have order, please. 

Mr. Van Ouw?.kkerk. My name is Willard Van Ouwerkerk, 636 
Pine Street, Sheboyoan Falls, Wis. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkkrk. No. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I do. 

The Chairman. All rijjht; proceed, ]Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name is spelled V-a-n 0-u-w-e-r-k-e-r-k; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your first name is Willard ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you come from Sheboygan Falls, Wis.? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you working at tlie Kohler plant ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you in 1954 working at the Kohler i^lant? 

Mr. Van Ouavekkerk. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you joined the UAW? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they went out on strike, you did not support 
the strike ; is that right ? 

Mr. Van Ouw^erkerk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Following the time that they went out on strike and 
the mass picketing ended, and .you could go back to Avork, you went 
back to w^ork, did you ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there at that time some considerable bitterness 
between the strikers and the nonstrikers ? 

Mr. Van Ouw^erkerk. I would say there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. On or about June 18, 1954, did you visit a tavern, 
Zapetto's Tavern ? 

Mr. Van Oitsverkerk. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Sheboygan Falls, Wis. ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That Avas about 11 :45 p. m. ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. If I remember right, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately that time ? 

Mr. Van Ouw^erkerk. Approximately ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were there, was there a conversation with 
a woman ? 

]\Ir. A'^AN Ouw^erkerk. There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did that woman identify herself as Mrs. Robert 
Burkhart? 

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

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what occurred 
during that conversation and then what happened? 

Mr. Van Ouaverkerk. She asked me who I was and I told her. 



8868 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mrs. Burkliart doing at that time? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I woukhi't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was she just in the tavern ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I imagine she was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you see her ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She came up to us. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were sitting at the bar ; were you ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I was sitting at the bar with my wife. 

Mr. Kennedy. xVnd she came up and started talking to you? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Continue, please. 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Well, she asked me if I belonged to the union 
and I said "no." Well, she wanted to know why not, and I told her 
that — well, I just didn't believe it; that I figured that if the lines were 
open, I had a family to support, and I thought I was going to support 
them. 

So then we were talking a little while longer. I don't just remem- 
ber the conversation. 

iSIr. Kennedy. Did she identify herself at that time ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did she know who you were ? 

Mr. Van Ouw^erkerk. She knew from somebody. I don't know 
who. 

Mr. Kennedy. She said you were Willard Van Ouwerkerk? 

Mr. Van Ou^verkerk. That is right. She introduced herself as 
Mrs. Robert Burkhart. 

Mr. Kennedy. Continue. 

Mr. Van OmvERKERK. Well, we talked a little while longer and 
finally she said, "Well, I will call somebody." I don't remember the 
name'. I said, "No ; that wouldn't be necessary." 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did she say she would have to call somebody? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkf'rk. Well, I suppose she wanted somebody else 
to talk to me. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. She started to talk to you about not working at the 
plant? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then she said she was going to get somebody 
else to talk to you, and she was going to call someone? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes. I told her that wouldn't be necessary 
because we were leaving. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it antagonistic at that time? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No ; I wouldn't say it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you didn't want to get into any kind of an argu- 
ment ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I didn't want to get into anything. Then 
as I got off the stool, somebody hit me from behind, in the back of 
the head. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were struck on the back of the head ? 

]VIr. Van Ouwerkerk. I Avas. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you never saw the person who struck you at 
all? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I never saw him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were knocked down then ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8869 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I was knocked unconscious. I was on the 
floor. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were knocked unconscious ? 

Mr. Van Oiaverkerk. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when did you regain consciousness ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I regained consciousness outside. 

Mr. Kennedy. You regained consciousness outside ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Afterward, was it related to you as to what happened 
when you were knocked down to the floor ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes. I heard about it afterward. 

Mr. Kennedy, What did they tell you as to what happened ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Well, they told me that this person had 
worked on me with his feet on my back. 

Mr. Kennedy. With his what? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. With his feet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once you were knocked to the ground from behind, 
the man then began to kick you, is that right ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he kicked you in your ribs ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. My ribs, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And continued to kick you until they pulled him 
away ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And finally somebody carried you outside ? 

Mr. Van Ouwt:rkerk. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^Hien you regained consciousness, did you subse- 
quently go to the hospital ? 

Mr. Van Ouw^erkerk. Do you mean directly? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, directly you did not go ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No. 

]VIr. Kennedy. But subsequently you did go to the hospital ? 

Mr. Van Ouaverkerk. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? The following day? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. This was on a Friday night. I went to the 
hospital on Sunday. 

Mr. Kennedy. JDid they take X-rays at that time ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That I ain't sure of. I couldn't answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did they find, anyway, that you had any ribs 
broken or any broken bones in your body ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes, through X-rays. 

Mr. Kennedy. Through X-rays ? 

]\Ir. Van Ouwt:rkerk. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. How many ribs did you find were broken ? 

]\Ir. Van Ouwerkerk. It was either 3 or 4. 

Mr. Kennedy. Three or four of your ribs ? 

jNIr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you beaten in any other place? 

^Ir. Van Ou^vERKERK. Well, I had a punctured lung, and then I 
contracted pneumonia from that lung. 

Mr. Kennedy. You contracted pneumonia from that lung. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 9 



8870 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IW THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. How long were you in the hospital ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I was in there some twenty-odd days. I 
think it was 22. 

(At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Mr. Kennedy. So you were Imocked down by an unknown assailant 
and when you were down on the floor, he proceeded to kick you, and 
you were kicked and knocked unconscious. You were carried out- 
side and ultimately went to this hospital and found that you had 3 
or 4 broken ribs, liad a punctured lung, and ultimately contracted 
pneumonia, is that right? Was there anything else regarding that? 
Mr. Van Ouwtsrkerk. In what way ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I mean anything else that happened to you, 
not that that is not sufficient, but was there anything else regarding 
this incident ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No, I wouldn't say so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, subsequently, charges were brought against 
this man ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was found to be Mr. William Vinson ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is an international organizer for the UAW ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. He did not come from Sheboygan. 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No. 
Mr. Kennedy. He was brought in from Detroit ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. The way I understand, he was. 
Mr. Kennedy. But he had not worked in the plant ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you identified him as an international organizer 
of the UAW, is that correct ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Well, I heard he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And subsequently there was a trial held and he was 
found guilty ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. And the judge sentenced him to 2 years. 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I believe that is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. That was Judge Schlicting ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Judge Schlicting denounced by Mr. Emil 
Mazey,oftheUAW? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. They had a lot of trouble. I don't know what 
it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he was denounced by Mr. 
Emil Mazey, of the UAW ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I couldn't answer that. 
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any personal Icnowledge of that ? 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No, I don't. 
Mr. Kennedy. I expect we will go into that. 
Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do I understand that after you received this beat- 
ing from an international rejiresentative of the union that the court 
was criticized for the decision it rendered ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. To my knowledge it was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8871 

The Chairman. Do you know whether any action was ever taken 
by the international to condemn or to reprimand or to in any way 
punish Mr. Vinson for his vicious assault upon you ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No, I don't. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether Mr. Vinson is still a repre- 
sentative of the international union ? 

Mr. Van Ouwekerk. I wouldn't know. 

The Chairman. Will we be able to show these facts by the witness? 

Mr. Kennedy. Ket>ardino; the attack by Mr. Vinson ? 

The C^H AIRMAN. The question arises in my mind of did the interna- 
tional union condone and approve the action of its international repre- 
sentative in making this assault 'i 

Mr. Kennedy. We will have testimony on that. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might read from the Supreme Court in upholding 
Judge Schlicting, circuit court judge, it states : 

The violence of Mr. Vinson's attack on Mr. Van Ouwerkerk, the continuation 
of the attack of kicking while Mr. Van Ouwerkerk lay helpless on the floor, the 
serious injuries which Vinson inflicted, the disproportion in the size and age of 
two men, which removed fear of personal danger to Vinson from reprisal by Van 
Ouwerkerk, are matters of evidence which the jury was entitled to consider when 
reaching a conclusion concerning Vinson's state of mind while he carried on the 
assault. It is quite impossible to conclude under such circumstances that in so 
doing, ^'inson lacked an intent to hurt Van Ouwerkerk and hurt him badly. 
Contrary to appellant's contention, the evidence and the inferences from which 
it was the province of the jury to draw, established beyond a reasonable doubt, 
that the assault was made by Vinson with the intent to inflict great bodily harm 
on Van Ouwerkerk. 

The Chairman. May I ask the witness if this Mrs. Burkhart who 
accosted you there and inquired about your union membership, is she 
the wife of the Burkhart who testified here a day or two ago? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. To my knowledge she was. I don't know for 
sure. 

The Chair]man. It appears that at that time possible he had two 
wives. Do you know which one it Avas ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. No, I wouldn't. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. How tall are you, Mr. Van Ouwerkerk? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. About 5 feet, 6 inches. 

Senator Curtis. How much do you weigh ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. About 125. 

Senator Curtis. Was that about your weight at the time this assault 
was committed against you ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. How old are you ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. 53 now. 

Senator Curtis. Who accom])anied you into this tavern ? 

Mr. Van Ouaverkerk. My wife. 

Senator Curtis. She remained there during that assault ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She did. 

Senator Curtis. She saw what happened ? 

Mr. Van Ouaverkerk. Yes, I Avould say she Avould. 

Senator Curtis. Where Avere you and your Avif e ? Seated at a table 
or up near the bar some place ? 



k 



8872 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES .IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Van Ouwerkeiik. We were at the bar. 

Senator Curtis. And that is where you were when this woman came 
up and talked to you i 

Mr. Van Ouwerkkrk. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And she held herself out to be Mrs. Robert Burk- 
hart? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. What was the purpose of her engaging you in 
conversation ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Well, I don't know what it would be. She 
must have found my name from somebody. 

Senator Curtis. But she asked where you worked? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes, she did. 

Senator Curtis. Then did she ask you what part you were taking 
in the strike or what your position was ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She asked me why I was working. 

Senator Curtis. And by that she meant why were you working 
while the strike was going on ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. What did you tell her ? 

Mr. Van Oirverkerk. I told her I had a family to support, that I 
didn't figure on joining the union and that is why I was working. 

Senator Curtis. How much family do you have ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. I have four daughters. 

Senator Curtis. What are their ages ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Do you mean now or then ? 

Senator Curtis. At that time. Just approximately. 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. 8, 12, 15, and 19. 

Senator Curtis. AVhat happened after you told her that you were 
working and why you were working ? Then what did she say to you ? 

]\Ir. Van Ouwerkerk. Well 

Senator Curtis. Did she disagree with you on working? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. As much as I remember, sure she did. 

Senator Curtis. Then what did she say she was going to do ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. She said she would call somebody. 

Senator Curtis. I see. 

The Chairman. Call somebody ? 

Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your belief that her conversation with you 
and her statement she would call somebody was connected with the 
assault that was inflicted upon you ? 

Mr. Van Oitwerkerk. I think it was. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, have you any questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you have any further statement to make. 

Mr. OmvERKERK. No, I haven't. 

The Chairman. You may be excused from the witness stand for 
the present, but stand by. You may be recalled. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. William Vinson. 

The Chairman. You will be sworn. 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. Vinson. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8873 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM VINSON 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and busi- 
ness or occupation. 

Mr. Vinson. My name is William Vinson. I work for Chrysler 
Corp. in Detroit, Mich. I live at 8956 Armour, Detroit, Mich. 

]Mr. Kauii. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel representing you ? Is it Mr. 
Rauh? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Let the record so show. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Mr. Rauh. 

Mr. Rauh. May my letter requesting that the Vinson case not be 
retried be made a part of the record and read into it at this point? 

The Chairman. I have no objection. Is there any objection? 

The letter will be made a part of the record at this point. 

(The letter referred to is as follows :) 

Rauh & Levy, 
Washington, D. C, March 6, 1958. 
Senator John L. McClfllan, 
Chairman, Select Committee, 

Senate Office Bnilding, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator McClellan : The United Automobile Workers respectfully re- 
quests that the committee refrain from retrying the assault case for which 
William Vinson, a member of Local 212 of United Automobile Workers, has 
already paid his full measure of legal penalty. 

We understand that the committee intends this morning to call a number of 
witnesses concerning the incident for which Mr. Vinson was convicted and 
sentenced. We believe that, in all fairness, where a man has paid his debt to 
society, he should not be subjected to a second penalty through public rehearing 
of his case. 

We appeal to the sense of fair play of the chairman and of the members of this 
committee in this regard. 
Sincerely yours, 

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. 

The Chairman. The request is overruled. This committee is not 
trying the case again. This committee is inquiring into improper 
practices, whether they have resulted in a case that has been disposed 
of or not. So we will proceed. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Vinson, you were in Sheboygan, Wis. ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time, what position did you hold ? 

Mr. Vinson. Do you mean in the union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Vinson. I was chief steward for Briggs Manufacturing Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Briggs Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is local 212 of the UAW ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been elected to that position ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I had. 

]\f r. Kennedy. How long had you held the position ? 

Mr. Vinson. About 4 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were elected when, about 1950 ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe I was elected in 1949. 



8874 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is the Briggs Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is in Detroit ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. You went up to Sheboygan, Wis., to assist in the 
strike ? 

Mr. ViNSoK. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Would you tell the committee why you went up 
there? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, the Briggs Manufacturing Co., as you kno^v, 
manufacturers plumbingware, and any time that there is a s^yeatshop 
anywhei'e in the country that people are not getting a fair break, as 
far as wages and working conditions, it has always been a practice in 
my local to try to help organize these places, whereyer they might be, 
Detroit or whateyer might happen as far as the people to be organized. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who decided that you should be sent up there? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I don't know offhand just who called and asked 
us to come up there. I believe the call was made from Chicago at 
the time. Our local offices were there, and they called somebody at the 
local and they got in touch with me at home and asked me to go up 
there. 

Mr. Kennedy. What compensation did you receive while up there? 

Mr. VixsoN. I was paid by my local union while I was up there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 212? 

Mr. ViNvSON. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not paid by the international ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any expenses from the international ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was all compensation from your local 212? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you received your instructions to go up from an 
officer of local 212? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't believe he was an officer of 212. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who gave you the instructions to go up there ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't remember fully who it was that actually called 
me at home and asked me to go up there. I believe Kuss Barrow was 
the man from Chicago who called Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Russ Barrow ? What is his position ? 

Mr. Vinson. He is deceased now. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe he was recording secretary at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of local 212 ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went up there. "Wliat were the financial 
arrangements? 

Mr. Vinson. When we went up there, there wasn't any financial ar- 
rangements, other than to give us expense money to go up, and after 
we were up there it was to be worked out how much money we would 
get for lost time for waffes lost from the shop. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else from local 212 go up ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. sir. 

]Mr. K^-xnedy. Wlioelse? 



1 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8875 

Mr. Vinson. John Guiiaca. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else ? 

Mr. Vinson. Boyce Lard, James Conner. That is all that went 
at the time with the exception of myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there others that went up at a later time ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, there was one fellow from our local that was 
up there with our sound truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. With your sound truck ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. 

]Mr. Kennedy, Did your local loan your sound truck to local 833? 

Mr. Vinson. I really don't know what arrangements were made 
with that. The international made that arrangement. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the man who went with the sound truck? 

Mr. Vinson. Jim Fiore. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were all of these individuals compensated out of 
local 212? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just know as far as yourself ? 

Mr. Vinson. As far as myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else that you know of from local 212 
go up ? 

Mv. Vinson. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. At any later time did anybody from local 212 go up 
that you know of ? 

Mr. Vinson. No; I don't know of anybody that went up later. 

Mr. Kennedy. So those four men, plus the man with the sound 
truck? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what happened to the sound truck 
ultimately ? 

Was that given to local 833 ? 

]Mr. Vinson. I believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was turned off by local 212 to 833 ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What salary and expenses did you receive while you 
were up at Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. It seems to me we got lost time from the shop ; I be- 
lieve it was $96 ; I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. $96 a week? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. And I believe we got $7 a day expense money 
for hotel bills, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take a leave of absence from the Briggs 
Co.? 
Mr Vinson. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. KeNxVedy. Was that provided in the union contract? 
]VIr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Van Ouwerkerk — first, how long were you up 
in Sheboygan? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I was there from April 9 to sometime in July. 
INIr. Kennedy. And Mr. Van Ou'U'erkerk has just testified, and I 
believe you have been tried on the charges of beating Mr. Van Ouwer- 
kerk in this bar, in this tavern ? 
Mr. Vinson. I have. 
Mr, Kennedy. Would you like to tell what your position is on it ? 



8876 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IHST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Vinson. My position on it is I think I got a very unfair and 
unjust trial on the sentence side of it. I got the strongest sentence 
of any man that was ever sent up from Sheboygan County. 

Mv. Kennedy. Did you hit Mr. Van Ouwerkerk? 

Mr. Vinson. I hit Mr. Van Ouwerkerk. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you kick him when he was down ? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I didn't kick them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how he got 3 or 4 broken ribs ? 

Mr. Vinson. I broke them with my fists. 

Mr. Ivi'^NNEDY. Did you get down on the ground with him ? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I didn't get down on tlie ground with him, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hit him with your fist before he went down ? 

Mr. Vinson. I hit him with the back of my left hand on the neck 
and I hit him in the ribs with my fist. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Vinson. I came out of the restroom and as I came out of the rest- 
room, I heard somebody say "Let's get the hell out of here ; there is too 
many union people here." So I lost my temper and I hit him. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't kick him ? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I didn't kick him. 

Senator Gold water. How old are you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Thirty-one. 

Senator Goldwater. How old were you when this incident took 
place ? 

Mr. Vinson. Twenty-seven. 

Senator Goldwater. How tall are you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Six foot three and a half. 

Senator Goldw^ater. How much do vou weigh ? 

Mr. Vinson. About 230. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 

Senator Cubtis. Did you talk to any woman prior to your assault 
upon Mr. Van Ouwerkerk ? 

Mr. Vinson. There was a lot of women there. I might have talked 
to any of them. 

Senator Curtis. Did you talk to any of them ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't remember any specific one I talked to. I was 
bowling with a bunch of women and men. 

Senator Curtis. How did it happen you picked out this particular 
man to hit ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, as I say, when I came out of the restroom, he 
made this statement, and I hit him. 

Senator Curtis. He made the statement ? 

Mr. Vinson. He made the statement "Let's get out of here ; there is 
too many union people in here." 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Van Ouwerkerk made that statement? 

Mr. Vinson. That is what I found out later. I didn't know who it 
was at the time. 

Senator Curtis. Who presided over your trial ? What judge? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe it was Judge Schlicting. 

Senator Curtis. Who was your attorney ? 

Mr. Vinson. William Quick and David Rabinovitz. 

Senator Curtis. Where do they reside ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8877 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Quick lives in Milwaukee. Mr. Rabinovitz lives 
in Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Are either of those gentlemen in the committee 
room now ? 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Rabinovitz is here. 

Senator Curtis. Is he an attorney for the UAW ? 

Mr. Vinson. He is. 

Senator Curtis. Was he at that time ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Senator Curtis. Did they provide you with your defense ? 

Mr, Vinson. They did. 

Senator Curtis. Did you pay any part of it yourself ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They paid both attorneys ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume they did. 

Senator Curtis. There was an appeal taken ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And the appeal was decided against you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; it was. 

Senator Curtis. How long a time did you serve ? 

Mr. Vinson. Thirteen and a half months. 

Senator Curtis. And you say you did break his ribs ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume I broke his ribs. He testified in court that 
they were broken. 

Senator Curtis. I heard you testify that you did it with your 
hands. 

Mr. Vinson. If his ribs were broken, I broke them with my hands. 

Senator Curtis. You were the individual that did the assaulting; 
there is no question about that ? 

Mr. Vinson. There is no question about that. I admitted that. 

Senator Curtis. Where are you employed now ? 

Mr. Vinson. Chrysler Corp, Detroit, Mich. 

Senator Curtis. In what capacity ? 

Mr. Vinson. I am a painter and glazier. 

Senator Curtis. What salary were you receiving at the time of 
this assault ? 

Mr. Vinson. Do you mean the salary from the union ? 

Senator Curtis. From all sources. 

Mr. Vinson. I believe I was getting $7 a day for expense for my 
hotel bill and incidentals and I was getting $96 a week, I believe, for 
my lost time that I was losing out of the shop. 

Senator Curtis. Who was paying that ? 

Mr. Vinson. Local 212. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who paid your law^yers ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I don't. 

Senator Curtis. Did you receive any compensation while you were 
serving time ? 

Mr. Vinson. I received none. 

Senator Curtis Do you have any family ? 

Mr. Vinson. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Did they receive anything ? 

Mr. Vinson. My wife did. 

Senator Curtis. From whom ? 



8878 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES 'JN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Vinson. She received from the local 212 and from the UAW. 

Senator Curtis. By the UAW, you mean the international ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is rio;ht. 

Senator Curtis. How much did she receive? 

Mr. Vinson. $50 from each one, a week. 

Senator Curtis. $50 from each one each week ? 

Mr. Vinson. Tliat is right. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who in the UAW arranged for tliat? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know^ offhand who arranged for it. I believe 
Mr. Mazey was instrumental in it, and the local officers as a whole. 

Senator Curtis. How did it happen that the Briggs local sent you 
fellows down to Kohler? Who communicated w^ith the local as to 
what was going on at Kohler and that you were wanted down there ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, we alw^ays receive reports as to what is going 
on when there is a strike going on, and we have any interest in it. 

Senator Curtis. From what source do you get that report ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, Jimmie Fiore, for one. We talked to him quite 
a few different times on the telephone. 

Senator Curtis. What was his position ? 

Mr. Vinson. He went down with the sound truck. I really don't 
know what his position would be. 

Senator Curtis. But that was the source of the local's information? 

Mr. Vinson. I am speaking for myself, and I am not speaking for 
the officers, and I don't know where they got tlieir information. 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask you this : Did the international of- 
ficers have any conversations with the Briggs local or have any part 
in arranging for you people to go dow n there ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume they clid, and I am not sure. 

Senator Curtis. If that was done, who would have probably han- 
dled it? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know. 

Senator CuitTis. Well, now, who gave you your instructions on the 
job at Kohler? 

Mr. Vinson. I never had any instructions. 

Senator Curtis. From no one? 

Mr. Vinson. From no one. 

Senator Curtis. You were operating entirely on your own ? 

Mr. Vinson. I was told to go to Kohler, Wis., Sheboygan, Wis., 
and that there w^ould be a meeting on Sunday night, and I got there 
and we went to the meeting and I never received no orders from 
anybody. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you remain there before you were 
arrested or put out of circulation ? 

Mr. Vinson. Would you repeat that, please ? 

Senator Curtis. How long were you there ? 

Mr. Vinson. I was there from April until July. 

Senator Curtis. And no one gave you any orders ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never had any specific orders from anybody. 

Senator Curtis. Well, did you have some that weren't very specific? 

Mr. Vinson. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. Did you have some that weren't specific ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I have never really had any. We used to have a 
lot of discussions. 

Senator Curtis. Who would you have discussions with ? 



IMP'ROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8879 

Mr. Vinson. Any number of people that were on strike, and 
strikers. 

Senator Curtis. You attended the strike meetings? 

Mr. Vinson. I attended the strike meetings. 

Senator Cuetis. Who would be in charge of the strike meetings ? 

Mr, Vinson. The sergeant at arms. 

Senator Curtis. What is that ? 

IMr. Vinson. The sergeant at arms is in charge of the strike meeting. 

Senator Curtis. Who would be the chief representative of the 
UAW? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, it all depends on what kind of meeting it was. 

Senator Curtis. Well, what kind of meetings did you have? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, they had general membership meetings, and 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the strike committee meetings. 

Mr. Vinson. Well, the strike connnittee meetings, they met every 
morning. 

Senator Curtis. And you usually attended ? 

Mr. Vinson. Most of the time. 

Senator Curtis. 'Wlio laid out the program ? 

Mr. Vinson. We had no program. 

Senator Curtis. What did you meet for ? 

Mr. Vinson. Just to talk over how the strike was going. 

Senator Curtis. Who led the talking ? 

Mv. Vinson. Well, whoever got the floor first was usually leading 
the talking, and we had no chairman or anything of it. 

Senator Curtis. Was Emil Mazey ever there ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never saw Emil Mazey at one of those meetings. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever see him around the Kohler locality? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't believe I ever saw Mr. Mazey even out to the 
strike line, out to the picket line myself. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever see him in that community at all ? 

jNIr. Vinson. I have seen him in that community. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you see him ? 

Mr. Vincent. I saw him in Sheboygan on a couple of different 
occasions. 

Senator Curtis. What would be the occasions ? 

JNIr. Vinson. W>11, tliere would be a general membership meeting 
and he would be the speaker, or something like that. That is all. 

Senator Citrtis. But it is your story that there was no one in charge, 
and no plan laid out, and that you were just down there on your own, 
is that fight? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator (toldwater. ISIr. Chairman, I have a question. 

You said that Mr, Rus Baril called you to go down there? 

Mr, Vinson, Xo, Mr. Eus Baril didn't call me. I believe he made 
the call from Chicago to my local officers and I don't remember who 
called fi'om my local office, whether it was a local officer or someone 
from the shop' where I was. And I wasn't in the shop that day to 
work, and I don't remember who called me, and they talked to my wife 
and I went to the local union hall, and from there we left for She- 
boygan. 

Senator Goldwater. ^Y[\?it was Mr. Baril's position in the local ? 



8880 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

JVIr. VixsoNT. I believe lie was recording- secretary at the time. 

Senator Goldwater. In Chicago ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, in Detroit. They were in Chicago to an educa- 
tional meeting, international education meeting, I believe. 

Senator Goldwater. Can you state definitely that Mr. Baril was 
recording secretary, or is that just your recollection? 

Mr. Vinson. I am pretty sure he was, to the best of my recollection. 

Senator Goldw^vter. The recording secretary of the international? 

Mr. Vinson. No, of my local union. 

Senator Goldavater. Of your local union ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldw\\ter. Who would have been at that meeting in Chi- 
cago? 

Mr, Vinson. I have no idea. 

Senator Goldw^vter. It is an educational meeting ? 

Mr. Vinson. It was 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. counsel, as a matter of interest, it might 
be interesting to know^ who attended that educational meeting in 
Chicago, inasmuch as the gentleman we are talking about has passed 
on, and if it would be possible to obtain a list of those people who were 
there, it might help and it might not help this series of meetings. 

The Chairman. Can you supply a list of them ? 

Mr. Rauii. Yes, it was a well-publicized meeting, sir, and when we 
don't have conventions, which is on the oif year, on the odd year we 
have conventions and on the even year we have educational confer- 
ences, and this happens to be the one where Bishop Schiele made his 
famous speech, and I presume we have a record of who was there and 
it will be supplied. 

The Chairman. Were there large numbers there ? 

Mr. Rai II. A couple of thousand, I would say, and like at our con- 
ventions we have a delegate list and I presume we have a delegate 
lits here and we would be happy to supply it. 

The Chairman. Is that what you want ? 

Senator Goldwater. It is the educational meeting that you hold 
here occasionally, and I know^ the size of those. 

Mr. Vinson. It was the same thing. 

Mr. Rauh. It was the same one Senator Curtis spoke at last year, 
at our 1956 one — Senator Curtis, and wdio else was there, sir? 

Senator Curtis. Senator Knowland. 

Mr. Rauh. And I believe Senator Humphrey and Senator Kef auver 
represented the Democrats, in an all -day debate before our educational 
conference, and this was the same thing, Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. I will withdraw the request. That isn't neces- 
sary. 

Mr. Vinson, who did you report to when you got to Kohler? 
Mr. Vinson. I really did'nt report to anyone. I went there and I 
knew^ the fellows that were there, some of them, and I just went there 
and we had a meeting, and we talked things over and how the strike 
was going and how it was progressing, and outside of that, I never 
really reported to anyone. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you name the people that you knew 
there ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I knew — I didn't really know Don Rand, I 
heard of him. I knew a fellow by the name of Barber, and I believe 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8881 

his name was Guy Barber. I knew him. I knew Jim Fiorre, and I 
believe that is all'that I really personally knew that was there. 

Senator Goldwater, And when you hit there for the first time, did 
you meet with all three of those, or did you meet with one? 

Mr. ViNsox. Well, there was a meetino-, and there were some 20 
people there, and that was the only people that I kneAv of the bunch. 
Senator Goldwater. That was a Sunday evening meeting? 
Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. "What other strikes have you participated in? 
]\Ir. Vinson. Well, we always try to avoid a strike if possible. 
Senator Goldwater. I didn't ask you that. I asked you what strikes 
you participated in. 

Mr. Vinson. I am coming to that, and I never really participated in 
a strike that was really carried out as a strike. We don't, in Detroit, 
we don't have too many strikes, and what we have, they put a sign up 

and we are on strike, and nobod}^ bothers to go in. I never really 

Senator Goldwater. Let us put it in another wa3\ How many times 
have you been engaged in a strike ? 

Mr. Vinson. Quite a few dift'erent times, I have been. 
Senator Goldwater. How long have you been a union member? 
Mr. Vinson. Since 1948. 

Senator Goldwater. That is about 10 years. How many strikes 
have you participated in ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know, offhand. Four or five, maybe. 
Senator Goldwater. Have most of those involved your own local? 
Mr. Vinson. They didn't, any of them, involve my own local. 
Senator Goldwater. Were you on loan to other locals for all of 
those ? 

Mr. Vinson. I wasn't on loan. I voluntarily went over and helped 
the people out, and assisted in the strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you get paid for that voluntary assistance ? 
Mr. Vinson. I did not. 
Senator Goldwater. You didn't ? 
Mr. Vinson. I did not get pair for it. 

Senator Goldwater. What would you do about supporting your 
family while you are off helping some other local ? 

Mr" Vinson. I would go in my spare time, when I wasn't working, 
and we would go over to the picket line and more or less as morale 
builders to the people who were on strike, and talk to them, and go 
to the strike kitchen. And if there was anything we could do to help 
them out, we would. 

Senator Goldwater. Have you ever participated in flying squadrons 
in the course of strikes ? 

]Mr. Vinson. I belong to the flying squadron. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you explain what the flying squadron 
does? 

Mr. Vinson. I never have done anything in the capacity of the flying 
squadron myself. 

Senator (toldwater. You are a member of it, and I am not saying 
you have done anything, but what are the duties of the flying 
squadron ? 

Say they rang a bell, and said, "All members of the flying squadron 
assemble," you have some idea of your duties, don't you ? 



8882 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES -IN THE LABOR FIEOLD 

Mr. Vinson. Well, we have no specific duties. 

Senator Goldwater. What is your interpretation of what you 
should be expected to do as a member of the flying squadron? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't really have any interpretation. We have been 
accused of everything, but we have never done it. 

Senator Goldwater. Why did you join it ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, first of all, when we have local elections and stuff 
like that, there is always a bunch of people picked from both sides, and 
we have opposition in our unions too, you know, and there are people 
picked from each side, and they put two guys at a door, and the elec- 
tion would be run from that. 

There would be one on each side and both of us help one another, and 
we don't let any unauthorized people in or out of the local, when we 
are holding a vote. 

Senator Goldwater. That is not getting to the question. Why did 
you join the flying squadron ? 

Mr. Vinson. Because I happen to be awful active in my local union. 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat does the flying squadron do? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, that is the only thing I have ever done in the 
capacity of a flying squadron. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, the flying squadron stands at the door? 

Mr. Vinson. We assist the sergeant at arms. 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat is the flying squadron's duties in a 
strike? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, we never had any specific duties in a strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever appear at a strike as a unit called 
the flying squadron ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never appeared at a strike as a unit called the flying 
squadron. 

Senator Goldwater. Not the strike called the flying squadron, but 
did yon appear at a strike as a member of the flying squadron ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

Senator GoLDV^^4TER. All right. Did you participate in the picket 
line at Kohler ? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

Senator Goldwater. Was it peaceful picketing ? 

Mr. Vinson. I would call it peaceful picketing. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that Mr. 
Vinson identify himself in some of these photographs of peaceful pick- 
eting. I will submit them. 

The Chairman. Senator, may I inquire, are these a part of the ex- 
hibits? 

Mrs. DucKETT. They are exhibit 7. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you a series of five pictures which 
are a part of exhibit 7, or they are exhibit 7 to the testimony the com- 
mittee has already received. Each picture apparently shows a large 
group of people. Senator Goldwater asks that you examine the pic- 
tures and point out or state if you can find and identify yourself in 
either of the five pictures which the Chair now presents to you. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Cn AiRiMAN. Have you examined the pictures ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you find yourself in any of the pictures? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8883 

Mr. Vinson. All five of them. 

The Chairman. You are in all five of them ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you indicate your position in each one of the 
pictures ? 

Mr. Eauh. It is indicated on there right on the exhibit. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair see it a moment. 

Mr. Vinson. I am No. 1 in each one. 

The Chairman. You are No. 1 in each one of the pictures, and you 
have already been identified by markings on the pictures, to show that 
wherever appears No. 1 on this exhibit, the line points to you as one of 
the parties in the crowd. 

Mr. Vinson. I believe so. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Vinson, in one of these pictures in 
which you have identified yourself as No. 1, you are in the midst of a 
large crowd of people, and I am referring to this one specifically. 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. And you stand back about here. Now here 
is a man with liis fist doubled up with a leather glove on, and here is a 
man with an elbow in somebody's neck, and here is a man trying to 
get his elbow in somebody's face, and here is a man who is not identi- 
fied but he has a tag on his coat that says, "Mitchell's Bar," I think, 
and evidently a bowling jacket. 

Does that look like peaceful picketing to you ? 

Mr. Vinson. I was standing away in the back. 

Senator Goldwater. You were back here, you are 6 foot 3, and you 
stand up there like the Washington Monument. You were only 3 
feet away from the nearest evident act. 

Mr. Vinson. I don't believe I show any act of violence in there. 

Senator Goldwater. I can't see your hands. I will say that. But 
certainly you must have been aware of violence going on just maybe 
6 or 8 or 10 feet away. 

Let us take a look at another one. Here is one in which you iden- 
tified yourself as No. 1, and again I will say you don't look mad, and 
I am not accusing you of anything, but right in front of you there ap- 
pears to be an altercation between a man identified as Donald Rand 
and an unidentified person. Again there is evidence of shoving and 
one man here is partly down, and another man has on the same leather 
gloves, and is that peaceful picketing? 
Mr. Vinson. To me it is. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, as I said to somebody else, I would hate 
to see your idea of a rough one. I am not making any accusations 
against you in this, and I am just trying to find out whether or not 
you consider this as peaceful picketing. 

Now I want to get back to that flying squadron. When we had the 
moving pictures down here, I noticed several times that there would 
be large gTOups of pickets break off and go some place else. Is that 
a living squadron ? . 

Mr. Vinson. They did not have a flying squadron m Kohler. 
. Senator Goldwater. How do you know they did not? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't believe they did. To my knowledge thev did 
not. 



8884 IMPROPER ACTIWriES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater, Now you said they did not liave one. How do 
3'ou know they did not have one ? 

Mr. Vinson. To my knowledge, they did not. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you have recognized it if you had seen 
it? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I would not know what to be looking for. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't have any idea what a flying squad- 
ron is supposed to do, and you are a member of a flying squadron ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't have any idea what they would do on a picket 
line, in that situation, no. 

Senator Goldwater. Have you ever head of the flying squadron 
being used on a picket line ? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I don't recall I ever have. 

Senator Goldwater. You have been in how many strikes did you 
say in the last 10 years ? 

Mr. Vinson. 4 or 5. 

Senator Goldwater. And you never heard of the flying squadron 
being used on a picket line ? 

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

Senator Goldwater. Again, suppose that you were called by your 
local and told the flying squadron is assembling at the main gate. 
You would have to go, I suppose, if you were a member ? 

Mr. Vinson. If I wanted to go I would. 

Senator Goldwater. If you were a member you would be expected 
to go? 

Mr. Vinson. Not necessarily. 

Senator Goldwater. Not necessarily ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

Senator Goldwater. That is a voluntary organization ? 

Mr. Vinson. It is ; and there is no pay connected with it whatsoever. 

Senator Goldwater. But there are duties connected with it, aren't 
there? 

Mr. Vinson. No specific duties. 

Senator Goldwater. So you just belong to the flying squadron? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you wear any special hat or coat ? 

Mr. Vinson. We have at times had hats and coats. 

Senator Goldwater. Those big hats that I saw in the movies, the 
great big floppy hats, were those worn by members of the flying squad- 
ron? 

Mr. Vinson. There might be some members of the flying squadron 
had one on. 

Senator Goldwater. I thought there wasn't a flying squadron up 
there? 

Mr. Vinson. There was no flying squadron up there. I am a mem- 
ber of the flying squadron, and I was up there. 

Senator Goldwater. And you saw no flying squadron activity at 
all? 

ISfr. Vinson. I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. What were those fellows who wore those big 
floppy hats? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe those hats were bought at Milwaukee, and 
mostly they were bought for a little morale builder, for people on 
the picket line. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8885 

Senator Goldwater. Did they designate leaders ? 

Mr. Vinson. They did not. Dili'erent people wore them different 
days, and dili'erent times. It did not make any difference who wore 
them. 

Senator Goldwater. We have heard and read in the press the ref- 
erence to flying squadron members as "goons." Is that in your opin- 
a correct definition ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, to me I don't think too much of the press, so 
what they write I don't really care. 

Senator Goldwatek. You didn't answer the question. 

The press referred to flying squadron members in various strikes 
as "goons." Is that a correct description ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, that is their interpretation of it. I have no in- 
terpretation of its myself. 

Senator Goldwater. You have no interpretation of flying squad- 
ron ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You are a member of a flying squadron ? 

Mr. Vinson. I am. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, we can chase that all day. Who paid 
for your bail bond ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know, offhand, who paid it. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you pay for it ? 

Mr. Vinson. I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, who paid for it ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. You never found out ? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. How much were they, do you remember ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't even remember how much it was. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, would you consult with your attorney, 
and see if you can find out who paid the bail bond ? 

Mr. Vinson. I will. 

Mr. Eauh. I am sure the union did, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. 

Were you an international representative at the time you went up 
to Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. I have never been an international representative. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, in the NLEB hearing, it is my advice 
that Mr. Mazey said you were. I will read it to you. 

Mr. Vinson! Go ahead. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Gore entered an objection, "Objection, 
Mr. Examiner." Let us go back further than that. 

Question. Who is Vinson, do you know? 

Mr. Gore. Objection, Mr. Examiner. This does not go to the matters which 
were said across the bargaining table. The identification of Vinson can come 
in some other way. 

The Trial Examiner. Overruled. He may answer. 

The Witness. Mr. Vinson was an international representative of the UAW, 
CIO. 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I don't ever recall of being on the payroll of 
the international union as such, as an international representative. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 10 



8886 IMPROPER ACTIWTIES 1^ THE LABOR FIELD 

I have on different occasions been on the international payroll, but 
not as a representative. 

Senator Goldwater, Were you on the international payroll then? 

Mr. Vinson. No, 

Senator Goldwater. Again, can I ask the attorney, could we be 
supplied with information relative to the obvious difference of opin- 
ion here between Mr. Mazey and Mr. Vinson ? 

Mr. Rauii. I was going to ask for the privilege of explaining that, 
and so I am glad to answer. 

Senator Goldwater. I just wanted to ask. Could we get some proof 
of whether or not he was an international representative ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes; we can supply that if you want additional proof 
to his own testimony, Mr. INIazey has told me he made a mistake. 
There are 600 international representatives and he just made a mis- 
take. He does not know the name of each one, sir, and we can supply 
the 600 international representatives if you like, and that would show 
the absence of the name. I would be happy to supply that. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, if you could, yes; that would be the 
easiest way. 

The Chairman. Do you want all 600 names ? 

Senator Goldwater. They have them printed up ? 

Mr. Rauh. I do not know what form we have it, but we will produce 
it if Senator Goldwater wants it. 

The Chairman. Have you ever been an international representa- 
tive? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir ; I never have. 

The Chairman. Have you received pay from the international for 
your services ? 

Mr. Vinson. I have. 

The Chairman. In what capacity ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I went to Atlantic City as a sergeant at arms at 
tlie convention and I received pay from the international at the time. 

The Chairman. What else? 

Mr. Vinson. Tliat is all that I recall. 

The Chairman. You received no pay from the international except 
in the attendance at a conveiition where you acted as a sergeant at 
arms or helped serve as an official of the convention. Is that correct? 

Mr. Vinson. That is correct to the best of my knowledge. 

The Chairman. I believe you said awhile ago, and I am going to 
remind you now, I believe you said that during the time that you 
were in prison, the international did pay $50 per week to your family, 
to your wife. 

Mr. Vinson. They gave that to mv wife and not to me. 

The Chairman. I understand. _ So those are the only two instiinces 
in Avhich you received any pay directly or indirectly from the inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe when I went to court in Wisconsin, I believe 
at the time I was on the international payroll for expense money and 
stuff when I went up there, and I don't remember for sure. 

The Chairman. You may have received, according to your testi- 
mony, pay during the time that you were attending your trial? 

Mr. Vinson. I may have. 

The Chairman. You may have received it from international? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8887 

The Chairman. Will you check on that and supply that informa- 
tion for the record ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I will withdraw my request for the list of in- 
ternational representatives at this time. I merely commented on it^ 
because Mr. Mazey said that he was an international representative, 
but Mr. Mazey will be on the stand and we can talk it over with him. 

The Chairman. The request is withdrawn. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Vinson, who do you think was in 
charge of the strike at Kohler? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I really don't know who was in charge of it. 

Senator Goldwater. You were up there for 214 months ? 

Mr. Vinson. Something like that. 

Senator Goldwater. And you were sent up there by your local and 
37^ou were being paid by your local, and you mean to tell me that you 
did not know in 2i/^ months who was running this show ? 

Mr. Vinson. As far as I was concerned, my local union was. 

Senator Goldwater. Was running that strike ? 

Mr. Vinson. My local union was running my end of the show. 

Senator Goldwater. What did your local union tell you to do up 
there? 

Mr. Vinson. Nothing. "Go up and assist the people,"' and we set 
up a strike kitchen. 

Senator Goldwater. Just go up and wander around ? 

Mr. Vinson. We were up there more or less as morale builders 
to give them a little support and show them there were other local 
unions interested in getting a sweatshop out of the working people. 

Senator Goldwater. In 2% months all you did was wander around 
from the soup kitchen to the picket line to the bars and try to find out 
where you could help morale ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. You did not report to anybody ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I really didn't report to anybody. 

Senator Goldavater. In 2i/^ months you did not know who was 
running this strike ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, local 833 was running the strike. 

Senator Goldwater. And who was telling local 833 to do it ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know who was telling local 833, nobody I 
don't imagine. 

Senator Goldwater. How well, in those 21^ months, did you come 
to know Emil Mazey ? 

Mr. Vinson. I knew Emil Mazey for a long time. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you consult with him before you wan- 
dered around to build morale ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never consulted with Emil Mazey one time while I 
was up there. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you see him while you were up there? 

Mr. Vinson. I saw him on two different occasions. 

Senator Goldwater. Where would you see him ? 

Mr. Vinson. I saw him, I believe they were both membership meet- 
ing meetings that I saw him. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever sit at a bargaining table? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 



IMPROPER ACTIVTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator (ioldwater. Tliat was not one of the things that your local 
sent you up there for ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, we dicbvt go up there to sit at the bargaining table. 

Senator Goldwatkr. What did you go up there for? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, like I say, we set up a strike kitchen and we were 
familiar with the working conditions at Briggs, and we went up 
tliere to let the people know that there were other local unions 
besides local 833 interested in their cause. 

Senator (Joldwater. How many people did local 212 send down? 

Mr. Vinson. Four or five, I am not sure. 

Senator (toldwatek. Four or five from Briggs ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How many other locals outside of the area 
sent people in? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, at different times there were different people 
in from different locals and I don't know whether their locals sent 
them or whether they came on their own. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you receive pay from the international 
while you Avere on trial ? 

INIr. Vinson. I believe I did. 

Senator Goldw^vter. Well, you were paid while you were on trial ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I left Sheboygan hastily, you know, and I don't 
know whether I was paid or not. Really, I don't. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you get it in the form of cash or a check ? 

Mr. Vinson. I always got checks, I believe. 

Senator Goldwater. Were the checks from the international? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall getting a check. 

Senator Goldwater. You said you always got it in checks and now 
you do not recall getting it ? 

Mr. Vinson. Let me explain. I don't recall getting a lost-time 
check when I went to Sheboygan and for the trial. I did get a check 
for expense money to go up there and when I left I believe they paid 
my hotel bill and everything and checked me out. 

Senator Goldwater. The international? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, the international did that. 

Senator Goldwater. Then the checks you got while you were on 
trial were from the international? 

Mr. Vinson, I didn't get any check from them while I was on 
trial, I don't believe, and I got a check before I went for expense 
money. And, to my knowledge, I didn't get a check for lost time 
while I was there. 

Senator Goldwater. Then the checks you got after the trial, were 
they from the international ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never got any checks after the trial. 

Senator Goldwater, The checks that your wife got, were they from 
the international? 

Mr. Vinson, They were from the international. 

Senator Goldwater, How many members would you say of the local 
attended the strike committee meetings? 

Mr. Vinson. It would vary anywhere from 25 to 150, 

Senator Goldwater. Could any member attend those strike com- 
mittee meetings? 

Mr, Vinson. Anybody that wanted to, as far as I know. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator (toldwatkr. You had no difficulty attending them? 

]\Ii-. Vinson. No, 1 had no difficulty. 

Senator (toldwater. When you attended them, what would you 
do there ? Would you just sit and not say anything ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I don't recall that 1 ever said anything to the 
s']'ike committee themselves, and I might have made a suggestion to 
somebody sitting by me that something should be done. 

Senator (joi.dwater. Let me ask 3^ou, is the international policy to 
pay lost time to members who are in jail ? 

Mr. Vinson. I wasn't paid anything for being in jail. 

Senator Goldwater. Xo, I did not say you were paid for being in 
jail, but while you were in jail. 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know of anybody that was paid while they 
were in jail. 

Senator Goldwater. Is the international policy to reimburse people 
who have had the misfortune of being in jail ? 

Mr. ^"INS0N. I don't know whether it is or not. I wasn't reimbursed. 

Senator Goldwater. You never got a cent out of it ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never got a cent. 

Senator Goldwater. But your wife was paid while you were away? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Vinson, you were the secretary-treasurer of 
the local at I^riggs? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I wasn't. 

Senator Kennedy. What were you? 

Mr. Vinson. I was chief steward. 

Senator Kennedy. And Briggs manufactured, more or less, the 
same products as the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. \'iNS0N. They do. 

Senator Kennedy. They did? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, you said to the committee that you were 
sent up at the request of the international or at the request of the local 
at Kohler? 

Mr. Vinson. At the request of local 212. 

Senator Kennedy. Where was that ? 

Mr. Vinson. In Detroit. 

Senator Kennedy. You were sent up at the request of local 212 in 
Detroit ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. What was the relationship between the local at 
Kohler, your local at Briggs, and local 212 at Detroit ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, the only relationship that we have is the people 
in Kohler make similar products to ours. 

Senator Kennedy. Local 212 is the local that you are a member of? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Who told you in local 212 to go to Kohler? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I don't know oft'hand, Mr. Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. That is a substantial move on your part requir- 
ing at least 3 or 4 months away from your job and somebody must have 
told you what to do, and you must rememljer that, and made arrange- 
ments for you to be paid and compensated while you were up there. 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall just who sent me or who told us to go. 



8890 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEOLD 

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

Senator Kennedy. Did thej^ tell you that the international wanted 
you to go, that Mr. Mazey wanted you to go ? 

Mr. Vinson. Mazey had nothing to do with it. The local officers 
called from Chicago and asked us to go, specifically. 

Senator Kennedy. The local officers from Chicago ? 

Mr. Vinson. My local, that were attending this meeting, the edu- 
cational meeting in Chicago. 

Senator Kennedy. They asked you to come to Chicago or to go to 
Kohler ^ 

Mr. Vinson. To go to Sheboygan. 

Senator Kennedy. To go to Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. They were attending a meeting in Chicago, and 
they asked you to go to Sheboygan and stay there for a while? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. ^ 

Senator Kennedy. They would do what about your money ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, at the time, whoever it was, I don't recall who 
it was, advanced us, I believe $50 ajjiece. 

Senator Kennedy. How many of you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Four. 

Senator Kennedy. From this local ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. To go up — — 

Senator Kjennedy. What were your instructions ? 

Mr. Vinson. We had no instructions other than that there would 
be a meeting on a Sunday night. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you go to the meeting ? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you were supposed to stay there until you 
received instructions to come home ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. And those instructions did not come until later 
and then you got in trouble, is that correct ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, we were back and forth to Detroit on diiferent 
occasions. 

Senator Kennedy. After you went back, who would tell you to come 
back to Detroit and who would tell you to go back to Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. Nobody would really tell us to go or come. 

Senator Kennedy. It is difficult to believe that an operation would 
be that casual. Here is a strike where the union is very deeply in- 
volved, spending large sums of money. You were sent up there for 
some purpose. You don't seem to know what the purpose was. You 
were sent back to Detroit and then sent back to Sheboygan. 

Mr. Vinson. I was never brought back to Detroit. I Avent back 
to Detroit on my own. 

Senator Kennedy. Who would tell you to go back to Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. Nobody. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you go back on your own ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlio Avould compensate you ? 

Mr. Vinson. The local union. 

Senator Kennedy. You were free to come and go as you cliose ? 

Mv. Vinson. That is rig-ht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8891 

Senator Kennedy. That seems to me to be a regrettable way to run 
a strike or run anything. It seems to me that the international should 
give you a specific assignment. 

The international has the right to send people up to a strike where a 
local of it is engaged, but it seems to me that those who they send 
should have specific duties, their compensations should be set, they 
should have somebody to report to at the strike, and the duties should 
be assigned to them certainly of a peaceful nature, and that they 
should be in a responsible position. 

It seems to me that your assignment fulfilled none of those condi- 
tions. 

Mr. Vinson. May I add this: The executive board of my local 
union had a meeting sometime or another, I don't know whether it 
was before or after we went, and they w^ere the people that set up 
as to who was going to pay us and how much money we was going to 
get. We were never told any specific duty. We were to assist in the 
picket line. 

Senator Kennedy. But you must have been under somebody's in- 
structions, either from Detroit, Chicago, Kohler, or Sheboygan. 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I am sorry to say to my knowledge we wasn't. 

Senator Kennedy. I think that that is what is unfortunate, because 
I think trouble is inevitable if you are permitted to wander around 
with no specific duties and under no specific control, and free to go 
to Detroit or back to Sheboygan when you will. 

Mr. Vinson. Well, you know, anybody is subject to go home to 
their wife and family once in a while. That is the only time I went 
to Detroit, to see my wife and family. As far as wandering around, 
you know, I am a pretty good-sized man. I can find my way around. 
I wasn't wandering. I knew what I was doing. 

Senator Kennedy. What were you doing ? 

Mr. Vinson. Anything in general that I felt was necessary to help 
out in the strike. 

Senator Kennedy. I would think that is how you or the other people 
would get in difficulty, by not having a more specific assignment. It 
seems to me that your whole arrangement and the arrangement of 
those on a similar basis was not a satisfactory one at all from the point 
of view of your union and the public interest. Of course, eventually 
trouble resulted in your case. Because you were an outsider, I think 
that is probably one of the reasons why you were given the stiff 
sentence you were given. 

I think jNIr. Mazey probably will be able to answer some of tliese 
questions, but I think it is not a satisfactory way for the union to meet 
its responsibilities in this case, with your particular experience in 
mind. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I think that we have a very vital point raised 
here that goes to our legislative functions. I refer to the pattern of 
violence. It may be that in subsecfiient hearings involving the UAW 
in the Perfect Circle strike and other strikes that we will hear, that a 
similar pattern of conducting a strike and of violence will be shown. 

I think it is important that we know how it operates and hoAv it 
is planned. This witness says that he came down from the Briggs 



8892 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

local, more or less on his own, no one instructed him, no one gave 
him any instructions clown there. I just believe that in discharging 
our responsibilities here, and investigating violence, particularly 
where there is interstate traffic of these goons — this man is guilty 
of one of the most inhuman attacks that you can imagine — I think it 
will be important that the files of the Briggs local and other locals 
be investigated as to communications, and that their officers be placed 
under oath, as w^ell as the international officers and representatives, 
and sliould i)e inquired of about this. 

If it develops that this witness is telling the trutli, that he was just 
acting on his own and there was no direction, it ought to be estab- 
lished. If, on the other hand, a concealment is being made, and this 
committee is being deceived for the purpose of protecting the au- 
thorities in the UAW, that ought to be established. 

I think that that should be ])ursued. 

Senator Mundt. Mr, Chairman? 

The CiiAiRMAX. Gentlemen, in this committee any time members of 
the committee desire witnesses, the Chair will issue subpenas for them. 

]\Iost of these matters would be better discussed in executive ses- 
sion. But if any member of the committee now has in mind anyone 
that they would like to have a subpena issued for, the Chair will issue 
it now. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a specific request 
now. I agree with you that the details of this should be discussed 
in executive session. 

But I w^anted the record to show my position on this with regard 
to the testimony of Mr. Vinson. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chatriman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I think both Senator Kennedy and Senator Curtis 
are discussing an exceedingly significant point in this whole affair. 
I w\as a little bit surprised at the vaguery of the answers that the wit- 
ness also gave to Senator Kennedy. I share with him a sense of dis- 
belief that this thing can be quite that casual. It doesn't seem to me 
that you are just going to be sent to Milwaukee, to Sheboygan, or 
wherever the trouble was — Sheboygan— and say, "You are on your 
owni to advance the interests of the strikers." 

Are you positive you can't remember wdio told you to go to She- 
boygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. I am under oath here, and I am telling you the truth, 
in case you guys doubt me in any way. 

Senator Mundt. You are under oath. I will agree with you that 
far anyhow. 

]VIr. Vinson. I have been called everything else. I might as well 
be called a liar, too. 

Senator Mundt. I am not calling you a liar. I said I have a sense 
of disbelief. Let's see if you can't shed any more light on it. If you 
don't know^ who sent you there, do you know why you were sent there ? 

Do you remember what the fellow told you to do who sent you 
there? 

Mr. Vinson. Tlie fellow didn't tell me to do anything, as far as I 
know, when I got there. 

Senator Mundt. Is it your idea that you volunteered for this assign- 
ment? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8893 

Mr. Vinson. I volunteered for many assignments. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about this one. Did you go to some- 
body in your local and say "Send me to Sheboygan'' ? 

Mr. Vinson. Somebody called my wife at home. I was home that 
day. I wasn't working in the shop. They called my wife and asked 
me to come to the local office, to the local hall. I went to the local hall, 
and from there I went to Sheboygan. 

Senator jSIundt. You can't remember who was in the local hall that 
day? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir ; I don't remember who was there, because thei*? 
was no local officers at the hall. The call had been received from 
Chicago. I don't know who was acting as a local officer that day. 

Senator Mundt. Do you mean the man that called you was not a 
local officer, so you wouldn't necessarily know his name? 

Mr. Vinson. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. The man who called you down to the hall was not 
a local officer, so you would not necessarily remember his name ; is that 
what you said ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I am sure it wasn't a local officer that called nib 
down to the hall. 

Senator Mundt. So apparently it was not the local who sent you 
there, but it was somebody else who sent you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Somebody from my local union, from 212, called 
whoever happened to be at the local that day, and asked them to send 
us up there. I don't know who it was specifically. 

Senator Mundt. Were you chosen because you had experience in 
this kind of work before ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume I was. 

Senator Mundt. What was your previous experience ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I helped to organize Michigan Stove, another 
sweatshop we have around the country. We still have a few. And we 
had a strike one time at Briggs. The plant-protection people were 
on strike. We honored their picket lines. We didn't cross it. I 
walked the picket line with those officers who were on strike, on my 
own. I don't know, but I believe I was down to Square D when they 
had their strike. I believe I walked the picket line there. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever get into any physical controversies 
in any of these other experiences you had ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir; I never did. I was never picked on like I was 
when I was in Wisconsin. 

Senator Mundt. Did this little fellow pick on you whose ribs you 
broke ? 

Mr. Vinson. Let me say this: A lot of times people have hollered 
at me about this fellow being a little fellow. You can't go by size. I 
was riding a mule one time and a bee bit him, and the mule run away 
and almost killed me. So you can't go by size as to how much a man 
is, or to how much he can carry. 

Senator IVIundt. After having seen you both, I would rather be in 
your size than his size, in the kind of fight you were engaged in. 

Mr. Vinson. That is if you were doing something down low, but if 
it was up high I would get the job. 

Senator Mundt. Apparently you did the job. 



8894 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I was out of the room for a little while, but I heard Senator Ken- 
nedy say that probal)ly because you were an outsider you got this very 
stiff sentence, and 1 heard Senator Kennedy say it was an inhuman 
attack. How stitf a sentence did you get for this inhuman attack? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, if that is what you want to call it, I got 2 years. 

Senator Mundt. Two years ? 

Mr. Vinson. Not less than 1 and not more than 2. 

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

Senator Mundt. That isn't a very stifi' sentence in my opinion. 

Mr. Vinson. Well, let me say this, the stiffest they could have gave 
me was 3 years, and I got the stiffest sentence that was ever handed 
down in Sheboygan County for the same charge. There was an inci- 
dent where a guy got killed in a bar in a brawl, and he got 6 months 
out of it. 

I believe he ended up paying a $500 fine. 

Senator Mundt. I can think of a fellow — I better not get in trouble 
with your counsel — who died as a result of an attack in this same 
strike, and the man who attacked him got no sentence; got no convic- 
tion. He is hiding out in Michigan somewhere. 

INIr. Vinson. Well, I am not aware of that. 

Senator Mundt. You might have been kind of unlucky by com- 
parison with him. 

I will grant that. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Vinson : AVere you ever reprimanded by 
the union for what you did in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I have been bawled out quite a few times. 

Senator Mundt. That doesn't answer the question. 

Mr. Vinson. What would you 

Senator Mundt. I will ask the reporter to read the question. It 
has no relationship to the answer. 

(At this point, the reporter read the pending question.) 

Mr. Vinson. The only reprimand I ever got out of it was I got a 
good still bawling out. 

Senator Mundt. From whom ? 

Mr, Vinson. From just about everybody in the international and 
the local. 

Senator Mundt. Can you name any of them or have you forgotten 
them? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I haven't forgotten them. Emil Mazey, Jess Fer- 
razza, Don Rand, Bob Burkhart, all of my local officers. Of course, 
I got big shoulders. I can take it, I guess. 

Senator Mundt. All right. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Vinson, were you arrested any other time dur- 
ing the course of your stay in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Vinson. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. Were you arrested any other time ? 

Mr. Vinson. I was arrested about four times, I believe. 

Senator Curtis. You were arrested once at the same time Joe Burns 
was arrested ; weren't you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. They made a mistake that morning. They 
thought they had Jess Ferrazza, and when we got in the car they dis- 
covered they had Joe Burns. They had the wrong man but they took 
him in anyway. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8895 

Senator Curtis. What were you arrested that time for ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I believe there is a picture there that you 
showed me. I believe I was arrested that same morning, and I was 
standing in about the same place, talking, and Officer Capelle and 
somebody walked up and walked right into me. I didii't move, and 
I got arrested for disturbing the peace or something. I don't remem- 
ber what it was. 

Senator Curtis. How was the case disposed of ? 

jSIr. \'ixsoN. I believe I got a $25 fine out of it. I never appeared 
on it. I believe I was in Wisconsin State Prison when it was dis- 
posed of. 

Senator Curtis. Who paid the fine ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume the local, or the union did. 

Senator Curtis. The international ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume they did. 

Senator Curtis. What lawyer looked after it ? 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Rabinowitz. 

Senator Curtis. Who paid him ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume the international. 

Senator Curtis. Did you get arrested any other time in Wisconsin? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, on this charge that I went to prison for, I got 
arrested twice for that. The first time was for disorderly conduct. 
No, pardon me. It was for assault and battery, and after this man took 
pneuPiionia and went to the hospital, the company, evidently, 
persuaded the district attorney to change the charge to assault with 
intent to do great bodily harm. 

Senator Curtis. I am asking about other offenses. Did you get ar- 
rested in connection with interference with the work in the justice 
court in Plymouth, Wis. ? 

Mv. ViNSt)N. What was that for, please ? 

Senator Curtis. Disorderly conduct. 

Mr. Vinson. I believe that was the one we were just talking about. 

Senator Curtis. That was at Plymouth ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. That was the justice of the peace I went before, 
I believe, it would have been in Plymouth. 

Senator Curtis. But in all of these clashes with the law, the same 
attorney represented you ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe so, yes. 

Senator Curtis. And you didn't pay ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I didn't. 

Senator Curtis. The UAW paid ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume they did. 

Senator Curtis. And you didn't pay any of the fines or any of the 
court costs ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

Senator Curtis. If they were paid, they were paid by the UAW? 

Mv. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator ISIundt. While Senator Curtis is looking at his notes, may I 
inquire : Since you are unable to remember who sent you to Sheboygan 
or why yon were sent, can yon remember who told you that your job 
was finished, to come back home to Briggs ? 

Mr. Vinson. No one. 



8896 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIEILD 

Senator Mundt. You just made up your own mind you had enough ? 

]Mr. Vixsox. That is right. I came home and went to local office 
and had my leave of absence canceled and I went back to work. 

Senator Mundt. So you were free to determine how long a stay 
you were going to have in Sheboygan, altliough you apparently 
were not free to determine whether you went to Sheboygan or not, 
is that it ? 

Mr. Vinson. May I say while we were up there, we were losing 
money as far as wages were concerned, and you can only go so long and 
then you go back to where you make better wages. I make more in the 
shop than I would working for the international. 

Senator Mundt. That would seem to me to be an affirmative reply to 
my question, if the counsel agrees with me. Otherwise, I will ask it 
over again. 

Mr. Rauh. I think that was an affirmative reply. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

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

Senator Curtis. Did you see this woman who held herself out as 
Mrs. Robert Burkhait hi the tavern that night? 

Mr. Vinson. I think I did, yes. 

Senator Curtis. You knew her ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, I knew^ her. 

Senator Curtis. And you know Mr. Burkhart ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, I know him. 

Senator Curtis. You have known him for some time ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I knew him since the strike started. 

Senator Curtis. Did you see her prior to your assault upon Mr. 
VanOuwerkerk? 

Mr. Vinson. She was bowling on the alley next to me for a while. 

Senator Citrtis. Did you have nnj conversation with her? 

Mr.A^iNSON. No, I didn't. 

Senator Curtis. Did she say anything to you ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

Senator Curtis. Did you see her talk to Mr. Van Ouwerkerk ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I didn't. 

Senator Curtis. How did you know whether or not INIr. Van Ou- 
werkerk was a striker or a nonstriker ? 

Mr. Vinson. I didn't know. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. ]\Ir. Chairman, this witness during the course 
of his testimony answering questions, has admitted that the interna- 
tional paid his lawyer, the international paid his wife, the interna- 
tional made arrangements for the sound ti-uck, and pnid his fines. I 
tliink there is a very definite connection established here between Mr. 
Vinson and the international, and I am hopeful that we can go further 
into this relationship. 

The Chairman. There is no disposition on the part of the Chair 
not to pursue it. 

Are there any other questions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8897 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any other convictions, Mr. Vinson? 

Mr. Vinson. Other than what I got in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Vinson. No. I was never arrested before. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

The Chair would like to ask you a question or two. If I understood 
your testimony correctly, you came into the bar from the men's room 
and heard someone say, and I think I am quoting you exactly, "There 
are too many union people in here, let's get out." 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the only remark you heard ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did anyone point out Mr. Vinson to you ? 

Mr. Vinson. I am Mr. Vinson. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon. Mr. Van Ouwerkerk? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir ; they didn't. 

The Chairman. Mrs. Burkhart didn't point him out? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. I didn't even know who the man was until 
we went to court. 

The Chairman. Did you have any conversation with Mrs. Burkhart 
before you assaulted him ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

The Chairman. Did she have any conversations with you ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. 

The Chairman. She said nothing to you ? 

Mr. Vinson. Not that I know. She might have spoken to me when 
we went into the bowling alley. 

The Chairman. Was she in there before you left the bar or whatever 
it was to go into the men's room ? Had you seen her there before ? 

Mr. Vinson. She was bowling on the alley next to me in the early 
part of the night. 

The Chairman. In the earlier part of the night ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You had seen her, then ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You had seen her, then ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You had seen her then ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You knew who she was ? 

Mr. Vinson. I knew who she was. 

The Chairman. You were acquainted with her ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

The Chairman. You are telling us under oath that you heard the 
remark "There are too many union people in here, let's get out"? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who was he talking about or to ? 

Mr. Vinson. He was talking to a red-haired woman, and it turned 
out to be his wife. 

The Chairman. He simply said to his wife, "There are too many 
union people in here, let's get out." And you don't know what hap- 
pened before ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, I don't. 



8898 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES rNT THE LABOR FTEOLD 

The Cjiairman. You simply took it upon yourself on the basis of 
him makino; that remark to assault the little fellow ? 

Mr. ViNSOx. That is right. 

The Chairman. Was that what you were sent out there for ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you regard that as proper behavior ? 

Mr. Vinson, No, sir. I paid my penalty for that crime. 

The Chairman. Yes, I understand you paid a penalty for it. I 
just can't conceive of people being assaulted. Here apparently a man 
had been in there, from the testimony, with his wife, and was molesting 
Jio one, but he had been accosted about his not belonging to a union. I 
don't know how much embarrassment it was about to cause, or whether 
he thought there might be trouble if he stayed, so he simply said to 
his wife, "Come on, let's get out of here, there are too many union peo- 
ple here." I don't think that warrants or j ustifies any, in any sense, the 
kind of assault that you made upon him. I don't think it is even 
provocative. 

From the viewpoint as I see it, it was the language of a man wanting 
to ])reserve piece, he wanted to get away, and cause no trouble. 

He simply said to his wife, "Come on, let's get out of here, there are 
too many union people here." 

I would think you would feel you were wholly unjustified in as- 
saulting the man for no further provocation — and I don't see any 
provocation in it — than what you have testified to here. 

Mr. Vinson. I feel the same way you say, and I have paid my pen- 
alty for that crime. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Vinson, to clear up one more point, some 
time ago I asked you if there were other members of local 212 who 
went to Sheboygan, and I think you said that there were five. 

Mr. Vinson. Four or five, there were five people there with 212. 
Four went with me. 

Senator Goldwater. Can you give me their names ? 

Mr. Vinson. John Gunaca, James Conner, Boyce Land, and myself 
went at the time I did, and Jim Fiore was already there. He is a 
member of 212. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Do you remember when you got there ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. When did you get there ? 

Mr. Vinson. I got there April 9. It was on a Sunday. 

Senator Goldw^\ter. Were you the first one there from local 212 ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. Jimmie Fiore was there. 

Senator Goldwater. When did he get there ? 

Mr. Vinson. He got there quite some time before the strike ever 
started. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you say 2 weeks ? 

Mr. Vinson. I have no idea. 

Senator Goldwater. Quite some time ? Would it be a month ? 

Mr. Vinson. It could very easily be a month. Around that. 

Senator Goldwatepv. Did you know these other men very well that 
went ft-om 212? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, I knew them all real well. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 8899 

Senator Goldwater. You had been a member of 212 for liow long ? 

Mr. Vinson. Since July 19J:8. 

Senator Goldwater. Since July 1948 ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That would have been about 6 years? Plow 
long- had Mr. Gunaca been a member of 212 ? 

]Mr. Vinson. Mv. Gunaca had been a member of 212 so far as I know 
ever since I have been a member of 212. 

Senator Goldwater. And Mr. Conner ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe he has been a member of 212 something like 
20 years. 

Senator Goldwater. And Mr. Land. 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Land has been a member of 212 — I believe in 1942 
before he went into service he was a member of 212 and he came back 
after service. 

Senator Goldwater. And Mr. Fiore ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe Mr. Fiore is one of the original members of 
local 212, from when they organized. 

Senator Goldwater. Where did Mr. Gunaca work ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwait:r. Was he working in Briggs ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know whether he was working at the time or 
not. At the time we had 7 or 8 plants. I don't know whether he was 
working or not. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if he was tending bar someplace ? 

Mr. Vinson. He tended bar, but I don't know whether he was work- 
ing in a plant and tending bar part time or not. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Vinson, was Emil Mazey ever a 
member of 212 ? 

Mr. Vinson. He was. 

Senator Goldwater. What was his position with 212 ? 

Mr. Vinson. Since I have been in 212 he never really had a posi- 
tion in 212. 

Senator Goldwater. Did he ever liold office in 212? 

Mr. Vinson. He has held office in 212. 

Senator Goldwater. What offices ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I would imagine he has held just about all of 
them. When he was about 23 years old he was president of the local, 
the largest local in the country. 

Senator Goldwater. And did Mr. Mazev call all of vou people over 
from 212? 

Mr. Vinson. I never talked to Mr. Mazey one time with regards 
to this strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Was Mr. Mazey ever connected with any other 
locals that you know of ? 

Mr. Vinson. Not that I know of. 

Senator Goldwater, Just this one ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, right now he is connected with all locals. 

Senator Goldwater. He is an officer of the international ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Goldavater. And as an international officer, he was at the 
strike? 



8900 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I never seen him out to picket, to the picket line 
myself. I saw him in Sheboyfjan. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You mentioned, I think, 4 or 5 men from 212 who 
were at Sheboyfran the same time you were. 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Havinij those names in mind, were any of those 
men also with you on any of these other strike assi^iments that you 
mentioned, the Square D and some radiator company or stove com- 
pany ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, at Square D, practicallv my whole local, the 
afternoon shift would go and help out, walk the picket line with them. 
Then when the afternoon shift went in to work, the day shift would 
o^o over. Evidently they were in the o;roup. 

Senator Mundt. That was Square D. How about the other ones? 

Mr. Vinson. They were around at the time we were organizing 
Michigan Stove. 

Senator IVIundt. This same group was with you at these other 
places where you said? 

Mr. Vinson. We wasn't a group. We were picked individually. 

Senator INIundt. I don't mean a group. The same men, I will put 
it that way, the same men that w-ere with you on these other strike 
assignments that you had ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall them being specifically with me. 

Senator Mundt. All right. Let's not quibble about the term. The 
same men were also at these other strike situations where you were ? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume they was. 

Senator Mundt. All right. That is what I was trying to find out. 
On what day do you recall that this attack took place on the man 
that was married to the redhaired woman ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall the exact day of it. I don't recall. 

Senator Mundt. How long after that attack before you discon- 
tinued your services at Sheboygan and went back to your job at 
Briggs at better pay ? 

Mr. Vinson. Just a minute, please. Could I check on that ? 

Senator Mundt. Surely. _ 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Vinson. It was on June 18, that the attack happened, and I 
went back to Detroit in July, 

Senator Mundt. Can you give us something more specific than 
July? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe it was around the 7th or 8th of July. I 
am not sure. 

Senator Mundt. Between June 18 and July Yth, you were not in 
prison, were you ? You had been indicted or arrested and I suppose 
were out on bail, is that it ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. During the period that you were out on bail from 
June 18 to July 7, you continued to work in conjunction with these 
other men on the strike situation at Kohler, is that right ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8901 

Senator Mundt. The reason I asked that question is I was a little 
curious. I asked you if you had ever been reprimanded by the union, 
and you said yes, by about everybody, that Burkhart reprinianded you, 
Mazey reprimanded you, but apparently nobody thought it was seri- 
ous enough to take you off of your assignment and send you back 
to Detroit ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, nobody ever took me off to begin with. 

Senator Mundt. So any manifestation of displeasure over the beat- 
ing that you gave the man with the redheaded wife was strictly verbal, 
it was not in terms of saying, "Well, we don't want rough stuff around 
here, Mr. Vinson, you better go back to Briggs." Nobody ever took 
you off of the job because of your attack on this little fellow, is that 
right? 

Mr. Vinson. Nobody ever took me off the job. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I wanted to know. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

If not, the witness is excused for the present. 

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

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

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the 
same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a radio broadcast that we 
wish to play at this time. There are certain excerpts in which the com- 
mittee would be interested, but the union would like the whole tran- 
script played. 

The Chairman. Is there any question about the validity of this 
broadcast ? 

If not, we will proceed and have it played without placing anybody 
under oath about it. 

There is no question about its authenticity ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a witness who can introduce it. 

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. McGovERN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. McGOVERN 

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

Mr. McGo\tsrn. John J. McGovern, 12923 Moray Road, Silver 
Spring, Md., and I am assistant counsel to this committee, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Did you 
procure this transcript of the broadcasts that we have under con- 
sideration ? 

Mr. McGovern. I did not, sir, but Mr. Johnson, who was under 
my direction, did procure it from station WHBL in Sheboygan, Wis. 

The Chairman. It was procured from the station ? 

21243— 5.8— pt. 22 11 



8902 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. McGovERN. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. As a transcript of the broadcast? 

Mr. McGovERN. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Made on that station on November 21, 1954 ? 

Mr. McGovERN. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, it may be played. 

Mr. Kennedy. The transcript is 26 pages. 

The Chairman. The transcript will also be made exhibit 45 for 
reference only, and we may play the record so that we may hear it. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 45" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(At this point the transcription referred to was then played.) 

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

The Chairman. So that there will be no misunderstanding, the 
Chair has ordered that this transcript be made an exhibit and not 
printed in the record. It is voluminous, and in my judgment a great 
deal of it is certainly immaterial to the real issue. 

But it will be kept as a permanent exhibit so that anyone desiring 
to refresh their memory may have the opportunity to do so. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Emil Mazey. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mazey, come forward. 

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

Mr. Mazey. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EMIL MAZEY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. RATI., JR., 

COUNSEL 

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

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my 
name is Emil Mazey. I am secretary-treasurer of the International 
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America, UAW. I live at 1173 Kensington, in Grosse 
Point Park, Mich. 

The Chairman. You have counsel ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the record show Mr. Rauh appears as counsel 
for the witness, 

Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, before you start 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, during the testi- 
mony of Robert Burkhart, there was an argument between a mem- 
ber of the committee and Mr. Rauh over whether a certain death was 
murder. The committee member alleged that it was a murder. 
During the course of the hearing, there was offered in evidence an 
editorial from the Detroit Free Press of February 28. This editorial 
referred to the fatal beating of a Kohler worker during the strike. 



