(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"

INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 

PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



SEPTEMBER 26, OCTOBER 28, 1957 
APRIL 15, 16, 17, 18, AND 22, 1958 



PART 27 



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




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT EIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 

PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS 



SEPTEMBER 26, OCTOBER 28, 1957 
APRIL 15, 16, 17, 18, AND 22, 1958 



PART 27 



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




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1958 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUL 2 3 1958 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 
MANAGEMENT FIELD 

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

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY QOLDWATER, Arizona 

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

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



CONTENTS 



Teamsters, Philadelphia Area 

Page 

Appendix 10795 

Testimony of — 

Amoroso, Charles 10758 

Baker, Walter J 10578 

Battisfore, Edward B 10484 

Battle, Louis E 10763 

Berman, Abraham 10578 

Borish, Bernard M 10706, 10720 

Brandau, Frank 10570 

Broadbent, James 10554 

Cadigan, James C 10474, 10542 

Carroll, John Rogers 10634, 10791 

Cendrowski, Joseph 10424 

Cohen, Raymond 1 10385, 10393, 10637, 10647 

Cordivari, David 10453 

Cutillo, Samuel 10766 

Davis, John 10533 

DeCarlo, Ralph 10618, 10629 

Doraan. Samuel W., Jr 10574 

Doman. Samuel, Sr 10529 

Elco, John 10752 

English, John 10696 

Feduniue, John 10520 

Feldman, Samuel 1 0744 

Flanagan, John B 10471, 10528, 10597, 10613 

Frank, Nicholas 10752 

Freedman, Solomon Joseph 10723, 10734 

Friese, Arthur 10770 

Gilbert, Ernest 10536 

Gorman, John 10778 

Grace, Joseph E 10544 

Graflf, Henry J , 10493 

Gravenor, Samuel 10467 

Grosscup, Joseph 10531 

Hanlon, Daniel J., Jr 10706, 10720 

Hartsough, Edward J 10602 

Hartsough, Joseph 10773 

Hegh, Paul 10509 

Herman, Seymour 10740 

Hession, Michael 10578 

Kanner, David 10478 

Katz, Joseph 1 0481 

Keenan, Thomas A 10782 

Kelly, Raymond Joseph.. 10404 

Lindsay, Harrv 10766 

Lowther, Leonard W 10706, 10720 

Markowitz, Richard H 10787 

McBride, Hon. Thomas D 10674 

McGovern, Vincent 10567 

McNallv, Harrv W 10570 

Miller, Yutz 10424 

Minisci, Vincent 10421, 10436 

Miskell, James J 10536 

Morris, Charles F 10567 

III 



IV 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of— Continued Page 

Myhasuk, John 10462 

Nulty, Leo C 10719, 10750 

O'Lear, Charles 10512 

Palermi, Armand 10424 

Parker, Patrick 10778 

Parkhurst, Edgar C 10624 

Price, Frank 10574 

Rif kin, Robert 10444 

Roberts, William G 10459 

Roski, Edward . 1J05T4 

Sampson, Wilbert 10570 

Shenko, John 10567 

Snyder, Jacob 10763 

Sobolewski, Michael 10758 

Sweeney, James 10554 

Von Moschisker, Michael 1 0703 

Von Svdow, Hans 10533 

Walker, Edward 10561 

Young, William S 10735 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

1. Treasurer's check No. M52218 on Broad Street Trust 

Co., dated March 30, 1955. payable to Earl M. 

Reed in the amount of $17,0f)0 10398 10795 

lA. Check No. 2106 dated March 30, 1955, payable to 
Cash in the amount of $17,000 and signed bv Ben 
Lapensohm 10399 10796 

2. Memorandum written to Benjamin E. Schlesinger, 

captain, labor squad, Philadelphia, by Detective 
David Cordivari on investigation of assault on 

Vincent Minisci, October 19, 1956 10453 (*) 

2A. Memorandum to Benjamin E. Schlesinger, captain, 
labor squad, Philadelphia, by Detective David 
Cordivari on investigation of Rif kin, October 17, 
1956 10453 (*) 

3. Ball peen hammer and a punch bar 10454 (*) 

4. Check No. 8622 dated June 10, 1954, payable to Cash, 

in the amount of $15,000. signed by Raymond 
Cohen, secretary-treasurer and Joseph Grace, 
president, local 107, and endorsed bv Joseph E. 

Hartsough \ 10472 10797 

4A. Check No. 8652 dated June 15, 1954, payable to Cash, 
in the amount of $10,000, signed by Raymond 
Cohen, secretary-treasurer and Joseph Grace, 
president, local 107, and endorsed bv Joseph 
Hart.sough -'--_: 10472 10798 

5. Original list of names purporting to support the dis- 

bursement of $25,000 in cash, indicating the amount 

each individual received 10473 (*) 

6. Check No. 11934, dated June 3, 1955, payable to 

Da^•id Kanner in the amount of $150 drawn on 

local 107 and endorsed bv David Kanner 10476 10799 

6A. Check No. 11812 dated May 20, 1955, payable to 
David Kanner in the amount of $200 drawn on 
local 107 and endorsed bv David Kanner 10476 10800 

6B. Check No. 2041 dated March 16, 1956, payable to 
Dave Kanner in the amount of $1,000 drawn on 
local 107 and endorsed by Dave Kanner 10476 10801 

6C. Check No. 2330 dated April 11, 1956, payable to 
Dave Kanner in the amount of $2,500 drawn on 
local 107 and endorsed by Dave Kanner 10476 10802 

6D. Signatures of Dave Kanner taken February 27, 1958, 

before a staff member 10477 10803 

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



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 
6E. Check No. 4137 dated October 1, 1956, payable to 
Dave Kanner in the amount of $1,438.50 drawn on 
local 107 signed by Raymond Cohen and Joseph 
Grace and endorsed by Dave Kanner 10481 10804 

7. Check No. 1350 dated January 10, 1956, payable to 

Joseph E. Katz in the amount of $1,000 drawn on 
local 107, signed by Raymond Cohen and Joseph 

Grace and endorsed by Joseph E. Katz 10477 10805 

7A. Signatures of Joseph Katz taken March 31, 1958, in 

the presence of George L. Nash, staff investigator,. 10477 10806 

8. Signatures of men certifying they received amounts 

indicated after their signature for organizing ex- 
penses, dated October 17, 1956 10491 10807 

9. Memorandum to committee on professional guidance, 

Philadelphia Bar Association, dated February 27, 

1958, signed by Michael von Moschisker 10510 (*) 

lOA. Check No. 2580 dated March 27, 1956, payable to 
Charles O'Lear, in the amount of $400, signed by 
Ben Lapensohn 10518 10808 

lOB. Check No. 2423 dated January 6, 1955, payable to 
Charles O'Lear, in the amount of $400, signed by 
Ben Lapensohn and endorsed by Charles O'Lear. _ 10518 10809 

IOC. Check No. 2806 dated September 30, 1956, payable 
to Charles O'Lear, in the amount of $100, signed by 
Ben Lapensohn, and endorsed by Charles O'Lear. _ 10518 10810 

11. Check dated March 26, 1954, payable to Cash, in the 

amount of $1,000, signed by Charles O'Lear and 

Edward B ttisfore 10520 (*) 

11 A. Check dated April 2, 1954, payable to Cash, in the 
amount of $1,000, signed by Charles O'Lear and 
Edward Battisfore 10520 (*) 

IIB. Check dated April 9, 1954, payable to Cash, in the 
amount of $500, signed by Charles O'Lear and 
Edward Battisfore 10520 (*) 

lie. Check dated April 1954, payable to Cash, in the 
amount of $500, signed by Charles O'Lear and 
Edward Battisfore 10520 (*) 

IID. Check dated May 14, 1954, payable to Cash, in the 
amount of $400, signed by Charles O'Lear and 
Edward Battisfore 10520 (*) 

HE. Check dated May 27, 1954, payable to Cash, in the 
amount of $1,128.87, signed by Charles O'Lear and 
Edward Battisfore 10520 (*) 

12. 23 checks made payable to Joseph E. Grace and signed 

by Joseph Grace and Raymond Cohen, in various 
amounts totaling over $4,000, and endorsed by 
Joseph E. Grace 10543 (*) 

13. Genuine signature of Joseph E. Grace, made Mar. 4, 

1958 10543 10811 

14. Signatures of members of local 107 certifying that they 

received amounts as indicated for time lost due to 

organizing activities 10566 (*) 

15. Minutes and financial reports of local 107 from No- 

vember 15, 1953, through May 1957 10589, 10601 (*) 

16. Check No. 9959, dated January 19, 1954, payable to 

Raymond Cohen in the amount of $2,000, drawn on 
local 169, signed by Edward Hartsough and Edward 

Fadigan 10604 10812 

16A. Check No. 10173, dated February 15, 1954, payable to 
Raymond Cohen, in the amount of $500, drawn on 
local 169, signed by Edward Hartsough and Edward 

Fadigan 10604 10813 

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



VI 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 
16B. Check No. 10174, dated February 15, 1954, payable to 
Raymond Cohen, in the amount of $500, drawn on 
local 169, signed by Edward Hartsough and Edward 
Fadigan 10604 10814 

17. Minutes of executive board meeting January 12, 1954, 

signed by Edward F. Fadigan 10610 10815 

18. Minutes of executive board meeting, February 9, 1954, 

signed by Edward F. Fadigan 10610 10816 

19. Minutes of executive board meeting March 10, 1954, 

signed by Edward F. Fadigan 10610 10817 

20. Check No. 1975, dated November 18, 1954, payable to 

Edward J. Hartsough in the amount of $3,000, 

signed by Ben Lapensohn 10612 10818 

20 A. Check No. 937, dated January 12, 1955, payable to 
B. Lapensohn, in the amount of $2,000, signed bv 

Edward J. Hartsough \ 10612 10819 

21A-D. Analysis of the cost to local 107 for all payments and 
benefits which accrued to Raymond Cohen from 
January 1, 1954, to September 18, 1957 10623 (*) 

21 E. Summary of financial transactions of Raymond Cohen 

from October 9, 1953, to June 30, 1957 10631 (*) 

22. Check No. 8731, dated June 25, 1954, payable to 
Thomas D. McBride in the amount of $7,500, 
signed by Raymond Cohen and Joseph Grace___ 10682 10820 

23A. Check No. 5245, dated January 10, 1957, payable to 
Thomas D. McBride in the amount of $1,250, 
drawn on local 107 10685 10821 

23B. Check No. 5542, dated February 6, 1957, payable to 
Thomas D. McBride in the amount of $1,250, 
drawn on local 107 10685 10822 

23C. Check No. 5784, dated March 4, 1957, payable to 
Thomas D. McBride in the amount of $1,250, 
drawn on local 107 10685 10823 

23D. Check No. 5052, dated December 20, 1956, payable 
to Thomas D. McBride in the amount of $500, 
drawn on local 107 10685 10824 

24. Audit report for local 107, Philadelphia 10701 (*) 

25. Pictures of a truck belonging to McCray and Hunter, 

food purveyors which was dumped in the river 10730 (*) 

26. Pictures of a truck belonging to McCray and Hunter, 

food purveyors in Philadelphia, showing damage 

done thereto 10731 (*) 

26A. Picture of a truck belonging to McCray and Hunter, 
food purveyors in Philadelphia, showing destruc- 
tion caused by an incendiary bomb 10731 (*) 

26B. Picture of a truck belonging to McCray^ and Hunter, 
food purveyors in Philadelphia, showing damage 
done thereto 10732 (*) 

27. Instances of violence involving teamsters' locals 107 

and 596 10750 (*) 

28. List of names and amounts received due to time lost 

during organizing activities 10786 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

September 26, 1957 10385 

October 28, 1957 10393 

April 15, 1958 10403 

April 16, 1958 10483 

April 17, 1958 10561 

April 18, 1958 10647 

April 22, 1958 10705 

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



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select conimittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee), presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, of Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Pat McNamara, Democrat, of Michigan; Senator Karl E. 
Mundt, Republican, of South Dakota. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Cannine S. Bel- 
lino, accounting consultant; Pierre E. G. Salinger, investigator; 
Arthur Kaplan, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

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

Will you be sworn, please ? 

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

Mr. Cohen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND COHEN ; ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN R. CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Cohen. Raymond Cohen, secretary-treasurer and business 
manager of local 107, Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers, Phila- 
delphia. I live at 1605 Brigantine Avenue, Brigantine, IST. J. 

The Chairman. That is local number what, please ? 

Mr. Cohen. Local 107. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you have counsel representing you, 
do you ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will 3'ou please identify yourself for the record? 

Mr. Carroll. My name is John R. Carroll, 2015 Land Title Build- 
ing, Philadelphia. 

Mr. Markowitz. My name, sir, is Richard H. Markowitz, 735 
PSFS Building, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, have you been served Avith a subpena 
to produce certain records and documents? 

10385 



10386 IMPROPER ACTIVrTIFJS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have the subpena ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. May I have it, please? We can get the original, 
but could I use your copy ? 

(Document handed to tlie chairman.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you were served with a subpena to 
appear before the committee on this date, September 26, 1957, and 
produce records in accordance with the sheet attached to the subpena 
which reads as follows : 

You will produce all records of the Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers 
Union, Teamster Local 107, AFL-CIO, for the period extending from January 1, 
1951, to the present. 

Cashbooks showing all receipts and all disbursements from January 1, 1951, 
to the present date. 

All checks, stubs, and paid checks from January 1, 1951, to the present date. 

All cash vouchers, invoices, sales slips, and memorandums purporting disburse- 
ments from January 1, 1951, to the current date. 

All reports of audits by union representatives and/or certified public accoun- 
tants from January 1, 1951, to the present. 

Copies of all reports to the Internal Revenue Service, salaries and wages paid 
to oflBcers, employees, and others, and taxes withheld from January 1, 1947, to 
the present date. 

Copies of all contracts, agreements, and bulletins between local 107 and the 
employers of union members which govern wages, hours, benefits, and working 
conditions of the employees. 

All payrolls from January 1, 1947, to the present date. 

Petty cash journal, membership list, and dues records for all members, past 
and present. 

All records and related correspondence pertaining to any loans to local 107 
from any and all sources and pertaining to any loans made by local 107 to any 
other union, private business concern, corporation, or individual. 

There is one other item and it will be treated separately. All personal records 
pertaining to the employees of local 107 for the period extending from January 1, 
1947, to the present. 

You were served with this subpena, were you, Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Are you ready to comply with the sub- 
pena ? Have you brought your records the subpena called for ? 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, may I say something before we start? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. I am here in response to your subpena which was served 
on me yesterday. 

The Chairman. May I ask you, Mr. Cohen, do you have a prepared 
statement ? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, it is a brief that I got together last night and 
this morning coming up in the plane. 

The Chairman. What I am trying to determine is whether it is a 
statement to present something, or whether it is to be regarded as a 
part of your testimony. If it is a part of your testimony, you will be 
required to submit it. 

Mr. Cohen. It is just an explanation, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I am here in response to your subpena 
which was served upon me yesterday in Miami Beach, Fla. In the 
subpena, you ordered me to bring practically every record that my 
union has. I have done my best to comply. I think that you gentle- 
men should know that I don't feel that I have been treated decently by 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1Q387 

this committee, or by your counsel, Mr. Kemiedy. Three months ago 
without subpena, and without any threat of subpena, local 107 volun- 
tarily invited your chief investigator in Philadelphia to come to the 
union office and inspect any books or records that he wanted to see. 
This offer was made in good faith. You accepted our offer and your 
investigators, lawyers, and accountants were given our conference 
room and all of our books and records to examine; if they chose, to 
copy. Several of your staff' members spent 6 full weeks in our offices, 
examining all of these records that you now have subpenaed. Nothing 
was held back from you. 

In addition to that, we suggested to your investigators that if they 
had any questions at the conclusion of their examination, we would be 
willing to sit down with them and answer all questions. 

After the completion of their examination, your staff members came 
back again, and for another 3 days reexamined our records. As you 
know, I went to Florida a week and a half ago for the purpose of at- 
tending the meetings of the constitution committee of the Internation- 
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, of which I am a member. In my ab- 
sence, your chief investigator telephoned our counsel to arrange a 
meeting at our office for the purpose, as he said, of finding out more 
information from my secretary. This meeting was arranged. In- 
stead of seeking information, all that your investigator did was to 
hand my secretary a subpena demanding production not before you 
gentlemen, but in your investigators' office of every book and record 
they had already examined. My secretary, of course, is not the cus- 
todian of our records and could not possibly comply with your order, 
and we so informed your investigator and counsel. We suggested that 
rather than put us to the inconvenience of moving all of those bulky 
records we would make copies for you of whatever we felt you needed. 
We were told that your investigator and counsel would consider that 
offer and advise our counsel. 

Instead of calling counsel as was expected, you subpenaed me 
yesterday to be here this morning, even though you knew I was very 
busy in Miami. You knew the tremendous amount of work involved 
in collecting and producing all of those records, and you also knew 
that today was an important Jewish holiday. I don't think this is 
fair treatment for an^ witness before the Senate of the United States ; 
especially I think it is unfair in view of all of the voluntary coopera- 
tion that we have given you. 

Beyond that, I think it is improper in view of the fact that you led 
our counsel to believe that you would sincerely try to make a con- 
venient arrangement for copying the records you needed. 

I think it is outrageous in view of the fact that you issued your 
subpena last Friday while our counsel was talking with your counsel 
in Detroit in an effort to enable the committee to get all of the infor- 
mation it wanted, an arrangement which you and your counsel appar- 
ently never intended to live up to. In spite of the unfair treatment 
which this committee has given us, I have brought everything that I 
was physically able to bring on such short notice and from such great 
distance. 

The Chairman. Have you concluded. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair indulged you to read a statement. The 
Chair could have required you to submit that statement in advance. 



10388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I liad no knowledge tliat you were going to take sucli a position and 
show such contempt for this committee. We have undertaken at all 
times to be fair with those who would cooperate with us, but there are 
two sides to this story. Mr. Counsel, do you wish to make an observa- 
tion, and then I am going to proceed, and your records will be accepted, 
what you have brought, and you will be required to bring the others. 
Proceed. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the record of local 
107 on the offices of local 107. It is a procedure that we have followed 
in other cities. Where it has been necessary to examine the books 
and records in our own office, we have made that request. That has 
been followed in almost every area that we have been in. For in- 
stance, out in Detroit, where we have been in the last 3 or 4 weeks, Mr. 
Fitzgerald has made the books and records of many local unions and 
the joint council available in our own office. There are reasons why 
we must examine the books and records in our own office. That is 
particularly true in the case of local 107. 

No. 1, there were records that are missing, and No. 2, there are lec- 
ords that need to be examined by technicians, and we wanted to have 
those records. I said to the counsel for local 107 that we would do 
everything in our power not to inconvenience local 107, then we would 
make whatever records they were working with available to them. 
We have done that in every other city that we have worked in, and there 
have not been any complaints about it. We are willing to do the same 
thing there. 

After I talked to the counsel and asked him to call Mr. Nulty and 
make arrangements like that, Mr. Nulty did not hear from him. It 
was then that I requested that the subpena be issued by you, and that 
we have to take steps to get the records my subpena that they would 
not make available to the committee voluntarily. 

There are many items in 107 that are highly questionable, Mr. Chair- 
man, that we will want to go into in detail with Mr. Cohen. We want 
to see the records and to see them in our own office and have them 
examined. 

The Chairman. Do you have the records present? You brought 
some records ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are directed to turn over the records to the 
clerk of the committee at this time. 

Mr. Carroll. May I say these consist of six large and heavy cartons 
which are being brought up your stairway. 

The Chairman. Do you now place them in the custody of the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Carroll. May I ask a question referring to that, sir ? 

The Chairman. You may ask it. 

Mr. Carroll. Could we inquire just how long you intend to keep 
these records ? 

The Chairman. We are going to keep them a sufficient length of 
time to make the use of them necessary to carry out this committee's 
function. 

Mr. Carroll. Can you give us an estimate of that length of time ? 

The Chairman. I cannot. I have not seen the records. We will do 
as we have always done. We will cooperate where we get cooperation. 

Mr. Carroll. As you know, sir, we are certainly cooperating. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10389 

Senator Mundt. I thiiik we can assure the counsel that if there are 
items in the records to which they have to refer in connection with 
the current operation, certainly they would have access to look at them, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. So you will not be inconvenienced in that way. 

The Chairman. I wish to say in most instances we get cooperation 
between the staff and the members of local unions whose records we 
need. 

In most instances — there are occasional exceptions, as I recall this 
is about the second or third in all of our work — where we do not get 
that cooperation and where there is a beligerent attitude as indicated 
by the witness here this morning and sometimes it becomes necessary 
to exercise the powers the committee has in order to proceed with 
its work. 

We do not want to impose any hardship that can be avoided, but 
we are not going to be deterred from pursuing whatever we conceive 
to be our duty. 

The records will be delivered at this time. The counsel and staff are 
instructed insofar as you can release the records after you have finished 
with them. We do not want to impose any undue hardship where it 
can be avoided. We shall expect your full cooperation and if there 
are other records that have not been produced after you have examined 
these, Mr. Counsel, please advise and instruct Mr. Cohen what further 
records you need and what further records are missing that you want, 
and you will be instructed to comply with that request. 

Failure to do so will mean you will be called back before the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Carroll. Let me tell you what we have brought. Maybe that 
will help you. 

Senator Mundt. I was going to arrive at the same goal. I was going 
to ask Mr. Cohen what records he did not bring. He said some records 
were not available. 

Mr. Carroll. The only thing we have not brought, which we have, 
is what is designated on our subpena as all membership and dues 
records, past and present. 

Those, sir, consist of 3 very large vaults about 4 feet by 4 by 8, 
which took rigging equipment to get into our place and would take 
the same thing to get out and we could hardly be expected to bring 
them on 24 hours' notice. 

Senator Mundt. Have you brought everything else called for in 
the subpena ? 

Mr. Carroll. Everything else we have. For instance, item 12, per- 
sonnel records, we don't possess such things. We don't keep such 
records. Payroll records, cashbooks, every other single thing on your 
subpena we have brought. 

The Chairman. Let us get this under oath. The counsel is not 
sworn. 

Mr. Cohen, have you brought all of the records called for in the 
subpena except item No. 10, membership lists and dues, records for 
all members past and present, and No. 12, all personnel records per- 
taining to employees of local 107 for the period extending from 



10390 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

January 1, 1947, to the present? Have you brought all records that 
are in your possession that you have except those two ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As to No. 10, you say you have none ? 

Mr. Carroll. As to 12, we have no such records. 

The Chairman. As to 12, you have no such records ? 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You have not kept any records such as that would 
describe ? 

Mr. Cohen. Not since I have been secretary-treasurer of local 107 
which is only in the past 3 years. 

The Chairman. The past 3 years ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were they kept before that time ? 

Mr. Cohen. That I do not know. I don't think so. 

The Chairman. You do not think you have any such records ? 

Mr. Cohen. I was only a business agent at that time. 

The Chairman. I know, but you are now in possession of all the 
records. 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairjman. Have you any such records prior to the time you 
T^ecame secretary ? That is, records of the local union ? 

Mr. Cohen. Those personnel records of the employees ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Pertaining to employees of local 107 ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir, I do not have them. 

The Chairman. Were they kept prior to the time you became 
secretary- treasurer ? 

Mr. Cohen. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. You have never seen such records ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. They have never been in your possession to your 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How about No. 10 ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. No. 10 ? We don't have the subpena. 

Mr. Cohen. You mean the membei-ship lists and dues cards? 

The Chairman. Do you have those ? 

Mr. Cohen. That would be a physical impossibility unless rigging 
companies could take them from our building. 

The Chairman. You do have them. You have such records, as I 
understand it ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you make them available to members of this 
staff for inspection? 

Mr. Cohen. Will we make them available? 

The Chairman. There. 

Mr. Cohen. We already have agreed to make them available at 
any time. 

The Chairman. With the authority for him to remove therefrom 
such documents as he may feel are of interest to this committee? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10391 

Mr. Cohen. Those we need 

The Chairman. A receipt will be given you for anything- taken 
out. The staff will be so instructed. 

Mr. Cohen. Those cards, Mr. Chairman, and those files we need 
to operate every day from morning until evening. 

The Chairman. We do not Avant to take anything that you have 
to have. We want the right to inspect them and if we find some 
document — I hope we do not have to take all of them — but if we find 
some document that is of interest that tlie committee wishes further 
to inquire into, we sliould desire it. 

So we might as well settle it now. 

Mr. Cohen. We would only be too glad to make copies of anything 
in those three vaults for you gentlemen to have. 

The Chairman. In most instances a copy will serve the purpose. 
In some instances a copy — just a memorandum copy — Avill not serve 
the purpose. 

I do not know w^hether there is any such instance involved, but if 
there is, we can either settle it here toda}^ or we can have another 
day, so if w^e find we do need to remove one, we will. 

If we cannot have that understanding, then there will be another 
day in the committee for you. 

Mr. Carroll. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, in view of what we have 
done in the past in giving your investigators everything they wanted, 
I am sure this can be worked out as they requested. 

The Chairman. We are working it out now. Let us settle it. We 
do not want you to leave here with any misunderstanding. 

Mr. Carroll. I think I understand what you want and Mr. Cohen 
does. 

Senator Mundt. May we have the answer from Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Cohen. Are you asking me, Mr. Chairman, whether I agree 
that you can have them if you want them? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. I agree. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Any further questions ? I am not sure but I thought this subpena 
also covered your personal books and records — I made some observa- 
tions about that when I said all personal records when I started to 
read No. 12 — but that does not cover your personal records. 

I am asking for information. Have you made your personal rec- 
ords available for committee inspection ? 

Mr. Cohen. They have never been asked for or requested, to my 
knowledge. 

The Chairman. Will you make them available ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. With that understanding, upon request for any of 
his personal books and records, the witness agrees to make them 
available. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tend to that right away, Mr. Cohen, and 
make them available? 

Mr. Carroll. He is going back to Miami. I don't know how much 
you expect of him on such short notice. 

The Chairman. If you agree to make them available when yoii 
get back — how long do you intend to be there ? 



10392 IMPROPER ACTIMTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen. T intend to be there until the convention of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters is over. 

The Chairman. With that understanding that they will be made 
available when desired — I am not going to make any pressure on you 
to go back to Philadelphia at this time if you want to return to 
Miami — with, that understanding, is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Because we have had these difficulties in the past, 
Mr. Chairman, can we reach an agreement as to when he will make 
them available or his attorneys will make them available? 

The Chairman. When do you expect to return, Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I will either make them available after 
I return from Miami and if there is a necessity for them before, I 
am sure my attorneys will see that you get whatever you want. 

The Chairman. The Chair will order you to make them available 
immediately upon your return from Miami and I am anticipating 
that you are not going to be down there for an extended vacation. 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, if any of them are desired — Mr. 
Kennedy, you contact Mr. Cohen's counsel, and such that he can make 
available, you will do so in the meantime. 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you veiy much. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside. 

(The witness was excused.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1957 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The select committee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Pat McNamara, De- 
mocrat, Michigan; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Democrat, North Carolina; 
Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona ; Senator Carl T. Cur- 
tis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Pierre E. G. Sal- 
inger, investigator ; Walter Sheridan, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk. 

{Committee members present at this point: Seiiators McClellan, 
Ives, Goldwater, McNamara and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. I may say to the committee that we have a matter 
here of a witness we had before us some time ago. While testifying 
he made commitments and agreed to give us some records, but he 
changed his mind, apparently, and he is here and I thought we would 
call him up here. 

Mr. Raymond Cohen, will you come around, please? 

Mr. Cohen, you will be sworn. Do you solenmly swear that the evi- 
dence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Cohen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND COHEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN R. CARROLL, AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you appeared before this committee 
at an earlier date. "Wliat date was that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it was Sej)tember 26, 1957. 

The Chairman. At that time, you were interrogated regarding 
your personal records that the committee was seeking. I belieNe cer- 
tain records had been subpenaed that were in your possession, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Cohen. Union records, sir. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

10393 



10394 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen. The last time I was here, you mean ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were they made avaiLable ''( 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Just to get the record straight, Mr. Cohen, state 
your name and your place of business and your residence and your 
business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Cohen. Kaymond Cohen, 1605 Brigantine Avenue, Brigantine, 
N. J. I am secretary-treasurer and business manager of the teamsters 
local 107, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. You have counsel present with you. 

Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 

Mr. Carroll. John R. Carroll, Land Title Building, Philadelphia, 
and Richard H. Markowitz, PSFS Building, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Did you gentlemen appear as counsel for the wit- 
ness when he testified before? 

Mr. Carroll. We did, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, I understand the union records have all been 
delivered, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When you were testifying before you were asked 
to deliver your personal records to the committee. At that time I 
believe we served a subpena on you for your personal records, when 
you appeared before the committee, is that correct? 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir, that is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was served subsequently. 

The Chairman. Subsequently one was served on you? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. 

The Chairman. Let the witness answer. 

Mr. Carroll. The record shows, I think, that your subpena was 
served last week. 

The Chairman. When you testified before, you consented at that 
time, and agreed to turn over your personal records to the committee. 
I read from the transcript of your testimony on page 473 : 

Mr. Cohen. Are you asking me, Mr. Chairman, whether I agree that you 
can have them if you want them? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. I agree. 

The Chaibman. Thank you. 

Any further question? I am not sure but I thought this subpena also covered 
your personal books and records — I made some observations about that when I 
said all personal records when I started to read No. 12 — but that does not cover 
your personal records. 

I am asking for information. Have you mado your personal records avail- 
able for committee inspection? 

Mr. Cohen. They have never been asked for or requested to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Will you make them available? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. With that understanding, upon request for any of his personal 
books and records, the witness agrees to make them available. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tend to that right away, INIr. Tohen and make them 
available? 

Mr. Carroll. He is going back to Miami. I don't know how much you exi)ect 
of him on such short notice. 

The Chairman. If you agree to make them available when you get back^ 
how long do you intend to be there? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10395 

air. Cohen. I intend to be there until the convention ol' the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters is over. 

The Chairman. With that understanding that they will be made available 
when desired — I am not going to make any pressure on you to go back to 
Philadelphia at this time of you want to return to Miami — with that under- 
standing, is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Because we have had these difficulties in the past, Mr. Chair- 
man, can we reach an agreement as to when he will make them available or his 
attorneys will make them available? 

The CHAiRjfAN. When do you expect to return, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I will either make them available after I return 
from Miami and, if there is a necessity for them before, I am sure my attorneys 
will see that you get whatever you want. 

The Chairman. The Chair will order you to make them available immedi- 
ately upon your return from Miami and I am anticipating that you are not going 
to be down there for an extended vacation. 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, if any of them are desired, Mr. Kennedy, 
you contact Mr. Cohen's counsel and such that he can make available, you will 
do so in the meantime. 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You may stand aside. 

Now, what is the situation, Mr. Counsel, with respect to the records ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They were subpenaed, Mr. Chairman. We under- 
stood, according to the commitment that Mr. Cohen made here before 
the committee on September 26, that he would make them available, 
and they were not made available and so, finally, we subpenaed them 
and subpenaed Mr, Cohen to bring them here to the committee today 
at 2 : 00 p. m. This subpena was served last week. 

The Chairman. The subpena will be printed in the record at this 
point, so the record will be clear. 

You acknowledge having received the subpena, Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

(The subpena is as follows :) 

L-1629 

United States of America 

Congress of the United States 

To: Mr. Raymond Cohen and Mrs. Edith Mae Cohen, 1605 West Brigantine 
Avenue, Brigantine, N. J., greeting : 

Pursuant to lawful authority, you are hereby commanded to appear before 
the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management 
Field of the Senate of the United States, on Monday, October 28, 1957, at 
2 p. m., at their committee room, room 101, Senate Office Building, Washington, 
D. C, then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject matters 
under consideration by said committee, and to produce duces tecum the items set 
forth in schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

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

To : .John B. Flanagan to serve and return. 

Given under my hand, by order of the committee, this 22d day of October, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven. 

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



21243— 58— pt. 27 



10396 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

SCHEDULE A 

To produce for the period from January 1, 1950, to date, the following records 
and documents : 

1. All check stubs, canceled checks, bank statements, and pass books of all 
savings accounts, building or loan associations. 

2. Records of all stock brokerage accounts and records of purchase, ownership, 
and sale of all savings bonds, stocks, or other securities. 

3. A list of all real property purchased, owned, or sold or mortgage receivables 
within the aforementioned period of time and the pertinent records of such 
transactions. 

4. A record of all charge accounts. 

5. A record of all money borrowed and/or loaned and the payments or repay- 
ments thereof. 

6. List and records of rentals of all safe-deposit boxes. 

7. Records of ownership, operation, or control of any business operations — 
individual, joint venture, partnership, or corporate. 

8. Records of all sources of income, including salary and expenses, during 
the above period. 

9. List and records of all jewelry bought, sold, pawned, and insured, and the 
records of such insurance. 

10. List and records of all gifts and contributions received which were valued 
at $.500 or more. 

11. List of registrations and other records of the purchase, ownership, and 
sale of all automobiles and boats within the aforementioned period. 

The Chairman. Have you brought the records ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You have refused to bring the records ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have not complied with either your promise to 
produce them and make them available, nor have you complied with 
the subpena, is that correct ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. "Yes, sir, that is correct," is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you now refusing to comply with the subpena ? 

Mr. Coit7':n. Mr. Chairman, although no subpena had been issued 
for my personal records, I then said I would produce them at a future 
time. I have since changed my mind. 

The Chairman. Obviously. But you now have a subpena for them. 
Are you going to produce them under the subpena ? 

Mr, CoiiEN. Well, no, sir, and here are my reasons. 

The Chairman. You may state your reaspns. 

Mr, Cohen. I understood you wanted all of my records regardless 
of whether they pertain to your investigation, and the committee is 
obviously conducting a general inquisition into my personal affairs in 
the hope of finding some evidence against me and not for the purpose 
of legislation. I am advised, and I believe that I have a right not to 
be a witness against myself and a right to be free from unreasonable 
search and seizure and, therefore, I intend to avail myself of these 
rights, and have not brought the records you subpenaed. 

(At thispoint. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions 5 

Mr. Kennedy. I have a few questions. 

Mr. Cohen, you have a yacht now, do you? I would like to ask you 
about your yachts. Would you first tell me about the yacht that you 
have now ? 

Mr. Cohen. Can I have a second or so to consult with my attorney ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10397 

The Chairman. You may consult with counsel. 

(The witness conferred w^th his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I refuse to answer that question for the 
•same reason I previously stated. 

The Chairman. You had better state your reason again for the 
record. 

Mr. Cohen. Could I have the stenographer read it ? 

The Chairman. No, sir. If you want to take the tifth amendment, 
you should learn now. You have counsel to advise you. 

Mr. Cohen. I am advised and believe that I have a right not to be 
a witness against myself and a right to be free from unreasonable 
search and seizure. Therefore, I intend to avail myself of these rights 
and I will not answer the question. 

The Chairman. You decline to answer on the ground that you think 
if you ansAvered the question a truthful answer thereto might tend to 
incriminate you? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, I have stated my reason, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, I gave you the chance to state a legitimate 
reason. Now, if you do not want to state it, that is up to you and your 
counsel. 

Mr. Cohen. I think that I have stated a legitimate reason. 

The Chairman. Did any union funds go into the purchase or the 
upkeep of this yacht ? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answ^er that. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer it. With 
the permission of the committee, the Chair is going to order and direct 
you to answer the question. 

Mr. Cohen. Can I convei-se with counsel ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer the question, Mr. Chairman, for the 
same reason as I previously stated. 

The Chairman. Are any union funds used to maintain, keep up, 
and operate this yacht which is in your possession ? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion. I trust the committee gives its approval as I give these orders. 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

The Chairman. The Chair now orders you again to produce those 
records and I order you to answer the two questions I have asked you 
regarding the yacht and whether union funds went into the piu-chase 
of it, and whether union funds are used for its upkeep, maintenance, 
and operation. 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer, Mr. Chairman, for the same reason 
as previously stated. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just so we establish that we are looking for some- 
thing specific here, according to the information that we have, this 
is a yacht that Mr. Cohen has purchased this year for some $24,000 
and he keeps this yacht, according to the information we have in the 
winter down in Miami where he uses it, and then in summer he has 
it in New Jersey. 



10398 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Prioi- to this time he had another yacht which he piircliased for 
$17,000 and he pnrchased that yacht from a man by the name of Earl 
M. Eeed. This is one of the matters that we are looking into. There 
are a number of them amounting to tens of thousands of dollars 
regarding Mr. Cohen, and the misuse of union funds, but this is one 
of the matters that we are looking into. 

We have this treasurer's check in the amount of $17,000 made out to 
Earl M. Reed and we would like to ask Mr. Cohen where he got the 
money to purchase that treasurer's check. 

The Chairman. This is a photostatic copy of a check dated March 
30, 1955, on Broad Street Trust Co., made payable to Earl M. Reed, 
in the amount of $17,000. 

Mr. Carroll, '^^^lat is the date of that again, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. We will present it to the witness. I ask you to 
examine that document, Mr, Cohen, and state whether you identify it. 

Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. Cohen, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, Do you identify it ? 

Mr, Cohen. I refuse to answer, Mr, Chairman, on the grounds I 
previously stated. 

The Chairman, You are ordered and directed to answer the ques- 
tion. With the approval of the committee, the Chair issues that order 
and direction to you, 

Mr, Cohen, I refuse to answer. Mr. Chairman, on the grounds I 
previously stated. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truth- 
ful answer to that question, a truthful answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate you? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer that, Mr. Chairman, on the grounds 
I previously stated. 

The Chairman. Again, you are ordered and directed to answer the 
question, with the approval of the committee. 

Mr, Cohen, I refuse to answer on the same grounds I previously 
stated, Mr, Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you not think that if you use union money for 
that ])ur])Ose, that the members of the union, tlie dues-paying mem- 
bers, have a right to know about it? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer that question, Mr. Chairman, on the 
grounds I have previously stated. 

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

Mr, Cohen, I refuse to answer the question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The first check there may be made exhibit Xo. 1. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 10795.) 

Tlie (^HAiRMAN. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here, Mr. Chairman, a $17,000 chex-k made 
out to cash and it is signed by Mr, Ben Lapensohn, 

That is March 30, 1955, and it is $17,000, 

The Chairman, This is 1955, The Chair presents you what appears 
to be an original check in the amount of $17,000 made payable to 
cash, dated March 30, 1955, in the amount of $17,000, drawn by Ben 
Lapensohn, 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR ITELD 10399 

1 present tluit check to you and ask you to examine it and state 
wliether or not you identify it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer, Mr. Cliairman, for the same rea- 
,sons I previously stated. 

The CiiAiRMAK. Witli the approval of the committee, the Chair 
•orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. CoHEX. I refuse to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the grounds that 
I previously stated. 

The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 1-A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1-A" for ref- 
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 10796.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. This check was used to purchase the treasurer's 
check which was in turn used to purchase this boat for Mr. Cohen. 
Now, following that, we were going through the books and records 
of local 107 and we found a large number of checks made out to Ben 
Lapensohn, starting on Mav 13, 1955 of $1,000, and May 16, 1955, 
$1,000, May 27, 1955, $1,250." 

June 3, 1955, $950 : June 10, 1955, $1,015 ; June 27, 1955, $955 ; July 
15, 1955, $902 ; July 15, 1955, $502 ; July 28, 1955, $1,000.72. 

August 11, 1955," $919, adding up to a total of $9,523.72 and all of 
these checks are missing from the records of local 107. 

Can you tell us about that, Mr. Cohen, where those checks are? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer the question, Mr. Chairman, for 
the same reason I previously stated. 

The Chairman. Those checks were on union funds, were they not? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and Mr. Lapensohn at that time was a business 
agent of local 107. He was receiving his salary, and he was receiving 
his expenses during this period of time and these are payments above 
and beyond that which Mr. Lapensohn w\is receiving during this 
period of time, and for which the checks are missing. 

Within several months of that there are some more payments to 
Mr. Lapensohn amounting to about $3,000 more, but these particular 
ones are the ones we are interested in at the present time. 

The Chairman. I might make this observation for the benefit of 
the record, that this committee is very much interested in these trans- 
actions if those are union funds as it appears there, and union money 
was being spent here to buy a yacht. 

I think the union members have a right to know about it. I doubt 
the validity of the use of the money for that purpose unless there 
was a re.solution or something by the local to authorize such expendi- 
tures. 

It comes very much in the purview of the duty and responsibility 
of this committee as we inquire into these improper practices. I think 
every question asked, gentlemen, is pertinent to this inquiry and if 
the witness continues to refuse to answer, this is the last chance I am 
going to give him. 

Do you want to answer any of these questions or do you still refuse ? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse, Mr. Chairman, on the ground I previously 
stated. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the witness, is there anything 
in your personal records which have been subpenaed and which you 



10400 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

have refused to produce that relate in any way to the funds belonging 
to the union. 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer that question, Mr. Chairman, on the 
same grounds I previously stated. 

The Chairmax. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer the question, Mr. Chairman, on the 
same grounds as previously stated. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

(Present at this time were Senators McClellan, Ives, McNamara, 
Gold water, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We began our investigation about April or May of 
last year into the activities of JSIr. Cohen and Mr. Lapensohn; and 
Mr. Lapensohn, in May of 1957, left for Europe and he left word 
that he would be back with his family in September of 1957. 

Well, his family returned to the United States in September of 1957, 
but Mr. Lapensohn has remained out of the country. 

Now, we received information that Mr. Lapensohn was in Montreal 
last week. We sent an investigator up to talk to him and he refused 
to talk at that time and also said he was not going to come back to 
the country to appear before the committee at the present time. 

Now, I wondered if Mr. Cohen can give us any help. I am speaking 
to you, Mr. Cohen, because I know, for instance, you have been highly 
recommended to this committee. Mr. Hoffa spoke to us about what a 
fine job you were doing in Philadelphia, when he appeared and testi- 
fied. I would think that you would want to help and assist the com- 
mittee in whatever way possible by giving us this information about 
where Mr. Lapensohn is and what information you have on the pur- 
chase of the yacht and your general financial transactions with Mr. 
Lapensohn and with others. 

Mr. Markowitz. Is that a question, Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Can you help us on that about your finances, 
give us any information and tell us about your relationship with Mr. 
Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Cohen. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why not ? 

Mr. Cohen. For the same reason I previously stated. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that reason, Mr. Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I am advised and believe that I have a right not to be a 
witness against myself and a right to be free from unreasonable 
search and seizure. Therefore, I intend to avail myself of these rights 
and will not answer the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. On what ? On what grounds ? 

This is illegal search and seizure ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I just read it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that it ? Is it not on tlie grounds it might incrimi- 
nate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Cohen. On the grounds that I stated, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. That wasn't in there. Would you read that again, 
please. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10401 

Mr. Cohen. I am advised and believe that I have a riglit not to be a 
witness against myself and a right to be free from unreasonable search 
and seizure. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions from the committee? 

All right. You may stand aside. 

The committee will pursue this matter further. I don't know what 
will be in the future, but I think this is something that should be looked 
into. I will direct that a copy of this transcript be immediately 
provided for the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say we have a good deal more 
information regarding this matter which we will present to the 
committee at the proper time. 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER A( TIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1958 

UxiTED States Sexatk, 
Select Committee ox Improper AcnviTiES 

IX THE Labor or Maxagemext Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committe met at 10 : 30 a. ni., 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; Sena- 
tor Irving Ives, Republican, New York; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., 
Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, 
Arizona; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Sena- 
tor Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also iDresent : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel; Leo C. Nuley, investigator; Herbert J. 
Rose, Jr., investigator; Ralph De Carlo, investigator; John B. 
Flanagan, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairmax. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairmax. The Chair will make a brief statement. 

Today we are beginning hearings on the activities of union officials 
of Local 107 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters operat- 
ing in the Philadelphia region. It is expected that the hearings will 
also involve other Teamster locals in that area. 

These hearings will inquire into the misuse of union funds. How- 
ever, one of the most important phases of our investigation, in my 
opinion, will be the methods used to control the membermship. 

The employment of individuals with criminal records to intimidate 
and to instill fear, the physical beatings of those who do not "coop- 
erate," appears to have created a condition in local 107 which is equal 
to or worse than any situation of its kind that we have yet examined 
into. 

During these hearings we will be asking for the cooperation of vari- 
ous rank-and-file mernbers of this union. 

It is my feeling that many of them would like to cooperate. I hope 
that fear or intimidation will not keep them from giving to the com- 
mittee the facts and information of which they have knowledge and 
which facts and information would be helpful to the Congi*ess in deter- 
mining the character and extent of remedial legislation that it should 
enact. 

10403 



10404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

One of the leading figures in these hearings will be Mr. Raymond 
Cohen, secretary-treasurer of local 107. Mr. Cohen is now trustee of 
the international union, having been elected last fall when the Team- 
sters hierarchy turned itself from the corruption of Dave Beck with 
the election of new officers. 

Mr. Cohen's position with the international is of great importance 
and what the name implies. He holds a position of trust. The com- 
mittee will be anxious to develop what were the characteristics and 
activities of Mr. Cohen that made the new leadei-ship of the Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters select him for this position. 

Another individual in whom the committee expects to have consider- 
able interest is Mr. Benjamin Lapensohn who has worked closely with 
Mr. Cohen for a number of years. 

\^nien the committee started its investigation a year ago, Mr. 
Lapensohn left the country. However, I am advised that he still is 
away, and he has not yet returned. 

The c.ommittee will continue to be interested in having his testirnony 
and believes that it is very possible that by the time these hearings 
are completed, a number of the law-enforcement agencies of the coun- 
try will be anxious to talk with Mr. Lapensohn. 

We are also going into certain allegations of bribery and extortion. 
Not the least of the charges is that favoritism has been extended to 
certain companies which gives firms competitive advantage over their 
rivals. 

We shall also be interested in determining whether any financial 
favors have been offered to union officials by management. 

Mr. Counsel, is there anything further you wish to add? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Does any member of the committee have any 
comment ? 

If not, Mr. Counsel, call the first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Raymond Joseph Kelly. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please. 

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

Mr. Kelly. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND J. KELLY 

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

Mr. Kelly. My name is Raymond Kelly. I live in St. Augustine 
Beach, Fla., and I operate a motel there. 

The Chairman. You operate what? 

Mr. Kelly. A motel, sir. 

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

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kemiedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kelly, you were with the Teamsters Union for 
a period of time? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir ; I was with them from its inception until 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is local 107? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10405 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And prior to that you were with local 470? 
Mr. Kelly. For a period of 14 years I was a member. 
Mr. Kennedy. So you have been with the Teamsters from about 
1920; is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And local 107 broke off from 470 or they formed a 
new union called 107, and you joined that, is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was about 1934 or so ? 

Mr. Kelly. 1934, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at its inception, did you become an officer of 
the local ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes ; I did, and I became recording secretary and busi- 
ness agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected to that position after that? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Periodically they had elections ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were elected recording secretary and a 
business agent, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have opposition on occasion during that 
period ? 

Mr. Kelly. At times, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often did they have the elections in the union ? 

Mr. Kelly. Every 4 years. 

Mr. Kj;nnedy. Who was the president or who operated the miion 
during this period of time ? 

Mr. Kelly. Edward Crumbock. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position ? 

Mr. Kelly. Secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was elected secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he was secretary-treasurer up until 1964, is 
that right? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was succeeded then by Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were nominations for the various positions 
in the union in November of 1953, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what transpired at 
that meeting, in November of 1953 ? 

Mr. Kelly. You mean from the beginning of the meeting ? 

Mr. Kennedy. First tell the connnittee how your elections are 
usually run, and then tell what happened at the meeting in November 
of 1953. 

Mr. Kelly. Well, members are nominated, seconded, and recorded 
as such, and if there is any opposition there is a ballot election. If 
there is no opposition, then he is elected without vote. 



10406 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So there is a meeting of the union, the members are 
invited, and anybody could be there. This is the way it was under 
Mr. (Jrumbock. Anybody could be nominated, and then they would 
have them seconded and then there would be an election if there was 
opposition? 

Air. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you have a regular meeting in November of 
1953 in order to elect the officers ? 

Mr. Kelly. We did. 

INlr. Kennedy. And who was in the chair at that time? Wlio was 
running the meeting? 

Mr. Kelly. The president, Brother Joseph Grace. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was president of the local at that time ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, in November of 1953, Mr. Eaymond 
Cohen was a business agent of the local ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was no higher officer than a business agent? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. So would you tell the committee what happened at 
the meeting on November of 1953 ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, the meeting was opened and the regular order 
of business went on until the nomination of officers, and nominations 
were asked for president, and Joseph Grace was put in without oppo- 
sition. 

Mr. Kennedy. First, before you get to that, was there anything 
unusual about the meeting ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. The size of the attendance ; it was, I would say, 
overwhelming. The auditorium was crowded and members were 
standing out in the street and couldn't get in, which was really un- 
usual. 

Mr. Kennedy. Many more people than had come at the ordinary 
meetings ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead and continue. 

Mr. Kelly. Well, Joseph Grace was nominated, and he had no oj)- 
position, and Brentowsky was nominated for vice president and busi- 
ness agent without opposition, and then it came to nominations for 
secretary. Nominations were opened for secretary. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was the position held bv Mr. Crumbock ? 

Mr. Kelly. Sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this the position held by Mr. Crumbock ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the most important position in the imion, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes ; it is. 

The nominations were opened, and someone jumped up and nomi- 
nated Raymond Cohen; there was a quick second, and, of course, 
they had to have a second, and all hell broke loose. They jumped on the 
seat and started stomping and shouting "Cohen," and nobody could 
be heard. Of course, a man who wanted to nominated Crumbock just 
wasn't seen, and he had his hand up and standing there through tliis 
"young riot," I would call it, and they jumped all over the place. Of 
course, Eddy wasn't nominated. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10407 

Mr. Kennedy. The president of the local, Joe Grace, never recog- 
nized anybody that wanted to nominate ? 

Mr, Kelly. A man by the name of Bob Duncan stood there for 
fully 10 minutes with his hand in the air waiting to be recognized. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Grace then rule that the nominations were 
closed ? 

Mr. Kelly. Someone asked for the nominations be closed and they 
Avere closed. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Cohen was nominated and thus elected, is that 
right, without any opposition ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Crumbock's name had never even gone in? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the meeting break up shortly afterward ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you feel or understand or know at that time 
that the election hall had been stacked with supporters of Raymond 
Cohen ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, from the action of the membership, I would say 
yes, because we never had that kind of a meeting before in the whole 
existence of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised that Joe Grace would not recog- 
nize the man ? 

Mr. Kelly. Very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people who were supporting Cnimhock i 

Mr. Kelly. Very much surprised. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a meeting afterward ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir; dire^^tly after the meeting, we had a board 
meeting upstairs. 

Mr, Kennedy. That was the old board, was it ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion of the election at that time? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, Crumbock asked Cohen why he did it, and he 
said he just felt he was entitled to it or words to that effect, and he 
thought he did a goddamn swell job. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, just prior to the election, 
liad Mr. Cohen been out sick or said he was out sick? 

M r. Kelly. Quite often, yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. Had his wife called in and said that he was too 
sick to come to work ? 

Mr. Kelly. Tliat is what I was given to understand. Eddy Crum- 
bock said he had a phone call from Mrs. Cohen, and Ray was too sick 
to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was just prior to this election, is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In November of 1953 ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Cohen explain at this meeting after the election 
that he was actively working for his nomination ? 

Mr. Kelly. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time ? 

Mr. Kt;LLY. Yes, he did, and he said it was going on for a couple 
of years and they held meetings in different parts of the city, and in 
fact some of them were held in Trenton, N. J. 



10408 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So when in fact his wife had repoiled that he was 
too ill to come to work, he was in fact moving around the union trying 
to get support for this election ? 

Mr. Kelly. That was my impression ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now did Mr. Crumbock protest the election to the 
International ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what action the Inter- 
national took then ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, they sent in Tom Flynn, and he was to take over 
and he was put in charge of the local during the trouble in Phila- 
delphia. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senatoi-s 
McClellan, Ives, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And the local was put in trusteeship ? 

Mr. Kelly'. He was the trustee ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was a new election ordered ? 

Mr. Kelly. A new election was ordered and held. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Crumbock actively campaign during this period 
of time ? 

Mr. Kelly. Actively? No. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I couldn't say what his reason was. Business 
agents who were working for him all through the years done as much 
campaigning as possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Raymond Cohen campaign actively ? 

]Mr. Kelly. Yes ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tom Flynn, was he friendly to Mr. Cohen during 
this period ? 

Mr. Kelly. I would say he was very friendly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen have much money available ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I couldn't say how much money he had available. 
It seemed as though there was quite a bit of money being used. Of 
course, it had to be used with the amount of men that he had on the 
street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he spending much money then ? 

Mr. Kelly. I would say "Yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. Spending a great deal of money ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. He had to, for the campaign that was put on. 
Hiring halls and holding meetings and having these different men on 
the street. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a number of people who were working 
for him ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, I would say a hundred or better. 

Mr. Kennedy. That were working around for him in the union ? 

Mr. Kelly. Openly ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his association during that period of tim« * 
Was tJhere any discussion about any of the criminal elements of Phila- 
delphia being interested in the election ? 

Mr. Kelly. Was there any mention of it 'i? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr, Kelly. Yes. I believe it was mentioned in one of Eddie Crum- 
bock's circulars that he put out about hijacking and stuff' like that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10409 

Mr. Kennedy. Beyond that, was there any discussion or did you 
have any information yourself, about the criminal elements of Phila- 
delphia being interested in the results of the election ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, there were rumors that through Ben Lapen- 
sohn 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Ben Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was a bondsman, or whatever you may call it. 

He was connected with the element who were called the smart money 

guys. 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. Was he associated with Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also associated with the smart money guys ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by the smart money guys ? 

Mr. Kelly. They were racketeers. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had a close association with them ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he worked for the local 107 prior to that time? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he been fired by Eddie Crumbock ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. On information that he had extorted some money 
from an employer ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

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

Mr. KJENNEDY. He had been fired, but he was associating then with 
Cohen and working in Cohen's campaign ; is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And other than Lapensohn, was there any other of 
the element, gangster or criminal element, in Philadelphia that you 
knew were supporting Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. KJELLY. Al Berman. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Who is Al Berman ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was a stew\ard atone of the garages. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He was a steward of 107 ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was also a numbers man ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you know he was a numbers man ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was a nmnbers banker. He went to different ga- 
rages and collected from the stewards in those garages. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew that yourself ? 

Mr. Kelly. Everybody knew that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he closely associated with Raymond Cohen? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Al Berman afterward obtain anv position, with 
107? ^P ' 

Mr. Kelly. He is an official of some sort. Which position he holds, 
I don't know. 
Mr. Kennedy. He was made an official of the union ? 
Mr. KJELLY. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. After the election ? 
Mr. Kelly. That is right. 



10410 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. IvBNNEDY. In tlie election that was ultimately held in — what, 
April 1954? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Cohen won, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Ivennedy. He won veiy easily ? 

Mr. Ivelly. Vei-y easily. 

Mr. Kennedy. Almost 6 to 1? 