IMPROPER ACnVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8903 

The discussion on the editorial and the editorial itself are in the 
transcript, beginning on page 840. 

Since the editorial from a newspaper in my State has been made 
part of this record, in alleged support of another member's views, 
I think it only fair that a subsequent editorial from the same paper 
also be placed in the record. This editorial, Mr. Chairman, appears 
in the Detroit Free Press this morning. It gives its views on certain 
events in this committee, including the statement that was made 
Tuesda 



day. 

^ Ch 



Mr. Chairman, I would like to have inserted in the record at this 
point 

The Chairman. Are there copies available to present to other 
witnesses ? 

Senator McNamara. I only have one. 

The Chairman. The Chair makes this observation : I find on page 
842 of the record the Chair did permit the editorial to be placed m 
the record at the request of Senator Mundt. I doubt, frankly, the 
wisdom of placing these editorials in the record. They are not actu- 
ally sworn testimony. But I yielded to the wishes of Senator Mundt 
the other day and put that one in. I think it is only proper for them 
to be put in the record. They are not sworn testimony. But the only 
purpose for which they could be put into the record is more in the 
nature of a question or the basis for a question. 

I may say this : I am confident there will be many editorials pub- 
lished by papers, some taking one point of view and some another, 
some criticizing one member of this committee and some criticizing 
other members of the committee. I have no objection to any criti- 
cism of me going into the record if anybody wants it in there. 

But, gentlemen, you should try to make up your minds whether 
you are going to follow this practice of putting controversial editorials 
or editorials that express the opinion and views, divergent views, and 
give different opinions of different editorial writers in ths record. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, in support of my request, this 
deals with the same subject that was discussed here on last Tuesday 
and, in effect, it is an answer to part of the record that we have made 
on it. That is the reason for my request. 

The Chairman. The Chair can appreciate that is true. But, 
gentlemen 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I have read the editorial. There 
is certainly nothing in there to which I object. Since I put it in, 
the other editorial in, I think we should put it in balance and then in 
the future make a ruling as to the subject. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the editorial will be placed in 
the record. But let the Chair say again, gentlemen, we can clutter 
up this record with a lot of expert and nonexpert opinions of differ- 
ent editorial writers, and wind up with more noise than proof. 

So let's be guarded about it. Unless there is something absolutely 
pertinent, let us not be placing it into the record. I suggest that for 
the propriety of this record. It is going to be lengthy anyhow. Let's 
try to observe that in the future. 

Senator Mundt. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Senator from 
Michigan is quite within his rights. I used the editorial as part of a 
definition in connection with the use of the word "murder." It is an 
interesting problem in semantics, whether a man who has suffered 



8904 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

a fatal beatin^^ has been murdered or simply died of halitosis. I don't 
know, I^ut it seems to me there is a similarity between the relation- 
ship of a fatal beating and a murder. 

If this editorial presents the other viewpoint, I think it should be in. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record 
show that I adopt entirely the remarks made by the chairman with 
respect to the insertion of editorials in the record which is supposed 
to be made up of testimony. 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to take this position from now 
on. This one is going into the record. But hereafter, when an edi- 
torial is presented, if the Chair feels that it has no place in this record, 
I am going to rule against placing it into the record, and the com- 
mittee will have to overrule the Chair. That will be my rule from 
now on. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I will be on your side. I would 
just as soon have the whole thing expunged from the record. 

The Chairman. We will let this stand, and we will be careful from 
now on. 

Senator Eryin. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this, that 
I would like to have the question of whether anybody has suffered a 
fatal beating established or disproved by evidence rather than by the 
statements of newspaper editors who probably don't know any more 
about it than I do. 

The Chairman. We are going to proceed with the proof. The 
Chair may state for the benefit of all that we are trying to have be- 
fore this committee witnesses who will be able to give us the informa- 
tion with respect to the assault, or alleged assault, from which some 15 
or 16 months later the person assaulted died. But we are going to 
move as fast as we can, though I cannot get everything into this record 
in 1 day's time. 
- ( The editorial is as follows : ) 

[From the Detroit Free Press, March 6, 1958] 
Senatorial Demonstration How To Hurt A Good Name 

Under Senator John McClellan's chairmanship the Senate Rackets Committee 
has gained high public confidence. Unlilce some other Senate investigating com- 
mittees the country has watched perform, it has a good name. 

That good name is in considerable peril unless the chairman can gavel down 
a show of venom that has no place in congressional hearings of any kind. 

As an example of what has been happening since the committee turned to the 
UAW strike against the Kohler Co., Senator Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) 
finds "a strange coincidence" in the fact that violence is a tool of communism and 
also a feature of the strike at Kohler. 

Violence also marked the Boston Tea Party and the New York draft riots of 
Civil War days. We can even recall a Michigan Republican Convention at which 
dignitaries were shoved off the platform and some statesman got a broken arm. 

Blame for Kohler strike violence should by all means be established but the 
hunt for truth is only hindered by such claptrap. 

Then there was the try by Senator Curtis (Republican. Nebraska) at making 
the marital status of a UAW witness appear disreputable. He made out that 
the state of his virtue in this respect had something to do with his credibility 
under oath. 

Senator Mnndt (Republican, South Dakota) made his contribution by imput- 
ing murder guilt to a Michigan UAW man wanted by Wisconsin authorities, as 
the Free Press recently expressed it editorially, "in connection with the fatil 
beating of a Kohler worker during the strike." 



IMPFK>PER ACTlVrriES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8905 

There is a wide span of difference between being guilty of murder or anything 
else and being sought "in connection" with some crimes. The latter merely means 
that prosecution authority or a court wants to hear what you have got to say 
about somebody's criminal act. 

It doesn't necessarily mean that it was your personal act, or even that it will 
turn out you have pertinent knowledge of it. Ordinary literacy should be able to 
discern the difference, but Senator Mundt professed inability in that respect 
and used our remark as a basis for his diatribe. 

Incidentally, in this particular case that of John Gunaca, we failed to under- 
stand why Governor Williams refuses Wisconsin's request for extradition. 

But that's apart from whether Gunaca should be subject to arrest for Wisconsin 
during his trip outside Michigan boundaries to testify before the Senate. It seems 
to us that his privilege of white-flag passage to Washington in answer to a Senate 
subpena never should have been questioned. After all, the primary consideration 
was not to trap Gunaca but to give the committee the benefit of his testimony. 

Threats to Gunaca seems to us to be also threats to the committee's freedom to 
find out all it wants to know — unless it is to subject itself to unnecessary expense 
and inconvenience. 

We're by no means ready to give the UAW a clean bill of health in the Kohler 
strike. Neither are we any more prepared to give one to the Kohler management. 
It's a complicated and acrimonious issue. 

Our interest is in having the hearings conducted in a way that will enable the 
public to say, when the findings are in, that it was a fair and impartial process 
carried on in a judicial atmosphere, and that therefore while the results might 
not be absolutely binding they may be accepted as reliably guiding. 

In its investigating and exposing the Senate Rackets Committee has done a 
national service of immense importance. There is work still to be done and great 
need for its doing. It would be a shame and a tragedy for a committee that has 
done so weU, and on which so much rests, to sacrifice its effectiveness now. 

Senator Cuetis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 
about a minute and a half in reference to a statement made this 
morning. 

The Chairman. "Without objection, Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr, Chairman, it has come to my attention that 
the Senator from Michigan, Mr. McNamara, has made a public de- 
mand since yesterday's hearing, that an investigation be made of the 
Kohler Co. so-called spying activities as a possible violation of the 
Taft-Hartley law. If the Senator from Michigan had been present, 
or if being present had been attentive to the proceedings, he would 
have been aware that I raised this question with the lawyer who rep- 
resented the union in the NLRB proceedings. 

He conceded that the trial examiner in that proceeding made no 
finding of unlawful espionage activity of any kind by the company, 
and it is my belief that the case now pending before the Board con- 
tains no challenge on the part of the union to the examiner's failure 
to so find. 

This means that when the NLRB eventually hands down its final 
decision, that there will be no ruling against the company on espionage 
or surveillance. I would like to call to the attention of this commit- 
tee, as well as to the attention of the Senator from Michigan, that 
these hearings before the NLRB trial examiner lasted for approxi- 
mately 2 years, and involved about 20,000 pages of testimony. 

Few more exhaustive proceedings have ever been held in an NLRB 
case. I, of course, would be perfectlv agreeable to any investigation 
of this charge of so-called spying. But I wish the record to show, 
as I had attempted to make it show yesterday, that there is no evidence 
of illegal spying in this case. 



8906 lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator McXamaka. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairmax. Senator McNamara will be recognized for 1 
minute. 

Senator Ervix. A minute and a half, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chaikmax. All right. A minute and a half. I did not try to 
cut him out of a half minute. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it will take too 
long. 1 would like to see the document, or what is in the record, be- 
cause I do not know what iie is talking about. 

The Chairmax. I suggest, then, that each of you read the record 
and get an understanding so that we can proceed. 

Senator Ervix. Mr. Chairman, if Senator McXamara will ])ardon 
me, I move that we strike from the record his unmathematical lan- 
guage. 

Tlie Chairmax. Gentlemen, we are not going to waste a lot of time 
with this. You want to get your language in the record, be careful 
of what you say. This thing is on television and on the air, radio, 
and whatever you say, I don't care liow you withdraw it, but it is 
still out there on the air. 

People are listening to it. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Eauh. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairmax. The Chair will recognize you. Do you wish to ad- 
dress the Chair ? 

All right. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, the reason why the examiner didn't make 
a finding of illegal 

The Chairmax. I do not want you to argue that any more. Let's 
go on with the hearing, please. 

Gentlemen, I want to keep this hearing moving. We have a job to 
do. I cannot keep the committee members from arguing among them- 
selves, let's don't get it going this way. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, may I proceed ? 

The Chairmax. Do you have a prepared statement ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, I do. 

The Chairmax. Is it your intention to read all of this long state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Rauh. No, it isn't. 

The Chairmax. We just listened to you for about 30 or 40 minutes. 

Mr. Rauh. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the 
committee for listening to my speech, and to the Kohler Co. for 
making it possible. 

The Chairmax. Write them a personal note of thanks. Let's move 
along. 

Mr. Rauh. I would like to place in the record, Mr. Chairman, my 
prepared statement, and than I would like to speak from notes on 
some of the pertinent matters that have already been brought to the 
attention of this committee. 

The Chairmax. In other words, you will resist the temptation t:) 
read if it we let you place it into the record. 

Mr. Rauh. That is right. 

The CiiAiRiMAx. What is the pleasure of the committee? It is quite 
a lengthy statement. If we are going to place it into the record for 
this gentleman, we are goino; to place it into the record for others. 

That will be coming from ooth sides, my guess is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8907 

Senator Mundt. I cannot quite reconcile the Chair's position on 
editorials with what would now be the Chair's position on statements. 

The Chairman. This witness is presenting this statement under 
oath. 

Don't make any mistake about that. It will not go into the record 
or even as an exhibit unless he swears to it. 

Mr, Rauh. If you prefer to have me read it, I will be very glad to 
read it. 

The Chairman. I would much prefer it the other way, if I can get 
my colleagues to agree with me. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I move that it be made an ex- 
hibit. 

Senator Mundt. I will second that motion. 

The Chairman. The Chair appreciates that. We may have a lot of 
statements, and when it is made an exhibit, it is, in effect, a part of the 
record, but it is more economical to do it that way than it is to print it. 

Since the witness is going to testify personally, my guess is before 
he is finished, he will cover most of the pertinent points in this long 
statement anyhow. Therefore, this will be made exhibit No. 46, but 
we accept it under oath. Do you understand that, Mr. Mazey ? 

Mr. Mazey. I understand that, sir. 

The Chairman. It will be made exhibit 46 for reference. 

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

The Chairman. Proceed, Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mazey, could I ask you some preliminary ques- 
tions first to get them into the record ? 

Mr. Mazey. O.K. 

Mr. Kennedy. First, when did you come into the UAW ? 

Mr. Mazey. I became a member of the UAW in the spring of 1936. 
I was one of the founders of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And prior to that what had you been doing ? 

Mr. Mazey. I was working for the Briggs Manufacturing Co. in 
1936, and I was discharged by the company during the course of an 
organizing drive which I led. 

In fact, I was physically thrown out in the middle of the street by 
some thugs of the company. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Wlien did you first become an officer ? 

Mr. Mazey. I became an officer of local 212, which was the Briggs 
local, it is an amalgamated local union now, in 1937. I was elected 
president of the local union, and I was reelected on five occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often did you have your elections ? 

Mr. Mazey. Once a year at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often do you have them now ? 

Mr. Mazey. They are once every 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president of the Briggs local until what 
time? 

Mr. Mazey. I was president of the Briggs local from 1937 to 1941. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what position did you have ? 

Mr. Mazey. I then became the assistant director of our Ford De- 
partment. I played a prominent role in organizing Ford workers 
throughout the country. I was responsible for the negotiating of the 
first Ford wage contract in 1941 with the Ford Motor Co. 



8908 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I served in that capacity as assistant director until March of 1943, 
at which time I was reelected president of local 212 once again and 
I returned to the local union as president in 1943. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. And from 1943 on ? 

Mr. Mazey. I went into the Army on March 1, 1944. I served 21^ 
years in the Army, including over a year overseas, in the Philippines, 
Okinawa, and finallji' wound up on a little island of loshima. I was 
elected to the executive board of the international union while I was 
in service. 

In fact, I didn't know I was even running. I was elected while in 
uniform. I took office as a member of the international executive 
board and as regional director of the east side of Detroit on May 
16, 1946. 

I was elected secretary-treasurer of the international union on 
Armistice Day, November 11, 1947, and have been reelected at each 
convention since that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were elected what in the international ? 

Mr. Mazey. Secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you hold that position as of the present time ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have held that position since November 11, 194Y. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any other positions other than secre- 
tary-treasurer in the union ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have a lot of duties. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any other positions ? 

Mr. Mazey. This is my official position. I am director of a number 
of departments of the union. I am director of the veterans' depart- 
ment, I am director of the community services department, I am chair- 
man of the committee on civil liberties and civil rights of our board, 
and I have about a dozen other assignments of that type. 

Mr. Kennedy. That takes us up to date, and now you are ready with 
your statement. 

Mr. Mazey. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. That, apparently, is a full-time job at least, the 
way you described it. What is the salary ? 

Mr. Mazey. The salary of my position at the present time is $18,000 
a year. 

Senator Mundt. Does it carry with it an expense account ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I have actual expenses. 

Senator Mtjndt. Just as you are paid on vouchers, do you mean ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I have a $35 a week expense account, which is a 
per diem account, $35 a week, and I get actual expenses. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have other sources of income or is that your 
total income ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is my total income. I devote my full time to the 
union. 

Senator Mundt. One other question. I have not had a chance to 
read your long statement. Is there anything in that statement dealing 
with the problem of — I have forgotten the official phrase for it, but 
the boycott of the Kohler products that the union advocates ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe there is something about the boycott in there. 

Senator Mundt. If you will direct my attention to the page, I would 
like to read that part of it. I looked through the index hastily and I 
couldn't find it under that heading, but I presumed there must be 
something in here on it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8909 

( At this point, Senator McClellan left the hearing room. ) 

Mr, Mazey. I believe the boycott matter, Senator, is covered in Mr. 
Reuther's statement, but I am prepared to discuss the boycott. I have 
material on the boycott question. 

Senator Mundt. If there is anything in here, I want to read it be- 
fore asking you questiojis about it. There is nothing in here about it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not certain there is. I looked at the index and 
I don't find it. We had 2 statements, 1 from Mr. Reuther and 1 from 
myself. We divided the field. 

Senator Mundt. I was unable to get into the committee room to 
hear Mr. Reuther. The door was locked. 

Mr. JVIazey. The door was not locked, Senator. You could get in. 

Senator Mundt. I beg your pardon. I sent my administrative as- 
sistant up to hear, and the door was locked. It was not barred, but 
he was kept out. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater's assistant was here. So you were 
represented. 

Senator Mundt. Perhaps, then, my boy did not try quite as hard. 

Mr. Mazey. I was at the press conference. I sat here at the table 
while Mr. Reuther was speaking. There was no attempt to bar any- 
one from this room. We wanted you here, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I didn't say you barred him. He wanted in but 
somebody kept him out. 

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

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Reuther wanted to appear before this committee, 
but you didn't give him a chance. 

Senator Mundt. We will give him a chance; all the chance he 
wanted. I was going to point out that consequently I could not find 
out directly what Mr. Reuther said. I didn't have a chance to read 
your statement, so I am trying to find out whether anything on the 
boycott is in your statement. 

Now you tell me it is not in your statement, but it is in the statement 
of Mr. Reuther ; is that right ? 

Mr. ISIazey. I am prepared to discuss the boycott. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that, but there is nothing here in the 
nature of background that I can read. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't believe there is. I think it is in his statement. 
May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you may proceed. 

Mr. Mazey. In the speech just made to the committee, there was 
mention of a vote that was to be taken at this meeting that I addressed 
on November 17, 1954. I am sure that the committee would like to 
know the outcome of that vote. I have in my hand a photostatic 
copy of the Sheboygan Press of November 18, 1954, and the head- 
line of the copy is: "Kohler Strike Continuation Voted 1571 to 21," 
after 7 months of striking. 

By secret-ballot vote, in the presence of the press, on November 17, 
1954, the Kohler workers voted to continue their strike. You gentle- 
men had an opportunity of hearing in some detail the issues, the back- 
ground of this matter. I thought it might be well at this time to 
make the record clear as to the outcome of that vote. 

The members voted by secret ballot to continue their struggle. 
I didn't cast a vote at that meeting. 



8910 IMPROPER AcnvrriES ix the labor field 

The Chairman. What date was that? 

Mr. Mazf.y. November 17, 1954. I am referring to the Sheboygan 
Press, of November 18, 1954. 

Tlie Chairman. Let us see now. 

Do you have the record of the vote without referring to the 
press ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't have it personally, but I am sure it is available, 
sir. 

The Chairman. The point is where you have other proof — I will 
let press articles where you refer to them just be made exhibits, but 
the press article itself is not the best evidence, as we know. 

Mr. Mazey. I have that impression of the press occasionally, too, 
sir. 

The Chairman. "Well, you are absolutely right in that instance. 
Proceed. 

Mr. Mazey. May I proceed ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. Proceed. 

Mr. Mazey. An im.pression has been left during the course of these 
hearings, and the manner in which some of the questions has taken 
place 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, will you get back to the microphone ? 
We can't hear quite all of what you say. 

Mr. Mazey. I am sorry. An impression has been left or tried to be 
created here, that the Kohler strike was the result of activities of out- 
side influences, of people from the city of Detroit. I want to state 
right from the very beginning that the Kohler strike was of the 
Kohler workers, by the Kohler workers, and for the benefit of the 
Kohler workers. 

The people that appeared in Sheboygan, Wis., including myself — 
I appeared there on numerous occasions — were there to assist the 
Kohler workers in negotiations, to assist them in the strike-assistance 
program, and assist them in conducting an orderly and peaceful strike. 

This strike began as a result of a breakdown in collective-bargaining 
negotiations. I had the opportunity of taking part in the negotiations 
of the first contract with the Kohler Co. I spent over 3 weeks in the 
city of Sheboygan in 1953. 

The union and the company were hopelessly deadlocked. I was 
asked by the director of our union, Harvey Kitzman, to assist him in 
negotiations. With my administrative assistant, Jesse Ferrazza, I 
joined the negotiations and we spent a little better than 3 weeks at the 
bargaining table in trying to reach a contract with the Kohler Co. 

We made every effort to work out this contract without having to 
resort to strike action. I would like to say at this point that our union 
is not a strike-happy union. We prefer to settle our problems across 
the bargaining table. 

That strike action takes place only as a last resort, only when every 
other means fails, only when we have to make a choice between fighting 
or surrendering. 

In these negotiations in 1953 I found a great deal of difficulty in get- 
ting the company to move. The labor policies of the Kohler Co. were 
far to the right of the opinions and philosophy of Louis XIV. The 
company was unwilling to come anywhere near meeting the contract- 
ual standards of their principal competitors. We worked hard on the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8911 

1593 contract and we finally were able to reach a settlement of the 
agreement, providing for a 12-cent-an-hour increase in wages and 
fringe benefits and other adjustments that amounted to about 6 cents 
an hour. 

The contract that we negotiated was not everything we wanted. It 
was below the standards of the contracts in effect in the competitors of 
the Kohler Co. At the time we reached a decision that we had come to 
an agreement, I spent about 2 hours arguing with the rank-and-file 
committee of the Kohler Local 833, to try to convince them that the 
contract ought to be accepted. 

There was so much bitterness and hate against the company, par- 
ticularly for its actions in smashing the strike by the American Feder- 
ation of Labor in 1934, in which 2 people were killed, and 47 shot in the 
back, that it was difficult to reason with this committee, but we worked 
at it and worked at it very hard, and we told them that, although the 
contract did not have everything it wanted, that collective bargaining 
was a continuing process, and that we had to take our collective-bar- 
gaining gains step by step and this company had to learn to deal with 
a legitimate union, and that we ought to take the settlement, that it 
was a big step forward in terms of the provisions of the old contract 
with the independent union. 

I u%ed the committee to accept the agreement and to recommend 
the acceptance of the agreement to the membership. The committee 
finally agreed. I attended the membership meeting. I presented the 
contract to the membership, and the membership accepted the contract 
by almost unanimous action as a result of my efforts and the efforts of 
the other people involved in the situation. 

Our contract provided for a wage reopener every 3 months. In May 
of 1953 the wage reopener was sought. The union was asking for a 
14-cent-an-hour increase in wages, and the company offered us 3 cents. 

The local took a strike vote, and at this point I was opposed to grant- 
ing strike authorization. Under the provisions of our constitution, it 
is necessary for a local union to take a strike vote by secret ballot, and 
two-thirds of those participating in the voting must vote in favor of 
striking before action. 

Senator Curtis. It was my understanding that we took the testi- 
mony in reference to Mr, Vinson's assault on this little gentleman who 
was here this morning, and then this record was played for the pur- 
pose of showing the attack by the witness Mazey on the judge that 
presided in this court. 

Now, I understand that he has put one speech in the record already, 
and I wonder if we will have an opportunity to cross-examine him at 
this time on these matters that are before the committee that are rele- 
vant to our inquiry. 

I would like to ask him some questions. 

The Chairman, I thought this arrangement of presentation had 
been worked out, as far as I know it has. Am I in error ? 

Senator Mundt, I think that is right, but this member of the com- 
mittee has a right to interrogate the witness. 

The Chairman, There is no doubt, but I am trying to get my bear- 
ings now, 

Senat!or Curtis, I would like to ask the witness a question or two, 

Mr. Mazey, in this radio tape that was played back you made some 



8912 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

remarks concerning the judge that presided over the case in which 
Mr. Vinson was found guilty, did you not ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I made statements. 

Senator Curtis. And among other things, you said this : 

In this statement that I issued last Wednesday, I said that the sentencing 
of Bill Vinson was extremely harsh, and it was. It is the toughest sentence 
that has been handed down in Sheboygan County on a case of this type in the 
history of the county. 

Then you went on to state : 

I further said that the conduct of Judge Schlichting, in the Vinson case, raised 
a serious question in my mind as to whether he is qualified to serve as a judge 
in this community and I repeat this charge. 

Will you produce that statement against the judge that you referred 
to here, that you said that you had made the previous Wednesday. 

Mr. Mazey. I believe the statement is a matter of record, but I be- 
lieve it has been turned over. It was a written press release I made 
to the newspaper in answer to an editorial that appeared in the She- 
boygan Press. 

Senator Curtis. Would you give me a copy of it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't have it right at my hand, but I am sure it is 
available. 

The Chairman. Do we have a copy in the committee files? 

Mr. McGovERN. No, we do not. 

The Chairman. You will supply a copy? Do you have a copy that 
you can make available? 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure there must be a copy. 

The Chairman. If you don't have it with you, you can procure and 
make available a copy. 

Mr. Mazey. If we don't have it with us, I will call my office and I 
am sure we must still have it on file. 

The Chairman. Is it a very long statement? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I think I dealt with what I considered injustice 
in about three paragraphs. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to determine whether to place it 
in the record at this point, so the record will be clear. 

Senator Curtis. Your first attack upon the judge was in a press re- 
lease issued? 

Mr. Mazey. It wasn't an attack. It was criticism of the judge. 

Senator Curtis. And it was made in the nature of a press release ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And then your next one was at this meeting where 
the tape recording took place, is that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. At this meeting I explained my position on this entire 
matter. 

Senator Curtis. How many people were present at that meeting ? 

Mr. Mazey. Over 2,000 people. 

Senator Curtis. And then this speech in which part of it you at- 
tacked the judge and questioned whether he was qualified to serve 
in the community — that was played over the radio ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir, my speech was played to the community. 

Senator Curtis. How many radio stations ? 

Mr. Mazey. It was played on one station, I believe. 

Senator Curtis. And that reached at least the immediate area 
around there of several thousand people. 



IMPROPER ACTn'FTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8913 

Mr. Mazet. I am told I had a very good audience for that speech. 

Senator Curtis. Was time purchased to play this ? 

Mr, ]\L\.ZEY. Yes, it was. 

Senator Curtis. And who paid for the time ? 

Mr. Mazey. The union, the UAW. 

Senator Curtis. The international ? 

Mr. Mazey. The international did. 

Senator Curtis. How much did they pay for it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know the cost of the program. We paid the 
going rates, whatever it was. 

Senator Curtis. Now, do you feel that you were in your right po- 
sition as a citizen attacking a judge in this manner widely and pub- 
licly and over the radio, and before thousands of people, challenging 
his qualifications as a judge ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; I think that any citizen has a right to challenge 
the integrity of a judge whetlier it be on a circuit bench or the Su- 
preme Court, if his conduct is improper. 

Senator Curtis. And you say his conduct was improper ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; it was. 

Senator Curits. Now, what about his conduct was improper? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, to begin with. Senator Curtis, as my speech 
showed, I was advised hj our attorney Dave Rabinovitz, Allan Grass- 
kamp the president of local 833, and by Bob Burkhart, the inter- 
national representative assigned to the Kohler local, that early in May 
of 1954, Judge Schlichting called tliese three gentlemen into his cham- 
bers and said that he would have to disqualify himself from a par- 
ticular matter relating to the union because he had an interest in a gro- 
cery store, and that he sold groceries both to strikers and to non- 
strikers. 

Therefore, the judge himself felt that he should disqualify himself 
because he had a conflict of interest. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reporter, would you read the question that I 
asked him just before he made the last reply. 

(At this point, the reporter read the pertinent portion of the 
record.) 

Senator Curtis. I am referring to the conduct of the criminal trial. 

Mr. AL^zEY. You are now asking specifically what in his conduct 
in the trial was improper ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Mazey. I pointed out to begin with, the judge raised the ques- 
tion of his conflict of interest himself. Now, in the trial he didn't 
present the charges to the jury properly, in the opinion of our legal 
counsel. 

Senator Curtis. Was that objection submitted to the Supreme 
Court ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; it was. 

Senator Curtis. What else ? 

Mr. ]\Iazey. And in passing sentence, he passed the stiffest sentence 
that he could, and tlie stiffest sentence passed in the city of Sheboygan 
on a matter of this type. 

Senator Curtis. It was all within the purview of the statute, was it 
not? 



8914 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. No; this Vinson incident was a common beer garden 
brawl, and I am not happy about it, and I don't think it should have 
happened, and I raised hell with Vinson for the thing taking place, 
but I think you have to understand. Senator, when people are drinking 
in bars and bowling alleys, that the emotions are high in a strike 
situation, and sometimes unfortunate things happen. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, Mr. Mazey, let us get to the facts a little 
bit. Under the Wisconsin statute, he could have been sentenced up to 
3 years, couldn't he ? 

Mr. AIazey. He was tried on the wrong statute. The judge should 
have had him on a simple assault and battery. 

Senator Curtis. Now, are you a lawyer ? 

Mr, Mazey. No, but I know a great deal about the subject matter 
and I deal with lawyers all of the time. 

Senator Curtis. After you made these attacks against the judge, 
was there any objection to it made by various groups in the commimity ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; I said in my sjDeech that the bar association ob- 
jected, and the clergy objected, and even the medical association ob- 
jected. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I have before me here what purports to be 
some objection of the Catholic clergy, taken from the Sheboygan 
Wisconsin Press, Friday, November 12, 1954. 

The headlines are : 

Catholic Clergy Has Statement on Mazey. 

The following statement condemning Emil Mazey's attack on the integrity of 
circuit Judge F. H. Schlichting was issued today by all of the Catholic pastors 
of Sheboygan, Sheboygan Falls, and Kohler : 

"There comes a time when silence is imprudent, and may even be harmful to a 
community, such as Sheboygan and that time is now. A resident of Sheboygan 
County was attacked and severely injured by another man. The attacker was 
tried in circuit court and convicted by a jury of assault with intent to do grave 
bodily harm. 

"The judge of the circuit court, F. H. Schlichting, sentenced the convicted man 
to prison. The attorneys for the convicted man openly in court complimented the 
judge for his fairness in the conduct of the trial. 

"The State supreme court denied the convicted man a stay of execution of the 
sentence. In the face of all these acts, the secretary-treasurer of the UAW, 
CIO, Emil Mazel, closing his eyes to the fact that the injured man was in danger 
of dying, has accused the judge of obvious bias shown against organized labor. 

"He even presumed to question whether the judge is qualified to serve as a 
judge in this community. He has attacked the integrity of a major court of this 
country, and deserves to be called decisively to task for his insolence. 

"Lawlessness is the result in any society or community when law and order 
are disregarded and flouted. It is the beginning of anarchy. Is the secretary- 
ti-easurer advocating either one?" 

The names following this are : 

John J. Carroll, pastor, St. Clements Parish; Robert M. Hoeller, pastor of St. 
Peter Claver Parish ; Anthony J. Knackert, pastor of Holy Name Parish ; Louis 
Koren, pastor of St. Cyril and Methodius Parish ; Charles J. New, pastor of St. 
Mary's Parish, Sheboygan Falls; John A. Risch, pastor of St. John Evangelist 
Parish, Kohler ; James .T. Shlikas, pastor, Immaculate Conception Parish ; and 
William Weishaupl, pastor of St. Dominic's Parish. 

Now, Mr. Maze}^, it seems to me that this was not the criticism of a 
citizen over a decision of a court, but that you were leading a powerful 
and rich organization in a demonstration to intimidate courts in this 
land. 

Mr. Mazey. That isn't true, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8915 

Senator Curtis. Aiid I believe that this censure that these men of 
the clergy gave you, that they should be commended for it. 

Mr. Mazey. If I may comment on your remark 

Senator Curtis. Just a minute. Did anybody else 

The Chairman. Did the Senator ask a question ? Did you ask the 
witness a question ? 

Senator Curtis. No, I did not. I said, Did any other group con- 
demn you ? 

Mr. Mazey. I told you they did. The bar association passed a reso- 
lution organized by the Kohler attorneys. And the medical associa- 
tion passed one too, and I believe there were three resolutions passed 
against me at that particular time. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Mazey, I have here what appears to be 
a clipping from the Sheboygan, Wis., Press, Friday, November 12, 
1954. It is this paper here that has at the bottom the Sheboygan 
County Bar Association, and I will read the main body of it here, and 
ask you if that is the condemnation that they leveled against you ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am willing to stipulate that I was condemned by the 
bar, and the medical association, and by the clergy, and I am willing 
to stipulate that fact. 

Senator Curtis. But I think that your actions were so out of place 
that I think it is important that we make a matter of record what 
these fine citizens like the clergy, and the bar, and these other 
groups 

Mr. Mazey. I am a fine citizen, too, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I haven't said anything about that. 

Mr. Mazey. I just wanted to keep the record clear. 

Senator Curtis. I did not think you might want to do that. That 
would make it permissible for me to introduce evidence to the con- 
trary. But this reads as follows : 

The members of the Sheboygan County Bar Association have the fullest confi- 
dence in Judge F. F. Schlichting as judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Wis- 
consin, and particularly do we commend the judge on his fair and impartial con- 
duct in the recent trial of the Vinson case. 

We do therefore challenge and deny the implications in the statement of the 
UAW-CIO oflScials quoted above. We condemn this action of the oflBcers of the 
UAW-CIO who by economic boycott are attempting to interfere with and influ- 
ence the courts of this State and county. 

By so doing they are striking at the very heart of our free and democratic 
system of government. We as attorneys and officers of the court know well the 
record of F. H. Schlichting as judge of our county and circuit courts over a period 
of some 22 years, and we do without reservation reaffirm our confidence in him. 

We believe that the vast majority of the citizens of this county wUl unite with 
us and condemn and denounce such tactics. 

Now, that was the statement that they published in answer to your 
statements. 

Mr. IVIazey. I believe it was the statement. I haven't followed it 
word for word, but I was advised it was written by Kohler attorneys 
passed among bar association of Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Well, that is hearsay. Can you prove that ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, I can't. 

Senator Curtis. Why do you say it then if you can't prove it ? 

Mr. IVIazey. Because I believe it. 

Senator Curtis. But you are under oath here to give us the facto. 



8916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ]VL\ZEY. That is right, and it is my opinion that the Kohler 
attorneys, the stories among the attorneys of Sheboygan, the Kohler 
attorneys circnlated that statement and I believe that to be true. 

Senator Curtis. Do you believe that the company controlled all of 
these members of the clergy that took part in this ? 

Mr. IMazey. They controlled some of them. 

Senator Curtis. Which ones ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, j-ou said they controlled some of them, 
and which ones ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mazey. On the matter of 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. I will hand you the list of these clergymen, and 
you tell me which ones the company controlled. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know which ones the company controlled. 

Senator Curtis. All right, you read the first name there, and read 
it into the record, and tell us whether or not tlie company controls 
that priest. 

Mr. Mazey. It might save some time by saying I don't know which 
of the individual ministers they controlled, but I believe they influence 
them. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you said they controlled some of them, Mr. 
Mazey ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe they do. 

Senator Curtis. We did not ask you for a statement of opinion. You 
were asked the question as to whether or not they controlled these 
clergymen, and you said they controlled some of them. 

Mr. AIazey. I expressed an opinion in reply to a question. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I want you to take that list and read off 
the first name there. Will you do that ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have already said I don't know which of these they 
control. 

Senator Curtis. Read that first name on there. 

Mr. Mazey. I will read it. 

Senator Curtis. Read it now, aloud. 

Mr. Mazey. John G. Carroll. 

Senator Curtis. Of what church ? 

Mr. ALvzEY. Pastor of St. Clement parish. 

Senator Curtis. Now, does the Kohler Co. control him? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Read the second one. 

Mr. Mazey. Robert M. Hoeller, pastor, St. Peter Cleaver parish. 

Senater Curtis. Does the Kohler Co. control him ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know whether they control him or not. 

Senator Curtis. Now coming back to this first name, is it your 
opinion that the company controls that one, the first name that you 
i-ead ? 

Mr. Mazey. It is my opinion that the company influences msmj of 
the clergy in Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Oh, no; is it your opinion tliat the company con- 
trols the name of the first clergyman on the list ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, I can't categorically say which of these they 
control. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8917 

Senator Curtis. I am not asking- about any of the rest of them, but 
just the first one. Is it your opinion that the company controls him? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your opinion that the company controls the 
second one ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know whetlier they control them or not, and I 
believe they influence many. 

Senator Curtis. Now read the third one. 

Mr. Mazey. Anthony J. Knackert. 

Senator Curtis. What church ? 

Mr. Mazey. Pastor of the Holy Name Parish. 

Senator Curtis. Does the company control that clergyman ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know wliether they do or not but I think some 
Kohler workers could testify as to which ones the company does con- 
trol. 

Senator Curtis. Now, listen, it was your testimony under oath that 
stated here that the Kohler Co. controlled some of these clergymen. 

Mr. Mazey. It is my opinion, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right, is it your opinion that they control this 
one ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. All right, read the next one. 

Mr. Mazey. Louis Koren, pastor of Saints Cyril and Methodius 
Parish. 

Senator Curtis. Does the company control that one ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. In your opinion, do you believe that they do? 

Mr. Mazey. In my opinion, the Kohler Co. has great influence over 
the church, over the bar, and over the medical association in She- 
boygan. 

Senator Curtis. Then, are you stating that it is or isn't your opin- 
ion that the company controls this last clergyman mentioned ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know specifically. 

Senator Curtis. All right, read the next one. 

Mr. Mazey. Charles J. New, pastor of St. Mary's Parish, Sheboy- 
gan Falls. 

Senator Curtis. Now, does the Kohler Co. control that one? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't knoAv ; I think that they influence many. 

Senator Curtis. You think that they influence that one ? 

Mr. Mazey. The Kohler Co. influences everything in Sheboygan 
County. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, a bit ago you said the company con- 
trolled some of these, and now it is your opinion that this one, this 
one last read is one that they control ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know ; it is possible they do. 

Senator Curtis. It is possible? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Do you make that charge, that there is a possi- 
bility that the Kohler Co. does ? 

Mr. Mazey. It is a possiblity they control everyone of these churches. 

Senator Curtis. In order to do that, that would seriously reflect 
upon the character of those clergymen, would it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think it does, yes. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 12 



8918 IMPROPER ACTrvrriES est the labo« field 

Senator Curtis. All rijjht, now read the next one, 

Mr. Mazey. John A. Risch, pastor of St. John Evangelist Parish, 
Kohler. 

Senator Curtis. Does the company control that priest ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, I have no specific proof, but anything that is ex- 
isting in the Kohler Village, they control. They handle or they are 
really the biggest landlord of the community, and I imagine they 
picked the parish ministers in this case. 

Senator Curtis. Referring back to your previous statement under 
oath, that the Kohler Co. controls some of those clergymen, is this 
last one mentioned one that they control? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know but I assume that they do. 

Senator Curtis. You assume that they do ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And does that carry an assumption that reflects 
against the character of the clergyman involved ? 

Mr. Mazey. My assumption is based on this fact. Senator, that the 
Kohler Village has about 1,500 people living in it, and all of the 
houses are given to the company's select personnel, and before a house 
can be sold it must be approved by the president of the Kohler Co., 
and I assume that with that kind of tight control over a community, 
that Kohler probably picks the minister of that particular parish as 
well. 

If he picks the minister under these circumstances, he would con- 
trol him. 

Senator Curtis. Does Mr. Kohler have to approve every sale of 
real estate ? 

Mr. Mazey. That was testified to here, and I heard the testimony 
myself. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio testified to that ? 

Mr. Mazey. One of the scabs. Jacobs, I believe was his name, and 
he said after he tried to organize a back-to-work movement, he went 
to see Mr. Irian, the employment manager of the company, and he 
was rewarded with a home in Kohler Village, which is a nice little 
village, but before he got the home it had to be approved by Herbert 
Kohler, the president of the Kohler Co. 

That was testified to here. 

Senator Cuetis. I understood your testimony — that was a home that 
he bought from Kohler, was it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know whether he bought it or rented it, and I 
don't quite recall that incident, but I do know that the president of 
the company deals with all of the transactions in his village. 

It is a company-owned town, Senator. 

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

Senator Curtis. Read the next clergyman on that list. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair remind both, if I may be permitted 
to do so, that the testimony here involved is a lease, as I recall, and 
not a sale. 

Mr. Mazey. As I understand it, sir, on sales you have the same 
problem. There is a clause in every ownership of the home, that the 
home reverts back to the company. 

The Chairman. You may be correct, but I wanted to say that the 
testimony to which you referred regarded a lease and not a sale. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8919 

Senator Curtis. Read the next name. 

Mr, Mazey. The hist one was the Kohler Parish, wasn't it ? 

James J. Shlikas, pastor of Immaculate Conception Parish. 

Senator Curtis. Does the company control him ? 

Mr. Mazet. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your belief that they do ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe that the company influences all of the churches 
in Sheboygan County. 

Senator Curtis. In the whole county ? 

Mr. ^Iazey. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you mean in the whole county there is not one 
church that is not under the influence of the Kohler "Co.? 

Mr. Mazey. No, I wouldn't make that statement, because I hope 
there are some men of integrity in that county. 

Senator Curtis. Doesn't that list there include all of the Catholic 
clergymen in the county ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't have a directory of the clergymen so I wouldn't 
be able to answer that question. 

Senator Curtis. Does it say at the top of the article ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, it doesn't. 

Senator Curtis. I thought it did. 

Mr. Mazey (reading) : 

The Catholic clergy has statement on Mazey. The following statement con- 
demning Emil Mazey's attack on the integrity of Circuit Judge F. H. Schlichting, 
was issued today by all of the Catholic pastors in Sheboygan, Sheboygan Falls, 
and Kohler. 

It happened to mention two towns and a village in the county. I 
hope there are men of integrity in that county and I hope there are 
some. 

The Chairman. Are you implying that these men are not men of 
integrity ? 

Mr. Mazey. Wliat I am implying is that these men have attacked 
me, they have defended the position of the Kohler Co. Not once 
during this entire struggle have they ever said anything on behalf of 
strikers. AVliat other conclusion can I reach ? 

The Chairman. I just wanted to clarify if that is what the witness 
wanted to do. 

Senator Curtis. I was never so astounded at a witness at any con- 
gressional hearing that I have ever known of or read of, as the state- 
ment that you have made here today. 

Mr. Mazey. Some very astounding things happen at Kohler. 

Senator Curtis. That is, reflecting upon the character of individ- 
uals such as this. 

Mr. Mazey. Some very astounding things happen in Kohler Village 
and in Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Have you read the last name on that ? 

Mr. jMazey. No, I haven't. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. Read them all one by one and tell me whether 
or not the company controls them. 

Mr. Mazey. We have one more to go. William Weishaupel, the 
pastor of the St. Dominic Parish. 

Senator Curtis. Does the company control him ? 

Mr. ;Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your opinion that they do ? 



8920 IMPROPER ACTmriES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. It is my opinion that the company infinences all of the 
clergy who signed their name to this particular statement. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Mazey 

Senator Mundt. Will the gentleman yield ? 

Senator Curtis. I will finish this list and before I go to another 
one I will yield to you. 

Before we started to go over that list one by one, you made the flat 
statement that the company controlled some of those clergymen. Is 
that still your statement ? 

Mr. Mazey. I said that in my opinion the company controlled the 
clergy of Sheboygan, Sheboygan Falls, and Kohler Village — in my 
opinion. 

Senator Curtis. Do you mean by that they are not men of integrity ? 

Mr. Mazey. If they are controlled by the Kohler Co., they couldn't 
be. 

Senator Curtis. Which ones are you referring to that could not be 
men of integi-ity ? 

Mr. Mazey. I said that in my opinion 

Senator Curtis. I know what you said. I am talking about which 
individuals are you saying are not men of integrity ? 

Mr. Mazey. All of them. 

Senator Curtis. I will yield to Senator Mundt. 

The Chairman. Did the Senator yield ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to say for the record, so that my silence 
will not lead to assent of this performance, that in over 17 years of 
serving on congressional investigation committees, starting back with 
the Dies committee when we were dealing with Communists, I have 
just heard the most shocking statement from a witness I have heard 
in 17 years. 

When a witness says that there isn't a single man of integrity in the 
Catholic clergy of Sheboygan, Kohler Village and Sheboygan Falls, 
if he does nothing else he certainly wins whatever kind of award 
should be made to a fellow who says something which is the most 
shocking statement I think a congressional committee has ever had 
to listen to. 

Senator Goldm^\ter. Will the Senator yield ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Before we leave this point, I have tried to 
point out occasionally during these hearings of patterns that we see 
forming. I think this is another pattern that is forming, which follows 
a definite one that has been establivShed for many, many years. 

What the witness is saying is that because the clergy of Sheboygan 
County do not agree with him, they are not men of integrity. Let's 
see something that happened just a few weeks ago. A radio announcer 
in Michigan, I believe it was Pontiac, who didn't agree with Walter 
Reuther's share-the-profits plan was dismissed. 

Why? Because of mental instability. And I think on the 21st or 
22d of January, after I had made a speech in Detroit, with 
which Mr. Reuther disagreed, I was mentally unbalanced. So when 
you don't agree with people, they are not people of integrity, thej^ 
are mentally unbalanced, they are unstable or instable. You never 



EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8921 

come out and state that they might be right. This is the line. This 
is the line that has been followed. I remember the wail that went up 
from the ADA when Mr. Oxnam was criticized by Members of the 
Congress. 

I don't hear a similar wailing going up from this group, because 
not just one clergyman but a whole county full of clergymen have 
been criticized. 

Mr. Mazey. Sir, I would like to comment on the matter you raised. 
The person you had reference to who made a radio broadcast, it 
was not Pontiac but Flint, Mich. Plis name was Herbert Hoover. 

Senator Goldwater. No relation to the Kepublican ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, relation. We don't believe in guilt by association. 
We put him on our payroll because we thought he was a good, com- 
petent person. Herbert Hoover has an emotional disturbance. The 
man needs medical attention. He made a broadcast which in my 
opinion he would not have made if he was in good mental health. 
In dealing with this particular matter, I was criticized by the press, 
criticized by you, Senator Goldwater. You didn't make any attempt 
to^et the facts from me before you issued a statement on this matter. 

Senator Goldwater. I have been used to that kind of treatment 
from you for a long time. 

Mr. Mazey. You didn't contact me on Hoover. You didn't try to 
get the facts before you criticized me, did you, sir ? 

Senator Goldwater. All I said was that you fired this man and had 
mental instability, and it follows a pattern that you are setting 
up here with this county full of ministers whom you say have no 
integrity. 

Let me ask you a question. 

Mr. Mazey. It is not a pattern. May I finish? You made a 
statement. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you a question. 

Mr. IVIazey. I haven't answered your last one yet. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't recall asking one. 

Mr. Mazey. You had three parts. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. Get on with it, because I want to 
find out what is wrong with me. 

Mr. Mazey. I hope we have time to answer that, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I suspected that would be your answer. 

Mr. Mazey. On the question of Herb Hoover, you did this man 
a great injustice, because he is in need of medical treatment. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, he says he isn't. 

Mr. IVIazey. Have you ever had a mental patient who said he wasn't 
ill ? Have you ever seen one who said he wasn't ill ? You did this 
man a great injustice. I didn't answer to your charge. On the ques- 
tion of his being fired, he was not fired for making that broadcast. 
The facts are that we had a convention of over 3,000 people, and equal 
time was given for all of the delegates to speak either in favor of our 
program or against our program. 

We carried on our radio programs. We have programs on 40 sta- 
tions throughout the country. There's a program we call the "eye 
opener." 

Senator Goldw^\ter. We know all of that, Mr. Mazey. We know 
that. 



8922 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOK FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. On this program, we carried the pros and cons of this 
particular issue. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, we know that, 

Mr. Mazey. Herb Hoover was not fired for expressing a view that 
was different from the view of the convention. 

Senator Goldwater. The reason which you gave in the paper for 
firing Mr. Hoover was not what you outlined. The reason was you 
said he was mentally unstable, 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, I am asking the questions. Please 
be quiet. 

The Chairman. Let's one talk at a time. 

Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you believe now that you have stated that 
you had no confidence in the judge, that you believed the men of the 
cloth of Sheboygan County to lack integrity, how about the Bar As- 
sociation of Sheboygan County ? 

Mr. Mazey. It might be of some interest to you, sir, that Mr. Humke, 
a Kohler attorney, spoke for the resolution that was adopted by the 
bar association. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. What is your feeling about the Bar 
Association of Sheboygan County ? I assume you feel that Mr. Humke 
has no integrity, so let's take the rest of them. 

Mr. Mazey. I have been told by our attorney 

Senator Goldwater. What do you think about it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have been told by our attorney that many of the attor- 
neys in the bar association in the city of Sheboygan are sorry for what 
they did; they didn't have all of the facts; they made their decisions 
without having all of the facts ; and many of these attorneys today are 
criticizing Judge Schlichting because he is now handing down slift'er 
penalties than he did before in order to prove that he wasn't biased in 
the Vinson case. 

Senator Goldwater. Again, Mr. Mazey, can you name the lawyers 
who are saying that ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, I can't. 

Senator Goldwater. Then you just made another charge. 

Mr. Mazey. No, I didn't. 

I said that my attorney advised me of that. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Who is your attorney? 

Mr. Mazey. Dave Rabinowitz advised me of this fact. He can 
testify himself. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's ask Mr. Rabinowitz who these men are 
that are lacking in integrity, I think this is a rather serious thing, to 
have a man come down to the United States Senate and charge every- 
body in Sheboygan County there who doesn't agree with him of being 
men who lack integrity ? 

Mr. Mazey. I haven't charged everybody 

Senator Goldwater. You have charged the church and the bar as- 
sociation. We haven't gotten to the medical association, but I assume 
it would be the same. I haven't a telephone directory, or we could 
go through the whole book. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, you made a number of statements 
a moment ago, and I would like to answer them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8923 

Senator Goldwater. Wait a minute. I have asked you who these 
lawyers are who are now denouncing Judpje Schlichting. 

Mr. Mazey. Even if I knew their names, I don't believe it would be 
fair to put their names in the record, because the closed shop fra- 
ternity they have would probably result in their being disbarred. 

Senator Goldwater. You have just by inference condemned the 
whole Bar Association of Sheboygan County. 

Mr. Mazey. No, I have not. 

Senator Goldwater. Then I don't understand the English language. 

Mr. Mazey. Everybody didn't vote for the resolution. 

Senator Goldwater. The ones that voted for the resolution are 
lawyers who lack integrity, is that it ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. Perhaps I ought to amplify my statement. 

Senator Goldwaiter. I expect you will. 

But 

Mr. Mazey. There are a number of lawyers that have advised my 
attorney, our attorney, that they made a mistake, that they didn't 
have the facts ; that if they had the facts they would not have added 
their names to that list. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Mazey 

Senator Mundt, Will the Senator yield ? 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Let's see who wants the floor. 

Senator Curtis. I yielded to Senator Mundt. 

Mr. Mazey. How did I get into the act ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, you can relax. You are not going to 
get into the act. This has something to do with your counsel. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Mazey has not, in my judgment, received a fair op- 
portunity to answer the questions. The three Senators, with all due 
respect, have taken it from one to the other without giving Mr. Mazey 
a chance to answer, sir. 

He has some more he would like to add to the previous 

The Chairman. The Chair will now give Mr. Mazey a chance to 
answer any part of the questions that he feels he has not answered. 

Mr. Mazey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Then we will proceed with other questions. 

Mr, Mazey. Senator Goldwater raised the question of Mr. Hoover. 
I want to get back to that. Senator, I would like to speak to you man 
to man about Mr. Hoover, and I think if I explain in detail the 
medical reasons and the proof as to why he was removed from the 
staff, that you will agree with me. I don't want to clutter the record 
with this matter, I don't want to do any harm to Herb Hoover, but I 
want to say categorically that he was not fired for the view that he 
expressed. But at the same time, I want to say this, that we had the 
right to discharge Mr. Hoover or anybody else who expressed an 
opinion contrary to the opinion of the delegates that was arrived at 
democratically at that meeting. 

If Dinah Shore on the Chevrolet program would make a statement 
that "Chevvies aren't any good, buy a Ford," I wonder how long she 
would last. 

That is the other issue. Now on the statement that was referring to 
yourself, you came to our fair city of Detroit, you spoke at a $55 a plate 



8924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

dinner, you helped raise a lot of Republican funds that will be used 
to try to defeat people in the State of Michigan, and you made some 
very serious charges against our union. I don't have the exact state- 
ment, but you said something to the effect that Walter Keuther and 
the UAW was more dangerous to America than all of the Russian 
sputniks. Mr. Reuther's answer to you was that anybody who believes 
that is in need of a psychiatrist, and I join him in that statement. 

Senator Goldwater. Just a moment. 

The Chairman. Let me admonish the witness. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't 
bother me. 

The Chairman. It doesn't bother me, either, but let me admonish 
the witness that the chair is not going to tolerate abusive language, 
insulting language, toward members of the committee. The members 
of the committee have a right to ask you questions, and if the chair 
has his way about it, he is not going to permit members of the com- 
mittee to ask insulting questions of a witness, unless the facts abso- 
lutely warrant such interrogation. 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Let us try to proceed now with questions and 
answers. 

Mr. Mazey. I have been abused all over this country by Mr. Gold- 
water. My union has been abused, President Reuther has been abused. 
I have a file on Goldwater's speeches and statements in which he ac- 
cuses me of having thugs and goons. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. These statements that are made 
over the country, the country is still free and you answered them over 
the country. But I am not going to let this become a cockpit for that 
sort of fighting if I can help it. 

You just as well understand it. Let's proceed by asking questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Curtis yielded to me, I think. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. This goes back to what was done by a man by the 
name of Gunaca, Mr. Rauh. This does not involve you, Mr. Mazey, 
so you can relax. 

Mr. Mazey. Everything that happens in the UAW involves me, sir. 

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

Senator Mundt. Well, it might. If you want to assume some re- 
sponsibility for it, you may do that. 

In my absence the other day, Mr. Rauh brought in a death certificate 
which he placed in the record. 

I have read that testimony last night for the first time. May I say 
I express my appreciation to the Chair because he suggested that I be 
called to the committee room before Mr. Rauh read it. Mr. Rauh 
pointed out that he had asked Mr. McGovem to get in touch with me. 
That is correct, 

Mr. McGovern did get in touch with me. I was busy in the AgTicul- 
tural Committee in executive session voting on agricultural legislation. 
I have no quarrel with anybody in that connection. 

I ;just couldn't be here. Mr. Rauh attempted to get me here, and the 
Chair attempted to protect my interests. So much for that part of it. 
But the question goes to this discussion that we have been having as 
to whether a fatal beating, as described by the Detroit Free Press, is 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8925 

murder or whether it is some other kind of manslaughter, or whether 
it is entirely divorced from the fact that the man died. We have the 
death certificate in the record now, which speaks for itself. 

Except, Mr. Kauh, I could not read the name of the doctor who 
signed it. It think it was H. J. Hamia or something like that. 

Could you supply the name for the record ? 

Mr. Rauh. The name is H. A. Hanson. He was the personal physi- 
cian of the man that died, and he stated on there that it was heart 
trouble. 

Senator Mundt. Plus three other things. 

Mr. Rauh. All going to heart trouble, arteriosclerosis and conges- 
tive failure, which I take it are the same thing. 

Senator Mundt. In order to find out a little more about that, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to read into the record at this point a statement 
signed by Mrs. Ethel J. Bersch, the widow of the deceased. It is 
March 5, 1958. I have a copy 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Ervin. I was asked to preside by Senator McClellan. 

Mr. Rauh. A rule of this committee is involved, whether a state- 
ment not under oath is to be put in the record in this fashion. Sena- 
tor McClellan raised that issue. I just call attention to it. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I am simply asking a question. I 
don't suppose the lawyers are going to determine the nature of the 
question. If they are, it is a new rule of the committee and I would 
like to hear it. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Mimdt, I do not feel like I should make a 
ruling. I am not chairman, but I was asked by Senator McClellan 
to preside. I would request that you hold that until Senator McClel- 
lan is able to return. 

Senator Mundt. I think the chairman should make a ruling. He 
has the responsibility. 

Senator Ervin. If I was going to make a ruling, I would rule out 
everything except the sworn testimony of witnesses. 

Senator Mundt. Does a member of the committee have to have a 
sworn statement as a basis for a question ? 

Senator Ervin. I would rather not make a ruling. 

Senator Curtis. Wouldn't the Chair permit the Senator from South 
Dakota to read the statement and ask a question about it? 

Senator Mundt. I am not going to ask a question about it. I am 
simply building this as a background for a question that I intend 
to ask. 

Senator Ervin. I am a little bit at a loss as to how we will pro- 
ceed. Is the Senator from South Dakota presenting evidence ? 

Senator Mundt. Of course not. I am asking questions. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you are going to read an unsworn statement. 
I would rather not rule on the matter. I would rather Senator 
McClellan rule. My authority is exactly on the same plane with the 
Senator from South Dakota, and I would rather not undertake to 
rule on the matter. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I can't for the life of me under- 
stand all this sudden change in the rules of this committee. It has 
been the practice throughout the months for statements to be made, 



8926 IMPROPER AcrrvTriES est the labor field 

references even to be made to FBI reports, police blotters and the like, 
of facts, and they are not even certified or sworn to, and then pro- 
pound questions to the witness. Our Chief counsel has followed that 
rule. We all liave. throughout the months. 

Senator Ervin. Frankly, what happens in this committee — I will 
just ask the chairman to come back and rule. 

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

Senator Ervin. Having heard how judges have been handled re- 
cently in rulings, I would rather not be a judge. I would rather be 
a juror. That is what I am supposed to be here. Senator Mundt 
was about to read a statement of the widow. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I might suggest that the reporter 
read the background of the present discussion. 

(As requested, the reporter read the background of tlie present 
discussion.) 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am re- 
minded of an event that occurred in the Superior Court of Henderson 
County in North Carolina about 70 years ago. 

They were calling the docket and a lawyer got up and made a mo- 
tion that they have the court appoint a surveyor to survey the prop- 
erty involved in the case. It turned out that the case involved a suit 
on a promissory note. One of the visiting lawyers said he would 
like the court to take a little recess so that he could familiarize him- 
self with the Henderson County practice, that they didn't have all the 
surveys and suits in promissory notes in courts in which he practiced. 

I did not want to take the responsibility of making a ruling on 
this matter, because I have no authority to rule over Senator Mundt. 

I am trying to sit here as a juror and hear all of the evidence and 
render an unbiased decision when it is all through. 

I would see it to be a little easier if we had the direct examination 
precede the cross-examination. 

Probably I have some antiquated and obsolete notions as to how 
facts should be developed and how the best way the search for the 
truth can be conducted. 

But I can function a little better if we have the testimony of the 
witness first and then the cross-examination precedes the direct testi- 
mony, and I am in a state of confusion. 

Th'e Chairman. The Chair thinks there is possibly a misunder- 
standing as to what is really sought to be done in this instance. 

Here is an affidavit from Dr. Lloyd M. Simonson, of Sheboygan, 
the Sheboygan Clinic. 

In order for the doctor to make the affidavit and give information 
which he obtained from his patient in a professional capacity, it is 
necessary to have the consent of that patient. 

I mean anything that he got in confidence, as we know. We all 
know as lawyers the relationship that exists between doctors and their 
patients. The doctor is making an affidavit here with respect to the 
condition that he found Mr. Bersch in at the time he was called to at- 
tend him and is giving his diagnosis. In order to ]Dermit him to do 
that, he has obtained the consent of the widow that he might give the 
testimony. 

Under that circumstance, it is different from putting in a statement 
of facts of the widow without it being sworn. This is her written 
consent that the doctor might state the facts as he found them. There- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 8927 

fore, I think the doctor's affidavit might be admitted. Am I right 
in that ruling ? 

Senator Ervin. I have no objection to it. 

Senator Mundt. I don't object, either. 

The Chairman. The widow simply gives her consent that the doc- 
tor's affidavit may be read, unless there is objection to it. 

Mr. Rauh. Is this Dr. Hanson ? 

Senator Mundt. It is a different doctor. That is why I was trying 
to find out 

Mr. Rauh. Do you mean the pediatrician ? 

Senator Mundt. I don't know. 

Mr. Rauh. Dr. Simonson, I understand, is a pediatrician in She- 
boygan. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think we should let a witness indict a 
doctor before I am even permitted to read this. There ought to be 
somebody decent in Sheboygan County, and I was trying to protect 
the medical profession. 

The Chairman. He swears he is a doctor. 

Senator Mundt. Continuing, Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand 
a copy of a memorandum dated March 5, 1958, directed to Dr. Lloyd 
M. Simonson. 

The Chairman. May I make a further ruling here ? The statement 
giving her consent, that part of her statement, may be read. And 
part of her statement that undertakes to state a fact as to the man's 
condition should not be read in this case as evidence. That part giving 
her consent that the doctor may make an observation 

Senator Mundt. There is nothing in the statement that deals with 
the condition of her husband, but I do object very definitely to any 
ruling on the part of the Chair that if there were something in there 
it could not be read. It is not in there, so it is not a question at this 
time. 

The Chairman. I am perfectly willing to have that objection, but 
the Chair is still going to maintain what he believes to be proper 
procedure. 

If we are going to just take unsworn statements and put them into 
the record, then there is no end to how we might handle this matter. 
I am ruling that the affidavit is completely proper, if the committee 
wishes to accept an affidavit. 

As far as I am concerned, the committee will accept the affidavit. 
But a statement of fact, other than giving her consent, by the widow, 
would not be proper, and would not be evidence, unless it is sworn. 

Let us agree that the widow has given her consent and read the 
affidavit. 

Senator Mundt. In fairness to Dr. Simonson who has already been 
slandered by counsel for the UAW, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to 
read the affidavit, unless I can read the permission that she gave the 
doctor to report the facts. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair see it again. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, I didn't slander this man. I said he 
was a pediatrician. There are a lot of people who go around bragging 
about that. 



8928 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Just a moment. This lady says in her statement 
that Dr. Lloyd M. Simonson — this is addressed to him — she states — 

I hereby consent that you may disclose to Attorney H. S. Humke or to any court 
of law or any congressional or legislative committee, by aflSdavit, testimony or 
otherwise, any information which you may have acquired in attending my de- 
ceased husband in a professional character. I hereby waive any privilege 
granted such communication by section 325.21, Wisconsin Statutes. 

( Signed ) Ethel G. Beesoh. 

March 5, 1958. 

That part of the statement absolutely permits the reading of the 
affidavit, to do this thing in the legal and proper way. 

Senator Mundt. Still not conceding the right of the Chair to take 
away from his colleague in the Senate the right to read the statement 
that he proposes to read to this committee, I am ready, nevertheless, 
to proceed with the affidavit. 

The Chairman. The Chair has not taken away the right. The 
Chair is not a dictator and not presuming to be one. I have the initial 
duty to make a ruling. The Chair has made the ruling, and there is 
always an appeal over the ruling of the Chair through the committee 
as a whole. 

Senator Mundt. There is no need to appeal the ruling, because the 
information I desired to put into the record is now there. But I do 
not yield to the Chair or to any other member the right to tell me» 
as a Senator, representing the State of South Dakota, what I am going 
to say in this committee, the questions I am going to ask, and they are 
not going to be censored by anybody, including the attorney from 
theUAW. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Karl. The Chair is not trying to 
censor what you say or do. 

You can cut loose and do as you please. But the Chair is going to 
make a record here of an effort, at least, to make decisions when tney 
arise and which he believes fair, just and equitable, and which are in 
accordance with the law and the rules of procedure. If you want to 
take offense at that, it is all right with me. 

Senator Mundt. No offense, Mr. Chairman. I am simply estab- 
lishing my record from my point of view as you are establishing 
yours. 

This one has been amicably decided because you have read into the 
record the clearance which t felt was due Dr. Simonson. 

The Chairman. I have ruled absolutely on everything except a 
statement of fact that she says about his condition. I don't think 
that is proper. It isn't under oath. Proceed. 

Senator Mundt. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have on the letterhead of 
the Sheboygan Clinic, Sheboygan, Wis., the following sworn affidavit, 
which I now offer as evidence. 

The Chairman. Unless there is objection, the affidavit may be read. 
Read it. 

Senator Mundt. It is dated March 5, 1958 : 

State of Wisconsin, 

County of Sheboygan, 88 : 
Dr. Lloyd M. Simonson, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that 
he is a duly legally practicing physician and surgeon of the State of Wisconsin 
and is connected with the Sheboygan Clinic, cf Sheboygan Wis., that on the 4th 
day of July 19.54, he was called upon to give first-aid treatment to one William 
Bersch, Sr., which treatment was given first at the Sheboygan Clinic and then 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTlES EN" THE LABOR FIELD 8929 

at St. Nicholas Hospital, of Sheboygan, Wis., that from his findings, together with 
the history, hospital records and X-rays of said William Bersch, Sr., I find the 
diagnoses of (1) multiple bruises, (2) two bruise lacerations of the scalp, (3) a 
fracture of the 7th cervical vertebra and arterisclerotic heart disease. 

It is my opinion that these multiple injuries may have been a contributing 
cause to the cardiac failure and death of William Bersch, Sr. 
Very truly yours, 

Lloyd M. Simonson, M. D. 
(Signed) Lloyd M. Simonson, M. D. 
State of Wisconsin, 

County of Sheboygan: 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of Mareh 1958. 

Ethel Nehcling, 
Notary Public, Sheboygan County, Wis. 
My commission expires August 30, 1959. 

The Chairman. Are there further questions ? 

Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue with 
my interrogation about the witness Mazey's attack upon the judge. 

You have testified as to the condemnation and denouncing of the 
Catholic clergy for this act. 

Did the Sheboygan County Ministerial Association also denounce 
you? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. I don't think they did. I believe I had 
a few friends in that town. 

Senator Curtis. I have before me here a statement, and I will read 
it, and then I will ask you if that did happen. This is from the She- 
boygan (Wis.) Press, Saturday, November 13, 1954. 

The headlines say : 

Ministerial Association Denounces Mazey's Tactics 

The Sheboygan County Ministerial Association today issued the following 
statement concerning the recent verbal attack on Judge F. H. Schliehting by 
Emil Mazey, UAW-CIO secretary-treasurer. 

A very grave issue confronts the community. It is not the issue of the 
strike at Kohler. It is the issue of an attack upon fundamental institutions 
which undergird our common life. 

Let us again state the facts which undelie the issue. Mr. Emil Mazey, of 
UAW-CIO, has attacked the integrity of the highest judicial authority of this 
county, and has at the same time announced an action to punish the judge for 
sentencing a man convicted in open court by a jury of his peers. 

The sentence was within the discretion of the court as determined by law. 
Further the attorneys for the defendant commended the judge for his fair- 
ness in the conduct of the trial. And, finally, the convicted man has a remedy 
for judicial error in appeal to a higher court. 

But the basic remedy for an attempt to intimidate the court can only be 
found in the stern indignation of the community. Surely a leader of labor 
betrays his fellow workers when he seeks to destroy or weaken that judicial 
power which is the bulwark of all groups against injustice, even by the Gov- 
ernment itself. Destroy the structure of our liberties and the first group to 
suffer will be the worker. 

This is the road to lawlessnesses and violence. 

As ministers of the church who must be concerned with justice and the rights 
of every individual, we are under compulsion to speak this word. 

And these names are printed following tlie statement : 

Arno Duchow. Grace Community Church of Kohler; John R. Estes, Baptist 
Church, Sheboygan Falls ; Wilford II. Evans, First Congregational Church ; Wil- 
liam Genszler. First United Lutheran Church ; John Gerber, Ebenezer Evangeli- 
cal and Reformed Church ; August Grollmus, St. John's Evangelical and Re- 
formed Church ; T. Parry Jones, First Methodist Church : Clarence Koehler. 
Zion Reformed Church; Marvin Lehman, St. Paul's Evangelical and Reformed 



8930 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Church ; James Saint, First Presbyterian Church ; Henry Vermeer, Hope Re- 
formed Church ; Richard Werner, First Baptist Church. 

You are the Emil Mazey that is referred to in this resolution, are 
you not ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. Maybe there is a twin somewhere around 
the country. I assume I am. 

Senator Curtis. And you did not know of that denouncement? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, so many people have denounced me through 
my lifetime that I can't possibly know of all of them. 

Senator Curtis. And you did not know about this one ? 

Mr. Mazey. I may have known about it at the time, but I thought 
it was only the Catholic Church that denounced me. I am not quarrel- 
ing with you. If what you say is there appeared in the paper, I assume 
what you say is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Do you question the integrity of these ministp.rs 
that signed this statement ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Curtis, let me make my position perfectly clear. 
I am not attacking the spiritual attitude of the clergymen. I claim 
that not even clergymen are infallible on material matters. 

Our union has just recently suggested to General Motors, Ford, 
and Chrysler, that our basic economic demands be heard before a panel 
of ministers that George Romney of the American Motor Co. got to- 
gether. 

Senator Curtis. Will the reporter read the question. 

( The reporter read the pertinent portion of the record. ) 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Curtis, maybe my use of the word "integrity" 
during our discussion may have been a little bit harsh. I do question 
their judgment on these matters. 

Senator Curtis. But you don't question the integrity of this group ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I think if I could use an eraser on this question — 
I have an eraser on my pencil, and you use erasers when you make 
mistakes. I think the word "integrity" was a little bit harsh. I don't 
want to do anybody an injustice, anymore than I thought it was im- 
proper for them to do me an injustice without having all the facts on 
that matter. 

Senator Curtis. What is your statement as to these churches here ? 
Are these churches under the control of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether the Kohler Co. has anything 
to say in the selection of their ministers ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know that either. 

Senator Goldwater. I have just one question, Mr. Mazey. During 
the course of the speech that we listened to over the tape, you said the 
churches should send missionaries to Sheboygan. 

Does that tie in pretty much with your idea that the clergy in She- 
boygan are not men of integrity ? 

Mr, Mazey. Senator Goldwater, you and your colleagues to your 
right have been making a great deal of fuss about Detroiters going to 
Sheboygan. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, you made a statement 

Mr. Mazey. I want to explain. 

Senator Goldwater. I want you to answer the question. I don't 
want a speech — "that the churches should send missionaries to She- 
boygan." What prompted that remark ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8931 

Mr. Mazey. I am in the process of trying to explain it to you, if 
you give me a chance. 

Senator Goldwater. No ; you are not. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; I am. 

Senator Goldwater. I am asking if that was prompted by your 
remark that these men were not men of integrity. 

Mr. Mazey. I think I have a right to explain my position on the 
matter. 

Senator Goldwater. I am asking for an answer, and then you can 
explain it. 

Mr. Mazey. I wasn't charging — I didn't challenge their integrity 
with that statement. The point I was answering was this: I was 
accused by the Sheyboygan press of being an outsider, and in my 
speech I said that I did not tell the Kohler workers to go on strike, 
I did not tell them to turn down their contract, I did not tell them to 
take a strike vote — I made no recommendation of any kind in this 
matter at all — and that the only thing I did in the situation was I 
worked hard at the bargaining table trying to help settle the strike. 

It is my responsibility to provide strike assistance in the form of 
money to these men. Our union has given the Kohler strikers almost 
$10 million in assistance. 

I was dealing with this question of the attack that was being made 
on me of being an outsider. This was my way of answering that par- 
ticular charge. 

Senator Goldwater. That churches should send missionaries to 
Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. On matters of social questions, I think the min- 
isters in Sheyboygan have a great deal to learn. 

Senator Goldwater. About what ? About the church ? 

Mr. Mazey. No ; not about the church. About social matters, about 
working conditions, about the problems of people. 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you think 

Mr. Mazey. Bishop Haas, and Bishop Shell, and Father Clancy, 
and Father Gillette, and hundreds of other ministers throughout the 
country know something about the problems of people and they work 
at it. 

Unfortunately, there isn't a single minister or clergyman in Sheboy- 
gan that has any real contact or closeness with the problems of people 
who at any time spoke out against the injustice that existed in the 
Kohler plant. That was the point I was making. 

Senator Goldwater. That is the answer to the question then, that 
you feel that the churches should send missionaries to Sheboygan, be- 
cause the clergy of Sheboygan are incompetent to carry out their full 
duties ? I have always assumed that one of the interests of the church 
certainly lays in the welfare of people and what the church could do 
to help people. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, in our early struggles in Detroit 
and elsewhere in the country, I and our union worked very closely 
with many, many clergy, and they walked our picket line and attended 
our soup kitchens and they made speeches at our meetings. 

They served as arbitrators and we just recently proposed, as I start- 
ed to say a moment ago, that a panel of clergymen which Mr. George 
Romney, president of American Motors Corp, would pick out, sit and 
listen to the merits of our demands on GM, Ford, and Chrysler. 



8932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I want to liave my attitude perfectly clear on this matter. I do think 
that on basic social questions, there is much to be desired among the 
clergymen in this particular community. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Mazey, what grocery store was it that 
Judge Schlichting was supposed to have a financial interest in ? 

Mr. Mazey. He had Piggly Wiggly Markets. 

Senator Curtis. Where is that ? 

Mr. Mazey. They were in Sheboygan. And then he had the Schlich- 
ting Market in which he had an interest in Sheboygan Falls. 

Senator Curtis. He was a part owner? 

Mr. Mazey. To the best information that I had he owned about 20 
percent of the stock of these stores. 

Senator Curtis. And is there a boycott of those stores going on 
now? 

Mr. Mazey. No, the judge finally decided to practice law and get out 
of the gi'ocery business and he sold his interest, and there is no boy- 
cott of the stores. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did the boycott start? 

Mr. Mazey. There wasn't any boycott, Senator Curtis. We have 
a right to spend our money, dues money of our members anywhere we 
want to. If we chose not to spend it in the store that Judge Schlich- 
ting had an interest in, that was our business. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did the judge sell his interest in these stores ? 

Mr. Mazey. Shortly after this particular incident, and I don't 
know the exact date, but I am advised that he sold his interest. 

Senator Curtis. Was that brought about as a result of the action 
the union took ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I think the judge finally came to the conclusion 
that the statement that he made to Dave Rabinovitz, and Allan Grass- 
kamp and Bob Burkhart early in May, that he had a conflict of in- 
terest and didn't want to serve on any cases of UAW members because 
he sold to both strikers and nonstrikers — I think the judge finally put 
his own conflict-of-interest definition into practice. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you gave no encouragement or suggestion to 
people that they not trade at these stores ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Curtis, you don't know how we handle our 
strike assistance. Each Kohler worker would appear before the strike 
assistance committee, or what we call our community service com- 
mittee, and we gave assistance in the way of food vouchers. These 
food vouchers could be cashed in at most of the stores of the city of 
Sheboygan and with whom we had arrangements. 

The vouchers were accepted as cash, and once each month or oftener, 
the owners of the stores would send these to our office in Sheboygan, 
and we would pay the food vouchers. 

At the point this matter came up, I gave instructions that there were 
to be no food vouchers in the stores that Judge Schlichting had an 
interest in. 

Senator Curtis. But up to that time, the individual receiving the 
vouchers could take it to the store of his own choosing? 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any further public charges against 
the judge after this one in this radio tape here ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, I believe that was the last time that I talked about 
him. I would like to explain my position further on this matter of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8933 

the grocery thing, Senator Curtis, and I think you want all of the 
facts, and you probably want my position on the matter. 