Mr. Ivelly. Something like that. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Do you have any explanation as to why Mr, Cohen 
had these kinds of associations, and Mr. Crumbock had done a good 
job running the union, why it was that Mr. Cohen won the election? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, there was only one word for it. It was fear. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was fear ? 

Mr. Kelly. Fear, that is true. And another — sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. On what do you base the conclusion that it was fear? 

Mr. Ivelly. Well, I had several phone calls myself from different 
members that they were told by their stewards to mark their ballot 
and fold it in such a manner that before they dropped it in the box 
they could show it to the Cohen watchers to show that they voted 
for Cohen. 

Mr. Kennedy. The ballot was such that you could put the person 
for whom you were voting, you could check it and fold it and nobody 
could see it ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you were told to fold it the other way so that 
it could be seen when you put the ballot in the box ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know a number of other people who were 
told to do that? 

Mr. Kelly. I wasn't told to do that. Other members were told to 
do that, and they called me and told me. 

Mr, Kennedy. That they were instructed to do that ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you, in fact, know that a large number had 
done that? 

Mr, Kelly. Well, they had to, because the stewards, who were 
definitely Cohen men, had to see the ballot, and if they didn't show the 
ballot, they were just in trouble. 

Mr. Kennedy. Explain a little bit more to the committee of what 
you mean by the fact that it was fear that existed in local 107. 

Mr. KJELLY. Well, there were a number of men beaten up around 
just for campaigning for Crumbock, and some that were known 
just to have voted for him were — well, let's say, taken care of. 
Through that, nobody wanted to have anything to do with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it also this association with some of the gang- 
ster element of Philadelphia ? Did that make people afraid ? 

Mr. Kelly. I would say, "Yes." 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Were any of them afraid that they would lose 
their job or wouldn't be assigned to work if they voted against the 
Cohen leadership ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10411 

Mr. Kelly. Were any of them afraid? Everybody was afraid. 

Senator Curtis. You have said that they were afraid physically 
because some of them were beaten up. But did they have any fear 
relating to their job or their assignment of work, that they might 
lose out on that ? 

Mr. Kelly. That I couldn't say, because, after all, that was the 
employers' position, whether or not to remove a man from his job, 
and I don't think that was up to the union. 

Senator Curtis. They could deprive them of their membership ? 

Mr. KjiLLY. Defintely ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Could you secure a job in that area without hav- 
ing membership ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So they could take a person's job away from him 
by expelling him from the union ? 

Mr. Kelly. Very easily. 

Senator Curtis. Is that done some times ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I don't have definite proof that it was done, no, 
sir. 

Mr. I^nnedy. We do have some information, and we will have a 
witness on that. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen, during this period of time, offer 
you anything personally if you would support him ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. He came in my office with several other business 
agents in there, and he offered an increase of $100 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were you getting at the time ? 

Mr. Kelly. $200. 

Mr. Kennedy. He offered to pay you $300 a week if you would 
support him ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Following the election, did you continue in your 
position as secretary ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how long a period of time ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, the last meeting was in June, and I got out of 
there in August. 

Mr. Kennedy. August of 1954, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any pressure put on you to get out of 
the union, to resign ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, there was. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Would you tell the committee what happened ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I was called into the office, that Mr. Cohen 
wanted to see me. I was in my office at the time. I went up to the 
office and Joe Grace, Cohen, Eddie Walker were there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Eddie Walker ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I don't know what position he holds no^\ He 
was, I would say, Cohen's right hand man. That is all I could say. 

The Chairman. Was he an officer, a business agent, or anything in 
the union? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, he was put in tliere as head business agent. He 
wasn't voted in, no, sir. 

21243— 58— pt. 27 3 



10412 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. He wasn't elected ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was put in by Cohen. 

The Chairman. He was just appointed by Cohen? 

Mr. Kelly. Appointed by Cohen. 

The Chairman. Was he also a kind of a bodyguard ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I couldn't prove that definitely, but that w^as the 
assumption. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is a business agent at the present time and also 
recording secretary, as I understand. 

Mr. Kelly. Sir? ^ 

Mr. Kennedy. He is presently a business agent and also recording 
secretary of local 107. 

]Mr. Kelly. That I don't know. I have not been near it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Continue the conversation of when you went there 
with Joe Grace. 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I went in there, and they asked me to sit down, 
so I sat down. The conversation was on my getting out of the office, 
getting out of the position I held there, and Cohen says "We feel that 
you would have enough on pension to keep you, and we feel that you 
ought to quit." 

I didn't quit. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was this, approximately ? 

Mr. Kelly. I would say that was in July, some time during July. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been elected to that position, had you not ? 

Mr. Kelly. I had been, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he told you that he wanted you out of that job, 
that you should quit your job ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you refused at that time ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Continue. 

Mr. Kelly. Well, that was the end of the meeting. I walked out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear from them again ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. In August, I just don't know the date, but it was 
on a Friday afternoon. Walker came into the office and said "Don't re- 
port back. We don't want you to come back here Monday." 

I said, "How about Tuesday ?" 

He said, "No, nor Tuesday, nor Wednesday either. Stay the hell 
away from here, if you know what I mean." 

So I said, "Whose orders are they ?" 

He said, "Mine, Joe Grace's and Ray Cohen," he says, "and don't 
be putting words into my mouth." 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he mean that you should stay away ? 

What did you think he meant when he said that you should stay 
away ? 

Mr, Kelly. Just don't come back, brother. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think something would happen to you if 
you did ? 

Mr. Kelly. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did you think would happen to you ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, others had been beaten up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever come back ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I didn't. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10413 

Mr. Kennedy. Why? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I just wanted to stay in good health. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you leave Philadelphia after that ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, I did. I left Philadelphia in 1955, January of 
1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a pension from the joint council ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the pension that you receive ? 

Mr. Kelly. $263.24 a month. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Cohen tried to keep you from getting 
that pension ? 

Mr. Kelly. It was told to me that he had it stopped for a while, 
yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. It was stopped for a while, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had you been a teamster at the time that 
you were kicked out ? 

Mr. Kelly. How long had I been a union teamster ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Kelly. Thirty-five years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you went down to Florida then ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. I leased some property down there and I have 
been operating ever since. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a couple of last questions. 

The business agents were elected by the membership at the time 
Mr. Crumbock ran the union ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were about 8 business agents in the Philadel- 
phia area and 2 in the Wilmington area ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. The two in the Wilmington area were appointed ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a branch of 107 that was formed by Eddie 
Crum})ock; is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both you and he had taken steps, during that time, 
to try to make that branch local independent of 107, is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that had been opposed by Mr. Walker ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I don't know who it was opposed by, but it never 
went through. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never went through. But those 2 business agents, 
anyway, were appointed, and the other 8 were elected ? 

Mr. Kelly, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The eight in Philadelphia were elected ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if that procedure has been changed by 
Raymond Cohen? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, it was, before we even got out of there. We had 
replacements. People were nominated to our jobs. They were not 
nominated, but they were just put in there by Cohen, and have been 
there ever since, as far as I understand. 



10414 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. After this election, he began appointing the business 
agents, rather than electing them, is that right rather than the union 
electing them ? 

Mr. Kelly. They are all appointed ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are all appointed now ? 

Mr. Kelly. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Raymond Cohen is the one that appoints them ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was anyone else thrown out of their jobs, as you 
were, ordered to leave their office ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes. Binkowski was thrown out. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Hio was that ? 

Mr. Kelly. My partner, William Binkowski. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was thrown out of his job? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. He was vice president and business agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he been elected also ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was just ordered out of his office ^ 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he leave also for the same reason that you did? 

Mr. Kelly. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted to stay healthy ? 

Mr. Kelly. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anybody else? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, James Murphy, John Fisher, and Harry Tustin, 
they were each given $5,000 apiece to resign. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were paid $5,000 to get out of the union? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did they hold at that time ? 

Mr. Kjjlly. Business agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were given $5,000 ? 

Mr. Kelly. Kelleher resigned and went on pension. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that give complete control of the union to 
Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. IvELLY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you understand that lie lias cojuplete control 
over the union at the present time ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He can run it completely as he sees fit, is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. In his position, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in his'p)Osition of power, he threw you and 
these other gentlemen out of their position, even though they had 
been elected ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And replaced them by his own people? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you understand or do you know if this fear still 
exists in local 107? 

Mr. Kelly. From hearsay, yes, sir. People have told me that 
they don't get near the office, they are afraid. They don't make a 
complaint, they are afraid. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have there been other people beaten up since you 
left there ? Do you know that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10415 

Mr. Kelly. Since I left? Yes, I did hear tell of one, Vincent Min- 
isci. Pie was attacked at the place where he Avorked one morning, 
about 3 o'clock, I understand, and given a good going over. 

He wound up in the hospital. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were in the Teamsters Union for a long period 
of time. What is your feeling about a local that is run as this local 
is now being run ? 

Mr. IvELLY. I wouldn't like to express that kind of language. It 
is just lousy, to be truthful with you. 

The Chaikman. Express it a little midly, then. 

Mr. Kj:lly. Sir? 

The Chairman. You said you wouldn't like to express that kind of 
language. I said express it a little mildly. 

Mr. Keli.y. Lousy. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by lousy ? 

Mr. Ivelly. Well, they practically have no representation today, 
from what I have heard. Off and on differer.t people stop down to 
see me. They can't get in to see the business agents. Tliey can't get 
the business agents to come to the garages. So the only man that can 
do anything is the steward. 

The Chair]\ian. Do you mean by that that the rights, the demo- 
cratic rights and privileges of the members have been completely de- 
nied them ? 

Mr. Ivelly. Definitely. 

The Chairman. They have no control, no authority, no contact, 
no entry to the union's affairs ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

The Chairman. They are virtually captives. They have to do 
what they are told to do, if they are to work ? 

Mr. I^LLY. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that the situation as you honestly believe it to 
be? 

Mr. Kelly. That is the way I believe it to be today ; yes, sir. That 
is from conversation with different members. 

The Chairman. How long after you had been elected before they 
came in there and told you not to come back ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I was elected in November of 1953, and it was in 
August of 1954 that they told me not to come back. 

The Chairman. For what term were you elected ? 

Mr. Kelly. Three years. 

The Chairman. You were elected for 3 years. You still had 
more than 2 years to go before your term of office would expire? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were fired by the president and the secre- 
taiy-treasurer, and somebody else? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

The Chairman. And they really had no authority at all, so far 
as having been elected by the members ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

The Chairman. Is there anything in the constitution or bylaws 
of the Teamsters or of that local that gave to the president and the 
secretary-treasurer the right to discharge elected officials. 

Mr. Kj]lly. No, sir ; there is not. They must have a hearing before 
the executive board of the local union, and if that is not satisfactory 



10416 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to both parties, then they take it to the joint council executive board, 
and then if that is not satisfactory, they take it to the general execu- 
tive board of the international. 

The Chairman. In other words, there is a procedure by which, for 
cause, they can get rid of an elected official. 

Mr. Kelly. There is a procedure ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is an established procedure by the bylaws 
and the constitution for the executive board to get rid of an elected 
officer, but that procedure grants to the officer who has been elected, 
and who they are trying to oust, or that permits liim to liave a hearing 
before the executive board? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

The Chairman. Then if not satisfied with tlie executive board's 
ruling, either side then can appeal to the joint council? 

Mr. Kelly. That is it. 

The Chairman. Was that procedure followed in any sense or any 
respect with regard to your dismissal? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ask for a hearing? 

Mr. Kelly. I was told to stay away from the place. 

The Chairman. Did you think tliey meant it ? 

Mr. Kelly. Knowing them as I do, I know they meant it. 

The Chairman. And it was simply out of a sense of fear for your 
physical safety that you left when you were ordered to do so? 

Mr. Kelley. That is true. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Kelly, you have been a union man for most 
of your adult life. You described a very unhappy circumstance up 
there in Philadelphia. Out of the abundance of your experience in 
the union, how do you think the kinds of situations which you have 
described can be averted ? Wliat legislation is needed, what changes 
are needed, what has to be done differently to prevent this type of 
thing from occurring? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, sir, in that, I think something should be done. 

Senator Mundt. I think so, too. The question is what ? 

Mr. Kelly. Just what is to be done, I am not versed in that. 

Senator Mundt. You were on the inside. You were a member. 
It happened to you, it happened to your union. It has happened in 
other unions. It has happened in other areas. It is one of the things 
that this committee is interested in. That is, the restoration of the 
American rights to the American workingman, the American union 
member. 

If there is some loophole in the law some place, or some deficiency, 
something is occuring so that we are getting letters from union men 
and women from all over the country, describing situations, some of 
them worse than yours, some of them not as bad, but many of them 
in the same direction. 

In order to earn a living in America, a man loses his right to exer- 
cise his political judgments, to exercise his free American opinions, 
to function as a democratic member of a democratic organization. 
What can be done to stop it ? It doesn't do much good to just hear 
about a case that happened to you. That is unfortunate. But let's 
try to think out loud about what can be done to prevent this from 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10417 

happening to some other fellow who is a good, honest worker in the 
union, who gets elected by his fellows, who has a right to serve them, 
but who gets booted out by some racketeer. 

How do we stop them ? 

Mr. Kelly. God knows. I don't. I wish I did. I would only 
be too happy to tell you. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, what can be done by anybody in 
the State governments, in the Federal Govermuent, in the union move- 
ment, what can be done to stop this kind of thing from occurring in 
an orderly, democratic society like ours ? 

Mr. Kelly. I couldn't tell you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think this has to be a part of a labor union 
movement ? 

Do you think that we have to continue to have these kinds of things 
happen ? 

Mr. Kelly. No ; definitely not. 

Senator Mundt. What can be done to help you? Suppose you 
were back there 10 years ago holding that union job. What coidd 
have been done to prevent this from happening ? 

Mr. Kelly. I think if everything had been taken along the lines of 
procedure in the constitution, and as Senator McClellan said, through 
the different executive boards, everything would have been all right. 
It would have shown some legality about the thing. But to come in 
and tell a man "Get out and don't come back, or else," that is just out of 
order. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat do you think would have happened if you 
said "I am not going to quit on Friday afternoon," and you had gone to 
the police department instead and said "Look, these goons are threaten- 
ing me. I want police protection. I want to stay on the job." 

What do you think would have happened ? 

Mr. Kelly. They would have gotten me the same as they had gotten 
others. 

Senator Mundt. Don't you have any confidence in the police ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, the police department, yes, I have a lot of con- 
fidence in the Police Department, but they are not always about, and 
as for giving definite protection, to have a man in the house walking 
around with me, I wouldn't want it. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think this kind of business is an inevitable 
part of the labor movement ? 

Mr. Kelly. Do you mean the way it is going on now ? 

Senator Mundt. The way it happened to you. 

Mr. Kelly. The only thing I can tell you, Senator, is I don't like it. 

Senator Mundt. I don't like it, either, what can we do to fix it up ? 

Mr. Kelly. There is nothing I can do about it. I have been out 
of there since 1954. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. You can't go back and do it in- 
dividually. But you might have some suggestions for Congress, of 
something we can do. 

Mr. Kelly. I think maybe the Congress or the Senators would 
have better suggestions than I could make. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat ? 

Mr. I^LLY. I think maybe the Congress or the Senate would have 
better suggestions than I would make. 



10418 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this: Suppose at the time Mr. 
Crumbock's leadership was being challenged by Mr. Cohen, suppose 
there had been a law which said that in the election of officials, every 
member of the union shall receive a secret ballot by mail, and shall be 
permitted to mark it back to a designated post-office box, and accessible 
only to a mutual objective counting committee who would count the 
ballots honestly and fairly, do you think that the Teamsters of Phila- 
delphia would have imposed on themselves this kind of tyranny had 
they been guaranteed that kind of secret ballot, and honest counting? 

Mr. Kelly. They would love it. 

Senator Mundt. They would love it ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. And they never would have voted for Cohen under 
those circumstances ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So the weakness is the failure of Congress to pro- 
vide legislation requiring honest counting, secret ballot, and giving to 
the working men and women of this country a chance to express them- 
selves, devoid of fear and devoid of corruption ? 

Mr. Kelly. I think that is the medicine. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, it is as simple as that. If Congress 
measures up to its responsibilities and passes the law, a situation like 
you have described in Philadelphia could not occur. 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman, Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You told about 2 men who were given $5,000 to 
resign. Whose money was that ? 

Mr. Kelly. It was a union check. 

Senator Curtis. A union check. The money belonged to the mem- 
bers then; didn't it? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes ; it did. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think the members had anything to say 
about it ? 

Mr. Kelly. They didn't know about it. 

Senator Curtis. They didn't know about it. How many men were 
paid to resign ? 

Mr. KJELLY. Murphy, Fisher, and Tustin ; three. 

Senator Curtis. A total of $15,000? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Are these workers' who pay in the money, men of 
high income? 

Mr. Kelly. The men that were 

Senator Curtis. The ordinary members who have to pay the dues ; 
do they have a high income ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, I wouldn't say it is high. 

Senator Curtis. Therefore, they have to pay out $15,000 to have 3 
fellows resign ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, that came out of the treasury. That didn't come 
out of the memberships' pocket. That comes out of the treasury. 

Senator Curtis. WTiere does the treasury get its money ? 

Mr. KJELLY. Out of the memberships' pocl^t. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10419 

Senator Curtis. Do you think the expenditure of that $15,000 
helped the workers? 

Mr. I^LLY. Definitely not. 

Senator Curtis. It was to their detriment, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, it was. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien you were having this trouble in your local, 
did you or any of your associates appeal to the International Team- 
sters' Union to help you out ? 

Mr. Kellt. Well, Crumback did in the early — he asked for aid 
from the international. They sent Tom Flynn in as a trustee to take 
over the union. That is the only time that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Did that help ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, he was there until Cohen was installed in office. 

Senator Curtis. Until who was installed ? 

Mr. Kelly. Ray Cohen. 

Senator Curtis. Who did he appeal to in the international ? 

Mr. Kelly. Dave Beck. 

Senator Curtis. And he placed it under trusteeship ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Then they had this election while it was under 
trusteeship ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, this election that you complain of, 
where the men voted because of fear, was an election actually under 
the supervision of the international, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is true. 

Senator Curtis. Would you or any of your members have any 
rights in court? 

Mr. Kelly. In what way, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Could you have gone into court and maintained 
your rights and opposed the manner of election of officers and do the 
other things to enforce the provisions of your own constitution and 
bylaws ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, sir. It has to be taken up with the joint council 
first. 

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

Senator Curtis. In other words, if a person objects to what is 
going on in their union, before they can go into court, they have to 
exhaust aU steps and remedies within the union, is that right? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What happens to them if they go into court first ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, I believe the only thing they could do would 
be to get an injunction to stop the election or something of that type. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, but the member that starts a court action, 
he is put out of the union, isn't he ? 

Mr. Kelly. Definitely. 

Senator Curtis. I think that has been a practice in too many in- 
ternational unions, that when a group have felt that their rights 
were aggrieved and they have gone into court to maintain them, the 
practice has been to kick those fellows out of the union, and then 
they no longer have any rights to protect and, of course, their court 
action couldn't be maintained. 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 



10420 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. That was done in one case in the UAW-CIO, I 
believe. This Al Berman, is he a Philadelphia gambler or numbers 
man? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Pie was made an officer in your union ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I want to know, what was his occupation at the 
time he was made an officer ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was a steward. He was a steward in one of the 
garages, a truck driver. 

Senator Curtis. As a steward, does a steward perform services 
for the employer or just for the union ? 

Mr. Kelly. Both. He acts as a go-between between the members 
of that garage and the employer. 

Senator Curtis. By the garage, are you referring to truck drivers, 
mechanics, or both ? 

Mr. Kelly. No, just truck drivers. 

Senator Curtis. Was he a truck driver. 

Mr. Kelly. He was a truck driver. 

Senator Curtis. As a steward, did he work as a truck driver also ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You mentioned this fear of physical assault. Did 
you ever see anyone while they were being beaten up, or afterwards, 
or learn firsthand of anybody that was beaten ? 

Mr. Kelly. I saw one afterwards. 

Senator Curtis. How badly was he beaten ? 

Mr. Kelly. Well, this fellow was an official, a business agent of 
the Wilmington local, and we were going to a meeting at 11th and 
Girard in Philadelphia, and he was right in back of us, my partner 
and I, going into the meeting hall. Someone picked him off. He was 
the tail man going into the door, and we didn't see exactly what hap- 
pened, but we saw him after. 

Senator Curtis. How badly was he beaten up ? 

Mr. Kelly. He was beaten around the face. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, just slapped, or how badly was he 
beaten ? 

Mr. Kelly. Punched, and he was cut around the mouth, and he had 
a black eye. 

Senator Curtis. He had been treated, in other words, very roughly ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Kelly. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did he tell you how many people attacked him ? 

Mr. Kelly. No ; he was shaken up pretty badly. 

Senator Curtis. You think it was more than one ? 

Mr. Kelly. Definitely ; yes, sir. In fact, he said it was more than 
one. 

Senator Curtis. Did he attempt to have anybody arrested ? 

Mr. Kelly. I don't know. I don't know what procedure was taken 
after that ; whether he had anyone arrested or not. 

Senator Curtis. Some weeks ago we were hearing the case of the 
Operating Engineers Union in the Philadelphia area and we had, as 
a witness, a man named Ed McCarty who was very severely beaten as 
he left the union meeting. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10421 

He testified that lie went before a magistrate in order to cause a 
warrant to be issued for the arrest of those who had attacked him, and 
the magistrate said, "Oh, that was just a union brawl, and we don't pay 
any attention to it." 

Is that the general practice of the courts in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Kelly. I guess it is according to what magistrate you have the 
case before. 

Senator Curtis. But people outside the union, businessmen and 
employers, and people geneially, do they fear what these union hood- 
lums might do to them as well as union members ? 

Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know some cases of that ? 

Mr. Kelly. I don't know of any cases where the employers were 
beaten up, but I do know the employers were afraid of the regime that 
is in there now. 

Senator Curtis. Are these large-business men or small-business 
men? 

Mr. Kelly. I would say 50 to 100 employees. 

Senator Curtis. And they yield to the union on things they do not 
believe in, just out of fear ? 

Mr. Kelly. To keep quiet ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do any of them -pay any money to some of these 
racketeers for peace ? 

Mr. Kelly. That I couldn't say. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have an opinion on it, that it may be 
happening ? 

Mr. Kelly. No. I couldn't voice an opinion on that ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Will you stand aside for 
the present? 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Vincent Minisci. 

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. MiNiSGi. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF VINCENT MINISCI 

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

Mr. Minisci. My name is Vincent Minisci. I live in the State of 
California now. I am a teamster. 

The Chairman. Are you a laboring man, and you drive a truck, 
do you ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where do you live in California— all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you spell your name, M-i-n-i-s-c-i ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is Vincent Minisci ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You used to live in Philadelphia, did you not? 



10422 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You M-ere a member of local 107 ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You used to drive there ? 

Mr. IVIiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You drove a truck ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what company ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Dennis Trucking Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Dennis Trucking Co., is that right ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

?vlr. Kennedy. That is on Morris Street in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. MiNisci. 25th and Morris Streets. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been subpenaed before this commit- 
tee, is that right ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. Ivennedy. How long were vou a member of the Teamsters 
Union? 

Mr. JMiNisci. Since January of 1944. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected a steward by your members of your 
shop ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were elected to that position ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNFJ)Y. You were not appointed? 

Mr. MiNisci. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the campaign between Mr. Cohen and Mr. 
Orumbock for Secretary-Treasurer of local 107, were you interested 
in the election of IVIr. Crumbock? 

Mr. Mixisci. I certainly was; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt he was better for the union? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, in my opinion ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was it known that you supported Mr. Crum- 
bock in the election ? 

Mr. Minisci. I think it was ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you beaten during this period of time of the 
election ? 

Mr. Minisci. No, not during the period of the election. 

Mr. Kennedy. But immediately following ? 

Mr. IVIiNisci. Yes, sir. I would say a month after the election 
I was. 

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

Mr. JVIiNisci. Well, as you know, I was steward of the garage 
down there, and I went up to pay the dues for the members and I 
was inside the building and I was cautious because I knew they didn't 
have too much love for me as it was. 

When I was in the building there I noticed these fellows coming 
from upstairs. They came out and they went out the door, and I 
finished my business inside there, and I walked out the door, and one 
of the members called me to the curb and he said, "I want to talk to 
you." 

As I walked toward him somebody hit me on the back of the head 
with something or his fist. 

Mr. ICennedy. Who called to you to come to the curb ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10423 

Mr. jVIinisci. Mr. Armand Palermi. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was a supporter of Mr. Cohen, is that right ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Definitely so. 

Mr. Kennedy. i^Jid he told yon to come to the curb and you walked 
over toward him ? 

Mr. Mixisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what happened then ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Someone hit me from behind, and I fell on my hands 
and knees, and I rolled over to see who it was, and somebody kicked 
me, and just kept beating me around, and I managed to get away on 
my own power after a severe beating. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did this last ? 

Mr. MiNisci. I would say it seemed like an eternity to me, but I 
guess it was only about 10 or 15 seconds or better. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of them were there ? 

Mr. MiNisci. There were three of them that I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once you were down on the ground, were you 
kicked then ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of them M'as holding you ? 

Mr. ISIiNisci. They didn't have to hold me. I guess I couldn't get 
around on my own power at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to identify any of these people ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us who they were ? 

Mr. Menisci. There was an Armand Palermi, Yutz Miller, and 
a fellow they called Cinders. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yutz Miller? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the other one is Cinders ? 

Mr. MiNisci. I think it is Cendrowski or something of that order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joseph Cendrowski, C-e-n-d-r-o-w-s-k-i ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Perhaps it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was also a supporter or these other two were 
also supporters of Cohen ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any idea as to why you were beaten ? 

Mr. IVIiNisci. Well, they said that I had an argument at the time, 
and I worked on the polls, campaigning for Crumbock, and this 
Palermi fellow was there at the time, and we had a little discussion 
there which was nothing, just a little mouthy argument, I guess, and 
that is all there was to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you think it was in connection with the election ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Definitely it was. 

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

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you report these three individuals to the police? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they arrested ? 

Mr. MiNisci. No ; they weren't. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? 

Mr. MiNisci. They just let the thing by, and I don't know why, 
or I never pressed any charges for the simple reason I was afraid to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were afraid to ? 



10424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiNisGi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is satisfactory, Mr. 
Minisci has some more testimony to give; but as long as he knows 
the three individuals who beat him at that time, I would like to see 
if he could identify them here in the room. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. The witness will rise and survey 
the committee room, and ascertain whether the three men whom you 
have testified about are present, and if so, point them out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can walk back there. 

Mr. Minisci. This is "Cinders" there, and Palermi. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you specifically point them out ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is the three of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have the three of them ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Point them out, and you three men come around, 
please. 

Mr. Minisci. Here they are. 

The Chairman. You have heard your names called. Will you 
come around. 

All right, Mr. Witness, you may return. 

You gentlemen have a seat. 

Let me ask the witness. What was the date that these men beat you ? 
Do you recall the date ? 

Mr. ISIiNisci. If I am not mistaken, it was the early part of June, 
and I think it was about June 5 or 7, in that area. 

The Chairman. What year ? 

Mr. Minisci. 1954. 

The Chairman. Of 1954? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel advises me you have some other testimony 
to give, but in the meantime I am going to ask you to stand aside 
a moment, and you three gentlemen come right up to the front, will 
you. 

Hold up your right hands and be sworn. Do you and each of you 
solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the trutli, so help you God ? 

Mr, Cendrowski. I do. 

Mr. Palermi. I do. 

Mr. Miller. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF AEMAND PALERMI, JOSEPH CENDROWSKI, AND 
YUTZ MILLER, ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, the witness will state his 
name, and his place of residence, and his business or occupation. 

Mr. Miller. Arthur Miller, No. 4 East Ninth Avenue, Pine Hill, 
N. J. I am a driver for United Parcels. 

The Chairisian. All right, the next one will state his name, and his 
place of residence, and his business or occupation. 

Mr. Cendrowski. Joseph Cendrowski, 5357 Headam Street, Phila- 
delphia, dispatcher. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10425 

Mr. Cendrowski. Dispatcher. 

The Chairman. All right, the next one, please. 

Mr. Palermi. Armand Palermi, 5139 T Street, Philadelphia, driver 
for Schachts Express. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the responsibilities of a dispatcher, Mr. 
Cendrowski ? What do yon do as a dispatcher ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me, sir. 

(Witness consnlted with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair should ask you, do you have counsel 
present, and let me ascertain if they are. Counsel, will you identify 
yourself for the record ? 

Mr. Carroll. We will do that. As you know I am John Eogers 
Carroll, 2015 Land Title Building, Philadelphia, and with me is 
Richard H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Savings Fund Building, also 
in Philadelphia. We represent these three witnesses. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Cendrowski, what are the responsibilities of a 
dispatcher ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I put the cards in as the members come in. 

The Chairman. You do what ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I put the members' cards in, as they come in for 
work, and place their cards in, and then I dispatch them out the 
same way. 

The Chairman. You direct the drivers where to go and when to go ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Wlien they are called. When they call in for 
a driver or helper, or a platform man, or a 6- wheel man, I take them 
out in turn as I put them in, and dispatch them the same way. 

Mr. Kennedy. If an employer needs a driver, then they call you ; 
is that right? 

Mr. Cendrowski. There are three of us. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. There are three of us. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio are the other two in there with you ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Well, two fellows work with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. They work for you ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They work with you ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio are they ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pete Lusco and Walter Mitchell. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are the one who is in charge of it ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVlio is in charge of it? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Walter Mitchell. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mitchell is in charge ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you work under him ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. We work together. 

Mr. Kennedy. You work together ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 



10426 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. So if an employer needs a driver, he calls in and 
you are the one that makes the determination as to which driver 
will go out ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Whichever one takes the message. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whichever one takes the message ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. But it is sort of in the form of a hiring hall; is 
that right? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the way you work in a hiring hall, and 
you are the one who makes the determination. This group of three 
makes a determination as to which one of the drivers is going to 
get the job, is that right? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Whatever the employer asks for. 

Mr. Kennedy. If an employer asks for a driver, but otherwise 
you are the ones who make the determination ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. What they ask for, we send out. 

Mr. Kennedy. If they ask for 2 or 3 drivers, or 2 drivers, you 
send out 2 drivers ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are the ones who make the decision which 
two drivers will be sent out ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. The ones in turn, as their names come up. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That is the way it is supposed to be done; is that 
right? 

Mr. Cendrowski. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you get this position of dispatcher at the 
hiring hall ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I was appointed by Mr, Cohen, 

Mr. Kennedy. You were appointed by Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien were you appointed ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately when, 1954 ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No ; it was after that, some time, I believe. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Wliat year was it? How long have you held the 
job? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I can't remember exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held the job ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. A couple of years or so. 

Mr, Kennedy, You have pretty much control over the jobs for the 
Teamsters in that area, do you not? 

Mr. Cendrowski, Pardon me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr, Kennedy, You would know that ? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to remind counsel and the wit- 
ness, counsel is here 

Mr. Cendrowski. I don't have control over them, only I send them 
out as the membership put their cards in, and I send them out. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair remind counsel and the witnesses 
that counsel is here at the sufferance of the committee, and counsel is 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10427 

permitted to give legal advice to his client, to be blunt about it, as to 
whether he thinks he should take the fifth amendment or not, it that 
is what you want to do. t • ^i, •. 5 

But the counsel is not permitted to put words m the witness 
mouth nor to testify for him. The committee is going to require 
counsel to observe proper regard for the rules of the committee. 

Mr. Carroll. As you know, we have always observed this com- 
mittee's rules, and intend to continue to do so. 

The Chairman. Well, the Chair is going to help you. 
Mr. Carroll. We are not putting words m the witness mouth, 
and I hope you won't think so. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr Kennedy. Tell me this, Mr. Cendrowski : IVliat was it m your 
backgroimd that made Mr. Raymond Cohen select you for this im- 
portant position? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know, sir. ^ , 1 i ,. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just selected you, and you don't know why it 
was ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know why ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No, sir. - j j; • 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been arrested, tor in- 
stance ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Quite a few times. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times ? 

Senator Curtis. I can't hear the witness. 

Mr. Cendrowski. I can't remember. 

The Chairman. Get a little closer to the microphone. 

Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know, sir. 

Mr Kennedy. You don't Imow how many times ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I know I have been arrested but how many times 

I can't tell you. , , -r • ^ 1 ^A 

Senator Curtis. I can't understand what he says. I wish he would 

^^Mr. Cendrowski. I have been arrested, but I can't remember how 

many times. . • ^ j 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been convicted i 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I got 10 days I think, and 3 years, and on pro- 
bation or something like that and I don't exactly recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't exactly recall? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No. ^ j 1^ 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the record you have been arrested \i 
times ; is that about right ? -, -r 1 j ,^ 

Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know, and I couldn t say. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know, and you have received 3 years 
probation in 1931 for larceny. 

Mr. Cendrowski. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

21243— 58— pt. 27 4 



10428 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chairman. Do you recall it? 
Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know excactly, sir. 

The Chairman. Were yon convicted for larceny? You know 
whetiier you were or were not. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I think it was 3 years, I believe. It was 10 days, 
I think, and the rest is probation. "^ ' 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you sure that wasn't the burglary for which vou 
were convicted m 1940 ? ^ j j 

Mr. Cendrowski. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to our records, you were convicted of 
larceny m 1931 and you received 3 years' probation and costs : in 1935, 
disorderly conduct on the highway, 5 days in county prison; and, in 
1936, inciting to not, fined $100 and cost or 30 days. 
• in fn y^u were convicted of unlawful assembly in 1937, and burglary 
in 1940, 10 days to 3 years. And then there were about 13 or 14 other 
arrests. 

Did that have anything to do with Mr. Raymond Cohen selecting 
SsinlocaUO??'"^^'^* position or of determining who was to get the 
Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you take part in his campaign ? 
Mr. Cendrowski. Just a moment, sir, pardon me. 
(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the quastion on the grounds 
that 1 am not required to give evidence against myself imder the fifth 
amendment. 

^j ^^?^^EDY. All I am asking you is if you took part in Mr. Ray- 
mond Cohen s campaign for secretary-treasurer of local 107. Did 
you 5 

.i,^T ^^^DRowsKi. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 

that 1 am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 

amendment. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you contribute money to Mr. Cohen's campaign « 
Mr Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 

that 1 am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 

amendment. 

_ Mr. Kennedy. Were certain of the criminal element in Philadelphia 
interested m Mr. Cohen's election for secretary-treasurer of local 107 « 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Could we ask the reporter to repeat that question for 
us, please ? 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anybody else who had a criminal rec- 
ord that was interested in Mr. Cohen's election, other than yourself « 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that 1 am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10429 

Mr. Kennedy. That is on the question as to whether you know any- 
one else with criminal records who were supporting Raymond Cohen 
for this position ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I don't know exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, approximately how long? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

Mr. Cendrowski. About 1937-38. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever had any business dealings with him ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

The Chairman. Let's move along. 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any financial transactions with him ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any money from the union since 
the election in 1954 ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has Mr. Cohen given you any cash since the election 
in 1954? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Vincent Minisci ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. On or about June 7, 1954, did you and two other 
gentlemen beat Mr. Minisci ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski, I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you beat Mr. Minisci on the instructions or 
orders of anyone in the local ? 



10430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the beating of Mr. Minisci with 
Mr. Raymond Cohen? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the gromid 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Miller, let me ask you a question. You have 
been in local 107 for how long ? 

Mr. Miller. From 1938 to 1958 would be 20 yeare, I pre&nime. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you support Mr. Raymond Cohen for the 
position of secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Miller. Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give any financial support to Mr. Cohen in 
that election ? 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr, Minisci ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you and two other men, in early June of 1954^ 
beat Mr. Minisci outside the union headquarters ? 

Mr. IMiLLER, Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss that beating with any union official ? 

Mr. Miller. Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the gromid that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss it with Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any cash from Mr. Raymond Cohen 
of local 107 after he became secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. IVIiLLER. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Palermi, how long have you been with local 107 ? 

Mr. Palermi. Since 1944. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Raymond Cohen in his cam- 
paign for secretary-treasurer ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10431 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Vincent Minisci ? 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer on the same ground, for the same 
reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you and two other men join in the beating of 
Mr. Minisci in early June of 1954 ? 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any cash payment from Mr. 
Haymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss this beating with any official of 
local 107? 

Mr. Palerbii. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive instructions to beat Mr. Minisci 
from any local union official ? 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive those instructions from Mr. Ray- 
mond Cohen ? 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Starting with you, Mr. Palermi, do you know Mr. 
Ben Lapensohn ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Palermi. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Palermi. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not lequired to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cendrowski, do you know Mr. Ben Lapensohn? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller, do you know Mr. 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Lapensohn? I didn't get the 
name out. 

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I guess that is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cendrowski, you lieard Mr. Minisci testify 
here, didn't you, a few moments ago ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me? 

The Chairman. You heard Mr. Minisci testify here a few moments 
ago, didn't you ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



10432 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You can answer that yes or no. It is not going 
to intimidate you. Everybody in the caucus room here saw you in 
here and heard him testify. You heard him testify, didn't you? 

JNIr, Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he tell the truth ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Answer this one : Are you regarded up there as a 
common thug ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. Certainly not. 

The Chairman. Definitely not. Isn't that the reason you were 
employed ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to have this witness answer the 
question. He has sense enough to take the fifth amendment, if he 
wants to do it. I am not going to have you putting words in his 
mouth. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, I have just finished instructing him he has 
no right to plead the fifth amendment on that question. He is going 
to answer it. 

The Chairman. Let him answer it. Proceed. I don't want to take 
up all day here with these dilatory tactics. Move along. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Is that the reason you were employed ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I have already told you, sir ; no. 

The Chairman. That j^ou were not employed for that reason ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that part of your job, to go around and beat 
up people, that Cohen and that crowd don't like ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Of course not. 

The Chairman. It is not. Did you beat up this man or help beat 
him up ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. If you answered the question, would you be giving 
evidence against yourself ? 

Mr. CENDRowsia. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. There might be some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Well, it couldn't be any evidence against you, it 
would be evidence for you, if you didn't. Do you realize that ? Had 
that occurred to you ? If you didn't and say you didn't, that would 
be evidence for you and not against you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10433 

The Chairman, If you three men did this, I hope you are proud of 
your cowardly act, taking three men to go out there and beat up 
somebody. Are you proud of it ? 

Silence gives consent, I assume. You are very proud of such a 
cowardly act, to go out and beat a man up, three of you ; is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Pardon me. Senator. I don't think it is clear which 
witness the question is directed to. 

The Chairman. The witness knows. 

Mr. Carroll. I thought you said all three. 

The Chairman. I am directing the question to the witness that I 
have been interrogating. The one in the center. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you want to leave the record this way ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. The record speaks for itself. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Have you received any money from employers 
since you have held your position ; your present position ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

Senator Curtis. Who pays your salary ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I am paid by the union. I work for them. 

Senator Curtis. What was your answer ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I am paid by the union ; my salary. 

Senator Curtis. Have you received any money from the union in 
addition to your salary ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Have you received any money from any of the 
gambling interests in the Philadelphia area, since you have held your 
present job ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I did not, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever worked for any other union besides 
this Local 107 of the Teamsters' Union ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. Not that I know of, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What was your answer ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Not that I know of, sir. 



10434 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. You would know whether you have ever worked 
for any other union besides the Teamsters. 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I only worked for 107. I work for 107, and I get 
paid by 107 for my work. 

Senator Curtis. Before that, have you ever worked for any other 
union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. Not that I know of, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you would know whether you ever worked 
for a union. 

Mr. Cendrowski. xA.11 I work for is for 107. I don't remember 
working for anybody. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you been working for 107 ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Three years, I would say. 

Senator Curtis. What did you do before that? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I drove a truck. 

Senator Cuetis. How long had you driven a truck ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. At the last place I worked was Rudolph Motor. 

Senator Curtis. How long ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Eight years. 

Senator Curtis. What did you do before that? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I worked on trucks. 

Senator Curtis. "WTiat is that ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I worked the same thing, on trucks. 

Senator CuR^ns. You have driven a truck ever since you reached 
adulthood ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Wliat is that, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. All your life, have you driven a truck ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Most of the time, so far as I remember. 

Senator Curtis. What other jobs have you held besides truck driv- 
ing? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Either answer the question or take the fifth amend- 
ment. Let's move along. 

Witness ? 

Witness? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
1 am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. This employment that you refuse to tell me about 
because it might incriminate you, was that for a union ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I already told you, I never worked for any union 
except for 107. 

Senator Curtis. Except 107 ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio did you work for besides 107 and besides your 
work as a truck driver ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10435 

Senator Curtis, How long have you lived in the Philadelphia area ? 

Mr, Cendrowski. As far as, I believe 

Senator Curtis, I can't hear you. 

Mr, Cendrowski. All my life, I would say. 

Senator Curtis. All your life. Who v\ere you working for just 
prior to your arrest for larceny ? 

Mr. Cendrowski, Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski, What was the date^ What date was that, sir? 

Senator Curtis. I don't knoAV. You ouglit to know where you 
were working when vou got into this trouble with regard to larceny. 

1931. 

(The watness conferred w^ith his counsel.) 

Mr, Cendtowski. No, sir, I do not remember. 

Senator Curtis. You don't remember where you were working at 
that time. 

Wlien you were charged with burglary, in 1940, for whom were 
you working ? 

(The witness conferred w^ith his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. I can't remember. It is so far back I can't recall. 

Senator Curtis, You can't remember ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I can't recall. 

Senator Curtis. Certainly, you would know what your occupation 
was in 1931, at the time you were charged with larceny. What was 
your occupation ? 

(The witness conferred wTth his counsel,) 

Mr, Cendrowski, I cannot recall, sir; remember, it is a good while 
back. I can't remember. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman, Let's proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever engage in beating anyone up other 
than this witness, Vincent A. Minisci ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. I refuse to answer the question on the gromid 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. This committee has taken a lot of testimony of 
violence, and to my mind this beating up of people for control of a 
union is pretty low. We spent a number of Aveeks taking the testi- 
mony of violence Avhich was equally as bad, and that is ha\nng these 
union thugs beat up people who are exercising their right to go to 
work, I think the whole category of violence is a stigma that the 
people in charge of our unions in the country ought to put a stop to. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr, KENNEDY, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that based on our pre- 
liminary study, not only does Mr. Cendrowski have a criminal record, 
a considerable one, but at least 5 out of the 6, or 5 out of the business 
agents, have had some major difficulties with the law, and all of the 
organizers of this local 107 since Mr. Kaymond Cohen took over the 
union have had major difficulties with the law. 

The Chairman. Is it ^our view that you just have a bunch of thugs 
and crooks up there running this union ? Is that your viewpoint ? 

Mr. Cendrowski. Pardon me. 



10436 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cendrowski. No, that is not true. I wouldn't say that. I don't 
know. 

The Chairman. You don't know. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He was mentioning the other man in the hiring hall, 
which, of course, is a very important position, because they have con- 
trol over the jobs of the members of the union. 

Mr. Peter Luscko has a very long criminal record, including spend- 
ing 5 to 10 years in the Eastern States Penitentiary for larceny, and 
attempting to kill a patrolman. 

The Chairman. Were you in the same penitentiary with him? 

JMr. Cendrowski. No, sir. 

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

("\^niereupon, at 12 : 10 p. m. a recess was taken until 2 p. m. with the 
following members present : Senators McClelland, Curtis, and Gold- 
water.) 

aiternoon session 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

( Members of the committee present at the convening of the session 
were: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. JNIinisci, will you return to the stand. 

TESTIMONY OF VINCENT MINISCI— Resumed 

]Mr. Kennedy. You told us, Mr. Minisci, of this meeting that took 
place in June of 1954, and you contmued in your job after that, did 
you ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any difficulties with any representa- 
tives of Mr. Cohen or local 107 after that date ? 

Mr. Minisci. No; I didn't have any difficulty with the business 
agents or anybody like that, but I couldn't very well get satisfaction 
for the men on the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could not what ? 

Mr. Minisci. Get any satisfaction for any kind of grievances or 
anything like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were steward ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were having difficulty processing the griev- 
ances ? 

Mr. Minisci. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you resign then ? 

Mr. JVIiNisci. I resigned of my own accord. 

Mr. ICennedy. Someone else took your place ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did vou have any other difficulties with the union ? 

Mr. Minisci. No. Well, later on in 1956, there was a possibility. It 
all leads to that. 

Mr. Ejennedy. Tell us what happened in 1956 ? 

Mr. INIiNisci. Well, in 1956, in October, the evening before I took 
the second beating, I got a phone call from Bob Rifkin. He informed 
me that the boys were up after him at his apartment trying to break 
into his apartment and beat him up. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10437 

They finally managed to grab these boys and lock them up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, wait until we go back. 

Had you attended a meeting, or had you been opposed to Kaymond 
Cohen? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had attended a meeting at Mr. Kifkin's 
apartment ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his first name? 

Mr. Minisci. Robert Rif kin. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. How many of you were at the apartment? 

Mr. Minisci. I would say about 8 or 10. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is in October of 1956 ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. What were you discussing at the apartment? 

Mr. Minisci. Possibilities of trying to see what is going on with all 
of the money, and things like that, which is the only natural thing 
to figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you understood that Mr. Cohen was taking 
trips to Florida at union expense ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that, also, he had a yacht? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes ; I heard that, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you getting together to try to inquire into 
whether the union funds were being misused ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

Mr, Kennedy. That was the purpose of the meeting ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Was there anything else that you could think of ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is all I remember of. 

Mr. Kennedy. And about 8 or 10 of you attended the meeting. 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, So you left the meeting, and then did Mr. Rifkin 
call you the following night ? 

Mr. Minisci. Let me see. Yes ; it was the following night, and I 
believe it was the following night. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you people had been prowling around 
his home? 

Mr. Minisci. Trying to break into his apartment, 

Mr. Kennedy. And had the police picked two of those individuals 
up? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, they did. 

Mr. Kennedy, Now, did you personally have any difficulty? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you describe that ? 

Mr. Minisci. Quite a lot of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you describe that ? 

Mr. Minisci, I went to work the next morning at my job, I usually 
start, or I did start between 1 and 2 or 3 o'clock in tlie morning. 

I got down around the garage there, and I was a little cautious on 
the outside there, and it was kind of dark around the neighborhood, 
and I finally managed to get inside the yard, and we have a big fence 



10438 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

all around our garage and lot, and it seemed kind of funny that morn- 
ing because all of tlie lights were out in the yard and there were no 
floodlights on. 

I was the only man that started at 3 o'clock. As a rule there were 
more than myself, or 4 or 5 boys there to start at that time in the 
morning. 

So, as I went along with the procedure of hooking up my trailer to 
my tractor, and I distinctly remember the dispatcher starting in 
front of my truck, and the first thing I knew somebody came up on. 
the side of me from underneath the trailer or where, I don't remem- 
ber, and hit me alongside of the head, the left side with a pipe. 

I threw myself inside the cab of the truck, and someone opened 
the door on the right-hand side and hit me on the top of the head 
with a hammer. 

I still have a hole up there to prove my point. 

Mr. Kennedy. As you crawled into your cab, someone opened tiie 
other door and hit you on the head ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You still have a hole in your head ? 

Mr. MiNisci. I certainly do. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right up at the top ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Eight at the top of my head. I tried to kick this 
other fellow off that was hitting me with the pipe, and keep my hand 
on top of my head, and my leg was out of the door, and he kept hit- 
ting me in the shins and broke up all of my shins ; and this other fellow 
hit me across the arm with a hammer. 

The dispatcher ran away then, and he didn't want no parts of thatv 
and they left as soon as they can, and I don't know where or how they 
got in there or if they were admitted or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. The individual hitting you around the legs — wa& 
that with a club? 

Mr. MiNisci. With a pipe. 

Mr. Kennedy. With a pipe? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did the beating go on ? 

Mr. MiNisci. I guess it was GO seconds or so, a minute, I imagine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did they leave ? 

Mr.MiNisci. They left ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ? 

Mr. MiNisci, Well, in turn I was fortunate enough not to become 
unconscious, and I went back up to the garage, and the dispatcher was 
standing there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you covered with blood ? 

Mr. MiNisci. All over, and I said to him, "Why don't you call the 
police or do something?" and he said, "I am too nervous; you call the 
police." 

So I myself, I called them. I turned and got in the police car, and 
I went to the hospital, and I was treated. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you identify any of the people who hit you ? 

Mr. MiNisci. The only thing I remember, sir, is T remember seeing 
a blue Ford, a 1955 Ford, two-tone blue and white. That was a strange 
car in the neighborhood. 

In turn I found out that it had mirrors on the side of the fenders, 
which was one of the marks I remembered clearly, and through friends 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10439 

I finally found out, and I imagine it was the tag number, and I found 

■ out it belonged to a felloAv, I don't recall his name, but he lived on 
South Front Street, 920 South Front Street, in that area somewhere. 

Re worked out at the A. & P. warehouse, in Lansdowne. That is as 
far as I could have gotten, and from then on I couldn't get any further. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you turn that information over to the police? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. MiNiSGi. Nobody ; not as I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have treatment at that time ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee if you went to the 
hospital ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, and they in turn released me and I had a con- 
cussion, and I didn't realize how bad off I was, and so in turn I tried 
to go back to work, and my run was down in through Washington 
liere, in Arlington, Va., and I got as far as Bladensburg Eoad here 
that morning, I remember, and I had an accident, a rear end collision. 

I don't remember if I passed out or blacked out, but I hit a car 
in the rear. 

Mr. Kennedy. Badly? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, it wasn't too bad. Nobody was hurt or anything 
like that, but it was just a chain reaction, that is, a couple of cars, 
and it wasn't too bad. 

I Avent back up to Philadelphia that evening, and I worked the next 
day, which Avas a Friday, and Saturday I called in to my former boss 
to find out what time I should start on the job, and he said, "You're 
not working any more. You're fired." 

So I, in turn, called up the business agent, and he said, "Well, if 
Demiis don't Avant you any more, Avdiat can I do about it?" and that 
'is all there is to it. 

Then I Avent out and tried to get a job with Gulf Refining, and I 
was turned doAvn on account of my physical condition at the time, 
and I Avas all bruised with open cuts and they wouldn't hire me. 

Mr. Kennedy. All from this beating? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir 

^Ir. Kennedy. And the trucking company that you worked for 
just said that they didn't Avant you any more? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say it was because of this accident? 

Ml'. MiNisci. Well no, not at that time. He never did commit him- 
self, but I found out later. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the Dennis Trucking Co. ? 

Mr. IMiNisci. That is right. Later on, through the time, I got a 
phone call from the insurance agent of Dennis Trucking Co., and 
he AA'anted me to make a statement of the accident and I told him I 

■ didn't think it Avas very nice of them to call me to make a statement 
after he had me fired, and he blamed it on the insurance people. 

So he said, "Don't you believe that, Ave don't practice such a thing, 
and you weren't fired from us." 

So I figured right away the pressure was put on the man, and he 
was told that as soon as something happened, to get right after me, 
and that was it. 



10440 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. "Were you told later on that was the reason, the 
pressure had been put on? 

Mr. MiNisci. I was told by a witness, and he is not here, and he is 
not in the State right now, and he told me that the old fellow, Dennis 
McNicholls, was down in Florida, and met this man, and he told him 
that he had to get right after me because they put the pressure on 
him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you have any difficulty with them after 
that? At that time you were unable to get one job you had lined up, 
because you had so many bruises ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, I inquired for a job at Fox Transport System, 
and I spoke to Mr. Fox, and he said, "Yes, you can come to work for 
men Monday morning" because I worked for him previously. And 
I knew the job, and it was a meat line and frozen foods, and so forth. 

He said, "But you will have to get a clearance with the steward.'^ 
So I contacted the steward, Barney Samuels, which I have known 
very well for years, and he said, "You will have to wait until I find out 
from the hall if it is O. K. and you can go to work." 

In turn, he called me back, and he said, "No, it can't be done like 
that. You have to be hired out of the hiring hall." 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the hiring hall that Mr. Cendrowski oper- 
ates? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Lusco ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they have control over the jobs in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, as far as I know, they are supposed to give out 
the jobs according to rotation, and the boy comes in and leaves his 
card and they are supposed to just turn them over and give everybody 
a fair deal there. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it is up to them as to whether a fair deal will 
be given ; is that right ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That, I imagine, is up to themselves, and I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. But they have great control, it is a very important 
position ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were unable to get a job ? 

Mr. MiNisci. So then I, in turn, called up the business agent that 
was in charge of Fox Transport's garage, and he told me, he said, 
"People around this place don't solicit their jobs. If you want a 
job, you have to come up and get it from here." And that is all it was. 

From then on my wife got some pretty nasty phone calls, and threats 
and things like that, and being out of work for quite a number of 
months, I lost everything I had, mortgaged by home, and I was, well, 
I would say I was practically run out of the State. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you finally, after not being able to get a job, did 
you leave Pennsylvania ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, I had to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had to ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, there was no use hanging around, and I couldn't 
find anything, and I knew if I went to the hiring hall I would get 
nothing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your livelihood was taken away from you ? 

Mr. MiNisci. As far as I can see, it was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10441 

Mr. Kennedy. So you then moved to California ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was because of the action of the union that 
you left the State? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. My home was paid for and everything 
in Philadelphia, and I had no need to move. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the reason that you moved ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a great deal of fear of Raymond Cohen 
and those who were operating the union while you were in it? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, as far as I know, I guess there was. There 
wasn't too many that would be at liberty to speak and voice their 
opinion, which is their God-given right, and they are not allowed to. 

I just tried to exercise my rights, and I finally ended where I am at. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Did they tell you why they beat you up there in 
the garage ? 

Mr. MiNisci. No, that was never really found out, if it was men 
from the union, but it is obvious, because it happened the next morning 
from the evening they were supposed to be with Bob Rifkin. 

The Chairman. It happened immediately, or right after you had 
met at Rif kin's house ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did any of the others that met there get beat up? 

Mr. MiNisci. No, not as I know of. 

The Chairman. But at the time they beat you up, they made no 
statement of why they were doing it or anything else ? 

Mr. MiNisci. A word wasn't spoken. Not a work was spoken. 

The Chairman. They gave you no threat or warning, if you didn't 
leave town, or something? 

Mr, MiNisci. No, sir ; nothing. 

The Chairman. Just administered a beating and let you go ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

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

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You were deprived of your rights in two particu- 
lars, your right to work — they shut that off ; didn't they ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir ; as far as I know they did. 

Senator Curtis. And your freedom to live where you choose was 
interrupted ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. From those threatening phone calls and 
everything, my wife got very, very sick from it, and it was an awful 
expense on her part. 

Senator Curtis. How thorough an investigation did the police make 
of this assault upon you by your assailants w^ith a pipe and a hammer? 

Mr. MiNisci. I don't believe they made too big of a thorough — too 
much investigation. All I had was a visit from the labor squad at my 
home, asking questions about a man who was, I believe until this day, 
his murder is not solved yet, a Mr. Turner that was beaten on 15th and 
Spring Garden Streets, at the Inquirer Building, and they asked me 
questions about him, and I says, "I don't know if it was him or the 
same fellows or anybody." 



10442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I couldn't really identify anybody on that second. 

Senator Curtis. Was the pipe ever recovered ? 