As I said in that speech that you heard, if we had continued to give 
grocery business to Judge Schlichting's store, we would probably have 
been accused of trying to influence the judge by giving him business. 

I personally am of the opinion that no person should serve as a 
judge who has an interest in the community in which lie may be biased 
in making decisions because of that. That was the point I was making. 
That point is just as valid today as it was when I first made it. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I think the point made by these various reso- 
lutions of denunciation, that denounced wdiat you have done as a 
wrongful effort to intimidate the courts 

Mr. Mazey. I was not attempting to intimidate the court at all. 

Senator Curtis. And to interfere with the administration of justice, 
and to substitute mob action and such efforts in lieu of the administra- 
tion of justice — I think deserves the condemnation that these fine 
citizens in this community gave you in these various resolutions. 

Mr. ]\Iazey. Senator Curtis, I was not intending to influence the 
judge or not intending to intimidate him or coerce him, but the thing 
I cried out, and I still cry out against today, is all we want is a fair 
shake in court wdiether it is in Sheboygan, or Detroit, or anywhere else 
in the country. 

At the point that a judge treats a Detroiter or striker differently 
than lie does the balance of the people in the community, I think that 
I have a right to cry out about it. Any decent person has a right to 
cry out. 

All we want is a fair shake, and it would be a mistake if any eco- 
nomic group in the countrv could control judges and I am opposed to 
that. 

Senator Curtis. Wasn't the issue of whether or not you got a fair 
trial submitted to the Supreme Court ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, it wasn't. 

Senator Curtis. It was not ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, it went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and not 
the United States Supreme Court. 

Senator Curtis. I mean the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and it was 
sent there, was it not ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, it was. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I ask that a copy of the decision 
of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the case just i-ef erred to be 
received and printed as an exhibit. 

I withdraw that. I understand that tlie counsel has already read 
the pertinent parts in it. 

The CirAiRrviAx. I think it was read in this morning. 

Senator Curtis. I withdraw the request. 

Tlie Chairmax. That is the part where the court rules. 

Senator Curtis. Now, liave you voiced any criticism of the Supreme 
Court in this matter ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think that I have. But I think that they are 
not infallible, and they could make mistakes and I remember a few 
years ago when the Supreme Court in Michigan upheld the Bon ate 
case, and it was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and 

21243— 38— pt. 22 13 



8934 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

by a nine-to-notliing vote they overturned the decision of the Michigan 
Supreme Court. 

Nobody is infallible. I am not infallible, and neither are you. 

Senator Curtis. But they did pass on the fairness of the trial of the 
defendant in this case, and they affirmed Judge Schlichting's actions 
and approved of the sentence ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. Mazey. The question of the severity of the sentence is not an 
appealable matter in the State of Wisconsin, I am advised. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other 
matters before the witness leaves the stand in the next day or two, 
I want to inquire about, but that is all I will go into at this time. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an observa- 
tion. I stated a moment ago that I thought that the issue in this 
matter shuld be established by the testimony, sworn testimony of 
witnesses. 

Now, I have examined the affidavit made by Dr. Simonson. He 
testifies he saw this man on the 4th of July 1954. As I recall the evi- 
dence, this man died in October of 1955, or about 14 or 15 months 
later. It doesn't appear from this affidavit that the doctor ever laid 
eyes on this man after the 4th of July 1954, and it doesn't appear that 
he saw any hospital record of any kind relating to the man's circum- 
stances surrounding his death, and the only thing that this statement 
in here could be admitted to prove in any court of law in the United 
States was that the man had suffered some physical injury, the extent 
of which is suggested by is not revealed. 

Now, this statement of this doctor could have been offered in any 
court of law in the United States in my judgment as a lawyer, and it 
would not have been received in evidence as tending to show any 
casual connection between any alleged injuries to this man and this 
man's feet. 

I could not make findings on the basis of such statements, and I 
think it is extremely unfortunate that we have ex parte statements 
put in this record on this matter. 

Senator Curtis. Would the distinguished Senator yield for a ques- 
tion there ? 

Were you present when the death certificate was received ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think any court in the land would have 
received that death certificate ? 

Senator Ervin. I can only speak for the State I practice in, and 
our statutes of North Carolina, and the statutes of virtually every 
State in the Union provide that the death certificates are receivable 
in evidence when certified by the custodian. 

Tliey are public records, and most statutes provide that they are 
prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts which they recite. That 
was an official record and in the State in which I practice law would 
have been received in evidence, and would have been received as prima 
facie evidence of its recitations. 

But frankly, I think it is unfortunate to attempt to prove by such 
ex ]:>arte affidavits as this that certain injuries received caused death. 
I think it ought to be proved by the testimony of witnesses who come 
here before the committee, and show that they possess a sufficient 
knowledge of the facts to express an opinion. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8935 

For all it appears to the contrary, this doctor never saw this man 
but one time in his life. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation. We get into 
pretty delicate legal intricacies sometime. The prohibitive force of 
this affidavit is that it tends to corroborate the allegation that the 
man had been assaulted. It does not say so, but it does establish the 
fact that on that day this man had bruises, injuries, and abrasions 
and so forth, and therefore it tends to corroborate any allegation that 
the man had suffered an assault on that day. 

For that reason, I let it go in the record, and the issue may come 
as to whether the man was even assaulted at all or not. I don't 
know. That I thought was the basis upon which the affidavit might 
be admitted. 

Senator Ervijv. I agree with the chairman that the facts stated in 
there do tend to show that the man had suffered some physical injury, 
and therefore tended to corroborate the evidence about the assault 
and that is as far as it goes in my opinion, as evidence. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I have an objection of course to 
the Senator from North Carolina thinking it was unfortunate that I 
brought in this testimony or this affidavit. He is entitled to his 
opinion, and I respect it, and I am sure he respects my right to have my 
opinion. 

Now, I want to point out, however, that this affidavit goes much 
further than his recital of it would indicate. Since his omission of 
some pretty important statements in the affidavit might tend to give a 
lot more support to the UAW position than the affidavit itself, I 
want to reread what to me was the most significant part of the 
affidavit. 

Among the three diagnosis sworn to by Dr. Simonson was a 
fracture of the seventh cervical vertebra. I don't know much about 
North Carolina law, and I am not a lawyer in South Dakota, but I 
don't think you have to look at a man with a broken neck every 
15 minutes to be able to conclude that it might contribute to his ulti- 
mate demise. 

I am glad the affidavit is in, and I don't consider it unfortunate, 
and I consider it exceedingly fortunate that we have this balance of 
medical testimony. 

Senator Ervin. I would say that there could be about 40 or 50 
different kinds of fractures of vertebra, and I have seen some X- 
rays of them that showed it was very insignificant and some were very 
serious, and that is the reason I say we ought to bring Dr. Simonson 
here instead of intrdoucing ex parte affidavit, because there is nothing 
in there to indicate that he had acquired any knowledge after approxi- 
mately the 4th of July 1954, 14 or 15 months before this man's 
death. 

"What I am arguing for is in the interest of the committee. I don't 
think that the committee ought to be forming conclusions and opinions 
on such evidence. 

Senator Mundt. I want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that to me 
evidence of a broken neck is rather important in connection with a 
man's death as a result of an assault which everybody knows took 
place. 

Senator Ervix. I am not certain that the seventh cervical vertebra 
is in your neck. 



8936 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. If you are not certain yon should not be trying to 
disqualify the affidavit. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to ask you a question? Are you cer- 
tain of that? 

Senator Mundt. I am certain because the doctor who examined 
him said it may have been a contributing^ cause to his death, and I 
being neither a lawyer nor doctor, would have to get my advice from 
professional sources. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the time for final decision and writing 
a report will be later. I suggest that all parties weigh the evidence 
and think over this matter, and then we might even change our 
mind before this hearing is over, one way or the other. 

Mr. Eauh. Mr. Chairman, on procedure, we had understood, or I 
think we had misunderstood, that Mr. Mazey would be allowed to 
make a statement. 

Mr. Mazey spoke for I think about 37 seconds, and the questioning 
began. 

Now, Judge Erwin made a suggestion that he should be allowed 
to make a continuous statement, and we request for the committee's 
consideration that whenever the time we next meet, Mr. Mazey would 
be given the opportunity. 

The Chairman. The committee generally hears a Avitness who wants 
to make an opening statement, and in this instance he had a prepared 
opening statement that was so long, I was very hopeful and I was 
very happy when we did not have to listen to him read all of that 
long statement. 

The proper thing would have been for us to have let him summar- 
ize it, and he did summarize part of it, and then proceeded with the 
cross-examination. 

However, in tlie course of this statement, it is frequently permitted, 
and in fact I don't know it is ever denied, the right of a Senator 
to ask questions as the statement is read or as the general statement 
is made. 

This did get off this afternoon beyond what possibly was to be 
general statement or position and so forth. Once you get into these 
things, it provokes questions from others and it inspires questions 
and it is hard to stop. 

In the morning when we return, I will ask the committee to per- 
mit him a reasonable time in which to make a summary. I will not 
indulge a long, long statement, and don't misunderstand the Chair. 

All right, did you have something ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
10 a. m. Friday, March 7, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 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 Reso- 
lution 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; Senator 
Irvang M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, 
North Carolina ; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan ; Sen- 
ator 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. jNIcGovern, 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, Ives, Kennedy, McNamara, Goldwater, 
Mundt, and Curtis. ) 

Representative Hoefiman. I would like to make a very, very brief 
statement, Senator, if it is permissible. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, and let me get order. 

May I have the committee's attention ? Congressman Hoffman of 
Michigan appears in the hearing this morning, and requests to be 
heard briefly by the committee. Is there objection? 

May the Chair inquire of the Congressman if you wish to testify? 

Representative Hoffman. Under oath, if you wish, and it is ini- 
material to me. It doesn't add to my truthfulness or detract from it 
if lam not sworn. 

The Chairman. Sometimes someone likes to make a statement or 
suggestion or something, and we don't put them under oath for that. 
But if your statement isto be in the nature of testimony, it would have 
to be under oath just as anyone else. 

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

Representative Hoffman. I do, sir. 

8937 



8938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN 

The Chairman. Would you like to sit or stand '\ 

Representative Hoffman. It is brief, so I will stay here. 

The statement is not necessarily in the way of testimony. From the 
press, recently, I have noted the charge, in effect at least, that Michigan 
is a sort of State of refuge for individuals either guilty or charged 
with criminal offenses, and that it has refused to honor the request of 
another State, Wisconsin. 

There is also in the paper this morning a statement that the counsel 
for the committee ; that is, if I read it right, has asked the court here 
for some sort of process which would prevent the serving of any legal 
papers on the one who is about to be called as a witness. 

Now, I am somewhat familiar with the doctrine of exception from 
civil process, and to a certain extent from criminal process when an 
individual is called before the courts. 

Whether or not that applies to committee hearings I have no knowl- 
edge or opinion, and of course I am not privileged to suggest any 
course and do not. 

My point is this: In view of this charge against what might be 
termed the honor of the State of JMichigan in refusing to grant ex- 
tradition, it is my desire to later, and at the convenience of the com- 
mittee, give testimony as to facts distinguished from inferences and 
conclusions as to some of the things which have happened in years gone 
by in the State of Michigan. 

While here permit me to add, incidentally, that in the 4th Con- 
gressional District of Michigan we have had very little sustained 
violence, because those who are charged with violence have been con- 
victed and sentenced by the judge, although in one very prominent 
case the individual convicted of violence in connection with a labor 
dispute and a strike was pardoned. 

I think it might be pardoned, or paroled, and he w^as out within 29 
days, and he was back on the picket line within a couple of weeks. 

I thank you, Senator and the committee, and I appear at your con- 
venience. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to hear you. Congressman, 
and at a convenient time we will confer about it, and we will be very 
glad to have your testimony. 

Representative Hoffman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. May I inquire of the Congressman, do I under- 
stand that you are prepared at any time or that you want some time 
to get ready for your presentation. 

Representative Hoffman. Well, to avoid a rambling statement, I 
had better get the facts coordinated, and any time next week, probably 
the latter part of the week, at the committee's convenience. 

Senator Mundt. Some time next week you would like to appear? 

Representative Hoffman. Wliatever suits the committee. 

The Chairman. If you will notify the Chair, Mr. Congressman, 
whenever you have your statement prepared 

Representative Hoffman. I am ready an}'^ time you are. 

Senator McNamara, Would you give the Democrats equal time? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir, double time, if they want it, as far as I am 
concerned. 

All right, come around, Mr. Mazey. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8939 

TESTIMONY OF EMIL MAZEY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. EAUH, 
JR., COUNSEL— Resumed 

The CiiAiKMAN. On yesterday, the witness, Mr. Mazey, filed with 
the committee rather than read it, quite a lengthy prepared statement. 
The Chair appreciated very mnch the fact that he did not insist upon 
reading that long statement, but it is a part of the record and it was 
made a part of the record as an exhibit. 

We undertook to give Mr. Mazey an opportunity to summarize his 
statement verbally. In the meantime we started to ask him questions, 
and he never did get to conclude his summary. 

I advised yesterday afternoon, the Chair announced that we would 
resume this morning and we would give Mr. Mazey an opportunity to 
summarize his statement, and I will ask my colleagues if they will to 
withhold questions other than maybe something for clarification as 
he proceeds now. 

Mr. Mazey, we will give you some 10 or 12 or 15 minutes now and let 
you conclude your statement. 

Is there any objection to the Chair's observation ? 

Mr. Mazey. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Assuming as I do that this does not mean that any 
member of the committee is precluded from interrupting him, at any 
time he feels he should be interrupted, in the interest of clarity or 
accuracy, I certainly have no objection. 

The Chairman. I just said it. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you said 12 or 15 minutes. 

The Chairman. In the course of it for clarification purposes, any 
member of the committee might ask a question. 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want 
to thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to make an uninter- 
rupted statement. I will be as brief as I can. I am planning to make a 
short statement this morning. 

Yesterday, I testified to the efforts that our union had made in the 
1953 contract to settle our problems with the Kohler Co. without re- 
sorting to strike action. I began to describe the contract wage re- 
opener when the local union asked 14 cents and tlie company offered 3 
cents and the local took a strike vote. 

It was my judgment that a strike should not take place, and it was 
inadvisable, and I sent my administrative assistant, Jess Ferrazza into 
Sheboygan to work with Harvey Kitzman, and officers of the local 
union to reach a settlement and to advise the local union that the in- 
ternational union would not authorize a strike. 

Mr. Ferrazza and Mr. Kitzman were booed by the membership, and 
I was personally accused of a sellout, but I felt that it would take a 
little more time for the company to live with the union, and we were 
not looking for a fight. 

In 1954 after the contract expired, we asked for an extension of the 
contract. The company rejected it, and we worked without a con- 
tract from March 1 until April 5, trying to find a way to settle this 
matter with the company. 

Now, I cite this merely to point up that we are not a strike-happy 
union, and we were not looking for a fight, and we were trying to estab- 
lish the same good relations with the Kohler Co. that we have with 
thousands of other companies under contract with our union. 



8940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In addition to tliese efforts, the mayor of Sheboyj^an tried to settle 
this dispute, and the union af?reed. The common counsel of Sheboygan 
attempted to mediate the dispute and the union agreed. 

The Governor of Wisconsin, the nephew of Herbert V. Kohler, the 
president of the Kohler Co., offered his good office in an attempt to 
settle the strike. The union agreed. 

We offered to arbitrate the matters in dispute within the framework 
of the wages and the contracts of the company's principal competitors, 
namely the American Standard & Sanitary Co., the Crane Co., and 
the Briggs Manufacturing Co. 

The State and Federal judges of Wisconsin have tried to mediate 
this dispute and the union agreed. The Wisconsin Employment Rela- 
tions Board has tried to mediate the dispute. The union agreed. 

A subcommittee of the United States Senate has tried. Both Sena- 
tor Ives and Senator McNamara were on this committee, and the 
union agreed with tlieir efforts to mediation. 

Prominent clergymen of Catholic and Protestant and Jewish faiths 
have offered to help mediate the dispute, and the union in each case 
agreed. 

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

Mr. Mazev. We have suggested every possible method known in 
the entire area of labor-management relations as a way of settling 
the strike. The union suggested the Secretary of Labor, James P. 
Mitchell, a])point an impartial arbitrator. The union suggested that 
President Eisenhower appoint an impartial arbitrator. The union 
has proposed acceptance of the recommendations of the National La- 
bor Relations Board examiner as a basis for settling the strike. I 
think, members of the committee, that the time has come to end the 
bitterness and the division that has existed in Sheboygan County for 
almost 4 years. I don't feel that we collectively contribute to good 
community relations or can we lay the basis of good labor relations 
with the Kohler Co. by rehashing the bitterness of the past. This 
can only lead to a dead-end street. I, therefore, propose on my be- 
half and on the behalf of President Walter Reuther, and on behalf 
of Allen Grasskamp, the president of local 8P>3, and I am sure on be- 
half of all of the members of local 833, that this committee, acting 
as a group of private citizens, or a subcommittee of this committee, 
arbitrate the matters in dispute between the Kohler Co. and the UAW. 

We are ])repared to have this committee, acting as private citizens, 
to arbitrate it, or you can have a subcommittee of your committee, or 
you can name an arbitrator and we are willing to abide by the deci- 
sions of anyone of these three processes. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I break in there just a minute, 
in view of the fact that my name has been mentioned and with Senator 
McNamara? 

That is exactly what we tried to do, do you remember ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Ives. And we could get no response from the company. 
At that time, the union itself was very responsive, and agreed to sit 
down and arbitrate the thing or settle it in any way they could. I 
don't know if you could get any further. If there is any one from 
the company who is willing to arbitrate with you, I am sure I speak 



IMPROPER ACTIVrXIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8941 

for Senator McNamara and I know I speak for myself, and I will 
say that we will be glad to sit down and try to arbitrate it. 

Senator McNamaka. Mr. Chairman, I know that the committee has 
expressed their position that they are not here to serve as an arbitra- 
tion board, that it is not a function of the committee. But, neverthe- 
less, I think it is a statesmanlike approach to the solution of a bad 
situation that would be certainly for the good of everyone involved. 

If I personally can make a contribution, as Senator Ives has said, 
I would be glad to do it. 

I would like to ask the witness : Have you any indication that the 
company would go along with such a proposition '^ 

Mr. INIazey. No. I haven't spoken to the company. But I am hope- 
ful that the company had an opportunity of rethinking this prob- 
lem. We have been doing a lot of thinking about it. I hope they 
liave now reached the conclusion and are willing to take another look 
at the situation. I make this offer in a sincere effort to find a basis 
of living with the company, and in order to bring an end to the bit- 
terness in the Sheboygan community. 

The Chairman. Have you finished your statement now, Mr, Mazey ? 

Mr. :\L\zEY. Yes. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Is it your position that you would accept the 
decision on this strike by the Secretary of Labor, the head of the 
jNIediation and Conciliation Service, any arbitrator named by the Sec- 
retary of Labor, the committee — though I am not sure that it is a 
function of the conmiittee in this regard — you would accept the de- 
cision of the committee settling the strike or a subcommittee, you 
would accept the decision of any one of those 4 groups or any one 
named by any one of those 4 groups ? 

Mr. ]Mazey. That is right. That is exactly our position. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask Mr. Conger to come up here 
and ask him if he would accept the same agreement. It might be 
possible to bring this matter to a swift conclusion. 

Senator Mundt. If we are going to settle the strike, I am perfectly 
willing to do that, but I 

The Chairman. «Just a moment, please. 

The Chair wishes to state that it is not the function of this com- 
mittee to settle strikes. Even if the strike were settled the duty of 
this committee would still remain to inquire into improper practices 
in labor-management relations. 

This connnittee cannot act officially in this capacity. If this com- 
mittee or any member of it, or any two or more members of it, want 
to serve in a voluntary capacity with the consent of both parties in- 
volved here to try to settle the strike, that is perfectly all right. I 
wouldn't refuse to serve, if I could render a public service. But I 
would not be serving as a member of this committee. 

Senator Ives. Will the chairman yield on that? I am involved in 
this from what I had to say. I was not referring to the committee 
serving in that capacity. What I was saying in my statement was 
for myself only. 

The Chairman. I was making this statement for the record to make 
the Chairman's position clear with respect to it. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the only point I want to make is 
I am not saying that we should do it, but I am saying that it would 



8942 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

be beneficial in the course of this hearin< 
tion of improper practices, if this very bitter struggle could be brought 
to an end. I think it would be beneficial to everyone and the country. 
I am not saying that this is the group that should serve it, but the 
suggestion has been made that the Secretary or the Conciliation and 
Mediation Service could be the arbiter of the dispute. I would like 
to laiow if that being true, if the union would accept that, if the com- 
pany would accept that. That is a perfectly legitimate request. 
I would like to know if it would be possible for Mr. Conger to indicate 
yes or no whether he would be willing to accept arbitration, by any 
of the groups that have been suggested, in this dispute. 

The Ch AiioEAN. Is Mr. Conger present ? 

Mr. Conger, you are at liberty to make a statement if you desire. 
The Chair is not insisting that j^ou make one. It is not our function 
to try to settle the strike, but if it could be settled, I think it would 
be a great service to all the people involved. That is all I am going 
to say. If you care to make a statement, you may do so. 

Mr. Conger. Thank you, sir, and I want to go far enough to ex})lain 
our position in tliis fully, if I may, now that the question has been 
raised. In the first place, I would probably pose this question, which 
I realize that no one can answer. That is whether, if we were to accept 
such a proposal, that would mean that this committee would lose its 
interest in the things that have happened out at Kohler. There are 
some line American citizens out there that have been deprived of their 
rights over many, many months, and we think now that the American 
public is becoming apprised of that fact. 

It is a little late in the daj^ to come in and say "Well, let's get this 
out and brush this dirt under the table." 

As far as the aribitration goes, in the first place let me say to you, 
gentlemen, that despite the many statements to the contrary by the 
union, we have never refused mediation. We have not refused to meet 
with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service any time that 
they requested it. 

We have had State mediators in on this. We have had clergymen 
in on it. And with our consent as well as the consent of the union. 
We do, however, take this position : We agreed to arbitration in our 
contract, the contract we had with the UAW-CIO. We were willing to 
agree to arbitration in the next contract, arbitration of the interpre- 
tation and application of the terms of the contract. 

But what we have refused to do, and what I think 99 percent of 
industry in the State and in the country refuses to do, is to have an 
arbitrator write the terms of a contract, to come in and say "Here is a 
contract, under which you must live." 

We have the res]-)onsibilty for operating the plant out there, for 
keeping it going, as a vehicle to provide employment for men, contin- 
uous steady employment, at good wages. As long as we have that re- 
sponsibility, we believe that we must have something to say about what 
goes into our labor contract, just as well as into our material contracts, 
our sales contracts, or any other type of contract that we might make. 

Eeference has been made, and the comparison has been made, to an 
arbitrator and a judge. Gentlemen, we are willing to give an arbi- 
trator all the power that a judge of a court of law would have, the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 8943 

power to decide whether we have made a contract ; if we have made 
one, what that contract means, and whether or not we have violated it. 

But a jndoe of a court of law would not have a right to write a 
contract for us, and we do not believe that an arbitrator should have. 

Senator Kennedy. Then, Mr. Conger, the answer is no ? 

Mr. Conger. The answer to arbitration of the terms of the contract 
by anyone, and it is not a question of the individual or personality 
concerned. I have the highest respect for many of the gentlemen that 
have been suggested as possible arbitrators. But, gentlemen, I am 
quite sure that they do not have too much knowledge about the prob- 
lems of making bathtubs. Many of those gentlemen, I will agree, are 
my su])eriors and our superiors in intelligence and general knoAvledge. 
But we have had the problem of making bathtubs now for over three- 
quarters of a century. We believe some of the problems that are in- 
volved in them we know peculiarly, and, gentlemen, they are differ- 
ent from the ])roblems of making automobiles or making anything else 
of the type, and it doesn't follow the contract that is perfectly satis- 
factory in the automobile industry will fit the bathtub industry. 

Senator Kennedy. Then, Mr. Conger, the answer is no ? 

Mr. Conger. The answer is, Senator Kennedy, that any time the 
Federal INIediation Service or any other mediation service that is qual- 
ified and competent, and that we believe will do a job, asks us to sit 
down with mediators, we will sit down with them. The answer to com- 
pulsory arbitration of the terms of a contract, that would be no. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The witness has concluded his summary statement. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. The witness is now subject to interrogation. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, 

Senator Goldwater. ]Mr. Mazey, does your union customarily offer 
to agree to arbitrate a dispute, particularly about the terms and condi- 
tions of a contract ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, Senator Goldwater, our union has, on numerous 
occasions, offered to arbitrate disputes and contracts. 

I can recall during the lengthy dispute we had with the General 
Motors Corp. in 1945-46, we were agreeable to factfinding, we were 
agreeable to arbitrate the matters in dispute in that situation. 

The suggestion here is not to arbitrate all the terms of the contract, 
because there are some matters that we have already agreed to. There 
were 7 basic issues in dispute. It is really these issues that are to be 
arbitrated, not the entire terms of the contract. 

Senator Goldwai-er. Mr. Mazey, you said you have done this be- 
fore. Would you supply tlie committee with a list of the cases that 
you have agreed to arbitrate, and which have been arbitrated, where 
the terms of the contract were arbitrated ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, you misunderstood me. 

Senator Goldwater. No, I didn't misunderstand you a bit. You 
said you had done it before. 

Mr. Mazey, I said we had offered to arbitrate, but managements 
have turned this down. 

Senator Goldwater. Then will you present us with a list of the 
cases where you have offered ? 



8944 IMPROPER AcrriviTiES in the labor field 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I will be very glad to do tliat, Senator. 
Senator Goldwater. I will be frank to tell you that in testimony I 
have heard your org-anization give before the Labor and Public AVel- 
fare Committee, you have fought violently against this type of pro- 
cedure. I think it is a wrong procedure, and I think you will agree 
with me. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, I would like to amplify our posi- 
tion on this matter. At the p)oint that the union and the company 
find it impossible or difficult to arrive at a decision, it seems to me that 
both parties ought to be willing to let a public body or an impartial 
person review the facts and make an intelligent decision on the matters 
in dispute. 

The only alternative to that is jungle warfare, and we don't want 
jungle warfare. 

We think arbitration is a sensible, a democratic means of resolving 
issues of this type. We have agreed to arbitration as far back as July 
of 1954. This' is not a new proposal. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, just to close this up, I was, frankly, 
i-ather violently surprised to hear you offer this in view of the fact 
that your union has been specific in its objections to this type of pro- 
cedure in writing contracts. 

It is a new departure for me to hear you say this. 
Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, I am not talking about compulsory 
arbitration. This is voluntary arbitration on both parties. Most of 
our collective-bargaining agreements we are able to reach without the 
loss of a single minute's work. I might point out that in our rela- 
tionship with the General Motors Corp., which is the largest corpora- 
tion in the world, we have 350,000 members in that corporation. Our 
last difficulty with that company was in 1945-46. We negotiated a 
contract in 1947 and there wasn't a single minute lost. We negotiated 
a contract in 1948 and there wasn't a single minute lost. We negotiated 

a contract in 1950 and 1955 

Senator Goldwawji. I realize all of that. You don't have to go into 
past history. I am just saying to you that it is rather surprising to 
hear the UAW now offering to subject itself to arbitration to the terms 
of the contract. 

Senator MuNDT. Mr. Chairman? 
The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, you said the other day Avhen Mr. Rauh 
and I were having our daily discussion of the medical history of a cer- 
tain case involved, and I said you could relax, that you were not in- 
volved, you said that everything that the UAW does involves you. So 
I presume that from that, that you are involved in one way or another 
in the boycott activities of the UAW in connection with Kohler Co. 
])roducts. Is that correct? 
Mr. Mazey. Yes, I am. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. And may I ask whether the union has some phrase 
that defines that, so that I will use the proper term ? 

Do you call that a secondary boycott, a consumer boycott, a primary 
boycott of consumer products, or, can we just use the word "boycott"? 
Mr. Mazey. If the Senator will permit, I would like to explain the 
purpose of our boycott and then it might save some questions. 

Senator Mundt. I will not deny yon the opportunity but first I 
want to know what you call it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8945 

Mr. Mazey. It is a primary boycott. It is a consumers boycott. We 
are trying to convince the public not to buy Kohler products. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a statement you want to read^ 

Mr. Mazey. I made some notes on this subject, and I wanted to 
point out that the reason we have the boycott is to try to create 
economic pressure in order to secure economic and social justice at 
the bargaining table. That is the purpose of the boycott. It is a legal 
primary boycott to convince the consumers not to buy the scab-made 
and strikebreaker-made Kolder products. 

Senator Mundt. Are you in charge of the boycott activities di- 
rectly, or is there some other member of the UAW who has that specific 
responsibility ? 

Mr. ]\Iazey. Well, I have some responsibility, Senator. The boy- 
cott is an official action of the union. I have some direction of it. 
One of my administrative assistants gives daily direction to the boy- 
cott program. 

Senator Mundt. What is his name? 

Mr. Mazey. His name is Don Rand, R-a-n-d. 

Senator Mundt. He is the same Mr. Rand who was with you at 
Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. Mr. Rand was in the negotiations of the contract 
in 1954, as was Mr. Ferrazza at the time the strike began. 

Senator Mundt, It is an official policy, you say, of the CIO 

Mr. Mazey. Of the UAW, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Of the UAW — and passed on by the membership 
or by the board or by whom ? 

Mr. JMazey. The membership of the local, I believe, took some 
action some time back. The executive board of our union took some 
action on this matter. 

Senator Mundt. The executive boaid of the international? 

Mr. Mazey. Of tlie international union, yes. 

Senator Mundt. Does Mr. Reuther have some responsibilities in 
this field ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. Mr. Reuther shares my views on the boycott com- 
pletely and he is a part of this decision. 

Senator Mundt. Would you tell me what directions you have 
given to various UAW locals in pursuance of the boycott, how they 
should do it ? 

Mr. Mazey'. The only direction, the basic direction, is to try to con- 
vince people not to purchase Kohler products. We have done that in 
a number of ways. 

Senator JNIundt. I Avas interested in the methods that you employ. 

Mr. Mazey. At the point that we know that a new building is go- 
ing up, we try to talk to the prospective owner of the building, we 
try to talk to the contractor, we try to convince them to recommend 
union-made products, such as Crane and American Standard and 
Briggs and Eljer and others. 

We try to explain our problem here, and the reasons why this ought 
to be done. We try to convince architects of this matter. We have 
carried on — we have adopted resolutions at State and national conven- 
tions. We generally try to convince people of the justice of our case, 
and ask them to aid us in our cause by not purchasing scab-inade 
products. 



8946 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. To me, the term boycott implies something a little 
more than that. I would say that what you are talking about now is 
a sort of an efi'ort to educate people not to buy Kohler products and to 
try to dissuade them, by talking with them, from using tliem. 

Do you do anything else to try to educate the public not to buy them 
and try to dissuade contractors from using them ? 

Mr. INIazey. That is all we are doing, Senator. Everything we are 
doing in the boycott is legal. We are not carrying on any illegal 
activities in the boycott. 

Senator Mundt. May I ask you this direct question : Have you done 
anytliing else besides trying to educate the public not to utilize Kohler 
products during the strike, or trying to dissuade architects and em- 
ployers from using them in new construction ? 
Mr. Mazey. We have not, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That is the extent of your activity ? 
Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Are you speaking now for Emil Mazey, are you 
speaking for the UAW in Detroit, or are you speaking for the whole 
family of UAW alone ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am speaking for Emil Mazey, and I am speaking for 
the UAW, the international union. 

Senator Mundt. How about your individual locals? Have they 
employed any other methods ? 

Mr. Mazey. Not to my knowledge, sir. 
Senator Mundt. As far as you know, they have not ? 
Mr. Mazey. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you again, because I want to be very 
clear and very concise. I don't want you to say after a while that this 
is a hostile question, because I am asking it in just as friendly a 
fashion as I can. 

I am not trying to upset you. You are testifying under oath. That 
is an ordeal for all of us. I have been before other committees testify- 
ing under oath, so I understand it. To the best of your knowledge, you 
know of no other tactics or methods or devices employed, either by the 
international UAW or by Emil Mazey or by Walter Reuther or by 
local chapters, or locals, other than what you have described ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, just so we can understand these terms and 
definitions, the labor movement is broader than the UAW. It is 
broader than the international union, it is broader than the locals. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, but you can't be responsible outside of the field 
oftheUAW-CIO. 

Mr. Mazey. There are councils of both of the AFL and CIO, and 
in most cases we have joint councils. And individual citizens have 
taken action on occasion. We, of course, cannot be responsible for 
those actions. 

There have been three instances, one in Milwaukee, in which we 
agree to a consent statement that we have not violated the law and 
we are not engaged in a secondary boycott. 

Senator Mundt. Would you say that again? There was a lot of 
confusion in the room. What happened in Milwaukee. 

Mr. Mazey. In Milwaukee in August 1955, there was an NLRB 
statement, a stipulation, in which our attorneys took part, in which we 
said that we were engaged in a legal boycott and would not do any- 
thing illegally. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8947 

If I may, I would like to recad this statement we made at that time, 
which I think explains our whole position in this matter. It is a 
short statement. 

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

Senator Mundt. Go ahead. 

Mr. Mazey. This is a statement issued by Harold Cranefield, our 
general counsel, on August 23, 1955 : 

In the NLRB hearings in Sheboygan, where numerous unfair labor practice 
charges were filed against the Kohler Co., this matter is of greater importance 
than the action brought against the UAW-CIO by an importer of clay for the 
Kohler Co. 

If the LTAW-CIO contested this action, the inevitable result would be to delay 
the hearings at Sheboygan and so that the Kohler Co. attorneys could participate 
in the proceedings which would result. 

The goal of the UAW-CIO is not punitive action against anyone, but the sole 
concern of the union is in securing a speedy and equitable end to the Kohler 
strike. The hearing in Sheboygan has been going on for more than 2 months. 
The Kohler Co. has just begun to present its defense. Since the hearing in 
Sheboygan can materially affect the outcome of the strike, the matter in Mil- 
waukee is of subordinate importance. 

For the above reasons, the UAW-CIO International Union has stipulated that 
it will abide by the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act. We do not believe that we 
have violated any provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, including those provisions 
relating to secondary boycotts. But we do not propose to delay the case against 
Kohler merely to defend ourselves against an unfounded charge when the only 
order which the NLRB could enter against us in any event would be that we 
should obey the law. 

We have obeyed the law and intend to continue doing so. It is only logical 
that we should stipulate in court that we will continue to do so. 

Now, this statement. Senator, was made on August 23, 1955, and it 
was our position then and it is still our position today. 

Senator Mundt. You wanted to mention three cases, and that is one. 

Mr. Mazey. In Los Angeles County, Calif., there was a matter 
whicli I tliink was known as the Hardschoen injunction, and there was 
an NLRB stipulation out there that is similar to this. 

The matter involved. Senator, was a matter of free speech picketing 
of a dealer of plumbing, and we weren't attempting in any way to stop 
the employees of the dealer from their work. We were merely express- 
ing our views by picketing as a matter of one way of expressing our 
views that Kohler was on strike. 

Senator Mundt. "VVliat kind of picketing was this? Was it a picket 
line saying, "Don't buy from this dealer because he is unfair to labor ?" 
or just one of these cheek-to-jowl pickets through which people could 
not walk ? 

]Mr. Mazey. I believe there was 1 picket or maybe 2 pickets at this 
particular establishment. We did not boycott the dealer, and we 
merely had a sign saying that the Kohler products w^ere unfair. 

At this point, the only matter involved was the question of free 
speech picketing and when the matter was raised, we agreed we would 
end it. 

Senator Mundt. Did the NLRB hold that that kind of picketing 
was illegal ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. There was no decision by the NLRB and our at- 
torneys, under my direction, stipulated that the question was raised 
and I said if there is any 

Senator Mundt. You w^ould cease and desist? 



8948 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. There was no cease and desist, sir. It was a stipulation. 

Senator Mundt. You agreed to cease and desist ? 

Mr. Mazey. We agreed to obey the law, and w-e agreed that although 
we did not think we were violating the law, we would remove our 
pickets, and w^e did. 

Senator Mundt. And my question was: Was the position of the 
NLRl^ — and I am not tisking whether the position is right or wrong, 
or whether you were right or wrong — but was the position of the 
NLIvB tliat that type of picketing was illegal ^ 

Mr. Mazey, I don't believe they had a position on it, sir. 

Senator Mundt, Why w^ould they be injecting themselves into it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, the matter that happened was, as I recall the inci- 
dent, and I liaven't looked it up recently, as I recall the Hardsclioen 
matter. This company went to the NLliB accusing us of violation of 
Taft-Hartley on secondary boycott. At this point, without getting 
into a lengthy liearing and getting ourselves all tied up, w^e said that 
we did not agree that we are involved in a secondary boycott, but if 
there is any question about it, we will renune our pickets, and we did. 

Senator Mundt. Then, it w^ould seem to me that you could ansAver 
affirmatively my question. There is no ])lace to button it dowTi but 
this iinist have been the position of the NLRB, tliat you were engaged 
in something that was illegal. 

I am not saying that you were, and you withdrew and nothing hap- 
pened, but I am trying to find out what it was and wliy the NLRB 
entered into the picture. 

Mr. Mazey. Excuse me a moment. I would like to consult counsel. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mazey. I am advised tliat there is a great deal of confusion on 
this particular subject matter, as far as NLRB decisions are concerned. 

Senator Mundt. As I uiiderstand, they didn't make a decision in 
this case ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out why they are out there 
spending taxpayers' money, and they must have had some reason to 
go. Were they out there contending you w'eren't doing illegal 
picketing ? 

Mr. Mazey. I suppose the answer is if some employer charges us 
with a violation of Taft-Hartley, the NLRB would at least have to 
make an investigation of the matter. 

In each and every case where that has been brought to our atten- 
tion, we have not quarreled with the matter, and we have bent over 
backwards not to get into a dispute on this question. 

Senator Mundt. I am not going to pursue your conduct in the Los 
Angeles County incident that you mentioned beyond the point of try- 
ing to find out what the position of the NLRB was, but your attitude 
was on not what happened, because nothing happened, and they said 
"Don't do it" as I understand it, "or you'll get in trouble," and you 
said "We don't want trouble and we aren't going to do it any more." 
Isn't that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know what their position is. I think that they 
brought it to our attention and they were in the process of investi- 
gating. 

Senator Mundt. Maybe you are skittish about the word "illegal," 
and let me rephrase the question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8949 

Mr. Mazky. I am not skittish about it. 

Senator Mundt. Well, you are skittish about something because I 
am not getting a very res]3onsive answer. 

Was the position of the NLRB that you should discontinue this 
kind of picketing or they would have to take some kind of action^ 

Mr. ]\Iazey. I think we may have a sti])ulation that was reached 
there, Senator, in a courtroom here, and I think the record would 
probably sjjeak for itself. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 
^ Mr. Eauh. I am advised. Senator Mundt, that the NLRB did not 
file a complaint in that particular case, sir, and that these are very 
complicated legal ])roblems, the whole boycott problem. 

There are court decisions conflicting with Labor Board decisions, 
and Labor Board decisions changing it. I would be happy to provide 
the connnittee with a legal memorandum on these three cases, and 
with the present state of the law as it involves these cases. 

Some of the boycott problems are so com])licated tJiat 1 think when 
you ask the questions, "Did the NLRB have a position on this?" the 
answer is, "Well, you have to look at several different cases to see what 
their role is." It is not an easy question. 

Senator Mundt. It is acceptable to me, if it is acceptable to the 
Chair, to have what you are talking about, the legal presentations and 
the answer, and the law involved submitted as an exhibit and filed 
with the committee. 

The Chairman. You may file it Mith the conmiittee, at your 
pleasure. 

Mr. Rauii. We will do that, and we will try to have it ready next 
week. 

The Chairman. It is not evidence. It is simply an exhibit for 
reference, as to legal aspects of the problem. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey said there were three times that you 
deviated from your established practice of limiting boycotting to edu- 
cating the public, and. No. 2, clissuading individual contractors and 
architects from purchasing and utilizing Kohler products. What was 
the third time? 

Mr. Mazev. That isn't what I said. Senator. I didn't say we de- 
viated at all. I merely said there were three instances in which there 
was a (juestion as to whether our conduct was proper or not. 

Senator Mundt. Then let me say this: You were going to have 
three exce])tions, because somebody some place thought you deviated; 
is that right? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I believe they did, but we are not admitting that 
there was any deviation, and I don't think that there was. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Mazey. On the third matter, and the reason I asked for your 
definition as to what you meant by "union," there was a matter of the 
Jackson Link Co., in Jackson, Mich. The Jackson CIO Industrial 
Union Council, and there are a number of UAW locals in that council, 
carried on some kind of free-speech-picketing activity of this particu- 
lar concern. 

Here again, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a stipula- 
tion that we would cease our picketing. 

21243—58 — i.t. 22 14 



8950 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator jNIundt. Would you mind giving this countryboy from 
South Dakota a definition of what is a "free-speech picket" ? That is 
a phrase I don't quite comprehend. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, we have liad all kinds of pickets, Senator, pickets 
in front of tlie White House, in which people were expressing their 
views. 

Senator Mundt. UAW has done that ? 

Mr. Mazey. No; the UAW hasn't, but there have been a lot of 
people who have, and they have a legal right to do it. That is what I 
mean by a free-speech picketing. 

Senator Mundt. You used that phrase to distinguish that kind of 
picketing from what other kind, let up put it that way ? 

Mr. IMazey, The Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions 
on the question of free-speech picketing, and we have an expert in the 
matter of civil liberties sitting right with me at this table, and that, 
T am sure, could speak on this question. 

Senator Mundt. You mean in his capacity as president of the ADA, 
or in his capacity as counsel ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, he can speak for himself, Senator, and I don't 
have to speak for him. 

Senator Mundt. You are qualifying him as a witness and I am 
not sure I want to call him. But he gets in quite often without being 
called. I wondered how you qualified him. 

Mr. Mazey. He makes a very good witness. 

Senator Mundt. There is no question about it. 

Mr. Mazey. And he has done a good job before the Supreme Court 
in defending the rights of citizens on matters of civil liberties. 

The Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, and free press, 
and picketing is both an expression of free speech and free press. 

Senator Mundt. Now, you have those three cases, and they are going 
to be submitted by your expert, and your counsel and we are going to 
accept those as exhibits. 

Now, are there any other times to the best of your knowledge as the 
secretary of the TTAW, in these many years, are there any other in- 
stances in which you have deviated from the two types of boycott that 
we now have before us ? 

One is to educate the public, not by, I suppose you would call it, free- 
speech picket line, coming into that category ; and the other is to dis- 
suade a contractor or an architect from utilizing the products, and 
I suppose that is done by representative of the UAW going to Joe 
Jones, who is a contractor, and saying, "Look, we would rather you 
would not use this stuif, it is made in a factory which is being struck, 
and we would rather have you use something else." 

Are there any other instances ? 

Mr. Mazey. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. Has the NLRB General Counsel issued a com- 
plaint against your present Kohler boycott ? 

INIr. ISIazet. 'They have not. 

Senator Mundt. They have not? 

Mr. Mazey. No. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know the paper, the Kohlerian ? 

Mr. Mazey. That name has been changed, and it is a hangover from 
the old company union at Kohler, and it is Kohlerian, and it is now 
called the Eeporter. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8951 

Senator Mundt. You did not like that name, if you changed it. 
However, while it was called the Kohlerian, in 1956, it was the official 
weekly organ of local 833, UAW, AFI^CIO ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; it was. 

Senator Mundt. Can you see from where you sit, this headline in 
your official paper which says, "State CIO Board Vows No Community 
Chest Money for Scab Ware." That is the headline. 

Mr, Mazey. Give me a chance to get my bifocals set here. 

Yes ; I see that now. 

Senator Mundt. And the article points out that the Wisconsin 
State CIO board made it clear this Aveek that money contributed by 
union members throughout the State would not be used to buy scab- 
made Kohler plumbing products. 

You were going to withhold any contributions to community chests 
that patronized institutions using Kohler products. Isn't that going 
beyond education or dissuades ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think it is Senator. Our union and the labor 
movement generally contributes hundreds of millions of dollars yearly 
to community chests. I serve on the community chest in Detroit, and 
I work hard to help raise money to take care of the needs of the people 
through various community agencies. I don't see anything wrong 
with hard-earned good union dollars, urging that the good union dol- 
lars ought to be used to buy good union products. 

Senator Mundt. So I can identify the issue, I guess I did not tell 
you, it is January 13, 195G. 

Mr. Mazey. That was action by a counsel and that was not the 
UAW action, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Well, it says here, it is the Wisconsin State CIO. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, the UAW is not the State CIO in Wisconsin. 
Our locals in Wisconsin are part of the council. 

Senator Mundt. They are affiliated with it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Our locals are in Wisconsin. 

Senator Mundt. And they are voting members of it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now, apparently some of the other laboring or- 
ganizations did not feel that way about it, because Mr. Haberman, 
head of WSEL, wdiich I understand is State Federation of Labor, 
AFL, indicates his group would not go along with such a sweeping 
policy as the CIO action. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, Senator, I don't want to quarrel with Mr. Haber- 
man at this hearing. This is a family matter and I think we ought 
to settle it inside of our family. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I am a little bit more persuaded that Haber- 
man's approach to this is a little bit more public spirited than your- 
self, because it seems to me that trying to boycott a community chest 
is going a long ways aw^ay from educating the public or from dis- 
suading a contractor. 

If you think Mr. Haberman's attitude is wrong, and yours is de- 
fensible, I think this is a good place to tell us why. 

Mr. Mazey. I think all the CIO council was attempting to do 
was to have a voice in how its own contributions were going to be 
spent. I don't see anything wrong with that. 



8952 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. This was 1956. Now, by 1958, this policy, like all 
bad policies, gets worse. By 1958, we changed the scene from Wis- 
consin, where the strike was, to Minnesota, in the city of Duluth and 
I am going to read yon now an AP story from the March 2, 1958, 
issne of the Minneapolis Sunday Tribune. 

Duluth API^CIO snubs chest over hospital bar. 
I will read that again because that is kind of a bad work, I think, 
to have attached to your organization. 

Duluth AFL-CIO snubs chest over hospital buying. 

That is Duluth, Minnesota xlssociated Press. 

The Duluth AFL-CIO central labor body has voted to withhold its support 
from the Duluth Community Chest in the future unless St. Mary's hospital is 
dropped as a chest agency. 

Now we are not only boycotting a community chest, but we are 
boycotting a hospital, and neither one of which I find in these twin 
procedures of yours, educating the public, or dissuading the indi- 
vidual contractor. 

I read on : 

The action was taken after hospital officials rejected a request from the labor 
body to rescind a contract calling for use of .$7,000 worth of plumbing fixtures 
from the strike-bound Kohler Co., Kohler, Wis., in a hospital remodeling project. 

Do you really think that is a commendable or even a defensible 
use of the political authority and power of organized labor? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator to begin this, no, this is not political authority. 
To begin with, these chest contributions are on a voluntary basis 
and no one is compelled to make them. 

Senator Mundt. I quite agree. 

Mr. Mazey. Although we work awfully hard to get people to make 
contributions, and I am not responsible for the way the headline of 
that story was written, and I did not write the story on "Duluth Snubs 
Chest." 

(At this point, the following members Avere present: Senator Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, McNamara, Mundt, Curtis and Goldwater.) 

Senator Mundt. No, but your practices and policies gave rise to a 
condition which induced some newspaperman to put that kind of head- 
line on it. So we will not concern ourselves about the headline any 
more, but about what actually are the 

Mr. Mazey. This is not our practice. I have no control over this 
council. I have no influence with it. I know nothing of their actions. 

Senator Mundt. Do you condemn it ? 

ISIr. Mazey. No, I don't. I think they have a right to spend their 
money 

Senator Mundt. Do you approve it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I think they have a right to spend their money 
the way they want to. 

Senator Mundt. Then as an official policy, as the second highest 
ranking member of the UAW-CIO, you approve it, but you had 
nothing to do with establishing it. 

Mr. Mazey. I am saying that they have a right to make their own 
decisions, their own policy, and when they reach into their pockets 
and voluntarily make a contribution to community chest, I think they 
have a right to decide how that money should be spent. 



\ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8953 

Senator Mundt. And you approve of this way that they have done 
it? 

Mr. Mazey. I expressed my point. 
Senator Mundt (reading) : 

A spokesman for the hospital Friday night called the action taken by the labor 
body unfair. 

I would certainly say it was indefensible. 

Sister Mary Bell, administrator of the hospital, said the labor objection was 
not raised until after the contract had been placed. 

I don't know whether that is correct or not, and I don't suppose 
you do, because this was a local situation. So Ave just put.tliat in as 
a statement from a newspaper. 

She described as highly unethical a labor offer to make up the difference be- 
tween the low bid and the next lowest if the hospital will use another company's 
plumbing fixtures. 

I point this out, and I am going in to boycott at a considerably 
greater length as we proceed with these hearings, Mr. Mazey, and 
I do not deny that labor has to have some kind of a weapon to fight 
its battles. 

When you talk about a free speech picket maybe it is illegal, I don't 
know. Maybe it is not illegal. But it seems that is in an altogether 
different category tlian that. A free speech picket is an efi'ort to edu- 
cate the public. There is no question about that. 

If you are going to have a boycott, you have to tell people why it 
is there. I can't get too excited about a legitimate representative of 
your union going to a contractor and saying "Look, you are using 
strikebound products and we are against it, and we wish you wouldn't 
do it." 

Those two twin procedures, to me, are in an altogether different 
category from boycotting a hospital, boycotting a community chest, 
making it difficult for communities to build hospitals to take care of 
the ills of a community. 

That, it seems to me, is carrying labor warfare into the jungle area 
that you say you don't like. 

Do you disagree ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, you have a right to your position on this mat- 
ter. I think we have a right to try to convince the general public that 
they shouldn't purchase Kohler products, and that is the primary 
purpose of our boycott. 

Senator Mundt. At another time I am going into some other ele- 
ments of this boycott, Mr. Chairman, but I am so saddened by the wit- 
ness' attitude on this one that at the moment I don't want to pursue it 
any further. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Gold water. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, let's get back to the strike at 
Kohler. 

Mr. Mazey. I hope we get it settled, Senator, this morning, so we 
don't have to get back to it. 

Senator Goldwater, Do you know Dan Preston ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I do. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he ever arrested ? 



8954 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. JNIazey. I don't knoAv. 

Senator Goldwatek. He was fined $10 for refusing to comply 
with the police officers' order. 

Do you know who defended him ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe that everybody who was arrested for strike 
activity in Sheboygan in the Kohler strike was defended by our legal 
counsel, Dave Rabinowitz. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid Mr. Rabinowitz' fees? 

Mr. Mazey, The international union. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid the fine and costs ? 

Mr. JNIazey. If there were fines and costs tliey were also paid by 
the union. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know Joseph Burns ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I do. 

Joseph Burns was a member of my staff. I assigned him to the city 
of Sheboygan for the purpose of handling the strike assistance 
program. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he ever arrested ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe he w^as. 

Senator Goldwater. He was. He was found guilty of disorderly 
conduct. Would your same answer to who defended him stand in 
this case ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I am willing to stipulate, I believe in all of these 
cases, that our attorney, Dave Rabinowitz, defended the people. I 
am also willing to stipulate that if there were any fines and penalties, 
we paid the fines and penalties. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid his fine and cost ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have already said, sir, that we did, the international 
union. 

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

Senator Goldwater. I do not think it was established yesterday, 
but was William Vinson ever arrested on the picket line ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think he testified yesterday that he was. 

Senator Goldwater. He was. Pie was found guilty of disorderly 
conduct and the use of force and coercion. Who defended him ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe Dave Rabinowitz. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid his fine and cost? 

Mr. Mazey. If there were fines and costs, Senator, they were paid 
by the union. 

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

Senator Goldwater. We established yesterday that William Vinson 
was arrested for his part in the Van Ouwerkerk incident. Who de- 
fended liim? 

Mr. Mazey. He was defended by Dave Rabinowitz. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid the lawyer fees? 

Mr. Mazey. The international union. 

Senator Goldwaier. Do you know Frank Schroeder, Charles Wirtz, 
William Rettela, and Douglas Strebe ? 

Mr. JNIazey. I think I know Frank Schroeder. I am not sure of 
the others. I may have met them. I might know them by sight, but 
their names don't ring a bell. 

Senator G(h.dwater. You say you knew wliich one ? 

Mr. Mazey. Frank Schroeder. 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't know the others? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8955 

Mv. Mazey. I am not saying that I didn't know them. I said I 
may know them by sight. I know a lot of Kohler workers by sight 
but not b}' name. 

Senator (told water. Was Franklin Schroeder arrested 

Mr. Mazey. I believe he was. 

Senator Goldwater. For assault on a nonstriker. Who put up the 
bail bond for him ? 

Mr. ]Mazey. If there was a bailbond, I am sure we put it up. 

Senator Goldavater. AVho defended him ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure our attorney defended him, Dave Rabinowitz. 

Senator Goldwater. Wlio paid the attorney's fees ? 

Mr. Mazey. If tliere were attorney fees to be paid, I probably 
wrote the cheek for them. 

Senator Goldwater. You established that the international paid 
the costs incurred in these various arrests that I have discussed here ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am willing to stipulate that we paid for all the costs 
for any arrests, any legal fees, that may have occurred during the 
Kohler strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Is or was Jess Ferrazza your administrative 
assistant ? 

Mr. Mazey. Jess Ferrazza is and was my administrative assistant. 
He was in Sheboygan assisting in negotiations before the strike be- 
gan, and he continued to stay there hoping negotiations would con- 
tinue. 

Senator Goldwater. Was he arrested on the picket line ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I believe he was, but I am not sure. 

Senator Goldwater. You are not sure about your own administra- 
tive assistant being arrested ? If mine ever gets arrested, I will know 
about it. 

Mr. Mazey. His activities are confined to those quarters. There 
were a lot of people involved. 

Senator Goldwater. Who paid his court costs ? 

Mr. Mazey. If he was arrested and there were any court costs to be 
paid, the international union paid them. 

Senator Goldwater. Is it your international policy to pay suste- 
nance to the families of convicted people, convicted members of your 
organization? 

Mr. Mazey. In the case of Vinson, we gave his widow — not his 
widow — his widow while he was in jail — while Bill Vinson was in 
jail, we gave his wife $50 a week, the local union gave, local 212, 
which happens to be my local. Senator, a local that I organized, also 
gave his wife $50 a week, and the way the matter was handled, the 
international union gave her a check of $100 a week, and every 3 
months the local would reimburse the international union for its 
share of this obligation. 

Senator Goldavater. Do you think that is a proper expenditure 
of union dues money ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I do, sir. In this particular case Vinson was in 
Sheboygan as a representative of local 212, which happens to have the 
Briggs Manufacturing Co. under contract, and which also makes 
plumbing ware, the local had an interest in the outcome and success 
of the strike. I feel that Vinson was a victim of Kohlerism. As a 
result of that, I felt we were obligated to do everything we could to 
provide for his wife and family while he was in jail. 



m- 



8956 impropp:r activities in- the labor field 

Senator (toldwatek. Yesterday Mr. Vinson in his testimony 
dicated that he didn't have any particidar duties at Kohler, that he 
Avas just over there wandering around. He was sort of a morale 
bulkier. Because he didn't liave any definite duties according to him, 
what responsibilities would your local feel toward him? 

]\fr. Mazky. Well, the local union sent him up there to assist the 
local union in setting up its picket lines and so on. Apparently from 
Vinson's testimony nobody ever clearly told him what to do, and that 
is regrettable. 

If I had known that he didn't know what to do, I think I might have 
given him some advice myself. But the facts are that the reason the 
local sent four people into Sheboygan w\as that there was a gi-eat deal 
of fear in the community. 

Everybody remembered the massacre of the 1934 strike. They were 
there basically to let them know they weren't fighting by themselves. 

Senator Goldwater. Yesterday, I may be wrong on the number, I 
think Vinson named five people who came to Kohler from your local. 

Why did you ask for these particular five? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, I didn't ask for any particular five. If I am 
permitted, I would like to tell you who the*^ ])eo]3le were from Detroit 
and Sheboygan. I think it w'ill help clarify this whole matter. I 
believe I spoke to the president of my local who at that time was Ken 
Morris, after I had been on the picket line and made a speech in front 
of the picket line at Kohler. During the course of our discussion the 
question came up of giving these people the boost, and giving them 
some morale and letting them know they weren't fighting by them- 
selves. 

The local jjresident said he would send four people into Sheboygan. 
I had nothing to do with the selection of the foui". I didn't know who 
he was going to send. I didn't make any suggestions. This Avas his 
decision. The four people that appeared in Sheboygan from the 
local union were Bill Vinson, John Gunaca, Boyce Rand, and Conner. 

All four of these people are members of the union, they are workers 
in the shop, they have families, they are veterans — I think all but 
one is a veteran — they have no jail records, they are not goons, they 
are not thugs. They weren't sent into Sheboygan to push anybody 
around. They Avere there to hel]) boost the morale of the people. 
Jimmie Fiore, who is also a member of local 212, operated the local 
union sound truck in Sheboygan, and I believe the international union 
paid his salary. We made him an international representative Avhile 
he Avas in Sheboygan. 

We had another member from Detroit from the Chrysler local No. 
7, Guy Barber, and Guy Barber brought Chrysler local No. 7 truck 
into Sheboygan for the purpose of maintaining contact and playing 
music on the picket lines and so on. 

His services Avere paid by the international union. The other so- 
called outsiders from Detroit that Avere there include myself, and 
Avhen I yvixs there I 'made several speeches during the course of the 
strike. I took part in 19 negotiating sessions at various times during 
the course of the strike. 

Don Rand, Avho Avas my administrative assistant at the time the 
strike began, Avas a member of our skilled trades department, and he 
had taken part in negotiations on skilled trade matters. He continued 
to stay in Sheboygan, hoping negotiations Avould reopen. Jess Fer- 



IMPROPER ACnVrriES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8957 

razza, who is my administrative assistant, and who has been for a 
number of years, was also there for purposes of negotiations, and he 
was hopino- that negotiations woukl continue. 

I liave ah-eady exphiined that the other person who came from De- 
troit, Josepli Burns, was a member of the community service staff 
which I direct, and he was there at my direction, working out the 
strike aid program that we had for the Kohler workers. These are 
all the people from Detroit. This is the full list. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you for the list. 

At the time Mr. Gunaca was brought over, was he a shop worker? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not certain. I think he had been discharged, or 
the company had refused to reemploy him for overstaying a leave or 
something at that time. 

His case was in a grievance procedure, I believe. 

Senator Goldwater. How long before he came to Kohler did he 
leave the shop? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Could you find out and let us know ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think so. 

Senator Goldwater. Can we get it, get the answer now ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have asked one of my assistants to make a note of 
this matter. We will find it as quickly as we can. 

Senator Goldwater. When did Mr. Land leave Kohler ? 

Mr. INIazey. I don't know, sir. 

He was there a very short time. Rand and Conner, I think, were 
only there a couple of weeks. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know that there was a complaint 
against him for disorderly conduct? 

Mr. Mazey. I do not know that. 

Senator Goldw^ater. You did not know it at the time ? 

Mr. Mazey. I may have at the time. xV lot of incidents have hap- 
pened in 4 years. What I may have known 4 years ago and what I 
may know now may be 2 different things. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Well, I think you realize now that of the 4 
men you brought over or asked to be brought over from Detroit, 
1 of them has served a sentence for a conviction involved in the strike, 
and 2 of them are fugitives from justice. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, that is not a correct statement. 

Senator Goldwater. How would you say it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Who are the two that are fugitives from justice. Will 
you answer that, please ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Gunaca and Mr. Land. 

Mr. ]\L\ZEY. Land is not a fugitive from justice. 

Senator Goldwater. That may be a technical point. I am not a 
lawyer and cannot argue it. But there was a complaint issued against 
him before he left Kohler. 

Mr. Mazey. He is not a fugitive from justice. 

Senator Goldwater. We will not argue the point, but if someone 
issued a complaint against me and I beat it back to another State, I 
think I would be running awa}^ from it. 

Mr. Mazey. Tlie complaint has never been served on him and has 
never been served on our attorney, and I have no knowledge of it. 

Senator Goldwater. We will not argue the point. 



8958 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Now, Mv. JNIazey, in your prepared statement, you said that the 
Kohler Co. encouraged vandalism by subsidizing the injured parties. 

If we assume this to be true, don't you agree that the expenditure 
of union dues for court costs, fines, attorney fees, and sustenance for 
convicted felons is, to say the least, the passive condonation of 
violence ? 

Mr. ]Mazey. No, I don't think so, sir. We have been the victim 
of violence. I heard you make tlie statement the other day that there 
were 37 people killed in CIO strikes. I think you said UAW 
strikes. 

Senator Goldwater. I specifically said they were not UAW strikes. 

Mr. Mazey. I have not seen your list, but if you Avill check that 
list I think you will find that all 37 people killed were strikers. They 
Avere not management people. They were not scabs. They were strik- 
ers. We are the victims of the violence. Tlie president of our union, 
Walter Eeuther has been a victim of violence. His brother has been 
a victim of violence. I have been threatened. I have had police 
guarding my home. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Mazey, let's leave the strike scene 
now for just a moment and get into anotlier field that I think you know 
something about. What is the flower fund ? 

Mr. Mazey. The flower fund ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. JNIazey. Senator, we have the same kind of flower fund that 
you have, to enable us to get reelected. 

Senator Goldwater. Before you say that, let's find out if you have 
or not. What is your flower fund ? 

]\Ir. Mazey. A flower fund is a voluntary fund, voluntary contribu- 
tions, that we use for purposes of aiding us in our elections and pay- 
ing for hall rent, paying for balloons and literature, assisting local 
union officers and getting elected. It is the same as your campaign 
fund, sir, only we don't have anybody giving us $3,500 from Cali- 
fornia or from Texas. 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't get that last remark. "WHiat was 
your last remark ? 

Mr. Mazey. I said we don't have anybody giving us contributions 
of $3,500 from Texas or from California for our campaign fund. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, you ought to do a better job of or- 
ganizing out there. 

Did you say the contributions to this fund are voluntary ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; they are. 

Senator Goldwater. What is the purpose of the fund? "^Yliat do 
you use it for ? 

Mr. Mazey. I told you. We have a democratic union, and in a 
democracy there are political groups, such as the Republican Party 
and Democratic Party. In our union there are caucuses — caucuses 
on the international level, caucuses on the local-union level, in order 
to conduct the affairs of the union in conducting elections. We don't 
think it is proper to use any of the dues money, the money of the union, 
in conducting these affairs. Therefore, we feel that our efforts and 
our ability to get reelected, the financing of those efforts ought to be 
done by our friends and our supporters and by ourselves with our 
own money. That is exactly what we do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8959 

Senator Goldwater. Let's take a peek at that. You say it is to be 
used in elections. Let's say that John Smith, just to pull a name out 
of the air, wants to run against Emil Mazey. Could John Smith come 
to the flower fund and have his campaign financed the same as Emil 
Mazey ? 

Mr. Mazey. No; because the fund doesn't belong to John Smith. 
If he was a member of an opposition caucus — we used to have a 
caucus that had some Communist influence — he would have to get his 
money from his own caucus. 

They had to raise their own funds. When I was elected secretary- 
treasurer, I had opposition, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. John Smith is a member of the union and 
pays his dues, and he wants to run against Emil Mazey for office. He 
has to go and dig up his own money, but you can dig into the flower 
fund ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't dig into the funds of the union at all for my 
campaign. My friends and people who believe that Emil Mazey ought 
to be the secretary-treasurer of the UAW, make contributions to make 
my election possible. 

Senator Goldwater. You said that the flower fund was used for the 
election of officers. 

Mr. Mazey. It is a caucus matter. You have your caucus and we 
have ours. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's get this clear. You said that the flower 
fund in part was used for elections. I asked you if John Smith, a 
dues paying member, wanted to run against Emil Mazey, could he 
get money from the flower fund to do so, and you said "No." 

Mr. Mazey. If a Democrat wanted to run against you, could he go 
to your fund and ask for money to run against you? 

Senator Goldwater. He can ask for it, but he would not get it. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, John Smith wouldn't get it either. 

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

Senator Goldwater. That is what I thought. Are there many of 
these flower funds ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, our union is a democratic union. There are poli- 
tics in the organization. 

I imagine there are hundreds of flower funds throughout the union. 

Senator Goldwater. You are secretary-treasurer, of the union that 
has over a million men in it. How many locals ? 

Mr. Mazey. There are 1,250 locals. 

Senator Goldwater. How many flower f mids exist ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. The secretary-treasurer doesn't know. 

Mr. Mazey. Do you think I am familiar with all the politics of every 
local union that we have, to know all of their gi'oups ? 

Senator Goldavater. I am not talking about politics, Mr. Mazey. 
We are talking about a fund. 

Mr. Mazey. Every local union — maybe some locals have 3 or 4 
caucuses. AVe have had some groups call themselves Lefties, Righties, 
Centeries, Wing Cli])pei-s, and I suppose all of these groups have their 
own funds, political action funds. 



8960 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I liave no knowled^re of them. They are not union funds, not union 
accounts, and I have no responsibility for auditinf? their records or for 
knowing then what funds they have. 

Senator Goldwater. Are they in cash ? 

Mr. Mazey. If I don't have the responsibility for it, sir, how would 
I know wliether it is cash or what ? 

Senator Goldw^vter. Which one do you know about ? 

Mr. Mazey. I know about my own to some extent, althouj^h I don't 
handle it. The international officers have a fund. 

Senator Goldwater. If you know about your own, could you tell 
us about how bi^ that fund is ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know at the moment. 

Senator Goldw^vter. You don't know ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. This is a matter 

Senator Goldwater. Could you take a guess ? 

Mr. Mazey. No; I can't. 

Senator Goldwater. Is it a lot of money ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. I am sure it is not as large as the 
$70,000 that you have, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. If you are running for election, maybe you 
ought to have that much. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know how large it is, but I am sure it is less 
than that. 

Senator Goldwater. How much is it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. You are the secretary-treasurer of the UAW. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't handle the fund, so how would I know what 
it is? 

Senator Goldw^vter. Are these funds in cash ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Goldw^vter. Do you buy flowers with it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; we buy flowers. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you buy a lot of flowers ? 

INIr. Mazey. Yes. We buy a lot of flowers. We have a lot of people 
who get sick and people who are hospitalized. 

Senator Goldw^ater. But you use the money for internal politics? 

Mr. jNIazey. That is the purpose of it. We were able to defeat 
Communists that got control of some of our local unions by these 
funds. They raised their money and we raised ours. 

Senator Goldwater. When do you run for reelection again ? 

Mr. Mazey. 1959. 

Senator Goldwater. 1959. You are not the least concerned now 
how nnich is in that kitty for 1959 ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I think I am in pretty good political shape, 
Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you in good financial shape ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not a rich man. I am a worker. 

Senator Goldwater. You know what I am talking about. 

Mr. Mazey. I get by. 

Senator Goldwater. How much is in this fund, Mr. Mazey ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. I would be very glad to find out for you. 

Senator Got>dwater. Well, let's start looking. Have you got less 
than $1,000? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8961 

Mr. Mazey. If I told you I didn't know, I wouldn't know if it was 
less or more than $1,000, would I i 

Senator Goldavater. Have you got niore than $10,000? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, to make it easy for you, we will 
find out exactly what we have in this international fund, and we will 
make a report to you. 

Senator Goldwater. The last time you ran for election, how much 
was in that fund ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't know, and you depended on it to 
some extent for your financing to run ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, at the present time there is very little-factional- 
ism in our union. There is a great deal of unity among the leadership 
and rank and file members. I didn't have any opposition the last 
three times I ran for office. I have been elected by acclamation. I 
frankly don't have any political worries. 

Senator Goldw^a.ter. You are a very fortunate man, but how much is 
in the fund? Are you saying under oath that you, as the secretary- 
treasurer of one of the world's biggest unions, and one of the world's 
richest unions, can't tell us how much of these flower funds exist in 
your organization or how much you have in your own organization? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, sii', I don't handle these funds. They are not 
part of the official records of the union, and, therefore, I have no way 
of knowing. I told you I would be willing to find out. 

Senator Goldwater. Are they ever audited ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't know ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I don't think they are. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there any responsibilitj^ for these funds ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have no responsibility for them. 

Senator Goldwater. Are there any supporting vouchers to show 
the expenditures ? 

Mr. Mazey. I assume — Senator, I am willing to get you a report on 
the international 

Senator Goldwater. Don't say assume. Mr, Mazey, you are secre- 
tary treasurer of one of the world's biggest unions. 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. Thanks for the advertising. 

Senator Goldwater. If you were the president, I wouldn't expect 
you to know so much about it, but you are the secretary-treasurer, and 
the secretary-treasurer of my corporation better know wherever an 
account is and how much is in it. 

Mr. Mazey. This is not an account of the union. I don't know 
what is in this fund any more than I know what is in your fund. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you again : How are these funds 
raised? 

Mr. Mazey. They are voluntary contributions. 

Senator Goldwater. Voluntary contributions ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think you will find that our union is one 

Senator Goldwater. In your case, in your particular case, at the 
international level, who would contribute to this fund ? 

Mr. Mazey. The staff members, friends of mine in the local union, 
and others. 

Senator Goldwater. You say it is a voluntary contribution ? 



8962 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. That is rio;ht. 

Senator Goldwater. You are under oath. 

Mr. Mazey. I understand that. 

Senator Goldwater. I have a statement here which comes out of a 
document of UAW-CIO special Toledo investii^ating committee. I 
am reading from page 25. "Brother Speidell," do you know him ? 

Mr. JVIazey. I know of the name. Incidentally, I was chairman of 
that committee. 

Senator Goldwater. I find your name mentioned here in very 
interesting ways several times. We will get into this shortly. Here is 
what he says, and I quote it : 

That is the difference iu their pay. Now the difiference in the pay of an inter- 
national man and a local man was kicked back into the flower fund. It had to 
be kicked back. It was compulsory. It wasn't voluntary at all. 

Now, that is your fellow's money that is going into the flower fund. That is 
international. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, that hearing, those committee hearings, of 
which I was chairman, took place in 1950. 

Senator Goldwater. That is right. 

Mr. ]Mazey. I have not had an opportunity of looking at the record 
or refreshing. I think you will find some conclusions, recommenda- 
tions, and decisions of the committee in that matter. 

Senator Goldwater. I agree with you, but I wanted to question you 
on that one point. 

Mr. MA.ZEY. I don't recall the incident. It is a long time ago and I 
am involved in so many important matters that I can't possibly remem- 
ber all the details of it. 

Senator Goldwater. These, evidently, are cash funds, for which the 
union has no responsibility. 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. They are not the union's responsibility. 

Senator Goldwater. No vouchers, no accounting system ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I didn't say that. There may be vouchers. There 
may be accounting systems, but at this point I don't handle these funds 
or have any responsibility for them. You couldn't expect me to be able 
to answer those questions. 

Senator Goldwater. You know the existence of these flower funds ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, and I am in favor of them. I think the only way 
you can maintain a Democratic union and not use the funds of the 
union for election, is to have funds of this type. They are voluntary 
funds and perfectly legitimate and legal. 

Senator Goldwater. Why haven't you suggested that they be au- 
dited, that they be properly run ? 

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

Mr. Mazey. Because they are not funds under my control. I cause 
to be audited the records of every local union, of the union funds 
every year. I have a 24:-man auditing staff that works under my 
direction. This last year we audited 1185 local unions and made 
special investigations of problems that they had. 

Those are union dues funds, and I have the responsibility there. 
But on voluntary funds, I have no responsibility. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's get back to Brother Speidell. Was he 
lyin^ when he said it had to be kicked back, that it was compulsory, 
that it wasn't voluntary at all ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't believe that statement to be true. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8963 

Senator Goldwater. Well, say yes or no. 

Mr. Mazey. I would say he was lying, yes. I don't believe it. I 
don't believe that anybody in our union has ever been compelled to 
make a contribution to any fund. 

Senator Goldwater. It goes on to mention Frank Malich. Do you 
know Frank Malich ? 

Mr. JNIazey. I am not certain, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. I wouldn't expect you to remember all of these 
names. He was the first camp director. I will quote from the record. 

While he was camp director, he was on the international payroll. In other 
words, the international was paying the camp director, and the difference in his 
pay that he got from the international, and what he would have gotten from 
the local, was $87 and some cents every 2 weeks. That was kicked back into 
the flower fund. That he will verify, and he is willing to do it at any time. 

Eighty-seven dollars and some cents every 2 weeks is not hay, and 
from a number of people it could grow into a rather interesting flower 
fund. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, I think you are making a mistake 
of guilt by accusation. 

Senator Goldwater. I haven't accused you of anything. 

Mr. Mazey. This particular man is making an accusation and you 
are taking it as a fact. 

Why don't you read the conclusions? What conclusions did our 
committee reach on this matter ? 

Senator Goldwater. I am merely reading the report 

Mr. JVIazey. All you are reading is somebody's accusation. 

Senator Goldwater. I am merely asking you if it is right or wrong. 
I am not accusing you of anything. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know, Senator if, it is right or wrong. I haven't 
read the report. If you read the whole report, my committee made 
certain findings and recommendations on the matter. You have the 
report there. I don't have it. You might check it. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you chairman of this committee ? 

Mr. ]\L\zEY. Yes ; I was. 

Senator Goldwater. You were there and heard the testimony? 

Mr. ISIazey. I think I attended every session of the committee. 

Senator Goldwater. And you heard these accusations made and 
you didn't come away with the idea that maybe you ought to have an 
audit made ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, I pointed out to you that happened in 1950. 
I haven't read the record. I am willing to take the time to refresh 
my memory. I would be very glad to answer your question. 

Senator Goldwater. Just to make it simple, were there kickbacks 
into the flower fund ? 

]\Ir. Mazey. No ; there weren't. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pursue this up 
and down the hill. I think what we have heard here indicates that 
there is something that we ought to look into, that our auditors ought 
to take a look at, and see whether Mr. Mazey's statements are correct, 
that it is not compulsory or whether the statements of his brothers 
are correct, that it was a compulsory and is a compulsory fund. 