Mr. MiNisci. No ; they took them with them. 

Senator Curtis. And the hammer, too ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were any arrests made at all ? 

Mr. MiNisGi. No ; there wasn't. 

Senator Curtis. Was anyone picked up for questioning? 

Mr. MiNisci. I don't believe so. 

Senator Curtis. This information that you had in reference to a 
car that was involved, did the police follow through on that 
information ? 

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

Senator Curtis. Was it the steward who said he was too nervous to 
call the police? 

Mr. MiNisci. It was the dispatcher. 

Senator Curtis. The dispatcher ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he see your assailants ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes ; he did. 

Senator Curtis. Did he give that information to the police ? 

Mr. MiNisci. I don't believe he did. They didn't question him. 

Senator Curtis. They never questioned him ? 

Mr. MiNisci. No. 

Senator Curtis. Does he know how many people came up there ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Yes ; he did. He was standing right there when they 
started to work on me. He ran. 

Senator Curtis. Do you believe that had the police, without delay, 
questioned him, that he would have given them all the information 
he had? 

Mr. MiNisci. I imagine if he went right up there and called the 
police at the time that he was supposed to, they would have been appre- 
hended right there in the lot. 

Senator Curtis. I mean if the police had questioned the dispatcher, 
would he have given them all the information he had, do you think? 

Mr. MiNisci. I don't know, sir, if he would or not. 

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

Senator Curtis. But the police never came there and questioned 
him? 

Mr. MiNisci. No, they didn't. 

Senator Curtis. How much time elapsed from the time this beating 
occurred until you got to the telephone, would you guess ? 

Mr. MiNisci. About 3 minutes, I guess, by the time I walked from 
the end of the yard, which is almost a block long, back up into the 
garage. 

Senator Curtis. How long did it take the police to get there ? 

Mr. MiNisci. They were there almost immediately. There was a 
car or two in the neighborhood, and they got there right after the 
call. 

Senator Curtis. I think that it is going to be impossible, and very 
unwise, for the Congress to legislate requiring the Federal Govern- 
ment to provide a police force for every city and community in the 
country. Certainly there are some local communities that need to 
look into what is going on. Let me ask you this: When your em- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10443 

ployer let you go, based upon the information you had, do you think 
that was because of fear of the union, or was it collusion with the 
union? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, I would say that if he did what they said, they 
would be a little lenient with them, a little more lenient, and in which 
he has been getting away with murder, so far as I can understand, 
up until now. 

Senator Cuktis. Your employer ? 

Mr. MiNisci. My former employer. 

Senator Curtis. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, any time any of the boys have any kind of 
disagreement or gripe or anything like that, they just overlook it, and 
don't pay any attention to it. At one time, during the campaign of 
Cohen, he threatened to put Dennis out of business, and do such-and- 
such a thing to him, which had everybody scared to get down there, 
and in turn he turns out to be one of his best friends, I believe. 

Senator Cuetis. What happens to an employer that must require 
the services of truckdrivers and other members of the Teamsters 
Union if he doesn't go along with the Teamster Union leadership? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, I couldn't truthfully say. I mean, I never knew 
of anybody in my garage being put out of the union or having their 
book taken away or anything. 

Senator Curtis. No. 1 am talking about the employer. What hap- 
pens to him if he doesn't go along ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, they just draw a line and bring him right up to 
that line and that is all there is to it, as far as regulations are concerned. 

Senator Curtis. What do you mean by draw a line and bring him 
up to it ? 

Mr. MiNisci. They make it so tough for the man they almost put 
him out of business, which is possible. 

Senator Curtis. So while there are probably some businessmen that 
may be guilty of some collusion and some more who are guilty of not 
having enough backbone, it is probably also true that there are some 
unwilling employers that have been driven along to cooperate with the 
wrong element in the Teamsters Union ; is that right ? 

Mr. MiNisci. Possibly. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. As far as you know, the only thing in the world 
that you did was try to protect your own rights and the rights of 
others with respect to the union operation, is that correct ? 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you convinced that union up there is rotten? 

Mr. MiNisci. Well, as far as I can see, I imagine it is, from what I 
can hear. 

The Chairman. The only thing you did was simply to propose the 
men who lost in the race for secretaryship, is that right ? 

Mr. Minisci. That is right. 

The Chairman. Do you belong to a union now ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have to, to work ? 

Mr. Minisci. Yes, sir. 

That is the only thing I know how to do. 

The Chairman. Is that the only reason you belong ? 

21243— 58— pt. 27 5 



10444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiNisci. That is right. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The CiiAiRaiAN. Thank you very much. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kifkin. 

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. Kifkin. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBEET KIFKIN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGEES CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. RiFKiN. Robert Rifkin, 2628 East Ann Street, Philadelphia, 
truckdriver. 

The Chairman, You have comisel. 

Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Jolui Rogers Carroll, 2015 Land Title 
Building, Philadelphia. With me is Mr. Richard H. Markowitz, 
PFSF Building, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr. Rifkin, you have been in local 107 for how long? 

Mr, Rifkin. Since 1946. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a meeting in October, approximately 
October 16, 1956, or between October 14 and October 16, 1956, with 
some gentlemen who were in opposition to Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Rifkin. Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, You had that meeting at your home ? 

Mr. Rifkin. At my apartment. 

Mr. Kennedy. At your apartment, "What was the purpose of that 
meeting ? 

Mr, Rifkin. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rifkin. The fellows that was there were trying to take over 
the jobs of fellows that are presently in local 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean, take over their jobs? 

Mr. Rifkin. Well, they were trying to get them out of office. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were dissatisfied with the way Mr. Cohen was 
operating the union ? 

Mr, Rifkin, In a way, I was, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that there had been misuse of union 
funds by Mr, Cohen ? 

Mr, Rifkin, Well, sir, I never got into that, 

Mr, Kennedy, Was there a discussion about that ? 

Mr, Rifkin, Yes, sir, there was, 

Mr, ICennedy, Was it felt generally, by your group, that there 
was a misuse of union funds by Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr, Rifkin, Well, it was felt by a couple of the fellows there, I 
think, that was trying to bring that point across, 

Mr, Ivennedy, And you joined in the discussions at that time? 

Mr, Rifkin. To some degree. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10445 

Mr. Kennedy. You were also in opposition to the way Mr. Cohen 
was operating the union ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After these gentlemen left your apartment, did 
you have any visitors the following night ? 

Did anybody come by your apartment ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what happened ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. The doorbell rang, and I went to the door to see who 
was there, and there were two fellows standing in the hallway. They 
asked to see — it happens to be a three-story building — they asked me 
to open the door to let them in, they wanted to see the fellow on the 
top floor. I told them to ring his doorbell. The one fellow bent 
down and was looking at the name plates on the door, or on the bell, 
and he was whispering, from what I could see, out of the side of 
his mouth, telling the other fellow what to say. I think about 2 
weeks or maybe 3 weeks before this, somebody had broken into the 
house, and I got a little bit scared and I thought that they were trying 
to rob the place, so I wouldn't open the door. I went into my apart- 
ment and I called the police. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. Had you recognized either one of these men? 

Mr, Rtfkin. Well, I couldn't say. I did and I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean you did and you didn't ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, I see a lot of people. I drive all through the 
city. A lot of people I see I think I know them and really I don't. 
It is just people I have seen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you think you knew this man ? 

'Mr. RiFKiN. I thought I had seen him some place in the city. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you thought you recognized him as a member 
of the goon squad of local 107 ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, truthfully, I thought he was a truckdriver. I 
couldn't say about the goon squad, because I don't know that much 
about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know or have any discussions about an 
organized goon squad that operated out of local 107 ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this 
witness' attorney is also the attorney for Mr. Raymond Cohen, and 
it is about Mr. Cohen's activities that we expect that this witness has 
some information. 

Did you tell the police that there was an organized goon squad oper- 
ating out of 107 ? 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, may I say something please ? It is en- 
tirely true that I am not only comisel for Mr. Rifkin but also for Mr. 
Cohen. 

I regret very much counsel for the committee suggested or at least 
implied inference from his tone of voice that there is something wrong 
in that connection. 

Both of these people have retained me with knowledge that I repre- 
sent the other. 

The Chairman. You may be seated. Mr. Cohen has a proper right 
to employ whom he wants and so does this man. But it does have 
significance, and I so interpret it. I think everyone else does. 



10446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carroll. May I say, sir, with your permission, that this has 
been previously suggested, that tliere is some impropriety in Mr. Mar- 
kowitz and my representation both of the members and the officers of 
this union. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair say to you, you are not fooling any- 
body. 

Mr. Carroll. We are not trying to fool anybody. 
The Chairman. You are not kidding anyone but yourself. 
Mr. Carroll. Nor are we kidding anyone, sir. 

The Chairman. I said he had a legal right to employ you and so 
does this witness have a legal right to employ you. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Answer this question: Are you paying this attor- 
ney ? Have you made any arrangements to pay him ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not. Who is paying the attorney ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Local 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is the secretary-treasurer of local 107 ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Pardon me. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Kennedy. You know that answer. 
Mr. RiFKiN. Raymond Cohen. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is the one that runs the union, does he not ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's go on. Did you tell the police when they came 
by that you were in fear of your life because of the opposition that you 
had had to Mr. Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did tell the police that. You were in fear of 
your life at that time because of your opposition to Mr. Cohen ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those two men that came by your apartment 
arrested as they went down the street after you called the police? 
Mr. Rtfkin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did the police see one of them throw something 
underneath a car, an automobile ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. That I couldn't answer because I don't know. 
Mr. Kennedy. Do you recognize either one of these, or both of these 
instruments ? 

(The items were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you two instruments; one 
of them looks like a hammer, and the other — I don't know, some kind 
of a drill, I reckon. Will you examine them and state whether you 
identify them ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I seen these in the police station, a policeman 
showed them to me. That was the first time I had seen them. 

The Chairman. Was that the policeman the one that came by there 
and arrested those folks ? 
Mr, RiFKiN. No, sir, I think it was a policeman in the station. 
The Chairman. Did he tell you that those were the weapons they 
had thrown, that these men had thrown away ? 
Mr, RiFKiN. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that what he told you ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10447 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you in fear, when they came by, that they 
were coming by to beat you up ? You thought that was the reason 
that they were there, is it not ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And when you saw those instruments, didn't you feel 
that those were the instruments that were going to be used on you ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. I didn't see tliem, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, they showed them to you at police headquar- 
ters, did they not ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you understood that they were going to be used 
on you, did you not ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. That I couldn't say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you express greater fear and refuse to go 
home that night, because you said you would still be in fear of your 
life, from Mr. Cohen and his cohorts? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And didn't you think that these instruments were 
going to be used on you and if they had gotten in the house ? 

Mr. EiFKiN. Sir, if they was in the police station, they couldn't be 
used on me. 

Mr. Kennedy. But didn't they tell you at the police station that 
these were picked up at your home, or under the automobile ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that they had seen one of the men throw those 
under the automobile ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I don't believe they told me that, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you refuse to go hime that night? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask to be taken some place else ? 
Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you say at that time that you would speak 
to your father and that he has some connection with the union, where- 
by he might be able to straighten out the difficulty or trouble that you 
had had with Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I don't remember saying that, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Your father lives in New Jei'sey, does he ? 
Mr. Rifkin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You don't remember saying anything about your 
father? 
Mr. Rifkin. Not to that effect ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say about having somebody straighten 
out the problem and difficulty ? 

Mr. Rifkin. Sir, it lias been quite a while ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember saying anything about getting in 
touch with your father, that he had some connections with the union ? 
Mr. Rifkin. If I said anything, I said that I was going to go over 
and stay with my father, which I did do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever press the charges against either 1 of 
these 2 individuals wlio were arrested ? 
Mr. Rifkin. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were found to be, in fact, members of local 
107, were they not ? 
Mr. Rifkin. I didn't 



10448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. They were, in fact, members of local 107, were they 
not? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, sir, that I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me, do you know Mr. John Zoroichak ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he was identified as one of the men 
out there ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. The men that was out there, I couldn't even tell you 
their names, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me this : Were they ever identified as members 
or associated with local 107 ? 

Mr. RiEKiN. No one ever told me that fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have any information that they were 
associated with local 107 ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never did ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. Didn't you identify one of them at that time as a 
member of a goon squad of local 107 ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I don't know what the goon squad is, truthfully. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you say that to the police officer, that at least 
one of these men was a member of the goon squad of local 107 ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I may have, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Nicholas Frank ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Who, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Nicholas Frank. 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to see Mr. Cohen after that ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I didn't hear that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to see Mr. Cohen after that ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you work out with him so you would not have 
any more difficulty ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I don't know what you mean by work out with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did you have conversations with him so that 
nobody would bother you again ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. I went down and told Mr. Cohen what had 
happened, and made restitution, or whatever you would call it, I guess, 
and got things straightened out. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made restitution to the union ? You made your 
apologies, is that it ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You apologized to Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean for having allowed this meeting to take 
place in your apartment, or what? Wliat did you apologize to him 
for? 

Mr. RiFKiN. For causing trouble that I shouldn't have, I guess. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was the trouble that you caused, making him 
send two people out to beat you up ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I dont know if he sent two people out to beat 
me up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the trouble, then ? 

The Chairman. What do you refer to as the trouble that you caused ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10449 

Mr.EiFKiN. Sir? 

The Chairman. You referred to the trouble you caused, and you 
apologized for it. What trouble did you cause ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. RiFKiN. That the other fellows were wrong. 

The Chairman. That wiiat ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. That the other fellows were wrong. 

The Chairman. What other fellows were wrong ? 

Mr, RiFKiN. The fellows that were having the meeting in my 
apartment. 

The Chairman. You didn't apologize for them being wrong, did 
you ? You were joining with them. 

Mr. RiFKiN. I apologized for myself for being in with them. 

The Chairman. For being in with them ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you invite them over to your house ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Invite who ? 

The Chairman. The people that met there ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I didn't invite them ; no. 

The Chairman. How did they happen to come ? 

Mr. RiFKiN, Jimmie LaVelle had them come there. 

The Chairman. With your consent ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You knew they were coming ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you knew the purpose of the discussion ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Somewhat. 

The Chairman. You knew they were going to talk about their 
problems in the union ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And about the way Cohen was running it ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I knew they were going to talk about the union. 

The Chairman. You were unhappy about it yourself, weren't you ? 
You were one of them that was dissatisfied with it ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I couldn't say that, sir. 

The Chairman. Why were you having a meeting in your home? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, this other fraction had built me up with what 
I feel is a bunch of lies about local 107. 

The Chairman. Wliether they were lies or not, at the time you were 
dissatisfied. You were participating with them, were you not? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin ? 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you, who are presumably a free 
American citizen, go to Mr. Cohen and apologize to him for using 
your home for purposes which he disapproved of, although under our 
law your home is supposed to be your castle; is that right? 

Mr. Carroll. Give them a full and truthful answer. 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I couldn't understand what you said. 

Senator Ervin. You claim to be a free American citizen, don't you ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And under the law in this country, a man's home is 
supposed to be his castle. 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 



10450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Er-stik. You understand that? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And yet you go to this man that you had suspected 
of misuse of funds of the union, and apologize to him for making 
a free use of your home as a free American citizen ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I don't know if he was misusing funds. It was 
■what Mr. LaVelle had told me. 

Senator Ervin. You believed it at the time you allowed these people 
to hold a meeting in your home, didn't you ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you go and apologize to Mr. Cohen for making 
the use of your home that you were entitled to make as a free Ameri- 
can citizen ? Is that what you are telling us ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. That is a question of fact. You don't need any 
legal advice on that. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rifkin. I apologized to Mr. Cohen because the way it was put 
to me. I thought afterward that things were all wrong, and that is 
the reason why I went and apologized to him. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you apologized to him for making a use of 
your home which you had a right under the law to make, didn't you? 

Mr. Rifkin. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Do you mean a man's home is not his castle in 
Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rifkin. I apologized to Mr. Cohen for the trouble that I 
caused, not for using my home, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What was the trouble you caused? That is what 
I am trying to get at. 

Mr. Rifkin. I don*t know what the trouble was . 

Senator Ervin. You have brought it up yourself. You said you 
apologized to him for the trouble that you caused. What trouble did 
you cause? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. He doesn't need any legal advice on that. That 
is a question of fact. 

Mr. Carroll. I don't think he does either. Senator. He is having 
difficulty, I think, only because of the form of your question. 

Senator Ervin. He is having difficulty because he is trying to sup- 
press the information. 

Mr. Carroll. I don't think there is any evidence of that, sir. 

But in any event 

Senator Ervin. Let him give me the information. He volunteered 
the statement himself that he apologized to Mr. Cohen for the trouble 
that he has caused. 

I have asked him three times what the trouble was he had caused. 

Mr. Rifkin. That we was trying to knock the officers that were at 
the time in local 107 out of their jobs. 

Senator Ervin. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Rifkin. That the fellows that was in my apartment were try- 
ing to take over local 107. 

Senator Ervin. Well, weren't they members of it ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10451 

Mr. KiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Didn't they have a right to try to take it over ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I don't know if they were all members or not. 
That I don't know. 

Senator Ervin. Didn't they have the same right to try to take it 
over as an American citizen would have to try to reelect a Congress- 
man, a Senator, a governor, or a prosecuting attorney ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I imagine so, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long after this occurred did you go to see Mr. 
Cohen? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I tliink it was the next week, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that you had been all wrong? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, nobody told me that I was all wrong. After I 
sat down and thought about it, and thought things over somewhat, I 
reckon, I come to the conclusion that I was all wrong. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Could it be that two men arrived with a long steel 
stick and a hammer at your home the night after the meeting? Did 
that affect your thinking about being all wrong ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Sir, I didn't see them things until I was in the police 
station. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, tell me that, if that affected — these two vis- 
itors to your home — whether that affected your thinking as to whether 
you had been all wrong or not. When you sat down and thought 
about it, did you think about that ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer whether you thought about that when 
you were thinking about whether you were all wrong. 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, I guess I thought about it. ^ 

The Chairman. Are you still thinking about it ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you still scared ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You are not scared now ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You have made your peace with the bosses, have 
you? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Well, I wouldn't say that, sir. 

The Chairman. You were afraid then. That is why you went 
to them, isn't it ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are still afraid, aren't you ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You manifest every evidence of it as you testify. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have just one more question. Did Mr. Cohen ac- 
cept your apology ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou thank him for that? Did you appreciate 
it? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I didn't thank Mr. Cohen ; no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he accepted it ? 



10452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You say about a week transpired before you went 
to Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. RiFKiN. I think that is about what it was, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you o;o to him before or after the election ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Before or after ? 

Senator Curtis. The election. Didn't this take place prior to an 
election within the union ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It did not ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you talk with anybody else connected with 
the union before you went to Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. No, sir. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Curtis. Did you discuss it with any friend of yours at all ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. RiFKiN. With my father, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did your father suggest you go to Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did he give as his reason ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. He didn't have to give me no reason, sir. 

He just says "Go and talk to the man and see if you can get your- 
self straightened out." 

Senator Curtis. You went over and spent the remainder of the 
night with your father ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you stay there ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. My father went to Florida about 3 or 4 days after 
that night, and I think I stayed over there until he came back, until 
after he came back from Florida, and in the meantime I was getting 
married and I moved out and moved into another apartment. 

Senator Curtis. Were you working during this time? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman, Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat business is your father in ? 

Mr. RiFKiN, He is president of a local union in New Jersey. 

Mr, Kennedy. What kind ? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Waiters and waitresses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he known Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. RiFKiN. Had he known Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. RiFKiN. I believe so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right. You may stand aside. Call the next 
witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Detective Cordivari; David Cordivari. 

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. Cordivari. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10453 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID CORDIVARI 

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

Mr. CoRDivARi. My name is David Cordivari. I reside in Phila- 
delphia, Pa. I am presently a member of the Philadelphia Police 
Department, a detective in that department. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in the police department ? 

Mr. Cordivari. I have been in the police department for 7 years. I 
have been a detective for 2 of those years. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Detective, you investigated the assault on Vincent 
Minisci in October of 1956, did you ? 

Mr. Cordivari. I don't truthfully recall that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, You wrote a report on it. 

Mr. Cordivari. Well, then, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also you looked into and investigated the com- 
plaint that Mr. Kifkin made. 

Mr. Cordivari. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you examine these two memoranda ? 

The Chairman. I hand you first, one, I believe, made on Mr. Rif kin. 
I ask you to examine that and state if you identify it as a photo- 
static copy of the report. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir ; this is my report. 

The Chairman. This copy will be made exhibit No. 2 for reference. 

I also hand you what purports to be a copy of another report that 
you submitted — who is that one on that you have there ? 

Mr. Cordivari. This is on Mr. Minisci, sir. 

The Chairman. I am sorry. Let the record be corrected to show 
that exhibit No. 2 is the report he made on Mr. Minisci. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 2" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Now I hand you a photostatic copy of what pur- 
ports to be your report on Mr. Rifkin. Will you examine that and 
state whether you identify it ? 

(The document was handed witness.) 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir ; this is my report. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That may be made exhibit 
No. 2A for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 2 A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the Select Labor Committee.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say that the questions I have 
asked the previous witness were predicated on this report. I don't 
think it is necessary to read the whole report, but I have a few ques- 
tions that I would like to ask. 

First, can you identify these two instruments as being the instru- 
ments that were found and turned over outside the home of Mr. 
Rifkin? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir ; I have seen these instruments before. 



10454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiRiMAN. One of them is a hammer. ^Yhsit do you call the 
other one ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I would call it a punch bar, sir. 

The Chairman. A what? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. It could be used as a punch bar. It could be used 
for 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 3 for reference. 

(The items referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 3" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I don't believe we can incorporate them in the 
record. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is the other a ballpoint ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. This is a ballpeen hammer, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. A ballpeen hammer ? 

Mr. CoRDiVARi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the other is a punch ? 

Mr. Cordivari. A punch bar. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did the police officers that arrived prior to the 
time that you got there see one of the two individuals throw the ball- 
peen hammer under a car ? 

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

Mr. Kjennedy. I will read from your report. It says : 

The police oflScers stated as they approached, and the defendants began to 
walk away, they observed Zoroichak — 

who is one of the defendants ; is that right ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) . 
Throw a ballpeen hammer under a car parked at the curb. 

Mr. Cordivari. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy (continues reading) . 

Also found on the complainant's porch was an improvised punch bar, about 2 
feet long, pointed at one end, and taped with a rubber crutch butt on the other 
end to muffle any hammering sounds. Both defendants denied any knowledge 
of either of these tools. 

Who were the two people that were picked up ? 

Mr. Cordivari. One was John Zoroichak and the other was John 
Wendell, and I believe his alias was Nicholas Frank. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they been identified as representatives of Local 
107 of the Teamsters? 

Mr. CoRDn'ARi. Yes, sir, they were members of 107. 

Mr. Ejennedy. Had either one of them been involved in any violence 
prior to that time ? 

Mr. Cordivari. We had arrested John Zoroichak on a previous occa- 
sion as a result of another labor incident. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in connection with some violence in the 
Horn & Hardart strike ? 

Mr. Cordivari. I believe it was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It goes on, the last paragraph and says : 

The complainant stated upon further questioning that he did not desire to 
prosecute. 

Do you know why he said he would not prosecute ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10455 

Mr. CoRDivARi. As I recall, sir, he stated that he didn't want any 
trouble. He was only concerned with his own safety and well-being, 
and he wanted to forget the whole incident. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he frightened at that time ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I would say he was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading). Any desired arrest in the matter was left to the dis- 
cretion of the district. The men were finally released in the custody of one 
Benjamin Lapensohn, an employee and representative of local 107 with a verbal 
commitment that the complainant would not be arrested any further. 

So Benjamin Lapensohn of local 107 came down and secured the 
release of these two individuals ; is that right ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. Actually, he didn't secure his release, sir. There was 
no prosecution, so the police had nothing to hold them on. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. It says the men were finally released in custody. 

Mr. CoRDivARi. In his custody because he was present and acted as 
a representative of local 107. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Had you known Benjamin Lapensohn before ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I knew of him. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position in 107 ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I would describe it as a trouble shooter, more or less, 
in the event any members of local 107 were taken into custody, and in 
the event they were arrested and booked, he would secure a copy of the 
charge to effect their release, or at the hearing the next morning, if 
they were held in bail for court, he would arrange for bail to be posted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he an attorney ? 

Mr. CoRDrv'ARi. To my knowledge, no, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he would just go around when any of the mem- 
bers of local 107 got into difficulty, and Mr. Lapensohn would come 
down and ti-y to straighten it out ? 

Mr. CoRDiVARi. That is right, sir, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any question in the mind of Mr. Rifkin 
that the reason these two individuals came by was in connection with 
his opposition to Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I would say there was no question, sir, for this reason. 
If it wasn't the fact that this incident evolved from a labor dispute, I 
would never have been called in the first place. We only handle labor 
disputes. 

Mr. Kennedy, And it was explained to you at that time about this 
meeting that they had at the apartment and the meeting was in con- 
nection with opposition to Mr. Cohen, is that right ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. That is right, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. So these instruments that were brought at that time 
would appear to have been for the purpose of administering a beating 
to Mr. Rif kin rather than for any other purpose, is that correct ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. It would be a possibility, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the conclusion that you reached ? 

Mr, CoRDivARi. That would be my opinion at that time. 

Mr, Kennedy. These two reports in connection with the affair, Mr. 
Chairman, speak for themselves. 

Senator Curtis. Mr, Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis, 

Senator Curtis. What is your assignment with the police depart- 
ment? 



10456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, CoRDivARi. Presently I am a detective, sir. At that time I was a 
policeman, detailed in plainclothes as a member of the labor squad 
in Philadelphia. 

Senator Curtis. What is the labor squad ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. Well, it consists of a captain, a lieutenant, and at 
present 6 men ; I believe at that time we had 4. Their sole purpose 
is to more or less supervise strike locations in the sense that they see 
the pickets behave themselves, and they also protect the pickets against 
the employer, if he intends violence in any way. We investigate any 
incidents which were connected with labor disputes or strikes. 

Senator Curtis. How long were you on the labor squad ? 

Mr. Cordivari. I would say approximately 2 years, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were there many acts of violence reported to you? 

Mr. Cordr^ari. I would say we got our share, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat would they consist of ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Well, minor beatings, or beltings, damage to prop- 
erty or trucks. Usually that was one of the — ^both physical violence 
and damage to property. 

Senator Cutris. In what situations would thei-e be beatings ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Wellj normally, sir, it was hard to tell. We had 
great difficulty many times because the victims refused to cooperate 
with us. Whether it was through fear or coercion, or otherwise, I 
cannot say. But we were hampered very much by their refusal, or 
whether they were telling the truth that they didn't know who was re- 
sponsible for these incidents. 

Senator Curtis. The victims, would they be workers that were out 
of line with the union leadership ? 

Mr. Cordivari. I would say so, yes, sir, as I recall. 

Senator Curtis. More of that than there was of some innocent by- 
stander getting beaten up ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any cases of violence committed by 
employers ? 

Mr.' Cordivari. Nothing that I would call severe. There was al- 
ways pushing and shoving. Maybe somebody took a punch at some- 
body else, an employer took a punch at somebody else. But there was 
actually no serious physical violence as I can recall. 

Senator Curtis. Did any policeman ever get pushed around in a 
picket line or otherwise ? 

Mr. Cordivari. We get pushed around once in awhile, not from 107 
particularly, but from any local that we happen to be having trouble 
with, or were having trouble. 

Senator Curtis. That happens every once in awhile ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Oh, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, we seem to have a double standard in 
this country. I am not lecturing you on it but it is one of the problems 
the police have. 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes; it is. 