Senator Curtis. Mt. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Mazey, do you know Richard Gosser ? 



8964 IMPROPER ACTIVn^IES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; I do. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live ? 

Mr. Mazey. He lives in Toledo, Ohio. 

Senator Curtis. Toledo? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Toledo and Detroit : he spends his time between the two cities. 

Senator Curtis. What position does Mr. Gosser hold in the UAW- 
CIO? 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Gosser is the vice president of the UAW and 
has been vice president since 1947. He was elected with me. 

Senator Curtis. How many vice presidents do you have ? 

Mr. Mazey. We have four vice presidents. 

Senator Curtis. Does he have any other union office ? 

Mr. Mazey. No ; he does not. 

Senator Curtis. Is he assigned a I'egion as a vice president ? 

Mr. Mazey. No; Vice President Gosser's responsibilities are as fol- 
lows: He is the director of the competitive shop department. This is 
the organizing department of our union. He is director of the skilled 
trades department, and he has a number of minor departments in 
which he has both collective bargaining and organization respon- 
sibilities. 

Senator Curtis. Is he appointed or elected to that office ? 

Mr. Mazey. We have a democratic union, sir. All of our officers 
are elected. 

Senator Curtis. Now, has Mr. Gosser been president of the local 
union in Toledo ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe he was the original president of that local 
union, local 12. 

Senator Curtis. Of local 12 ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And he was president of local 12 back in 19-49 and 
1950, was he not? 

Mr. Mazey. He was not. 

Senator Curtis. AVlien did he cease to be president of the local ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe Dick Gosser was elected a member of the inter- 
national executive board at our Chicago convention in 1942. You can't 
hold two offices under our constitution and you can't be both president 
of the local union and officer of the international union. I would say 
that in 1942 would be the last time he was president of the local union. 

Senator Curtis. What title did he liave then ? 

Mr. Mazey. He was a member of the international executive board 
and he is regional director of our region 2-B which covers Toledo and 
northeastern Ohio. 

Senator Curtis. And you are sure he has not been president of the 
local since 1942 ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure of it. 

Senator Curtis. Noav, as regional director Avould he have anything 
to do with running the local ? 

Mr. Mazey. He would have a great deal to do with it because our 
regional directors have basic responsibility for negotiating collective 
bargaining a great many times and assisting the local unions in the 
pro]:)er carrying out of administrative functions. 



IMPROPER ACTR^rTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8965 

Senator Curtis. That local 12 there in Toledo, do they also have a 
building corporation that they call the Automobile or Automotive 
Workers Building Corp. ? 

Mr. JVIazey. I don't know what they call it but local 12 and about 
200 other locals of our International Union of Building Corporations ; 
we have a lot of buildings and we are very happy about them. 

Senator Curtis. "Was this Automotive Workers Building Corpora- 
tion of Local 12 set up in such a manner so that each union member 
was a stockholder in the building corporation ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, we have a policy in our union that the members in 
the union are automatically members of the building corporations and 
we only have building corporations to meet the laws of the various 
States. 

Senator Curtis. Was Mr. Gosser president of the building corpo- 
ration ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think he was at one time. 

Senator Curtis. When? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't recall, sir. 

Senator Cutitis. Now, did this local union 12 purchase a summer 
camp known as Sand Lakes Camp? 

Mr. Mazey. They have a children's camp where children of local 
12 and the others in the city of Toledo can have an education at the 
local's expense, and it is at Sand Lake in Michigan. 

Senator Curtis. Was the Sand Lake camp owned by the Automobile 
Workers Building Corp. of which Mr. Gosser was president? 

Mr. Mazey. It is owned by the local union and owned by the build- 
ing corporation. 

Senator Curtis. This one that Mr. Gosser has served as presi- 
dent of? 

Mr. Mazey. I said that at one time lie was president and he is not 
president of it now. 

Senator Curtis. Is it true that the Sand Lakes camp was purchased 
from the Willow Land Sportsman's Club ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, my memory on that is not too good. These 
were some of the questions that came up in the 1950 inquiry that 
Senator Goldwater was talking about, and I don't have the details at 
my finger tips. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your best recollection that it was ? 

Mr. Mazey. It may have been ; I don't recall. 

Senator Curtis. All right. Now, was Mr. Gosser head of the sport- 
man club at the time that the cam]) was sold to the Automotive Work- 
ers Building Corp. of which he was also head ? 

Mr. Mazey. I give you the same answer. Senator, I don't recall. 
He may have been. 

Senator Curtis. He might have been? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. sir. The report that my connnittee made speaks 
for itself in that regard and I don't remember every detail. 

Senator Curtis. Now, do you know a hardware store in Toledo or 
in that general area known as the Colonial Hardware Co. ? 

Mr. Mazey. I do know about it, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was Richard Gosser a part-owner of the Colonial 
Harclware store along with one Melvin Schultz? 

Mr. Mazey. He was at one time. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 15 



8966 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Did Gosser own the controlling interest in the hard- 
ware store ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know whether he had the controlling interest 
or not. He disposed of that property back in 1950. 

Senator Curtis. Did the local union or any organization controlled 
by it or l)y Mr. Gosser purchase any farm land ? 

Mr. Mazey. Local 12 has a lot of property and they have some farm 
land that they use to raise cows and grain and vegetables for their 
camp. Yes, they do. 

Senator Mundt. It is an unfair labor practice against farmers. 

Mr. Mazey. The facts are, we give farmers some jobs. 

Senator Mundt. It is competition, too. 

Senator Curtis. Did the membei-s work out there sometimes? 

Mr. Mazey. There is a lot of voluntary work in our union. We build 
our union by a lot of people digging in and volunteering their skill 
and making the union possible, and I am sure there was. 

Senator Curtis. Did the local union, which was headed by Mr. 
Gosser, purchase any slot machines ? 

Mr. Mazey. They did not, not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Well, what is the answer now, that they did not 
or that you do not know ? 

Mr. Mazey. I recall the charge was made. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. I am not asking you about the charge. 

Mr. Mazey. If you will look at the findings of my committee you 
will find that the local did not purchase slot machines. 

Senator Curtis. I did not ask you what you found. 

Do you know, did they own tliem or do you know ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think that I have said, Senator, that they did not 
own raiy slot machines. We are opposed to slot machines and we are 
opposed to any form of organized gambling because that is where the 
racketeers and the crooks come in. 

Senator Curtis. Now, were supplies for the Sand Lake camp and 
for the farm as well as the building corporation purchased from 
Colonial Hardware? 

Mr. Mazey. Some of the supplies were, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of the local members or officials in the 
Toledo area make any request of the UAW-CIO to investigate the 
operation of these various enterprises ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, we had an investigation. 

Senator Curtis. I said, did local members or officials request one? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not sure whether they requested it or whether we 
initiated it ourselves. I think our executive board initiated the investi- 
gation ourselves. 

Senator Curtis. Would it not refresh your recollection if we said 
that several local entities asked it? 

Mr. Mazey. In that period. Senator, I believe I received a letter, and 
I am trying to thing of this fellow's name, from a fellow by the name 
of Bremiller, or some such name, making certain charges and allega- 
tions about the conduct of local 12. 

Senator Curtis. So vou may have had just one complaint, is that 
right? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. No more than that ? 



IMPROPER ACTlVniES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8967 

Mr. Mazey. It may have been more, but I am not certain whether 
we instituted this investigation on our motion or someone's request. 

Senator Cuutis. Did the UAW auditors ever audit the books of 
this building corporation ? 

Mr. Mazp^y. Yes, they did. 

Senator Cuutis. Did you direct the study of these complaints made 
by tlie local union members and officials ? 

Mr. Mazey. I was the cliairman of a three-man investigating com- 
mittee, if that is what you mean by "direct." 

I think the international executive board directed me to head this 
connnittee and make an investigation. 

Senator Curtis. You did this at the direction of the international 
executive board? 

Mr. ]\L\ZEY. Yes. 

Senator ('urtis. Now, you will notice, Mr. Mazey, that I have 
not asked you about any specific transactions or any of the merits of 
these things. I do not believe that this Kohler strike, at this stage 
of it anyway, is the right place to inject that. I merely wanted to 
get tliis information from you about this general outline of organiza- 
tions in which Mr. Gosser was involved. 

Now, I want to go to a different line of questioning : 

What are your duties as secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Mazey. I can take all afternoon giving them to 3^ou, sir. I 
have a lot of duties. 

Senator Mundt. I suggest a lunch hour in between. Senator. 

Senator McNamara. I am for that. 

Senator Curtis. It is all right with me. 

Mr. Kauii. Before you adjourn, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
request that the report of Mr. Mazey 's investigative committee, which 
Senator Goldwater and the others have been questioning about, be 
made an exhibit to this record. 

The report shows the effects of the union to investigate this and 1 
think it would be only fair if it were made an exhibit, sir. 

Senator CuR'iis. None of my questioning was based on that report 
and I have never read it. 

Mr. Rauh. I was referring to Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. May I ask, are you referring to a report that 
Mr. iSIazey made ? 

Mr. Rauii. This is the report of the investigating committee about 
which you were asking questions. 

Senator Goldwater. The one that Mr. Mazey was a member of? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I do not have that report. 

Mr. Mazey. I thought you were reading from the report, and ■ 

Senator Goldwater. I have another report. You forgot about 
this one. 

The Chairman. All right, we have not located the report that 
counsel is interested in, and we cannot exhibit it until we get it. 

Mr. Rauh. We will try to locate it. 

The other thing I wanted to say, if I ma}^ be permitted, is that Mr, 
Mazey's offer of arbitration is not limited in its time. It is good as 
long as this committee sits. 

The Chairman. All right, announce that to the press. 

Let us stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. 



8968 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

(Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m. the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m. of the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. Tlie committee will be in order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the ses- 
sion were : Senators McClellan, Kennedy, Ervin, Goldwater, Mundt, 
and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The Chair will announce that we have two wit- 
nesses here that we would like to hear this afternoon. They are offi- 
cials and we do not wish to inconvenience them any more than we 
can help it. 

Therefore, we are going to suspend, temporarily, with the testimony 
of Mr. Mazey, and hear two other witnesses now. Then ]VIr. Mazey will 
be recalled. 

The first witness is Judge Murphy. Will you come around, please? 

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

Judge Murphy. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE HAROLD F. MURPHY 

The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and 
your official capacity, please ? 

Judge Murphy. My name is Harold F. Murphy, and I live at 
Marinette, Wis., and I am circuit court judge of the 20th Judicial 
Circuit of Wisconsin. 

The Chairman. How long have you been occupying that position, 
Judge? 

Judge Murphy. I am finishing my fifth 6-year term, and I have 2 
more years to go ; 28 years. 

The Chairman. It is your fifth 6-year term ? 

Judge Murphy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In 2 more years you will have had 30 years on the 
bench ? 

Judge Murphy. ^Yliat is that, sir ? 

The Chairman. I just remarked that in another 2 years you Mill 
have had 30 years on the bench. 

Judge Murphy. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. I am indulging the assumption that you 
waive counsel, of course. 

Judge Murphy. I waive counsel ; yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are, in addition, the dean of the circuit court 
judges in Wisconsin ; are you ? 

Judge Murphy. That is true, if that means in point of service. I 
have served a longer time in that position. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlian anyone else; is that right? 

Judge Murphy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you held any other elective position ? 

Judge Murphy. Yes. I was nominated and elected on the Republi- 
can ticl«it four times as district attorney of Marinette County, away 
back in the early twenties. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you served that time, also, is that right 

Judge MuKPiiY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. For about 8 years ; was it ? 

Judge Murphy. Exactly 8, years, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Judge, you became involved in the WERE 
enforcement, or iii the WERE findings ? 

Judge MiJEPiiY. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in early lOS-i or the middle of 1954; is 
that right? 

Judge ]\IuRrnY. It ^^•as in August of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlie mass picketing had been going on at the Kohler 
plant, and there had been, also, some home demonstrations? - 

Judge Murphy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand, the WERE had made a ruling that 
these activities should cease and desist ; is that right? 

Judge MuT^piiY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it came to your court to be enforced ? 

Judge Murphy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Judge Murphy, were you the one that would 
naturally handle that case, or was it Judge Schlichting who would 
have handled the case? 

Judge MuRi'HY. It would have been Judge Schlichting ordinarily, 
because Sheboygan County is in Judge Schlichting's circuit. Judge 
Schlicliting had the same matter before him in May of 1950, and as I 
was informed, from the record and those interested. Judge Schlichting 
called a conference, or at least there was a conference held, attended 
by lawyers of both sides ; that is, the Labor Eoard of Wisconsin and 
the union attorneys. 

As a result of that conference, it was agreed, as I am informed, that 
the cease-and-desist order previously issued by the Wisconsin Employ- 
ment Labor Eoard would be complied with. 

There must have been some other meeting with Judge Schlichting, 
because at a later date I was notified by the chairman of the board 
of circuit judges that Judge Schlichting was disqualified, and I was 
designated to hear the inpinctional suit, or, as you say, the applica- 
tion of the Wisconsin Labor Board for an enforcement judgment of 
tlie order. 

Mr. Kennedy. So Judjre Sclilichting did not handle the case, and 
you were appointed to handle it? 

Judge Murphy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were designated to handle the case? 

Judge Murphy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, when the argument Avas made before your 
court, you issued a decision ; is that right ? 

Judge Murphy. There was no testimony taken at that hearing, but 
we occupied most of the day, and many exhibits were ofi'ered and oral 
arguments made, and following the oral arguments I rendered a 
memorandum decision from the bench granting the injunction re- 
quested by the Wisconsin Em])loyment Labor Eoard. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was an injunction against the union to cease 
their activities? 

Judge Murphy. That is correct. 



8970 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABO'R FIELD 

JMr. Kennedy. That is to cease and desist not all of their activities, 
but the activities reofarding the mass picketing; and any other of these 
demonstrations; is that correct? 

Jud^e Murphy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you involved at all in the strike in the 
dispute between the Kohler Co. and the union after that date, after 
you issued your cease order ? 

Judp^e MuKPHY. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us how you became involved in that, 
and what you did, Judge Murphy ? 

Judge Murphy. After rendering my decision, I left the bench and 

1 went into the judge's chamber. I told the bailiff to notify the attor- 
neys on both sides, and I mean by the attorneys on both sides the 
attorney for the union and the assistant attorney general representing 
the Wisconsin Labor Board, and the Kohler Co. attorneys to keep 
their seats for awhile. I went into chambers and then called in the 
lawyers representing the parties that I have named. 

I made inquiry as to when the last mediation meeting had been held 
and my recollection is that none had been held for a little more than 

2 weeks. I inquired into the efficacy of any further hearings, or the 
possibility of any further hearings, and voluntarily offered my serv- 
ices as one of the mediators in the hope that that dispute could be 
settled and the trouble resolved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you had some experience prior to that time in 
labor disputes ? 

Judge Murphy. Yes; I did. I had been involved in five cases in 
which injunctions in labor disputes were sought. I recall issuing 2 
injunctions and denying 2, and I may be wrong on the fifth, but in 
addition to the actual formal court hearings I have participated in at 
least a dozen labor dispute matters . 

Mr. Kennedy. So you have had considerable experience in this 
field? 

Judge Murphy. Yes, sir ; I believe I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you offered your services to see if this dispute 
which was already very bitter between union and the company, could 
be settled ; is that right ? 

Judge Murphy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell what happened then? Would you 
tell tlie committee what happened after that? 

Judge Murphy. In chambers, and present was Beatrice Lambert, 
the assistant attorney general representing the Wisconsin Labor 
Board ; and Max Kaskin, an attorney from Milwaukee representing the 
union ; and Lyman Conger and Lucian Chase, lawyers representing the 
Kohler Co. When I made the suggestion as to the resumption of medi- 
ation meetings, Mr. Raskin quickly acquiesced and was favorable to 
the idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the union representative ? 

Judge Murphy. Yes ; that is the union representative. 

Mr. Conger said he would not Refuse to meet, but he thouglit any 
further meetings would be futile. T recall my reply was that, of course, 
anybody entering the meetings with the idea that the meetings were 
futile would make them futile. That conversation was not very long, 
and it was quite quickly agreed, maybe a matter of 5 minutes, that 
meetings would be resumed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8971 

I inquired of IMr. Conger whether ISIr. Fleischman, who was the 
chief Federal conciliator who had presided at previous mediation 
meetings should not be contacted, and Mr. Conger said he thought that 
that was only proper, and he agreed at my request to notify Mr. 
Fleischman, Avhich was obviously done promptly, because the meetings 
resumed within a matter of 3 days, I believe, or maybe it was 2 days. 

Mr. Kexxedy, This would be about early in September of 1954? 

Judge MuRPiiY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you participated in some further meetings in 
early September of 1054? 

Judge MiTRPHY. Oh, yes ; several meetings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now could you summarize your recollection as to 
those meetings, and your impression regarding the position of the com- 
pany and of the union ? 

Judge MuRPiTY. "\'\lien I arrived the first morning I met a group of 
men by mere accident, and they were a group headed by Mr. Raskin, 
and they asked me to step into a room and they said they were pre- 
paring an agenda for discussion at the meetings. 

I spent a few minutes with them, but they handed me a paper which 
was supposed to be the agenda, and the subjects for discussion. I then 
proceeded to the large committee room of the county board, the county 
board room of Sheboygan County Courthouse, where all of the parties 
were gathered. Soon thereafter the meeting began, presided over by 
Mr. Fleischman, the Federal conciliator, and another conciliator whose 
name escapes me at this time. 

The discussion that morning certainly was a general discussion. It 
covered many issues. It had been told me earlier at the very first meet- 
ing in chambers, and said by Mr. Raskin that the question of seniority 
clause in the contract was pretty well disposed of. That was not 
agreed to completely by Mr. Conger, but that was a statement that was 
made. 

Mr. Conger and IVIr. Raskin at that first meeting gave me a sort of 
preview of what had happened at prior meetings. I am not able to 
tell you now just what subjects we started to discuss at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to go into the detail of the matter. I 
want to know just generally, and then I want to know what j^our im- 
pressions were as of the first meeting, then I will carry you through 
the other meetings. But I want to know what your impressions were 
and what they were based on, without getting into all the details of 
every meeting. 

Judge Murphy. Well, the meeting was very tense, very few smiles 
on any face ; a willingness to discuss subjects, and many subjects were 
discussed that morning, and again in the afternoon and again the fol- 
lowing day. Those subjects were the seniority clause, the arbitration 
clause in the contract, insurance benefits, pension plan, 20-minute lunch 
periods for enamel M'orkers. Those were the things that were gener- 
ally discussed, some of them sketchily and some of them in some detail. 
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any agreement at that time? 
Judge ]\IuRPiiY. Xo agreement at all. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did those meetings suspend, then ? 
Judge Murphy. I stand for correction here, but I think we went 
into the third day. Certainly we completed the second day in negoti- 
ations at the same place in the courthouse with the same parties pres- 
ent. That would be, I think, the first and second of September 1954. 



8972 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABQiR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. But there was no agreement? 

Judge Murphy. No agreement. 

Mv. Kenne.dy. There was considerable feeling between both sides 
at that time ^ 

Judge Murphy. Of course, there was considerable feeling. It was 
at the end of 4 months of a very bitter dispute, and, of course, there 
was an unfriendly feeling on either side. And obvious matching of 
numbers on each side of the table. I never believed that it was coin- 
cidence that because there were 7 members on the union side, that there 
would be 7 members on the company side. 

jNIr. Kennedy. Then were there other meetings that followed in mid- 
September ? 

Judge Murphy. Will you repeat that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there other meetings that follov.ed in mid- 
September ? 

Judge Murphy. Yes. I told you about, I think, the second day and, 
I believe, the third day. I am not sure of these dates now, but I am 
sure that during mid-September there was a resumption of meetings 
that lasted, again, at least 2 days, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you reach any conclusions? Was there any 
agreement at that time ? 

Judge Murphy. Well, no. You see, there was never anything in 
writing on any of it. Many of the questions, however had been quite 
well resolved after the second of the series of meetings. The seniority 
clause was pretty well out of the way, and the seniority clause pretty 
well dictated by Mr. Conger, and, while not satisfactory to the union 
in its entirety, was going to be acceptable to them, as was indicated. 

There was a bettering of insurance benefits for employees fairly 
Avell agreed upon; again not satisfactory to the union, but I was of 
the considered opinion that the insurance plan was going to be accepted 
by the miion. 

I believe pretty much at my suggestion, and to get rid of the ques- 
tion of pensions, it was fairly well accepted, without there being any 
formal agreement, that the pension plan that had been in vogue\in 
Kohler Co. for many years would continue, or, in other words, in my 
words, I believe, let the company write their own ticket on the pen- 
sion plan, which was to be the plan that was carried through. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel at this time that it was possible to bring 
the two parties together ? 

Judge Murphy. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I would like to get to, to what steps 
you took and what conversations you had along those lines ? 

Judge Murphy. The reason that I had some confidence was gen- 
erated at a meeting that I had with Mr. Conger alone in a hotel at 
Manitowoc, Wis., which is a town midway between Sheboygan and 
Green Bay and on my way home to Marinette. I was riding home 
with James Desmonds, a Federal conciliator, and upon in(i[uiry by me 
Mr. Desmonds said that it would not hurt, that maybe if I met with 
Mr. Conger alone that more could be accomplished, and, as he ex- 
pressed it, if we both got our hair doAvn, if any, that we might get 
somewhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had that meeting ? 

Judge Murphy. I had that meeting. I stopped at some place along 
the road, called Mr. Conger about 7 o'clock in the evening. He agreed 



IxMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8973 

to meet me at the Manitowoc Hotel, and met promptly at 8 o'clock 
as we had agreed upon. We went to a room that I had provided, and 
spent about 2 hours in discussing the situation generally. One of 
the real points of contention was an across-the-board raise in wages. 

The company, as I recall it, had, in June, offered a 3-cent raise. 
My efforts were constantly toward getting at some increase above the 
3 cents. Z\lv. Conger and I at the Manitowoc Hotel discussed wages 
a good deal. jMaybe that was the principal subject discussed. While 
Mr. Conger never gave me a firm promise that the company would in- 
crease that offer, from his attitude and from what he said I was 
encouraged by the idea that there would be forthcoming someplace 
along the line an offer of an increase in wages. Mr. Conger's lan- 
guage was this in response to my question at least two times, "You 
do not mean to tell me that the door is closed on the question of some 
increase over 3 cents ? " 

He replied at least twice, "I do not say the door is closed on the 
increase in wages." 

Mr. Kennedy. So you felt from that conversation that there was 
a possibility to get the strike settled, and that the company would be 
willing to give some increase over the 3 cents ; is that right ? 

Judge Murphy. That was correct. But that was only the inference 
that I gained. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Then did you have some conversations with the 
union officials, representatives of the union? Without going into 
quite that much detail, is that correct, that you had a conversation 
with them, with the union, at a later time ? 

Judge jNIttrphy. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time did they indicate to you that they 
would be M'illing to give up virtually all the other issues that still re- 
mained in question between themselves and the company if they could 
get an increase of more than 3 cents ? 

Judge Murphy. Generally that is a correct statement, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was going to always be the question of how 
many of the strikers would be rehired, but except for that issue, the 
union was willing or ready to concede that time on all the other issues; 
is that right ? 

Judge Murphy. That is a correct statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. What they wanted was something a little better 
than the 3 cents. 

Judge Murphy. That is right, even if it is only called a facesaving 
gain. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were willing to concede even back in 
Septemlier of 195-1 on almost all the major issues; is that right? 

Judge MiTRPHY. Yes, of course, you are avoiding the return-to- work 
thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the question of the return to work of the strik- 
ers being left to settle ; is that right ? 

Judge Mi'RPHY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, then did you go back and meet with the 
company ? 

Judge jNIurphy. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you go back to them with the understanding 
or witli the feeling that you could speak for the union and perhaps 
settle this strike? 



8974 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 

Jiid^e Murphy. I had the feeling that there was some chance of 
my getting an offer from the Kohler Co. officials of some increase in 
wages which I thought Avould break the logjam or be the important 
opening wedge to final negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the union authorize you — Mr. Harvey Kitz- 
man— to go back to Mr. Conger and indicate" to him that they would 
be willing to accept even a 7-cent increase? 

Judge Murphy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you in fact go to Mr. Conger and tell him that 
the union would be willing to accept even a 5-cent increase? 

Judge Murphy. I made that statement as to 5 cents, and it was 
unauthorized. But, again, I made that statement because I had con- 
fidence that if I knew that that was a firm offer from the Kohler 
Co., that I could persuate the union committee at least to accept it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What w^as your reception by Mr. Conger and the 
Kohler Co. when you same back to them with these renewed efforts? 

Judge Murphy. I met with the Kohler officials at the Kohler Co. 
plant at Kohler, Wis. Present was Mr. Herbert Kohler, Mr. Lyman 
Conger, and, I believe. Vice President L. L. Smith. 

My proposition and statement to them was "Assuming that the 20- 
minute lunch period for enamel workers is out, assuming that the 
seniority clause in the contract has been resolved, assume that the 
insurance question has been resolved, assume that the pension plan 
will be left entirely with the company, and talking only on the ques- 
tion of an increase over the 3 cents already offered, do you men feel 
there is ever going to be made an offer of something more than 3 cents ?" 

1 may not be stating it exactly as I state it at that time, but Mr. 
Conger, speaking for the group, made the flat, unequivocal statement 
that there would be no further increase over the 3 cents offered by the 
company. Mr. Kohler, Herbert Kohler, discussed at that meeting 
statistics that he had which he claimed, and maybe they did, established 
that the wages paid at Kohler Co. were the highest in the area, and that 
they were high on average hourly and weekly wage in Wisconsin. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliy did they say that they were going to take this 
position regarding the fact that they would not give an increase over 
the 3 cents? Did they make any statements about the union at that 
time. 

Judge Murphy. Not at that particular meeting. But IMr. Conger at 
one of the meetings at the courthouse said that in the past when the 
company had made an offer of an increase in wages, and the company 
later maybe increased their first offer, that then it invariably re- 
sulted in the union going all out and making a larger deniand, and 
that he was not going to offer any further increase. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make any statement about what their feel- 
ing was about the union, the position of the union at that time, and 
whether they had the union beaten ? 

Judge Murphy. No. Mr. Conger nor no one else representing the 
Kohler Co. ever said that they thought they had the union beaten. 
But through all of the negotiations, wdiether they were held Avlien 
parties on both sides of the controversy were present and before the 
Federal conciliators, or with my meetings, the two different meetings 
with the Kohler officials, it was perfectly obvious that the attitude of 
the Kohler Co. was that the strike had been won, and that they had 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8975 

the union beaten, and that there was no point in their recedinj^- from 
any position that they had taken. 

I am not quoting language. You are asking me now about an im- 
pression and how I felt. Definitely the attitude of winners. 

Mr. Kekxedy. Did they make any statement about teaching the 
union a lesson? 

Judge MuRriiY. Mv. Conger made that statement one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he tell you ? 

Judge MuKi'iiY. Well, he didn't tell it to me alone. I don't know 
who Mils present. But Mr. Conger made this statement along the 
same line when man}^ people were present : That the strike in 1934 
had resulted in 20 years of labor peace, and they expected that this 
strike would bring about the same result. 

At one time, Mr. Conger made the statement that they were going 
to teach the union a lesson. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said that in the strike of 1934 some 47 people had 
been shot ; is that right ? 

Judge Murphy. I have read of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. From accounts in the newspapers ? 

Judge ]\IrRriiY. I have no special information as to that. I am 
referring to the 1934 strike, and I don't know how I would be required 
to be any more specific than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, you are right. He did make a statement 
however about teaching the union a lesson, that these negotiations or 
their position at that time was going to teach the union a lesson. 

Judge Murphy. He made that statement. Mr. Conger made the 
statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you feel about their bargaining at that 
time^ What was your impression as to whether the company was 
willing to bargain with the union ? 

Judge MuRi'iiY. If you are inquiring about the question of bar- 
gaining in good faith, that very question is now before the National 
Labor Relations Board for decison and involves, of course, many legal 
considerations. 

I am not going to, and I have no right to, accuse either party to the 
negotiations jiroceedings of bargaining in bad faith. But I got the 
distinct impression after the second series of meetings and after Mr. 
Conger hacl told me upon inquiry from me if there w^ere any men who 
would not be rehired if the strike was settled, and he said there were 
many men who would never be rehired. 

We asked about how many. Mr. Conger replied that probably 50, 
but that number was subject to go up or down de]~>ending upon de- 
velopments. The further statement often made was that the several 
hundreds of employees, new employees, that had been hired during the 
months when the strike was still going on were not temporary em- 
ployees, that they were hired as permanent employees, and that they 
were hired taking the place of many men who were on strike. 

So there Avas that almost insurmountable roadblock of no return 
to work of 50 men. Of course that was always based upon the claim 
that they had been troublemakers, and that they had violated the law, 
and they were guilty of violence, and that they were guilty of mis- 
conduct on the picket line, and for what the company considered good 
reasons Avould not be rehired under any circumstances. 



8976 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR TIELD 

And the question of rehiring of that number would not be arbi- 
trated by any arbitrator or by any committee of arbitration or any 
person or body. 

So that that type of negotiation to get anywhere, to be successful, 
cannot be a one-way street, and it must result in compromise. And 
compromise, or implicit in compromise, of course, is the give-and- 
take attitude. ^V}\i\t was in the minds of the bargaining committee 
or in the minds of the Kohler officials representing the company, of 
course, is a mental process not susceptible of any direct proof, and 
you could only take what was said by them to come to a conclusion 
whether they were bargaining in good faith or not bargaining in goocl 
faith. 

^Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever accuse or state to any member of the 
Kohler Co., any official of the Kohler Co., that they were quibbling 
as far as 

Judge Murphy. That came about, yes, I did. I said that to Mr. 
Conger one morning after we had had a meeting the day before. It 
involved the question of arbitration generally, and it was suggested 
by me to forget about any arbitration clause at all and substitute 
therefore a discharge clause. 

I mean discharge of an employee for cause. The suggestion was 
made by Mr. Easkin and by myself that the discharge clause in the 
contract have "discharge for good cause." The meeting ended on that 
note, and the next morning, Mr. Conger came back and he would not 
agree to "good cause" or "good and sufficient cause," but suggested a 
clause for discharge that had the words "inefficient, neglect, and mis- 
conduct." 

Tliere seemed to be no great disagreement on the words "inefficient" 
to "neglect," but the word "misconduct" blew everything up. 

Inquiries made were, "Misconduct where? At the corner tavern, 
do you mean at home, on the streets, or do you mean while at work?" 

The union strongly objected to the word "misconduct" because of 
its very connotations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything else in connection with these meet- 
ings that you held with the company and the union that you feel 
would be helpful to the committee to know ? 

Judge MuRriiY. I was very disconsolate at the end of the meetings. 
I felt that I had voluntarily offered to engage in a useless procedure, 
and I felt that the meetings amounted to gathering goat feathers. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the basis for that conclusion ? 

Judge Murphy. Because we were just never getting anywhere, and 
the nub of the situation was some increase over ?> cents, and there was 
no moving the company from that position. 

Tlien the next important thing that had to be considered would 
be the return to work, but until the negotiations had gotten past the 
increase in wages question, nothing could be accomplished. 

I Avas told in no uncertain terms that there would be no further 
or different offer on wages. I was told it so often and I understood 
it so thoroughly, that that seemed to be the end of things. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no real true bargaining then, in your 
estimation, at that time? 

Judge Murphy. Well, if bargaining means being physically present 
at a meeting, and willing to discuss and willing to listen, there was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8977 

bargaining. But if it means anything more than tliat, I doubt that 
it truly could be called bargaining, while I was present. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chaiumax. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. This is a phase that I don't know that this com- 
mittee has an}' particular jurisdiction in, but I might ask a question 
or two. 

Did both the parties show up when these arbitration meetings would 
be set ? 

Judge Murphy. Oh, yes, they did. 

Senator Curtis. Xow, in this discussion about trying to get the 
company to agree to a greater increase in wages, did you tell them at 
that time that you Avere authorized by the union to state that 5 or 7 
cents would be accepted, or was it merely a statement of belief that '>'; 
might be? 

Judge JSIuRPiiY. "Well, it was a mixed statement, Senator. I was 
definitely authorized by the union committee to suggest to the Kohler 
Co. a 7-cent raise. I did that at tlie meeting with the Kohler officials 
at the Kohler plant. The mention of the words "5 cents" was purely 
my own device, but I said that I was sure that I was authorized to 
make the statement because I had confidence that I would be able tn 
sell the idea of 5 cents to the committee. 

Of course, I could not give anybody any assurance of that. Sevf" 
cents was authorized. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any disagreement with your belief th »+. 
it would be accepted ? 

Judge ]\[uRPHY. Well, I am sure that I told Mr. Kitzman at a later 
date that I had mentioned 5 cents, and he made no objection to it. 

Senator Curtis. I mean of those present for the company, was there 
any indication that they doubted that you could be successful in 
getting a 5-cent settlement ? 

Judge MuRPTiY. There was some question about my authority, and I 
assured them time and again that I did have authority on 5 cents, and 
I had authority on making the statement that they could assume that 
all of the other issues were resolved. 

Senator Curtis. About when was this ? 

Judge ]Murpiiy. I think mid-September of 1954. 

Senator Cur'tis. Xow, about in the end of September, the 28th or 
29th, did you make a statement in the presence of Mr. Mazey that a 5 
or T cents increase would settle the strike ? 

Judge ]\luRPifY. Xow, I do not have an indpeendent recollection of 
making any statement like that to Mr. Mazey, but I certainly wouldn't 
dispute anybody who said I made the statement because that is the 
way I felt, and I certainly' made the statement to union officials that an 
increase of 5 cents or an increase of 7 cents, or even 5 cents should settle 
the strike. 

Senator Courtis. Well, certainly I am not challenging your word, 
and it is asking you to remember quite a little back. 

I believe on page 1412 of the XLRB transcript, Mr. Mazey testified : 

The meetiug was opened by Judge Murphy who began to state that he thought 
the basic differences between the union and the company were what the issues 
in dispute were at that time, and as I recall, Judge Murphy said that the question 
of wages, a general wage increase, the question of arbitration and return of 



8978 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

strikers to their jobs were the three main basic issues that were keeping the 
union and the company from reaching a settlement. 

I am still quoting from Mr. Mazey : 

I disagreed very sharply with Judge Murphy. I said that the balance of the 
issues were still in the picture, and that the question of the return of the strikers 
to the job was not an issue ; that the union would insist on every striker being 
returned to the job without discrimination if a settlement were to be reached 
with the company. 

Judge Mtjrphy. You are refreshing my recollection very well, and 
I am quite sure that that — in real substance — statement was made by 
JSIr. Mazey at the courthouse at Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. About the 28th or *29th of September ? 
^ Judge MuKPHY. That would be right. That would be the last of 
September, and tliat would be the third series of meetings. 

Senator Curtis. At any rate, you served as a volunteer and you 
worked hard and you didn't get the job done? 

Judge MtTRPiiY. That is right. 

Senator Cttrtis. I think that that is all. 

Senator Mundt. I have just 1 or 2 questions, Judge. 

My attention was detained when you were talking about the 1934 
strike. Were you also participating as a mediator in that strike ? 

Judge Murphy. Indeed I was not, and I was circuit judge of 
Marinette at that time, but I had utterly nothing to do with the 1934 
strike, and I know nothing more about that strike than as a member 
of the public would know about it. 

Senator Mundt. I thought that you gave some testimony about the 
number of people who were shot, and I was going to ask about that. 

Judge Murphy. No, I didn't. I have no idea of how many people 
were shot. 

Mr. Kennedy, in a question to me, stated about some number of 
people that were shot, but I did not answer that question because I 
have no information on it. 

Senator Mundt. You know nothing about that strike ? 

Judge Murphy. I know nothing about it. 

Senator Mundt. Except what you read in the papers ? 

Judge Murphy. My only reference to the 1934 strike was the quot- 
ing of Mr, Conger who said that the 1934 strike had brought 20 years 
of labor peace, and they expected this strike to do the same. 

Senator Mundt. The other question I had was this : You said that 
all your good, voluntary efforts finally resulted in gathering goose 
feathers because nothing flowed from the efforts. 

Judge Murphy. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Goat feathers, I believe. 

Senator Mundt. I stand corrected. Goat feathers. 

Judge Murphy. The goats I know don't have any feathers. 

Senator Mundt. Soutli Dakota being the home of the best goose 
flight and shooting, I was thinking of geese instead of goats. 

Anyhow, whatever kind of feathers ih&y were, nothing happened, 
and I think you said nothing happened, because you didn't get to the 
second stage. I think you said there were two stages, one being a mat- 
ter of wages on which there was a difference of opinion, and the second 
was one of the return to work business, which you never really got 
around to negotiating because you couldn't get by stage 1, is that it? 

Judge Murphy. That is a very correct statement. Senator Mimdt. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8979 

Senator Mundt. My question was directed to this : That bein^ the 
case, did you ever start with the second controversy instead of the first ? 
Did you ever try to negotiate from the standpoint of trying to get num- 
ber two out of the way and then getting back to wages? 

Judge MuRPHT. xVt the very last meeting that I attended, and it 
was at the courthouse, and it is the only meeting that I ever knew that 
Mr. Mazey attended, and it was a short time, I made a suggestion to 
Mr. Mazey, and Mr. Kitzman was there, whether there wasn't some 
device whereby the union, maybe, could take care of those men by get- 
ting them employment in other places; that was turned down on the 
proposition that those men had a right to have the services of their 
union carry on their battle for them, and that those men would have a 
right to feel that they had been let down. Of course, my other discus- 
sions on the return to work were with Mr. Conger, principally, or with 
the Kohler officials. But it was JMr. Conger always sayhig that about 
50 would never be rehired, and his always giving reasons for it. 

Senator Mi^xdt. So that the company refused to negotiate on the 
basis of wages until it could determine what was going to be done with 
the strikers ^ 

Judge Murphy. I don't think that is true. I don't think one is tied 
up with the other like that. 

Senator Mundt. You had two points of difference. 

eludge Murphy. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And you couldn't get them to move toward each 
other on either point ? 

Judge Murphy. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. And the difference over wages 
was a difference between 3 cents and something over 3 cents, and an 
indeterminate amount ? 

Judge Murphy. That is a correct statement. 

Senator INIundt. And the difference over wages was that Mr. Mazey 
said, "Every worker should return to his job," and the company said 
there were about 50 of them that they felt had so conducted themselves 
in the strike that they wouldn't take them back ? 

Judge Murphy. I think that is a good summation. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, 

Senator Goldwater. Judge Murphy, I believe you testified that you 
attempted to enter the negotiations around Sepemtber 1 ? 

Judge Murphy. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Did I hear you correctly that Mr. Conger said 
at that time something to the effect that "we will teach the union a 
lesson." 

Judge Murphy. He didn't say that at that time. That statement 
was made to me, and I think in the presence of JNIr. L. L. Smith at 
the courthouse at Sheboygan, when I believe Mr. Conger, Mr. Smith 
and I were standing in the corner of the room. 

Senator Goldwater. Do vou remember the approximate time, the 
date? 

Judge ISIuRPHY. That must have been during one of the recesses of 
the second series of meetings. I don't want to be held to that. Mr. 
Conger will know what I am talking about and when and what was 
said, if anything. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, it is immaterial, Judge, and this isn't 
suggesting that words are being put in your mouth. But I am reading 



8980 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

this just to put into the record the fact that there might have been 
some reason for Mr. Conger or anyone else, as far as tliat is concerned, 
having some fears in tliis case. I will read from the intermediate re- 
port of the NLRB trial examiner, on page 21. It says : 

On June 24, Conger repeated his warning concerning violence and illegal 
activities. Ferrazza, another international representative, stated that "trie 
trouble hasn't even started yet. We haven't gone into high gear yet, but we are 
just about to do so," and then Kitzman said, "I hope you will never go the 
route of soliciting employees, because then trouble will start." 

Mazey added — 

No one has a right to scab despite the law. 

That is the end of the quotation. 

I just wanted to get that into the record to indicate that there 
might be some reasons for apprehension, on the part of not only Mr. 
Conger but other citizens of that community. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, thank you very much, judge Murphy. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Judge Schlichting. 

(At the point, the following members were present : Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, Mundt, Curtis, Gold water. ) 

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 l)ut the truth, so help you God ? 

Judge SciiLiciiTiNO. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF F. H. SCHLICHTING, ACCOMPANIED BY J. W. 
WILKUS, COUNSEL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
official position, please, sir. 

Judge SciiLicHTiNCx. My name is F. PI. Schlichting. I reside at 
Sheboygan, Wis. I am the judge of the fourth judicial circuit of 
Wisconsin, which includes JNIanitowoc and Sheboygan Counties. 

The Chairman. How long have you served in that particular posi- 
tion ? 

Judge Schlichting. Since the first Monday in January 1953, as 
circuit judge. 

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

The Chairman. You have held other official ])ositions in the county, 
have you ? 

Judge Schlichting. Prior to that I served continuously from Oc- 
tober 3, 1932, until assuming the office of circuit judge, as county judge 
of Sheboygan County. 

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

The Chairman. I see you have someone with you. Do you have 
counsel ? 

Judge Schlichting. I'm happy to accept the voluntary services of 
my friend and colleague, the county judge of Sheboygan County, 
J. W. Wilkus. 

The Chairjman. As counsel ? 

Judge Schlichting. As counsel. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 



IMPROPER ACTIYrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 8981 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Judge Schlichting, you have been a judge for liow 
long? 

Judge ScuLiCiiTixc. I have been a county and circuit judge 25 
years last October 3. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many years ? 

Judge SciiLiciiTiNG. 25 3'ears. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been elected to 6-year terms ? 

Judge SciiLiciiTiNG. Yes. I was appointed in 1932, on October 3, 
as county judge, elected for the unexpired term in the spring of 1933, 
then elected for 6-year terms thereafter until I was elected in 1952, in 
the spring election, as circuit judge to take office the first Monday in 
January of 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the strike between the UAW and the Kohler 
Co., did you handle any matters dealing with that? 

Judge ScHLiciiTiNG. Yes, yes, I heard, presided, at the hearing for 
a temporary injunction, I believe it was May 28, 1954, on the applica- 
tion of the Wisconsin Employment Kelations Board for such tempo- 
rary injunction. It is my recollection that I also sat on that same 
matter when it was called back some time in August of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember why vou didn't handle it in Au- 
gust of 1954? 

Judge SciiLicHTiNo. Yes, that date up in May, sir. I signed thft 
order to show cause for the temporary injunction, and set the date as 
best I recall a day or so later, the 28th of May. 

I presided, but that resolved in an agreement. I started to preside 
and they asked for a recess. We adjourned to chambers and that re- 
sulted in an agreement whereby the union people stated that they 
would voluntarily comply with the order of the Wisconsin Employ- 
ment Relations Board. It was then agreed that should there be on 
the part of the State an application for a continuance of that hearing, 
that could be brought on, as I recall, on 12 hours' telephone notice to 
attorneys. There had been a recession of the bargaining negotiations, 
it is my recollection, from May 10, and also at that meeting then in 
chambers it was agreed that the bargaining relations would resume in 
June — I may be incorrect as to that, but that was the 7th or 8th of 
June. 

INIr. Kennedy. And then 

Judge ScHLicnTiNG. Thank you for refreshing me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It wasn't very much refreshing. 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. At that time, that was late in May, I was a 
comparatively new judge and had a very busy circuit, and I had con- 
siderable work, I think a great deal of work, in the Sheboygan branch 
of the circuit. But in June I was to begin a large calendar in Mani- 
towoc County, the other count}^ in the circuit. I asked these people 
how long will it take to hear the application for the permanent in- 
junction, and I w^as advised that it might take about 2 weeks. I 
stated to them "Well, I just wouldn't have 2 weeks, because I must 
go up to the adjoining county. We Avill have to call in another judge." 
They agreed upon a judge. HoMever it is our duty, perhaps — well, 
not exactly a duty — tliat we submit that matter to the chairman of 
the board of circuit judges, who then appoints a judge. But in this 
case both parties agreed that Judge Murphy could be called in. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 16 



8982 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 

It is my recollection that that took place in May, that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you handled an altercation that grew out of 
the strike, the matter of Mr. Vinson ? 

Judge ScHLTciiTiNo. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you imposed a sentence which you felt was 
justified under the circumsances i 

Judge SciiLicriTiNG. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You imposed a sentence of 2 years which you felt 
was justified under the circumstances of the brutal beating that had 
taken place, is that right ? 

Judge Sciilichting. If you will pardon me, sir, that is inaccurate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, that is not 

Judge ScHLiGiiTiNG. Tliis is, I think, important. At that time in 
Wisconshi we had what is called an indeterminate sentence law, and the 
provision of the law in that case, that is, the State prison sentence 
for that otfense was a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years. 
The judge cannot change the minimum. He can reduce the maximum. 
The sentence that I imposed was not less than 1 year, which I was 
obliged to do if I was committing, nor more than 2 years. We call 
that a 1 to 2 sentence. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you did handle the case ? 

Judge Sciilichting. Yes, sir. 

J\Ir. Kennedy. And you imposed a sentence which you felt was 
completely and fully justified under the circumstances of the case? 

Judge Sciilichting. That was my judgment; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Mundt. I am not sure that I understand exactly about 
this sentence. See if I get it right. This was a jury trial ? 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And what questions were submitted to the jury ? 

Judge ScHLTCHTiNG. There were three verdicts submitted. The 
defedant was charged with the then law, assault with intent to com- 
mit great bodily harm. I discussed with the attorneys what I be- 
lieved to be proper, the submission of an included oifense, and stated 
to defense counsel that if they would move for such, I would submit 
it. They moved that I submit simple assault, so as an included 
offense, I also submitted a verdict of simple assault, and, of course, 
the verdict of not guilty. 

So three verdicts were submitted to the jury. 

Senator Mundt. With the concurrence of the defense attorney ? 

Judge ScHLiciiTiNG. The defense attorney moved for the submis- 
sion of simple assault. He did so at my suggestion, that I believed 
it was fair to the defendant to submit an included offense. In the 
event the jury didn't feel that the facts or the evidence warranted 
the more serious charges, and did not feel the defendant was not 
guilty, we could, under our law, submit what we call an included of- 
fense. 

Senator Mundt. Whereupon, after you had made that suggestion to 
defense counsel, he moved that that be done, and you granted him 
the motion? 

Judge Sciilichting. That is correct ; yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN TRE LABOR FIELD 8983 

Senator Mundt. Do I iiiKlerstaiKl you correctly, tlien, that it was 
the trial jury rather than the ju(l<2:e that he agreed upon the greater 
crime rather than the lesser crime ? 

Judge ScHLicnTixG. That is correct. A verdict in a criminal case 
in Wisconsin must be by unanimous action of the jury. 

Senator Mundt. So by unanimous action the jury decided against 
the included ofl'ense, which was the lesser crime with the smaller 
penalty, and agreed unanimously upon the greater crime with the 
greater penalty ? 

Judge ScHLicirriNO. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And when he was found guilty by the jury, you 
did not sentence the accused or the guilty to the maximum penalty? 

Judge SciiLiCHTiNG. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Mundt. You gave him not less than 1 nor more than 
2 years? 

Judge SciiLicnTiNO. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. It would seem to follow from that that ISIr. Mazey's 
tirade against the judicial procedures of Wisconsin should be directed 
against the jury rather than again.st the judge, because they were the 
ones that found the greater crime. 

Judge ScTiLiciiTiNG. Senator, just so there is no misunderstand- 
ing, at that time, that offense — the discretion imposed upon the judge 
by the statute for the commission of that offense ran this gamut, may 
I say. State's prison, not less than 1 nor more than 3 years, as the 
maximum; county jail, 1 year — it is my recollection — and some fine. 
Excuse me. I don't mean and some fine. Or some fine. I am sorry, 
but I just don't recall the amount of that fine. 

Senator Mundt. That was the thing I was trying to establish, 
whether or not the determination of the severity of the crime was made 
by you, as I had been led to believe by Mr. Mazey's testimony, or by 
the jury. You testify that it was made by the jury. 

Judge Schlichting. I am sure — well, I think that is universal law 
in this country, that that question of fact 

Senator Mundt. I didn't know until your testimony that the jury 
had the option of finding the guilty man guilty of a lesser crime in- 
stead of a greater crime. That is the thing that you have cleared up 
in my mind by your testimony. 

Judge Schlichting. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. The court over which you preside. Judge, is a court 
of record, is it not ? 

Judge Schlichting. Correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And a complete transcript is made of everything ? 

Judge Schlichting. Correct. 

Senator Curtis. And the case went on appeal to the Wisconsin Su- 
preme Court? 

Judge Schlichting. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. And it was affirmed ? 

Judge Schlichting. It was affirmed. 

Senator Curti :. Judge Schlichting, I do not care to question 3'ou 
about this case for the reason that I think you have been defended 
here more eloquently than anybody from this side of the table could. 
The highest court in your State confirmed the action, and the way the 



8984 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

good people of your community spoke out wlien someone so vilely ;ind 
so wickedly attacked the judicial, and the integrity of our courts in 
this country of ours, such as happened in your community; the way 
the clergymen of that area spoke out in your defense, the ministerial 
association, the bar association, the medical association and the pub- 
lishers. 

They have spoken in such a way that there is nothing that need 
be said. You don't need any defense. 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. Thank you, sir. Not for myself but on behalf 
of the judiciary, I am grateful for these remarks. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Judge, isn't it a fact that after the trial, the 
defendant's attorneys commended you for fair and impartial conduct 
in the trial ? 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. That occurred, as I recall, during their argu- 
ments just preceding sentence, after the return of the jury's verdict. 
Then we suspended for a day or a half day, I have in that forgotten, 
and called the case for arguments on sentencing. It was then that we 
were commended. 

Senator Goldwater. Before you passed sentence ? 

Judge ScHLiCHTiNG. Before we passed sentence, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. They were very nice to 30U before the sentence 
was passed ? 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. Well, they were complementary. I understood 
it to be such. 

Senator Goldavater. And because they didn't agree with your deci- 
sion, you immediately became an object of not their afl'ections but their 
vituperations ? 

Judge Schlichting. I have yet to hear the attorneys who tried that 
case publicly express vituperation, that is, the attorneys Avho partici- 
pated in the case. 

I don't recall of any statement by them. On the other hand, I don't 
recall their joining in praise, either. I think they were silent. 

Senator Goldwait:r. Judge, yesterday a witness in this room im- 
pugned the integrity of the clergy of Sheboygan, the bar of Sheboygan, 
the medical association of Sheboygan, and lest the people of the coun- 
try who read these things in their papers might think that the com- 
mittee accepted those charges of lack of integrity without any com- 
ment, I merely want to say, as one member of this committee, that I 
think it was a very contemptible accusation, and I think that the 
American people will be called upon to judge the individual who made 
those charges. 

Judge Schlichting. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Judge Schlichting. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Judge, I presume that you submitted the lesser ver- 
dict under a statute similar to that which exists in most of the States, 
that where a person is charged with an offense which includes lesser 
offenses, that the jury, if tliey think the evidence warrants it, can acquit 
on the greater offense and convict on the lesser ? 

Judge Schlichting. That is it exactly. 



IMPROPER ACTlVrXIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8985 

Senator Euvix. We have an indeterminate sentence statute in North 
Carolina in certain cases, which provides in effect that where the inde- 
terminate sentence is im^iosed, that the length that the man actually 
serves under it is dependent upon his conduct as a prisoner. 

Judge ScHLicHTiNG. Ycs, of course, we do not pass on that. This 
might be of interest to you. Senator: For instance, a 1 to 1 sentence 
would mean that the defendant is eligible for parole at the end of 1 
year. A 1 to 2 sentence would mean that the defendant is eligible for 
parole at the same time, 1 year. A 1 to 3 sentence would mean the de- 
fendant is eligible for parole at the end of 18 months. 

Senator Ervix. Our statute works just a little bit differently, but it 
is designed to accomplish more or less the same result. If a person 
under an indeterminate sentence makes a good prisoner, he gets so 
nuich credit on liis sentence. 

In this case, the jury convicted the defendant, in the case we are talk- 
ing about, of the moi'e serious offense, and you imposed an indetermi- 
nate sentence which included tlie necessary minimum as fixed by yo>ir 
legislature, but did not include the maximum that you could have im- 



Judge ScHLiCHTiNG. That is correct. I will add to my statement 
that when you make a l-to-2 sentence, as distinguished from 1 to 1 — 
in 1 to 1 you are eligible for parole at the end of 1 year and 1 to 2 
eligible for parole at the end of 1 year, but you are on parole, then, for 
that year. If it is 1 to 3, you are eligible for parole at the end of 18 
months, but for the remainder of the term you are on parole. 

Senator Er^^n. Would I be correct in assuming — I notice that you 
stated that the offense for whicli Vinson was convicted was punishable 
by imprisonment in the State prison. Could I infer from that that 
under your law it was a felony as distinguished from a misdemeanor? 

Judge SciiLicirTixc. Yes. In Wisconsin, any offense punishable by 
imprisonment in the State prison is a felony. 

Senator Ervix. That is our law also. 

Thank you. 

Judge ScuLiCHiiNG. Thank you. 

Tlie CiiAiRMAX. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, call the next witness. Thank you. Judge. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Emil Mazey. 

TESTIMONY OF EMIL MAZEY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. HAUH. 
JR., COUNSEL— Resumed 

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

The Chairmax. Seiiator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Mazey, I believe I had just asked you, when 
you were last on the stand. What were your duties as secretary- 
treasurer ? 

Mr. Mazey. Would you restate your question, please ? 

Senator Curtis. What are your duties as secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Mazey. My duties as secretary-ti-easurer are to see to it that the 
income and expenditures of the union are liandled properly, to approve 
the payment of bills, and to carry out the orders and directions of the 
executive board. 



8986 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Are you authorized to approve the payment of 
bills ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am. 

Senator Curtis. Does your office pay the bills, too ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; it does. We have both an accounts receivable 
and accounts payable division in our accounting department. 

Senator Curtis. What have you to guide you on what bills should 
be paid ? 

Mr. Mazey. The approval of the recommendations of officers, di- 
rectors, department heads, and so on. 

Senator Curtis. And must the expenditures be in accord with your 
constitution and bylaws ? 

Mr. Mazey. They must be. 

Senator Curtis. Does that require them to be itemized or at least 
identified ? 

Mr. Mazey. It depends on the nature of the bill. For example, we 
have attorneys on retainer fees, and they would not have to itemize 
their retainer, but it is a simple stij^ulated amount. 

Senator Curtis. What was your authority as secretary -treasurer at 
Kohler ? You were down there a good deal : weren't you ? 

Mr. Mazey. I was in Kohler to try to settle the strike on a number 
of occasions. As I testified this morning I spent some 19, 1 took part 
in 19 sessions in an attempt to settle the strike. 

Senator Curtis. Were you the highest ranking international of- 
ficer there ? 

Mr. Mazey. I was most of the time. In fact I Avas all of the time. 
Walter Reuther tried to get Mr. Kohler to sit down at the bargaining 
table but he could never get his feet under the table. 

Senator Curtis. Now, what authority did you have over the other 
international representatives there at Kohler ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, of the representatives who worked directly for 
me, I had frequent authority. Those who worked under the regional 
directors, the authority there was in the hands of the regional directors. 

Senator Curtis. Now you, yourself, beloiig to the Briggs local, 
do you not? 

Mr. Mazey. I do. 

Senator Curtis. What is the number of that ? 

Mr. Mazey. Local 212. 

Senator Curtis. What arrangements were made with the interna- 
tional or with the local at Kohler for help from the Briggs local ? 

Mr. Mazey. I advised this committee this morning that we had an 
education conference in the city of Chicago, a conference which you 
probably recall where Bishop Schiel spoke out against McCarthyism, 
and at that conference I had a discussion with tlie president of the 
local union and advised him of the status of the Kohler strike. I 
suggested to him that he send some members of the local unioa to 
help maintain the morale of the Kohler workers, and to indicate that 
they were not fighting their battle alone, and that they had some 
assistance from peo]ile elsewhere. 

Senator Curtis. Did you suggest about how many should be sent? 

Mr. Mazey. T don't recall whether I did or not. T may have. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any discussion with the local union 
as to who would pay the expense ? 



IMPROPER ACn-'IVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8987 

Mr. Mazey. Well, the local union jiaicl the expense. 

Senator Curtis. But did you have any discussion with them as to 
who would pay the expense ^ 

Mr. Mazey. I don't recall it. In the fact that they paid the expense, 
the subject matter may not have come up at all. 

Senator Curtis. You mean the arrangement was entered into and 
carried out without any discussion as to who Avould pay the expense? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, the fact that the international union did not pay 
it, the local president I spoke to probably said, "Well the local union 
will pay the expense.'' 

Senator Cuktis. The international paid some of the expense; 
didn't it? 

Mr. Mazey. No ; they did not. 

Senator Curtis. Well, they paid expenses when one of these men 
would get arrested, wouldn't they, and things of that sort ? 

Mr. ^Iazey. I testified this morning, and I repeat, that the people 
were arrested and there were bail bonds and attorney fees and matters 
of that sort. We did pay those expenses. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did you authorize the payment of any bills 
for merchandise when you were around Kohler? 

Mr. Mazey. We have a strike-assistance program which is adopted 
by our executive board and it has been approved by our conventions, 
and the strike-assistance program provides that members who are on 
strike were entitled to receive strike aid in the form of food vouchers. 

The man in charge of the committee, in the local committee itself, 
would process these matters and the policy and the board gave them 
authority to be paid. 

Senator Mundt. For purpose of clarification, is it fair for me to 
assume that whenever vou use the pronoun "we," you refer to the 
UAW International ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, what other expense did you have besides 
food vouchers in carrying on the strike? 

jMr. Mazey. Well, the Kohler Co. cut off the insurance, and medical 
insurance, and group life insurance for the strikers, and I authorized 
the payment of the insurance premiums. Many of the strikers were 
faced with evictions from their homes, and our program authorized the 
payment of rents in emergency cases. 

And many of the strikers were faced with the shutoff of their util- 
ities, gas, and electric, and so on, and I authorized the payment of 
those. 

Senator Curtis. Now, were there other expenses to carrying on the 
strike besides these necessities of life of strikers ? 

Mr. jMazey. Yes : tliere are a lot of expenses. 

Senator Curtis. "\^niat are they ? 

Mr. Mazey. To maintain the radio program for one thing, to keep 
the strikers and the public advised. 

Senator Curtis. AAHio paid for that ? 

]\[r. Mazey. The international union. 

Senator Curtis. About how much money have you spent on that? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know exactly. I thiiik that I may have a state- 
ment here that can help clarify my memory on this matter. 



8988 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We have un item of printing, publicities, radio, prints, photos, and 
signs, for the period of 1954, 1955, 1956, and 1957, in the amount of 
$246,453.43. This indudes newsaper ads, and items of that type. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have some sound truck expense ? 

Mr. Mazey. We had two sound trucks at the strike, as I reported 
this morning, one from local 212 in Detroit and one from Chrysler 
local 7 in Detroit, and I think the expense we had there would probably 
be gas and oil and any repairs that we may have had. 

Senator Curtis. But the bringing of those in was upon the arrange- 
ment of the international ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I reported this morning that Mr. Fiore and Mr. 
Barber were employed by the international union at that time. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did you have any expense in connection with 
any home demonstrations ? 

Mr. IMazey. We had nothing to do with the home demonstrations, 
and there is no expense connected with them. 

Senator Curtis. What do you mean by you had nothing to do 
with them? 

Mr. Mazey. They were not part of the union activities. 

Senator Curtis. The union had nothing to do with them at all ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did you ever see one of these paint bombs 
that they talked about in the cases of some of this vandalism and prop- 
erty damage? 

Mr. Mazey. I have never seen a paint bomb in my life. I am kind 
of curious, and I would like to see one. 

Senator Curtis. You never were in any of these homes where the 
damage had been done ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have not been ; no. 

Senator Curtis. You have never seen one of them that was made 
out of a mason f niit jar? 

Mr. Mazey. I haven't seen any bombs of any kind. 

Senator Curtis. Have you seen any of those that were made out 
of a light bulb? 

Mr.' Mazey. I haven't seen any light bulb bombs. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did any union money go directly or indirectly 
for these weapons that were described by previous witnesses as paint 
bombs ? 

Mr. Mazey. They did not. 

Senator Curtis. How do you know ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, I know the union was not responsible for it and 
nobody in the union has been arrested for any of those acts. I think 
it is unfair for you to charge the union 

Senator Curtis. I have not charged it. I asked you 

Mr. Mazey. You have by innuendo, sir. 

Senator Curtis. No; I just asked you about this expenditure, and 
I asked you hoAV j^ou know. 

Mr. Mazey. The people handling the funds for me in this strike, I 
have a great deal of confidence in their integrity and their honesty, 
and the loyalty to our movement, and I know that they would not 
spend money for im]")roper purposes. 

Senator Curtis. Who were those people? 

Mr. Mazey. Joe Burns. 

Senator Curtis. And who else? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrXIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8989 

Mr. Mazey. Well, the local union financial secretary, I think in the 
early part of the strike, handled some of the expenditures. 

Senator Cuktis. What is his name ? 

Mr. Mazey. John Steibert. 

Senator Curtis. Who else for the international besides Joe Burns? 

Mr. Mazey. On the local union level, as I have explained previ- 
ously 

Senator Curtis. I said for the international. 

Mr. Mazey. For the international union, Joe Burns on the spot. On 
the question of the request for replenishments or approval of expendi- 
tures, they would usually be handled by 1 or 2 administrative 
assistants. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I do not mean to im])ly that I know who did 
any of these acts, but I want to know this : That you are positive that 
you had a check over the expenditures of the union such that these 
weapons w^ere not financed directly or indirectly by union funds? 

Mr. INIazey. That is correct ; they were not. 

Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield if he is through asking ques- 
tions on the financial aspects of the strike? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, on those expenditures. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, Senator Curtis has yielded to me to 
ask a question about the financial arrangements. You were quoting 
from a paper that you put on that top folder ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator IVIundt. AVhich I presume is a breakdown of the money 
that the UAW spent on the Kohler strike, is that correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. $246,000 in radio and publicity and so on? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Have you provided the committee and do we know, 
and it could have happened when I was out of the room, what is the 
total amount of monej^ that the international has invested in the 
strike ? 

Mr. Mazey. We have turned over to your chief auditor all of the 
records requested including a copy of the record which I was using. 

Senator Mundt. Does that copv which vou have, have a footing, a 
total? . ■ ., 

Mr. Mazey. I believe for purposes of identification, it is local union 
833 strike expenditures, local union account, Joe Burns accountant, 
international union account, accounting department, for years 1954, 
]955, 1956, and 1957. 

Senator Mundt. Broken down into the expenditures b}' these vari- 
ous groups ? 

]\Ir. Mazey. By categories, yes. 

Senator Mundt. Would you read for the record what those total 
expenditures are ? 

Mr. Mazey. Total expenditures for the period of strike in 1954, 
1955, and calendar 1956, period ending December 31, 1957, $10,188,- 
961.67. 

Senator Mundt. I take it that that is the total expenditure, or is 
that just the total of the UAW International ? 

]\Ir. ]Mazey. This is the total expenditures, and this includes income 
from the international union, and it also includes income from local 
unions and from friends and sympathizei-s. 



8990 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator ]\ruNDT. Do you have it broken down as to how that is ar- 
rived at, the $10 million ? 

Mr. Mazey. These are expenditures that you are asking me. 

Senator ?.Iundt. I was not interested in the expenditures, and I 
was interested m the sources of income of it. I assume that Briggs 
and the international has some money involved in that $10 million, 
and that the local Sheboygan union has some money, and I was just 
wondering who contributed the $10 million, if you have that broken 
dov.n ? 

Is my ({uestion clear, what I am trying to get at ? 

Mr. Mazey. It is clear. I am looking for it here. This statement, 
too, has been turned over to the committee, it is headed : "Local union 
833 strike income for years of 1954, 1955, 1956, and 1957." 

From the international union strike fund, a total for the period 
ending December 31, 1954, was $9,814,000. 

Senator Mundt. Was it 19,57? 

Mr. Mazey. I meant in 1957, ending then. It is $9,814,482.08. 
From UAW locals, and we have a number of local unions who made 
contributions to this Kohler strike fund, a total of $207,579.34. From 
other unions, that is outside of the UAW, such as AFL groups, and 
others, brewery workers, for example, one of our good supporters and 
we support them, too — $145,559.95. 

Individual merchants, $32,331.19. There were donations to a chorus 
that we had of $9,238.02, and some minor expenditures all less than 
$1,000, from about 15 sources. 

Senator Mundt. Merchants, that is Sheboygan merchants ? 

Mr. Mazey. Some of them were Sheboygan merchants. 

Senator Mundt. This was a voluntary contribution ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right, and many of the merchants made con- 
tributions to it. 

Senator Mundt. That is what I had. I know you had submitted 
the record, but I haven't had a chance to go through all of the records 
submitted and I wanted to find out for my own information. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Mazey, who did you say this morning 
Avas head of the boycott organization ? 

Mr. Mazey. I said I am the officer responsible for the boycott pro- 
gram, but the day-to-day operations of the program are handled by 
one of my administrative assistants by the name of Donald Rand. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio was in charge of boycott headquarters there 
in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Mazey. Leo Breirather, he is a Kohler striker, a chief steward 
and member of local 833. 

Senator Curtis. Then you had a field organization extending out- 
side of Wisconsin, didn't you? 

Mr. Mazey'. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who was in charge of boycott work in Indiana, 
Ohio, and Michigan ? 

Mr. Mazey. The people who worked in the field were under the 
direction of Don Rand, and it would depend on what period of time 
you were referring to. 

Senator Curtis. Did a John Archibald have something to do with 
it? 

Mr. Mazey. He is a member of the boycott staff, yes. 

Senator Curtis. AVhat is his position ? 



IMPBOPER ACTrvrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8991 

Mr. Mazey. He is an international representative assigned to the 
boycott program. 

Senator Curtis. What territory is lie now working in? 

Mr. Mazey. He is now working in Michigan. 

Senator Curtis. What other territories has he worked in ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not sure. I will have to consult Mr. Rand, who 
handles this particular matter. 

Senator Curtis. Is Mr. Rand sitting right there ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. He is handling MicTiigan and some counties in 
Ohio. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
INIcClellan, Ervin, McXamara, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Mundi'. Will the Senator yield? 

Whatever you spent in boycott, is that included in your $10 mil- 
lion strike fund, or is tliat a separate operation ? 

]Mr. Mazey. Some of tlie boycott expenditure is in these figures. 
For example, ^^'e have posters, leaflets, letters that have been sent out. 
They ai'e all charged to the strike fund program. The staff members 
who are working in the field on the boycott program are not charged 
to the Kohler strike expenditures. Thej^ are part of the various 
staffs of the international union. 

Senator ]\Iundt. I don't suppose your bookkeeping procedure is 
such that you can separate and tell us how much you spent in addi- 
tion to the boycott operation other than the part charged to the strike 
fund ? 

Mr. Mazey. It would be extremely difficult to separate the boycott 
expenditures. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think it is important enough to ask you 
to do it, unless you happen to have the thing tabulated. 

Mr. Mazey. I am willing to admit that we have spent some money 
to promote the boycott. 

Senator ]Mundt. That is quite obvious. I am not arguing about 
that. I am trying to find out how much. You can't really tell us 
how much the boycott operation cost ; can you ? 

Mr. Mazey. No ; I don't know offhand, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Printing and so forth was included in your $10 
million figure, and salaries and expenses of the personnel would be 
regular union charges? 

Mr. Mazey. I am referring to the field representatives in tlie vari- 
ous areas around the country are charged to specific departments from 
wliere I borrowed them to work on this assignment. 

Senator Mundt. Is tliis a full-time job of Mr. Rand? Is that his 
full assignment? 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Rand works about 2G hours a day. He has many, 
many jobs. This is one of his major assignments. He has other 
duties, other assignments. 

Senator Mundt. His major responsibility, like you, he wears a lot 
of hats and does a lot of other things. 

Mr. ^Iazey. That is right. We all do in our organization. 

Senator Curtis. Does he have a collective-bargaining agent? 

]Mr. Mazey. He bargains with me and the executive board and the 
convention. It might be of some interest to you. Senator Curtis, that 
we have a more difficult problem of getting our salaries adjusted tJian 



8992 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES I-N THE LABOR FIELD 

the Senators do. We have to go to a convention of 3,000 people who 
pass on our salaries, where Senators can pass on their own. 

Senator Mundt. You are forgetting about 175 million constituents 
when you say that. 

Senator Curtis. Who is Fred Askough ? 

Mr. Mazet. Fred Askough is a member of the staff of the inter- 
national union who is currently working on the boycott program. 

Senator Curtis. What territory is he assigned to ? 

Mr. Mazey. He is working in the East; I believe New Jersey at the 
present time. 

Senator Curtis. A little bit in New York, too ? 

Mr. Mazey. New Jersey and New York are so close together, I sup- 
pose it includes part of that. 

Senator Curtis. And Robert Burkliart, who testified here, he is 
working in the boycott business now; is he too? 

Mr. Mazey. No ; he is not. Mr. Burkhart is in charge of our organi- 
zing staii' in California at the present time. 

I imagine he would be doing some work on the boycott thing, be- 
cause his heart and soul is very close to winning this strike. 

Senator Curtis. Has he been some of the time prior thereto engaged 
in carrying on the boycott ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. ' When Mr. Burkhart was shifted in his assign- 
ment from Sheboygan, we had him on a speaking tour, speaking about 
the Kohler strike and Kohler issues, and on the boycott. He worked 
in New York for part of the time. 

Senator Curtis. And he is an international representative ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; he is. 

Senator Curtis. And is John Collins an international represen- 
tative ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; John Collins is. 

Senator Curtis. Is he working on the boycott ? 

Mr. Mazey. He is not. 

Senator Curtis. Has he been ? 

Mr. Mazey. He was at one time ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Whereabouts ? 

Mr. Mazey. In the Chicago area. 

Senator Mundt. Before you get too far from Mr. Burkhart, may 1 
ask a question about him ? 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Senator Mundt. He is quoted in Labor's Daily on April 10, 1956, 
as follows, Robert Burkhart, describing tlie activities of the UAW 
boycott : 

We try to leave no stone unturned. We hit capitols and large cities. We talk 
at union membership meetings and district labor council meetings and conven- 
tions. We talk with editors, union officials, architects, contractors, builders, and 
anyone else we can corral. 

That would seem to imply he was in this boycott movement. I 
mentioned it only because you said he was not. 

Mr. Mazey. He is not at the jiresent time. 

Senator Mundt. He was in 1956 ? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe he was. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Mazey, it is my understanding that, according 
to the agenda here, the details of boycotting will be heard at another 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8993 

time. But I merely wanted, for the purpose of preparing for further 
questioning, to find out who was in charge of it. Has Mr. Garvin 
Crawford had anything to do with it '^ 

Mr. Mazey. Not at the present time, no. 

Senator Curtis. Has he in the past ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not certain. Let me find out. 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. Mazey. He was on for a sliort time, yes. 

Senator CntTis. In the Chicago vicinity '^ 

Mr. Mazey. I believe so. 

Senator Ci irns. And Aubrey Durant ? 

JMr. jSIazey. Aubrey Durant was on for a short time, but he now has 
another assignment. 

Senator Curtis. And Ovide Garceau '^ 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, Garceau, I beleive, was working in the New Eng- 
land States. 

Senator Curtis. And Gerald Harris ? 

Mr. Mazey. Gerald Harris is in New York. 

Senator Citrtis. And Harvey Kitzman ? 

]\Ir. Mazey. Harvey Kitzman is a director of region 10, which in- 
cludes South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and is 
a director in the union and a director specifically charged with the 
responsibility of the Koliler work. I am sure he has been doing a lot 
of work in the boycott program. 

Senator Curtis. And Cecil J. Londo? 

Mr. Mazey. Cecil J. Londo is one of the members of the staff, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Raymond Majerus ? 

Mr. Mazey. Raymond Majerus is one of the Kohler workers fired 
by the Kohler Co. during the organizing drive in 1952. 

He is a member of the international staff. He is one of the enamel 
workers and can tell j-ou a great deal about the enamel shop. He is an 
intei-national representative assigned to region 10 and works on the 
boycott program. 

Senator Curtis. Rex Mainard ? 

Mr. Mazey. Rex Mainard is spending some time on the program in 
California. He has recently had a partial change in his assignment. 
He also handles recreation for the west coast. 

Senator Curtis. And Luther M. Slinkard ? 

Mr. Mazey. Luther Slinkard was working on the program. He is 
now a member of our social-security department. 

Senator Curtis. Tom J. Starling ? 

Mr. Mazey. Tom Starling is assigned to the southeastern section of 
the country on the boycott program. 

Senator Curtis. And Harold Wilson ? 

IVIr. Mazey. Harold Wilson is assigned to the program in New York. 
Senator Curtis. That is all I have at the moment. 
Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman? 

The CiiAiRMAX. Senator Goldwater ? 
Senator Goldwater. I yield to Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You will remember, Mr. Mazey, we had a discus- 
sion about the 2 kinds of tactics employed in boycotts, and you 
mentioned that on 3 different occasions there might have been 
deviations from those rules, and we agreed not to fuss about the 



8994 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

3 of them. You mentioned tlie three. But I think perhaps you 
overlooked some others that in my opinion deviated from this rule. 
I want to mention one or two of them. 

Would you a<rree with me that the so-called clay boat riot, on which 
we have had considerable testiinony, was not something which was 
a boycott conducted either to educate the public or to dissuade an 
individual purchaser or contractor 'i 

Mr. jMazey. First of all, I don't agree there was a clay boat riot, 
and, second, the union had nothing to do with the clay boat incident. 

Senator Mundt. I )idn"t Mr. Rand lead it ? 

Mr. Mazey. He did not. 

Senator Mundt. Wasn't he involved in it ? 

Mr. Mazey. He was not. 

Senator Mundt. W^as he there ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think he was there, yes. There were thousands of 
other people there, citizens of Sheboygan. 

Seuator Mi^xdt. Let me rend you a statement here that I take from 
the February 8 issue, 1956, of the Sheboygan Press, and an editorial, 
and let you comment on it. 

Mr. Mazey. It is not one of my favorite papers. 

Senator Mundt. I don't doubt that [reading]. 

Mr. Rand will be remembered for his activities in tlie day of the riot at the 
harbor front last .July. It is a remarkable coincidence that the disturbance be- 
came intensified during the period that he was in the city. 

It is your testimony under oath that he had nothing to do with the 
clay boat riot ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is my testimony, yes. 

Senator Mundt. But he was there 'i 

Mr. Mazey. He was there. 

Senator Mundt. Just as a spectator ? 

Mr. Mazey. Just as a spectator. 

Senator INIundt. Just as a spectator. Were you there ? 

Mr. Mazey. I was not. 

Senator IMundt. Did you have other international reps who were 
there ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know otl'Jiaud. 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Rand the only man you can name from the 
IT AW who was there ^ 

Mr. Mazey. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

Senator Mundt. T^id Mv. Rand report to you on what took place? 

Mr. Maz?".y. Yes, we talked about the matter. 

Senator Mundt. Was a lot of equipment wi-ecked, or was some 
equipment wrecked ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Were some drivers beaten up ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Did they finally turn the clay boat back? Did 
it dock? Did it unload? 

Mr. Mazey. I believe the clay boat finally left the city of Sheboy- 
gan. 

Senator Mitndt. With its clay in the holds of the boat? 

Mr. Mazet. Or wherever they keep it, yes. 

Senator Mundt. It then went to Milwaukee, did it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8995 

Mr. Mazey. I don't Imow. I think it did. 

Senator Mundt. Did it unload at Milwaukee? Did it have some 
difficulty down there, too ? 

Mr. Mazey. I remember reading about it. It wasn't unloaded in 
Milwaukee. I think it has already been testified that it was unloaded 
somewhere in Canada. 

Senator Mundt. The same kind of spontaneous, unled confusion 
kept it from unloading in Milwaukee as kept it from unloading in 
Sheboygan ? 

Mr, Mazey. I don't think it was organized confusion. 

Senator Mundt. Well, unorganized, then. Did the National Labor 
Kelations Board take any action on that matter ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't believe they did, no; The Board hasn't acted 
on this whole case yet. Senator. The trial examiner for the Board 
made recommendations. The Board still has to act on this question. 

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

Senator INIundt. Did any of your representatives in the boycott 
branch of your activity ever take any action to induce or encourage 
city councils to boycott Kohler products ? 

Mr. Mazey. Representatives of our union, I am not certain they 
are all boycott representatives, have talked to city councils, they have 
talked to State legislatures, and other groups, trying to encourage 
them not to use scab, strikebreaker-made products. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, were you ever a part of the picket 
line at Kohler ? 

Mr. Mazey. Was I ever what? 

Senator Goldwater. Part of the picket line at Kohler. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I walked on the picket several times. 

Senator Goldwater. Did Mr. Vinson speak to you on the picket 
line at any time ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. I talked to so many people that I couldn't 
recall who they were. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you ever see Mr. Vinson on the picket line ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not certain. I saw a lot of people on the picket 
line, but I can't remember specific individuals. 

Senator Goldwater. I hand you a photograph, and you are marked 
No. 10. Could you tell me if that is you ? 

(Photograph handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I posed for pictures so that the Kohler Co. could 
have a record of my activities. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, it is not a good picture of you. You 
ought to get it done again. Is Mr. Vinson near you ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is a matter of opinion, sir. I think it is a pretty 
good picture of me. 

Senator Goldwater. You were younger then. We will put it that 
way. Is Mr. Vinson near you ? 

]\Ir. ]\Iazev. There are a couple of pretty tall boys here. It could 
be Vinson, but I can't recognize him from the photo. 

Senator Goldw^ater. Check on the back and you will see the number 
of him. I just wanted you to tell me whether that is Mr. Vinson. 

Mr. Mazey. The ]:)icture is too small to make out the features of his 
face, but it could be Mr. Vinson. 



8996 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES I>^ THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Would you say definitely that it is or isn't? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't knoAV whether it is or isn't. But it could be. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all on that. Now, Mr. Vinson — I mean 
Mr. Mazey. Pardon me. When Mr. Vinson was on the stand, he 
testified that he was a member of a flying squadron, but he didn't seem 
to know what a flying squadron was nor what his duties would be in 
a flying squadron, were he called out to participate in one. 

Could you explain to us what a flying squadron is? 

Mr. Mazey. The flying squadron of local 212 is at present like 
Chiang Kai-shek's Army. They don't take part in too many strike 
activities any longer. The purpose of a flying squadron is to have a 
group of active unionists who are available for strike duty in the 
event a strike takes place. 

Senator Goldwater. What kind of strike duty ? 

Mr. Mazey. The question of picketing, the question of maintaining 
soup kitchens and so on. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you have flying squadrons over at Kohler ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not certain whether they organized a squadron of 
their own or not in Sheboygan. They may have. 

Senator Goldwater. Didn't they have an outfit over there called 
Mazey's Daisies ? 

Mr. ]Mazey. Mazey's Daisies was the name of a championship bowl- 
ing team that I had back in 1949. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, you cleared that up. I thought it was 
a flying squadron. 

Mr. Mazey. I think our bowling team was also called that occa- 
sionally in jest. 

Senator Goldwater. Are there any other duties of a flying squadron 
other than what you described ? 

Mr. Mazey. The purpose of the flying squadron is to assist a local 
union to organize a picketing, peaceful picketing, of a plant. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, I am going to read you from your 
statement on page 21, the first sentence : 

Under UAW policy against violence, I share and fully support the UAW Inter- 
national Union policy of complete opposition to violence, vandalism, or illegal 
activity in any form. 

Is that your stand ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is my stand, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you know that mass picketing was illegal 
in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Mazey. Mass picketing is not illegal. 

Senator Goldwater. How do you interpret it, then ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't interpret mass picketing to be illegal. 

Senator Goldw^ater. What does the Wisconsin law say about it ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not a lawyer. I haven't read the law. But it is 
my understanding that it is not illegal. 

Senator Goldwater. The court ordered you to stop under it. What 
grounds were they operating under, if it wasn't the law ? 

What you are saying is that the law says one thing, but you saj^ the 
law doesn't hold. 

Mr. Mazey. I didn't say wliat the law said. I don't know what the 
law says. But it is my opinion that mass picketing is not illegal. I 
thing every worker involved in a strike has a right to protect his job 
and has a right to picket. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES m THE LABOR FIELD 8997 

Senator Goldwater. We are not arguing about that. I think they 
have a perfect right to picket. But how is another thing. The Wis- 
consin law says : 

To hinder or prevent, by mass picketing, threats, intimidation, force or coercion 
of any kind the pursuit of any lawful work or employment, or to obstruct or 
interfere with entrance to or egress from any place of employment, or to obstruct 
or interfere with free or uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, liighways, rail- 
ways, airports, or other means of travel or conveyance. 

That is the law. 

Mr. Mazey. Nobody was ever convicted of violating that law. 

Senator Goldwater. No, but you were ordered to desist because of 
this law. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't believe it was that section. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, you said earlier you knew something 
about the law. What law are you operating under when you say that 
you can mass picket and it is not illegal ? 

Mr. Mazey. You asked me my opinion of the law, and I told you 
what it was. I am not an attorney. I haven't studied the law in detail. 
Attorneys can't agree on interpretation of the law. 

Senator Goldwater. I was just reading your statement. I am in- 
formed that this is the section under which the Wisconsin order was 
handed down. Possibly you were in ignorance of the existence of 
this law before you went to Kohler. I am merely trying to relate 
if I can your statement that you are in complete opposition to vio- 
lence, vandalism or illegal activity in any form, and to find out how 
you justify an illegal activity that you were engaged in in mass 
picketing. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't admit illegal activity in this mass picketing. 

Senator Goldwater. That clears that up. You are opposed to van- 
dalism ? , 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I am. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you do anything to try to stop the van- 
dalism that was going on ? 

Mr. Mazey. To begin with, our union was not responsible for any 
vandalism, and nobody has been arrested for vandalism. 

Senator Goldwater. How about violence? Did you do anything 
to stop that? 

Mr. Mazey. There has been very little violence in the strike. Sen- 
ator. It has been one of the most peaceful strikes I have seen in the 
history of the labor movement. 

Senator Goldwater. This is an interesting statement on your part, 
and it is difficult for me to relate it to some of the history. 

If you have taken this as your stand as of now, in view of what has 
happened in the past, then you are to be commended for it. 

But there seems to be a pattern of violence in your strikes, in spite 
of what you say. From the Chicago Tribune, for instance, in 1947, 
on August 26 

Mr. Mazey. That is not a labor paper, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, yesterday you doubted the integrity of 
the church, you doubted the integrity of the bar, you doubted the 
integrity 

Mr. Mazey. I doubted 

Senator Goldwater. Just a moment. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 17 



8998 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

If you want to doubt the integrity of the press, that is up to you. 
I have found out there are two groups you don't fit with, the church 
and the press. 

Mr. Mazey. I found it out, too. 

Senator Goldwater. Heading from that paper of August 26, date- 
lined Detroit, August 25 — so the Chicago 

Mr. Mazey. What year is that, sir % 

Senator Goldwater. 1947. 

CIO pickets clashed with police today in a skirmish in which oflScers swung 
nightsticks and arrested five unionists at the strike-harassed Huck Manu- 
facturing Co. Forty pickets and ten policemen took part in the melee that flared 
when members of the ClO-United Automobile Workers tried to prevent Louis 
C. Huck, president of the company, and Lester Wilson, a field engineer of the 
firm, from crossing the line to enter the plant. 

The rest pertains to it. It says : 

Among the group was Emil Mazey, regional director of the CIO-UAW who 
led the recent CIO mass picketing at Clinton, Mich., where imported "goon 
squads" caused such disorders that State police were called out and the Michi- 
gan National Guard was alerted. 

On October 21, again in the Chicago Tribune 

Mr. Mazey. Do you want me to comment on the first one ? 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't ask you for comment at all. 

Mr. INIazey. I don't think it is fair for you to put that into the 
record without a comment. 

Senator Goldwater. I will let you comment when I get through. 
Then you can comment on the whole thing. 

I will read a portion of this. It had to do, you will recall, when 
you had the argument with Representative Hoffman. This para- 
graph is entitled "Tells his story later." 

Recalled to the stand late in today's session, Mazey testified without further 
outbursts. 

That is commendable. 

He told of leading 400 men from Detroit to the picket line at Clinton, but 
denied making the statement attributed to him about tearing down the plant 
and going in "to knock hell" out of the back-to-workers. However, he con- 
ceded he had broadcast from a sound truck that he and his followers of Clin- 
ton were "going to demonstrate to small towns that they are not going to push 
our members around." 

He said he brought in the outsiders to "protect our members from being 
pushed around." 

"Why didn't you call on the police and the Governor for protection?" Hoff- 
man asked. 

"If we had called on the Governor, he probably would have taken manage- 
ment's side," Mazey replied. 

"We decided to take matters into our own bands." 

All 1 say to you, Mr. Mazey, is if this is now, 1958, your stand 
on violence and illegal activity, I believe you are to be commended 
for it, but history does not bear out very well what you have said 
to be your past stand on these matters. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, I would like to answer all of the 
comments you have made. My position has never changed, in the 
matter of violence, since my early activities in the union. I fought 
hard for tlie union, I have walked many picket lines for the union. 
I have been pushed around by police, pushed around by scabs and 
thugs in trying to help build and maintain our union. 



IMPROPER ACTIYITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 8999 

On the matter of the Hiick Manufacturing strike, I believe I was 
arrested in that strike. I was found not guilty in court, and I think 
that it is unfair to place in the record a matter in which I was cleared. 
On the matter of the Clinton machine business, the Chicago Tribune 
always refers to strikers and workers as goons. I resent the term 
"goons." These were workers from the shop. We were there peace- 
fully picketing in order to help maintain the morale of the Clinton 
machine workers who were employed by a very backward management. 
I recall very vividly some of my difficulty with Congressman Hoffman. 
I remember it was either in St. Joseph or Benton Harbor, I have 
in my files in Detroit a transcript of the hearing. You quoted some- 
thing about "Without further outburst, Emil Mazey did" something. 
I would like to tell you about that incident. 

This was a one-man committee that Congressman Hoffman was con- 
ducting by himself. When I sat down at the table, he was sitting at 
my left, and I sat in this position, and I asked him three questions. 
The first question was what the purpose of the inquiry was. The 
second question was what my rights were, I have forgotten what the 
third question was at this moment, but I do recall there were three 
questions. 

Congressman Hoffman refused to answer my questions. He ordered 
the sheriff to take me out of the chair and he stood me in the corner 
like a little schoolboy. He finally thought it over and found out he 
made a mistake, and I went back to the witness stand. But the point 
where it talked about the outburst, I was merely asking for my con- 
stitutional rights, a right that any citizen has to ask before any com- 
mittee of Congress. 

I went back and we had a nice conversation. I remember one of the 
things that was said at the end of the conversation, he said "I suppose 
you are too old for me to change your opinions on mattere," and I 
said, "Congressman, I think you are too old for me to change yours, 
too," 

Senator Gold water, I have just a few more short questions and we 
will finish, as far as I am concerned. This morning we were discussing 
the flower fund. I want to get back to that j ust a minute. 

Mr. jMazey. Did you check on yours during the lunch hour ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. And it doesn't compare in any way with 
yours. Mine that does exist is a voluntary fund, and the amount of 
it at the present time is $18, and I tliink 15 cents. 

Mr. Mazey. I have a clipping in my file that says they raised 
$70,000 for you at a dinner in Phoenix, Ariz,, just recently. 

Senator Goldwater. We are well organized out there, but unfor- 
tunately that didn't go to what jou refer to as Goldwater's flower 
fund. Does this fund at the international level have any formal 
organization ? 

Mr. Mazey. It has informal organization. 

Senator Goldwater. Plow would you describe informal organi- 
zation ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, I believe that one administrative assistant of each 
of the officers serves oii a committee that handles the fund. 

Senator Goldwater. Does one of yours serve on it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Goij)water. Which one? 



9000 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD. 

Mr. Mazey. Jess Ferrazza. 

Senator Goldwater. So possibly when Mr. Ferrazza is on the stand, 
if he comes, he could answer some questions on it ? 

Mr. INIazey. I said this morning if you wanted a detailed report, we 
would furnish it to you. 

Senator Goldwater. I thought we agreed that it would. Does it 
have rules or bylaws ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, it hasn't. 

Senator Goldwater. Does it have any officers ? 

Mr. Mazey. No officers. 

Senator Goldwater. Does it keep books and financial records ? 

Mr. Masey. I believe it does. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all 1 have. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The CiiAiRMAX. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, when we interrupted you the other day, 
in your sequel to your prepared statement which you finally made this 
morning, I was questioning you about this speech, the long recording. 
I want to take you back to page 11 of that, if you have it available: 

Mr. Mazey. I don't have it, I don't have the speech. 

Senator Mundt. It is not necessary, I think, that you do have, un- 
less 

Mr. Mazey. I recall the speech pretty well, and I think I can tell 
whether you are reading it accurately or not. 

Senator Mundt. If you have any doubt about it, I will be glad to 
have Mr. Kauh look over my shoulder while I read the one paragraph. 

I have always believed that people are either for you or against you. There 
aren't any other choices and you can't be impartial on these questions. And 
every person in the community whether they have an interest in the outcome of 
our struggle with the Kohler Co. or not, if they have any interest in the human 
race, ought to be informed on the issues in this struggle and ought to choose sides 
in this struggle. There isn't any middle ground. They are either for us or they 
are against us. 

I wanted to direct some questions toward the philosophy that you 
enunciate in that statement, if you concur that it is a statement that 
you made. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I do, and I believe in the statement today. I think 
it is the same as our foreign policy, that you are either with us or 
against us. You can't have neutrals. 

Senator Mundt. Now, I have a strike bulletin here issued by the 
local union on August 16, 1954, which quotes from a speech which you 
made to a membership meeting. 

Mr. Mazey. Is that the same speech ? 

Senator Mundt. No, this quotes — I don't know. It is from a speech 
made to your membership meeting, and if you deny you made it, we 
will go back to the source. 

You are quoted in this strike bulletin : 

The people who have returned to work are traitors to our cause. They have 
joined the ranks of the enemy, and they ought to be treated as such. 

Did you make that statement ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think that I made a statement somewhat in that vein, 
yes. 

Senator Mundt. At least for the purposes of this inquiry, it is safe 
to say that that expresses your sentiments? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9001 

Mr. Mazey. It does. 

Senator Mundt, That you consider nobody who disagrees with you 
and chooses to exercise a different point of view as an enemy ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I think that when you are engaged in a struggle 
for human rights, Senator, the people who betray you in that struggle 
are enemies. We have had Benedict Arnolds in our country, and we 
have had some in the labor movement. 

Senator Mundt. That is saying one thing, but saying anybody who 
is not for us is against you, that is a little different ? 

Mr. Mazey. What is that ? 

Senator Mundt. Saying that anybody who is not for you is against 
you is quite something different from what you have just said about 
Benedict Arnold. But how about somebody, Mr. Mazey, who never 
joined your union, and worked at Kohler, and just as long and just as 
hard as the men who did join the union ? 

As I understand it, something over half joined the punion, and some- 
thing less than half did not join the union. 

Mr. Mazey. That is not correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What is correct? 

Mr. Mazey. There were about 3,300 people in the bargaining unit 
when tlie strike began, and there were over 2,700 members of the union. 
I think it was 2,785 or something like that. 

Senator Mundt. We will change my statement to say, "substantially 
over half of the people joined the union, and substantially less than 
half did not join the union," or perhaps around two-thirds joined the 
union, or sometliing like that. 

Mr. Mazey. It is better than two-thirds. It is about eighty-some 
percent. 

Senator Mundt. At least we will agree that there were at least 
20 percent that did not join the union, is that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is a lower percentage. 

Senator Mundt, Now, let us take one of these men. He has a job, 
and a family, and a career of experience working in the plant. If 
he goes to work or if he went to work during that strike, do you con- 
sider him a traitor ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. On what basis? 

Mr. Mazey. The purpose of the strike is to improve the wages and 
working conditions for all of the workers in the plant, whether they 
are members of the union or not. Anyone who aids the company, 
who makes it more difficult to achieve economic and social justice at 
the bargaining table, are betraying the cause of all of those workers, 
and therefore they are traitors. 

Senator Mundt, I can see by a somewhat tenuous line of reasoning 
you might assume that anybody who belonged to the union and went 
back to work could be considered a traitor, because he would be vio- 
lating the majority rule of his club, or his fellows, or his fraternity, 
or his organization, or his bargaining unit. But I can't see how by 
any stretch of the English language you can call a man a traitor who 
didn't join the union, who had been working there for 20 years and 
he simply wanted to work the 21st year. You closed him out and he 
tries to get back in and go to work, and if he succeeds, you call him 
a traitor, and on what basis ? 



9002 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES E\ THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. The purpose of the strike, Senator, is to improve liv- 
ing status of all people. 

Senator Mundt. That undoubtedly is the purpose. 

Mr. Mazey. For union members and nonunion members. When we 
negotiated the contract in 1953 without a strike, the 12-cents-an-hour 
increase, which I helped negotiate, and the fringe benefits amounted 
to 6 cents an hour. All of these benefits helped every worker in the 
plant, whether he was a member of the union or not. 

When the struggle takes place between an arrogant, backward em- 
ployer such as the Kohler Co., and the union is seeking economic and 
social justice, any worker who does anything that in any way hurts 
his fellow workers is a traitor to the cause. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, that being the point, as soon as you 
get outside of the ranks of the union members, it seems to me that you 
are in a completely untenable position. 

As an important union leader of this country, I think it is im- 
portant that we get into the record just exactly what your attitude is. 

Mr. Mazey. You and I have a difference of opinion on the matter, 
and I have expressed my opinion. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, and I am going to ask you some further 
questions about your opinion. 

You identified the illustrious young man at your right as an expert 
in the field of civil rights and minority problems, is that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct, and he has that reputation, and it is 
well deserved. 

Senator Mundt. I am not denying that. 

Mr. Mazey. Good. 

Senator Mundt. I am simply pointing out that you yourself said 
that you had done some things that you considered commendable in 
this same general area of civil rights and minority rights. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I worked in this field and I am a member of 
AFLf-CIO civil liberties and civil rights committee, and I am chair- 
man of the civil rights committee of the UAW. 

Senator Mundt. One of the basic premises of which, I presume is, 
and if it is not your expert at your side can correct me, one of the basic 
premises of that is that minorities have rights ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, minorities have rights. 

Senator Mundt. Usually the majority can take care of itself in 
this world, isn't that right ? It is the minority that needs protection ? 

Mr. Mazey. Sometimes the minorit j^ has difficulty, too. 

Senator Mundt. And we have constitutions, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. Sometimes the minority has difficulty, too, but minori- 
ties have the most difficulty, I will agree with you. 

Senator Mundt. Now will you explain to me how in the world you 
arrive at this conclusion on a minority worker who is just as good an 
American as Emil Mazey or any of the strikers, or Mr. Kohler or 
anybody else in the room ? 

A minority worker, the only thing wrong with him is he doesn't 
q[uite agree with the fellows who joined the union as to the best way 
in which he can advance himself as an oj^erator, and as a worker in 
the company. 

Wliere do his rights come in, if you are going to dub him as a traitor 
and deny him his right to work and lock him out, intimidate him, and 
call him a scab ? What rights has he ? Who is protecting them ? 



IMPBOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9003 

What happens to Mr. Kauh's organization, and to you and to that 
individual ? 

Mr. Mazet. We went through a very costly war just a short time 
ago, and over 30 percent of the Kohler workers took part in that 
struggle, and they were members of the Armed Forces. 

Now if we had people that were opposed to participating in the war, 
and if they were aiding the enemy, we certainly would call them 
traitors, wouldn't we ? 

Well, this struggle against the Kohler Co. was a struggle for the 
same kind of freedom and decency we were fighting for all over the 
world, and anybody that was impeding our efforts in trying to win that 
freedom and that justice that the workers of the Kohler plants deserve 
is in the same category as someone who would be fighting against the 
interest of our country in a war. 

Senator Curtis. Would the Senator yield at that point ? 

Senator MuNDT. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. In that connection, just what you said here, it is re- 
ported in the Milwaukee Journal of August 16, 1954, referring to or 
quoting you as referring to nonstrikers, and I quote: "They have 
joined the ranks of the enemy, and they ought to be treated as such. 
During the war, when they joined the enemy, they were shot when 
convicted." Did you say that ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't recall specificallj^, but I may have. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Mazey. I wasn't suggesting that anybody be shot. 

Senator Mundt. You subscribe to the statement, though ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. You started talking about a war, and there are two 
things I would like to say about that : First of all, when you go to a 
war, that is a majority determination of the representatives of the 
people in the country and the Congress. 

Mr. Mazey. There was a majority determination by the Kohler 
workers to strike, too. 

Senator Mundt. No, there was a majority vote on the part of the 
union, and we have established in the record that less than a third or 
about a third of the workers voted for the strike. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Rauh may correct that if I am wrong, but I 
think we agreed on that substantially the other day. 

Mr. ]VL\ZEY. I think it has been pointed out, and if you look back at 
the newspaper clippings, and I don't happen to have my finger on it, 
therewere about 2,500 people who attended the membership meeting in 
which they voted to go on strike. 

Now the number who actually stayed to cast their ballots was smaller 
than that, but before they went on strike there was a membership meet- 
ing on April 4, in which 2,500 people reaffirmed their decision they 
had made previously on the question of the strike. 

Senator Mundt. Now you beg the question, Mr. INIazey. 

Mr. Mazey. The majority of people voted to strike. 

Senator Mundt. I have as much right to assume those who went 
away would have voted "no" as you have a right to assume those who 
went away voted "yes." But we are talking about those who voted, 
and of those who voted, a third of the workers voted to strike. 



9004 IMPROPER AC'ITVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. You don't have a right to assume that at all because 
to begin with the first motion placed at the meeting on xVpril 4, I 
think we can find the clippings to prove it to you, there were press 
at the meeting and they were present while this took place, was 
whether or not they ought to accept the company's last olfer, and I 
think only 1 worker out of the 2,500 at the meeting voted for it. 

So at this point it became quite obvious that they Avould not accept 
the company's last offer and a strike would take place. When you 
have that kind of demonstration by a show of hands, and only one 
worker is in that position, I think it is reasonable to assume that many 
workers didn't stay to vote because they knew what the outcome 
would be, because they could see it. 

Senator Mundt. I am not too much impressed, Mr. Mazey, by a show 
of hands vote in an emotionally packed auditorium. I am impressed 
by a secret ballot, and I think that I commended an earlier M^itness on 
the fact that this strike was authorized by a majority of those who 
voted in secret ballot. 

That impresses me, but a show of hands in an emotional audience, 
following some impassioned oration by Emil Mazey or Bob Burkhart 
or someone else, that leaves me kind of cold. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, at this point I would like to deal with 
this specific question. Somebody showed me a bill that you are 
planning to introduce on the question of strike votes being taken. I 
would like to refer you to the experience of the Smith-Connolly Act. 

This act was in effect from July 1, 1943, to December 28, 1945, and 
a good part of these votes were taken during the war. 

The NLRB conducted 2,168 polls, and in 1,850 of these polls the 
workers voted to go on strike, or 85.3 percent. There were 2,923,655 
workers eligible to take part in these elections, and there were 
1,926,811 valid ballots cast, or 65.9 percent of the total number of 
workers eligible to vote. And of those who voted, 1,593,937, or 82.7 
percent voted in favor of striking. 

Now I think that you have the mistaken opinion or impression that 
labor leaders somehow have some magic, and they press buttons and 
people automatically go on strike. Strikes are the result of working 
conditions inside the plant, and during a period of war when the 
Smith-Connally Act was in effect, workers expressed their disgust in 
secret ballots conducted by the Government in favor of strike action 
and they were protesting against the conditions inside the plants at 
that time. 

I think that you ought to examine this record because it shows 
very clearly that where the workers are given an opportunity of voting 
in Smith-Connally ballots, or in any othre way, when they vote to 
strike they are striking because conditions in plants are bad. 

I think the Smith-Connally Act Avas revoked because Congress 
felt it was unnecessary from the results of these figures which I have 
just quoted. 

Senator Muxdt. I thank you for that very eloquent and persuasive 
testimony in support of my bill, and I hope that that is what it was 
meant to imply. 

Mr. Mazey. That is not in support of your bill. 

Senator Mundt. It is the best evideiice I have had so far, and I am 
delighted to have it in the record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9005 

Mr. Mazey, I think it is unnecessary, Senator, and that is why it 
was removed. There was another bill which I think you voted for, 
the Taft-Hartley law, and if I may at this time, I would like to make 
a comment on that. 

Senator INIuxdt. ISfake it rather brief. We are not dealina: with 
that. 

Mr. JVLvzEY. One of the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act when 
it was passed in August of lO-lT, was that in order to be able to bargain 
for a union sho]), that the XLRB had to conduct an election, and the 
workers, a majority of those in the bargaining unit, had to vote in 
favor of the union shop before you could even talk about it. 

Senator Muxdt. By secret ballot ? 

Mr. Mazey. By secret ballot. The National Labor Relations Board 
conducted 46,146 elections, and workers voted for a union shop in 
44,823 of these elections, or 97.1 percent. 

Among those eligible to vote, there were 6,545,000 workers eligible 
to vote, and there were 5,548,982 valid ballots cast. Of the 5,548,982, 
5,073,242 voted in favor of the union shop, or 91.4 percent of the 
workers who voted, voted in favor of the union shop. 

I think the labor men made a tragic mistake in revoking this part 
of the Taft-Hartley law, because, if this was still in the act I think 
we would be better off by far as right-to-work laws are concerned at 
the present time. 

I think we made a mistake, and I wish we could undo that mistake. 

Senator Muxdt. I think you made a lot of mistakes in connection 
with the Taft-Hartley law, and you have found many of those features 
are not as bad as you dubbed them when you called it a slave labor act. 

Mr. Mazey. There are still a lot of features of the "slave labor act" 
and one of the features of that law, which is giving us some difRculty 
at Kohler, Senator Mundt, is the "slave labor act" that President Eisen- 
hower referred to in 1952 when he promised to amend this act to re- 
move the provision that would permit strikebreakers to vote and 
strikers not to vote. That is one part of the Act that ought to be 
amended very, very quickly. 

Senator Muxdt. Did you testify in favor of that repeal in 1951? 

Mr. Mazey. I didn't, but I think iPresident Reuther did. 

Senator Mazey. The organization did ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mux^dt. "V\niich you now say was a mistake ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. Oh, no, I am talking about the "slave labor act." 
The provision of Taft-Hartley law is where a strikebreaker replaces 
a striker, he can vote, but the striker can't vote, and I say that is 
unjust. 

Senator Mux-^dt. I would think, if what you say is a statement of 
fact, it sounds unjust to me, if you say a strikebreaker can vote and 
a striker can't vote. 

Mr. Mazey. That happens to be the provisions of the law. 

Senator ]Muxdt. That doesn't seem to make sense to me, either. 

Mr. Mazey. I hope that when this comes up, that you will vote to 
amend it. 

Senator ^rixuT. Mnybe we c-m put it in my bill, that you are going 
to support v.idi me, providing for secret ballots, because they workecl 
out so well in the past. 



9006 IMPROPER ACTrVITTEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. Maybe you and I could sit down and come up with a 
Mazey-Mundt bill, or a Mundt-Mazey bill. 

Senator jVIundt. It might be all right. I am willing to try. 

The Chairman. Can we take a recess until Monday while you folks 
work this out ? 

Senator Mundt. It might take a little longer than that. 

Mr, Mazey, you were talking about this war. 

Mr. Mazey. I am sorrj^, sir. I thought we were recessed and I 
didn't hear tlie beginning of your question. 

Senator Muxdt. I think not, and I think the chairman was just 
having a little levity at our expense. 

Mr. Mazey. I am ready for a recess. 

Senator Mundt. I think \ye are all getting ready for a recess as 
far as that is concerned. 

Do you recognize the right of conscientious objectors in time of war? 

Mr. Mazey. I do. 

Senator Mundt. Not to fight ? 

Mr. Mazey. I do. 

Senator Mundt. But you deny the conscientious objectors to labor 
unions. How do you reconcile that ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think there is any similarity to the two things 
at all. 

Senator Mundt. You are the one who brought the analogy in about 
the war. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator 

Senator Mundt. I can't understand. You start out 

Mr. Mazey. We have a policy where there are some people, for 
religious reasons, who don't want to pay dues in the organization, and 
we have agreements with the Mennonites and other groups that permit 
them to make a donation to the union that goes into a charity. We 
have that, but it comes to strikes, the agreement also provides that 
although they are conscientious objectors as far as belonging to labor 
organizations, they will not scab or do anything to harm the union in 
a period of a strike. 

Senator Mundt. Well recognizing, as you do, and I think that you 
should, the right of conscientious objectors not to go to war, that is an 
accepted American concept and I don't see how in the world you can 
relate that to the fact that you call a man who had a job and who wants 
to continue working at his job, who never joined the union, and he 
kept out of this and he had nothing to do with the situation and he 
isn't bound by it, and he wants to continue to work to support his 
family, and you call him a traitor because he is a conscientious objector 
to the union movement. 

You wouldn't call a conscientious objector to war a traitor, would 
you ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think that there is any comparison of the two 
things. I think. Senator Mundt, if you ever worked in a sweatshop 
plant and you were fighting for decent working conditions and for 
senority and better Avages, in order to improve the status of you and 
your family, you would have a different attitude on this question. 

It is awfully hard to explain these things to people who haven't 
had a struggle for a livelihood in these sweatshop plants around the 
country. 



IMPRlOPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 9007 

Senator Mundt. I have done my right share of laboring, but I don't 
think I have worked in a sweatshop. And I don't think we have any 
sweatshops in South Dakota. 

The Chairman. Some of us have worked enough to sweat, I can 
assure you of that. 

Mr. Mazey. I have, too, Senator. I have done a lot of sweating in 
my time. 

Senator Mundt. I think this is important, because we have 800 
acts of violence or alleged violence. 

Mr. Mazey. But they are not our responsibility, and I refuse to 
accept them as our responsibility. 

Senator JNIundt. Except insofar as you stir them up by talking to 
these people who respect you, as a very talented and able and articu- 
late labor leader. You give speeches which are being broadcast, and 
issuing statements. 

You are telling them : 

If you are not for us, you are against us. If anybody tries to get a job in 
here, he is a traitor. 

Now, it seems to me that in the tense situation such as you have all 
agreed existed, that is the only place that you and Kohler ever agreed 
so far, you had a tense situation in Sheboygan. 

In that kind of state, it seems to me that you should treat people 
who work as your enemies and traitors, might well induce some of 
your listeners to engage in the kind of action for which you refuse 
to accept responsibility. 

Mr. AL\ZEY. Senator Mundt 

Senator Mundt. Is that a responsible hypothesis ? 

Mr. Mazey. No; it isn't. I abhor violence, and I am against it 
because I have been on the receiving end of violence and so have the 
leadership of our union. In the struggle for progress throughout the 
history of the world, there has been violence. 

The Boston Tea Party was not a peaceful event and neither was the 
Revolutionary War. But we are better off as a result of those two 
events having taken place. 

When people are emotionally aroused as they are here and when 
they are fighting for their jobs, when they are fighting for their 
families and fighting for their very existence, emotions are apt to be 
high, and they are bound to be high. Unfortunate incidents are bound 
to take place, particularly when you have a management that refuses 
to arbitrate and refuses to settle honest differences of opinion that 
we can't settle across the bargaining table, and you are bound to have 
emotions and feelings. 

I want to remake the offer. We are prepared to have this com- 
mittee or a segment of this committee serving as private citizens or 
you name an arbitrator and we will abide by their decisions. But 
when you talk in this atmosphere, there are bound to be problems. 

I even know of a Republican convention in which Republican lead- 
ers were pushed off the platform. They did not conduct themselves as 
gentlemen, as they should. 

Senator Mundt. Has your experience in politics been limited to 
Republican conventions, Mr. Mazey ? 

Mr. Mazey. No; I am interested in all kinds of conventions, and 
I like conventions. 



9008 IMPROPER ACTIVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I have not seen you in many of ours. 

Mr. Mazet. I have not been invited. 

Senator Mundt. Can you think of any good reasons why ? lean. 

Mr. Mazet. I am not sure that your reasons are good reasons, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I think that a man as articulate as you with 
a fine vocabulary, dedicated to peace, and abhoring violence, should be 
able to think of some better language to employ in trying to keep 
these workers from engaging in violence and saying, "They have joined 
the ranks of the enemy and they ought to be treated as such. During 
the war when they joined the enemy, they are shot when convicted." 

Mr. ;Mazey. Senator, I suggest 

Senator Mundt. Could you not find a better way to cool off those 
members ? 

Mr. Mazet. I suggest you look at the Congressional Kecord and 
see some of the speeches Senators made during the last war. My speech 
by comparison will be tame. 

Senatro Mundt. You are talking about nonstrikers, and this item 
Senator Curtis read, this is a speech you gave about nonstrikers and 
it had nothing to do with the war, except you have tried to make 
an anology. 

Mr. Mazet. On the same basis. 

Senator Mundt. You hop in and out of this analogy at your con- 
venience, by the way. 

Mr. Mazet. The same basic issues are involved. We send people 
all around the world, to the Philippines and Japan, and Europe to 
fight for freedom and democracy and decency. And then when you 
have these people come back — you teach them how to kill and you put 
guns in their hands, and they are fighting for decency at home, and 
there is bound to be a few bloody noses, and people are bound to be 
pushed. 

^Yhiit do you expect these people to do after you teach them how 
to fight and how to kill ? 

Senator Mundt. Are you a conscientious objector? 

Mr, Mazet. No, sir ; I was in the service. 

Senator Mundt. Are you a pacifist ? 

Mr. ]\L\ZET. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You are not complaining because you have to put' 
a gun in a man's hand to fight ? 

Mr. Mazet. No, but I am just pointing out to you that if you teach 
people it is good to go to Japan and Germany and elsewhere to fight 
for democracy and decency and humanity, then when these people 
come home and they are fighting for their same standards, and people 
stand in their way, the same as the people in Hitler's army and Mus- 
solini's, and Japan — what do you expect these people to do? 

Senator Mundt. That is what I was afraid you were implying when 
you tried to make this analogy, and said that if they joined the enemy 
they are shot when convicted. 

I was afraid you would convey ]:>recisely that attitude to these 
people. 

Mr. Mazet. There is a part of the quote that is not in the speech. 
I said. "I am not suggesting that vou go home and get your squirrel 
rifles." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9009 

That is not in the speech. I did not suggest any violence, that was 
not the intent of it. I suggested they ought to talk to these people 
and try to convince them of the justice of our cause. 

Senator Muxdt. I believe if you would read the life and biography 
of Mahatma Ghandi, you would find less violent ways to express peace- 
ful thoughts than this. 

Mr. Mazey. I think Mahatma Ghandi did a great deal toward 
achieving freedom and liberty for the people of India, and they were 
extremely patient. 

Senator INIuxdt. Back to the point at issue, we are clear on this, I 
guess : You consider everybody must support the position of your 
union, or be against it. There is no place for a neutral corner in this 
controversy when strikes take place ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. I think they are for us or against us. I 
think people ought to be counted, and ought to stand up and be 
counted. 

Senator JSIundt. Do you apply that to the citizens of a community 
in general or just to the workers ? 

!^Ir. Mazey. I think everybody. The outcome of the strike in Kohler 
has an effect on the communty. 

Senator Mundt. So that everybody who speaks 

Mr. Mazey. It helps the butcher and the baker and candlestick 
maker and it helps everybody. 

Senator Muxdt. Your speech said, "Every person in the community, 
if they are not for us, they are against us.'' 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Muxdt. And you believe that is the w\ay they should be ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. Ever}' newspaperman ? 

iSIr. Mazey. Every newspaperman. 

Senator ]\Iuxdt. Should be for you or against you ? 

Mr. Mazey. A newspaperman isn't a free agent all of the time, and 
he happens to have a publisher and he happens to have a managing 
editor. 

Senator Muxdt. All right, the publisher ? 

]Mr. Mazey. And he might be sympathetic to you but a neAvspaper- 
man lias to report tlie facts as he sees them. 

Senator Muxdt. Every published should be for you or airainst 
you? 

Mr. Mazey. In this particular case, the publisher has been against 
us in Slieboygan. It is a 1 newspaper town. 

Senator Muxdt. He met your criteria all right ? 

Mir. Mazey. He sure did. 

Senator Muxdt. He took sides ? 

]Mr. ]VL\ZEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Muxdt. Every school teacher should be for you or against 
you ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I think so. 

Senator Muxdt. Xo more objective teaching in the public schools — 
you either teach the union is right or the union is wrong ? 

Mr. Mazey. As I said, on any specific issue, I think the connnunity 
has a right to express itself and sliould. 



9010 IMPROPER ACTIVITTEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Muxdt. We are getting down to the community and we 
are taking care of the publishers and the newspapermen and the 
teachers. How about the preachers? 

They have to be for you or against you ? 

Mr. ]VL\ZEY. I think we spent enough time on the preachers 
yesterday. 

Senator Mundt. You assumed they are against you. How about 
the judges? Every judge has to be for you or against you? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, I don't think that this is proper. 1 think 

Senator Mundt. This is 3'our speech and I am just asking you, 
and you subscribe to it and I didn't make it. 

Mr. Mazey. On the question of judges- 

Senator Mundt. If you want to tell me, "I don't think that I like 
it" 

Mr. Mazey. They have to be impartial, and you are breaking this 
down to some very hne points. 

Senator Mundt. They live in the community. 

Mr. Mazey. Obviously you can't apply it to every segment of the 
community. Judges have to be impartial and that is all we ask, is 
equal treatment before the law. 

Senator Mundt. Everybody in the community except the judges 
has to be for you or against you ? Do you want to change it to that 
extent, is that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. It may be idle to sit down and draw up a list of people 
in the community who may be able to be neutral because of their 
particular position in the community. I was speaking in a general 
sense. I am talking about in a general sense. 

Senator Mundt. Your speech says "every person." 

Mr. Mazey. I think that you know what I mean. 

Senator Mundt. You are going to back away from it a little bit ? 

Senator Ervin. If there is not too much objection from the com- 
mittee, I am going on strike for the rest of the afternoon. 

The Chairman. Without objection. Senator Ervin is excused for 
the rest of tlie afternoon. 

Senator Mundt. Mr, Mazey, were you aware that these strike bul- 
letins were being issued ? 

Mr. Mazey. I was. 

Senator Mundt. Wlio financed them ? 

Mr. Mazey. They were financed out of the strike fund. 

Senator Mundt. The International Union funds? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Do you feel those statements were inflammatory or 
were they part of your program of nonviolence ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, the strike was 47 months old this week, this 
March, and a bulletin was issued every day of the strike, 365 days of 
the year, so there have been over 1,400 bulletins issued and I haven't 
read all 1,400 bulletins, and so I don't know what you have reference to. 

Senator Mundt. In the main would you say these were intended 
to keep things from getting out of hand, or intended to stir up people? 

Mr. Mazey. The purpose of the strike bulletins, basically, was to 
give the strikers information on negotiating activities and other activi- 
ties in relation to the strike. 

Senator Mundt. I think we have had some testimony, Mr. Mazey, 
that it could be hiring secret agents. Isn't that correct ? 



IMPRiO'PEiR ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9011 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct. I didn't make the statement. Mr. 
Conc^er admitted that on this stand before this very mike. 

Senator Mundt. He testified that the company hired them? 

Mr. Mazey. That is ri^^ht. 

Senator Mundt. Did the union have any secret agents in the plant 
during the strike ? 

Mr. Mazey. We did not, and I wish that we had. 

Senator Mundt. You did not ? 

Mr. Mazey. We did not. 

Senator Mundt. I quote to you from strike bulletin issued June 25, 
1954: 

The secret agents are handing in reports about the new independent union being 
informed inside the Kohler fortress. 

Why did you tell the people of Sheboygan that you had them if 
you didn't have them ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think there may be an interpretation of what you 
mean by the term "secret agents." We had sympathizers inside the 
plant, some of the office force and elsewhere, and some of these peo- 
ple 

Senator Mundt. There was no evil connotation, and I would con- 
sider they were secret agents, and I suppose that is what the com- 
pany had on your side. 

Mr. Mazey. We didn't pay these people, and they were sympathetic 
to the strike, and they had to go to work in order to protect their 
jobs, and we did receive some information. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Mundt, Curtis.) 

Senator Mundt. Then you did have secret agents at the time. We 
were not talking whether they were paid or not. But you had secret 
agents. 

Mr. Mazey. They weren't agents. They were people who occa- 
sionally gave us information because they were sympathetic with our 
cause. I think whoever wrote the bulletin got carried away with 
themselves. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is the trouble with most of these bul- 
letins. The fellow got carried away with himself, and the people got 
carried away, and we had 800 acts of violence. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think you can attribute that to the union, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I am not doing that. You say you have not seen 
a paint bomb. But I am pointing out that you said that the writer 
of the bulletin got carried away with himself, and Emil Mazey got car- 
ried away with himself. 

Mr. Mazey. ISIaybe we can get one of the people who threw a paint 
bomb against tlie car of a striker to appear here and tell us how they 
are made. Maybe he has a supply of them. 

Senator Mundt. The only paint job I remember being thrown 
aga inst a car of a striker was 

Mr. Mazey. I believe it was Bonanse. You ought to have him here. 
Maybe he can produce this paint bomb. I would like to see it, too. 

Senator Mundt. We are on the subject of secret agents. The com- 
pany had them and you had them. 

Mr. Mazey. This is getting to be a real thriller, isn't it ? 



9012 IMPROPER ACTrVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I cam quite prepared to admit tliat in both cases 
there is no particular evil connotation. It seems to me that if I were 
either a company man or a union man, and I am neither 

Mr. Mazey. it makes a big difference, Senator. And I wish you 
would take the time to read the La Follette committee reports. There 
was over $82 million spent in 1937 for spies of the Berghoffs, the Pink- 
ertons, and the other agencies, to spy on our union, and make it im- 
possible to organize our plants. 

This because an unfair labor practice. 

Senator Mundt. How much money ? 

Mr. Mazet. $82 million in 1937 alone. 

Senator Mundt. The Kohler strike ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, I am talking about industry as a whole. The 
General Motors Corp. had agents, Chryslers had agents. Ford had 
agents. All these companies had agents. 

Senator Mundt. Sure. Walter Keuther had agents, Hoffman had 
agents. This is a business in which you had agents, I suppose. 

Mr. Mazey. We haven't had agents, we haven't had people spying 
on any company, but they have been spying on us. They have been in 
our picket line. It was admitted here that they have been in our soup 
kitchen. They have probably been in our headquarters. They fol- 
lowed me around and followed Burkhart around. The spying has 
been done on the part of the company, not on the part of the union. 

Senator Mundt. I am quoting the man who paid for the bulletins 
what the bulletins say. 

Mr. Mazey. I think it was an improper choice of language. 

Senator Mundt. It is your language. 

Mr. Mazey. That isn't my language. I didn't write the bulletin. 

Senator Mundt. But you paid for it. 

Mr. Mazey. I pay for a lot of things I don't like. Some actions 
that take place in the Senate I don't like, that I help pay for. 

Senator Mundt. "Secret agents are handing in reports about the 
new independent union being formed inside the Kohler fortress." 

Mr. Mazey. I think the person who wrote that must have been 
watching too many of those TV dramas. 

Senator ]Mundt. You are not going to tr}^ to tell me, Mr. IMazey, 
that it is written by the Kohler Co. now. 

Mr. Mazey. No, I am not saying that. I am saying it is a poor 
choice of words, and I think he got carried away witli himself. He 
thought of a certain amount of drama involved in this thing. 

Senator Mundt. In the same bulletin, it says "Agent Q" — this gets 
to look like a thriller. "Agent Q" — I am quoting language paid for by 
Mr. Mazey, not written by Kohler or Senator Mundt. 

INIr. Mazey. It isn't paid for by Mr. JNIazey. It is paid by the mil- 
lion and a half members of the UAW. 

Senator ISIundt. You happen to authorize it and sign the checks, or 
did you have a checkwriting machine, like Dave Beck ? 

Mr. JNIazey. Please don't com]:>are me with Dave Beck or Jimmie 
Hoffa. 

Senator Mundt. I am making no comparison. But you might as 
well have a checkwriting machine if you have to write checks for a 
million and a half people. 

Mr. Mazey. We do have a checkwriting machine, and I am sure the 
Secretary of the Treasury does not sign every check issued here. 



ijmpropeir activities in the labor field 9013 

Senator jSIitxdt. But while on that subject, would you say that the 
Secretary of the Treasury has the responsibility for the checkwriting 
machine signing his signature ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator Muxdt. Now, 

Agent Q reports that the Kohler Co. insists that the various truclcing companies 
cross our picket lines with material or they will suffer the company's displeasure 
in, future business. 



That sounds like an agent's report. It doesn't sound like 

Mr. Mazey. It sounds like some sympathizer of the strike giving us 
some information. There are people that are still working for the 
Kohler Co. who don't like the company, who don't like the treatment 
they are getting. They have relatives who are on strike, and they pass 
information to them. But they are not spies. We don't pay them. 
We don't hire them. We have no detective agency working in the 
plant. We have no Gestapo as the company has had checking on 750 
men. 

Senator Mundt. It is possible, I suppose, among reasonable men, to 
assume that this possibility is through, that there were people on strike 
that didn't want to be on strike, and carried information back to the 
company. 

Mr. Mazey. That wasn't the testimony. Mr. Conger hired people to 
spy on our unions, spy on our picket lines, spy on our soup kitchens, 
follow us around. That is an unfair labor practice. 

Senator Mundt. Now we come to June 28, 1954. 

Mr. Mazey. What agent is this ? 

Senator Mundt. This is Secret Agent U-2. 

Reports that one general supervisor told his unwilling son that either he 
goes to work at Kohler or he wouldn't continue to pay his college expenses. 

It sounds like a report of a secret agent. 

Mr. Mazey. Unfortunately, Senator, that is one of the tragedies of 
this strike, that families have been split up, fathers and sons have been 
divided, husbands and wives have been divided, brothers have been 
divided, and that is why I am anxious to settle this strike. Maybe you 
can help convince the Kohler Co. management to accept our offer of 
arbitration this morning. Let's get this thing out of the way. 

Senator Mundt. Still it doesn't eliminate the fact that Secret Agent 
U-2 was making reports, and that Emil Mazey paid for bulletins 
speaking for the million and a half UAW members who paid for it. 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure that was gossip or hearsay or matters of this 
type. It sounds kind of juicy, to me, the way it is written up. 

Senator Mundt. You have a lot of them. I don't know how many 
secret agents you say Kohler had, but you had quite a few. From 
June 29, 1954 

Mr. Mazey. I am willing to say now. Senator, that vre didn't pay 
anybody to spy on the Kohler Co. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think the matter of paying is important 
at all. It is a man's loyalty. You and I know, I assume you know, 
that some of the most vicious anti-American Communist agents in this 
country don't operate for gold. They operate because they have mis- 
placed loyalty. It isn't a matter of money. 

21243— 58— pt. 22 IS 



9014 IMPROPER ACTIVITTES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. That is true. Some of them are scabbing on the job. 

Senator Mundt. Do you want to dilate on that statement a little 
bit ? That is a peculiar statement. 

Mr. Mazey, You have paid informers and you have unpaid in- 
formers. An unpaid informer is a scab. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have scabs ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, you are calling them scabs now. 

Senator Mundt. You are calling them scabs. 

Mr. Mazey. I think you understand my remark. 

Senator Mundt. You say you have scabs working in the plant. You 
say there are scabs who are informers who are not being paid. It 
is your language, not mine. 

Mr. IVIazey. You have your right to your interpretation, but I think 
you know what mine is. 

Senator Mundt. I am learning about yours as I read the secret 
agents' report of the strike bulletins. 

Next is the strike bulletin of June 30, 1954. This is almost a daily 
rundown. 

JSIr. Mazey. I have an idea how to pay for this strike. I think I 
will publish those and have a best seller perhaps. 

Senator Mundt. This is Secret Agent U-2. 

Cleared up a mystery when lie informed us that Lyman C. Conger's middle 
initial stands for Columbus. 

I can see why you wouldn't pay very much for that. 

Mr. Mazey. That is quite a discovery for that. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. So it goes. On July 1, Secret Agent S makes 
a report, on July 10 Secret Agent Q-2 makes a report. 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure they were trying to be funny and try to main- 
tain the morale and humor of the pickets and the striKers. 

Senator Mundt. It sounds kind of that way, when you read these 
reports. Secret Agent U-2 on July 17 comes back with his second 
report. He was pretty active. He makes another one on July 28. 
He says on July 28 — 

Secret Agent U-2 reports that Herbert V. Kohler has authorized the printing 
of 75,000 copies of the company's propaganda regarding Gov. W. J. Kohler's 
suggestion to submit the contract issues to arbitration. 

I think just to keep the thing in balance is the only reason for men- 
tioning this. 

Mr. Mazey. I think you put it out of balance, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think there is any use in denying or admit- 
ting that either one of you have secret agents. There has been testi- 
mony to the effect that the company had them. I wanted to quote 
your own source. You not only had them, but you were advertising 
their accomplishments. 

Mr. Mazey. We didn't have secret agents. Somebody got carried 
away with a mischoice of words. Mr. Conger knows the meaning 
of spies and agents. He admitted he hired detective agents here. 1 
hope you go into that in greater detail. I would like to know what 
period of time I was being followed. 

Senator Mundt. I am interested in every aspect. 

Mr. Mazey. I hope you question Mr. Conger as well as you ques- 
tion me when he gets on the stand. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9015 

Senator Mundt. I am a little disappointed to find you fraternizing 
with scabs after all of the things you said about them. Mr. Burk- 
hart calls them germs. He talks about their being sliot in the back- 
not in the back, but just shot. It seems like a scab is no different for 
whom he works ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, I am interested in your comments. I am go- 
ing to give you a chance to finish your speech. 

Senator Mundt. I have no speech. I am asking a couple of ques- 
tions here to clarify the record. 1 appreciate your responses. The 
general tenor of the strike bulletins, and that was the main reason 
I brought these in, Mr. Mazey, in conjunction with your speeches 
and the speeches of Mr. Burkhart, it seems to me, tended to help create 
additional tenseness in this situation. 

Mr. Mazey. Do you thiniv speech that you heard yesterday was 
a provocative speech ? 

Senator Mundt. In part, yes. 

Mr. Mazey. I thought it was a pretty good speech, myself. 

Senator Mundt. I didn't sa'y that. It was good and provocative in 
places. It was a pretty good speech. I know something about 
speeches. It was a pretty well prepared speech. I don't know if it 
was better than Burkhart's; it was pretty good. But both of you 
^ave pretty good speeches as far as a definition of a speech — which 
IS a vehicle to achieve an objective — is concerned. I think it was a 
well-constructed vehicle to achieve some of the objectives that you 
mentioned. 

I wanted to conclude this series of questions, Mr. Chairman, by say- 
ing that I guess the record is clear where I wanted it to be cleared ; 
that I completely dissent from the position that in a strike in a com- 
munity everyone has to be for or agamst the strike. 

I think there is still a place in this great society of ours for people 
who will look objectively to those things and try to find out who 
is right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

The committee will require your presence, I am sure, Monday. 

We will stand in recess. 

Mr. Mazey. Are you going to meet Monday morning, Senator, can 
I ask, so I can know how to arrange my schedule ? 

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

The Cliair will make the further announcement that next week the 
committee will have to meet in room 357, instead of this room. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 50 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m. Monday, March 10, 1958. The following members of the 
committee were present at the recess: Senators McClellan, Curtis, 
and Mundt.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1958 

United States Sexate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or ISIanagement Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 2 p. 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 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North 
Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan; Senator 
Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona ; and 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; 
and Ruth Youth Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order, 

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

The Chairman. I think the Chair may announce some good news 
for most of you who are present. I understand that the caucus room 
has now been released to the conunittee for the remainder of this week. 
We will be able to move back into the caucus room tomorrow. The 
committee could have moved this afternoon, but I understood that 
those of you who have considerable equipment here might not have 
been able to make the change as quickly as the committee had received 
the word. 

WTiile we are in this small room, the Chair will ask your whole- 
hearted cooperation in keeping as good order as possible, and in mak- 
ing allowances for the cramped conditions under which we are having 
to labor. If we will all work together, I think that we can expedite 
our work and move along. I am sorry that we cannot accommodate 
many guests who would like to be present, but it is a situation that we 
have to endure for at least this afternoon. 

All right, Mr. Counsel. Is Mr. Mazey to return to the witness 
stand? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Will you come around? 

9017 



9018 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF EMIL MAZEY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. RAUH, 
JR., COUNSEI^Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions of the 
witness ? 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Chairman, last week there were a number of items 
asked of me which I am now prepared to give the committee. Senator 
Goldwater asked for a comparison of the wages. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The microphone is not working, 
and I don't know whether this is intended to be a microphone or not. 
All right ; you will have to speak a little louder. 

Mr. ]\Iazey. I will take a deep breath and blow it out, then. Last 
week Senator Goldwater asked for a comparison of wages currently 
paid by the Kohler Co. and its principal competitors. I have some 
information on this that I would like to submit to the committee as an 
exhibit, and I would like to read it. 

The Chairman. Is there objection to the committee receiving the 
information ? 

The Chair hears none, and the information will be received and 
will be made exhibit No. 47. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 47" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may refer to such parts of it as you desire. 

Mr. Mazey. This is labeled, "Table 1 : Comparison of wages cur- 
rently paid by Kohler Co. and its principal competitors." 

There are four columns on this exhibit. One is the Kohler Co. ; the 
second is the American Standard & Sanitary Co.; and the third is 
Universal Kundle, which happens to be located in Milwaukee, Wis. ; 
and the fourth is Briggs Beautyware, which is located in Detroit. 

The hiring rate at Kohler is $1.20 an hour; at American Standard, 
$1.71; at Universal Rundle, $1.70; at Briggs Beautyware, $2.01. 

The sweepers rate at Kohler is $1.56; American Standard, $1.71; 
Universal Rundle, $1.80; and Briggs Beautyware, $2.11; electricians 
at Kohler Co., $2.18; American Standard, $2.37; Universal Rundle, 
$2.53; and Briggs Beautyware, $2.87; truckers at Kohler Co., $1.75. 

Senator Mundt. So you can make a better comparison, this is all 
old stuff to you but it is new to us. 

I notice Kohler Co, is located in Sheboygan, Wis., and would you 
tell us where Standard is located and where Universal Rundle is lo- 
cated, and where Beautyware is located ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have already made those announcements, but I will 
be glad to repeat it. 

Senator Mundt. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Mazey. The Kohler Co. is in Kohler, Wis., a suburb of She- 
boygan; American Standard & Sanitary is in Baltimore, Md.; Uni- 
versal Rundle, Milwaukee, Wis. ; Briggs Beautyware, Detroit, Mich. 

On the trucker — I believe I was speaking of the trucker, at Koh- 
ler, Co., $1.75; American Standard, $2.50; Universal Rundle, $2.70; 
and Briggs Beautyware, $2.11. 

Tool and diemaker, at Kohler Co., $2.36; Briggs Beautyware, $2.98. 

Elevator operator, Kohler Co., $1.60 : and Briggs Beautyware, $2.11. 

Enameler, large ware, Kohler Co., $2.64; and American Standard, 
$3.25 ; and Universal Rundle, $3.60. 



I]Vn»R)OPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 9019 

Enameler, small ware, Kohler Co., $2.63 ; American Standard, $3 ; 
and Universal Rundle, $3.60. 

Grinder, large ware, Kohler Co., $2.53; and American Standard, 
$2.80 j and Universal Rundle, $3.30. 

Grinder, small ware, Kohler Co., $2.48 ; American Standard, $2.50 ; 
and Universal Rundle, $3.15. 

Tub moulding, Kohler Co., $2.41; American Standard, $3; Uni- 
versal Rundle, $3. 

Enamelware inspectors, Kohler Co., $1.78 ; Universal Rundle, $2.60; 
and Briggs Beautyware, $2.36. 

Now, on the second page, table 2, is a comparison of enamel shop 
working conditions between Kohler Co., and its principal competitors. 

At the Kohler Co. the length of the work shift is 8 hours ; American 
Standard is 6 hours ; and Universal Rundle, 6 hours. 

Lunch period, none at Kohler Co.; none at American Standard; 
and none in Universal Rundle. And I want to bring to your atten- 
tion that where there is 6 hours work, it is the practice of the industry 
not to have a lunch period, but where there is 8 hours work, there 
should be a lunch period, and there has been in the past. 

Type of tub lift at Kohler Co., manual operated on floor track; 
American Standard, electric lift on monorail ; Universal Rundle, elec- 
tric lift on floor track. 

Type of tub-enameling frames at Kohler Co., manual operated ; and 
American Standard, air operated ; and Universal Rundle, air operated. 
Type of powdersieve, nonsuspended ; American Standard, sus- 
pended ; Universal Rundle, suspended. 

Air conditioning, Kohler Co., none; American Standard, yes; and 
Universal Rundle, semi. 

Number of men per furnace : 2 at Kohler ; 3 at American Standard ; 
and 2 at Universal Rundle. 

I would also like to submit, brother chairman — Mr. Chairman, rath- 
er — I am so used to trade union meetings that it is a normal slip. 

The Chairman. Are you a Baptist ? 

Mr. Mazey. I use a lot of good religious terms, sir. 

The Chairman. O. K., use whichever one is convenient. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater asked me the other day for a list of 
situations in which the UAW offered to arbitrate contracts and strikes. 
I have some of this prepared, and I didn't have much time to work 
over the weekend on this matter. But I have a few, and we can get 
some more, if you need them. 

I would like to point these out at this time. 

The Chairman. If you are going to read it into the record, there is 
no use to make it an exhibit. I don't want to get things cluttered up. 

Mr. Mazey. I would like to read it in the record. 

The Chairman. It may be read in the record, unless there is objec- 
tion, and the Chair hears none, so proceed. 

In 1945, on the 1946 General Motors strike, the union made an arbi- 
tration offer to General Motors Co. to settle. 

In 1952, the UAW agreed to arbitrate the wage agreement with 
the North American Aviation Corp., and the wage agreement was 
arbitrated. 

In 1955, the UAW agreed to arbitrate the amount of supplementary 
unemployment benefits in contract negotiations with the Ford Motor 
Co. The Ford Motor Co. turned us down. 



9020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In 1941, the union agreed to arbitrate, division of funds for 3.000 
workers, dischar<jed by the Ford Motor Co., and in an unfair labor 
practice case before the National Labor Relations Board, the union 
and the company agreed to a Catholic priest to act as arbitrator, and he 
handed down arbitration awards in this matter. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further that you were required to 
bring ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; I was given a lot of homework, Senator, and I 
did my homework quite well. I would like to submit as an exhibit or 
read into the record, a copy of a letter that was sent to the Honorable 
Walter J. Kohler, Jr., Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., in reply 
to his proposal that we arbitrate the settlement of the Kohler dispute 
in July 10, 1954. 

This letter is dated July 10, 1954. 

The Chairman. I think it has already been entered in the record. 

Mr. Mazey. No ; it has not. 

Mr. Rauh. Sir, the letter from the Governor to the two partici- 
pants was put in the record, and the Kohler Co.'s rejection, but at that 
time we did not have a copy of our letter. 

The Chairman. I thought you said at that time it was a telegram. 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct, but it was not a telegram.. 

The Chairman. Do you have a letter rejecting the offer? 

Mr. Rauh. This is the letter of the union accepting the Governor's 
proposal. 

The letter of the Kohler Co. rejecting the proposal is already in the 
record, and this is the union's answer which we thought was a tele- 
gram, and we were erroneous, and it is a letter and the letter is here. 

The Chairman. All right, it may be accepted, and without objec- 
tion let it be printed in the permanent record back where it is first 
referred to in the testimony (exhibit 20, p. 8743 of pt. 21 ) . 

Mr. Rauh. This letter is dated July 10, 1954, addressed to the 
Honorable Walter J. Kohler, Jr., Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, 
Wis. 

My Dear Governor : This is to advise that at a special membership meeting 
held in Sheboygan Armory this afternoon, it was voted unanimously to accept 
your proposal tliat the issue remaining in dispute between the Kohler Co. and 
the union be submitted to a qualified and impartial arbitrator, to be selected by 
the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, and that we abide by any decision 
arrived at by such arbitrator as outlined in your letter dated July 8, 1954, sent 
jointly to the Kohler Co. and the union. 

We are deeply appreciative of the concern you are showing in our dispute with 
the Kohler Co., and now winding it up is 14 weeks, and the efforts you are making 
to resolve the differences still existing. Very sincerely yours, Kohler Local 833, 
UAW, CIO. executive board, Perry H. Kohlhagen, recording secretary. 

The Chairman. Do you have anything further ? 

Mr. Rauh. I have two further items, Mr. Chairman. Senator 
Curtis asked me to find the press release that I made on the question 
of the Judge Schlichting matter. I was unable to find the press re- 
lease, in our files over the Aveekend, but the best I have been able to 
do is an excerpt from the strike daily bulletin dated November 10, 
1954, which deals with the matter of the press release and I would 
like to submit this in the record. 

Senator Mt-^ndt. Do you identify the strike Imlletin as a T^AW 
project supported by UAW funds ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt vou know T have alreadv testified to 
that. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9021 

Senator Mundt. You were trying to disclaim some of the state- 
ments 'i 

Mr. Mazey. I am not trying to disclaim anything. 

Senator ^NIuxdt. All right. 

The Chairman. Is that a copy or excerpt ? 

Mr. Mazey. This is an excerpt from the strike bulletin. 

The Chairmax. From the strike bulletin of that date ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, November 10. 

The CHAIR:^rAN. It may be printed in the record at this point. Yon 
may refer to any part of it you would like. 

Mr. Mazey. I would like to read it. 

Last minute flash : The UAW-CIO secretary-treasurer, Emil Mazey annouuced 
today that the uuion will no longer issue food vouchers for Piggly-Wiggly and 
Schlichting Food Markets as a protest over "the obvious bias shown against 
organized labor" by Circuit Judge F. H. Schlichting in the sentencing of UAW- 
CIO member William Vinson to a 1- or 2-year prison term. 

Senator Mundt. Plas something been omitted on those dots ? 

Mr. Kauh. What is that, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. Normally when we have evidence of some dots, it 
indicates something has been omitted. Is that true there in this 
case? 

Mr. Kauh. I don't really know. It was prepared by my staff, and 
I don't believe it is. 

Senator Mundt. It has three periods in there, and that isn't nor- 
mally the way you end a sentence ? 

Mr. Mazey. It is probably the way they set it up. 

Mr. Rauh. My assumption from the dots, Senator Mundt, is that 
this comes from'^the strike bulletin, and we can't find a copy of the 
original release. Probably the strike bulletin left something out of 
the original release, and that would be my assumption. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be possible for you to supply as an ex- 
hibit the entire strike bulletin ? 

Mr. Rauh. We looked for that, and we are unable to find it at the 
moment. Oh, you mean the bulletin. 

Senator Mundt. If you got this from the bulletin ? 

Mr. Rauh. I am sure that the bulletin has the dots in it, but we will 
supply that. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Mazey. We will be glad to do that. 

Mazey explained that Judge Schlichting is a principal stockholder in the 
Piggly-Wiggly organization in Sheboygan. He said the UAW-CIO has been 
issuing food vouchers to strikers which are designated for the store of the 
striker's choice. 

"The sentence handed down in the Vinson trial was the most severe sentence 
for a charge of this type ever handed down in this county." Mazey said, "and 
the conduct of the judge in this case raises a serious question as to whether he 
is qualified to serve as a judge in this county." 

The union's second-ranking officer, who has led the UAW-CIO team of nego- 
tiators in contract talks with Kohler Co. said that Kohler strikers "spent $13,000 
a week in food vouchers at Sheboygan's two Piggly-Wiggly stores and the 
Schlichting Supermarket in Sheboygan Falls. 

"Besides holding stock in the Sheboygan Piggly-Wiggly stores, Judge 
Schlichting has partial ownership in the Sheboygan Falls Schliching Super- 
market," Mazey said. 

The Chairman. That is taken from the daily strike bulletin of 
November 10, 1954? 



9022 lAlPBOPER ACITV-ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. Tlint is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Now 1 would like to submit some excerpts of a report of the 
Committee on Education and Labor of the United States Senate, 74th 
Congress, a resolution to investigate violations of the right of free 
speech and assembly and interference with the right of labor to org- 
anize and bargain collectively. 

The Chair:man. AVas that requested ? 

Mr. Mazey. It was not requested. 

The Chairman. Did anybody ask you to submit that ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater was talking about the number of 
people killed in CIO strikes, and the purpose of submitting this, Mr. 
Chairman, is to show that in 1984 the La Follette committee found 
that between the years, or I should say during the course of this in- 
vestigation in 1937, the La Follette connnittee found that, between 
the years of 1933 through 1937, $1,255,312.55 worth of tear and sick- 
ening gas was purchased by employers and law-enforcement agencies 
chiefly during or in anticipation of strikes. 

The report will also show that the Kohler village had purchased 
over $6,000 worth of tear gas during the period of time that the La 
Follette committee made this investigation. 

The exact amount, the purchase by the village of Kohler, was 
$6,713.31. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the Chair thinks we are goin^ pretty 
far afield when we go way back that far. If this committee is going 
to investigate everything since then up until now, we are going to be 
old men before we get through. 

Mr. Mazey. It just seems to me that during the course of this hear- 
ing, Mr. Chairman, during the course of this hearing we have been 
able to show that the Kohler Co. had tear gas and they had guns, and 
that they transferred this to the village. This is not a new practice. 
This wasn't in preparation for the LTAW. They did exactly the same 
thing in 1934. 

The Chairman. I think we can say there has been violence going 
on on both sides for many years. I think we can agree on that and 
stipulate to it, and get onto something that might be in controversy. 

Mr. Mazey. I am not willing to stipulate that, Mr. Chairman. 

The C'hairman. You are not willing ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. Who was chief counsel of that committee ? 

Mr. Mazey. The La Follette committee ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Mazey. I should know that. Maybe I can find it here. The 
chairman was Eobert M. La Follette, of Wisconsin. Chief counsel 
was David D. Lloyd ; David D. Lloyd was chief counsel. 

Senator Goldwater. Wlio followed him ? 

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

The Chairman. Did you read all of that statement? 

Mr. Mazey. No; I merely made reference to some of the pages. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it may be made Exhibit No. 48, 
for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 48" for ref- 
erence and mav be found in the files of the select committee.) 



IMPROPER ACl^rVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9023 

Senator Gold water. Mr. Mazey, who followed the gentleman that 
you quoted there as being chief counsel ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was it mentioned on there at any place ? 

Mr. JMazey. There was another counsel by the name of Daniel F. 
Margolis, counsel ; N. E. Danielan, director of research ; Harold Weis- 
berg, editor ; and Heber Blankenhorn, special consultant. I happened 
to know Mr. Blanlvenhorn, when he was alive. He used to be an in- 
vestigator for the UAW. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you know if John Abt was on that subcom- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Goldwater. Does it refer to him any place on there? 

Mr. Mazey. There is no reference to any man by that name. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, preserving the right to satisfy 
my curiosity, I will find out if Mr. Abt was connected with the sub- 
committee. My recollection is that he was, but I could be wrong. 

Mr. Mazey. It might be of some interest to the committee to know 
that besides Robert M. LaFollette, Albert D. Thomas was on the com- 
mittee, David Walsh, of Massachusetts ; James Murray of Montana ; 
Vic Donahey of Ohio; Eush D. Holt, West Virginia; Claude Pepper 
of Florida; and Allen J. Ellender of Louisiana; Josh Lee of Okla- 
homa ; Lister Hill of Alabama ; William E. Borah of Idaho, Eobert 
M. LaFollette, Jr., of Wisconsin; James J. Davis, of Pennsylvania; 
and Eobert A. Taf t of Ohio. 

This was a pretty good committee. 

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

Mr. Mazey. I have nothing further to offer at this time, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

Senator Mundt. Wlien we concluded Friday, Mr. Mazey, we were 
discussing the subject of secret agents, either utilized by the company 
against the union or by the union against the company. On page 
1326 of Friday's hearing, as I reviewed them this morning, I find this 
exchange. 

Senator Mundt. Did the union have any secret agents in the plant during the 
strike? 

Mr. Mazey. We did not ; and I wish that we had. 
Senator Mundt. You did not? 
Mr. Mazey. We did not. 

You will recall that we subsequently developed from the strike bul- 
letins, from which you said you would take no disclaimer, and which 
today you said you would not take a disclaimer from, because they 
were published and paid for by the international office of the UAW, 
we developed from the bulletins themselves that you had received 
secret reports from inside the Kohler plant. I am not trying to stick 
you with perjury or claim that you were misrepresenting the facts, 
and I am not concerned about whether you called them secret agents, 
or inside reporters, or reliable informants or whatever j^ou called 
them. It was established, at least, that there were people inside the 
plant reporting to the UAW, and those reports were used as strike 
bulletins to advise the strikers concerning conditions within the plant. 

I want to follow that up a little further this afternoon. Mr. Mazey, 
does your union now, as of the present time, have anybody in the 
Kohler Co. plant or office who is furnishing you with informatioT> 
as to the activities or the business of the Koliler Co. ? 



9024 IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Mundt, we have no secret agents at the present 
time. We have never had any secret agents. We have never paid any- 
body for information in the Kohler situation. The report that you 
had reference to on the strike bulletin, I think, was a gimmick of one 
of our public relations people who thought it was funny and a joke. 
I looked it up since I left here on Friday, and our reports were so 
secret that we published them daily in our strike buUetm. 

The very fact they were published, I think, ought to prove the 
absurdity of the charge that these were secret reports. 

Senator Mundt. There is a a vast difference, Mr. Mazey, as you 
well know, from having a secret agent who brings you information 
unbeknown to the opposing side, and to the use that you make of 
them. Nobody ever accused you of maintaining the secrecy once 
you got the information. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, we don't have any secret agents and 
we have never had them. I abhor the practice of anybody hiring 
people to spy on the private lives of individuals. 

Senator Mundt. On Friday, you freely admitted that you did have 
them. You said they were scabs because they were not being paid, 
but that they were relaying information to you. 

Mr. Mazey. I said 

Senator Mundt. I am not concerned with whether they are paid. 
I think really if you are going to induce a man to act as a secret 
agent while the other fellow is paying him, you have done a pretty 
good job, rather than paying him yourself. 

Mr. Mazey. We have not induced anybody to do anything, in my 
opinion. 

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

Senator Mundt. There would be ethics involved, in my opinion, 
if you are paying the man. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mimdt, as I have reported previously, in 
Kohler the community is split right down the middle. 

There are office employees, there are some of the people who have 
returned to work, who have brothers and sisters and fathers who are 
still active in the strike. 

There is a great deal of conversation between them. Some of them 
are on good, friendly terms. 

As a result of their being on friendly terms, it is just normal and 
natural that in the course of a strike of this length, that the people 
in the same family and friends will talk about the conditions inside 
the plant. 

If these are secret reports, then make the most of it. I don't con- 
sider them secret reports at all. 

Senator Mundt. I am not going to quibble with you as to what you 
call an agent or what you call a spy. or what the terminology is, 
whether furnishing information to Ivoliler from the union or to the 
union from Kohler. That is why this afternoon I have tried to fiiid 
a word that I thought you wouldn't be squeamish about, and I said 
does your union have anyone in the Kohler Co. plant or offices furnish- 
ing you information concerning the business of the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Mazey, The union doesn't have anyone, no. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have anyone ? 

Mr Mazey. Well, I represent the union. I don't have anyone. 



EVIPRiOPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9025 

Senator Mundt. Since you started your boycott, has your miion had 
anyone furnishing you information from inside the Kohler Co. as to 
how well the boycott is succeeding ? 

Mr. Mazey. We have a pretty good idea as to what the production is, 
how many people are working in the plant. There is gossip and hear- 
say on this matter, and I suppose that we do have information of that 
type. People will gossip and talk about how much work is being done. 