Senator Curtis. Ordinary citizens are not only supposed to refrain 
from roughing-up a policeman, but they are supposed to obey him, 
aren't they ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But that is just winked at in connection with union 
activities. If one of our youths in our cities fights back at a police- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10457 

man, we call it resisting an officer, and he is in great danger of being 
branded as a juvenile delinquent and injured for life. But the public 
and judges pass over union violence and just say, "Well, that was a 
labor brawl." 

Do you find it more difficult to get cases that stand up in court in 
these labor cases than the general type of case that would come on ? 

Mr. CoRDiVARi. I would say so, yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And witnesses are very reluctant to testify ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. If we can get them as far as a court. 

Senator Curtis. That is what I mean, they do not want to go to trial 
where they will have to testify. 

Mr. Cordivari. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have anything to do with the investiga- 
tion of the assault on Minisci ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The last one that he testified to, concerning being 
beaten with a hammer and a pipe ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Yes, sir ; I believe that is the report. 

Senator Curtis. Were you called to the scene ? 

Mr. Cordivari. No, no, sir ; I wasn't called to the scene. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who was called to the scene ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Well, according to the procedure, the uniformed 
officers went to the scene. We visited the scene the following day, 
as I recall. 

Senator Curtis. By being called to the scene, I mean in response to 
his call ? 

Mr. Cordivari. No. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who went to the scene ? 

Mr. Cordivari. I couldn't identify the officers, sir, but uniformed 
officers did go there immediately, upon being called. 

Senator Curtis. Did they make a written report ? 

Mr. Cordivari. They make a preliminary report, preliminary police 
report, which is one of our standard police forms. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether they followed up the lead 
that Minisci had in reference to identifying the car ? 

Mr. Cordivari. They turned it over to us, sir, and they make a 
preliminary report and turn this information over to the investigators. 

Senator Curtis. What did you find in reference to that lead on 
that car? 

Mr. Cordivari. Sir, as I recall, I didn't read my report, but as I 
recall we got no information to that effect. As I recall, the victim 
was questioned about whether or not Zoroichak and Wendell were 
mixed up in this incident, and he stated he could not identify anybody 
that was there. 

Senator Curtis. It is entirely possible that this instrument that he 
described as a pipe, could be an instrument like this piece of steel liere ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Actually, if I am correct, I think this incident 
with Minisci occurred after Zoroichak and Wendell had been taken 
into custody, and those particular instruments were out of their pos- 
session. I may be wrong, but I think that is the way it might have 
happened. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any particular instructions or did you 
receive any particular instructions for your duties on the labor squad 



10458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

that were different from the instructions you would get from your 
superiors on other types of work? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. No, sir, it was purely — we would pursue our normal 
police function, but don't become involved in any way in the dispute 
itself, between management and the union, and our sole purpose was 
to maintain law and order and to prevent violence if possible, and 
investigate any acts of violence which may have occurred. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. Did you interrogate the dispatcher? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I don't recall. 

The Chairman. Who was present? The witness has testified the 
dispatcher was present and was bound to have seen the people who 
assaulted him. Did you ever question him? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I don't recall, sir. 

The Chairman. What does his report show about that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't believe it shows. 

The Chairman. You did not report that you had ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. Possibly because we weren't told that he was pres- 
ent when it occurred, sir. 

The Chairman. It would seem to me that you would inquire about it. 

Mr. CoRDivARi. We did. We tried to make a thorough investigation 
into all of those incidents, sir, and as I say, we had to proceed with 
great difficulty. We didn't have very much cooperation. 

The Chairman. Well, do you say that tlie victim didn't cooperate? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I would say that ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was that Minisci ? Didn't he cooperate with you ? 

Mr. Cordivari. He answered what questions we asked him, but as 
far as cooperating in identifying his assailants. 

The Chairman. Maybe he couldn't? 

Mr. Cordivari, That is what I say, sir. 

The Chairman, Maybe he couldn't. But the other man there didn't 
get beat up, and he obviously saw it ? 

Mr. Cordivari. Well sir, you mean the dispatcher ? 

The Chairman, Yes, 

Mr, Cordivari. Well, as I say, he wasn't questioned and I can tell 
you why, but he wasn't. 

The Chairman, You don't recall why he wasn't questioned ? 

Mr. Cordivari, I don't recall, no sir. 

The Chairman. It would seem to me like that would be the next 
man you w^ould question, after questioning the victim, the other man 
who was present, if you faiew he was present. 

Mr. Cordbari, That is what I say. If we knew he was present, 
I feel sure he would have been interrogated. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

All right, thank you, sir. 

Call the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, William Koberts, 

The Chairman. I forgot to ask you just one question. Counsel for 
these other witnesses has sent up here a question, and I am going to 
ask it, and I am under no obligation to do it, but one of the witnesses 
testified, Mr. Rifkin testified something about he was about to get 
married again at the time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10459 

Did he say anything to you about that, when you interrogated him? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. He may have sir, but I don't think that I inchided it 
in my report. I don't recall. 

The Chairman. Did he say anything about getting a divorce ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. No, sir ; I don't remember anything. 

The Chairman. Did he tell you that was the reason why he does 
not want to prosecute, and he had a divorce case coming up, and he 
didn't want to get mixed up in anything else ? 

Mr. CoRDivARi. I truthfully don't recall, sir, and I don't recall. 

The Chairman. All right, thank you very much. The questions 
have been asked. 

Will you come around please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence given before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Roberts. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. ROBERTS 

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

Mr. Roberts. William G. Roberts, 3446 Friendship Street, Phila- 
delphia, Pa., truckdriver. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Roberts. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roberts, you have been in local 107 for how 
long? 

Mr. Roberts. Since 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you supporting Mr. Crurabock during the 
campaign ? 

Mr. Roberts. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. When he was attempting to be reelected? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were in opposition to Mr. Cohen; is that 
right? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever beaten during the period of that 
campaign ? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, before I was beaten up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien was that ? 

Mr. Roberts. It was on February 23. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what happened? 

Mr. Roberts. I was in the union on company business and I was 
the steward in the garage where I worked, and we had some trouble 
with a man, and I w ent down there on a grievance, and I was inside. 
After the trouble was straightened out I came out, and when I was 
coming out the door I was hit. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were the circumstances of your being hit? 

Mr. Roberts. I walked out the door and this John Myhosuk, he 
said, "You rat," and well I can't say it here, but I turned around to 
face him, and I got hit with something, or with his fist, but that was 
the last I remember, and I woke up inside the union hall. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to a hospital afterward ? 

21243 — 58 — pt. 27 6 



10460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did they tell you about it? 

Mr. Roberts. They X-rayed my face and head and they found 
nothing was broken, and they dressed the cuts and they sent nie home. 
Wlien I got home my face started to blacken up and that night my 
wife was in the hospital at the time having an operation, and I had 
to get myself together enough to go visit her. 

When I walked into the hospital I had a hat on, and I never wear 
a hat, and she hollored, "Oh, my God, what happened to you?" 

So I told her, and I went home after the visit and I went to bed, 
and the following day I felt lousy and my face was all black and all 
and so they admitted me to the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, 
and I was in there until Saturday, 4 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. You suffered headaches ? 

Mr. Roberts. Headaches, and they took all kind of t«sts and every- 
thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you file a complaint against Myhasuk ? 

Mr. Roberts. I had a warrant sworn out. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if anybody else hit you or beat you 
when you were down ? 

Mr. Roberts. I don't. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You don't know how many times you were hit ? 

Mr. Roberts. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You filed a complaint ? 

Mr. Roberts. I did, and I swore a warrant out. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Did you process it? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, it went as far as the grand jury, and it was 

foing into the courts, and my wife she was afraid, and she said, "Don't 
other, and don't do this, and don't do that," and so we didn't go any 
further. We just let it drop. 

Mr. Kennedy. She was afraid that some harm might befall you or 
the family ? 

Mr. Roberts. Either me or the children. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you second the nomination of Crumbock ? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that the beating that was administered 
to you arose out of that ? 

Mr. Roberts. The beating happened before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been known as a supporter of Crumbock ? 

Mr. Roberts. I suppose so ; but I never did any electioneering, or I 
never spoke to anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Myhasuk a supporter of Cohen ? 

Mr. Roberts. ^Y\.\o is that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Myhasuk. 

Mr. Roberts. I suppose so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known he was a supporter of Cohen ? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, not first handed, but I just surmised he was. 

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

Senator Ervin. Do you have any questions. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. When you filed your complaint, did you file that 
with the prosecuting attorney or did you consult some other attorney ? 

Mr. Roberts. Mr. Gray was representing the case, and it went 
before a Magistrate Biffle, in Philadelphia. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10461 

Senator Curtis. Who is Mr. Gray ? 

Mr. Roberts. He was the union attorney at the time, representing 
Eddy Crumbock. 

Senator Curtis. Crumbock was in office ? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, the union was under trusteeship at the time, 
and Thomas Flynn had charge of the union. 

Senator Curtis. You say he was a union attorney, and was he paid 
for by the union ? 

Mr. Roberts. He was ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But he represented the Crumbock faction? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did he advise you to drop the case, too ? 

Mr. Roberts. No; I never even consulted him. After the election 
was in May, I never bothered with anything, and this paper came, 
that was in July sometime for the court proceedings, and we never 
even bothered with it, and we didn't do anything with it. 

Senator Curtis. Have you had any trouble since then ? 

Mr. Roberts. Never. 

Senator Curtis. But when your case was proceeding toward prose- 
cution, did the police conduct an investigation ? 

Mr. Roberts. I don't recall that the police was in on it at all, only 
that the warrant was served for his arrest, and they picked him up 
and the case came before the magistrate. 

Senator Curtis. And the magistrate held him for the grand jury ? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did it end with the grand jury ? 

Mr. Roberts. No ; it was going to court. 

Senator Curtis. For the trial ? 

Mr. Roberts. For the trial ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you notify anybody that you were dropping 
it or did you just not show up ? 

Mr. Roberts. I just didn't show up, that was all. 

Senator Curtis. You never had any trouble since ? 

Mr. Roberts. Never. 

Senator Curtis. You are still working at the same place ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You still belong to the union ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You have been attending union meetings? 

Mr. Roberts. No, I don't go near the union. 

Senator Curtis. Have you been back to a union meeting since then ? 

Mr. Roberts. No. 

Senator Curtis. How much does it cost you to belong to this union 
you never attend ? 

Mr. Roberts. I pay $5 a month. 

Senator Curtis. Is that the total amount, or are there any assess- 
ments ? 

Mr. Roberts. That is tlie regular dues, $5 a month. 

Senator Curtis. Could you continue your work as a truckdriver, 
if you did not pay that ? 

Mr. Roberts. 1 guess not; I liave to belong to the union. 

Senator CuR'ns. You have to ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes. 



10462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Is that union still in the hands of the Coheu 
group ? 

Mr. Egberts. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is that man who beat you up still in the union4 

Mr. Roberts. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. You haven't seen him since ? 

Mr. Roberts. I haven't seen him. 

Senator Curtis. Did he hold any office in the union ? 

Mr. Roberts. Xo, not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Was he a truckdriver ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, he was a truckdriver. 

Senator Curtis. How big a fellow is he ? 

Mr. Roberts. He is much bigger than me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you identify him ? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes, I can identify him. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to see him. 

Mr. Roberts. He is in the back there. 

The Chairman. Have him come around, please. What is his name'^ 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask Mr. Roberts one further question. 

The Chairman. Let this one be sworn. 

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

Mr. Myhasuk. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

Senator, do you want to ask Mr. Roberts another question ? 

Senator Curtis. You can stay right where you are, Mr. Robeits, 

Is it your opinion that you were hit with anything other than 
someone's fist? 

Mr. Roberts. I don't know. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN MYHASUK, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEI, 
JOHN ROGERS CARROLL 

Senator Curtis. Now, how do your pronounce your name ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Myhasuk. 

Senator Curtis. John Myhasuk? 

Mr. Myhasuk. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. What is your address ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. 1209 South Third Street, Las Vegas, Nev. 

Senator Curtis. Did you live in Philadelphia in 1954 ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I did. 

Senator Curtis. Were you at a local union hall on the night of 
February 23, 1954? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let the record show that this witness has the same 
attorney who has appeared for the others, please. 

Mr. Carroll. It is not exactly the same. I represent this witness 
and not Mr. Markowitz. 

The Chaibman. All right, one of the attorneys, Mr. Carroll, ap- 
pears here. 

Senator Curtis. Were you at the union hall of local 107 on the 
night of Februarj^ 23, 1954? 

Mr. Myil^suk. Pardon me, sir, what is that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10463 

Mr. Carroll. The witness is hard of hearing. 

Senator Curtis. Were you at the union hall of local 107 in Phila- 
delphia on the night of February 23, 1954? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you see William G. Eoberts there, the man 
behind you ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give any testimony against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Did you hit Mr. Eoberts? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say anything ? 

The Chairman. You will have to go a little further than just re- 
fusing to answer. 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
jimendment. 

Senator Curtis. Did you talk to Mr. Roberts on that occasion? 

Mr. Myhasuk. The same answer. 

Senator Curtis. For whom were you employed on or about Feb- 
n:ary 23, 1954? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I worked for Pyramid Trucking Co. 

Senator Curtis. Was all of your income from this trucking com- 
pany ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Were you paid any sums by local 107 ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

Senator Curtis. Did you receive any money from Mr. Cohen, either 
from him personally or anyone on his behalf? 

Mr. Myhasuk. The same answer, I refuse to answer. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever beat Mr. Williams G. Roberts up? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Can you talk a little louder ? You may be hard of 
hearing, but I don't see anything wrong with your voice. 

Mr. Carroll. He is quite nervous. Senator. 

The Chairman. Well I think that is characteristic of some of these 
thugs. 

Senator Curtis. Were you arrested and charged with assaulting 
Mr. Roberts? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you appear before the grand jury ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were you questioned by any police? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I was before the magistrate. 



10464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Who represented you there ? 

Mr. Carroll. I did, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And was your attorney and your defense provided 
by local 107? 

Mr. Mthasuk. At that time ? 

Senator Curtis. At that time. 

Mr. Mthasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. By part of Mr. Roberts' dues, is that right ? 

Mr. Carroll. May I answer that for you. Senator, because I hap- 
pened to know the facts and I don't think this witness does. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Carroll. At that time the firm with which I was associated was 
representing Mr. Cohen and that group that was backing Mr. Cohen 
asked us to represent Mr. Myhasuk. I did appear with him before the 
magistrate at the same time that Mr. Gray, who w^as counsel for local 
107, represented Mr. Roberts. 

Our fee was not at that time being paid by the union. Mr. Gray's 
fee was, so far as I know. I trust that answers your question. 

Senator Curtis. Was that the first time that you had ever been ar- 
rested ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir, I have been arrested before. 

Senator Curtis. You had been arrested before that ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You have been arrested since then ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How many times before were you arrested *? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Once. 

Senator Curtis. Were you convicte-d ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What for ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Manslaughter. 

Senator Curtis. Manslaughter? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you receive a sentence for that t 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you serve ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. About 13 months and some days. 

Senator Curtis. Where did that offense take place ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. In Jersey. 

Senator Curtis. In New Jersey ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat place in New Jersey ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I spent a little time in Trenton, Trenton, N. J. 

Senator Curtis. But where did the act take place for which you were 
prosecuted ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Atlantic County. 

Senator Curtis. Was that in connection with a labor dispute? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was it in connection with union matters ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was it in connection with a physical assault I 

Mr. Myhasuk. It was a fight. 

SenatorCuRTis. A fight? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10465 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The man died ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. He died 10 days later. 

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

Senator Curtis. How long did you serve ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I served 13 months and some days. I don't know 
exactly how many days. 

Senator Curtis. About when was that ? What year ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. That was 1950 or 1951. 

Senator Curtis. Did you know Mr. Cohen at that time? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Were you working for 

Mr. Myhasuk. I was a member there. 

Senator Curtis. You were a member there ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis, Does 107 membership extend over into New Jersey ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever worked for local 107 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give any evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever receive any money from 107 or from 
Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr, Myhasuk. The same thing, I refuse. ^ 

Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Cohen visit you in the penitentiary ? 

Mr, Myhasuk, No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He did not? 

Mr. Myhasuk, No, sir. 

Senator Curtis, At no time? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No. 

Senator Curtis. You are pretty sure about it ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Did you beat up Mr. Roberts before or after you 
served this sentence? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give any advice against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Are you a paid thug and hoodlum going around 
beating up people for this union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I am not even a member of the union. 

The Chairman. I didn't ask you if you were a member of the union. 
You can be hired to beat people up without being a member, can't 



you 



Mr. Myhasuk. The answer is still no. I refuse to answer the ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. You don't want to admit it ? You are ashamed of 
it? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. You refuse to admit whether you are ashamed of 
it or not ? 



10466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Myiiasuk. I refuse to answer the question. 

The Chairman. I am ordering and directing you to answer tlie ques- 
tion. 

Mr. IMyhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give advice against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Are you proud of the fact that you go around beat- 
ing people up ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the ground. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might point out — do you know Mr. 
Peter Luscko ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he associated with you in the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Will you excuse us a moment, please ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse that answer. I refuse to answer the question 
on the ground that I am not required to give advice against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Peter Luscko, Mr. Chairman, and he "is now a 
dispatcher and w^orks with Mr. Cendrowski, in that important position. 
He has a long criminal record. 

He was a material witness on this charge of manslaughter, was he 
not? 

He, himself, was arrested ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. He was, yes, sir. 

MrM. Kennedy. How did you both end up as important figures in 
local 107 ? Did Mr. Cohen bring you into local 107 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mahasuk. I have been in the union a long time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I have been in the local, in that local, a long time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get paid any money by local 107 ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that 
I am not required to give advice against myself? 

Mr. Kennedy. The man that you served time for killing, the man- 
slaughter was with a screwdriver, was it ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes. Well, I 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat ? A screwdriver ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Luscko was arrested in connection with 
that? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you refuse to tell whether you received any 
money from the union since Mr. Cohen took over ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Yes, I refuse that. 

The Chairman. Do you think it might incriminate you to receive 
a little money from a union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Myhasuk. There might be some evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is your present occupation ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I have been a truckdriver all my life. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you a truckdriver out in Las Vegas? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I haven't been working. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10467 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your present source of income? 

Mr. Myhasuk. I haven't any. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have none? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. How loug liave you not had a source of income ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. About 8 months. 

Mr. Kennedy. You haven't had any work for 8 months ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been out of local 107 ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. A couple of years. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Have you gotten any money from local 107 in the 
last 2 years? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. No, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been out of 107 ? 

Mr. Myhasuk. Two years. 

The Chairman. All right. You may stand aside. Call the next 
witness. 

Mr. Carroll. May I thank you before I leave, sir, for asking that 
question at my request of the last witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have another witness to identify Mr. Myhasuk, 
so he might as well stand by. 

The Chairman. Are you through with Mr. Roberts at present? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

We have a short witness. 

Mr. Gravenor. 

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. Gravenor. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL GRAVENOR 

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

Mr. Gravenor. Samuel Gravenor, Townsend, Del. I operate a 
farm. 

Mr. Kennedy. You operate a farm ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You were a business agent for Teamsters Local 107 ? 

Mr. Gravenor. In Wilmington. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Wilmington, Del. ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were a business agent under Mr. Crumbock ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is ri^ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. The 8 business agents in Philadelphia were elected 
and the 2 business agents in Wilmington, Del., were appointed, is 
that right, during his time ? 

Mr. Gravenor. I can only speak for the business agents in Wil- 
mington. They were appointed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were appointed by Mr. Crumbock ? 



10468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gravenor. By Mr. Crumbock. 

Mr. Kennedy. You supported Mr. Crumbock during the election ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is right. 

Mr. ICennedy. Were you assaulted during the period of the elec- 
tion ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes, just before the election. It was during the 
activities. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVliat happened ? 

Mr. Gravenor. I went to Philadelphia to attend a joint council 
meeting which was customary, once a month, and wlien approaching 
the building two fellows walked up to me and asked me whose side 
I was on. Before I could give them any explanation, John Myhasuk 
walks up and starts swinging and the other two fellows grabbed me. 
I received a black eye and a bloody nose. 

The Chairman. Do you mean this witness that just left the witness 
stand? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Had two men hold you before he hit you ? 

Mr. Gravenor. No ; he walked up and as he started swinging, they 
grabbed me. The two of them. 

The Chairman. In other words, three of them? 

Mr. Gravenor. That's correct. 

The Chairman. Two of them held you while he hit you ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That's correct. 

The Chairman. That is very brave, isn't it ? I think it is just the 
opposite. I think it is the most low-down sort of cowardice. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the election, Mr. Cohen took office, and did 
you continue as business agent ? 

Mr. Gravenor. No. The election was over on a Tuesday, I believe, 
and I resigned that Friday of that week. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any pressure put on you to resign? 

Mr. Gravenor. No; there wasn't enough time. I resigned first. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you then attempt to go back to your former job 
as truckdriver ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Not immediately. I sent my dues in to local 107, 
Wilmington, where I was a member, and in registered mail. They 
returned the check with no explanation, just the check in an envelope. 

Mr, Kennedy^. You sent your money in with your dues to the union 
and they returned the check to you ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedys They refused to accept your dues ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Twice. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Therefore, you wouldn't be a member in good stand- 
ing, is that correct ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, it would be impossible for you to get a 
job as truckdriver? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they give any reason for not accepting your 
dues ? 

Mr. Gravenor. None whatever. They sent the check back in an 
envelope. 

Mr. Kennedy. That deprived you of your livelihood or what you 
expected to be your livelihood ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10469 

Mr. Gravenor. That is right. 

Mr. Kennj:dy. Did you take up farming full time at that time ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can no longer drive a truck ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Not under a union contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not what ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Not as a member of the union, I couldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. And most of them are unionized ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were out of work at that time ? 

Mr. Gkavenor. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you now run a farm, is that right ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there a good deal of fear of the officers and those 
who operate the union, local 107, at the present time ? 

Mr. Gravenor. There isn't any fear in Wilmington, as far as the 
Wilmington office is concerned. The members down there are very 
much in favor of a charter of their own, to separate them from local 
107 in Wilmington. They have no fear of the business agents in 
Wilmington. During the election, there was quite a bit of fear of 
those boys traveling to and from Philadelphia, and especially on the 
road. 

But as far as any fear being in Wilmington itself, or the Wilming- 
ton branch of 107, the local boys, there was no fear. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about in Philadelphia? Do you know about 
that? 

Mr. Gravenor. I don't know too much about Philadelphia activi- 
ties, because I confined all my activities to Wilmington where I was 
supposed to be. 

I knew all of the business agents, of course, and I had occasions to 
be in Philadelphia. But from a membership standpoint in Philadel- 
phia, I had no parts of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anyway, you were deprived of your livelihood by 
the actions of the people in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

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

The Chairman. Did you attend the meeting after this man beat you 
up? 

Mr. Gravenor. No, sir. I went up and told Everett Crumbock, 
who was up on the platform at the time — the meeting hadn't started as 
yet — and he suggested that one of 463 

The Chairman. Suggested what ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Suggested that a 463 member take me around to the 
hospital, which he did. I went around to the hospital, and they wiped 
a little blood off my face, wiped my face up, and dismissed me. I went 
from there back to the Wilmington office. I never stayed for the 
me-eting. 

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

The Chairman. Were you supposed to attend that meeting as part 
of your official duties? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes, sir, all business agents are. 

The Chairman. This occurred when ? 

Mr. Gra\^nor. I believe it was in March or April of 1954. I can't 
be just sure of that. 



10470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That was after Cohen had taken over the union ? 

Mr. Gravenor. No. 

The Chairman. This was just before the election ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. After that, did you engage in any further political 
activity with respect to your candidate ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes, sir. I never stopped. I made a stronger effort 
than ever then. 

The Chairman. When was it your check was sent back ? 

Mr. Gravenor. I believe there was one sent back in August and one 
sent back in September. 

The Chairman. Some 3 or 4 months after election ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You had continued to be a member of the union up 
until then ? 

Mr. Gravenor. I was paid up until then. 

The Chairman. And when you sent in your next check or your 
next dues that you owed, your check was returned ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

Mr. Chairman. And that put you out of the union ? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It is just as simple as that ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Just like that. 

The Chairman. No charges were preferred against you ? 

Mr. Gravenor. No, sir. 

The Chairman. The only crime you had committed was to exer- 
cise your own judgment and choice in trying to elect an official of 
your union ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Trying to elect an official of the union whom I be- 
lieved in, and who I thought had done a good job for the people in 
Wilmington, at least. 

The Chairman. And you have paid a penalty for doing that, a 
penalty of loss of your livelihood, that is, as you had planned it, and 
as had been your work ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes, sir. I feel so. 

The Chairman. Do you have any information about whether the 
members of local 107 now under Cohen being in a state of fear? Are 
they intimidated ? Can they exercise their rights as men and as citi- 
zens and as members of the union ? 

Mr. Gravenor. You are speaking of the people in Wilmington, of 
the Wilmington office ? 

The Chairman. No. 

Mr. Gravenor. I can't speak for the members in Philadelphia. I 
might explain that in the Wilmington branch, we operated as a sepa- 
rate union. In other words, we were under the jurisdiction of 107, 
and we were a part of 107, but we had our own bank account, our 
own books, our own business agents, and we operated separately 
altogether. 

I can't speak for the membership in Philadelphia. I can only 
speak for the office and the membership in Wilmington. 

The Chairman. Who was it that sent your dues back? 

Mr. Gravenor. It was returned from the Wilmington office. Who 
it was, I don't recall. I don't have it with me, but I have the regis- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10471 

tered mail receipt where it was received in Wilmington, and I have 
the checks. 

The Chairman, Was there anybody in Wilmington, in the office 
there, that you know of, that would want to kick you out of the 
union ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Well, I feel quite sure that both Crawford, who 
was the senior business agent, when I was in there, and who is still 
in there, and the new appointed agent, Albert Craig, I feel quite sure 
that they would both like to see me out. 

The Chairman. That was after the election ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes. 

The Chairman. And they wanted to get out those who had been 
active in supporting the other candidate? 

Mr. Gravenor. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. As I understand your testimony, you twice mailed 
union dues to the Wilmington office ? 

Mr. Gravenor. I tried to pay my Wilmington dues to the Wil- 
mington office. 

Senator Ervin. And on both occasions, the checks which you 
tendered them through the mail were returned to you ? 

Mr. Gravenor. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. And you were never given an explanation by any 
of the officers there as to why they refused to accept the check and 
permit you to continue as a member of the union? 

Mr. Gravenor. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. As a result of that, you were compelled to abandon 
your employment and take up other work in order to provide a live- 
lihood for yourself and your family ? 

Mr, Gravenor. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have gone into the preliminary 
background of the election and Mr. Cohen's taking over the union. 
Now we are starting another section which will deal with the financial 
operations of the union and the alleged support of Mr. Cohen's cam- 
paign out of union funds. We will start that by calling a witness 
from the committee staff, Mr, John Flanagan. 

The Chairman, Come forward, Mr, Flanagan, 

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. Flanagan, I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. FLANAGAN 

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

Mr. Flanagan. My name is John B. Flanagan. I reside at 4122 
Merrick Street, Philadelphia, Pa. For the past 9l^ years I have 



10472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

been an investigator for the United States General Accounting Office. 
For the past 15 months I have been assigned to this select committee. 

The Chairman. You have been working on the staff of this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I have been. 

The Chairman. What kind of investigative work do you do for the 
General Accounting Office ? 

Mr. Flanagan. We make primarily accounting investigations. 

The Chairman. Are you an accomitant ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I am not a certified public accountant ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. You are experienced in accounting ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I am. 

The Chairman. And employed by the Government in that capacity f 

Mr. Flanagan. lam. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Flanagan will be recalled later 
on during the hearings, but the first 2 matters that I want to ask him 
about are 2 checks that were taken from the records of local 107. 