But we have no agents inside the plant furnishing us information. 

Senator Mundt. I guess I better repeat my question. 

Since the beginning of the boycott, has your union had anyone 
furnishing you nif ormation from inside the Koliler Co. concerning the 
success of the strike. 

Mr. Mazey. We have not. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. You have secured no information from inside the 
Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Mazey. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. Whether from an agent, a spy, an informer, or a 
loyal union man who happens to be working there or anybody else ? 

Mr. Mazey. We have no agents, we have no spies, we have no 
informers. Let's keep the record straight. The record will show that 
the Kohler Co. was the one who hired spies and detective agents and 
not the union. 

Senator Mundt. I am not concerned about who hired them. I am 
concerned about the operation. Has the union had anyone furnish- 
ing you with information as to what inventories the Kohler Co. is 
keeping, sales, shipments, the literature that they send out ? 

Mr. Mazey, We have had no informers inside the plant giving us 
information of that type. We may have picked up information from 
gossip, hearsay, and relatives and things of that type. We have drawn 
our own conclusions. 

Senator Mundt. And nobody inside the plant furnishing that in- 
formation ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. I have here one of these strike bulletins that you 
have just introduced in evidence. It is a different date. It is April 
30, 1956. Let me quote you the following report. 

Incoming orders at the Kohler Co. shown a steady droi) — the only quantity 
of invoices is for small, petty items ; fittings, parts, etc. The other day none other 
than the bathtub baron was pacing around the oflBce, according to one of our 
inside reporters, fussing about the lack of orders. 

So your union did have inside reporters as reported to the strikers 
by the UAW strike bulletin, which you financed and which was issued 
under your direction. You can't have it both ways. 

You were either lying to the people who were reading the bulletin, 
or you have been mistaken in your testimony before this committee. 

Mr. Mazey. I have not been mistaken in my testimony. It seems to 
me. Senator, the the word "reporters" is open to definition, and I 
imagine that in a city such as Sheboygan which has 114 or 140 bars, 
I don't recall the exact number, there is a lot of gossip and a lot of hear- 
say and a lot of talk that is picked up, and the persons who put that 
bulletin out probably use this and referred to it as reporters. It might 
be of some interest to vou to know that the bathtub 



9026 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. You can't have it both ways. Either you were 
trying to mislead the committee or you were trying to mislead 
the strikers, with the money that was paid for by union men. Which 
is it? You say on the one hand we have inside reporters in the com- 
pany and on the otlier hand you say you did not have them in the com- 
pany. 

You can't have it both ways. 

Mr. Mazet. Senator Mundt, I am not trying to mislead the com- 
pany, I think you are making too much ado about nothing. 

Senator Mundt. I think you are misleading. 

Mr. Mazey. The bathtub baron referred to in that article happens 
to be Mr. Herbert Kohler. 

Senator Mundt, I presumed so. 

Mr. ^LvzEY. I am trying to make it clear who we have reference to. 
I am not trying to mislead the committee. We have had no informers 
or spies. The spies and the informers as the LaFollette committee 
will show have been used against us and not by us. 

Senator Mundt. Is your testimony clear that what you were trying 
to do with the strike bulletin, paid for by union members, was to 
mislead the strikers, so that they would not break down their morale, 
so that they wouldn't come back to work, and were you telling theni 
you had inside reporters when actually you didn't have them? 

Mr. Mazey. It wasn't to mislead the strikers at all. It was to mam- 
tain morale. ^ 

Senator Mundt. Maintain morale by misleading them, by saying 
"We have inside reporters giving you the facts" and now you testij^ 
you didn't have any inside reporters. 

Mr. Mazey. I will not agree to the word "misleading." We have 
not tried to mislead anybody. 

Senator Mundt. You are trying to mislead somebody now. 

Mr. Mazey. No, I am not. 

Senator Mundt, You either have to say that you did have them or 
you didn't have them. 

Mr. Mazey. I say we didn't have them. 

Senator Mundt. You said in your bulletin you have them. Who 
are you trying to mislead ? 

Mr. Mazey. If you will read the bulletins 

Senator Mundt. I read them. 

Mr. Mazey. They were written in a jovial fashion. One of the 
public relations people was trying to be funny. The bulletin I in- 
troduced happened to be a quote of what I said. I stand by it and 
I stand on it. 

Senator Mundt. And you say as far as the inside reporters are 
concerned, because whether the writer wants to be funny or not, the 
poor fellow who is out of work, who may have been on strike for 
4 or 5 months, is wondering how we are getting along, and he reads 
the strike bulletin and it says from inside reporters we are winning 
the contest and orders are falling off, strike by the strike. You are 
certainly trying to mislead him, then, whether you are trying to be 
funny about it or not. 

Mr, Mazey. Senator Mundt, I think you are making a moimtain out 
of a molehill. 



EVIPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9027 

Senator Mundt. I think the record will speak for itself on that. 

Mr. Mazey. I agree with you. I agree the record will speak for 
itself. 

Senator Mundt. I presume that your union used this inside informa- 
tion in planning its boycott, that is right ? 

Mr. Mazey. To begin with, I said we had no inside information, so 
how could we use it ? 

Senator Muxdt. Well, we will see whether you had any or not. 

Mr. Mazey. In a town as small as 

Senator Mundt. You had somebody inside the plant reporting on 
the activities and actions of the bathtub baron, Mr. Kohler, 

Mr. Mazey. In a to^\n as small as Sheboygan, almost everybody 
knows everybody, almost everybody is related to each other. Every- 
body is close friends or were close friends. There is all kinds of 
gossip and stories. It is impossible to keep anything secret from the 
members of our union under thisi kind of a setting. 

Like what I said I stand on. If we knew how many boxcars went 
out of the plant, we could count tliem. If we knew how many trucks 
went out of the plant, we could count them. We had contacts with 
plumbers and with plumbing contractors, and we knew that the 
Kohler Co.'s sales were reduced. We counted the number of people 
working inside the plant. Then} were 3,400 when the strike started. 
There are less than 2,000. It seems to me that if you want these facts 
on the company's sales and on the company's employment, what you 
ought to do is subpena their records, and let's look at the sales and 
look at the records, if that is the information you want. 

Senator Mundt. I am not concerned about those. I am concerned 
about whether or not you are trying to misrepresent the company to 
the committee or whether you were misrepresenting it to the strikers. 
That is the point at issue. 

Mr. Mazey. I have not tried to misrepresent it either to the strikers? 
or to the committee. 

Senator Mundt. Let me come now to the strike bulletin for May 2. 
1956. 

Bathtubs are still being piled three high in the shookshed (one of the two 
huge, all-steel twin buildings located east of the plant proper). When this gets 
filled, a reliable source has informed us that the so-called equipment shed located 
next to and north of the shookshed, will be used next for storing the customerless 
tubs. 

So you had a source, what you are now calling a reliable source. 
You sometimes call him an inside informer. Sometimes you call him 
secret agent No. X. But you did have a reliable source, apparently, 
reporting on not only where the inventory was kept, how high was 
the stack of unused bathtubs, but where they were going to pile them 
up after they filled the shed. 

Mr. INIazey. Mr. Mundt, a reliable source could be any worker in 
the plant who had a brother or a sister or who shot oil his mouth in 
beer gardens or anything of that type. Maybe he was not so reliable 
He could be reliable or unreliable. 

Senator Mundt. It could have been secret agent Q-2 also who is 
quoted in there. 

Mr. Mazey. I think you understand how the Q-2 and U-2 came 
in. It is a pretty clever little gimmick that a public relations man 
dreamt up, and I think you are making too much of it. 



9028 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Well, if it is a public little gimmick cooked up by 
a public relations man, it is a device for deceiving the strikers. This 
is mysterious business for them. 

Mr. ISIazey. It wasn't meant to deceive anybody. 

Senator Mundt. The pay of the union officials goes on and on like 
Tennyson's little brook, but the pay of the strikers kind of gets a 
little low after 3 or 4 months. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, we did pretty well by our strikers. We raised 
a lot of money. The program made possible the $10 million strike 
assistance to the Kohler workers was a program that I helped develop 
and I helped sell to our convention. We did pretty well by them. 
We weren't trying to deceive them. The purpose of our union is to 
try to bring social and economic justice to the workers in Sheboygan. 
That was our only purpose. We weren't trying to deceive anybody. 

Senator Mundt. I am reading the bulletin and asking you whether 
it is true or not. 

If that isn't deceit, then we have studied a different dictionary. 

June 6, 1956 : There still is an insatiable demand for vitreous china. 
Are you a bathtub man ? Wliat is vitreous china ? 

Mr. Mazey. I use a bathtub every day, sir, but I am not an expert 
on it. 

Senator Mundt. Do you use one made out of vitreous china ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't use a Kohler bathtub. I don't think anybody 
else should either. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat about vitreous china ? 

Mr. Mazey. I use vitreous china. 

Senator Mundt (reading) : 

There still is an insatiable demand for vitreous china plumbing fixtures, but 
Kohler's vitreous products are piling up — even though the total salable vitreous 
production is only 50 percent of the prestrike figure. Shipments are way off. 
Strikebreakers haven't been hired for months. The volume of incoming new 
orders Is on a definite decline and cancellation of old orders are coming in daily. 

That is an inside job by somebody or else it is a distortion of the 
truth to the strikers. Which is that? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, I don't know how many times I have 
to tell you that we haven't distorted anything. We haven't tried to 
deceive anybody. If you have ever been to Sheboygan, and I suggest 
you make a trip there some day, you will find how small and com- 
pact the community is, how everybody knows each other. There are 
a lot of friendly bars in town, and information such as that bulletin 
contains can be picked up in any bar, any day or night. 

Senator Mundt. I am pretty sure the bar isn't so small and com- 
pact that everybody is sleeping in the accounting room of Kohler Co. 
Is this description going into the accounting department, the can- 
cellation of orders, with inside information, is it a clever dream of 
a public relations fellow to build up the morale of strikers by feeding 
them a lot of guff ? Which is the truth ? 

Mr. Mazey. Nobody is feeding anybody a lot of guff. I am sure 
there are office employees of the Kohler Co., including the accounting 
department, who are pretty unhappy over the manner in which the 
Kohler Co. has conducted" itself throughout this entire matter. It 
wouldn't surprise me if they did some talk in beer gardens or talking 
to their friends who happen to be strikers. 



liMPR'OPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9029 

Senator Mundt. August 24, 1950, strike bulletin. 

We have it dh good "iuside" authority that the scabs and strikebreakers are 
so thoroughly disgusted with working conditions in the Kohler plant that the 
place is commonly referred to in conversation as the "madhouse." 

I presume this inside authority Avas also somebody working in the 
plant and reporting to you ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think it was probably some strikebreaker who got 
disgusted and quit his job and told a member of the union that work- 
ing in Kohler was like a madhouse and he left the plant. 

Senator Mtjndt. This is somebody that you won over to your side 
after he had been in ? 

Mr. Mazey. That may be possible. 

Senator Mundt. I will accept that as a possibility. 

Mr. Mazey. I think if you will check the records 

Senator Mundt. I will accept that as a possibility. 

Mr. Mazey. Can I finish, please ? 

Senator Mundt. When you win a point, you ought to stop. Go 
ahead. 

Mr. Mazey. You are making a lot of speeches and not giving me a 
chance to answer. I am supposed to be answering questions. 

Senator Mundt, the point I started to make was if you will check 
the employment records of the Kohler Co., I think you will find that 
for every strikebreaker they now have on their payroll, they hired 
five during the course of the strike. The other four gave up in 
disgust. 

Senatoi" Mundt. Here is one that didn't come under that category. 
That is tlie strike bulletin of October 22, 195() : 

Plumbing fixtures still piling up. Inside sources also verify previous reports 
that despite the low production of plumbing fixtures and brass fittings, the un- 
wanted stuff continues to pile up. 

Now we have inside sources, and you change the name, but it still 
keeps coming in. The article indicates that there have been previous 
reports of inside sources. 

On the strike of Xovember 19, 1956, this is an interesting statement. 

Mr. ]Mazey. Do you want me to comment on the first one ? 

Senator Mundt. I am coming to this : Prior to the last election, the 
Kohler Co. mailed to all known clergymen in the United States 190 
pieces of antiunion literature, each one containing a copy of Herb 
Kohler's "in freedom's cause" speech made in Los Angeles on April 17 
of this year, and a copy of the April 1955 issue of the Kohler News. 
The postage bill alone was $11,400, 

Was the postmaster one of your inside workers ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, he wasn't an inside worker. 

Senator Mundt. You must have gotten that from inside the Kohler 
plant, and not a beer garden. Where did you get that fact ? 

Mr. Mazey. If you will ask a question and give me a chance to an- 
swer it, maybe I can get around to it. 

Senator !Mundt. Go right ahead. Where did you get that infor- 
mation ? 

Mr. INIazey. You refer to the term "inside sources," and there has 
been all kinds of terms used here. Senator Mundt, and it reminds me of 
the terms being used for the Eisenhower depression. They call it a 

21243— 5S—iit. 22 19 



9030 IMPRiOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

"slide," a "roll," they call it "sideway motion" and depression, and 
they call it a recession. 

Senator Mundt, I asked you a question. 

Mr. Mazey. Our public-relations people have dug up the same kind 
of ideas in referring to this. 

The Chairman. Now 

Senator Mundt. The question is pretty clear. 

The Chairman. I want the Chair to get this, and now I will request 
we continue. 

Senator Mundt. The question is where did you get the information 
that the postage bill was $11,400? 

Mr. Mazey. I suppose that some public relations man for the Kohler 
Co. spoke too much in a bar and somebody picked it up. 

Senator Mundt. That is supposition, and do you have any better 
information ? 

Mr. Mazey. No ; I don't. 

Senator Mundt. You are trying to give these people the exact 
facts m the strike bulletin, and when you pin this down, you can't 
get them. 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure it wasn't the postmaster, because with the 
Republican administration you would have a Republican postmaster, 
and I don't see Republicans giving us any information at all. 

Senator Mundt. You are against Republicans, are you ? 

Mr. Mazey. It is awfully hard to find a good one, Senator Mundt. 

The Chairman. Let us get on the track here. Let us leave politics 
out of it. 

Senator Mundt. Another inside source reported on literature the 
company was sending out and the number of copies, and even the 
postage bill. 

Now, on May 20, 1957, you say this — this is a strike bulletin : 

We know that the Kohler stockpile is growing larger because we have eyes 
that see for us on the inside. 

You switched from inside sources, inside reporters, informants, and 
now you have eyes. 

We have eyes that see for us on the inside. 

Now, were you deceiving the strikers then, or were you trying to be 
funny, or are you telling the truth now when you say you didn't 
have them ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have always told the truth, Senator Mundt. The 
"eyes inside" is another phrase for this information. I am sure that 
the "eyes inside" were friends of Kohler strikers and friends or people 
in favor of the Kohler workers getting a break. I would like to say 
that when I talked about good Republicans a moment ago, I think 
Senator Ives is a good Republican. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. We have about 15 million Repub- 
licans, and I am glad to find a good one. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives is not here to hear your praise of 
him, and can't we get down to the facts here and move along? Leave 
politics out of it. 

Mt Mazey. I don't see what this is leading to, and I think it is kind 
of ridiculous. 

Senator Mundt. I suppose you do, and I would think you would 
after you put out strike bulletins for several years, and you paid for 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9031 

them, and on which you wrote checks, and you told the strikers one 
tiling, and then when we ask you whether you were deceiving the 
strikers you said, "No." And we say, "Were you telling the truth, 
did you have the eyes, and did you have the sources and the secret 
leads in the plant T' and you say, "No'' and you expect us to 
add up "No" and "No" and make "Yes." And it doesn't make very 
good sense, and it is kind of ridiculous. 

Mr. Mazey. Let us continue. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this: Apparently you base your 
whole situation on the basis that you didn't pay these people. As I 
said, I offered no evidence that you did pay them, and so we have to 
accept the fact that whatever you call these inside informants, you 
were not paying them, 

Mr. Mazey, I think I have made my position perfectly clear, Sen- 
ator Mundt. We have paid no informers, and we had no spies, and we 
had no detective agents, and we had no Gestapo inside the plant, and 
we had none of these things. The information that our bulletins con- 
tained, I am sure, was information that was obtained in hearsay, and 
beer-garden discussion between friends and relatives, and so on. 

Senator Mundt. It is clear that was the path to the country school- 
yard where you didn't tell them that in your bulletins. In your bulle- 
tin you said that you had inside agents, and in your bulletin you said 
you had inside eyes, and even identified the secret agents in your bulle- 
tin. What I am trying to say is that you were certainly not telling 
the people who were reading your bulletins what you are now trying 
to tell us, that this is a lot of scuttlebutt picked up, 

Mr, Mazey. I think we got the scuttlebutt from people, and nobody 
who was on strike has any belief that we had any spies or agents or 
informers inside the plant. 

Senator Mundt. You are saying you were not paying them, and I 
am going to accept that, unless some evidence comes in contrary, and 
if you didn't pay these people who were giving you information on 
the Kohler Co.'s activities, it must have been the Kohler people who 
were giving that. 

Mr. Mazey. It is possible that some of the information we had may 
have been these detectives that Mr. Conger had going in the beer gar- 
dens trying to get information on our people, and they may have 
spread some of this stuff around. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt, Do you think the Kohler Co. paid them to give you 
the information ? 

Mr. Mazey. They may have given us false information in order to 
try to mislead us. A lot of things are possible, and I wouldn't put 
anything past this outfit. 

Senator Mundt. You put out all of this false information to your 
strikers to try to keep them on the job ? 

Mr, Mazey. This wasn't false information, and we had no reason 
at that time to believe that anybody in 1954, in the second half of the 
20th century, would be so backward in its labor policies as to use spies 
and stool pigeons and detectives. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this : Is it the policy of the union 
in a situation of this kind to encourage confidential information 
coming out from inside the plant, while it is still operating ? 

Mr, Mazey, If anybody gave us information, we weren't too un- 
happy about it. 



9032 IMPROPER ACTIVrriKS IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt, I wouldn't think so, no. Now, you testitied on page 
793 of your speech that you made on May 9, and you are familiar with 
that speech. 

Mr. Mazey. What was the date of that speech ^ 

Senator Muxdt. May 9, 1954. You will recall we were talking 
about these people out on the picket line, and you said — 

Now we know who they are, and we have taken pictures of them, and we have 
taken down the license plates' numbers, and we have made notes of what their 
names are. 

Now, I think when we asked you questions about that, you said 

Mr. Mazet. What are you (iuoting? Are you quoting me? 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr. Mazey. On page 793 of what, what record ? 

Senator Mundt. Of the hearings. 

Mr. Mazey, That I made this statement during these hearings ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Mazey. I would like to have you show me that record, and I 
don't recall having made any such statement. 

Senator Mundt. On May 9, Mr. Burkhart made the statement. 

Mr. Mazey. You said I did. 

Senator Mundt. I beg your pardon. Mr. Burkhart did. 

Mr. Mazey. Let us keep the record clear. 

Senator Mundt. On page 792 Mr. Burkhart made the statement in a 
speech on May 9 — 

Now we know who they are. We have taken pictures of them, and we have 
taken down the license plates' numbers, and we have made notes of what their 
names are. 

I want to direct a question to you. Your union was keeping a 
record of the activities of the nonstrikers who w^anted to return to 
w^ork, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. You have spoken to Mr. Burkhart about it, and this is 
the first time 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out what yours is. 

Mr. Mazey. This isn't my testimony. 

Senator Mundt. This is your testimony now. 

Mr. Mazey. It is my testimony now, and I didn't hear that. 

Senator Mundt. Was your union keeping a record of the activities 
of nonstrikers who wanted to return to w^ork, getting their license 
numbers and getting their pictures ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, can you pause a moment to give me a 
chance to answer your question ? 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Mazey. I am not familiar with the testimony of Mr. Burkhart 
on this particular question. I didn't hear it, and I didn't read it. 
Obviously, I am not in a position to testify on something that I have 
no knowledge of. 

Senator Mundt. You have knowledge about this question. 

IVIr. Mazey. The kind of question as to whether or not the strikers 
knew Avlio the nonstrikers were ? 

Senator Mi ndt. I read the question Mr. Burkhart made. I accept 
it beca\ise he gave it under oath, as factual. So I ask you the question, 
whether your union was keeping a record of the activities of the non- 
strikers, taking their pictures, if Mr. Burkhart said they were, and 



IMPBO[PEiR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9033 

taking down the license plates, as Mr. Burkhart said they were, and 
making notes of their names, as Mr. Burkhart said they were, and 
you keeping a record of the people who wanted to go to work ? 

Mr. Mazey. As I told you before, I didn't hear Mr. Burkhart's 
testimony. 

Senator Mundt. That has nothing to do with it, whether you heard 
it or not. I am asking you. 

Mr. Mazey. I am sure the Kohler strikers collectively knew every- 
body in the plant, and knew who was going in the plant, and who 
was staying out. And they may have made mental notes as to who 
they were, and I am sure that happened. 

Senator Mundt. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Mx\zey. I am answering the question. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Burkhart is an associate of yours? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You paid his salary ? 

Mr. Mazey. Not I, but the union. 

Senator Mundt. You, as secretary-treasurer, either signed the check, 
or assumed responsibility for his salary. 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You were associated with him at Kohler on strike 
business^ 

Mr. Mazey. Not with Mr. Kohler. We were never able to get Mr. 
Kohler to attend any meetings, or put his feet under the table. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Burkhart at Kohler. 

Mr. Mazey. I want to make it clear Mr. Kohler never attended a 
single set of negotiations or meetings. 

Senator Mundt. I am not talking about him. I am talking about 
Burkhart. 

Mr. jSIazey. You said we associated with Mr. Kohler and I want 
to keep it straight, and we never had the opportunity. 

Senator Mundt. Now, we will start over. Don't try to put words 
into my mouth. You may not be able to hear me and I have difficulty 
hearing you, because the acoustics are not too good, but what I said 
was this : You were associated with Mr. Burkhart at the Kohler strike 
situation ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I was associated with Mr. Burkhart. 

Senator Mundt. And Mr. Burkhart said in this committee room, 
sworn testimony, answering a lot of questions about taking pictures 
at the strike line — 

Now we know who they are. We have taken pictui"es of them, we have taken 
down the license plates numbers, and we have made notes of what their names 
are. 

We asked him why and he told us why. That was sworn testimony. 
Now I am asking you, and not Mr. Burkhart, and I am asking Mr. 
Emil Mazey, the top second-ranking member in the UAW: Is it true 
that your union was taking down the names of the nonstrikers, and 
their pictures and their license plates? 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Burkhart said we were doing it, and I would take 
his word, and I suppose if we wanted to talk to the people who may 
have been going back to the plant to try to convince them that they 



9034 IMPROPER ACTIVITTEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

were doiiijx an injustice to tliemselves and to their families, and to our 
cause — I tliinlv Mr. Burkhait said that, and I am willing to back 
him up. I think he is an honest man. 

Senator Mundt. It took you a long time to arrive at that conclusion 
and say "Yes.'' 

Mr. Mazey. It didn't take me a long time, but you phrase it kind of 
funny. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. You said, "'Yes." Now, was it wrong for the com- 
pany to make a picture of the striker, and all right for the union to 
take a picture of a nonstriker? Is that your theory? 

Mr. Mazey. No. I think that the taking of pictures on the one hand 
was a Gestapo activity, and on the other hand was an idea of trying 
to persuade people to support their own cause. I think there is a great 
deal of difference. 

Senator Mundt. I must confess that I can't see it. Tliere are two 
people taking pictures, one taking pictures of nonstrikers, to keep 
them out, and one taking pictures of the strikers so they will know 
who is trying to keep them out, and you say when the company takes 
pictures this is Gestapo, and when the union takes a picture, this is 
just part of an old family portrait, made on Sunday afternoon when 
the sun shines? 

Mr. Mazey. We did not have anybody recording whether the kid 
stole somebody's marbles from a nonstriker's child, or called a non- 
striker's child names. This company had a record on every worker 
in the plant. 

They acted just like the Nazis did during the period of the last 
war, and before the last war. 

Senator Mundt. Either Mr. Burkhart or you, and I think it was 
Mr. Burkhart that testified to the fact that while he never participated 
in a home demonstration, and while he never inspired one, one after- 
noon he attended three of them. And we asked what happened, and 
he said he was there as a spectator, and we asked him, "lell us what 
happened." 

He said, they stayed around the nonstriker's house, and when the strike- 
breaker came in, they called him a lot of names. 

So I guess you had some people calling them names, and maybe 
you did not pay them to do that, but they were people on your side 
calling names, and I suppose there were people on the other side call- 
ing names. 

Mr. Mazey. I suppose so. 

Senator Mundt. And taking pictures ? 

Mr. Mazey. I suppose there have been a lot of names called in the 
last 4 years and we offered a solution the other day to stop the narne 
calling, by asking the company to agree to arbitration, and we are still 
willing to. 

I think that we ought to try to find a w^ay to stop the name calling. 

Senator Mundt. By the way, on this arbitration business, that is a 
unique position for you to take, in view of the fact that you spent 
about an hour and a half in these hearings trying to convince me and 
the rest of the committee and the public that your position was sound 
and proper and pro-American, and you had said over and over again, 
"everybody who is not for us is against us." 

Finally after about an hour Friday afternoon, you wiggled off the 
hook to an extent, I mean, about judges, and judges should be im- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9035 

partial. Now, where are you goino; to get a board of arbitration with 
the kind of philosophy that you follow, that everybody is going to be 
for you or against you, and has to be for you or against you, and if 
they are not for you, automatically they are against you ? 

Wlio are you going to use for arbitrators? 

Mr. Mazey. The point that you have reference to, Senator, was a 
speech that I made in the city of Sheboygan, in which I was referring 
specifically to the people in the community. I think that I explained 
my position very clearly the other day. 

Senator Mundt. Further than that, we are talking about boycotts, 
and there are a lot of people outside of Sheboygan. 

Mr. Mazey. I wish you would be sufficiently courteous to give me 
a chance to finish my answer to your questions. 

Mr. Rauh. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Chair. I have sat here 
and have said nothing, but continuously Senator Mundt has inter- 
rupted Mr. Mazey 's answer. We ask that Senator Mundt be re- 
quested 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Senator Mundt. Eveiy time the witness has said he has not finished, 
I have given him a chance. 

The Chairman. Any time the witness appeals to the Chair, the 
Chair will intercede and try to get the time for him to get an answer in. 

Mr. Mazey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have forgotten where we were now, and can you restate the ques- 
tion ? 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr, Mazey. Senator Mundt, I started to reply to this question by 
stating that the speech I made on Novemeber 17, 1954, was referring 
to the Community in Sheboygan. Under your questioning last Friday, 
I said that I diet not place judges in this category, because I thought 
that judges had to be impartial. We can't have decent law unless we 
have impartial judges. 

Now, there are a lot of people throughout the country who are im- 
partial between labor and management. There must be several thou- 
sand lawyers and doctors, and professors who make a living as arbitra- 
tors, and in working out contractual matters. 

We have several full-time arbitrators with the union and company 
jointly paid for in our relationship with the General Motore Corp., 
and the Ford Motor Co., and with the Chrysler Corp., and several 
hundred others. 

These people we consider are impartial, and they are the people who 
can be objective in dealing with these questions, and who have per- 
formed a real service in maintaining the good labor-management rela- 
tions over the years. 

Now, all oi these companies have accepted arbitration but the 
Kohler Co. thinks everybody is out of line and out of step but them- 
selves and they won't accept arbitration. We think our proposal is 
sound, and it is just. 

When I said a moment ago, going back over all of the things that 
have happened 4 years, I don't think, contributes to the solution of 
our problem. I think it reopens old wounds, and it is causing unrest 
in the community, where a lot of the unrest is now behind us, and I 



9036 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

just question whether or not any real purpose is served by a con- 
tinuation and rehash of these matters. 

If you want to do it, 1 am willing to spend the afternoon or all 
week with you on this question. But I say that the quickest way to 
bring this thing to a head is for the company to agree to our proposal 
to arbitrate this matter and let us get this one behind us. 

Senator Mundt. If the company wouhl arbitrate with you now it 
would make no difference to this committee. We have a job to do to 
find out whether there was violence, and whether there was distortion 
of fact, and the questions we are asking are not going to who is right 
on the strike 

JNIr. Mazey. I think we have already proven that. 

Senator Mundt. But I think — now who is inten-upting ? 

Mr. Mazey, I am sorry, I beg your pardon. 

Senator Mundt. I think that your counsel can advise you on that. 

Mr. Mazey. I beg your pardon, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now I don't know where I was. 

There was a matter of arbitration. I take it now, then, that this 
afternoon you want to restrict this statement that you made earlier, 
that you are either for us or against us, so that in matters dealing with 
the strike situation, Mr. Mazey now says that everybody has to be for 
us or against us in the community in which the strike takes place, and 
not necessarily beyond that, is that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt — — 

Senator Mundt. You can't have it both ways. You have to liave 
it one way or the other. 

Mr. Mazey. May I answer now ? 

Senator Mundt. You may. 

Mr. Mazey. All right. Senator Mundt, in the speech which I made, 
I stand on the speech. It may be if you work it down in details every- 
body has to be with you or against you, and if you work it out in spe- 
cifics you might find something wrong with the statement, but I think 
the statement generally is correct. 

The fact remains that there are a lot of impartial people throughout 
the country that they could help adjudicate the matters in dispute 
between the union and the company. I see nothing wrong with the 
statement I made, and once more I appeal, and I would like to suggest 
to this committee that maybe we can get Mr. Herbert Kohler to sit 
before this microphone, and we have never been able to get him before 
a single set of negotiations in the 4 years of our controversy. 

Maybe he can speak for the company. Maybe he will agree to arbi- 
tration. Maybe he is as tired of this wrangle and fighting as we are. 
But I started to say. Senator ISIundt, that you made a statement to the 
effect that even if we could settle the strike, that we still continue these 
hearings, and you have to look into violence and so on. 

I think the record ought to show that we have been charged and 
accused by the company and by some other people in public life that 
we were guilty of 800 acts of vandalism. The' record has shown 
through the testimony of Mr. Desmond, one of the company's attor- 
neys, there has not been a single union person arrested or convicted 
for these acts of vandalism. 

Senator Mundt. You are getting very forgetful. 

Mr. Mazey. I am not getting very forgetful. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9037 

Senator Mundt. I am going to remind you of something that you 
forgot. 

Mr. Mazet. Go ahead. 

Senator Mundt. The record clearly shows that one of your em- 
ployees, imported from Detroit working in Sheboygan, not only was 
arrested and accused but convicted and went to jail and consequently 
got from you a great denunciation of the clergy and the doctors and the 
lawyers and the courts because Vinson, working for you, kicked a poor 
little fellow weighing about 120 pounds, and as a consequence went 
off to jail. 

Mr.' Mazet. Senator Mundt 

Senator Mr NOT. That was admitted testimony. 

Mr. Mazet. That statement is incorrect. First of all, Vinson was 
not an employee of the international union. I so testified. His salary 
was paid 

Senator Mundt. A\niere was his home ? 

Mr. Mazet. I will answer all of the points that you made, sir, if 
you will give me a chance. Mr. Vinson's salary was paid by local 212, 
a local that I happen to be a member of and very proud of being a 
member of. It was not paid by the International Union and therefore 
your charge that he was an employee of the International Union is 
false. 

On the question of his being imported, I testified the other day that 
there were four ])eople from the local union, sent into Sheboygan. He 
was not imported. We have as much right to have people go from 
Detroit to Sheboygan as Senator Goldwater has to come to Detroit 
and make speeches against us. 

Senator Mundt. I was not charging he was imported. 

Mr. Mazet. You may have made this point, "imported," as though 
there was something wrong with it. 

Senator Mundt. I just said "imported." 

Mr. Mazet. Haven't we got one country. Senator, and isn't it pos- 
sible to go from one State to the other? You use Wisconsin cheese, 
and I can't see why we can't visit our friends in Wisconsin. 

Senator Mundt. I said he was imported and you haven't denied that. 

Mr. Mazet. That way 3^ou state it, the kind of emphasis that you 
give to the word "imported," you are trying to leave the impression 
that there is something sinister here, and something is wrong. 

Senator Goldwater referred to them as my goons, and my thugs. 
And I resented that the other day and I still resent it. We did not do 
any importing. 

Now, as to Vinson's act, I testified the other day that I am not happy 
what took ]3lace there. It is an unfortunate thing. But in the emo- 
tions of a strike such as this, when people are drinking in beer gardens, 
a lot of things happen that should not happen. 

But the fact remains that things that happened in beer gardens in 
Sheboygan happened in beer gardens in South Dakota, and in Ari- 
zona, and elsewhere, and in Detroit. I am not happy about what has 
taken place. 

Xow, as to my criticism of the judge, I think that I have a right 
with judges whether Supreme Court judges or ordinary circuit court 
judges, they are not above criticism. I think what is happening here, 
Senator ISIundt. is that the people are trying to deny me the right of 
speaking out against injustice when I think injustice has taken place. 



9038 IMPROPER actwitip:s in the labor field 

Judges are not above criticism. I will criticize any judge, be he a 
circuit judge, or Supreme Court judge, if I think an injustice has been 
done somebody. 

That is the only point I make. 

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

Senator Mundt. I think, Mr. Mazey, that the record is abundantly 
clear that you are not at all hesitant about criticizing judges, clergy- 
men, lawyers, and others 

Mr. Mazey. Let's get the clergymen thing straight a moment. I 
didn't pick a fight with the clergy in Sheboygan. I wasn't criticizing 
the clergy. They picked a fight with me. 

I didn't adopt the resolution. They did. My speech that I made on 
November 17 clearly explains my position. Unfortunately the other 
day with all of the cross-examination of the three Republican Senators 
who were here, you tried to put words in my mouth as to what my 
attitude is. Sir, I resent that kind of questioning. I think it was 
unfair. 

Senator Mundt, I think the record is pretty clear concerning what 
you had to say on that subject, Mr. Mazey. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I think the record is clear, too. Let's let it rest 
there. 

Senator Mundt. If you want to go into that, we can open it up 
again. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't want to open it up, no. 

Senator Mundt. We were talking about Mr. Vinson. You said you 
didn't like my emphasis on the use of the word "imported." 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. But, anyhow, Mr. Vinson, working with you in 
the strike area, living in Detroit, doing his kicking and beating up 
in Sheboygan 

Mr. Mazey. He didn't kick anybody. He testified here he didn't 
kick anyone. 

Senator Mundt. 'Wliatever he did, he went to jail. 

Mr. Mazey. But you made the charge he kicked someone, and he 
didn't kick anyone. On behalf of Mr. Vinson I object to your making 
a false statement. 

The Chairman. The testimony is controversial with respect to 
whether he kicked or didn't kick. One might have the opinion that 
the fellow who said he kicked was telling the truth, and the other one 
might have the opinion that the one who said he was kicked wasn'^ 
telling the truth. 

Each is entitled to his viewpoint. 

Mr. Mazey. May I make a comment, Mr. Mundt ? 

Senator Mundt. About the kicking ? 

Mr. Mazey. No. Mr. Vinson testified under oath that he didn't do 
any kicking. He also testified that he paid his penalty to society. I 
don't think we ought to kick Vinson around. He has paid his penalty, 
he made a mistake, he admitted it. Why keep kicking him around? 

Senator Mundt. My purpose in mentioning him was to point out 
something else he testified to. He also testified that his attorney fees 
were paid for by the UAW, by Mr. Mazey's check. 

Mr. Mazey. No, he did not testify to that. 

Senator Mundt. He did. 



rMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9039 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, I am not a betting man. 

Senator Mundt, He said he was out on bail, and I asked who paid 
the bail, and he said it must have been the UAW. He didn't pay it. 

Mr. Mazf.y. I am not a betting man, but I am willing to bet you 
$20 now that Mr. Vinson did not testify that the UAW paid his at- 
torney fees. I testified to that. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you a question. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not going to hold stakes in a matter 
such as that. 

Senator Mundt. Can you categorically deny that the UAW paid 
the attorney fees ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt 

Senator Mundt. That is a question. 

Mr. Mazey. I am denying nothing. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, let me get an answer. I asked the 
witness can he categorically deny that the UAW paid the attorney's 
fees for Mr. Vinson. 

Yes, or no ? 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Mundt, that is an unfair question and it is stated 
improperly. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the International UAW ? 

Senator Mundt. Right. 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Mr. Mazey. I will answer it, but I wouldn't answer it "Yes" or "No." 
I testified the other day, and I did this freely, you didn't have to ask 
me any questions, I testified the other day that we paid Mr. Vinson's 
attorney's fees. It wasn't Vinson that testified to that effect. I. did it. 

Senator Mundt. I am glad to have it in the record. 

Mr. Mazey. It was in the record before, if you were listening, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I think it was. I think I heard Mr. Vinson say it. 

Mr. Mazey. No, you didn't. 

Senator Mundt. How about his bail ? Did the UAW pay his bail ? 

Mr. Mazey. I made a statement the other day that if any bails were 
paid, if any fines were paid, if any attorney's fees were paid of any- 
body who was arrested in relation to the strike, that the International 
Union UAW paid it, and I repeat that statement today. 

Senator Mundt. Which gets back to prove that when I said you 
had a very good forgettery this afternoon, you were forgetting first 
class. 

Mr. Mazey. I wasn't forgetting. I testified to that the other day. 

Senator Mundt. Today you said there was nothing in the record. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, you just check the record. I haven't said 
anything different today than I said the other day. If there is any- 
one who is forgetting, it is just you. 

Senator Mundt. I have a question going to your basic philosophy, 
and then I will yield the floor. The union wanted to talk to non- 
strikers whenever they could to try to persuade them to stay out of the 
plant and join up with the strike, right? 

Mr. Mazey. Right. It is just the same as we talk to Republicans to 
try to convince them to vote for good Democratic candidates. It is 
the same business. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure you do. Would it have been equally 
right and proper for the company to talk to strikers to try and per- 



9040 imprope;r activities in the labor field 

suade them to leave the strike and go back to the plant, or is it free 
speech just one way? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not sure that they have that right. I think they 
did it. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be equally proper and right ? I am ask- 
ing you. 

Mr. Mazey. I think it would be. 

Senator Mundt. We will close on this happy note of agreement, 
temporarily. 

Mr. Mazey. I am glad we can agree on something, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, to get into another phase, I have 
read your constitution as carefully as I could and I want to say that it 
is a very complete constitution, and from what I have seen of other 
constitutions, in the union movement it could possibly serve as an 
example. I have noticed during the years, say the last 5 years or so, 
that the executives of the UAW have a very high regard for their con- 
stitution. Am I correct in that ? 

Mr. Mazey. We do have, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. What do you have in your ethical practices 
code, if any, and I am not sure that you have, regarding violations of 
your UAW-CIO constitution ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, in the constitution itself, there are several 
methods in which violations of the constitution can be dealt with. On 
the local-union level, a member of the local union has a right to bring 
charges against a fellow member of the union or an officer of the 
union, if he feels that he has violated the constitution. 

The international executive board itself can initiate charges against 
members of the local union and ajrainst officers and members of the 
executive board itself if thej'^ feel that there have been violations of 
the constitution. We have a procedure, under the constitution, where 
a trial committee is selected from among the delegates at the last con- 
vention. Each of the parties, they pull out 50 names from among 
those who were delegates of the convention, the party being charged 
and the party making the charges having peremptory challenges, and 
they finally wind up Muth a jury to make a decision on the trial 
machinery. We also have a provision that if any member on the 
local-union level feels that he has been unjustly treated as a result 
of a trial or some other action of the union, he has a right to appeal 
before the international executive board. If the international execu- 
tive board acts upon his appeal, and he is still dissatisfied, he has two 
avenues to follow : He can take the matter to a convention and appeal 
it directly to the convention, in that, or he can take the matter to a 
public review board. We have a public review board, I believe, of 
seven members, of some clergy and other members, whether or not he 
has a riglit to appeal. 

Senator Goldwater. You do have mechanics whereby people who 
violate the constitution can be punished, and I understand then some 
people have been punished. I cannot recall the names, but I under- 
stand somebody in connection with the Toledo union was dismissed in 
connection with violation of the constitution. Are you in agreement 
that the constitution must always be followed to the letter, regardless 
of motive ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9041 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; I tliink I am. There is one provision in the con- 
stitution, in the instalhition ceremonies, swearing the officers in, that 
states that, if any problems come up that are not covered in the con- 
stitution, we are directed to use commonsense in dealing with those 
problems. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey, without having to go through it 
all, are your duties described by the constitution ? 

Mr. Mazey, Are our duties what ? 

Senator Goldwater. Are your duties described by the constitution ? 

Mr. Mazey. Do you mean prescribed ? 

Senator Goldwater, Prescribed and described ; yes. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; they are prescribed by the constitution, some of 
my duties. 

Senator Goldwater, What procedures do you follow in making 
disbursements ? 

Mr. Mazey. What procedures do 1 follow in making disbursements? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. 

Mr. Mazey. We make disbursements on the basis of vouchers. 

Senator Goldwater. Pardon ? 

Mr. Mazey. We make disbursements on the basis of vouchers. 

Senator Goldwater, Do you have executive board meetings for 
large expenditures ? 

Mr, Mazey, Probably the single largest expenditure that we have, 
Senator, is the — probably the single largest expenditure we have is our 
payroll, and the international executive board decides who the mem- 
bers of the staff will be, also decides the salary of the staff. Once that 
decision is made, that is authorization for me to pay their salaries; 
that is the largest expenditure. If we were buying a building, and 
we decided to spend $2 million for a building, this would be a matter 
that I would not act on by myself, but I w^ould take it to the executive 
board for action. 

Senator Goldwater. That is, an^^thing outside of the normal role 
of payrolls, like the acquisition of buildings, or property or equip- 
ment, et cetera ; do you take that to the executive board ? 

Mr. Mazey. The executive board has a number of policies that pre- 
scribe my duties and my functions. For example, we have spent over 
$10 million on strike activities in the Koliler situation. It is not 
necessary for me to take every one of these expenditures to the execu- 
tive board, even though they may be large expenditures. The execu- 
tive board adopted a strike-assistance program, and I am delegated, 
with the administrative responsibility, to carry that program out. 

Senator Goldwater. I can understand the necessity for that. I 
am talking about the expenditures that would be outside of the nor- 
mal expenditures of operating the union. 

Mr. Mazey. I have a great amount of latitude, such as . 

Senator Goldwater. You mentioned the purchases of buildings, 
and I know that unions are purchasing buildings. On real estate, 
would the executive board be consulted on that, or do you have carte 
blanche approval to spend what you want ? 

Mr. Mazey, No. The executive board would be consulted on that. 
But there are a lot of areas in which I have a great deal of discretion. 

Senator Goldwater. What responsibilities does the president have 
in connection with these expenditures ? 



9042 IMPRiaPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. The president ? 

Senator GoLDWATER. Yes. 

Mr. Mazey. Under the terms of the constitution, the president is 
supposed to approve, is supposed to countersign, the checks on any 
of the bills that I pay. 

Senator Goldwater. During the cross-examination by Senator 
Mundt, I believe you said — and I may be not exactly right on this, 
so you can put it in any language that you feel was the language that 
you used — you said the use of an informer is reprehensible. 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. What is your interpretation of an informer 
versus a friend ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator, you are now getting into the area, and from the 
questions you asked me, I assume you are talking about the inves- 
tigator we had in the Reuther shooting. Is that what you leading to ? 

Senator Goldwater. I think we are getting to that, yes. 

Mr. Mazey. Why don't we get to it, and I will tell you about it ? 

Senator Goldwater. You tell me what an informer is and then 
we will get into it. 

Mr. Mazey. An informer is someone you hire to spy for you. 

Senator Goldwater. A man that you pay for information. 

Mr. Mazey. A man you pay for information ? That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Whereas if it was a friend, who came to you 
and said, "Here is some information you ought to have," he would be a 
friend of the union and you would take his information ? 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. But an informer is one that you pay ? 

To put all of your high motives together, satisfy your conscience 
in the instance of Donald Ritchie whom you agreed to pay $25,000 to 
and you have paid $5,000 to. Mr. Rauh, instead of just speaking to 
him, would you speak up so I could have the benefit of what you said ? 

Mr. Rauh. I said take it easy. Don't get angry at that outrageous 
question. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, I anticipated your question. I 
am prepared to answer it in detail. 

Senator Goldwater. Before you open your book, how do you satisfy 
your conscience as to the statements you made about not paying in- 
formers, and you agreed to pay a man $25,000 for information, and 
then paid him $5,000. I don't think you paid him the other $20,000. 
How do you square that up with Emil Mazey as he goes to bed at night 
and says "What have I done wrong" ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, it will take quite a while to answer 
your question. 

Senator Goldwater. It will not take long to answer that at all. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, it will. 

I think you ought to have all the facts. I will not let you put 
me in the position of just answering part of it. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you suggesting that you are going to tell 
the Senate committee how we are going to ask questions? Are you 
suggesting that ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, there have been people who have 
taken the stand and used the fifth amendment. I don't know any 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9043 

amendment that stops me from giving you all the information on 
a given subject matter that you ought to have. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't know any either. But I think you 
ought to state "Yes" or "No" first. 

The Chairman. State the question again. 

Senator Goldwai-er. I asked Mr. Mazey how he could square the 
remarks he made relative to saying that the use of an informer is 
reprehensible when he has agreed to pay an informer $25,000. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, to 

The Chairman. Have you agreed to pay an informer $25,000? 

Mr. Mazey. I have not. And I would like to explain this matter, 
if I may. 

Senator Goldwater, You are under oath, Mr. Mazey. 

Mr. Mazey. I am under oath. 

The Chairman. The Chair will permit you to make a brief explana- 
tion. Proceed. 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, on April 
20, 1948, an attempt was made on the life of Walter Reuther. About 
a year later, 1949, an attempt was made on Walter Reuther's brother, 
Victor, and an attempt was made on his life. He lost one eye in this 
matter. On June 6, 1949, the international executive board adopted a 
resolution offering a reward of $200,000 leading to the arrest and 
conviction of the people who tried to murder Victor Reuther. 

We adopted another resolution on July 7, 1949, and adopted a resolu- 
tion at our convention on July 10, 1949. I spoke to that convention 
on all of the steps that we had taken to trying to find the people who 
attempted to murder Walter Reuther. 

During 1949, we were unhappy with the progress of the investiga- 
tions by the Detroit Police Department, and, as a result, we hired two 
investigators of our own. One of the investigators used to be chief in- 
vestigator for the LaFoUette committee. Col. Heben Blankenhorn, and 
he used to be on the general staff of General Eisenhower, and also on 
the general staff with General Pershing. On his recommendation we 
hired another investigator by the name of Ralph Winstead. 

Senator Goldwater. You have not answered the question. 

Mr. Mazey. I am answering the question. 

Senator Goldwater. You have not even 

Mr. Mazey. I am answering the question. Senator Goldwater, if you 
will give me a chance. 

Senator Goldwater. No, you are not. 

Let me put it another way to satisfy the chairman and to satisfy me 
and then we can get into this thing if you want to. On or about the 
22d of December 1953, did you ask the disbursing officer of the UAW 
to write a check for $25,000 to be drawn from the general fund of the 
UAW? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I did. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. Who was that check to be made 
payable to ? 

Mr. Mazey. The check was to be made payable to an attorney by the 
name of Moran, in the city of Windsor, Ontario, to be placed in escrow 
as part of a reward arrangement that the union had worked out in 
trying to find the killers of Walter Reuther. 

Senator Goldwater. Wliat account did you charge that check to ? 

Mr. Mazey. I charged it to the general account. 



9044 IMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Did you hold an executive board meeting to 
discuss the spending of $25,000? 

Mr. Mazey, I did not. 

Senator Goldwater. Why didn't you ? 

Mr. Mazey. If I may be permitted, Mr. Chairman, I was getting to 
this very point in what I was saying before being germane to this 
question. 

The Chatrman. Go ahead, if you can, and answer 

Senator Goldwater. Before we get into this lengthy 

The Chairman. I asked him to go ahead and state it. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater. after we issued a reward of $200,- 
000, approved by the convention, we had information in 1953 that Mr. 
Ritchie had some information as to the Reuther shooting. He told 
the prosecuting attorney of Wayne County in the presence of our in- 
vestigator that he was present at the Walter Reuther shooting and 
could name the people who took part in the shooting. He was dissatis- 
fied with the provisions of our reward oifer, and he said at the point 
that lie would testify he was afraid he would get knocked off by the 
underworld, and he wanted certain changes in the reward offer that 
would make it possible for him to testify and to protect his widow in 
the event he got killed by the gangsters who shot Walter Reuther. 

As a result of the statement by Mr. Ritchie — and it might be of 
some interest to you, ]Mr. Senator, that there is a four and a half mil- 
lion dollar lawsuit against the union and me in Detroit. On this very 
question I spent five and a half days on cross-examination, not nearly 
as bad as what I am going through with you, in this trial, and I ex- 
plained this whole procedure. 

The reward offer that was made, and I have it here, I have the agree- 
ment we made with the Crown Trust Co. and Donald R. Moran — pro- 
vided that if Mr. Ritchie gave a statement to the prosecuting attorney 
in the presence of police that would lead to the issuing of a warrant 
on the people involved in the Walter Reuther shooting, that at the 
point that a warrant was issued, he would get $5,000. 

The offer also provided that if these people were brought to trial, 
that liis wife would get $10,000. 

I made a mistake a moment ago. He wouldn't get the $5,000 but his 
wife would <ret the $5,000. If the people were brought to trial, his 
wife would get an additional $10,000. If thev were convicted, there 
would be an additional $10,000 paid to his wife, a total of $25,000. 

(At this point, Ser.ator McNamara left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Mazet. The agreement also provides that in the event the re- 
ward offer, which is in the hands of a judge, a councilman, and a Cath- 
olic priest, that if they gave him any part of the $200,000 reward 
money, that any moneys that we gave ^Ir. Ritchie's wife under this 
agreement would be subtracted from the reward money. 

That Avas the purpose of the agreement, to try to solve the attempted 
murder of Walter and Victor Reuther. As to why I had tliis authori- 
zation for tlie check made I anticipated you woidd ask this, because 
Mr. McGovern was in the courtroom one day while I was testifyino- on 
this question. '^ 

I testified in court and I will testify here that the authorization— I 
had a memo dictated. I think it was dictated by my administrative 
assistant, at that time Tony Strommer, to the effect to pay a check to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9045 

Donald R. Moran for $25,000 for the purchase of property in Canada. 
Why did I take this ])recaution ? I took this precaution because the 
the underworld in my opinion had contacts inside my union. 

The only way I could ]:>rotect the life of Ritchie and the only way I 
could try to brin^ a solution to this matter was to make certain that 
nobody outside of a few of us, nobody had any knowledge as to what 
the transaction was. 

A gangster by the name of Santa Perrone made a contact with a 
former board member of our union, Nelson Bishop, a man I succeeded 
as a member of tlie international board. They had an arrangement 
which permitted the contract to expire with the Detroit Stove Co., and 
Mr. Bishop and Perrone were found shining deer, and they were both 
arrested and convicted of shining deer, and when you have one experi- 
ence of the underworld worming its way into your organization, you 
take precautions on matters as important as this. That is the story on 
the matter. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you very nmch, Mr. Mazey. Now, you 
have held that your union's finances are conducted in a proper way. 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. They have been. 

Senator Goldwater. You have testified in effect that your consti- 
tution spells out how these payments shall be handled. You said you 
operate on vouchers, and that if you have a large investment for real 
estate or for buildings, which is outside the normal routine of a union 
operation, that you hold an executive board meeting. You didn't do 
it in this case. 

Mr. Mazey. That is correct, I didn't. ' 

Senator Goldwater. The check was not made out to the person 
for whom the check was intended, but it was made out for real estate 
in Canada. 

I am glad you supplied the information with respect to the shoot- 
ing of Mr. Reuther, nobody likes that. It is reprehensible when things 
are done on anyone, whether they be management or union, or what 
not. But you took the point — you can speak up, Mr. Rauh, I can't 
hear you very well. 

AYhat were you trying to tell him ? 

Mr. Mazey. I can hear you, Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. No, unless he is giving you some legal advice, 
I think he is a little bit out of bounds. 

Mr. Mazey. Nobody has to give me advice. I can handle this my- 
self, Mr. Goldwater. 

Mr. Rat7H. I have been continually saying "Don't get angry." 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make that official. 

Don't get angry. 

Mr. Mazey. Does somebody have a tranquilizer pill ? 

Senator Goldwater. I will continue. You have taken it on your- 
self to go around your constitution, when you haA^e testified as to 
your intention of sticking with this constitution and the fact that you 
have actually had members tossed out of your union for going against 
the constitution, and I think that is a good idea, frankly. 

If you write a constitution, it ought to be adhered to. You shouldn't 
be finding loopholes in it. While T can only speak from what has 
been reported as trial evidence, I believe you used the language in 

2124:!— .58— nt. 22 20 



9046 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

answering Mr. Louisell, "I have authority to do anything I want 
to do." 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, I don't know what context Mr. 
McGovern got that information for you, as I told you, I spent five 
and a half days on the witness stand. One of the people that was 
named by Mr. Ritchie as having been the payoff person in the attempt 
on Walter Reuther's life has brought a lawsuit of four and a half 
million dollars against the union and against me, I testified, and I 
testified freely and honestly in this court proceedings. One of the 
things I testified to was that the action of the reward was approved 
by a convention of the international union that was held in the city 
of Milwaukee on July 10, 1949. I reported to the convention, and the 
resolution was adopted, I reported to the convention the steps that 
we had taken to proctet the life of Walter and Victor Reuther. I 
spel led the matter out in detn i I . 

Sena^^or Goldwater. Mr, Mazey 

Mr. Mazey. I would like to at this time, just to clear the record 
and make sure that you know that I had authority to make this ar- 
rangement on the $25,000 reward, I would like to read the resolution 
that was adopted at this convention, and my remarks explaining the 
resolution. 

It was adopted by unanimous vote of duly elected delegates by secret 
ballot. I was completely in line in making this arrangement for 
$25,000. If I had the authority to spend $200,000 in reward money, I 
certainly had the authority to spend $25,000, 

Senator Goldwater. Did you discuss this before the executive board 
before you caused a check to be written or after you caused a check 
to be written ? 

Mr. Mazey. I discussed it with the executive board after I made 
the arrangements. The very nature of trying to find out who shot 
Walter and Victor Reuther was a matter that you didn't hold a mass 
meeting to make decisions on. I was given authority by the officers 
of the union to use my judgment in trying to bring to justice the people 
who attempted to assassinate Walter and Victor Reuther. 

Senator Goldwater, Are these minutes a matter of union record ? 

Mr. Mazey. The minutes of the approval of my 

Senator Goldwater. Of the executive board meeting that you held 
after the check was written. 

Mr. Mazey. No. I testified in court that this was an executive ses- 
sion and we didn't keep minutes of the matter. Walter Reuther also 
testified in the same court matter that this action was approved. Now, 
I have three resolutions here which I have referred to, including a con- 
vention resolution, where I have this authority. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr, Mazey, doesn't section 10 of article XII 
start out by saying, "Verbatim minutes shall be taken at all meetings 
of the international executive board" ? 

Mr. Mazey, That is the same question that Mr. Louisell, the attorney 
for Mr. Renda asked me. 

Senator Goldwater. I am glad to find out some of this legal pro- 
cedure. Can you give me an answere to that ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. The constitution does talk about verbatim min- 
utes. 

Senator Goldwater. Why didn't you follow the constitution? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9047 

Mr. Mazey. Because we, when we are dealing? with a matter that 
affects the life of our union, we ^o off the order in executive session, 
the same as you went into executive session the other day on matters 
relating to this hearing. 

Were they made public ? 

Senator Goldwater. We make records. 

Senator Mundt. To keep the record straight, Mr. Chairman, I read 
that in the paper this morning, and the motion to make the meetings 
public was made by Senator McNamara, and seconded by Senator 
Goldwater, and I said that I was in favor of it. 

To the contrary notwitlistanding, it is wrong. 

Mr. Mazey. liet's get the question of verbatim records straight. 

The Chairman. That motion was made one day and voted on an- 
other. 

The record shows how eacli member voted. If anybody wants to 
make public how they voted, I don't care. Bear this in mind. There 
are times, of course, when the business should be transacted in execu- 
tive session, and it is quite proper. 

I don't know about your executive sessions but there are minutes 
of the executive sessions where we hold sessions, I can assure you. 
Not only minutes, out there is a record of the conversation had, the 
arguments made, and the motions and so forth. 

Mr. Mazey. In that particular case, on verbatim records, I want 
to answer your question. Senator Goldwater. We did not keep ver- 
batim minutes. We went into executive session. We didn't keep rec- 
ords because of the nature of the matter. For example, when we 
are sitting down and talking about tactics and strategy in our collec- 
tive bargaining, this is a matter that we don't keep verbatim minutes 
on either. I am pretty sure it would be quite easy for General Motors, 
Ford, or Chrysler or somebody else to pick up a copy of our verbatim 
minutes and they would know exactly what we were planning. 

Senator Goldwater, Don't you think in view of that that the con- 
stitution, as good as I think it is, might be tightened so that you would 
not have the authority to do pretty much what you want to, as it is ob- 
vious that you have, with not only the funds but with the minutes 
of these meetings ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Goldwater, my action in this matter of 1953 
has been approved unanimously by the delegates to our conventions 
on two occasions. I was elected by unanimous action without any op- 
position in 1955. I was elected without any opposition in 1957, and 
the newspapers were full of this stuff. We had the story in our own 
paper, The Auto Worker, and the members knew that I had made this 
reward arrangement, I wasn't buying information from informers, 
that I had made this arrangement as a means of trying to solve the 
Reuther shootings. If I had to do it again tomorrow, I would do ex- 
actly the same thing. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all, Mr, Chairman, 

The Chairman, Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt, Does some other members of the committee have 
any questions? 

The Chairman. The Chair will have some when everyone else has 
concluded. 

Senator Mundt. Echoing the profound legal advice of your de- 
lightful counsel, Mr. Mazey, don't get angry, but you just lost $20, 



9048 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazey. You didn't take the bet. 

Senator Mundt. On page 133^^ of the hearing, on March 6, 1958, Mr. 
Vinson was testifying under oath, and Senator Curtis was interrogat- 
ing. He was talking about the Vinson case, and he said to Mr. Vinson : 

How was the case disposed of? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe I got a $25 fine out of it. I never appeared on it. I 
believe I was in Wisconsin Prison when It was disposed of. 
Senator Curtis. Who paid the fine? 
Mr. Vinson. I presume the local or the union did. 
Senator Curtis. The international? 
Mr. Vinson. I presume they did. 
Senator Curtis. What lawyer looked at it? 
Mr. Vinson. Mr. Rabinowitz. 
Senator Curtis. Who paid him ? 
Mr. Vinson. I presume the international. 

You may have testified to the same thing, but Mr. Vinson clearly 
testified to that fact. 

Mr. Mazey. This had nothing to do with the question of the beer- 
garden brawl. He was testifying to another incident. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. I said his counsel was paid, his 
fine was paid, and his bail was paid by the UAW. 

Mr. Mazey. Mr. A' inson said he presumed that the International 
did. I made a positive statement on Friday that we paid it, and I 
made the same statement today. 

Senator Mundt. Your wager wasn't called. Let your conscience be 
your guide. 

If you think you lost it, I suggest you send a check for $25 to the 
Red Cross. If you can weasel out of it, keep the money. 

Mr. Mazey. But you didn't take the bet. 

The Chairman. Let's go ahead with the questioning. 

Senator Mundt. To be more specific, on March 7, I asked you a lot 
of questions, Mr. Mazey, to discover whether tlie UAW or its officers 
or any of its locals were using illegal methods or devices or tactics in 
their attempted boycott of the products of the Kohler Co. 

I believe you can recall that colloquy. In the course of your replies 
to my statements, you said that there were three cases in which the 
NLRB intervened in tlie Kohler boycott situation, in which the union 
stipulated that it would obey the Taft-Hartley law and refrain from 
any illegal conduct in pursuance of the boycott. 

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

Senator Mundt. In your testimony on Friday, you referred to those 
three cases in which the NLRB intervened in the Kohler boycott, and 
in which according to you, your union stipulated or agreed to obey the 
Taft-Hartley Act, and do nothing illegal in carrying on the boycott 
against Kohler. 

To refresh your memory, as I recall it, you identified those cases, 
one being in Los Angeles County, the Essersheen Institution, or some- 
thing of that kind, the second was the Jackson-Link Co. up in Jackson, 
Mich., and what was the third one ? 

Mr. Mazey. The third one was in Milwaukee, Wis. 

Senator Mundt. This third was in Milwaukee, Wis. What was the 
name of that case ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't recall the name, but T have the folder here. 
I thought we Avere through with the boycott. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 9049 

Mr. Rauh. We have a long memorandum we have been working on. 
We didn't have much time over the weekend, Senator, but we did get 
one ready. I am sure by morning I can submit it to you. I just have 
some handwriting at the moment. 

Senator Mundt. Well, at the moment it is not so important, if you 
can't recall the name, Mr. Mazey. Let me ask you this question : 
The Milwaukee case, is that 1 of the 3 that you referred to in your 
testimony last Friday '? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I referred to the Milwaukee case. I am trying 
to find the name of it. You asked me for the name. It was some 
importer of clay. The Paper Makers Importing Co., I am told is 
the name. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Did you find the name ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Mazey. The name of the case, Senator — I have here a stipula- 
tion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin, Ross M. Madden, regional director of the lr3th Region of 
the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National 
Labor Relations Board as the petitioner, against the international 
union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America, Local 833, International Union United Auto- 
mobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 
Local 2 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
Employees, A. F. of L., Milwaukee County District Council No. 48, 
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 
A. F. of Jj., and Local 139, International Union of Operating Engi- 
neers, A. F. of L., as respondents. 

Senator Mundt. I have some questions on that, because I would still 
like to have you spend this $20. I want the record to be abundantly 
clear. You called my attention to the fact that the questions I read 
to you might have dealt with some other case, because a $25 fine was 
involved. 

Mr. Mazey. A what? 

Senator Mundt. A $25 fine was involved. 

Mr. Mazey. There was no fine involved in the Milwaukee case. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about the case that you wanted to 
make a wager on, on your testimony of that. On page 1286 of the 
record, Mr. Vinson was asked a question about Mr. Rabinowitz, by 
Senator Curtis : 

Is he an attorney to the UAW? 
Mr. Vinson. He is. 

This is the case dealing with Mr. Van Ouwerkerk, if that is wdiat 
you call the Beer Garden case. 
Mr. Mazey. I believe it is. 
Senator INIundt. 

Senator Curtis. Was he at that time? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Senator Curtis. Did they provide you with your defense? 

Mr. Vinson. They did. 

Senator Curtis. Did you pay any of it yourself? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They paid both attorneys? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume they did. 

Senator Curtis. There was an appeal taken? 



9050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Cuktis. And the appeal was decided against you? 
Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; it was. 
Senator Curtis. How long a time did you serve? 
Mr. Vinson. ISVj months. 

Senator Curtis. And you say you did break his ribs? 

Mr. Vinson. I presume I broke his ribs. He testified in court that they were 
broken. 

So I want it to be abundantly clear that Mr. Vinson, regardless of 
what you may have said, and you may have corroborated it, that Mr. 
Vinson did testify that in that case the counsel was paid for by the 
UAW. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, if you will leave Vinson alone from 
now on, I will be glad to give you the $20 right now. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want it. Give it to the Red Cross. 

Now, you testified on page 1476 in response to my question. I 
asked you this : 

Has the NLRB General Counsel issued a complaint against your present 
Kohler boycott? 

Mr. Mazey. They have not. 
Senator Mundt. They have not? 
Mr. Mazey. No. 

Do you want to let that stand in the record M^ithout correction ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. I don't believe a complaint was issued. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mazey. I am advised by our attorney that no complaint was 
processed by the general counsel for the NLRB. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mazey. There was a temporary injunction in Milwaukee but 
no complaint was processed. 

Senator Mundt. Are you aware of the fact that this case, and this 
was the Paper Makers Importing Co., I believe 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. General Counsel issued a complaint against Kohler 
Local 833 of the International UAW, as well as several other unions, 
for violation of the secondary boycott ban of the Taft-Hartley Act be- 
cause of your union activities in carrying out the boycott ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am told that no complaint was issued. Senator. I 
think we are now getting involved in some legal language. 

Senator Mundt. We are getting involved in your testimony as to 
whether it was accurate that it didn't happen. 

Mr. Mazey. I am advised by my counsel that no complaint was 
issued. 

Senator Mundt. In case you don't know, you testified categorically 
to it the other day, and if you don't know, the complaint was issued 
on August 23, 1955. 

Mr. Rauh. Senator, may I interpose, sir? 

I think there is a confusion in words between a type of complaint 
issued by tlie General Counsel of the NLRB and a complaint that you 
file in a courtroom for a temporary injunction. I tliink it is somewhat 
unfair to go into that kind of a technical distinction with a lay witness. 
I promise you we will file exactly all the legal papers with you to- 
morrow. I think there was no complaint in tlie sense that Mr. Mazey 
used it, a general counsel complaint. If we aie wrong, we will file 
that, too. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9051 

Senator Mundt. You can file what you want to. I am not trying to 
get Mr. Mazey involved in a perjury. I am simply pointing out that 
I asked him some questions the other day and subsequent information 
indicates to me that he gave the wrong answers. He may have given 
the wrong answer because of an abundance of ignorance, not know- 
ing i*- . . . 

I am not accusing him of deliberately trying to misrepresent the 

facts. But from the stories that went out in the papers and the gen- 
eral impression the committee received it was that no complaint had 
been issued. I am trying to straighten it out. 

Are you aware that on the basis of that complaint, Mr. Mazey, the 
NLRB issued a cease and desist order against both local 833 and the 
International UAW directing them to cease and desist from picketing 
and other activities, from engaging in threats and violence, an object 
of which was to induce the two paper companies involved to cease to 
do business with the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Mazf.y. I am not aware of any orders as such being issued by 
the NLRB. We did stipulate that we would obey the law and in our 
stipulation said we had not been violating the law. We did say that. 
But the NLRB did not issue a complaint as you say. Senator, to cease 
and desist. 

The NLRB did not act on this matter. 

Senator Mundt. This is our second go round on this. I don't want 
you to answer it unless you know. Are you prepared, then, to deny 
under oath that a complaint had been issued by the NLRB and a cease 
and desist order issued? I am trying to get the facts. You are iiot a 
lawyer, and I am not a lawyer, but we are struggling with legal terms. 
I want the record to be right. 

Mr. Mazey. First let's define what the NLRB is. The NLRB is a 
National Labor Relations Board, and it has five members. 

You asked me whether they had ordered a cease and desist order 
and I said they did not. This matter never reached the National Labor 
Relations Board. The five Board members never at any time acted 
on this question. I say that very positively. 

Senator Mundt. If you want to say that five of them didn't vote on 
it, that is not my question at all. But did some responsible repre- 
sentative of the NLRB acting at their direction, with his authority, 
issue the cease and desist order ? 

Mr. Rauh. We honestly don't know at this time. I said we would 
file a memorandum in tlie morning. 

Isn't that satisfactory ? 

Senator Mundt. I know that. But I want to get the facts. If your 
witness is unprepared and says "I don't know," all right. I am just 
trying to get him to testify. I am not trying to put words in his mouth. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, I am prepared to this extent, I testi- 
fied the other day, and I quoted a statement issued by our general 
counsel, Harold Cranefield, on August 23, 1955, and I want to read 
that, because I think it will clarify the whole matter. 

The XLRB lipa rings in Sheboygan on numerous unfair hibor practice charges 
filed against Kohler Co. are of infinitely greater importance than the action 
brought against the UAW-CIO by an importer of clay for Kohler Co. 

Those charges Avere charges that took 2 years 7 months to hear, and 
which the National Labor Relations Board now has before it, in which 



9052 IMPROPER ACTIVITIE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

a hearing officer found the Kohler Co. guihy of unfair labor practices. 
The statement goes on : 

If the UAW-CIO contested this action, the inevitable result would be a delay 
in the hearings at Sheboygan so Kohler Co. attorneys could participate in the 
procedures which would result. The goal of the UAW-CIO is not punitive action 
against anyone. Tlie sole concern of the union is in securing a speedy and 
equitable end to the Kohler strike. The hearing in Sheboygan has been going on 
for more than 2 months. Kohler Co. his just begiui to present its defense. Since 
the hearing in Sheboygan can materially affect the outcome of the strike, the 
matter in Milwaukee is of subordinate importance. For the above reasons, the 
UAW-CIO International Union has stipulated that it will abide by the terms of 
the Taft-Hartley Act. 

We do not believe that we have violated any provisions of the Taft-Hartley 
Act, including those provisions relating to secondary boycotts. But we do not 
proposed to delay the case against Kohler merely to defend ourselves against an 
unfounded charge when the only order which the NLRB could enter against us 
in any event would be that we should obey the law. 

We have obeyed the law and intend to continue doing so. It is only logical 
that we should stipulate in court that we will continue to do so. 

That is what we did in Milwaukee, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Now, here was my question on Friday : "Has the 
NLRB General Counsel issued a complaint against your present 
Kohler boycott V and you said they had not. I said, "They have not?" 
and you said, "No." 

Mr. Mazey. I am sorry, Senator. 

Senator INIundt. I did not ask about a five-man vote at that time, 
and I asked about the General Counsel and you said, "No." As a 
matter of fact on August 30, 1955, the Board approved a settlement 
providing for a Board cease-and-desist order and a consent circuit 
court decree. 

Mr. Mazey. If you called the stipulation a cease-and-desist order, 
Senator, then I may agree with you, if that is what you are refer- 
ring to. 

Senator Mundt. Are you aware of the fact, Mr. Mazey, that a cease- 
and-desist order as a matter of fact, is still outstanding against the 
UAW? 

Mr. Mazey. It is not outstanding. We voluntarily agreed to it. 
There was no court order to that effect, and we agreed to stipulate this 
particular question. 

Senator Mundt. It was an NLRB order. 

Mr. Mazey. This was a stipulation. Our attorneys are preparing a 
brief on this matter which will clear up the whole thing, but I have 
read to you our position on this situation. 

Senator Mundt. You had indicated then that there is a significance 
to this type of order, because it was a stipulation agreed to by the 
union, in which the union does not admit its guilt ; is that your posi- 
tion? 

Mr. Mazey. That is right. We admitted no guilt in any of these 
cases. We felt that the processing of the unfair labor practices charges 
against the company was more important than for us to waste our 
time trying to defend ourselves against these silly charges. 

Senator Mundt. Then, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that in this 
particular case the stipulation for settlement, as the NLRB designates 
it, was a formality, resulting in a cease-and-desist order wliich is as 
enforcible in the United States court of appeals as are the orders 
issued by the Board after a complete and formal hearing. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN^ THE LABOR FIELD 9053 

As a matter of fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit sittino^ in Chica^yo, 111., entered a decree enforcino^ the 
NLRB order in this particular case in September of 1955. The only 
difference between tliis Board order and judicial procedure and decree 
and these issued by the NLRB and enforced by the courts after the 
usual liearin^s is that these orders and decrees may not be used in 
evidence in any other proceeding, whereas the customary orders and 
decrees may be used as precedent. 

For all other purposes, in practical effect, they are the same. They 
constitute a findintv and a decision by the NLRB and the court of 
appeals that the UAW in this case violated the Taft-Hartley Act by 
its boycott of Kolder, 

For the benefit of my lawyer friends on the committee and for you 
who are not a lawyer, I am advised 

Mr. Mazey. Can I ask you where that statement is from, and who 
wrote the statement as a le^al o])inion of some kind ? 

Senator Mundt. This was a statement prepared by the staff. For 
the benefit of this nonlawyer and this committee, I am advised that the 
type of order and decree based on a stipulation for settlement is sub- 
stantially equivalent to a plea of nolo contendere by a defendant in a 
criminal case. 

This I dug up for myself : Black's Law Dictionary defines "nolo 
contendere" as follows : I will not contest it in the name of the plea 
as a criminal action, havino; the same legal effect as a plea of guilty 
so far as regards all proceedings on the indictment, on which the de- 
fendant may be sentenced. 

Demurrer admits this plea for the purposes of the case all of the 
facts which are well pleaded, but here I point out the resemblance, 
"It is not to be used as an admission elsewhere." 

I simply wanted to make it plain that regardless of anything to 
the contrary, which you said on Friday, Mr. Mazey, the NLRB and 
the Federal Government have found the International UAW and 
Kohler Local 833 guilty of violating the Taft-Hartley Act in carry- 
ing out their Kohler Co. boycott against the two companies involved 
in this case, and the cease-and-desist order still prevails. 

I was not trying to trap you or trip you into a perjured statement. 
I asked a question in good faith, which I presume you answered in 
good faith, but it did not convey certainly the impression which is 
true, and that is that the NLRB general counsel did issue a complaint 
against the 

Mr. Ratjh. If you have somebody on your staff who says a stipula- 
tion in a civil case is the same as nolle contendere you had better get 
rid of them because they have no relationship whatever, and I appeal 
to Judge Ervin as my authority. 

Senator Mundt. It has the same effect in this case, as a plea of 
nolle contendere. The reason the union did not take a demurrer 
against it is that they elected to end the case. 

Mr. Rauh. On the contrary, a civil stipulation cannot even be used 
in another case and it is a method of settling it and it has nothing 
to do with an admission of guilt and I see the judge is about ready 
to rule and so I am ready to relax. 

The Chairman. Let us make it brief and get onto the matter. 

Senator EmT[N. I was going to say a plea of nolle contendere has 
no effect whatever except in a case in which it is entered. It cannot 



9054 IMPROPER ACTIVITrESl IN THE LABOR FIELD 

be used to prove j^uilt in any other proceeding, but it is only binding 
in the case where it is entered. 

Senator Mdndt. Which is exactly what I said in my statement and 
unless there is any doubt about it I will read it. 

Senator Ervin. Your legal opinion is quite correct, but I believe 
you are using a plea of nolle contendere to prove guilt in this inves- 
tigation, rather than in the case out yonder. 