You have reviewed the books and records of local 107, have you not, 
Mr. Flanagan ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have gone through their books and records and 
examined some canceled checks and other documents ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to find out if you can identify these two 
checks. 

The Chairman. I hand you what purports to be photostatic copies 
of 2 checks, one dated June 10, 1954, in the amount of $15,000, signed 
Eaymond Cohen, secretary-treasurer, and Joseph E. Grace, president. 
Highway and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 107. I ask 
you to examine it while I am identifying the other one. 
(Document handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. The other one is signed in the same manner, dated 
June 15, 1954, in the amount of $10,000. 

Each of these checks are made payable to cash. I will ask you to 
examine them and state if you identify them as photostatic copies of 
checks that you found in the files of the union. 
( Document handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Flanagan. These are photostatic copies of checks that I found 
in the records of local 107. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit 4. The first one I pre- 
sented will be made exhibit 4 and the next one 4A. The $15,000 check 
will be 4, and the $10,000 check will be 4A. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 4 and 4A" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 10797-10798.) 

The Chairman. By whom were these checks endorsed ? They show 
on the face of them 

Mr. Flanagan. Check No. 8622 bears the handwritten endorsement 
"Joseph E. Hartsough." 

The Chairman. All right. That's the check in the amount of what ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is the check for $15,000. It is committee ex- 
hibit No. 4. 

The Chairman. And the other one ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10473 

Mr. Flanagan. Committee exhibit No. 4A, the check for $10,000, 
drawn to cash, is endorsed with the handwritten name "Joseph E. 
Hartsough." 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. What was Mr. Hartsough's position with local 107 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Hartsough is the office manager and the book- 
keeper and secretary to Mr. Raymond Cohen. 

Mr. Kennedy. On these check stubs, it states, "To cash, truck check, 
time lost," is that right ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And "Truck check, time lost, see voucher, cash.*' 
These were both cash, is that right? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Then w^as there a list of names of individuals who 
were supposed to receive this total of $25,000? 

Mr. Flanagan, There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that? 

The Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be the original 
list of names to which you have referred, about which you have testi- 
fied, and I ask you to examine it and state if it is the original document 
and list of names that you found in the records of the union. 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the original list which I found in the records 
of local 107, purporting to support the disbursement of $25,000 in 
cash. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 5, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 5" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. I{j:nnedy. I want to ask you whether this is a list of the names, 
typewritten names, and then signatures next to those names ; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. ICJENNEDY. And after the signature there is a figure of the 
amount of money ? 

Mr. Flanagan. A handwritten amount, 

Mr. Kennedy, Indicating the amount of money that each individ- 
ual received ; is that right ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the total amount of money that is alleged to 
have been received as the figures appear here is $25,000 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are the documents that back up these 2 checks 
totaling $25,000 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now, Mr. Chairman. We will have 
Mr. Flanagan come back when we need him. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to call Mr. James Cadigan. 

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. Cadigan. I do. 



10474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN 

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

Mr. Cadigan. James C. Cadigan, 5612 37th Avenue, Hyattsville, 
Md. I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
assigned as an examiner of questioned documents in the FBI Labora- 
tory here in Washington. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, of course ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are your responsibilities as an examiner of 
questioned documents ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Well, to examine all types of cases involving docu- 
ments, such as handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, forgeries, 
erasures, alterations, paper, pens, inks, and any other particular prob- 
lems that may come up in the field. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in that Department ? 

Mr. Cadigan. About 16i/| years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the FBI ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Sixteen and a half years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been with that Department all that 
time, is that right ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have had the experience of examining 
records, alterations, forgeries, for that period of time? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made an examination of the list of names 
that was furnished you by this committee ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For your examination, the Chair presents to you 
exhibit 5, the list of the names and the amounts of money, according 
to the records of the union, that accounts for the $25,000 represented 
by the two checks. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir ; it is the same list. 

The Chairman. You have heretofore examined that document, 
have you? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Examining that document, did you find any altera- 
tions in the amounts of money that were purported to have been 
received by these various individuals? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain what you found to the com- 
mittee? Give us some examples of where the alterations took place. 

Mr. Cadigan. I found alterations in connection with the amounts 
on page 1, opposite the names of James Broadbent, Charles Morris 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us on each one of those individuals 
what the alterations appeared to have been, or what you found the 
alterations to have been ? 

Mr. Cadigan. The original amount was $100.25 and it was altered 
to $125. The entry for Charles Morris was originally $3.75, and it 
was raised to $375. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10475 

For Edward Battisfore, originally it was $6.50, raised to $600. For 
John Shanko, it was $100, raised to $200. 

For Sanuiel Doman, Jr., $1.25, raised to $150. For Edward Roski, 
$1.25, raised to $125. Frank Price, $1.00 raised to $100. That is on 
the first page. 

On the second page, the amount for Sam Doman was altered from 
$2.25 to $225. Joe Westenberg, from $1.50 to $450. Harry Graff, 
from $100 to $180. Walter Baker, $200 to $450. 

Frank Branden or Brandau, $100 to $400. 

On the third page, $2.50 is altered to $350. The amount for Harry 
W. McNally, from $1.50 to $150. The amount opposite Albert Ber- 
man, from $150 to $600, and Charles O'Lear from $150 to $600. 

The Chairman. Is that the total ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Those are 

The Chairman. Have you covered all of them ? 

Mr. Cadigan. All that I found evidence to show that the original 
amounts had been altered. 

The Chairman. Have you totaled those figures up, what the orig- 
inal amount was and what the raised amount was, and can you give 
us the difference ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes. According to my figures, the original amount 
was $1,076.25, and it presently shows a total of $5,080. 

The Chairman. So they raised it to about five times as much? 

Mr. Cadigan. Well, about $4,000 is the difference. 

The Chairman. From $1,000 and something to begin with, and it 
is $5,000 and something now ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So it was raised from 1 to 5, in round numbers? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there other numbers or items on that list where 
you were unable to tell whether there had been alterations? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir; there were a number of other instances 
where I couldn't find sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that 
there had definitely been an alteration. 

Mr. Kennedy. But these that you gave are ones that you definitely 
established that had been altered ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the others, there might be just a suspicion that 
they had been altered ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us a couple of examples of how they 
would be altered? 

Mr. Cadigan. Well, in some instances, for example on Charles 
Morris, originally it was $3.75, the conventional amount for writing 
$3.75, and then they put another period after the 5 and added 2 zeros. 

In the case of Harry Graff, originally it read $100, and they altered 
it to $180 by adding a small cipher or zero on top of the second 
numeral. 

In the case of O'Lear and Berman, the amount was changed, the 
initial digit w^as changed from a 1 to a 6 by running a line down that 
1 or the staff' of the 6 and then adding the loop on the base. 



21243— 58— pt. 27- 



10476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In a cou])le of instances, or in the instance of Joe Westenberg, the 
amount was $150, and they altered it by writing the 4 so that the 
original numeral 1 coincided or closely approximated the cross stroke 
of the 4. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there was an attempt, certainly, in some of those, 
to hide the fact that the alteration had taken place ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. I would like to ask you about whether you have ex- 
amined, in addition to that list, certain of the checks coming out of 
local 107? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. I would like to ask you specifically whether you have 
examined these four checks ? 

The Chairman. I hand you 4 checks, photostatic copies of them, 
1 dated April 11, 1956; 1, March 16, 1958; 1, May 20, 1958; and 1, 
June 3, 1955. 

I ask you to examine these checks and state if you identify them and 
then can testify further about them. 

These checks, I believe, are all signed by Mr. Cohen as secretary- 
treasurer, and Mr. Grace as president. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir ; I have them identified. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are checks that you have examined, and you 
have examined the endorsement on the back ; have you ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the endoreement on the back is written David 
Kanner, or Dave Kanner ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Two of them are David Kaimer, and two are Dave 
Kanner. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the total amount of those checks ? 

The Chairman. The checks will be made exhibit No. 6, A, B, and 
C, starting with the one with the smallest amount as 6 and go up to 
the highest amount as C. 

(Documents referred to Avere marked "Exhibits No. 6 and 6-A 
through C," and will be found in the appendix on pp. 10799-10802.) 

Mr. Cadigan. That would be $3,900. 

Mr. Kennedy. $3,850 ; isn't it ? 

Mr. Cadigan. I stand corrected. 

Mr. Kennedy. You examined those four checks, and you examined 
the signature as written out by Mr. David Kanner? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you compared them, the endorsement on the 
back and the proper signature of David Kanner ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you find that those endorsements on those 
four checks were forgeries ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. They were not written by David 
Kanner. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you the signature of Mr. Kanner, 
Dave Kanner, taken on February 27, 1958, before a member of the 
staff of the committee, and asks you to examine this signature and 
state if this signature is the one with which you made the comparison? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir, it is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10477 

The Chairman. All right. That signature may be made exhibit 
No. 6-D. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 6-D," for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 10803.) 

The Chairman. Do you state from your experience, your profes- 
sional experience and knowledge, that the signatures on the four 
checks is not the signature of Dave Kanner ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. They are definitely forgeries ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is another item. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you now another check in 
the amount of $1,000, dated January 10, 1956, made payable to Joseph 
E. Katz, drawn on the same union, signed by Raymond Cohen and 
Joseph E. Grace. 

Will you examine that check and state if you identify it as one that 
you have previously examined ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, I have examined this before. 

The Chairman. All right. That may be made exhibit No. 7. 

(Document referred to was marked "'Exhibit No. 7," for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 10805.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a check for $1,000 to Mr. David Katz, is it ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. No. 1360. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that endorsed on the back ? Is there a signature 
there which purports to be David Katz ? 

Mr. Cadigan. No, this has a handwritten endorsement "Joseph E. 
Katz." 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that signature on the back of the check a forgery ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the signature, in fact, of Joseph E. Katz ? 

Mr. Cadigan. It is not. 

The Chairman. Do you have Katz' signature, with which you 
examined it ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes, sir. I have six general signatures of Joseph 
Katz made in the presence of George L. Nash, on March 31, 1958. 

The Chairman. The signatures, the genuine signatures, may be 
made exhibit 7-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 7-A," for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 10806.) 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we ask this witness to step 
aside for a moment ? 

The Chairman. You have also examined a number of other checks 
which have been submitted to you by the committee, have you, on this 
union ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Your further testimony will ha needed, but you 
may stand aside for the present. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kanner. 

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



10478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kannek. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID KANNER 

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

Mr. Kanner. My name is David Kanner, I live at 7007 Brentwood 
Road, in Philadelphia. I am an attorney in Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You, of course, waive counsel, then ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kanner, you are an attorney in Philadelphia? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have done some work for local 107? 

Mr. Kanner. Well, I have done some work. I haven't represented 
local 107, but at the request of some of the members or of the indi- 
viduals I have represented them in various cases. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been paid by local 107 ? 

Mr. Kanner. I have been paid partially by local 107. I have also_ 
been paid cash fees by the members, and also by some of the officials 
of local 107. 

The Chairman. Do you mean cash fees by some of the officials? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes. 

The Chairman. And also cash fees by some of the members you 
represented ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yas, that is right. 

The Chairman. Have you also been paid some fees by the union 
itself? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what I wanted to know. 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there have been some checks which we have 
shown you which were legitimate and genuine checks which you 
received ? 

Mr. Kanner. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe you 
showed me two checks, I think that is right, which bear my signature 
and also the rubber stamp on the back, the endorsement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those were two checks that were legitimate ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will now present to the chairman the four checks 
which have already been made exhibits. 

The Chairman. The Chair presented to you exhibit 6, 6-A, 6-B, 
and 6-C, 4 checks that have been previously identified, and ask you 
to examine the endorsement on those checks and state if it is your name, 
first, and then, next, whether it is your signature, your endorsement. 

(Documents were handed to the witness. ) 

^Ir. Kanner. Do you want me to do it individually by check ? 

The Chairman. No, you may do it as to all of them. Just examine 
them to satisfy yourself. 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir, I have examined them. 

The Chairman. Does your name appear as the endorser on those 
checks ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10479 

Ml". Kanner. Do you mean as tlie payee, as the payee on the check, 
on the fronts ? 

The Chairman. Yes, and as the endorser. 

Mr. Kanner. My name appears as the payee — there are 4 checks — 
on the front, and also on the back as the endorser, with 1 differentia- 
tion, that the first name on 2 of the checks appears as Dave, and the 
other 2 appear as David. 

Tlie Chairman. David ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes. 

The Chairman. How do you usually sign your name ? 

Mr. Kanner. David. 

The Chairman. David? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes. 

The Chairman. Two of them you wouldn't have signed that way, 
Dave, but you always sign David ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are any of the signatures, endorsement signatures, 
on the back where your name is written, are either of those endorse- 
ment signatures your own ? 

Mr. Kanner. You say either. There are four signatures, may I 
call to your attention. There are four. None of them are mine. 

The Chairman. None of the four are your signatures ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not receive the checks ? 

Mr. Kanner. I obviously didn't know anything about them until 
I was told by some investigator. So, obviously, I never received the 
proceeds of the checks. 

The Chairman. You did not receive the checks, you did not receive 
the proceeds ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And you had no information or knowledge that 
such checks existed until this investigation was underway and the 
checks were shown to you by staff members of the committee? 

Mr. Kanner. You say existed. I didn't know that those checks 
were ever drawn. Let me put it that way. 

The Chairman. Well, all right. We will be just as technical. Well, 
that is what I mean, of course, in other words, none of this was within 
your knowledge at all ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And you received none of the proceeds or benefited 
from it at all ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Therefore, so far as the record of the union is con- 
cerned, in making it appear that you received the money and that 
the checks were made to you and that you endorsed them, those records 
are false? 

Mr. Kanner. Well, Senator, I want to be fair about this. As far 
as the proceeds of these particular checks, as far as the money that 
was taken out of the depository, I didn't receive, but I did receive cash 
from them. Whether it represented part of these drawings or not, 
I don't know. 

The Chairman. In other words, you do know you have at times 
received cash? 



10480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. From union officials ? 

Mr. Kanner. From the individual defendants whom I represented, 
or the officials ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But you never received the checks ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And if you received any proceeds from them, some- 
body else forged your name and got the money and then gave it to 
you? 

Mr. Kanner. Well, that is obvious. 

The Chairman. It is obvious, isn't it ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you submit any bills for these exact amounts ? 

Mr. Kanner. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you about one other check that we 
did not have and so we did not submit to the FBI. I want to find out 
if you can identify this check ? 

Mr. Kanner. Is this a new check that I have never been shown 
before ? 

The Chairman. I understand it is. 

This is the original and not a photostatic copy. It appears to be 
the original. It appears to be an original check, No. 4137, dated 
October 1, 1956, in the amount of $1,438.50, made payable to Dave 
Kanner, and signed by Mr. Cohen and Mr. Grace, as secretary-treas- 
urer and president, respectively, of the union. 

I present it to you and ask you to examine it and state if you re- 
ceived that check ? 

Mr. Kanner. Do you want me to return these four? Are you 
through with these ? 

The Chairman. I believe so. You may give them to the clerk. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kanner. I will put my glasses on. 

Now, what is your question, Senator ? 

The Chairman. The question is : Did you receive that check ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that your endorsement on the reverse side of 
the check ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It is not your signature ? 

Mr. Kanner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know that you received any of that? 

Mr. Kanner. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, it comes in the same category as 
the four checks, the photostatic copies of checks which we have pre- 
sented to you ? 

Mr. Kanner. With the same explanation I have made, that is true. 

The Chairman. With the same explanation ? 

Mr. Kanner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much is that check for ? 

Mr. Kanner. That is $1,438.50. 

The Chairman. Did you submit any bill for that amount ? 

Mr. Kanner. Well, it is 2 years ago, and I wouldn't want to trust 
my recollection. I hardly think it would be $38.50 on anything, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10481 

except possibly it could be some costs involved. But I certainly 
wouldn't want to say yes or no. 

The Chairman, Will you do this : Will you check your records and 
submit a statement ? 

Mr, Kanner. If I have anything that has such a statement, I will 
send it to you. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. I simply want to be fair. If, by any 
chance, you did submit a bill for that amount, it would be of interest 
to the committee to know it, and, if you didn't, of course, it wouldn't 
be of interest. 

Mr. Kanner. I am saying it is my recollection. I am depending 
that. This is a few years back. I don't think I did, but I wouldn't 
want to just flatly say that I didn't. 

The Chairman. If you find that your recollection is in error, would 
you so advise the committee ? 

Mr. Kanner. I certainly shall. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the forgeries, 
in connection with these checks total $5,288. 

The Chairman. That is the total ? 

Mr. Kennedy, Yes, for the five checks. 

The Chairman, That will be made exhibit 6-E. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 6-E" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 10804,) 

Mr. Kanner, May I be excused to go back to Philadelphia ? 

Mr, Chairman, Yes ; and thank you very much. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Katz, 

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

Do you solemnl.y 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. Kx\Tz, I do. 

TESTIMONY OP JOSEPH KATZ 

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

Mr. Katz. Joseph Katz, 5028 D Street, Philadelphia, attorney at 
laAv. 

The Chairman. Is your middle initial "E" ? 

Mr. Katz. Never had a middle initial. 

The Chairman. You never had a middle initial ? I present to you 
here exhibit 7 of the committee, which is a photostatic copy of a 
check in the amount of $1,000, made payable to Joseph E. Katz, and 
bearing a purported endorsement of Joseph E. Katz. 

Would you please examine this exhibit and state if you received 
the original check ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Katz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not receive it ? 

Mr. Katz. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature on the back of the check, 
Mr. Katz? 

Mr. Katz. Definitely not. 



10482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Can you account for that check having been issued 
and so endorsed ? 

Mr. Katz. It is a complete mystery, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you ever done any work for local 107 ? 

Mr. Katz. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had done some work for Mr. Lapensohn? 

Mr. Katz. Personal!}^, yes. 

The Chairman. For whom ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Lapensolm 

Mr. Katz. Personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was associated with 107. 

Mr. Katz. That had nothing to do with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never received any money from local 107? 

Mr. Katz. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. So far as you are concerned, the signature on the 
back is a forgery ? 

Mr. Katz. Definitely. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Katz. May I go back to Philadelphia? 

The Chairman. Yes. You may be excused. 

Thank you, sir. 

Call the next witness. 

Counsel advises we need a little time before we can proceed 
further. 

Therefore, the committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow 
morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 20 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Wednesday, April 16, 1958.) 

(Members of tlie committee present at the taking of the recess 
were : Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Proper Activities, 

IN THE Laber or Management Field, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 20, 1958, in the caucus room. Senate 
Office Building, Senator John J. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Demo- 
crat, Arkansas ; Senator Irving M. Ives, Kepublican, New York ; Sen- 
ator John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. 
Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel ; Jerome S. Alder- 
man, Assistant Chief Counsel ; John B. Flanagan, Investigator ; Leo 
C. Nulty, Investigator; Herbert J. Rose, Jr., Investigator; Ralph 
DeCarlo, Investigator ; Kuth Young 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 and Ives. ) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yesterday we had some testimony regarding a list of 
names which were individuals who were alleged to have received 
money from $25,000 in 2 checks, 1 of $10,000 and 1 of $15,000, and we 
are now going to call some of the individuals whose names appear oh 
that list, and also some officers of the local for some explanations as 
to the list. 

The Chairman. You are speaking now about the 2 checks, the 
$10,000 check and the $15,000 check, where the list was submitted of 
the amount each had been paid out of those funds? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That is the list where the amounts have been 
greatly increased? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. What is the name of the first witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The first witness will be Edward B. Battisfore, who 
is a vice president of local 107. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Battisfore, will you come around? 

Mr. Kennedy. And vice president of local 107, and also a business 
agent. 

The Chairman. Will you be swom, please. 

10483 



10484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

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

Mr. Battisfore. I do, 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD B. BATTISFORE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Battisfore. Edward Battisfore. I live at 207-D Haddon 
Hills, Haddon Hills, N. J., and I am vice president and business agent 
of local 107. 

The Chairman. You have counsel present. Will you, Counsel, 
identify yourselves for the record ? 

Hereafter, Mr. Reporter, as counsel appeai-s, the same counsel, just 
let the record so reflect. It will not be necessary for them hereafter 
to identify themselves during this series of hearings. 

The reporter will take cognizance of their presence, and let the 
record so speak. 

Mr. Carroll. John Rogers Carroll, 2015 Land Title Building, 
Philadelphia, and Richard H. Markowitz, PSFS Building, Phila- 
delphia. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

How long have you been vice president of local 107? 

Mr. Battisfore. About 314 years, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been business agent for local 
107? 

Mr. Battisfore. About 3i/^ years. 

The Chairman. What did you do prior to that ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I drove a truck for 32 years. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected to the position of vice president? 
. Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. November 1957. 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to make this observation: 
Most of these questions that are asked the witness are certainly ques- 
tions that call for answers that are within the witness' knowledge and 
not within the knowledge of counsel. 

The witness has a right to confer with his counsel and counsel has 
a right to advise as to any legal matter involved, or an issue that may 
be raised or presented, but I do not want, and I am not going to permit, 
just every time we ask a question, that the counsel and the witness 
hold a long conference. 

We are going to move along, and if counsel wants them to take the 
fifth amendment, or is going to advise them to take the fifth amend- 
ment, you can do it very quickly, and there is no use for a long, drawn- 
out conference each time a question is asked. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Battisfore. Can I answer that? The reason I checked with 
the counsel was there was an awful lot of confusion the first couple of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10485 

years, and I had been appointed for a couple of years before I was 
elected. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not criticizing you for that, but now 
I didn't want any misunderstanding as we proceed. 

I am going to expedite these hearings, and at the same time grant 
the witjiesses and the counsel every proper deference. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been appointed before that ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you vice president ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Three and a half years. 

Mr. Kennedy. When were you first appointed ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Well, that date is not clear. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1954 ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Along toward Christmas of 1954 ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you appointed ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Joe Grace and Ray Cohen. 

Mr, Kennedy. That is the president and secretary-treasurer of the 
union ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was vice president prior to you ? 

Mr, Battisfore. William Binkowski. 

Mr. Kennedy, What happened to him ? 

Mr, Battisfore, Well 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliy were you appointed vice president, and what 
happened to him ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Well 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what happened to him ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I was under the assumption that he resigned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he requested to resign ? 

Mr. Battisfore. That I really don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody discussed that with you ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Why should they, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. You answer the questions. Did anybody discuss that 
with you ? 

Mr, Battisfore, No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were just appointed vice president ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that provided for in the local constitution, that 
the president and secretary-treasurer can appoint a vice president? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know that as vice president ? 

Mr. Battisfore. We have no local constitution, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that provided for in the international constitu- 
tion? 

Mr. Battisfore. I would say so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that ? 

Mr. Battisfore. For certain ? 

Mr, Kennedy, Yes, 

Mr, Battisfore. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Do we have a copy of the international constitu- 
tion? 



10486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you lia\ e a copy of the international constitution ? 

Mr. Carroll. I have one around liere somewliere. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what provision in the constitution 
provides that the secretary-treasurer or the president can appoint a 
vice president ? 

]\Ir, Battisfore. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had ;y;ou taken part in Mr. Cohen's canipaig^n ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I think you misunderstood me, sir. I was actually 
acting vice president. 

Mr, Kennedy. You were acting vice president until elected in 
1957? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any opposition in 1957? 

Mr. Battisfore. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in Mr. Cohen's campaign ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I have been advised that I have the right not to 
be a witness against myself under the fiftli amendment, and I exercise 
that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you contribute any money to Mr. Cohen'soam- 
paign ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any cash payments from the 
union ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I have been advised that I have a right not to be a 
witness against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that 
right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have some information re- 
garding the misuse of union funds, which I would like to ask this 
witness about. 

Prior to doing that, I would like to ask him if he is personally 
paying his attorneys that are representing him here today. 

The Chairman. The witness will answer. 

Mr. Battisfore. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is the union paying your attorneys ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, And the attorneys that are representing you are 
being paid out of union funds ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And I want to ask you about the money that you 
are alleged to have received on a list about which we had testimony 
yesterday, where the sum of money, according to the representative 
from the FBI, was raised from $6.50 to $600. 

Did you receive any monev in 1954, some $600 in 1954 in cash ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised that I have a right not to be a wit- 
ness against myself, under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that 
right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us any explanation as to why this 
figure was raised from $6.50 to $600 ? 

(Witness conferred Avith his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10487 

Mr. Battisfore. I have been advised that I have a riglit not to be 
a witness against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise 
til at right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
the witness says, "I am advised that I have a riglit not to be a witness 
against myself,"" and the witness is being asked about the use of union 
funds, and he is being advised by attorneys who are being paid out 
of union funds, and being advised evidently not to give any testi- 
mony to the committee on the grounds that it might tend to incrimi- 
nate him. 

This is all dealing with union funds, and it appears to me a highly 
questionable practice on the part of the attorneys. 

Mr. Carroll. May I speak to that, sir? 

The Chairman. Very briefly. 

Mr. Carroll. This question as you know has been raised with us 
previously. Being confident of the propriety of our position and our 
action, we have insisted upon continuing to represent not only the 
union but also individual members thereof. 

Tlie Chairman. Let me ask you this — when the Chair wishes to 
speak, just a moment. 

The Chair feels that to use union money and union dues and dues 
of union members to defend and to tiy to protect men who are under 
a charge or under a suspicion of having misused union funds, in plain 
language having stolen union money and dues, it does raise a question 
of impropriety and a serious one. 

That is, for the union to so spend the money to defend the men who 
are robbing and cheating the union members. I make no apology for 
that statement. 

Mr. Carroll. I don't ask for an apology. It just happens that our 
views are different. 

The Chairman. You are entitled to your view, but I am going to 
express mine, and I have. 

Mr. Carroll. We checked with the Committee on Proper Guidance 
of the Philadelphia Bar Association, which is the appropriate com- 
mittee for determination of such questions. 

The Chairman. I am not bound by that. 

Mr. Carroll. It happens that I am, sir, and now I would like, 
with your permission, to read into the record the pertinent parts of the 
opinion of that committee, which says that our action is proper. 

Tlie Chairman. The Chair is not interested in that. You may sub- 
mit it to the committee, if you like, for its inspection, and for its con- 
sideration, but it will not become a part of the record. 

Mr. Carroll. I will submit it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I just say on that point that if you are getting 
paid out of union funds, you are supposed to be representing, as I 
understand it, the union members. When questions are being raised 
as to the. misuse of these union members' money, certainly an attorney 
is acting highly improperly in representing two masters when he 
a])pears witli this witness and advises liim not to give the committee 
tlie answers, and not to give the union members the answers as to 
wliat has happened to the union funds. 



10488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carroll. There is one more misconception in your statenrient, 
sir. You have twice now said that we are advising this witness not 
to answer. We liave done no such tiling, and as you know, we cannot. 

We advise him as to each question whether or not he has the right 
not to answer, and whether he will or will not exercise that right, we 
must and do leave to him. 

The Chairhian. There is no misunderstanding between us, and we 
all know what is going on. 

Senator I\tes. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman ? 

I am not a lawyer, but some of these things rather perplex me. 

Does the Bar Association of Philadelphia understand this situation, 
as just now expressed by our counsel ? 

Mr. Carroll. If I had your permission, Senator, to read their 
opinion 

Senator Ives. I am just asking you a question, whether they under- 
stand it or not ? 

Mr. Carroll. They understand it precisely. 

Senator I\^s. That you are in a conflict of interest here, you are 
representing the union ; that is, you are representing the officers of the 
union, and you are representing the union members, and there is a 
conflict between them on this thing ? 

They think that you have every right to do that, do they ? 

Mr. Carroll. They have made their decision in accordance with 
canon 6 of the canons of ethics, of the American Bar Association. 

Senator I\t:s. All I have got to say is I am a layman but that is a 
most peculiar situation morally that I have ever heard of. 