Senator Mundt. If I may refer to the statement that I read : 

This constitutes a finding and decision of the NLRB in the court of appeals 
that the UAW in this case violated the Taft-Hartley Act by its boycott of 
Kohler. Those orders and decrees may not be used in evidence in any other 
proceeding. 

Senator Ervin. I go so far as to concur with Judge Mundt in his 
definition of the effect of nolle contendere in a criminal case, but fur- 
ther than that I will not commit myself one way or the other. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Mundt. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to clear the 
record on that. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Senator Ervin. I have no further questions. I tliink all of the 
questions have about been asked. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to clear up a few things. 

Just on the shooting that you mentioned earlier, you mentioned 
some names that I would like to get straightened out. There was a Mr. 
Ritchie. 

Mr. Mazey. R-i-t-c-h-i-e ; Donald Ritchie. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had signed a confession initially ; had he ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. He signed a confession that was taken by the 
prosecuting attorney in the presence of police in Detroit, in which he 
said that he rode with Clarence Jacobs and with Pete Lombardo, to 
Walter Reuther's home when Walter Reuther was shot, and he also 
said in his statement that Walter Reuther was shot by Clarence Jacobs, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also state who had instigated the shooting? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; he said the shooting was instigated by Santo Per- 
rone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he? 

Mr. Mazey. Santo Perrone is a gunster in Detroit connected with 
the Detroit Stone Works and he held a contract there. He has a long- 
jail record of convictions and he is the associate of Melvin Bishop, who 
used to be a member of the executive board of UAW, and is now a 
teamster organizer working for Jimmy Hoffa. 

He also said that Carl Renda, who is the son-in-law of Santo Perrone 
was the payoff man and gave him $5,000 for going along on this job. 
Mr. Renda had a scrap contract with the Briggs Manufacturing Co. 
that was worth $168,000 net profit each year and the testimony on the 
scrap contract was revealed by the Kefauver committee hearings in 
Februaiy of 1951. 

It might be of some interest that I appeared before the Kefauver 
committee and I gave testimony on the relationship of gangsters and 
management at that particular hearing. It might be well for the 
committee to look into the matter that was raised by Senator Gold- 
water, because Santo Peronne testified, and Dean Robinson, president 



IMPROPER ACTniTIES IN^ THE LABOR FIELD 9055 

of the Bri^«:s Maimfacturin<i^ Co. testified, and he gave the scrap con- 
tract to Renda, and Renda testified. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the relationship between Perrone and 
Renda ? 

Mr. Mazey. Renda is a son-in-law of Santo Perrone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the investijjation conducted by in Detroit? 
Who was the individual ? 

Mr. Mazey. In 1949, as I have testified previously we hired Colonel 
Blankenhorn. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking for the city and who conducted that? 

Mr. Mazey. It was conducted by the |>rosecuting attorney and by 
a picked stall' of police in the city of Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially, was it conducted all by them ? 

Mr. Mazey. Initially it was conducted by the city police. 

Mr. Kennedy. And who was conducting it for the city police? 

Mr. Mazey. They had a detective by the name of DeLamelieure. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to DeLamelieure ? 

Mr. Mazey. He was removed from his post on the police staff and 
he was demoted from a sergeant to — I don't know whether they call 
them privates or not ; it is tlie lowest rate in the army, because he had 
hid an ownership in a bar that was located three doors from Santo 
Perrone's gas station. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time he was conducting the investiga- 
tion? 

Mr, Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. DeLamelieure working for? 

Mr. Mazey. For Jimmy Hoffa, and he is one of Jimmy Hoffa's 
business agents at the present time. It might also be of interest that 
when we hired Blankenhorn and Winstead to conduct the investiga- 
tion of the Reuther shooting for us, the first thing tliat DeLamelieure 
told them was for Blankenhorn to go to Europe to look for some Com- 
munists who may have attempted to shoot Walter Reuther and he 
told Winstead to go to Mexico. We had reason to think that he had 
done this because he did not want a solution to the shooting. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also mentioned a man by the name of Lewisell. 

Mr. Mazey. Lewisell is the top criminal lawyer in Detroit and he 
is defense lawyer for all of the big crooks and gangsters in the city of 
Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the former business partner of Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know whether he is his business partner or not, 
but any time there is a murder or a shooting or in the present Renda 
business, Lewisell is there and he is the top counsel for criminals in 
Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe it was developed during our previous hear- 
ings that he was also a business partner of Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Hazey. He may have been and I am not aware of the 
relationship. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I wanted to straighten those names out, but I 
would like also, to ask you some questions about the picketing that 
went on at the Kohler Co. while you were present. TSHiile you were 
present there was this mass picketing going on; was there not? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't like the term "mass picketing." 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a mass of men? 



9056 IMPROPER ACTrVITIEVS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. INIazey. There were large numbers of Kohler workers picketing. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were outside so that it was impossible to get 
into the plant wliile these large numbers of men were there? 

Mr. ]VIazey. I think if people wanted to get in, they could have got 
in the plant. This picketing took place only in the early hours of the 
morning, about 6 o'clock until 8 o'clock and after that there were 20 
people at the gates. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Yhen do the shifts start? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't recall ; I imagine they start about 7 o'clock. 

Mr. Kennedy. They start at 6 o'clock so people ordinarily go to 
work when the shift begins. So they came to go to work at 6 o'clock 
and there were 2,0()() men there. So they were unable to get in the 
plant. Are you arguing that that is incorrect ? 

Mr. Mazey, No; I am not saying that. I think they could have 
gotten in if they wanted to and nobody was convicted for stopping 
anybody from going in. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no question, now, Mr. Mazey. The movies 
showed it, and we have had a dozen witnesses before the committee 
who testified to the fact that they attempted to get into the plant, and 
there were some 2,000 men there who kept them out of the plant. 

Now, you say that is untrue, and that these people could have come 
at the beginning of their shift and been able to get into work ? 

Mr. Mazey. I am not saying it is untrue. I am saying there were 
large numbers of pickets there, but I have no way of knowing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were there, and you had international organ- 
izers from Detroit there, and you had other representatives there, and 
you know that those men, the people that wanted to go to work, could 
not get to work. 

Mr. Mazey. The days I was at the picket line, I didn't see a single 
person attempt to go to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Mazey, do you deny that it was part of the policy 
of the internatioiKil, part of the policy of the local, to keep these people 
out of work? 

If you deny that, you are denying the testimony of previous wit- 
nesses wlio admit it. Mr. Burkhart and Mr. Grasskamp admitted that 
part of the policy was to keep the people out of work. 

Mr. Mazey. We wanted to discourage anybody from going to work, 
and I am willing to admit that. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not only a question of discouraging them. You 
were actively attempting, by a mass of people, to keep those who 
wanted to go to work from working. 

Mr. Mazey. I had previously said that every worker has a right to 
defend his job, and I think every striker 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not answering the question. I am not say- 
ing that they don't have a right to defend their jobs. All I am asking 
you is this: Isn't it a fact that you had some 2,000 men out there 
who might have all felt that they were justified in their position, 
but the fact is that you had some 2,000 men out there who were 
keeping those w^ho wanted to go to work fi-om coming into the plant? 

Mr. Mazey. They were out thei'e for several reasons. They were 
out there because the company challenged our majority. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is one. 



aMPROPER ACTIVrTIES IN" THE LABOR FIELD 9057 

Mr. Mazey. They were out there because of the fear that was engi- 
neered by the murders in the lOB-t strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is two. 

Mr. JNIazey. And I assume that they were probably out there to 
try to persuade the people from o'oing in. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, when you speak of persuasion, it was not just 
a question of talking them out of it. It was a question of actively 
keeping them out of the plant so that a man could not get through 
15 rows of other men '^ 

Mr. Mazey. When I say ''persuading,'" I think they were trying to 
talk them out of going in. 

Mr. Kennedy. After that failed, Mr. Mazey, you know, as well as 
I do that they wei-e actively attempting to keep them out of the plant 
by standing in their v/ay. There were 2,000 men there. 

Mr. Mazey. I will admit that some of them stood in their way. 

Mr. Kennedy. And kept them out of the plant ^ 

Mr. Mazey. They may have kept them out. 
■ Mr. Kennedy. And you knew that that was going on while you 
were up there ( 

Mr. Mazey. Well, it didn't happen when I was there, and nobody 
attempted to go in. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you know, Mr. Mazey, that they were keeping 
these nonstrikers out of the plant? 

Mr. Mazey. I know that for a period of time there weren't any non- 
strikers going through the line. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer my question, Mr. Mazey. Did you 
know, during the period of the strike, that they were keeping the non- 
strikers out of the plant ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes; I knew they weren't going in, and so they must 
have kept them out. 

Mr. Kennj:dy. Didn't you know, as a matter of fact, that they were 
keeping the nonstrikers out of the plant I 

oVIr. Mazey. Well, I think if you would come right down to it, they 
probably were. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew it at the time 'i 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you, as a representative of the international, 
tlu> person second in charge of the International UAW, take any steps 
to pievent this illegal, or at least improper, action of keeping the em- 
])loyees who wanted to go to work from their jobs? Did you take 
any steps to insure that the picket lines were open for those who 
wanted to go to work ? 

Mr. Mazey. I did not. 

Mr, Kennedy. Is that part of the policy of the International UAW 
in a strike such as this, in a situation similar to this, physically to keep 
people from their jo})s 'I 

]NIr. ]Mazey. To begin with, the matter was never brought to my at- 
itenrion. I'he point is, when the WERB hearings were held, we agreed 
to abide by their decision, and we reduced our pickets. 
! Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. But you knew, as you admitted 
earlier, Mr. IVIazey, that while this was going on these people, the non- 
strikers, were being kept out of their jobs. You knew that ( 

Mr. Mazey. Yes : I think that I knew that. 



9058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You were second in charge of the international 
union. You stated that you took no action during this period, and 
there were approximately 2 months wlien you took no action, to open 
up the picket 1 ine to allow these people through ? 

Mr.MAZEY. Tliat is right, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, is it the policy of the international to condone 
this kind of at least improper action of keeping people from their 
jobs when they Avant to go to work ? 

Mr. Mazey. It was my opinion that every worker out there had a 
right to protect his job. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you feel that they have a right to protect 
their job by physically stopping those who want to go to their jobs? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, there was court action. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Do you feel that that is 
proper ? 

Mr. Mazey. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You feel, as the second in charge of the international 
union, that it is proper for strikers to physically keep nonstrikers from 
their jobs? 

Mr. Mazey. There is no evidence that anybody physically kept 
anybody from the plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe there is. You have admitted that you 
knew that they were physically kept out of the plant. 

Mr. Mazey. Let us get the w ord "physically" straight. To begin 
with, if a person is standing there, that is one thing to stand there 
and another thing to use your hands and use your fists or something 
else to keep people away. That is physical action. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were standing there for the purj:>ose of keeping 
them out of the plant ? 

Mr. Mazey. I have agreed to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that in a physical way, they were physically there, 
and that is what was keeping them out of the plant. And* so, therefore, 
they were physically keeping the nonstrikers out of the plant, and 
keeping them away from their jobs. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, somebody suggested the other day the tactics of 
Mahatma Ghandi, and maybe we should have had them lay down on 
the line. I think if we could do it over again that is probably what 
we would have done. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer the question now ? 

Mr. Mazey. What was the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that part of the policy of the international to con- 
done physically keeping nonstrikers out of a plant? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't believe it is ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this an exception ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, I wouldn't say it was an exception. 

Mr, Kennedy. You did it in this case. You condoned it and you 
allowed it to continue. You permitted it. Is this an exception? 

Mr. Mazey. I didn't permit it, and I didn't make the decision on 
the matter, and I didn't permit anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were second in charge of the international, and 
you were there representing the international. 

Mr. Mazey. I was there for the purpose of carrying on negotiations, 
and I w^asn't running the strike on the plant level. This was run 
by the local union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN^ THE LABOR FIELD 9059 

Mr. Kennedy. You were making speeches. You were talking about 
their activities, and you knew that this was going on. You knew that 
these people were being physically kept out of the plant, and you took 
no steps to have the picket lines opened up so that these people could 
go to work. Therefore, there is no question that you permitted it. 
You condoned it. 

Mr. Mazey. I personally 

Mr. Kennedy. If this is an exception, I would like to know that, 
and if it is not an exception, I would like to know that. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, I said if it happened, it is an exception. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is an exception ? 

Mr. Mazey, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is not the policy that is followed by the inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Mazey. No, and I don't believe that is our policy. I am not 
sure that we have a policy on this question. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it was permitted in this particular case? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, and I have explained, Mr. Kennedy, that there 
was a lot of fear. A majority was being challenged, and people felt 
there was a safety in numbers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ycu might feel that there is a reason or an excuse 
for it. The fact remains that this activity went on, Mr. Mazey. 

Mr. Mazey. I have already admitted it went on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, I have just another point. Regarding the vio- 
lence that went on, certainly it would appear from a study of the 
records there were at least more than 100 paint bombings. 

Now, these paint bombings were directed against nonstrikers, and 
there weren't any paint bombings directed against strikers? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, there were. 

Mr. Kennedy. No, the paint bombings of the homes were all di- 
rected against nonstrikers. 

Mr. Mazey. How about Bonanse ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He threw paint. He did not fill a little bulb full 
of paint and throw it in a home. He threw some paint on a car or 
an automobile. That is one thing. 

I am talking about where there was a paint bomb filled with paint 
and throwui into a home. That was all directed against the non- 
strikers. 

You say that the union knew nothing about that ? 

Mr. Mazey. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain that ? That is rather an intrica+e 
operation, to get the top of a light bulb off and fill it with paint, and 
then plug it up again. That is not something that can be done very 
easily. 

When this was done in such large numbers, it would appear clearly 
that the international or the local union or some officials of the local 
union must have known that it was taking place ? 

Mr. Mazey. I had no knowledge of it. The international is not 
responsible for it. To my knowledge the local is not responsible for it, 
and the Kohler Co. might have done this very well to try to give us a 
black eye, and nobody was ever convicted for any of these charges. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody was convicted, but the same type of opera- 
tion went on in the Perfect Circle strike where you had paint bomb- 
ings of homes? 



9060 IMPROPER ACTR'TTIE'S IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mazky. In Perfect Circle, I am not aware of any paint bomb- 
ings. 

Mr. Kennp:i)y. There are at least two instances where yon have a 
3-ather difficult operation, and you have this takino; of a little bulb, and 
filling it with paint, and throwing it into a home. It is a difficult oper- 
ation, and it took ])lace against just nonstrikers in Kohler, Wis., and 
nonstrikers in Perfect Circle. 

Mr. Mazet. I have no knowledjie of this taking place at Perfect 
Circle at all. 

I do know something about the Perfect Circle situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Our investigation has indicated that it took place. 

Mr. Mazey. I liave no such knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it went on in such large numbers at Kohler, Wis., 
that it is very difficult to believe that it was not a concerted operation. 

Mr. Mazey. Well, there is no proof that we had anything to do with 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I agree there is no ])roof . 

Mr. Mazey. The company had its spies looking at this matter and 
they could not find anything. The fact that it happened to nonstrikers, 
we are not going to be convicted of guilt by association. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew certainly as far as Mr. Vinson was con- 
cerned, Mr. Vinson went up there and got involved in a very brutal 
beating and certainly it was an act of condoning it when the union paid 
his salary after he went to jail. 

Mr. Mazey. No. it was not an act of condoning it at all. I did not 
like what Vinson did, and I thought it gave our nnion a black eye, 
and I did not like it at all. But at the same time I did not like what 
the iudge did, and he threw the book at him. 

Mr. Kennedy. I won't get into all of that again. 

Mr. Mazey. But tlie judge could have suspended sentence as he 
usually does when the person does not have a record, and Vinson was 
a clean boy, and lie served 4I/2 years in the Navy and he did not have 
a record, and he had the book thrown at him. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is weighing 220 pounds and he walked up to a 
fellow 125 pounds and hit him on the back of the head, and then 
belted him again so that he broke 4 ribs. He deserved some punish- 
ment. The fact is that beyond that, the International Union then 
paid his salary or continued his salary while in jail. 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, sir. I made the decision to pay his salary, and I 
think that I explained why. I would do it again imder the same cir- 
cumstances. 

Mr. Kennedy. If that is not condoning that kind of operation 

Mr. Mazey. It isn't condoning at all, and I did not like what he did, 
and I raised the dickens with him about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou raise it publicly ? 

Mr. Mazey. What is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you raise it publicly to repudiate him, and did 
you criticize what he had done other than criticize him personally ? 
Did you do more than criticize the judge, and did you criticize him 
publicly? 

Mr. Mazey. I criticized him personally : yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you criticize him publicly, as you did the judge ? 

Mr. Mazey. T don't know wliether I did or not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9061 

Mr. Kennedy. I can't find any evidence of the fact that you criti- 
cized him publicly. You only criticized the judge who sentenced him. 
Mr. Mazey. I don't try to condone what Vinson did, and I think it 
was wrong, and I think it was improper and I think it can be under- 
stood. He had been drinking, and there was a lot of feeling, and 
emotions were high in a strike situation. I am not happy about it, and 
I think it has done us a great deal of damage. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sure it has, but the fact is that when he went to 
jail, ultimately he went to jail and you continued or the International 
continued to pay him $100 a week. 

Mr. Mazey. The reason we did, Mr. Kennedy, was this : In an ordi- 
nary case Jud'ge Schlichting would have suspended sentence, and 
placed him on probation, and that is what he should have done in 
Vinson's case, and he has done that in some other cases, but because 
Vinson happened to be a union man, and he happened to be from 
Detroit, he threw the book at him. 
Mr. Kennedy. That is your opinion ? 
Mr. Mazey. It is my opinion. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that the record shows that the least that 
he could have given him was 1 year. 

Mr. Mazey. I am advised by counsel, and I checked on that thing, 
and I was disturbed by Judge Schlichting saying that the other day, 
and I checked it and I am told that Judge Schlichting corrected him- 
self and he said he could liave given him 6 months, and he could have 
sentenced him to the county jail, and I also found out that he could 
have placed him on probation because of his good record. 

His having been a veteran, and never having been jailed before, 
this could have happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the fact is you never took any action or made 
any statement publicly about INIr. Vinson, although you did make a 
public statement about the judge who sentenced him? 

Mr. ]\Iazey. Yes; I felt the judge acted improperly, and if any 
other judge acts improperly, I will speak out against it, too. 

ISIr. Kennedy. And these acts of violence again, even though they 
cannot be traced to the union, took place in such large numbers against 
nonstrikers and have taken place in other strikes that the UAW had; 
certainly it indicates or appears to establish a pattern at least as far 
as those strikes are concerned. 

JNIr. Mazey. I don't agree with that statement, because what you 
are doing now is trying to find us guilty by association. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not trying to. I will just recite the fact for 
you, that there were over 100 acts where light bulbs filled with paint 
and thrown into homes of nonstrikers. It is a difficult operation to 
make a light bulb which is filled with paint and throw it into a home. 
The same thing went on down in Perfect Circle. I just say that it 
needs some explanation, and although we are unable to find those who 
are guilty, it does seem to show something as far as the union is 
concerned. 

]\Ir. Mazey. I think that your conclusions are completely wrong, 
and you could wind up with the conclusion that the Kohler Co. did this 
and tried to smear the union. They may have smeared these houses 
in order to smear the union and I have no way of knowing that. 

;Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat about in Perfect Circle? Did the Perfect 
Circle Co. have the same idea ? 

21243— 58— pt. 22 21 



9062 IMPROPER ACTIVITPE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ]\L\ZEY. I don't know anything about any paint bombings at 
Perfect Circle. I do know sometliing about the Perfect Circle situa- 
tion, and I suppose I will be back here talking about it. I happened 
to settle that strike. 

Senator Ekvin. As one who used to long for a judges' union, and 
who has had occasions to see a lot of assault cases tried, I cannot 
forebear expressing this opinion, that the assault which Vinson com- 
mitted was one of the most inexcusable assaults I have ever heard of. 
Also I would say that I don't know any responsible judge that would 
have given him a lighter sentence than he received. 

Here was a man that told his wife, and he said, "Let us get out or 
leave," and here is a man about twice his size who juriips on him and 
beats him unmercifully, wholly without provocation. And I think 
that the judge you might say was like Lawrence of India when they 
accused him of embezzling or taking bribes, and he said, "When I 
think of the opportunities that I had to take bribes, I am astounded at 
my own moderation." 

I think the judge might have been astounded at his own moderation. 

Now, let us get one thing and leave out the shadow-boxing. The 
object of mass picketing is to present such a show of force to those 
who are not on strike that will deter them from attempting to enter 
a plant; isn't that right? Isn't that the primary object of mob 
picketing or mass picketing ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think it is to try to persuade people not to go to 
work. 

Senator Ervin. Yes, and the first thing, it assembles such a great 
number of persons who blocked the entrances to the plant, and the 
object is to persuade a nonstriker who comes up with the idea of going 
to work that it is a futile effort for him to try to enter the plant. 
Isn't that the object of mass picketing ? 

Mr. Mazet. Well, I have said already, Senator Ervin, that I have 
admitted the purpose of the numbers out there was, first of all, to 
show the company that we had a majority, and, secondly, there was a 
feeling of safety in numbers, because of the murders in 1934, and a 
third reason was to prevent people from going to work. 

Senator Ervin. And the result of it is that a man, when they come 
out on strike, who wants to go to work, which, under existing law, he 
has a right to do, he comes there and he sees such a mass of people, he 
knows their object is to convince him that it would be impossible for 
him to carry out his desires to enter the plant, does he not? 

Mr. Mazey. And it is also to convince him of our cause, because 
people will speak to him and try to tell him, "Look, we are fighting for 
you as much as for ourselves, and, therefore, you ought to be with us." 

Senator Ervin. And also convince him that he ought to join them 
because it is impossible for him to work as long as the mass pickets are 
there ; isn't that so ? 

Mr. Mazey. That might be one of the reasons. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I do not want to shadowbox with what I know and 
am convinced are unrealities. I think the mass picketing is engaged 
in, I think, for these purposes: To convince management that a sub- 
stantial or very substantial number of the employees of the employees 
of the plant are favoring the strike; second, to convince the other 
workei-s that a substantial number of employees are in favor of the 



UVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9063 

strike; and, third, to convince those who are not convinced of the 
righteousness of the strike that they would be very foolish to attempt 
to enter the plant. 

JNIr. Mazey. Senator Ervin, in most of our strike situations, the 
companies do not attempt to operate the plants. For example, the 
last time we had difficulty with General Motors in 1945-46, the com- 
pany did not attempt to operate any of its plants. Ford and Chrysler 
do not. The late Chrysler strike was in 1950, 8 years ago. The last 
Ford strike was in 1949. Most of the companies realize that the sensi- 
ble thing to do is not to create a situation in which emotions can be 
raised and problems developed. 

In this case, I pleaded with the Kohler Co. I made a speech on the 
picket line on April 8 or 9 from a sound truck and, incidentally, I 
was arrested for violating a newly enacted sound-truck ordinance. I 
pleaded with the company, and Mr. Conger was looking out of the 
window of the American Club across the street from where I was 
speaking. 1 pleaded with the company not to attempt to operate 
its plant, but to sit down with the union and try to find a way to work 
this thing out. The reason we had difficulty here is that this company, 
unlike most companies when a strike takes place, refused to bargain 
with us. 

Senator Ervin. Isn't this the reason that you had difficulty? In 
the first place, the union desired to close down the plant, to force 
the Kohler Co. to resume negotiations. That is one reason. The sec- 
ond reason you had trouble was because the Kohler Co. desired to 
operate the plant, and the third reason is some of the employees of the 
Kohler Co. desired to continue working under the existing working 
conditions. Those three combinations caused the trouble, did they 
not ? 

Mr. IVIaze Y. They had a lot to do with it ; yes. 

Senator Er\in. That is all. 

Mr. Mazey. And also the hiring of strikebreakers, I mean people 
who were job thieves had a lot to do with it, too. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you with respect to your statement that 
people have a right, every worker has a right, to defend his job. 
Does that apply to the nonstrikers as well as to the strikers ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, as I was saying, Senator, if a person goes on 
strike, he is trying to protect his 

The Chairman. I am using your language: Every worker has a 
right to defend his job. Does that apply to the nonstriker as well 
as the striker ? 

Mr. Mazey. We were trying to defend the jobs of nonstrikers, too. 

The Chairman. If it does apply, then you were guilty of an im- 
proper practice when you massed the strikers in front of the entrance 
to that property so that the nonstrikers could not get in, were you not? 

Mr. Mazey. I think you might reach that conclusion, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. I think it is a sound conclusion, don't you, based 
on your theory of what is right and wrong ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think you have to go beyond that. I think you have 
to understand the othei* reasons for it. 



9064 niPROPER ACTIVITrE'S IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I understand the reason for the strike all the way- 
through. I am accepting your terms for it. The strike was for this 
purpose and that, to get them better working conditions. But here 
is a man out here not striking, who says, "I want to go to my job." 
That is just as much his job as the strikers' jobs are theirs. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. I think that at a point where a majority of the 

workers 

_ The Chairman. There is no question of a majority rule. It is the 
right of every worker, you said, to defend his job. 

Mr. Mazey. We are also defending 

The Chairman. You did not say majority. 

Mr. Mazey. We are also defending the jobs of the strikebreakers, 
of the strikers. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about strikebreakers. I am 
talking about the man that has the job there, that wants to return to 
work. Has he not just as much right to go into that plant and work 
as you have to walk out ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think he has. 

The Chairman. I think he has. I think in a land of freedom, if a 
man wants to work, he should have the right to walk into that plant 
and work. 

Mr. Mazey. I don't think he has. 

The Chairman. I do not think you have a right to put a mass of 
humanity up there that is calculated to incite him and others to vio- 
lence if they undertake to return to work. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator McClellan, I would like to explain my position 
further. In this particular situation, the majority of the workers 
voted to strike when they were unable to solve their problems at the 
bargaining table. I think that at the point that the majority made 
this decision, that the decision of the majority was incumbent on the 
minority as well as the majority. 

It is the same as when Congress declared war. This became the 
policy of the whole country. The minority did not have a right to 
say that "even though Congress declared war, we did not have a 
thing to do with it." This became a decision of the whole country. 

The Chairman. We are not talking about war. We are talking 
about the right of an individual to make a decision to follow a liveli- 
hood for himself or his family. 

Mr. Mazey. There is a great deal of similarity. Senator McClellan. 

The Chairman. I do not think so. I think a man who has a job, 
who wants to go to work, should have the right. I think you should 
have the right to strike and you should have a right to put those pickets 
out there. You can put them out en masse if you want to, but you 
-do not have any right to mass them in front of that gate where a man 
who wants to work cannot get in. That is my 

Mr. Mazey. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right 
to my opinion. 

The Chairman. Wouldn't you like to see a law about that ? 

Mr. Mazey. Wliat is that ? 

The Chairman. We are thinking about legislation. Wouldn't you 
like to see a law like that, to protect the man who wants to go in as well 
as the man who wants to come out ? 



IMPROPER AcrrvrriES m the labor field 9065 

Mr. Mazey. I would like to see a law that prevents a company 
from hiring strikebreakers. 

The Chairman. Do we propose to make companies a slave to some 
labor leader ? Is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Mazey. Not a slave to a labor leader. 

The Chairman. Subservient to them, that they have to do what they 
want them to do ? 

Mr. Mazey. Wliat I am saying is following the premise you have, if 
a striker and nonstriker have a right to make a decision as to whether 
or not they work during a strike — perhaps I would not be opposed to 
that kind of business, if we had a law that said that once a strike took 
place, that the only people that could work would be the people on the 
payroll of the company when the strike started. 

But I think we ought to have a law that says that the company does 
not have a right to hire job thieves or strikebreakers to replace the 
strikers. If we could have that kind of law, we would not have tliis 
problem. 

The Chairman. I think sometimes there are strikes where demands 
are made that are so unreasonable that a businessman has no alterna- 
tive. I think you can go to extremes both ways. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator McClellan, in this particular situation, we feel 
so sure of our position that we have agreed to arbitrate it, and I believe 
it was in November of 1954, in the meeting, that I said to the Kohler 
Co. as a spokesman for the union that, "We are willing to settle our 
contract and economic matters involved within the framework of the 
contract and the wages paid by your competitors." 

I then proposed to the company, I said, "We are willing to arbitrate 
within the framework of the contract and the provisions of your com- 
petitors." I happen to know enough about collective bargaining to 
know that if you insist on demands from a company that puts them 
at a disadvantage with their competitors, you are not helping the 
workers you are bargaining for. 

We have not made those kinds of demands here. 

The Chairman. I am not defending this company for not settling 
a strike or for not agreeing to anything like that. I am not trying to 
settle a strike. I do not think it is the function of this committee to 
doit. 

However, I am trying to find out what constitutes improper prac- 
tices that should be regulated or prohibited by law. That is the only 
point I have. 

Mr. Mazey. I understand your position. 

The Chair]man. There is one other point I want to call to your at- 
tention. I did not want to repeat it, but I did want my position to be 
clear as we go along. To me you are not convincing when you say you 
are against violence, you did not believe in violence, and you were un- 
happy about its happening, when you take dues-paying members' 
money and reward the man who committed the violence without any 
provocation on earth. I just do not see the difference when you reward 
that and say that you condemn it. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator McClellan, you might quarrel with my judg- 
ment in this matter, but I acted in what I thought was a proper man- 
ner. I felt that Bill Vinson who had the book tlirown at him, I thought 
he was treated differently than the other people were treated. I 
thought the judge was biased. I thought he was a victim of Kohlerism. 



9066 IMPROPER ACTIVITTE'S IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I was not condoning- liis actions at all. The reason that his wife was 
given money while he was in jail was because I though he had a raw 
deal. 

The Chairman. Let us carry that a little further. You paid all 
of the fines of the others, not just him alone. All of them were getting 
an unfair deal, if they were fined for disorderly conduct or anything. 
In other words, you do not want to be amenable to the law. 

Mr. Mazet. That is not the question at all. At the point a strike 
takes place, emotions are high and people do things that nobody likes. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Mazey. If the strike had not taken place in the first place, every- 
thing that happened afterwards would not have taken place. 

The Chairman. So you were on strike and you felt responsible for 
all of this and, therefore, you paid it out of union funds. 

Mr. Mazey. Therefore, the people, in my judgment were victims of 
a strike and the company was responsible for the strike. 

The Chairman. You say the company was responsible, but you 
took t]ie responsibility for all acts of violence wherever they were 
caught and punished, is that correct ? 

Mr. Mazey. I wouldn't say "acts of violence." 

The Chairman. Well, for violations of law. We will put it that 
way. 

Mr. Mazey. That is better. 

The Chairman. If you want to equivocate on that 

Mr. Mazey. That is a better statement. 

The Chairman. You took the responsibility and paid the penalty 
paid for the offense ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes, I did. 

The Chairman. Do you think that is conducive of encouraging vio- 
lence ? You issue many statements and bulletins that you do not want 
any violence, but the minute some of it occurs, then you champion and 
defend the one who committed the violence, event to the extent of 
defending him in court, paying all of the expenses, and, where they go 
to prison, paying their salaries while in prison. 

Mr. Mazey. That was not the purpose of it at all. 

The Chairman. No, but don't you see the point I am making? In 
one breath you say, "Don't commit violence," and in the next breath 
you reward the fellow who did commit violence. 

Mr. Mazey. I understand your position perfectly, but the point I 
am making is that if the company had bargained in good faith in the 
first place, this strike would not have taken place. Emotions would 
not have been high. These things would not have happened. 

I think they are victims of a fight. You have casualties in all kinds 
of fights. 

The Chairman. You might as well just turn around and argue from 
the other side. That does not settle anything, that you did wrong 
or the company did wrong. The question is, when you say you are 
against violence, then you reward it, and it becomes inconsistent. 

Mr. Mazey. I do not think I was rewarding violence, Senator. That 
was not my intent. 

The Chairman. If that is not rewarding, when you pay fines for 
offenses and so forth, I do not know what rewarding is. 

Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. Do you know Mr. Paul Sifton? 



IMPROPER ACTRITiES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9067 

Mr. Mazev. Yes, I do. 

Senator JMundt. Did lie have a position with the UAW ? 

Mr. Mazey. He is the Washington legislative representative. 

Senator Mundt. How long has he been with the UAW ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know exactly. I imagine 8 or 9 or 10 years. 

Senator Mundt. Did you have anything to do with hiring him ? 

Mr. Mazey, I believe he was hired by Walter Keuther. I believe 
I was consulted on the matter. I am very glad to have him on our 
staff. He is a very competent legislative representative. 

Senator Mundt. Does he speak officially for the UAW ? 

Mr. Mazey. On many occasions ; yes. 

Senator Mundt. Do you associate yourself with his comments, re- 
marks and statements? 

Mr. Mazey. I do not associate myself with the comments and re- 
marks 100 percent with anybody. 

Senator Mundt. Let me read you one of his remarks that he made 
before he was with you. Was he with you in 1933 ? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know of any remarks he made. When was 
that? 

Senator Mundt. I asked you whether he was with the UAW in 
1933, 

Mr. Mazey. No, he was not. 

Senator Mundt. So this would not be one of the remarks 

Mr. Mazey. The UAW was not born until 1935. 

Senator Mundt. He was not born until 1935 ? 

Mr. Mazey. Our union was born in August of 1935, Augiist 26th. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you said he was not. 

Mr. Mazey. No, 

Senator Mundt. All right. But I want to read you a remark that 
he made in 1933 in a printed statement, which I suppose would be one 
of the criteria by which j^ou emploj^ed him, on the points of view that 
he expresses, one of the things that j^ou would naturally want to 
consider before you engaged him as — what? National legislative 
representative ? 

Mr. Mazey. He is one of our national legislative representatives, 
yes. 

Senaor Mundt. The top man or little man or a big man in that 
field? 

Mr. Mazey. He is pretty high up. 

Senator Mundt. Pretty high up? So, naturally, before you hire 
him, you want to see where he stands, what his positions are, and what 
his attitudes are, is that right? You do not want to hire him willy- 
nilly. He might be a scab or a Eepublican. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, we do not conduct an inquisition on 
a person when we hire him. We do not go back in his background as 
far as 1933. I think you are digging pretty deep. 

Senator Muxdt. You do not make a check on him ? 

Mr. Mazey. We do not make a check on him. We know his general 
attitudes. 

Senator Mundt. I want to read what he said and see if it is some- 
thing that expresses UAW policy. I am not concerned about him. 
But I am concerned about UAW policy. I am quoting now from a 
statement inserted in the Congi-essional Record by Senator Martin, 
of Iowa, on page A-5317, if you want to look up the whole context, 
and if you want to look up the other statements about Mr, Sift on. I 



9068 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIE[LD 

am going to limit myself today to this one statement. This is an 
article he wrote. 

The general tenor of the article is to discourage people from joining 
the United States Army. I will read a little preliminarily to get to 
the right context. It says in the article : 

Uncle Sam wants you. Hey, there, Big Boy, Uncle Sam wants you for the 
next war. He wants you to take $30 a month less payments for bonds and thrift 
stamps and so on for doing this: Saying "Yes, sir," to bright boys in officers' 
pink pants; packing 60 pounds of clothes, shoes, hardware and food on your 
back through mud, ice, dust, and heat; digging trenches in the ground like a 
half-witted woodchuck, while your family back home scratches around for food 
and fuel ; shooting holes in men like yourself across the line ; getting wounded 
yourself, in the leg, or arm or chest or guts; getting gassed so that your skin 
curls up like bacon on a fire and you cough up your lungs ; dying all at once or 
by inches or maybe living to stand in breadlines, after it's over. 

I think that is pretty bad, but I am not going to go into that. 

He is certainly not a very good recruiting officer for Uncle Sam's 
Army. But this is a statement that he made. You hired him after 
he had demonstrated this to be his attitude. I wonder whether in con- 
sequence of your having employed him, this now expresses the atti- 
tude of Emil Mazey or of Walter Keuther or of the UAW or all. 
This is the statement : 

Tell them that we've got another war on, closer home, a war to establish a 
workers' peace, a workers' government. 

Was Mr. Sifton emploj^ed for the purpose of helping you establish 
a workers' government? Is that his job as legislative counsel? 

Mr. Mazey. Why don't you finish your remarks and I will comment 
on them. 

Senator Mundt. I am finished. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, I think you are digging pretty, pretty 
deep, going back 25 years in an article that Paul Sifton wrote. I don't 
agree with the article. I don't think he agrees with the article today. 
I am sure you have said some things and written some things during 
your lifetime that you don't agree with today. There is an old say- 
ing that a wise man changes his mind but a damn fool never does. Paul 
Sifton is a wise man. He has changed his mind on a lot of things 
that he may have believed in at one time. 

The Chairman. The Chair will remind you, sir, that you are on the 
air. If you want the language to go out, you take the responsibility for 
it. I can't erase it now. 

Mr. Mazey. That is O. K. I am willing to let it go out on the air. 
I am not responsible for the cameras looking at me here. 

Senator Mundt. I am not talking about Mr. Sifton. I am asking 
whether that reflects the attitude of Emil JNIazey or of Walter Keuther 
or of the UAW, because you hired him after he made it. I want to 
find out is that an attitude with which you find yourself today in con- 
formity ? 

Mr. Mazey. Well, Senator Mundt, you are pretty desperate to try 
to find ways to smear our union. Obviously is doesn't represent our 
views. 

Senator Mundt. I am giving you a chance to say no, if you want to. 
You haven't done it. 

Mr. Mazey. Tlie answer is no. But it seems to me that when you dig 
back 25 years into something that somebody wrote or said, that is a 
pretty desperate way to smear our union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9069 

I don't appreciate it at all, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am simply asking you if that 

Mr. Mazey. Did you say anything 25 years ago that you don't 
believe in today ? 

Senator Mundt. I didn't say anything like that 55 years ago. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, what did you say about the Korean 
war ? 

Senator Mundt. If you want to get into quite a long topic I will be 
happy — I gave a lot of speeches about that, 

Mr. Mazey. You said things about the Korean war that are not 
policy of our country. 

Senator Mundt. If the Chair would like to ask me questions about 
my statements on the Korean war, now that we have television on, 
that would be wonderful. 

Mr. Mazey. That is not pertinent. What has this to do about the 
pertinency of the strike ? 

Senator Mundt. It is whether it reflects your attitude. If you 
want to say no 

Mr. ]\Iazey. I think you are on a fishing expedition, Senator. You 
are on a fishing expedition. You are trying to find something com- 
pletely out of context, something that has nothing to do with the 
Kohler strike, as a means of smearing us. I don't appreciate this. 

Senator Mundt. If you would like to make the whole thing in the 
record, you make that request and in she goes. 

Mr. Mazey. This has nothing to do with the Kohler strike. When 
you go back 25 years and try to smear a member of our union, one 
of our staff members, it is pretty low. 

Senator Mundt. I am not trying to smear anybody. This is his 
statement, 

Mr. Mazey. You just did smear him. 

Senator Mundt. It is his statement, not mine. 

Mr. Mazey. Something that he said 25 years ago. 

The Chairman. It is not a smear to read what somebody said. That 
is not a smear. This fellow smears himself, if he quoted him ac- 
curately. The only point that I can see in the testimony is tliat if 
that is the sentiment, the viewpoint, of the UAW, it might indicate 
that there was some subversiveness in the organization. I don't know 
whether that is the purpose of it or not, or whether it intended to go 
that far. 

Senator Mundt. The question speaks for itself. I simply said that 
they hired him after he made the statement, and I wanted to know 
whether as a consequence of that this statement reflected the attitude 
of Mr. IMazey, Mr. Reuther, or the UAW. 

The Chairman. The witness has said that it does not reflect his 
attitude, he doesn't believe in what the statement said, and he doesn't 
believe that the man who made it believes it now. 

]\Ir. Mazey. Senator IVfundt, I am told that Mr. Sifton appeared 
before a committee of either the Senate or House, and he has made an 
explanation of that particular article. I would be very glad to get 
his explanation so that you and I can be satisfied as to what he did 
say. I think the record ought to show that during the last war over 
350,000 members of our union participated in the armed service. 

We won a lot of E awards for our defense efforts of building guns, 
tanks, and planes. Walter Reuther served on many committees, the 



9070 IMPROPER ACTrVTETIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

War Production Board, and various other groups. I don't think 
anybody oujrht to challenj^e our loyalty. 

Senator Mundt. Nobody is challengino; your loyalty. 

Mr. Maz?:y. I think you are, by referrinc; to the article of Sifton. 

Senator Mundt. I ask the permission of the committee, since we 
have been referring to the statement that Mr. Sifton made, that it be 
included as an exhibit. 

Mr. Mazey. I think Mr. Sifton has a right to defend himself. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that you have a statement by him 
from a congressional committee that you want to be made an exhibit? 

Mr. Mazey. I will get the statement. 

Senator JSIundt. I will ask your unanimous consent that it be made 
an exhibit. 

Tlie Chairman. The Chair will take a look at it when it comes. 

We do have a rule, and if Mr. Sifton feels as though he has been 
called some derogatory statement in evidence that has been going in 
about him today, he can make a request to come before the committee to 
be heard. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey, you have been here a long time, and 
I hope this is the last session that you may have to appear before the 
committee, on the instant question. You may have to come back when 
we get into a study of UAW activities beyond Kohler, such as the Per- 
fect Circle. 

Mr. Mazey. On the Perfect Circle, I would like to have an oppor- 
tunity to come back, because I participated in several meetings that led 
to a settlement of the strike, and I played quite an impoilant role in 
settling that strike. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure if you have something to say on the 
Perfect Circle strike, the conunittee will be glad to hear you. I want 
to recapitulate the six points of testimony that stand out in my mind 
as coming from you in this period. Iwill read them one by one and if 
you find any of them inaccurate, you stop me and we will hear your 
statement. I am impressed by your testimony, as the first point that 
sticks in my mind, that you believe that the type of boycotts in which 
you have been engaged against Kohler products are defensible and 
that they are justifiable in your opinion, even though they have in- 
cluded some boycotting of hospitals and the boycotting of at least one 
community chest drive in Duluth, Minn. If I understand your testi- 
mony correctly, you say that you defend and support that and believe 
it was justified under the circumstances. 

Mr. Mazey. That is not my statement. Senator. I said that we 
were carrying on a legal boycott. I did not admit that we had boy- 
cotted a hospital. I made no such admission. 

Senator Mundt. You admitted that your union had boycotted Du- 
luth, Minn. 

Mr. Mazey. I did not admit that. 

Senator Mundt. I took it up with you. The local union had boy- 
cotted that, and I asked you if that was defensible. You said it wasn't 
an international, it was the local. 

Mr. Mazey. I did not say one of our locals was involved. 

Senator Mundt. If you want to condemn it, condemn it now, and 
we will change the records. Do you condemn it ? 

Mr. Mazey. Let me get the "record straight. You have made a 
statement that I do not agree with. I believe the record will show 



IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9071 

that you read that the Duluth CIO council was involved in this matter, 
not our local. 

Senator MuNDT. Correct. 

Mr. Mazey. I did not say that our local was involved in picketing 
a hospital. The statement I did make was that I believe the members 
of our union when they make contributions to community agencies 
have a right to know how their money is spent. 

Good union money ought to be spent for good union products, and 
not for scab-made products, strikebreaker products. I will stand on 
that. 

Senator ]\Iundt. So that the record will be crystal clear, Mr. Mazey, 
do you want to take this opportunity to condemn the attitude of 
the union in boycotting the community chest in Duluth, Minn., be- 
cause it did by Kohler 

Mr. Mazey. Our union did not boycott it. Let's get the record 
straight tliere. I think that the people in Duluth had a right to ex- 
press^ themselves on this question, and if they expressed themselves 
on the matter of a picket line, I will support their expression. 

Senator Mundt. That brings me right back. You don't want to 
condemn it. 

Mr. Mazey. Xo ; I am not condemning it. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

No. 2. You made statements to the effect that the clergy of She- 
boygan County are not men of integrity, which you later modified, 
I believe, by saying that you meant to say that they were men who 
were under the domination of the Kohler Co., so that their social 
and economic judgments were not to be trusted, although you did not 
presume to criticize them for their spiritual activities. 

Is that a fair statement ? 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, you and Senator Goldwater and Sena- 
tor Curtis sort of have me in a position where you put the word 
"integrity" in my mouth and I didn't put it there. That was some 
questioning to the effect, "Then you are challenging their integrity" 
and I think I said something to the effect, that "T\^at other conclu- 
sions could I reach ?" 

But the word integrity wasn't my word in the first place. It was 
either your word or the word of Senator Curtis. 

Senator Mundt. I didn't have anything to do with that word. _ 

Mr. JSIazey. I think it was Senator Curtis who raised the question. 

I made my position clear. I am not challenging the clergy. I 
am sorry you fellows maneuvered me into the matter where it looked 
like I was questioning their integrity. I issued a statement the 
other day and I would like to read it. 

In replying to questions put to me today by members of the Senate select com- 
mittee, concerning resolutions adopted by the clergy in Sheboygan, Wis., in which 
1 was criticized for my questioning of the harsh treatment given to a UAW 
member by Judge Schlichting, of Sheboygan, I inadvertently said that I ques- 
tioned the integrity of some of the clergy who signed their names to the resolu- 
tions adopted against me. 

I later told the committee that I had unfortunately erred in the choice of 
words in reply to the extremely hostile questioning. 

I have not and I do not challenge the integrity of the Sheboygan clergy, and if 
this inference was left, I apologize. 

These hearings have, as everyone who has followed them knows full well, been 
conducted in a state of open hostility, one side to the other. It has been an un- 
fortunate fact, in addition, that in my view at least, certain members of this 
committee are intent on discrediting our union and its representatives who have 



9072 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

appeared here. These attempts to so discredit UAW members and representa- 
tives, frequently by devious and unjust means, have appalled all of us who are 
interested in jus tice and fairness. 

I regret that my statements about certain members of the Sheboygan clergy, 
while not deliberate and considered and not accurately reflective of my true posi- 
tion or the position of the UAW, have contributed in any -way to the public furor 
which has been occasioned by the aforementioned attitudes and statements of 
certain members of this Senate committee. 

I have made my apolojries. I think I was maneuvered into this par- 
ticular statement, and I think my statement stands. 

Senator Mundt. This is the cleanup session, and we are giving you a 
chance to make your position clear. 

You say "it is my opinion," and this is something that you were not 
maneuvering into, and nothing about integrity. 

It is my opinion that the company influences all of the clergy who signed their 
names to this particular statement. 

Is that your opinion or is it not ? 

Mr. Mazey. It was my opinion, yes. 

Senator Mundt. Is it now your opinion? I am talking about in- 
tegrity, now. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, my statement speaks for itself, and I 
am going to rest there. 

Senator Mundt. I am not going to let it rest. This is a chance to 
clear it up mider oath. 

It is my opinion that the company influences all of the clergy who signed their 
n^mes to this particular statement. 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, I have expressed myself as to what my 
position is. I said if I had in any way challenged their integrity, I 
apologize, and I would like to leave it stand there. 

Senator Mundt. This is a different point altogether. 

Mr. Mazey. I think you are raising an unnecessary issue. 

I don't know what this has to do with the purposes of this hearing. 

Senator Mundt. You can't raise issues, Mr. Mazey, you can't raise 
issues, make statements under oath and then walk away and give a 
press conference and say, "Don't ask me any more questions." 

Mr. Mazey. I didn't raise this issue at all. I made a speech on 
November 17, in which I replied to a criticism that the clergy of She- 
boygan had made against me. I didn't start this thing. They 
adopted resolutions. Somebody organized the adoption of these reso- 
lutions. I have never seen a single resolution adopted anywhere that 
just spontaneously appeared. Somebody went around and very delib- 
erately adopted resolutions criticizing my criticism of Judge 
ScMichting. 

They have a right to do that. I am not criticizing their right, but 
their judgment in this matter. Wlien I spoke at the meeting on 
November 17, 1954, 1 was replying to an attack made on me. I didn't 
make the attack on the clergy. I was replying to an attack made on 
me. During that speech, I criticized the clergy for not having done 
anything, not speaking out against the iniustices of the plants of the 
Kohler Co., not speaking out against the Kohler Co. when we agreed 
to arbitration by Governor Kohler and they turned it down. 

The speech I made was very, very clear. But what happened at 
the hearing? Senator Curtis began to read these resolutions adopted 
by the clergy, and then he began to raise questions. He put the word 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES ES^ THE LABOR FIELD 9073 

"integrity" in my mouth. I didn't raise that word. _ That was his 
word. I think it was a pretty devious means of doing it. I have 
apologized if there was any improper inference here. I don't know 
what more of me you want on this question. 

Senator Mundt. Let me read what happened. You are talking 
about integrity, and I am not challenging that part of your state- 
ment. On page 1396, Senator Curtis, a question, about these names,, 
and Curtis says, "Yes. Bead them all one by one and tell me whether 
or not the company controls them," the men who signed it. 

Mr. Mazey. We have one more to go. William Weishaupel, the pastor of 
the St. Dominic Parish. 

Senator CuKTis. Does the company control him? 

Mr. Mazey. I don't know. 

Senator Cuetis. Is it your opinion that they do? 

Mr. Mazey. It is my opinion that the company influences all of the clergy who 
signed their names to this particular statement. 

You pulled that one out yourself and volunteered it. Now before 
we close shop, I want you to tell me yes or no, is it presently your 
opinion that the Kohler Co. influences all of the clergy in Sheboygan 
County. You can answer that simply yes or no 

Mr. Mazey. Senator Mundt, I stand on the statement I made. I 
see nothing to be gained in rehashing an incident that took place 4r 
years ago. I am not seeking a quarrel with the clergy in Sheboygan. 
I don't think we ought to throw this thing wide open again, create 
greater splits in the community. I don't think this contributes any- 
thing toward establishing a proper kind of atmosphere in Sheboygan. 

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

Senator Mundt. Judging from the mail I received since that testi- 
mony, it contributes a great deal. 

I am asking you specifically now, under oath, and you don't issue 
press conferences under oath, or press statements under oath 

Mr. Mazey. I made my statement under oath. 

Senator Mundt. I want to give you a change to aiSrm it or deny it, 
and if you continue just to duck it, I submit that my summation as 
originally read is pretty accurate. 

Mr. Mazey. It is my opinion that the company influenced all of the clergy wha 
signed their name to this particular statement. 

Is that your opinion now ; yes or no ? 

Mr. Mazey. To get it over with, it is something that I can't prove, 
and it is not my opinion now. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

No. 3, I think that I can summarize your statement that the judge 
in your case, presided over by Judge Schlichting, you feel that the 
judge was unfair and biased, even though the State supreme court 
upheld the verdict and even tliough it was a jury and not the judge 
who decided on the greater rather than the lesser penalty. 

Is that a fair summation ? 

Mr. IVIazey. Senator INIundt, to begin with, I still think that Judge 
Schlichting's sentence was unfair, and unjust, and biased, and I think 
that lie liad a conflict of interest in this matter, and the jury did not 
decide the penalty. The judge had to make this decision, and the 
judge could have suspended sentence and could have placed Vinson on 
probation because of his good record, and because of his being a war 
veteran, and never having been arrested before. 



9074 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIEIiD 

And what I said in relation to Judge Schlichting stands. There is 
nothing that he said that changes this matter. 

Senator Mundt. No. 4 : I am impressed that in the course of your 
testimony you have tried to convince us that it is your position that 
there can be no neutrals in a labor dispute or a strike situation. People 
are either for you or against you, which you modified today to say as 
far as the community in which the strike takes place is concerned; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Mazey. I modified my statement today, and I stand on that. 

Senator Mundt. No. 5 : It is your position that mass picketing of 
the type that was engaged in at Kohler by the union is in your opinion 
legal and proper, and defensible, even though it physically prevents 
-a nonstriker from entering the plant to earn a living for his family. 

Mr. Mazey. In reply to that question, I said that in this particular 
instance, I felt the large number of picketing was proper, and each 
worker had a right to defend his job, and they were out there because 
the company was challenging our membership and our majority, and 
they were out there because they felt there was security in numbers 
when they remember the murder and massacre that took place in 1934. 
Yes. 

Senator Mundt. So that my summation on that point is accurate ? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. No. 6 : You testified, and I think you are not going 
to quarrel about this at all, that the UAW spent some $10 million in 
the course of this strike, including payments which were made for 
fees and legal counsel and salaries for the people who were convicted? 

Mr. Mazey. Yes ; and the answer is "yes" on that question. 

Senator Mundt. Those, in my opinion, are the six points which you 
brought out insofar as the premise of this committee is concerned, to 
try to find out what improper practices, if any, were engaged in during 
the course of the strike. 

Mr. Mazey. Could I add a couple of other points that I brought out 
that you haven't mentioned ? 

Senator Mundt. As far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Mazey. I brought out the point that the Kohler Co., refused 
to bargain with the union, and we operated without a contract for 5 
weeks, and we agreed to every mediation and arbitration offer, and 
the company has turned it down, and I think you ought to add that as 
point No. 7. 

Senator Mundt. I have no objection, and I have no defense for the 
company, and I am not any more interested in the company than the 
UAW. 

We use Crane products, so I am not concerned. Crane is a good 
product made by members of United Steel Workers of America, which 
is a perfectly good union. 

The Chairman. The committee stands in recess until 10 : 30 in the 
morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he dismissed ? 

The Chairman. Yes, and we will convene in the morning in room 
318. 

(Wliereupon at 4: 55 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Tuesday, March 11, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, MABCH 11, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 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 ; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, Democrat, 
Michigan; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Carl T, Curtis, 
Republican, Nebraska. 

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

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the committee present at the convening of the ses- 
sion were: Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. William Bersch, Jr. 

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. Bersch. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BERSCH, JR. 

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

Mr. Bersch. My name is William Bersch, Jr. I live at 1227 North 
38th Street, Sheboygan, Wis. I am employed at the Kohler Co. as a 
pottery caster. 

The Chairman. Do you have an attorney or do you waive the right 
of counsel while you testify ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

9075 



9076 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Bersch, you are an employee of the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have worked there for how lon<^ ? 

Mr. Bersch. Ten and a half years as of now. 

Mr. Kennedy. So as of 1954, the time of the strike, you had worked 
there for 5 or 6 years ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you join the UAW ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support them when they went out on strike ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you didn't join in the mass picketing? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't go to work in the period of the mass pick- 
eting or attempt to go to work ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the mass picketing ended, did you go back to 
your job? 

Mr. Bersch. I went back, I think it was, 11 weeks from the date 
that the strike started. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some time in June ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; the 28th of June. 

Mr. Kennedy. The 28th of June. 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What job did you have at the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Bersch. Pottery caster. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the casting department? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also have another job in addition to that? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes; I did. That was at the Behlow & Meier Shell 
Station. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that? 

Mr. Bersch. The Behlow & Meier Shell Station. 

(At this point, Senators Goldwater and Curtis entered the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr, Kennedy. B-e-h-1-o-w & M-e-i-e-r Shell Station, is that right? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is at 300 FonduLac Avenue, Sheboygan 
Falls? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were there attending the pumps; is that right? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was one of your jobs ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you there on July 4, 1954 ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. I worked that afternoon and evening. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was on Sunday ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bersch. That was on a Sunday ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was your father also working there ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; he wasn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he there on July 4, in the evening ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what happened at approximately 
9 : 30 or 9 : 25 on the evening of July 4 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9077 

Mr. Bersch. I was working there, and my father was there. He 
came over. He just lived across the street. He came over to see what 
I was doing. Tlie next day we were going to go fishing. 

The Chairman. Would you speak a little louder and speak into that 
mike i I am having a little difficulty hearing you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your father came over and you had a discussion 
about going fishing ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. At that time, did an automobile draw up ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; a 1953 Buick pulled up in back of the wash rack 
of the station, while I was working at the pumps. 

Mr. Kennedy. A 1953 Buick came up while you were working at 
the pumps ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What happened then ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, when I got finished at the pumps, I went over to 
see what he wanted, and it was a fellow by the name of Nick. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nick Vrckovic ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bersch. I think it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had known him before ? 

Mr. Bersch. I had known him approximately 5 or 6 years ago. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. He had worked at the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was presently out on strike ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a member of the UAW and supported the 
strike i 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kjennedy. What words did you have with him at that time? 

Mr. Bersch. I went over to find out what he wanted, and I told him 
I just didn't have time. It was 9 : 30 in the evening already and I 
couldn't get to it. After that, then he said "Well, I heard you are 
scabbing at the Kohler." 

I said, "I didn't call it scabbing. I am making a living for my 
family." 

Well, then he went back to having his brakes checked, and I said I 
couldn't do it. He got pretty rough, so I just turned around and 
walked away and I went back into the office of the station. I picked 
up the telephone 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you going to call on the telephone ? 

Mr. Bersch. I was goin^ to call the sheriff's department. 

Mr. Kennedy. The sheriff's department ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kjennedy. And the words between yourself and Vrckovic had 
been such that you felt it necessary ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. He got pretty — I wouldn't know the words to 
use, but farther than an ordinary customer does. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. So you went back into the station to make this tele- 
phone call to the sheriff's office ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people were in the car ? 

Mr. Bersch. There was three people in the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Vrckovic was driving the automobile ? 

21243— 58— pt. 22 22 



9078 IMPROPER ACrrVTTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bersch. Vrckovic was driving. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you recognize either of the other two ? 

Mr. Bersch. No; I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went back in and picked up the telephone to 
make a call ? 

Mr. Bersch. As I picked up the telephone, a fellow came in on 
the left side of me and put his hand between the telephone and receiver 
and broke the wire right off the receiver, and at the same time he 
hit me on the left side of my face and knocked me across the floor 
about 5 or 6 feet against a steel safe that was in the corner. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was not Vrckovic ? 

Mr. Bersch. This was not Vrckovic. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was 1 of the other 2 men ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Bersch. I was down and he trampled on me a little bit, and at 
the same time my father seen that and he came in the office, and then 
they jumped him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he gotten a small children's baseball bat out 
of the automobile ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes; it was a baseball bat in one of the cars that were 
in the station. He picked that up. It was a small child's 

Mr. Kennedy. He came in when he saw this man attacking you, 
and he came in there to help you ? 

Mr. Bersch. He came in there ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, How old was your father at that time? 

Mr. Bersch. At that time he was 65. 

Mr. Kennedy. He came into the station to try to assist you. What 
happened then ? 

Mr. Bersch. Then they jumped on him and beat him up while I 
was down. I don't know what they hit him with. He got hit in the 
head and broke a vertebra. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you conscious or unconscious during this time ? 

Mr, Bersch. Well, I just remember coming to. I must have been 
unconscious for a short time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was your father knocked unconscious ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't believe he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. After knocking him down, did they then leave ? 

Mr. Bersch. They left ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They jumped back in the car? 

Mr, Bersch, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know whether there was 1 or 2 men that at- 
tacked your father ? 

Mr. Bersch. I don't know. I was down at that time, and when I 
got up, they were gone already. 

Mr. Kennedy, And you don't know if Vrckovic was one of those ? 

Mr, Bersch. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what happened as far as your father 
was concerned or who hit him? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. All you know is he was knocked down ? 

Mr. Bersch. He was knocked down. 

Mr, Kennedy. And it was found later that he had broken a 
vertebra ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9079 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where was the vertebra broken ; do you know ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't. If I remember correctly, I think it was 
the sixth or seventh vertebra. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the car drove away. Were you able to identify 
either of the other two men ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I got a good look at the man on the outside, the 
right-hand side of the car, as I was waiting on customers, when they 
were waiting. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you shown some pictures? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I was shown some pictures. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who showed you the pictures? 

Mr. Bersch. Gerry Desmond, from the Kohler Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to pick out from those pictures the 
man who was sitting on the outside of the automobile? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you identify him as ? 

Mr. Bersch. John Gunaca. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Gunaca? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you told or did yon learn subsequently who 
John Gunaca was ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. He was somebody — he worked for the union 
from Michigan. 

Mr. Kennedy. From local 212 of the UAW ? 

Mr. Bersch. I think that is what it was ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which one was he of those that participated in the 
brawl, or beating, which one was he ? Is he the one that hit you ? 

Mr. Bersch. He is the one that hit me ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one that came in and broke the telephone 
wire and struck you ; is that right? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then trampled on you ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to identify at all who hit your 
father? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I hadn't seen father being hit at the time at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you do know who hit your father ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you break anything? Was anything broken in 
your face ? 

Mr. Bersch. My wrist watch was broken and my glasses were be- 
yond repair. They were completely smashed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have to go to the hospital at all ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I had to have some X-rays taken of my face. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about your father ? They broke his vertebra, 
but did he have to go to the hospital ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'Wlien did he go to the hopsital ? 

Mr. Bersch. He went that same night. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did he remain in the hospital ? 

Mr. Bersch, I think it was 18 days the first time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was due to the beating that he had taken. 



9080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Berscii. Yes ; it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. After he got out of the hospital, did lie have to 
return to the hospital ? 

Mr. Berscii. lie returned 7 times after that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that in connection with ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, complications that turned up from his beating, 
as far as we could figure out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a number of things wrong with him 
then? ^ . 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. For a while he was pretty good, and then he 
developed a cough, and they operated on something that was wrong 
with his lungs. They operated on that. Then he came home and 
went back after that again. It didn't feel right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he huve a chest operation subsequently ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that for, the chest operation ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I don't know the name of it, what it was for. 
It was something on the lower part of his lung. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he never completely recovered after this beat- 
ing on July 4, 1954? 

Mr. Bersch. To my idea, he didn't ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was never able to w^ork again ? 

Mr. Bersch. He worked 2 weeks from the tune that happened un- 
til he died. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did he die ? 

Mr. Bersch. October 21, 1955, 1 believe it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1955 ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When had he had the operation on his chest ? Was 
that just before his death? 

Mr. Bersch. I think that was about 7 or 8 months before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find or learn or know of a connection, or did 
you learn that his death was attributable to the beating that he had 
taken on July 4, 1954 ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I always believed it was, and he was always well 
before that. He worked every day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any evidence or information that there 
was a causal connection between the beating and his death in 1955 ? 

Mr. Bersch. The doctors say it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. The doctors told you there was? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What doctors told you there was? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, this doctor that was mentioned here, and Dr. 
Hanson himself said it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said there was a connection ? 

Mr. Bersch. There was a connection ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you felt that there was a connection between 
the two ? 

Mr. Bersch. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy, And you don't know who the third man was? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairinian. Let me see if I understand you. You were an em- 
ployee of Kohler prior to the strike, were you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9081 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. When they went out on strike, you didn't join the 
strikers, but you didn't undertake to work so long as they were mass 
picketing ? 

Mr, Bersch. No ; I didn't. 

The Chairman. You didn't try to go through the line ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I didn't. 

The Chairman. You got other employment ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I had this other employment before this. 

The Chairman. You continued in that other part-time employment 
that you had ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. You did not go back to Kohler after the mass 
picketing had been dissolved, until after orders had been given for 
them to cease and desist it, is that correct? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then you went back to your job ? 

Mr. Bersch. Then I went back. 

The Chairman. And you were still carrying on this part-time work ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, 

The Chairman. And you were there working at your place of 
business when these men came in the car ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. You were attending to your own business, attend- 
ing to your job? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. Wlien they assaulted you, your father came in to 
try to help you ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. And they beat him up ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. Had he worked prior to that time pretty regularly ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; he had. 

The Chairman. He had worked regularly prior to that time ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. After that beating that they administered to him, 
he was only able to work 2 weeks afterward between that time and 
his death some 16 or 18 months later ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman, Did he suffer very much ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; he did. 

The Chairman. He suffered continuously ? 

Mr. Bersch. Continuously. He never was up and around like he 
had been prior to that. 

The Chairman. And you can say from your own observation and 
from what you saw and know about what happened that it was that 
beating that caused him to remain in a disabled condition from that 
time on until his death ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I would say that. 

The Chairman. At least, that was the starting of it ? 

Mr, Bersch, That was the start, yes. 

The Chairman. And complications may have set in ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 



9082 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOiR FIELD 

The Chairman. And, which caused his death. Had you done any- 
thing on earth to provoke these fellows that came up there to give 
you this beating? 

Mr. Bejjscii. No ; I did not. 

The Chairman. You had said nothing out of the way to them; you 
had done nothing ? 

Mr. Berscii. No; I didn't. 

The Chairman. Except to tell them that you couldn't do a brake 
job that night? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I don't think they came in for that in the first 
place. 

The Chairman. They didn't come for that in the first place ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. But that was their argument with you, that they 
wanted you to do a brake job that night. How long would it take to 
do a brake job like that ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, he had power brakes on that car, and if the 
cylinder was completely empty, it could lead into quite a little time. 
It has to be bled out, 45 minutes to an hour. 

The Chairman. That was 9 : 30 ? 

Mr. Bersch. 9:30. 

The Chairman. And that was when ? 

Mr. Bersch. Sunday, the Fourth of July. 

The Chairman. They came in there at 9 : 30, wanting you to do a 
brake job ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. And instigated an argument with you about that? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. And when you went away and left them alone, try- 
ing to leave them alone, they came in there and assaulted you ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman . All right. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Were you the only employee at the filling station 
that night? 

Mr. Bersch. At that time I was, yes. 

Senator Curtis. And ordinarily it is quite difficult for the sole at- 
tendant at a filling station to take on repair jobs and be responsible 
for the inside of the office as well as the pump; is that correct? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. This was on Sunday, July 4 ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. About what time did this car drive up ? 

Mr. Bersch. About, I would say, 20 after 9 ; 9 : 30 at the latest. 

Senator Curtis. How do you fix that time ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I don't know if I happened to see the clock at 
that time or what it was, but I know it was. 

Senator Curtis. What time would you ordinaril.y close the filling 
station ? 

Mr. Bersch. 10 : 30. 

Senator Curtis. 10:30? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTRTTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9083 

Senator Curtis. And you had been relieved at suppertinie, had you, 
or did you eat your supper there ? 

Mr. Bersch. No. We work a complete shift on Sunday and cut it 
in half, 2 fellows ; 1 in the morninf? and 1 in the afternoon. 

Senator Curtis. And judging upon the time you had worked and 
3^our frequent looking at the time and how long it had been dark and 
so on, all of those things put together was how you fixed the time? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. You spoke of the conversation with this man — how 
do you pronounce it ? 

Mr. Bersch. Vrckovic. 

Senator Curtis. Would you describe his manner as a threatening 
one, when he talked to you ? 

Mr. Bersch. It wasn't in the very beginning, but as soon as he start- 
ed about scabbing, then he got pretty huffy, and I knew the reason he 
came there right then was just on account of that. 

Senator Curtis. How did he know, how did any of these men know, 
who you were about to telephone when you went to the telephone ? 

Mr. Bersch. I don't know if they did or not. I never said any- 
thing. To my knoAvledge, I just walked in the office and picked up the 
phone. 

Senator Curtis. How did they know that you were a Kohler em- 
ployee ? 

Mr. Bersch, Well, Vrckovic knew me and I imagine he seen me com- 
ing out of the shop in my car when he was on the picket line. 

Senator Curtis. How long had you known him ? 

Mr. Bersch. At least 5 or 6 years. 

Senator Curtis. He lived around there ; did he ? 

Mr. Bersch. He lived in Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. I see. And he knew you and knew that you had 
been working, or had gone back to work ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. But at least it was rough enough around there so 
that when you went to telephone^ they had reason to believe that you 
were perhaps calling the officers ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent were you attacked ? Describe it a 
little more in detail when you were at the telephone. 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I was hit in the eye, and it was black and 
blue, and I had my glasses on. I must have hit the safe with the 
other side of my face, because my jaw was pretty sore, and we had 
to have X-rays taken. 

Senator Curtis. What kind of a telephone did you have there? 
Was it a wall telephone, or was it a desk telephone^ where the part 
that you pick up goes down into a cradle ? 

Mr. Bersch. It was a wall phone which you stand right even with. 

Senator Curtis. A wall phone ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And you took the receiver off ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And this man that attacked you at that time, what 
part of the telephone did he reach for ? 

Mr. Bersch. He just took his hand and just like a knife he broke 
the wire right off of it. 



9084 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. The wire that held the receiver ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

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

Senator Curtis. Was the telephone torn from the wall ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; it was. The phone itself was not torn off. 

Senator Curtis. Did he accomplish this with one blow ? 

Mr. Bersch, With one blow, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did he have anything in his hands that you 
know of ? 

Mr. Bersch. I didn't see anything. It happened so fast that I 
couldn't say positively. 

Senator Curtis. On what wall was the telephone ? 

Mr. Bersch. On the west wall of the station. 

Senator Curtis. Ordinarily, when you would be talking on the 
telephone, would you be facing out toward the front of the filling 
station ? 

Mr. Bersch. No. I would be facing west, and the front was to the 
east. 

Senator Curtis. So your assailant came up somewhat from behind 
you, as you were telephoning ? He came in the front way ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. Well, I could see him out of my left eye as he 
walked in. 

Senator Curtis. And at that time you did not know who he was? 

Mr. Bersch. I did not know. 

Senator Curtis. But you have later identified him from pictures? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I have. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did the third man get out of the car any 
time that you know of? 

Mr. Bersch. I couldn't say yes or no on that. 

Senator Curtis. This individual that you had the conversation with 
about the brakes, did he get out of the car when he talked to you about 
that? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; not when he talked to me. He was in the car. 

Senator Curtis. He was in the car ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did he first get out of the car ; do you know ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I didn't see him out at all, myself. 

Senator Curtis. How many people took part in the assault upon 
your father? 

Mr. Bersch. I couldn't say that, either. I was down at that time. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, in order to clear this doubt^ as to who 
it was, were there any other customers in the filling station at this 
time? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; there was not. 

Senator Curtis. No passer-by that you know of ? 

Mr. Bersch. There was a friend of mine in the station, in the garage 
part. 

Senator Curtis. In the garage part? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent is that separated ? 

Mr. Bersch. It is riffht on the same building. It is about 20 foot 
awav from where this happened. 

Senator Curtis. What is this friend's name? 

Mr. Bersch. Roland Veenendaal. 



iIMPROPER ACTIVrTIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9085 

Senator Curtis. What is his first name ? 

Mr. Bersch. Koland. 

Senator Curtis. Where does he live ? 

Mr. Bersch. In Sheboygan Falls. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether he saw what happened? 

Mr. Bersch. I think he seen, as far as seeing how many were out of 
the car, that I knew he seen. But I could not say if he seen exactly all 
that happened or not. 

Senator Curtis. He was there, and your father was there, and the 
only other people that were there were these people who drove up in 
the car ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Were you knocked out ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, momentarily, yes. Long enough that I didn't 
see what was going on with my father. 

Senator Curtis. "Wlien you did regain consciousness who all were 
there? 

Mr. Bersch. T\^ien I regained consciousness, my father and I was 
there. That is all that was there. 

Senator Curtis. Your friend from the garage wasn't there then ? 

Mr. Bersch. He left. I think he was going down to find a cop at 
that time. 

Senator Curtis. He had gone to find a cop ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Then you know that, even though you couldn't see 
it, the individual attacking your father had to be 1 of these 3 people 
that drove up in the car ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Had your father come into the filling station by the 
time the telephone was jerked off the wall ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't believe he had. 

Senator Curtis. After this was all over, you had conversation with 
your father about it ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; I did. 

Senator Curtis. Who did he say attacked him ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, when they attacked him, they hit him from be- 
hind. He didn't see, either. 

Senator Curtis. But it was the same people that attacked you? 

Mr. Bersch. He did not say that ; no. 

Senator Curtis. How many attacked you ? 

Mr. Bersch. That I wouldn't know. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know whether it was 1 or 2 

Mr. Bersch. No, I don't. 

Senator Curtis. Or three. What kind of a car did they drive up in ? 

Mr. Bersch. A 1953 Buick. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what license number it bore? 

Mr. Bersch. I do not know, but that night he got their license 
number. 

Senator Curtis. "V^Hio did ? 

Mr. Bersch, My father. 

Senator Curtis. Your father got the license number ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes ; he did. 

Senator Curtis. And how soon after that did officers arrive? 



9086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES TN" THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bekscii. I would say about 20 minutes at the most. The chief 
of police from Sheboygan Falls was over there. 

Senator Curtis. And your father did give a statement to the officers 
and also make an affidavit as to his account of what happened, did he 
not? 

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

Mr. Bersoii. Yes, he did. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I don't believe we have established how your father 
happened to be there. Was he working at the same filling station ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, he wasn't. We had made arrangements to go 
fishing the next day and he came over that night, and we live right 
across tlie street, and he came over there to tell me what time to be 
ready. That is how he happened to be there. 

_ Senator Mundt. He just happened to come over, and at the same 
time he saw you being attacked by these goons, and so he came to your 
rescue the best he could ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. At the time Gunaca hit you and knocked the phone 
out of your hand, did he say anything ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, he didn't. 

Senator Mundt. The first thing you knew you were hit in the head, 
and you were on the way ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Was there anybody else ? You don't know whether 
Gunaca was in the station alone at the time he hit you or whether the 
other fellows were there with you ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, he would be alone. 

Senator Mundt. He would be alone ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And after your father got the license number on 
the car, and you checked out to see whose car it was, it was registered 
in the name of this man in Sheboygan, was it ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, and I knew him right away, and I don't know if 
he did or not, but I knew him. 

Senator Mundt. This was his car ? 

Mr. Bersch. This w'as his car, yes. 

Senator Mundt. How did the chief of police happen to show up on 
the scene ? Who called him ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, he only lives about three houses down from 
the station. My father walked over there from the station, and Mr. 
Billman had just got home. 

Senator Mundt. Your father walked over after they attacked him, 
you mean ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, he did. 

Senator Mundt. And what was your condition, and what were you 
doing at that time ? 

Mr. Bersch. I had blood all over. 

Senator Mund r. And you came to consciousness ? 

Mr. Bers(;h. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9087 

Senator Mundt. And wlien your father walked over, what were 
you doing? 

Mr. Bersch. I was closing up. 

Senator Mundt. xVnd this friend of yours in the next door garage, 
what was he doing ? 

Mr. Bersch. He seen it happening, and I guess he waited around 
a little bit, and we got in the car and went to get the police on duty. 
There was one policeman on duty all of the time, and he went to find 
him. 

Senator Mundt. But before the policeman on duty arrived, your 
father had contacted the chief, who lived close by, and the chief was 
the first officer of the law to show up at the filling station ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Were any arrests made as a consequence of this 
attack ? 

Mr. Bersch. I think Vrckovic was arrested later on and put on 
bond. 

Senator Mundt. Was anybody else arrested ? 

Mr. Bersch. No. 

Senator Mundt. Why didn't they arrest Gunaca ? 

Mr. Bersch. By the time they got the district attorney, Gmiaca 
checked out of his hotel already. 

Senator Mundt. He had been in Sheboygan for some time before 
this attack, had he not ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is what they told me, and I did not know him 
at all. But according to his hotel, he had been. 

Senator Mundt. I think we have established in the testimony of 
Mr. Burkhart that Gunaca had been there for some time, as one oi the 
men that the UAW had there in connection with the strike. By the 
time you say they had made out a warrant, and wevQ ready to pick 
him up, he had checked out of the hotel ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Did they try to find him later ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, they did. 

Senator Mundt. What happened ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, Mr. Harry Schmidt and myself, the district 
attorney and chief of police, w^ent to Michigan to see if we could get 
him back to Wisconsin, which he absolutely refused. 

Senator Mundt. Who refused? 

Mr. Bersch. The Governor of Michigan. 

Senator Mundt. Wlio was then Governor of Michigan ? 

Mr. Bersch. I think Williams. 

Senator Mundt. Governor Williams ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get to talk to Mr. Williams at all your- 
self? 

Mr. Bersch. No, we didn't. We got to talk to his assistant. 

Senator Mundt. What was the name of his assistant ? 

Mr. Bersch. I wouldn't remember. That was a few years ago. 

Senator Mundt. You talked to his assistant, and what did liis 
assistant tell you? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, he was afraid of a poor trial in Sheboygan, and 
Mr. Gunaca himself was afraid to come down there, he said, and he 
wouldn't get a fair trial. 



9088 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Where did this conversation take place? 

Mr. Bersch, In the capitol building, where the Governor is. 

Senator Mundt. In the Governor's office or reception room ? 

Mr. Berscii. I think it 

Senator Mundt. In the gubernatorial suite ? 

Mr. Bersch. It was the suite of his secretary. 

Senator Mundt. You went to Michigan to try to see Governor 
Williams, and tell him to send Gunaca back so that he could stand 
trial ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And you could not see Governor Williams, and he 
turned you over to some assistant, whose name you do not recall, and 
the assistant said, "We will not send him back because he cannot get 
a fair trial in Sheboygan." 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. How did the assistant know he couldn't get a fair 
trial in Sheboygan ? Was he a Sheboygan boy, and did you know him? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, Mr. Rabinovitz was there at that time, too. 

Senator Mundt. Was where ? 

Mr. Bersch. He had this meeting with us. 

Senator Mundt. In the Governors' office ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, and some lawyer from Michigan, and I wouldn't 
know his name, he was also there. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Rabinovitz was trying to help you or trying 
to help Gunaca ? 

Mr. Bersch. Definitely not. He helped Gunaca. 

Senator Mundt. He was trying to help Gunaca ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. How did you happen to take him along ? 

Mr. Bersch. We didn't take him over. We seen that he was there 
when we got there. 

Senator Mundt. Wlio saw that he was there ? 

Mr. Bersch. Mr. Rabinovitz ? 

Sentaor Mundt. Wait a minute. You, and I suppose a lawyer or 
law enforcement officer or somebody, went to Michigan. Who went 
with you to Michigan ? 

Mr. Bersch. The district attorney, the undersheriff, and the chief 
of police. 

Senator Mundt. You and three law enforcement officers went to 
Michigan ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And how did you establish contact with the Gov- 
ernor's office in advance ? 

Mr. Bersch. That was in advance. 

Senator Mundt. You had telephoned ahead to say you were coming 
to Michigan, is that the idea? 

Mr. Bersch. I don't know. The district attorney took care of that. 

Senatro Mundt. The appointment was set up before you left She- 
boygan ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. When you arrived in the Governor's office, you 
found there the attorney for the UAW, Mr. Rabinovitz ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9089 

Senator Mundt. So you went back then, unable to bring this fugi- 
tive from justice back to trial ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Did you quit trying for extradition there, or did 
you try over ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, the law enforcement has tried over, and I never 
have anything to do with it. 

Senator Mundt. How often have they tried, do you know ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, if I remember right, they tried to have him in 
Milwaukee for a hearing one time, and he refused to come on a subpena 
that time. 

Senator Mundt. Will you say that again? You tried to get him 
tried in Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, I think for a labor relations hearing or something 
they had one time, and he didn't come that time, either. 

Senator Mundt. This is kind of curious, because we had some kind 
of a wire or message from him that Milwaukee was the place he wanted 
to be tried. 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, and I wondered about that myself, when I heard 
that. 

Senator Mundt. That pretty well disposes of Mr. Gunaca for the 
time being. And how about this other man whose name we seem to 
be unable to pronounce ? That starts with "V" ? 

Mr. Bersch. Vrckovic. 

Senator Mundt. Was he also in Michigan ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, he did not go along that time. 

Senator Mundt. Was he arrested — and you said he was arrested and 
out on bond, I believe ? 

Mr. Bersch. Vrckovic? 

Senator Mundt. He was arrested and he was out on bond and he has 
been tried ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, he has not. 

Senator Mundt. Why not ? 

Mr. Bersch. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Is he still in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, I think he is in California or somewhere. 

Senator Mundt. He is also a fugitive from justice, and left the State. 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel tells me that he is not a fugitive from jus- 
tice, but he is out on bond, but the wheels of justice have moved kind 
of slowly and they haven't tried him, is that correct ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And the third man remains unknown ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Nobody has been able to identify him ? 

Mr. Bersch. No. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. Was it the third man, 
or one of these that you have identified, that struck you ? 

Mr. Bersch. I have identified John Gunaca. 

The Chairman. He is the one who struck you ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Goldwater. I have just one question of the witness. 



9090 IMPROPE'R ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

At the meeting in Michigan, at the Governor's office, was Mr. Gun- 
aca at that meeting? 

Mr, Bersch. Yes, he was. 

Senator Goldwa ter. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Curtis. You said that you went to the capitol of Michigan 
with tlie local law enforcement officers ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtls. And you had telephoned for an appointment or 
somebody had ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, it was arranged through the district attorney, 
I think it was, and he arranged the appointment. 

Senator Curtis. Now, was that advertised, or was that information 
made known generally, that you were going to go up there ? 

Mr. Bersch. If I remember correctly, I think it was. It was in the 
paper. 

Senator Curtis. And when you got up there, did you ask to see the 
Governor or did some of your party ask to see the Governor ? 

Mr. Bersch. I think there was an appointment made originally, we 
should have seen the Governor, but he must have had some business 
or something. 

Senator Curtis. It was your understanding that he did have an ap- 
pointment with the Governor ? 

Mr. Bersch. That was my understanding, yes. 

Senator Curtis. But did any of your party get to see the Governor ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, they did not. 

Senator Curtis. Did this conversation that you had with one of his 
assistants take place in part of the Governor's office there ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, I think it was the assistant's office or the Gover- 
nor's office, but it was a small office. 

Senator Curtis. What individuals were present besides the prose- 
cutor and law-enforcing officers that accompanied you? Wliat other 
individuals were present when these conversations took place there in 
the capitol building? 

Mr. Bersch. Mr. Rabinovitz, and an attorney from Michigan. 

Senator Curtis. By Mr. Rabinovitz, who do you mean ? Is that the 
attorney that lives in Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Curtis. Is he in this hearing room now ? 

Mr. Bersch. He was when I came up here. 

The Chairman. Look around and see if he is here now. 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir; I do. 

The Chairman. Where is he? 

Mr. Bersch. Right here. 

The Chairman. Which one ? 

Mr. Bersch. Right here. 

The Chairman. Okay. 

Senator Curtis. Now. did you notify the attorney for the UAW 
that you were going up there ? 

Mr. Bersch. I had not, and I don't think our party had. 

Senator Curtis. So you made that trip up there, having an ap- 
pointment with the Governor, and you did not get to see the Governor 
but you were met there by two attorneys, one of whom represented the 
UAW? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9091 

Mr. Bersch. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you wait around trying to see the 
Governor ? 

Mr. Bersch. Well, I don't believe we waited at all. We had an ap- 
pointment, I think it was 9 or 10 o'clock, and we went down there, and 
he was supposed to be there and his assistant was. Whether the dis- 
trict attorne}^ was told before we came there he could see the Governor 
or the assistant I don't know. 

I was under the impression we would see the Governor. 

Senator Curtis. Do you recall whether any reason was given why 
you could not see the Governor that morning ? 

Mr. Bersch. No ; I don't. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. The Chair is asking you 3 questions here, and maybe 
I can confine them to 2, at the request of counsel for the UAW. 

Question No. 1 : Is it not true that Dr. Hanson, your father's doctor, 
stated on the death certificate that your father had heart disease in 
1953, 1 year before the attack ? 

Mr. Bersch. That was on his certificate and I never saw it. I saw 
on his certificate that he died from a heart attack, but I never saw that 
part of it on the certificate, that he had it before that. 

The Chairman. You never saw that on the certificate that he had 
a heart condition the year before the attack on him ? 

Mr. Bersch. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. Is it true that Dr. Hanson stated on the death cer- 
tificate that your father died of heart disease ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, that is true. 

The Chairman. Of course, it speaks for itself. 

All right ; is it not true that Dr. Hanson left blank the part of the 
death certificate referring to "other significant conditions?" 

Mr. Bersch. That I would not know. 

The Chairman. You would not know ? 

Mr. Bersch. No. 

The Chairman. The death certificate speaks for itself, and it is 
already in evidence. Are there any further questions ? 

Thank you, and you may stand aside. Call the next witness. 

Senator Curtis. Just a moment. But the doctor told you that there 
was a connection between the assault on your father and his death, 
did he? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, I think right after this hapi)ened, and he de- 
veloped this heart disease, he said, "this trouble with his lung" and 
he shook his head at that time. 

Senator Curtis. That happened in conversation between you and 
the doctor ? 

Mr. Bersch. That was just a conversation. 

Senator Curtis. Was there more than one conversation to that 
effect? 

Mr. Bersch. No, I don't believe there was. Not that I recall. 

Senator Curtis. I don't know what the practice is in Wisconsin, 
but I think that this committee could find out. I believe death 
certificates as a rule do not show contributing causes to death, nor 
anything other than the immediate cause. 

I think that is the general practice, and that is meeting the require- 
ment of what must be stated on the death certificate. 



9092 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Gold water. I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman. 

The seventh cervical vertebra which has been mentioned several 
times, and I think at one time one of the witnesses questioned whether 
or not it was a part of the neck. I had the secretary call Dr. Calvert's 
office, and it is the large bone right at the base of the neck. 

It is just to locate that bone in the proper place. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Veenendaal. Will you come around, 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 you God ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROLAND VEENENDAAL 

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

Mr. Veenendaal. My name is Roland Veenendaal. 

The Chairman. Where do you live ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I live at 858 Buffalo Street, Sheboygan Falls, 
Wis. 

The Chairman. What is your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I work at Everett's store. Route 3, Sheboygan 
Falls. 

The Chairman. How long have you worked there ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. 3 years. 

The Chairman. What did you do before that ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I worked and I went to business college in She- 
boygan, and I had a part-time job with the Sheboygan Press. 

The Chairman. Wliere did you work before that ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I was in the Army for 3 years. 

The Chairman. All right, that is enough. Now proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Veenendaal, you have been a friend of Mr. 
Bersch, Jr. ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the night of July 4, 1954, you were at the filling 
station, where he worked ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had some conversation or discussion with him ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, general conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then did you see him go over to take care of 
an automobile that pulled up with 3 men in it ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes. Well, at the time, when I stepped up, he 
was not doing anything, so we just talked, and then he was busy at 
the pumps when this car pulled in. 

After he attended those two cars, after he got through servicing 
those, then he came over to the car that pulled in up in front of the 
grease rack there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you overhear any of the conversation between 
them? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I did not hear anything that was said in the 
car, and I did not know what they were saying, but I heard Bill say 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9093 

once, "Well, that is my business," and then afterward, he said he 
had a truck inside that he had to grease first, and that was as much of 
the conversation that I heard. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he go into the office ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you see him go in to make a telephone call ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I saw him go into the office. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all you saw ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were on the outside ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see any of the men go in ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. As soon as lie left for the office, all three men got 
out of the car and went into the office, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. All three of them ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you see what happened once they got in the 
office? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Well, at that point, I stepped away from the 
building a ways, so I could see in through the front door, that would 
be the office door, and I saw some scuffling going on in there, but as to 
just exactly what happened, I don't know. 

After that point I could not identify anybody or see who was doing 
what at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could not identify any of the people in the auto- 
mobile ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any of the people that went into the filling station ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you don't know what ha]:)pened in the filling 
station, other than the fact that there was a g )od deal of scuffling? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Well, I saw somebody had a club, probably 18 
inches long up-raised and I don't know who had that either. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the baseball bat? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I found out later it was a baseball bat. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the one that Mr. Bersch, Sr., had gotten out 
of the automobile, or you don't know that? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what happened ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Then I got into my car and I was going downtown 
for the police, and when I got about a block and a half down the street, 
then I saw this other car pull out and head toward Kohler. I went 
past the police station, and I saw there the police was not in at that 
time and so I went on home. 

Then I never did call them because I figured by the time I got home, 
that the other car had gone there and it was probably 5 minutes later, 
and Bersch lived right across the street, and I figured by that time they 
would have called them too. 

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

21243—58 — pt. 22 23 



9094 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So you saw tlie sciilHiiig going on, and you couldn't 
identify anybody or exactly what was going on, except you saw some- 
body with a baseball club ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately you got in your automobile, and drove by 
the ])olice station, and there w^asn't anybody there, so you drove home? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all you had to do with it? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you can't identify anybody ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You saw the three men in the car 
get out and go in? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

The Cfi AIRMAN. You know they went in there? 

Mr. Veenendaal. I know the three men Avent into the station. 

The Chairman. There wasn't any fighting until they went in there ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is correct. 

The Chairman. There hadn't been any fighting until they went in 
there, is that right ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is right. 

The Chairman. And it started inmiediately when they went in 
there, is that right? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is correct. 

The Chairman. They went in there and the fight started? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is ri^ht. 

The Chairman. Did you know either 1 of the 3 men in the car? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know when Mr. Bersch, Sr., w^ent in there? 
Did you see him go in ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No. I lost track of him right away. I don't know 
where he went. 

The Chairman. The fact of the matter is you got a little scared and 
left, didn't you ? Isn't that the fact ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Well, that might be true. 

The Chairman. It might be ; it is, isn't it ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes. I was going dow^n to get the police. 

The Chairman. You didn't want any part of it? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No, I didn't that is for sure. 

The Chairman. So you got scared and left? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is right, if that is the way you want to 
put it. 

The Chairman. All riglit. 

Senator Mundt. Did you get a good enough look at the men in the 
car so that you might have recognized their faces? 

Mr. Veenendaal. No. No, I was called into the police station then 
in Falls the next morning and they showed me some pictures, Chief 
Capelle had some there, but I couldn't pick any of them out. 

Senator Mundt. But your contribution to this situation is pretty 
much limited to the fact that this was not an attack made on Mr. 
Bersch by 1 individual, but that 3 of them went into the station at the 
time there was an attack ? 

Mr. Veenendaal. That is about the extent of it, yes, sir. 



•IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9095 

Senator Mundt. That is about the extent of what you can con- 
tribute? 

Mr. Veenendaal. Yes, sir. 

Sei^ator Mundt. All rijjht. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, before the next witness is called, I 
wonder if I could ask Mr. Rabinovitz a couple of questions. 

The Chairman. You may. 

You may stand aside. 

Come forward, Mr. Rabinovitz. 

Have you been sworn ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes, sir, I have. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID RABINOVITZ— Eesumed 

Senator Curtis. You heard the testimony of AVilliam Bersch, Jr.? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Were you present in the capital of Michigan at the 
time he referred to? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I was. 

Senator Curtis. What I want to know is w^ho notified you of the 
meeting and who asked you to be there ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. An attorney by the name of William Mazey, of 
Detroit, Mich., called me and asked me to be a witness at a hearing, 
an extradition hearing, befoie the Governor's council, and asked me 
to testify as to what I thought were the feelings and conditions in the 
commmiity as far as Gunaca receiving a fair trial. 

Senator Curtis. Who did that came come from ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. William Mazey. 

Senator Curtis. And he is an attorney ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is he related to Emil Mazey ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. He is a brother of Emil Mazey. 

Senator Curtis. Did he tell you who he represented ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes : he said he represented John Gunaca. 

Senator Curtis. Did you talk to John Gunaca before he left Wis- 
consin? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Yes. I saw John Gunaca in the courtroom at She- 
boygan, Wis., on, I believe, the 6th day of July, at a hearing where 
Bill Vinson was arraigned for bond. John Gunaca was there on the 
()th, which would be 2 days after this alleged incident. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have a conversation with him? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. No; I don't believe I did. 

Senator Curtis. Was he 3'^our client at that time ? 

ISIr. Rabinovitz. Xo, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, while we have Mr. Rabinovitz here, 
I wanted to call him later on another point, but I do have a question. 

The Chairman. All right. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You were in the hearing room, I am sure, yester- 
day, Mr. Rabinovitz ? 

^Ir. Rabinovitz. Yes. 



9096 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. There developed a difference of opinion between 
Mr. Mazey, Mr. Rauli, and myself, as to whether the National Labor 
Relations Board had ever taken any action against the UAW in con- 
nection with the boycott carried on against the Kohler Co., especially 
in Milwaukee. I gathered from the testimony, and it is shared by 
others, that Mr. Mazey and Mr. Rauh either denied that the National 
Labor Relations Board had taken such action, or that they tried to 
minimize it and attach no sigiiificance to it, and indicated it had no 
legal status. I believe that you have acted as counsel for the UAW 
before the NLRB in various matters coming before that agency, and 
I believe that you have a competency in this field which perhaps is 
not shared by Mr. Mazey, since he, like myself, is not a lawyer, or by 
Mr. Rauh, who, I believe, is not a full-time attorney, for the UAW, 
or, if he is, probably deals in cases of this type rather than in the type 
of technical cases that come before the NLRB. 

For that reason, I want to ask you a few questions at this time to 
.see if we can clear this up for once and for all. Was a charge ever 
filed with the NLRB, charging that both the International UAW 
and Kohler Local 833 of the UAW, among others, had violated the 
secondary boycott provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act with respect 
to the two Milwaukee firms called Paper Importing Co. and Hammer & 
Gillipsie, Inc. ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Senator, I was not involved in that case. The Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board hearings were going on at the time. 
This was another section of the General Counsel's office which had 
filed these charges. I understand charges were filed. I understand 
Mr. Rauh will sometime today file a brief and reveal to this commit- 
tee all the pleadings, the complaints, and all the legal documents con- 
cerning this case. I am sure that that record will speak for itself. 

Senator Mundt. You say you were not the attorney in charge ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Who was the attorney in charge ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I understand that Harold Cranefield, general coun- 
sel of the UAW, handled this matter in Milwaukee. 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Cranefield in the committee room ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. No, sir. He has not been here. 

Senator Mundt. Is there any attorney here who has any firsthand 
information on it ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I don't think so. I think Mr. Bernstein is probably 
referring to Redmond Roache, but I am sure that Redmond Roache 
was not active in that. It was handled completely by Mr. Cranefield. 
But I say again that Mr. Rauh will file the — will document this matter 
and will reveal to this committee all the legal pleadings involved. 

Senator Mundt. Is Mr. Rauh a member of the general counsel of 
the UAW? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I do not believe he is. 

Senator Mundt. You are the general counsel ; are you not ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I am not. Mr. Cranefield is. 

Senator Mundt. Are you a member of that counsel's staff ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. Senator, I am a small-town practicing general 
law;^er who is doing some work because I became involved and was 
retained by this local in this strike. I am not on the staff of any union. 

Senator Mundt. I see. You are not a member of their regular legal 
staff? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 9097 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I am not. 

Senator Mundt. And you don't know whether Mr, Rauh is or not ? 

Mr. Rabinovitz. I am sure he is not. 

Senator Mundt. You are sure he isn't. I assumed he was not. I was 
trying to find a lawyer whose direct contact would enable us to 
straighten out this record. 

Mr. Rabinovitz. You will receive all that information today. 

Senator Mundt. If I got it from Mr. Rauh, I would get it second- 
handed, or if I got it from you I would get it secondhanded. 

Mr. Rabinovitz. No ; you will not. You will get from Mr. Rauh a 
brief, together with all the documents or a summai'y of all the docu- 
ments that were filed in that court, in the Milwaukee Federal Court. 

Senator Mundt. In all events, Mr. Rabinovitz, I assume you were 
in the general counsel's office and can answer this out of firsthand 
information. If you tell me you cannot answer this out of firsthand 
information, there is no use to pursue it further with you, and I will 
not pursue it with Mr. Rauh, but if he wants to file his exhibit, we will 
analyze the exhibit and see where we go from there. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Gunaca. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Gunaca. 

Stand and be sworn. 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. Gunaca. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GUNACA, ACCOMPANIED BY D. CHAHLES 
MARSTON, COUNSEL, DETROIT, MICH. 

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

Mr. Gunaca. My name is John Gunaca. I live at 4300 Devonshire, 
Detroit, Mich. I am a bartender at this time. 

The Chairman. You are a what ? 

Mr. Gunaca. A bartender. 

The Chairman. A bartender ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the rec- 
ord, please, sir ? 

Mr. Marston. Yes, sir. 

My name is D. Charles Marston. I am a dues-paying member of 
the Michigan State bar. 

The Chairman. A dues-paying member ? 

Mr. Marston. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you in good standing ? 

Mr. Marston. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Are you a member of a firm, Mr. Marston ? 

Mr. Marston. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who are the other members? 



9098 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Makston. Nicholas J. Rothe, William Mazey, Theodore -K. 
Sachs, and Robert O'Connell. 

Senator Curtis. That is Mazey, that is the brother of Emil Mazey? 

Mr. Marston. That is correct. 

The CiiAiRMAisr. You are familiar with the rules of the committee, 
I am sure ? 

Mr. Marston. I will try to follow them as well as I can, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gunaca, you have been a member of the UAW? 

Mr. Gunaca. Ye^, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since when ? 

When did you become a member of the UAW ? 

The Chairman. Speak a little louder. 

I want to hear what you have to say. 

Mr. Gunaca. 1948. " 

Mr. Kennedy. 1948 ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were you working at that time ? 

Mr. Gunaca. At the Brigjjs Manufacturing Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what local were you in, in the UAW ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Local 212, UAW^-CIO. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever become an officer of the UAW ? 

Did you ever have an official position ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I was chief steward there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected chief steward ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Appointed or elected chief steward ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Elected. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were you elected chief steward ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Some time in 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you held that position for how long ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Until 1 left in 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected again, or was that the only elec- 
tion, in 1949? Were you reelected? 

Mr. Gunaca. I was reelected yearly. It is a yearly election. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were reelected in 1950 and 1951 and 1952, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this time you were working at the Briggs 
Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you leave the Briggs Manufacturing Co. 
in 1952? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason did you leave them in 1952? Was 
that of your own accord ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes ; it was on my own accord, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not fired ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Xo ; I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just left the Briggs IManufacturing Co., is that 
right? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 9099 

Mr. Kp:nnedy. What job did you take to go into then^ What posi- 
tion did you take? 

Mr. GuNACA. I left the State of Michigan at that time. 

Mr. Kenxedy. iVnd for how long were you out of the State of 
]VIichigan ? 

jNIr. GuxACA. xVhnost a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you have any other job in the interim, in 
1952-53? 

]Mr. GuNACA. I don't understand your (question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any job between 1952 and 1953. 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of work were you doing then ? . 

Mr. GuNACA. I was a car salesman down in Kansas City, Mo. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you a member of any union at that time ? 

Mr. GuNACA. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy, Did you remain in the UA 

]Mr. GuNACA. Excuse me. I want to retract that. I was still a mem- 
ber of local 212. 

:vir. Kennedy. Of the UAW ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You retained your membership in the UAW al- 
though you left the Briggs JManuf acturing Co. ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir, and I still retain it today, 

Mr. Kennedy. You were paying your dues in that period of time? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you came back to INIichigan in 1953 ? 

Mr. GuNACA. It was, to the best of my recollection, it was the latter 
part of 1952 or the first part of 1953. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy, "\Aniat work did you do then when you came back? 

Mr. GuNACA. When I lirst came back, I went to my local union and 
I tried to get my job back in the Briggs Manufacturing Co, I would 
like to retract that a little bit, because prior to the time of me leaving, 
the Briggs Manufacturing Co. sold its part of the automobile industry 
to the Chrysler Manufacturing Co., and at the time that I left in 1952 
it did belong to the Chrysler Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy, So you tried to get your old job back anyway, when 
you got back to ^lichigan ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to do that ? 

Mr. GuNACA. No ; I was not, 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. GuNACA. As far as I know, the company stated that I had 
left voluntarily, and they paid me off on a voluntary quit, and they 
didn't want to rehire me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they had no obligation to rehire you at that time ? 

jNlr. Gfnaca. No; they did not, 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the statement they made, that they had no 
obligation to rehire you ? 

Mr. GuNACA. That is what they stated. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you get into some other job ? 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave that ])oint, do you disagree with 
that position? Do you think they had an obligation to rehire you? 

Mr. GuNACA. Senator, that question there, whether tliey had an ob- 
ligation to rehire me or not, I couldn't answer that. 



9100 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you for your opinion. I don't know. 
You said they said they had no obligation to rehire you. 

I say do jou agree with them or do you disagree, and if you dis- 
agree, on what ground ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, when I left the Chrysler Corp., they were, the 
management of the department I was attached to, they were aware of 
my domestic problems, because I had discussed it- 

Mr. Kennedy. Were aware of what ? 

Mr, GuNACA. My domestic problems at this time. That is why I 
left there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Domestic problems ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir ; it is a domestic problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. You liad been in trouble in tlie plant itself ? 

Mr. GuNACA. N"p, sir ; it was at home. Family trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't know we were talking about family troubles. 
I thought you said you left to go to Sheboygan to do something in the 
strike. 

Mr. GuNACA. No, sir ; I did not say that. 

Senator Mundt. What did you tell? I suppose a fellow working 
for a company can't just walk out and quit and then walk back when 
he wants to. You have to say something to somebody that you are 
going on a leave of absence, don't you ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Who do you report to in a big outfit like that ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, the legal procedure, according to contract, was 
that it had to be requested through the employment office. 

Senator Mundt. You went to an employment officer ? 

jNIr. GuNACA. I did not. At the time that I left the plant, I did not 
go to the employment office. 

Senator Mundt. You just walked out and didn't come back ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I informed the superintendent of the department that 
I was going to leave, and that I didn't know right there and then how 
long I would be gone. 

And that was arranged more or less on a personal agreement that 
we have done on occasions, that we done it on those basis where if 
somebody needed a little time off they would not have to go through 
the employment office to get a leave of absence, that they could do it 
from the department itself. That w\as not in contract, though, and I 
would like to point that out. 

Senator jSIundt. In other words, what you did was not in con- 
formity with the contract ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. What you did was not in conformity with the 
contract. The way the contract was written, you should have gone to 
an employment officer. Instead of going to an employment officer, you 
went to the superintendent ; is that correct ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Sir, it is not an employment officer. It is the employ- 
ment office. 

Senator Mundt. All right. The contract says that you should go 
through the employment office. But you did not go through the em- 
ployment office, you w^ent to the superintendent instead, thereby 
violating the contract. And, as a consequence, when you came back, 
the corporation said "We don't have to hire you because you have been 
absent in violation of the contract." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9101 

Does that summarize what you were up against ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, Senator, that is a personal opinion that you 
draw, probably. 

Senator Mundt. I drew it out of your testimony. If you have some 
other opinion as to where it is wrong, tell me where it is wrong. 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, according to the contract it is right. 

Senator Mundt, That is what I said. That is not a personal opin- 
ion. I am interpreting the contract as you interpreted it to me. I 
have never seen a contract. You must have seen one. Up to now, 
then, we understand each other that those were the conditions under 
which you left, and those were the reasons w^hy they refused to em- 
ploy you when you came back. 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, the reason they refused to hire me back with 
my full seniority was that I was active in a union. I was a chief 
steward at the time. 

Senator Mundt. Say that again ? 

Mr. GuNACA. One of the main reasons that they refused to rehire 
me, the main reason that they gave, was that I left voluntarily. But 
the reason was that I was active in a union. I held the position of a 
chief steward in the shop. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat would that have to do with it ? Every shop 
has to have a chief steward ; doesn't it ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Seantor Mundt. Had you done something as chief steward that the 
company thought was reprehensible ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. They wouldn't fire you because you were chief 
steward, because somebody else would become the chief steward, and 
if they like chief stewards or don't like them has nothing to do with 
the case. They have to have them. 

Mr. GuNACA. You don't understand the problems in the shops, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to have you explain them to me. 

It doesn't sound sensible to me to say "They wouldn't hire me back 
because T was a chief steAvard," because failing to hire you didn't elim- 
inate a chief steward. Somebody else stepped in and became chief 
steward ; didn't he ? Isn't that right ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The only way I could add up your testimony is the 
reason you would not be employed is because you walked out in viola- 
tion of the contract and failed to go through the employment officer, 
or office, and instead went through the superintendent. 

Mr. GuNACA. That is true. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you didn't get your old job back, so you took 
some different employment in 1953 ; is that right? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the employment that you took at that 
time ? 

Mr. GuNACA. When I first came back, I went to the local, like I 
stated before, and I did not get my job back in the plant. I don't 
remember now who arranged it, but it was during a time of an election 
and they got me a job with the Wayne County CIO Council, doing 
PAC work. 



9102 IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

I believe that I worked for them for about 3 to 4 weeks. I am not 
exact as to the dates. 

Senator Mundt. What is PAC work ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Political Action Committee. 

Senator Mundt. After you came back from Sheboyoan, then, you 
went to work for the Political Action Committee? 

Mr. Kennedy. This is before, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I am mixed up in the dates. I thought you left the 
plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. He went to Kansas then. 

Senator Mundt. This is when he went to Kansas? When you left 
the plant because of domestic difficulties, you went to Kansas, is that 
right, Mr. Gunaca ? 

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

Senator Mundt. And it was upon your return from Kansas that 
you failed to get your job back because of the interpretation which is 
already in the record ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 
. Senator Mundt. And at that time, you went to work for the Politi- 
cal Action Committee instead of for Chrysler ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Senator, that was Kansas City, Mo. It was not 
Kansas. 

Senator Mundt. Kansas City, Mo. All right. Who did you work 
for when you were working for the Political Action Committee ? 

Who was your employer ? 

Mr. Gunaca. It was the Wayne County CIO Council. 

Senator Mundt. Who was the head of that ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Mike Novak is the president. 

Senator Mundt. Who ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Mike Novak. 

Senator Mundt. And from whom did you get your check ? 

Mr, Gunaca. From the Wayne County CIO Council. 

Senator Mundt. Who was the secretary-treasurer that paid you ? 

Mr. Gunaca. A1 Barber. 

Senator Mundt. And what was your salary ? 

Mr. Gunaca. That, sir, I couldn't — I can't remember what the sal- 
ary was. 

Senator Mundt. Would you remember whether it was more or less 
than you were earning a^s a shop steward ? Or was it about the same? 

Mr. Gunaca. It was r"ight in the same category. 

Senator Mundt. Roughly the same ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes. sir. 

Senator Curtis. What were your duties working for the PAC? 

Mr. Gunaca. Distributing campaign literature. 

Senator Curtis. And what months and what years did you work for 
them? ^ 

Mr. Gunaca. You are trying to pin me down to a date. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. I didn't ask for tlie days. 

Mr. Gunaca. The dates, I said. I can't remember the dates. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what year it was ? 

Mr. Gunaca. It had to be in 1953. 

Senator Curtis. Was it in the spring, in the summer, in the fall or 
in the winter ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES I^^ THE LABOR FIELD 9103 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, it had to be — it was during the campaign, elec- 
tion campaign, so it had to be in the spring. 

It was the primary. 
. Senator Curtis. Was it a political campaign in Michigan ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I believe it was an election in the city of Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. In the city of Detroit? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In the city of Detroit? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. From whom did you get your checks? 

Mr. GuNACA. From the Wayne County CIO Council. 

Senator Curtis. .You worked for the PAC, but the CIO Council 
paid you? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, sir, the Wayne County Council is a PAC. 

Senator Curtis. And you distributed literature, you say ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. To the homes ? 

Mr. GuNACA. To various different locals. 

Senator Curtis. And whose literature was it ? 

Mr. GuNACA. You will have to be more clear on that. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. It vras literature in behalf of what candidates? 

Mr. GuNACA. They were all Democrats. 

Senator Curtis. What offices were they running for is what I meant. 

Mr. GuNACA. I will have to check if you want me to be sure on that. 

1 believe I can check. 

Senator Curtis. What is your best recollection? Was it council- 
man, mayor? 

Mr. GuxACA. I believe it was for judgeships. 

Senator Curtis. For judgeships ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You weren't electing a mayor at that time? 

Mr. GuxACA. I don't remember now, to tell you the truth. I really 
don't. 

Senator Curtis. Under what name did you work? 

Mr. GuNACA. John Gunaca. 

Senator Curtis. Have you used any other name at any time? 

Mr. Gunaca. The only name that I have ever used before was John 
Dempsey. 

Senator Curtis, Have you used any other one since ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Just John Dempsey. 

Senator Curtis. That is all on this particular point. 

Senator Mundt. Are you sure this was an election for judgeships ? 
This is a little bit shocking to me. I listened to Mr. Mazey talk for 

2 days about the fact that Judge Schlichting wasn't an unbiased and 
prejudiced judge. Now you are telling me that the CIO is trying to 
elect its own judges in Detroit. I don't see how in the world you are 
going to try to get the kind of judges that Mr. Mazey talks about, 
if you are out campaigning for them and electing them as part of 
the cam])aign team. Are you sure you were campaigning for judges? 

Mr. Gunaca. I as not sure who 

Senator Muxdt. I think this has become pretty important, Mr. 
Gunaca, and I think you should tell us. After all, if you are getting 
paid good wages for campaigning for an official, certainly you Imow 



9104 IMPROPER ACTrV'ITIElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

who the official was. You can't tell us you don't know who you were 
working for. 

Mr. GuNACA. I know who I was working for, but I can't remember 
the officials who were running for office. If you will give me a few 
minutes, I think I can check and find out. 

Senator Mundt. I will give you the time. Go ahead. 

Mr. GuNACA. Will you do that, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Does anybody in the room know who he was cam- 
paigning for? 

Mr. Marston. May it please the chairman , 

The Chairman. No one knows ? Find out as early as you can. 

Mr. Marston. We shall, sir, and we will provide you with that in- 
formation. 

Senator Mundt. I have the assurance of counsel that he will have the 
witness find out and give it to us as sworn testimony? 

Mr. Marston. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

It is incredible to me it could be judgeships after I listened to this 
fine impassioned speech by Mr. Mazey, hour after hour and day after 
day about the importance of unbiased judges. I agree judges should 
be unbiased. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gunaca, we are in 1953, you worked for the 
PAC for a while. 

After that job was over, what did you do then, without going into 
detail? 

I am trying to get up to 1954. 

Mr. Gunaca. I got a job as bartender, part time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you held that job into 1954, did you ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have an application on with the union for 
doing more union work during this period ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Mr. Kennedy, it wasn't an application. It was verbal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat? 

A request ? 

Mr. Gunaca. A request. 

Mr. Kennedy. TVliat kind of request was it ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I told my local union that if there was any work that 
I could do pertaining to a steady job that I would appreciate it be- 
cause then at the time I was only working part time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did they get in touch with you, your union, 
in 1954, and tell you that they had a job that you could help them on? 

Mr. Gunaca. A member of local 212. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio got in touch with you ? 

Mr. Gunaca. A fellow by the name of Frank Kaye. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have any position in local 212 ? 

Mr. Gunaca. At the time he was chairman of the committee, the 
shop committee, of the Mack Avenue plant, the plant that I was at- 
tached to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat conversation did you have with Frank Kaye, 
just roughly? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9105 

Mr. GuNACA. The only conversation that I had with Frank Kaye 
was that he asked me if I would like to go to Sheboygan, Wis. 
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say was going on in Sheboygan, Wis. 
Mr. GuNACA. That they had a strike down there with the Kohler Co. 
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say that you could do ^ 
Mr. GuNACA. He didn't say anything that I could do. 
Mr. IvENNEDY. Wliat were you going to do ? What did he suggest 
that you do once you got to Sheboygan ? 
Mr. GuNACA. He didn't suggest anything. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Had you had experience on strikes, and experience 
with this kind of work? 
Mr. GuNACA. I had experience with strikes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you understand you were supposed to do, 
once you went up there to Sheboygan ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I didn't understand anything that 1 was supposed 
to do. Nobody told me what to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just went. Well, let's go back. You had a 
conversation with Mr. Kaye in which he said "We would like to have 
you go to Sheboygan." He didn't tell you what he wanted you to do 
once you got there, but he asked you if you wanted to go to Sheboygan 
and help out in the strike, is that right ? 
Mr. GuNACA. He asked me if I would like to go. 
Mr. Kennedy. And you said you would like to go ? 
Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was some financial arrangements dis- 
cussed, that the union was to pay your salary and expenses 'i 
Mr. GuNACA. No, there was nothing discussed on that. 
Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, you must have learned that the union 
would pay your salary and expenses, is that right? 
Mr. GuNACA. After I got to Sheboygan. 
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ? 
Mr. GuNACA. No one told me. 
Mr. Kennedy. You just started getting checks? 
Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. All right. Approximately when did you go up to 
Sheboygan ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Somewhere around April 9 or 10 of 1954. 
Mr. Kennedy. The strike started on April 5, 1954; so you went 
within a week of the beginning of the strike ; is that right? 
Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. You went around April 10 ? 
Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kj^nnedy. When you got up to Sheboygan, did you report to 
anybody ? 

ikr. GuNACA. I didn't report to no one; no, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ? 
Mr. GuNACA. Wlien I first got into Sheboygan ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. GuNACA. I checked into the Grant Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to know everything that you did. Did 
you start doing some work for the union, or did you become interested 
in the strike ? Did you talk to someone ? 

Mr. GuNACA. After I checked into the hotel, I went to a meeting 
that was being held that Sunday night, and directly from that meet- 
ing I went out to the strike kitchen. 



9106 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Let's stop at the meeting a minute. Who called 
the meeting ? Who ^Yas in charge of the meeting ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, Senator, as far as I know, the sergeant at arms 
was in charge of the meeting. 

Senator Mundt. The sergeant at arms of what ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Pardon? 

Senator Mundt. The sergeant at arms of what ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Of the meeting. 

Senator Mundt. Whom did he represent? He was a sergeant-at- 
arms of what organization ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Of Local 8.33, UAW-CIO. 

Senator Mundt. How did you learn about the meeting? You 
checked into the hotel, a strange boy in a strange town. How did 
you find out about the meeting ? 

Mr. GuNACA. At the 

Senator Mundt. Who told you about it? 

Mr. GuNACA. The town is very small. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I will grant that. Who told you about the meeting ? 

Mr. GuNACA. The local union hall was right around the corner from 
the hotel. 

Senator Mundt. That doesn't quite answer the question. The ques- 
tion was: Who told you about the meeting? 

Mr. GuNACA. No one told me about the meeting. I went directly 
after the hotel ; I went directly to the local union. 

Senator Mundt. Af -er you checked in on Sunday night, you went 
directly to the union hall ; is that right ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And to your surprise you found a meeting going 
on; right? 

Mr. GuNACA. It was no surprise, because this has happened in sev- 
eral different occasions on strikes. 

Senator Mundt. You just assumed there would be a meeting go- 
ing on ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Out of your abundance of experience in striking 
before, you figured there would be a meeting every night in the union 
hall? 

Mr. GuNACA. I did not say every night, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Every Sunday night? 

Mr. Gun AC A. I didn't say every Sunday night, either. 

Senator Mundt. What made you think there would be a meeting 
the night you arrived in Sheboygan. It wasn't the welcoming meet- 
ing for Gunaca, was it ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What made you think there would be a meeting? 

Mr. Gunaca. All the lip-hts were on in the local union. 

Senator Mundt. I see. The lights were on ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Did you know whether someone in Detroit told you 
where to find the union hall ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No ; they did not. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ask the hotel clerk where the union hall 
was? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9107 

Mr. GuxACA. 1 believe I did, but I don't remember if I did or not. 
I couldn't swear to that. 

Senator Mundt. Let us assume that, and we will let that stand un- 
contested. You asked the clerk of the hotel, "Where is the union 
hall ?" and you walked over and you saw all of the lights there, so you 
walked in. How did you identify yourself, and to whom ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, it might sound funny, but I didn't identify 
myself to anyone. 

Senator Mundt. How did the boj^s running the meeting know you 
weren't one of these spies that they keep talking about ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, right at that meeting, I saw familiar faces there 
that I knew. 

Senator INIundt. Who knew you ? 

Mr. GuNACA. James Fiore. 

Senator Mundt. You can't get identified because you know some- 
one else. Someone has to know^ you. You can't do it because you know 
somebody else. Somebody else has to know you to let you in. 

Mr. GuNACA. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. How did you identify yourself as being somebody 
on the side of the strikers, and to w^hom did you identify yourself? 
That is what I am trjdng to find out. 

Mr. GuNACA. Mr. Senator, as I stated, when I went to the meeting, 
after the strike was in process, and everybody was all excited and 
everything, and a bunch of people w^ere there, and everybody was 
walking in and out, I don't think that anybody really knew everybody 
that was there. 

Senator Mundt. All right. So you walked over to the union hall 
and you found the lights on and you walked in and you found the 
meeting going on, and it was being run by the sergeant at arms. Did 
you know him ? 

Mr. GuNACA. At the time 

Senator Mundt. Was he a familiar face? 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. How did you know he was the sergeant at arms? 

Mr. Gunaca. Well, that is the way our meetings are conducted. 

Senator Mundt. On all of your previous strikes, when you walked 
into meetings, you found a sergeant at arms in charge of the meeting, 
and so you assumed the fellow in charge here was a sergeant at arms. 
Is that the testimony? 

jNIr. GuNAt'A. The sergeant at arms was in charge of the meeting, 
and 3'ou have a chairman just like you have here. 

Senator Mundt. Who was the chairman ? 

Mr. Gunaca. The president of the local. At the time I did not 
know him. 

Senator Mundt. 

Mr. Gunaca. He did not. 

Senator Mundt. You saw some familiar faces, you said, and who 
were the familiar faces ? 

Mr. (tunaca. James Fiore. 

Senator Mundt. He came from your same local in Detroit? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, he did. 

Senator Mundt. xVnd any other familiar face ? 

iMr. Gunaco. (7 uv Barber. 



9108 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. And he came from your same local in Detroit ? 

Mr, GuNACA. No ; he is from local 7, the Chrysler local 7. 

Senator Mundt. In Detroit ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Were there any other familiar faces ? 

Mr. GuNACA. No. 

Senator Mundt. Then feeling kind of lonely in this meeting of 
strangers and seeing two familiar faces, I suppose you went up to one 
familiar face or the other and said, "Hi buddy, I have arrived," or 
something, and identified yourself, is that right ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I just walked up to Jim Fiore and Guy Barber, and 
they saw I was there, and there were no questions asked. Nobody 
said, "What are you doing here?" or anything of that respect. 

Senator Mundt. We are at tlie meeting, and you meet a friend. I 
am trying to find out, through this series of questioning, who it was 
who finally told you at Sheboygan what your job was, because you 
didn't know when you left home, and you didn't know when you 
got to the liotel, and you didn't knov.' when you got to the meeting, 
and you didn't know when you met Barber. 

When did you find out what your job in Sheboygan was to be 
and who told you and who gave you your instructions? 

Mr. GuNACA. Sir, no one told me what my job was to be down 
there, and nobody gave me instructions. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever find out why you were there? 

Mr. GuNACA. I knew why I was there. 

Senator Mundt. Was it to attack somebody in a filling station ; is 
that the reason ? 

Mr. GuNACA. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Then what was the reason? You said you knew 
why you were there, but you haven't told us. 

Mr. GuNACA. To assist the strikers on the picket line. 

Senator Mundt. Oh, you were to walk on the picket line. Did you 
walk on the picket line then faithfully every morning at 6 a. m., bright 
and early, back and forth ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Cheek to jowl? 

Mr. Gun AC A. Pardon me. 

Senator Mundt. Belly to back, he said, instead of cheek to jowl. 

Mr. GuNACA, You will have to make that more plainer. 

Senator Mundt. It is pretty difficult, I realize. 

Mr. GuNACA. I don't understand the question. 

Senator Mundt. I think it is altogether too complicated and I will 
withdraw that question. I am trying to find out what else you did 
in Sheboygan besides walk back and forth on the picket line every 
morning at 6 a. m. 

Mr. GuNACA. I assisted in the strike kitchen. 

Senator Mundt. As a cook ? 

Mr. GuNACA. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you just get that idea after you got there, 
and you said, "This looks like my dish of tea, and I am going to work 
in the kitchen," or did someone suggest, "Mr. Gunaca, you do a kitchen 
tour of duty." 

Mr. GuNACA. No one suggested it, and I offered my services. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9109 

Senator Mundt. To whom did you offer them ? 

Mr. GuNACA. To the kitchen staff. 

Senator Mundt. We got you in the kitchen and we have got you 
walking out on the picket line. Did you do anything else ? 

Mr. (junaca. No, I did not. 

Senator Mundt. Did anybody ever suggest to you at any time in 
any way what you were to do in Slieboygan, or did you always make 
up your own mind and volunteer for duties and decide for yourself 
what your function was ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I always made up my own mind. 

Senator Mundt. You always made up your own mind ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Gunaca, I believe in a statement to counsel 
you said that you were an expert on setting up strikes. 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir; I never made that statement, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. You made some statement similar to that, in- 
dicating to me that j^ou had had rather broad experience or some ex- 
perience with strikes. Am I correct in that ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I had some experience in strikes; yes, sir. 

Senator Goldw\4ter. When did you join the UAW? 

Mr. Gunaca. The first time that I joined was in 1943. 

Senator Goldwater. But when did vou join again ? 

Mr. Gunaca. In 1948. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you participate in the Aeroquip strike at 
Jackson, Mich. 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you saj^ "no" ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Did vou participate in the Bell Aircraft strike 
in 1949? 

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

Senator Goldwater. How about the Chrysler strike in Marysville, 
Mich., in 1950? 

Mr. Gunaca. In the strike in 1950 with the Chrysler Corp. in 
Detroit, on my own time I walked the picket line at the Jefferson plant. 

Senator Goldwater. Is Marysville adjacent to Detroit? 

Mr. Gunaca. Pardon me. 

Senator Goldwater. Is Marysville adjacent to Detroit? 

Mr. Gunaca. Well, it is part of the Chrysler Corp. and it has noth- 
ing to do with the local in Detroit. 

Senator Goij)w^\ter. And in 1951, did you participate in the Meyer 
and Welsh strike ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, in 1952, did you participate in the Peer- 
less Production Co. strike ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. In Detroit? 

]Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. In 1953 did you participate in the North 
American Aviation strike, in Columbus, Ohio ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No, sir. 

Senator Goldw-ater. How about the same year, the Kingsford 
Chemical Co. strike ? 

21248— 68— pt 22 ^24 



9110 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN^ THiEi LABOR FIELD 

Mr. GuNACA. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwatek. Plow about the Square D Co. strike in 1954? 

Mr. GuNACA. I have walked that picket line. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you see Mr. Vinson at that strike ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I believe he was there. 

Senator Goldwater. Was Emil Mazey at that strike ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I never saw him. 

Senator Goldwater. Did you participate in the Perfect Circle 
strike, in 1955 ? 

Mr. GuNACA. No, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. W^^at other strikes, other than those I have 
mentioned, did you participate in during your membership in the 
UAW? 

Mr. GuNACA. No other strikes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. You have participated in three strikes, accord- 
ing to your testimony ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And there has been violence in each of them ? 

Mr. Gux NCA. There was no violence to my recollection. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, according to the accounts of the strikes, 
there was violence in each one of those. Now, could you tell us, were 
you a member of the flying squadron ? 

Mr. GuNACA. I was a member of the flying squadron up until 1952 
when I left local 212, in the Chrysler Corp. 

Senator Goldwater. What w^ere your duties as a member of the 
flying squadron? 

Mr. GuNACA. Sir, the functioning of the flying squadron as far as 
I know, so far as anybody else is concerned, our local only partici- 
pated in Labor Day parades, and they assisted the recreation com- 
mittee on our annual picnics. 

Sena'^or Goldwater. Those are the only duties that the flying squad- 
ron has ? What would the flying squadron do on a strike ? 

]Mr. Gunaca. Nothing that I know of, just like any other member. 
They would be just like any other member being out there. 

Sena' or Goldwater. To get back to Kohler, before Mr. Kennedy 
takes you back for a while, you said that you were paid while you 
were at the Kohler strike ? 

]\Ir. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. On wliich account were those checks drawn? 

Mr. GiTNACA. Sir, on what account they were drawn from I don't 
know, and the only thing I know is that the checks would come from 
local 212, UAW-CIO. 

Senator Goldwater. They came from Detroit, Mich., to you in 
Kohler? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Were they delivered to you by mail, or did 
somebody deliver them to you ? 

Mr. Gunaca. They were delivered by mail. 

Senator Goldwater. And you were staying at the hotel and they 
were delivered there by mail? 

My. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Sena< or Goldwater. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9111 

Senator Goldwater. We have some other questions. 

Senator Curtis. I am waiting for the counsel to finish. 

Tlie Chairman. Tlie Cliair is thinking of a little bite to eat. 

Mr. GuNACA. Mr. Chairman, is it all right if I smoke ? 

The Chairman. I have no objection. Are there any other ques- 
tions before we recess for lunch ? 

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

(Whereupon at 12 : 10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m., Tuesday, March 11, 1958.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the time of the reconvening, the following members were pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order, please. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GUNACA, ACCOMPANIED BY D. CHARLES 
MAESTON, COUNSEL, DETHOIT, MICH.— Eesumed 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gunaca, you had just arrived in Sheboygan, and 
you were attending a meeting. What were the services that you per- 
formed once you started work up there ''i What did you do ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Mr. Kennedy, I assisted pickets on the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would that mean? You would walk up and 
down ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I was walking up and down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they know that you were somebody special up 
there ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I wouldn't say I was somebody special. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had come out from another local to assist them 
especially ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they know that ? 

Mr. Gunaca. They knew it after I got on the picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did they know that ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I told some of them, and it was more or less from 
mouth to mouth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell them how they should walk on the 
picket line and that type of thing ? 

Mr. Gunaca. The only thing that I ever told any pickets was to 
keep it as peaceful as they can, and not to cause any sort of violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question that I am trying to get an answer to 
is : If they had 2,000 piclcets up there, why was it necessary to bring 
another man from Detroit to march in the picket line ? 

Mr. Gunaca. For the morale. 

Mr. Kennedy. They had 1,999 other people raising their morale. 
Why did they have to have you ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Well, Mr. Kennedy, the conditions under which the 
people were on strike, and tlie conditions that they lived under prior 
to the strike, that they were not advanced in a labor movement as far 
as someone like myself would have been. 



9112 IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just trying to find out. I can understand, pos- 
sibly, your going up there. But I am trying to find out what you were 
contributing. 

All I can understand so far is that you just wandered up there, got 
in the picket line and marched back and forth. It must have been 
something more than that, because that is not contributing a great 
deal. 

Mr. GuNACA. Well, sir, that was the main factor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why weren't the 1,999 other people? They could 
have done what you did and were doing what you were doing. 

Mr. GuNACA. They were all walking the picket line just like I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing that was different from every- 
body else? 

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

Mr. GuNACA. Nothing. Only keeping up their morale. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat would you say to keep up their morale ? 

Mr. GuNACA. They knew that by my presence being there, repre- 
senting a local outside of their town, which was affiliated with the 
UAW-CIO International, that we were supporting them. That was 
our main object, to show them that they were being supported by all 
of labor, not just by their own community. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then they knew that you had come from out of town 
and you were there as a representative of another local, which would 
indicate the support of other locals of 833, is that right ? 

Mr. GuNACA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You stayed on the picket line during the period of 
the so-called mass picketing, is that right? Where there was this 
1,000, 1,500, or 2,000 pickets? ^ 

You stayed in the picket line and worked with the people at that 
time? 

Mr. Gunaca. Mr. Kennedy, I was on the picket line most of the 
time. Sometimes I was on the picket line for 20 hours at a time. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the mass picketing ended, the end of May, did 
you remain as a picket then ? Did you remain on the picket line, as- 
sisting on the picket line ? 

Mr. Gunaca. No, I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then ? 

For instance 

Mr. Gunaca. Just a minute, Mr. Kennedy. What you call mass 
picketing, that was, you say, at the end of May ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The end of May. It ended by the end of May ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Are you sure of those dates ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it the end of May ? 

Mr. McGovERN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. May 29. The picketing continued but the mass pick- 
eting ended the 28th of May. 

Wliat did you do for the month of June ? Did you continue to walk 
with the pickets ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, I did. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You stayed out there, even after the mass picketing 
ended ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this time, your salary and expenses were 
paid by the union, is that right, by local 212 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9113 

Mr. GtJNACA. By local 212. 

Mr. Kennedt. On the 4th of July of 1954, at approximately 9 : 30 
in the evening, did you come by a filling station where Mr. William 
Bersch, Jr., was employed, and was working ? 

Mr. Marston. May I address the Chair, please ? 

The Chairman. All right, counsel. 

Mr. Marston. Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter last Saturday, ad- 
dressed to the Chair, suggesting to the Chair that Mr. Gunaca is 
under indictment from Shehoygan County, in Wisconsin, and request- 
ing the Chair to rule on the basis of past precedents of this com- 
mittee that questions which pertained to the matters of the indict- 
ment be not asked of this witness. 

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, through a 

The Chairman. Let the Chair get this straight. Do you have a 
copy of the indictment, so we will know what he is indicted for ? 

Mr. Marston. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. May I see it ? 

May I see the indictment so the Chair can determine about it? 

(The document was handed to the committee. ) 

The Chairman. May I ask, is there more than one indictment ? 

Mr. Marston. No, there is one, may it please the chairman, which 
had two counts, if you will notice. 

The Chairman. The two you handed me are one and the same, are 
they? 

Mr. Marston. No, sir. One is the criminal complaint, and the sec- 
ond one is the warrant. 

The Chairman. The second one is what ? 

Mr. Marston. The warrant. 

The Chairman. The warrant ? 

Mr. Marston. The warrant or the indictment. 

The Chairman. I have in my hand a criminal complaint against 
•John Gunaca, also known as John Prico, John Ballerino, and John 
Moreski. 

Mr. Marston. That is the 

The Chairman. Is that your name ? 

Mr. Marston. Mr. Gunaca has just that name. Those aliases were 
put in by the authorities in Wisconsin. "V\niere they came from, we 
can't tell you. 

The Chairman. This indictment reads, — 

Count 1, that on the 4th day of July A. D. 1954, at the city of Sheboygan Falls, 
in said county, said .John Gunaca, also known as .John Prico, John Ballerino, and 
John Moreski, did unlawfully, willfully and 'feloniously assault another, to wit, 
William Bersch, Jr., with intent to do great bodily harm, contrary to section 341 
of the statutes, and against the peace and dignity of the State. 

Count 2, that on the 4th day of July A. D. 1954, in the city of Sheboygan Falls, 
in said county, the said "John Gunaca and so forth," did unlawfully, willfully 
and feloniously assault another, to wit, William Bersch, Sr., with intent to do 
great bodily harm. 

It appears that he is indicted for a felony, charged with a felony. 

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

Mr. Marston. That is correct. Your Honor. 

Senator Curtis. I do not mean to cut the Chair off, but before the 
Chair rules, I would like to inquire something of counsel. But I am in 
no hurry. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 



9114 IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES I^^ THEl LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. "Were you through with our observation, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

The Chairman. Yes. Go ahead. I might want to ask a question or 
two. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Marston, in what State is this indictment pend- 
ing? 

Mr. Marston. In the State of Wisconsin, sir, as it indicates on its 
face. 

Senator Curtis. And is Mr. Gunaca now a resident in or residing 
there or within the jurisdiction of the authorities of the State of Wis- 
consin ? 

Mr. Marston. He is not residing there. He is not within their juris- 
diction in the sense that his person is there. If he be guilty of this 
charge, they do have jurisdiction of this cliarge, and the subject matter 
of the charge. 

Senator Curtis. Any interrogation that took place here could not 
prejudice his rights unless he is tried for this offense in the State of 
Wisconsin, is that true ? 

Mr. Marston. As long as tliis warrant remains outstanding, sir, in 
my opinion, his rights are prejudiced. If he were to be asked any 
questions with respect to the matters covered by the warrant. 

Senator Curtis. I am interested in whether or not we are really put- 
ting him in jeopardy, and that is why I am leading up to this ques- 
tion : Do you expect your client to return to Wisconsin for trial ? 

Mr. Marston. My client has repeatedly said, and I wholeheartedly 
agree with his statements, that he will return to Wisconsin and stand 
trial at such time as he can be assured reasonably of a fair and impar- 
tial hearing. He has offered recently to go to Milwaukee, where he 
feels that the atmosphere of hostility and tension, which exists in the 
Sheboygan area is not present. He feels that in that kind of an en- 
vironment he can have a reasonably im])artial and fair liearing. If 
I may go on, this goes to the essence of the problem which confronts 
him whenever this matter comes up. 

Senator Curtis. Of course, you know as a lawyer you cannot nego- 
tiate jurisdiction or venue, don't you ? 

Mr. Marston. I know as a lawyer, sir, that the prosecutor is not 
bound, as I understand the law, to have the trial in a particular county. 
As I understand the law, he can, by agreement, and stipulation, have 
the matter tried in any county in the State of Wisconsin ; any county 
of Wisconsin has jurisdiction over matters of this kind. 

Senator Curtis. Is it the fact of the matter that he has not gone 
back? 

Mr. Marston. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Does he have any immediate plans of going back? 

Mr. Marston. No, sir. I may add from the statements that have 
been made to both Mr. Gunaca and myself, that it is unfortunately 
develo])ing that the results of these hearings are further stirring up 
some of Ihe folks back in Sheboygan, so that the situation is being re- 
newed rather than quieted. 

Senator Curtis. Has anyone testified before the Governor of 
Michigan to the effect that he cannot have a fair trial in Michigan? 

Mr. Marston. The (lovernor of Michigan, to my knowledge, was 
presented with information such as newspaper headlines, newspaper 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9115 

articles, portions of proceedings before the Wisconsin Peace Board, 
portions of proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board. 
He was presented with a series of affidavits by various parties who had 
been involved. 

Senator Curtis. Who presented those to him ? 
Mr. Marston. Our office did. 

Senator Curtis. Has he taken the testimony of anyone from the 
State of Wisconsin under oath that Mr. Gunaca could not have a fair 
trial ? 

Mr. Marston. My answer to that must be that we have dealt as 
lawyers with the Governor of the State. We have tried to present mat- 
ters that we believed to be true to him in an honorable way. I must 
believe that the Governor accepted them in the spirit in which they 
were presented to him. 

Senator Curtis. Has the Governor held a formal hearing on the 
question of extraditing him ? 

Mr. Marston. He had the hearing which is provided under our 
Michigan statutes in his office. 

Senator Curtis. Was that the meeting that Mr. Bersch talked 
about ? 

Mv. Marston. I didn't hear Mr. Bersch's testimony in its entirety. 
I heard a small portion of it on the television screen. 

Senator Curtis. There has been an extradition hearing that the 
Governor presided over ? 

Mr. INIarston. Not to my knowledge. Not in the sense that he 
conducted a hearing such as we are having here. It is my understand- 
ing, and this is a procedure which is followed under our Michigan 
statutes, that matters with respect to an extradition proceeding are 
presented to a person designatecl by the Governor to have these matters 
presented, and then the Governor examines the information which is 
presented to him, and acts on the basis of it. 

Senator Curtis. Of course, you put the chairman in a position 
where he has to give due regard to these precedents of this commit- 
tee. But my own personal feeling ig that your request is not made 
in good faitii, because you don't expect him to go back to Wisconsin 
and you do not expect Governor Williams to send him liack there. 
Mr. Marston. I am sorry that jou feel that way about it, sir. 
Senator Curtis. It is purely an academic question, and he does not 
expect to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin au- 
thorities. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 
The Chairman. Senator IVlundt. 

Senator Mundt. Since the counsel has answered these questions, I 
might as well address them to him, although if he prefers, I will 
address them to his client. I want to get this cleared up in my own 
mind. I think you said that either you or your client or both agreed 
that if the trial was to be held in the city of Milwaukee, you would be 
willing to have him go back and stand trial. Am I correct in that? 
Mr. Marston. That is correct, except that it is not entirely accurate, 
Senator. 

Senator ]\Iundt. I don't want to misquote you. That was my un- 
derstanding. If you will straighten me out, if I have been inaccurate, 
you may. 



9116 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Makston. If I may add this, what we said was that we would 
be willing to go back to be tried at a place like Milwaukee, not spe- 
cifically that place alone. 

Senator Mundt. That leads right into what I was going to ask you. 

Is it your position or the position of your client that you will go 
back and stand trial in any county other than Sheboygan County 
where these feelings run high and where the strike occurred? You 
are willing for him to go back to any other county, or is your stipula- 
tion that it must be Milwaukee County ? 

Mr. Marston. No, it is not that ; it is Milwaukee County. 

Senator Mundt. Then do I have it from you that he is willing to 
go back to any other county except Sheboygan County ? 

Mr. Marston. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Will you indicate what you mean ? You say JMil- 
waukee is not the only county that he will appear in. Sheboygan 
County is not the only county which he resists appearing in. That 
leaves a lot of latitude. I suppose there are some 70 or 80 counties 
in Wisconsin. 

Will you illuminate the record by indicating just where you would 
be willing to have him stand trial other than Milwaukee County? 

Mr. Marston, We indicated that we would be willing to stand trial 
in any county where we felt there would be an impartial atmosphere. 
We do not feel, as you are suggesting. Senator, that there could be 
an impartial atmosphere in the area adjoining Sheboygan. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. Let me rephrase my question. Do I 
understand then, that you are willing to have Mr. Gunaca go back 
and stand trial in any county which is neither Sheboygan County nor 
in a county adjacent and contiguous thereto ? 

Mr. Marston. I am sorry. I do not quite understand your ques- 
tion. 

Senator Mundt. Are you willing to have Mr. Gunaca go back to 
Wisconsin and stand trial in any other Wisconsin county other than 
Sheboygan or some county contiguous thereto ? 

Mr. Marston. Well, I don't know. Senator; until presented with 
a problem specifically like that, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. I am presenting the problem because this commit- 
tee is trying to find out whether you are acting, or your client is acting, 
in good faith in leading this double jeopardy business. We are trying 
to find out to clear the record. I am asking these questions in all 
sincerity. 

Mr. Marston. As I understand Mr. Gunaca's position, he is willing 
to go back to Wisconsin and waive extradition proceedings if he can 
be tried at a place where he can get an impartial trial, like Milwaukee. 
That is the suggestion he made. 

You understand. Senator, if I may finish, that he must someday 
return to Wisconsin for trial : willy-nilly, this must happen. 

Senator Mundt. Why do you say that ? 

Mr. Marston. The law requires it. The warrant is outstanding. 
Until such time as the Wisconsin authorities quash the warrant or 
abandon the warrant, he must, as long as that warrant exists, someday 
be tried for it. 

Senator Mundt. How are you going to get away from the fact that 
Governor Williams refused to extradite him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9117 

Mr. Marston. We have not asked Governor Williams to refuse to 
extradite him. We have asked him to defer the extradition mitil such 
time as this man can get a fair trial. 

Senator Mundt. Your understanding with the Governor at Michi- 
gan is such that that fair trial can be secured only in Milwaukee County 
or does it include other counties and, if so, which ones ? 

Mr, ]\Iarstox. Mr. Senator, we have not discussed this with the 
Governor at all. 

Senator Mundt. There are a lot of counties in Wisconsin and I can 
understand perfectly why you would not want him to be tried at the 
scene of the crime. Thei'e is nothing unusual about that. I will grant 
that there might be counties in the immediate area adjacent to Sheboy- 
gan County where you could reasonably believe that perhaps you 
could not get people far enough removed from the scene to be objec- 
tive in their approach, but I am curious about why you keep insisting 
on Milwaukee, and I am especially curious in view of your client's 
previous career as a campaigner for judges. 

I do not know whetlier he has been doing some campaigning for 
judges in Milwaukee through the PAC, and why they singled that 
one out, or what the reason is. But in view of the testimony this 
morning, I am trying to find out whether there are any nonmetro- 
politan communities in Wisconsin where you would be willing to have 
your client stand trial, 

Mr, Marston, I am sure, Mr, Senator, that if Mr, Weber, in whose 
hands this prosecution responsibility rests would, in good faith, under- 
take with me to determine a place outside of the Sheboygan area 
for the trial of this matter, that he and I, as lawyers, could find a 
place where Mr, Gunaca could be tried without the hostility and 
the venom that exists in the relationships of the people in Sheboygan. 

Senator jNIundt. Well, that would certainly be a manifestation of 
good faith in connection with your point of order to the Chair and 
I certainly sustain the Chair in his attitude on that, being in con- 
formity with the precedents of our committee. It is a little bit 
unusual, of course, to make that plea if you do not expect your client 
ever to stand trial. 

Mr. Marston, I expect that he shall stand trial, sir. 

Senator Goldwater, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman, Senator Goldwater, 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, before you make your ruling, 
I wonder if we could have the question that caused the counsel to 
ask for the ruling read again. 

The Chapman. Well, it was in substance, was he at a filling 
station on the night of July 4, 1954 about 9 : 30 p. m. That was the 
substance of the question ; am I right ? You may have the reporter 
read the question back, if you wish. 

Seiiator Goldwater. I believe that, in substance, was what it was. 

Before the chairman rules, I would like to read from the official 
report of proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, 
docket 13-CA-1780. This is on page 19210 : 

Trial Examiner. Let's await the next question and see. 

Question by Mr. Conger. Were you in a car with Mr. Beirsh and one other 
person in the city of Sheboygan Falls with Mr. — excuse me; not Mr. Beirsh, 
Mr. VrekoTic and one other person in the city of Sheboygan Falls on the 
evening of July 4, 1954? 



9118 IMPROPER ACTRITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Aiiswei*. No, .sir. 

Question. Were you in a car witli Mr. Vrekovic at all on the evening of July 
4, 19.54? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you stop at any tilling .station in the city of >Sheboygan Falls 
on July 4, 1954? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I object. It is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue in this 
proceeding. 

TiUAL Examiner. May I hear the question? 

(The question was read.) 

Trial Examiner. Overruled. 

The Witness. No, sir. 

Question by Mr. Conger: Where were you on the evening of July 4, 1954? 

Answer. In the strike kitchen. 

Question. Did you leave the strike kitchen at any time? 

Answer. To go back to my hotel room. 

Question. Did you go to the city of Sheboygan Falls at any time on the 
evening of July 4, 1954? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Were you riding in a car with Mr. Vrekovic at any time during the 
evening of July 4, 1954? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Now, when did you leave Sheboygan and return to Detroit? 

Answer. Sometime In July. 

Question. Actually on July 5; was it not? 

Answer. That I don't know. 

Question. Didn't you check out of the Grant Hotel at Sheboygan shortly after 
noon on July 5? 

Answer. I can't amswer that. I don't I'emember that. 

Question. W^ell, now, why did you leave Sheboygan and return to Detroit? 

Answer. I felt that I wanted to get back home. 

Question. Was your interest in the strike over? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Objection as immaterial and irrelevant. 

Trial Examiner. Overruled. 

The AViTNESS. No : my interest in the strike was not over. 

Question by Mr. Conger : Did you receive any instructions or suggestions 
from local 212 that you return to Detroit? 

Answer. I don't remember any. 

Question. Did .vou receive any instructions or suggestions from Mr. Burkhart 
that you return to Detroit? 

Question. Did you receive any instructions or .suggestions from Mr. Rand that 
you return to Detroit? 

Answer. No ; I did not. 

Question. Did you receive any instructions or suggestions from Mr. Gras.s- 
kamp or Mr. Konec that you return to Detroit? 

Answer. No ; I did not. 

Question. Did you receive any suggestions from Mr. Vrekovic that you return 
to Detroit? 

Answer. No ; I did not. 

Question. When did you report to local 212 that you were returning to 
Detroit? 

Answer. When I got back to Detroit. 

Now, Mr. Chairmari, I read those questions and answers to point 
out that sul).stantially the same questions Avere asked dnrinir the NLRB 
hearinjvs as have been indicated mi£>-ht be asked in this hearing and 
that the witness answered these questions. 

In fact, he answered in effect the question that tlie counsel is ob- 
jectino; to. I will read again from page 1 9215 : 

Question. Did vou stop at any filling station in the city of Sheboygan Falls 
on July 4, 1954? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I object. It is irrelevant and immaterial to the is.sue in 
this proceeding. 

Trial Examiner. May I hear the question? 

(The question was read.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9119 

The trial examiner overruled the objection of Mr. Rabinowitz. I 
merely read that, Mr. Chairman so that the chaii-man might know 
that the same objections have been raised before, before a hearing, 
and that there was a ruling made in those instances and, in eli'ect, the 
witness has answered the very question, substantially the very ques- 
tion, that has been put to him by counsel at the present time. 

While I am not a lawyer and I will rely upon the legal knowledge 
of the counsel, it seems to me that precedent to some extent has 
been established in this question. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation : 

It may be true that the witness did appear before the National 
Labor Relations Board hearing examiner and may have testified. This 
witness, however, is charged with a felony. He could not be called 
on the witness stand in that trial against his wishes. He could not 
be required to testify against himself. 

Early in the course of these hearings the Chair rules that those 
who came before us under indictment would not be interrogated re- 
garding the subject matter of the indictment. To be consistent with 
that ruling, the Chair will have to sustain the objection or the point 
of order with respect only to what actually occurred there at the filling 
station. 

That is the position the Chair will have to take unless I am over- 
ruled. I think I am ruling according to law, 

Mr. Marston. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. He can appear one time and testify if he wants to, 
and the next time he does not have to testify if he does not want to. 
You can try him today on his charge and he can appear and testify 
if he wants to, but the court cannot even require him to take the wit- 
ness stand ; am I right ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman — — 

The Chairman. I would like to proceed a moment, if you would 
permit me to do so. 

Mr. Bersch, will you come around, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BERSCH, JR.— Resumed 

The Chairman. You testified here this morning; did you? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You testified that you were beaten up while you 
had a filling station ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. You testified that you knew one of the men who 
participated in that; didn't yoii^ 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who is he? 

Mr. Bersch. Xick Yrckovic. 

The Chairman. Who else? 

Mr. Bersch. This man here, John Gunaca. 

The (^HAiRMAN. The one sitting there is the one who helped beat 
you up ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is the one who hit me. 

The Chairman. The one who hit you, the man sitting there ? 



9120 IMPBOPBR ACTIVITIES Ds' THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether he beat your father or not ? 
Mr. Bersch. That I couldn't say. 

The Chairman. But he was with the other two when your father 
got the beating ? 

Mr. Bersch. That is right. 

The Chairman. And he hit you before your father was struck ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Are there any questions ? 

You couldn't be mistaken now about this party being there? 

Mr. Bersch. No, sir ; I couldn't. 

The Chairman. You know he w^as there ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You felt the effect of the blow ? 

Mr. Bersch. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he knocked you down ; did he ? 

Mr. Bersch. He knocked me down ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. O. K. 

Senator Curtis. My questions are to Mr. Gunaca. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN GUNACA, ACCOMPANIED BY D. CHARLES 
MAESTON, DETROIT, MICH., COUNSEI^Resumed 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Gunaca, you heard this testimony that was 
read by Senator Goldwater ; did you ? 

Mr. "Gunaca. Yes ; I did. 

Senator Curtis. Were you under oath when you gave that testi- 
mony ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I believe I was. 

Senator Curtis. Was that after you were indicted in the State of 
Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes; it was. 

Senator Curtis. Were the answers that you gave and as read back, 
were they correct and true ? 

Mr. Marston. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Marston. There is a question which has been asked. 

The Chairman. What is the question ? I am sorry, my attention 
was directed elsewhere, 

Mr. Marston. It is an indirect way of asking the direct question. 

The Chairman, Wliat is the question. 

Senator Curtis. I asked him if he had heard the testimony that 
was read by Senator Goldwater. He replied he had. I asked him 
if he was under oath, and he said that he was. I asked him if that 
took place after his indictment in Wisconsin, and then I asked him if 
his answers in that testimony were correct and true. 

Mr. Marston. It is an indirect way of asking the direct question. 
Mr. Gunaca does not wish to testify with respect to matters arising 
from the indictment. _ He is asking the Chair to follow the precedent 
which has been established. 

The Chairman. I am not going to ask him questions about what ac- 
tually happened there at the time. But when he goes off subsequently 



IMPROPER ACTIVrTIES D^ THE LABOR FIELD 9121 

and makes a statement after it is over, I think that he can be required 
to answer whether he made such statements. 

Mr. Marston. He said that he did, your Honor. He said that he 
made the statements. 

The Chairman. He said he made the statements ? 

Mr. Marston. I think so. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. I didn't get the ruling. 

The Chairman. I understood that he made these statements. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Gunaca, where did you live when you 
went to Wisconsin in 1954? 

Mr. Gunaca. "Wliere did I live in Wisconsin ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Gunaca. I lived at the Grand Hotel. 

Senator Curtis. Where is that located ? 

Mr. Gunaca. I believe the main street is Eighth Street, and it is the 
direct street that it is on. I don't remember this. 

Senator Curtis. "Wliat city is it in ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Sheboygan. 

Senator Curtis. Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did any other representatives of the union 
who were there in connection with the strike live at the Grand Hotel? 

Mr. Gunaca. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who lived there ? 

Mr. Gunaca. Myself, James Feori, Guy Barber, Bill Vinson, Boyce 
Land, and Don Eand, I believe. I believe he lived