Mr. Kennedy. It appears to me that someone else raised this ques- 
tion and point some 2,000 years ago, about representing two masters. 

Mr. Carroll. I think it depends upon where the conflict is. 

The Chairman. We are going to proceed, gentlemen. 

The Chair presents to you a document here. It is a list of names 
of people who purportedly received money from the proceeds of two 
checks, one for $10,000, and one for $15,000, that have been introduced 
in evidence. 

After the typewritten name is the signature of the man, of the 
same person purportedly, showing the amount of money he received 
out of the two checks. 

Testimony has been presented here by experts from the FBI to the 
effect that many of the amounts originally stated and receipted for 
on this list have been substantially increased. 

The Chair has just asked you about one with reference to Edward 
Battisfore, that is your name, I believe, and just asked you about 
some money that you are supposed to have have received. 

Now I hand to ^^ou the original list, a photostatic copy of which 
has been made exhibit 5 in these hearings, and I ask you to look at 
your name typewritten here on the page that I present, on top, show- 
ing that you received $600. 

I ask you to examine it and state if you recognize it the document 
as vice president of the union, and whether that is your signature. 
(A document was handed to the witness.) 
^At this point Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room.) 
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Kennedy, and Ives.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10489 

Mr. Battisfore. I would 

The Chairman. Yes, sir ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I have seen this document before, sir, and I have 
been advised that I have a right not to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature on the document ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Did you forge the amount, change it, from its orig- 
inal amount up to $600 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you cheat and defraud the men who worked 
and paid the dues into your union by that character of manipulation 
and forgery ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you any conscience of obligation to the men 
and women who work and pay the dues into your organization to 
account for the money ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. Certainly, I do. 

The Chairman. All right. Let's start accounting for it, if you 
have any sense of obligation on earth to them. 

Did you receive that $600 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. State the reason again. Let's see what it is. 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised that I have a right not to be a wit- 
ness against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. If you told the truth about that $600, do you 
honestly believe the truth might tend to incriminate you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. It might ^ive some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. It might give some evidence against you? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How much? What was the original amount of it ? 
What was that raised from ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. If you would answer that, we could tell just to 
what extent it might incriminate you. 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse 

The Chairman. Don't you think you owe the men that paid the 
dues in there some explanation of it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Well, what are you advised now ? Let's have it. 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that all the money you have taken improperly, 
or is there a lot more ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. Don't you think the men that pay the dues are 
entitled to know how much you take away from them improperly? 
Don't you think they are entitled to know that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I do, sir. 



10490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All ri^ht. Let's tell them about it. 

Mr. Battisfore. They know about it, sir. 

The Chairman. Let's tell them. If they know about it, and you 
know about it, this committee has a right to know about it. Let's see 
if they know about it. Tell them again. Some of them are listening. 
Some' of them would like to know. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. It wouldn't hurt to tell them again if they know 
about it. 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer, sir, for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. On page 4, line 2, Mr. Chairman, he has his name 
down as receiving another $175. Did you receive that $175 ? 

The Chairman. Mrs. Watt, point out to the witness where his name 
appears again for receiving $175. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any of the money out of the $25,000 ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is another document dated October 17, 1956. 
It says : 

The undersigned hereby certify that they have received amounts as indicated 
after their signatures for organizing expenses. 

Edward Battisfore. 

The Chairman. Has this been made an exhibit yet ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; it has not. 

The Chairman. I present to you a document dated October 17, 1956, 
stating the undersigned hereby certify that they have received amounts 
as indicated after their signatures for organizing expenses. 

Wliere is the amount ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It doesn't have it. It has at the bottom the total of 
$1,500. 

The Chairman. I ask you to examine this document. It appears 
to be a photostatic copy of the original. State whether you ever saw 
that document before. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir ; I have seen this document. 

The Chairman. All right. It is out of the files, out of the records, 
of your union ; is it not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I can't prove that, sir. 

The Chairman. You can't prove it ? 

Mr. Battisfore. That it is out of the records or the files. I have 
nothing to do with the files. 

The Chairman. Where did you see it before ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I say I see it, because I am almost sure that is my 
signature. 

The Chairman. All right. That is your signature on that docu- 
ment. All right. How much of that $1,500 did you get? It says 
down there, doesn't it, $1,500 ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10491 

The Chairman. Do your union members know about that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Tell them again what you did with that 
money, and how much of it you got. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself undei- the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. That document will be made exhibit No. 8. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for iden- 
tification and will be found in the appendix on p. 10807.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the matter, we 
have documents, a number of documents, showing that Mr. Battisfore 
allegedly received money from the union. As in that document, some 
of the other documents don't show the amount of money received. 

I would like to ask you, particularly on that document, how much 
money you did receive, Mr. Battisfore ? 

Mr. Carroll. From the same one ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. How much money did you receive on that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

Mr. Chairman. You better state your reasons occasionally, because 
"same reason" might get lost. 

Mr. Battisfore. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. If you told the truth about that $1,500, and the 
part that you got of it, do you honestly believe that the truth might 
tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. There might be some evidence against me, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. A number of them are like that, where there is no 
specific amount to each of those who signed, and a number of them 
show specific amounts. 

The Chairman. Would you take the same position with respect to 
the other documents, similar documents, showing the money you are 
supposed to have received ? I am just trying to expedite it. If you 
are going to take the fifth amendment on all of this, and you are 
not going to talk, say so. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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

Mr. Battisfore. If they are the same ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If they are the same ; you would refuse, would you, 
to give any explanation of them ? 

Mr. Battisfore. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, I hand you three just to take a glance at. 

State if your signature is on those three documents. 

( The documents were handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. You mean you wouldn't now identify your signa- 
ture on those ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

21243— 58— pt. 27 8 



10492 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Battisfore. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't want to identify your signature any 
more ? 

Mr. Battisfore. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You know we can make pretty good comparisons, 
don't you, with the one that you did identify and those ?_ 

I don't think it would incriminate you any further just to admit 
those are your signatures ; do you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. It might provide some evidence against me, sir. 

The Chairman. I have no doubt about it. 

You may return them. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we feel that a number of these docu- 
ments were used as subterfuges for taking out sums of money from 
the union, which we will develop as we go along. 

The Chairman. Do you want to make any explanation of that ? We 
have a lot of documents here that obviously, unless there is some ex- 
planation for it, and I can't conceive of any, obviously show that a 
group of you folks up there have been robbing this union. Do you 
want to make any explanation of it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You can say yes or no, whether you want to or not. 
If you want to, I am going to permit you to do it. 

Mr. Battisfore. It has been explained to the membership, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, will you explain it to us ? 

Mr. Battisfore. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't want to explain it ? 

Mr. Battisfore. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Under oath, you are not willing. Did you explain 
it to your membership under oath, where you might be prosecuted for 
perjury if you lied about it ? 

Mr. Battisfore. I would, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Explain it now, and let's see if you tell the truth about it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Battisfore. I have been advised that I have a right not to be 
a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that 
right. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Lapensohn, Ben Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Batitsfore. I refuse to answer on the grounds that I have a 
right not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 
I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Has he been into this mischief with you? 

Mr. Battisfore. I refuse to answer for the same reason, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Stand aside for the present. You will remain 
until you are discharged. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Henry Graff. 

The Chairman. Mr. Graff, come forward. 

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 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10493 

Mr. Graff. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY J. GRAEF, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGEES CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Graff. Henry J. Graff, 3458 Orme Street, Philadelphia, helper 
at Modern Trucking Co. 

The Chairman. You drive a truck? 

Mr. Graff. I am a helper. 

The Chairman. A helper in driving a truck? Helping what? 

Mr. Graff. A helper on a truck. 

The Chairman. A helper on the truck. You don't drive; you 
help ? 

Mr. Graff. That is right. 

The Chairman. Let the record reflect the same counsel. Proceed, 
Mr, Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Graff, you have been a member of local 107 for 
how long? 

Mr. Graff. 14 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you assist Mr. Raymond Cohen in his 
election as secretary-treasurer? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.). 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the questions on the grounds that I 
might be required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you mean under the fifth amendment ? Is that 
what you said ? 

Mr. Graff. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Graff is one of those whose signa- 
tures appears on the list of names. I would like to ask him specifically 
about that. 

Did you receive any moneys from the union in 1954, Mr. Graff ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you not interviewed by an investigator of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were. And did you give that investigator an 
affidavit ? Did you furnish an affidavit to the investigator ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graft. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in that affidavit, did you disclose how much 
money you had received from the union as it appears on this list? 

Mr. (jraff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. I can't hear you. 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. What are your grounds ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that I 
am required to give evidence against myself. 

The Chairman. I present to you the affidavit that you signed. You 
said you gave an affidavit. I ask you to examine that document and 
state if that is the affidavit you gave the investigator. 



10494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Tlie docnineiit was lianded to the witness.) 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same «:roini(ls. 

The Chairman. You are ordered and directed to answer. You 
said you gave an affidavit. 1 am ordering and directing you to answer 
the question whether that is the affidavit that you gave. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the (Question on the same grounds. 

Tlie Chairmax. Did you tell the truth when you gave the affidavit ? 

Mr. Graff. I lef use to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. Did you tell a lie? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

I have been employed as a helper by Modern Transfer Co., Inc., 4021 G 
Street. Philadelphia, Pa., for the past 2 years. 

I have been a member of Teamster Local 307 for the past 14 years. I am 
commonly known as Harry Graff. 

Is that true? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on tlie same reason. 

The Chairman (continuing reading) : 

I have been shown a typewritten list of names, opposite which are handwrit- 
ten names and amounts purportedly paid by local 107. 

Present that document there to the witness. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Is that the document that j-ou were referring to 
that you had been shown before you test i tied ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the same document ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You said here you had seen one. If that is not the 
one, say so. 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

On page 2 of the typewritten list, beginning with the name Charles Amerosa, 
and ending with the name .Tim Kirk, the typewritten name Harry Graff appears 
on line 16. 

Is that true? 

Look at line 16 there. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Or is it line 15 ? 

Did you count? 

Mr. Graff. My name appears on line 16. 

The Chairman. On line 16. Thank you. 

The amount of $180 shown opposite my name is incorrect. 

Is that true? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. I beg your pardon, Senator, but no amount of money 
appears on this page beside his name. 

The Chairman. Here is the one. 

It is on page 2. 

(The docinnent was handed to tlie witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. That figure does appear tliere. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10495 

The Chairman. The $180 figure does appear there ? 

Mr. Graff. Yas, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have your signature on that document 
right after your typewritten name? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. I^ook at that affidavit and point out in there what 
about it is not true. 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. What are you scared of ? 

(The witness conferred wdth his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Who are you scared of ? 

Mr. Graff. Giving evidence against myself. 

The Chairman. You weren't scared that day when you gave that 
affidavit, were you ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. When did you get scared ? Who threatened you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Go on, tell us who did it. 

Mr. Graff. Nobody threatened me. 

The Chairman. When did you get scared? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. I am not scared, and I don't want to give evidence 
against myself. 

The Chairman. I asked you what you are afraid of, and you said 
you didn't want "to give evidence against myself." I asked you when 
did you get scared. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. I am not scared. I just don't want to give evidence 
against myself. 

The Chairman. Let's listen to a little of it. Maybe I can give you 
some evidence in your own language, your ow^n words, over your own 
signature. Follow as I read your affidavit. If I make any mistake, 
you correct me, will you, in the reading of it ? 

State of Pennsylvania. 
County of Philadelphia. 
Mr. Henry J. Graff, duly sworn, deposes and states 

are you Henry J. Graff ? 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is that your name? 

Mr. Graff. Yes 

The Chairman. Are you the pei-son this affidavit is talking about? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. I see. You got to where you don't want to admit 
your identity? 

(The witness conferred wdth his counsel.) 

Tho Chairman. Well, let's read a little further. 

I make this statement at the request of Mr. Herbert J. Rose, .Jr., known to 
me to be an investigator for the United Statas Senate select committee investi- 
gating into the improper activities of labor and management. This statement 
is made of my own free will, without any promise of favor or immimity. I 
have been informed and realize that this statement may be used and introduced 
in evidence in a public hearing before the United States Senate select committee 
investigating the improper activities of labor and management, and swear that 
the statements contained herein are true. 



10496 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Is that your signature ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. Let's read a little further. 

I received only $100 and not $180. The figures on the list appear to have been 
changed from $100 to $180. I was paid the amount of $100 in cash by Al Bermao, 
a member of local 107, in the presence of Raymond Cohen, secretary-treasurer of 
local 107. The payment was made in the office of Raymond Cohen at 105 Spring 
Garden Street, Philadelphia. I worked 4 days at the election polls at Second and 
Cambria Streets, Philadelphia, and was paid at the rate of $25 a day. I am not 
certain if the amount of $100 was included on my 1954 income-tax return. 

Is that statement true, that you worked 4 days ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You were working in Cohen's election, weren't 
you? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. That is what you were paid for, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. And this money was taken out of union dues to pay 
you folks to go out and elect Cohen ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. No money was paid out of union dues for Cohen's 
opponent in that election, there, was there ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Graff. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether yoii were paid $100 or not? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You know, it is a kind of sad state of affairs when 
you union boys become such captives of racketeers, thugs, and thieves 
that you are afraid to come in here and tell the truth to protect your- 
selves against such exploitation. Don't you think it is a pretty sad 
state of affairs? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You needn't answer. 

I know you are suffering. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some information that a 
meeting took place of selected members of the union that Mr. Cohen 
operated, and that Mr. Cohen at that time told those that attended 
that if any of them came down here and testified against him or gave 
any evidence to the committee that would be against Mr. Cohen, he 
would "fix those people." 

The Chairman. Did you attend that meeting ? 

Mr. Graff. No. 

The Chairman. Were you at that meeting ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not going to give the name of the individual. 
We have a witness who can testify. 

The Chairman. All right. I am asking him. Were you at that 
meeting where Mr. Cohen made that statement ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. No. Was I at the meeting ? 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

The Chairman. Where he made that statement. 

Mr. Graff. Wliat meeting was this ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10497 

The Chairiman. The one where he made the statement that counsel 
just read, that if any one of you came down here and testified against 
him 

Mr. Graff. We have a meeting every month. 

The Chairman. I don't care whether it is every month or every 
week, but were you at the meeting where he made that statement ? 

Mr. Kennedy. March 16. 

The Chairman. March 16. 

Mr. Graff. I never heard any statement like that. 

The Chairman. Was that message conveyed to you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. No. 

The Chairman. Were you at the meeting on March 16 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you hear that statement ? 

Mr. Graff. No. 

Th Chairman. Were you there all the time ? 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you state under oath that statement was not 
made by Mr. Cohen ? 

Will you swear to that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. I never heard it. 

The Chairman. You just didn't hear it. 

Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any statement made at that meeting on 
March 16 by Mr. Cohen that he would get even with any of those who 
testified against him down here ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Kennedy. Just answer it truthfully. 

Mr. Graff. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion about anybody coming 
down here and testifying regarding Mr. Cohen's affairs? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You would know the answer to that. All we want 
is the truth on it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Carroll, he would know the answer to it. He 
attended the meeting. 

Mr, Carroll. I am sure he would. But he wants to be advised. 

Mr. Graff. What was the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any statement made by Mr. Cohen at this 
meeting that he would get even or fix or bother any of those indi- 
viduals who came down and testified regarding him before the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Graff. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was nothing said to that effect ? 

Mr. Graff. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen speak at the meeting ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Was there a resolution passed at the meeting author- 
izing him not to testify before the committee ? 



10498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I just don't understand why if he attended the meet- 
ing, Mr. Carroll, why it is necessary for you to advise him on that. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 

The Chairman. The witness will answer the question. If you want 
to take the fifth, take it and take it hurriedly. I don't want to spend 
all day here waiting for you to delay this proceeding, 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, we are not delaying. The witness is 
in some confusion. He thinks he has already answered the question. 

The Chairman. I am sure the witness is in great confusion. There 
is no doubt about that. The only thing we are trying to do is get the 
truth. If we get that, there wouldn't be any confusion. 

Mr. Graff. I don't remember. 

The Chairman. You don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. About a resolution that was offered to the member- 
ship at Cohen's request, authorizing him not to testify before the 
committee, not to talk before the committee ? 

Do you remember any resolution such as that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Graff. No. 

Mr, Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that a 
number of witnesses that we interviewed originally as to the member- 
ship of local 107 talked freely and gave us the information that we 
wanted. The next time we tried to contact them, including this wit- 
ness, they had been contacted by Mr. Carroll, or were in touch with 
Mr. Orroll, and they then refused to talk, and have since, of course, 
appeared before the committee and have taken the fifth amendment. 

Senator Kennedy, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Carroll, how long have you been attorney 
for the union ? 

Mr. Carroll. Personally, I have not. Mr. McBride, with whom I 
was associated, became counsel for the backers of Mr. Cohen and 
Mr. Cohen himself during or immediately following an election on 
November 15, 1953, at which Mr. Cohen was elected secretary-treas- 
urer of the union. 

I was associated with them at that time. We subsequently formed 
a firm of which I am a member. 

Senator Kennedy. Were you working on Mr. Cohen's election or 
was it just Mr. McBride ? 

Mr. Carroll. I don't recall that I did much, if anything. I may 
have been in some discussions about it during that time. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlien did you become attorney for the union ? 

Mr. Carroll. Our firm has been counsel for them ever since that 
time. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlien did you devote a good deal of your time 
and attention to the particular case ? ^¥ho is handling the union for 
your firm ? 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. McBride has withdrawn from the firm. 

Senator Kennedy. Now who's doing it ? 

Mr. Carroll. In our firm, I would say I have done most of the 
work recently, together with Mr. Bradley. 

Senator Kennedy. After 1953 and 1954, the period we are talking 
about now, who was the counsel ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10499 

Mr. Caukoll. Counsel for the union itself? 

Senator Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Carroll. William A. Gray. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you make a distinction between the counsel 
for the union and the work that your firm did ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. Senator, I think this bears explanation. On the 
15th of November 1953, there was an election meeting held. At that 
meeting, Mr. Cohen was elected secretary-treasurer, properly elected. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is in the manner that was described yesterday. 

Mr. Carroll. I understand it was otherwise. 

Mr. Kennedy. The international. Senator, then put the local in 
trusteeship because of the way the election had been handled. 

Mr. Carroll. At that time, Mr. Gray represented the interests of 
one Edward Crumbock, who had been ousted as secretary-treasurer. 
Mr. McBride represented Mr. Cohen, who had been duly elected. 
During that time, as Mr. Kennedy has said, there was a trusteeship 
imposSi by Mr. Beck. The trustee conducted the aifairs of the union 
from approximately tlie end of November 1953 until — well, at least 
June of 1954, perliaps a little longer. In June of 1954, or May, rather, 
of 1954, there was a second election conducted and supervised by the 
International, at which Mr. Cohen again defeated Mr. Crumbock by a 
vote of approximately 9,000 to 1,000. 

Since that time, Mr. McBride and subsequently the firm has con- 
tinued to represent them. 

Senator Kennedy. You are a member of the firm who has had par- 
ticular competence over this matter, is that correct? 

Mr. Carroll. Recently that is so, yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Where did you go to law school, Mr. Carroll? 

Mr. Carroll. University of Pennsylvania. 

Senator Kennedy. You have been a lawyer for how long? 

Mr. Carroll. Since 1952. 

Senator Kennedy. When did you agree to represent Mr, Graff ? 

Mr. Carroll. I would say within the last month. 

Senator Kennedy. When was your first conversation with him ? 

Mr. Carroll. Do you mind of I check with him and see? 

Senator Kennedy. Go right ahead. 

(The counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Carroll. He reminds me it was Thursday, April 3. 

Senator Kennedy. You just came to represent him, is that correct? 

Did he call you or did you call him ? 

Mr. Carroll. I don't think it was either. I received a phone call 
from someone at the union asking if I would meet these people. 

Senator Kennedy. Who at the union ? 

Mr. Carroll. I couldn't say for sure. It might have been Joe 
Hartsough or Ed Walker, or anyone of those fellows might have called 
me, or his business agent. They asked me to meet him and I did 
meet him that morning at the union hall, I recall. 

Senator Kennedy. Somebody from the union called and asked you 
to meet Mr. Graff? 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Graff had gone to them. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Graff, how did you get ahold of Mr. Car- 
roll ? How did you decide he should represent j^ou ? 

Mr. Graff. I come down on a Thursday morning to get representa- 
tion down at the customhouse. 



10500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Thursday morning, of last week ? 

Mr. GRiVFF. April 3. 

Senator Kennedy. Who did you get in touch with to have Mr. 
Carroll as your attorney? 

Mr. Griff. I came down to the union. 

Senator Kennedy. Down to the union ? 

Mr. Graff. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. "\'Vliere ? 

Mr. Graff. 105 Spring Garden Street. 

Senator Ivennedy. You came down to the union and wanted an 
attorney ? 

Mr. Graff. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Who did you talk to ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. That is not a legal question. Who did you talk 
to at the union ? 

Mr. Graff. I talked to Charlie O'Lear. 

Senator Kennedy. Charlie O'Lear. You asked him for an attor- 
ney? 

Mr. Graff. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Did anybody discuss the matter with you as to 
who you sliould get for an attorney before your conversation with 
Mr. O'Lear? 

Mr. Graff. No. 

Senator Kennedy. That was the first time. You went down and 
said you wanted an attorney ? 

Mr. Graff. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you tell your attorney that you had given 
us an affidavit? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Either take the fifth amendment or answer the 
question. 

JMr. Carroll. I think we are delving into privileged communica- 
tions now between attorney and client that I believe to be improper. 

Mr. Kennedy. The witness can answer any questions. 

Senator Kennedy. I have been advised by two counsels here that 
the question is not a privileged matter between attorney and client. 

Mr. Carroll. Your question was did he tell us about an affidavit. 

Senator Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The privilege goes to the attorney, not to the cli- 
ent. 

Senator Kennedy. He doesn't have to answer it. If he doesn't 
want to answer it, he doesn't have to. 

Mr. Carroll. He would prefer not to. 

Mr. Kennedy. How does he know ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. Wliat are you refusing on, the privilege or on the 
fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Graff. I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might be re- 
quired to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Carroll, we are concerned with the question 
of disposal of $25,000 of local dues. I understand this matter has 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10501 

been discussed with you, but it is a matter that I have been interested 
in for some time, the responsibility of attorneys working for the union, 
paid by the union, the responsibility to the membership, or to the of- 
ficers, or to the members under suspicion, who are under charges of 
Having stolen or misappropriated union dues money. I would like to 
ask you as an attorney Avhere you feel your obligation lies. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator 

Senator Kennedy. Would you come closer to the microphone ? 

Mr. Carroll. All right. I feel this matter very strongly, myself. 
1 have given this considerable thought and so have all of us in the 
firm, and in our own firm we are not even in agreement on the ques- 
tion. Therefore, when the matter was raised, we put it to the profes- 
sional guidance committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association, for 
their guidance. They are the committee of the bar association, of- 
ficially charged with the duty of advising lawyers on ethical matters 
such as this. 

At that time, Mr. O'Donnell, I believe it was, or Mr. Dunn, one 
of the assistant counsel for this committee, had told me that this com- 
mittee intended to prove substantially a charge of larceny against all 
the officers and business agents of the union, and told me that it was 
his view, and I think the committee's view, that that gave rise to a 
conflict of interest on the part of the lawyer representing those people 
and being paid out of union funds. 

We decided right off the bat to take it up with the bar association. 
My senior partner, Michael von Moschzisker, wrote a memorandum, 
which I have here, in which he said to the committee on j^rofessional 
guidance — this is a memorandum : 

I receive a retainer as counsel for Local 107, Highway Truck Drivers and 
Helpers Union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- 
men, and Helpers of America. The Select Committee on Improper Activities 
in the Labor or Management Field of the United States Senate has been conduct- 
ing an investigation in the field of labor-management relations to determine 
whether any changes are required in the laws of the United States in order to 
protect against criminal or other improper practices or activities. 

In this connection, my associate, Mr. Carroll, appeared before the said com- 
mittee on September 26, 1957, as counsel for Raymond Cohen, secretary-treasurer 
of local 107, who had been subpenaed to produce various books and records of 
the union. On October 28, 1957, Mr. Carroll also appeared at a hearing of the 
said committee as counsel for the same Raymond Cohen, who had been sub- 
penaed to produce certain of his personal records. 

This morning, Robert Dunn, Esq., assistant counsel for the committee, stated 
to Mr. Carroll that the committee proposes to question officers and business 
agents of the union about union funds supposedly misappropriated by them. 
Mr. Dunn asserted to Mr. Carroll that the interests of the union and its mem- 
bers, some of whom have been subpenaed, conflict with the interests of the 
officers and business agents and therefore that it would not be right for Mr. 
Carroll to assist these officers and business agents as counsel before the com- 
mittee. On the other hand, the officers and business agents all take the view 
that they pay their dues too and that they have a right to be represented by 
union counsel. 

It seems to Mr. Carroll and me that, in the legal sense, no interest within 
the meaning of canon 6 is involved at this time. No one is litigating anything. 
There is no case of controversy in existence. Neither the union nor its officers 
and business agents are parties to any proceeding before the committee. They 
are nothing more than potential witnesses in a legislative investigation before 
a committee which has no power to render a verdict or judgment for or against 
the union, its members, or its officers and business agents. 

As you gentlemen are no doubt aware, the function of counsel in proceedings 
such as this is extremely limited. It consists merely in advising the witness as 



10502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to whether he has the right to invoke certain testimonial privileges. Counsel 
does not invoke any such privileges on behalf of the witness, nor does counsel 
ask questions or address arguments to the committee. 

As I said to you over the telephone today, I will be very glad to have the 
guidance of your committee in answering the following questions : 

Is there a conflict of interests such that if Mr. Carroll appears before the 
committee as counsel for the members of the union who are officers and business 
agents, he may not also represent the union itself and other members of the 
union when they appear before the committee? 

Is there a conflict between the iinion and its ordinary membership on the one 
hand and those members of the union who are officers or business agents on 
the other hand such that Mr. Carroll should not appear before the committee 
as counsel for the officers and business agents? 

In the event no such conflict is found to exist, that would seem to end the 
problem. But if the committee finds that this is a conflict-of-interests situation 
and if the witnesses still wish to be represented by counsel for the union, this 
would still seem to be possible under canon 6 if the consent of all parties is 
given after full disclosure of the facts. Bearing in mind that this is a union 
having upward of 14.000 members, we should also like your advice as to the 
manner in wiiich such disclosure could be made and consent expressed, in the 
event you find there is a conflict of interests. 

The committee held its meeting, and in due course ^Yrote an opinion, 
which is as follows : 

The question presented for our opinion is whether counsel for a labor union 
may, consistent with the prohibition against representation of conflicting in- 
terests provided by canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, represent the 
members, officers, and business agents of such a union, called as witnesses before 
a committee of the United States Senate investigating improper activities in 
the labor and management field, where counsel has been advised by counsel for 
said committee that the committee proposed to prove in such hearings that 
all the officers and business agents of the union have been guilty of defalcations 
regarding the union's funds. 

In order to decide this question, three important considerations must first 
be noted : 

(1) the power of the congressional committee involved is to make investiga- 
tions ; to collect information to assist Congi-ess in its consideration of proposed 
legislation on the subjects investigated. The committee has no prosecuting or 
adjudicating function whatever. 

(2) Certain members, officers, and business agents of the union appear before 
the committee solely as witnesses. 

(3) The function of counsel representing witnesses before such a committee 
is restricted to advising the witness whether he has, in the circumstances, cer- 
tain recognized privileges regarding testifying. Counsel may not address the 
committee, nor may he claim a privilege on his client's behalf ; such privileges, 
being personal to the witness, must be claimed by him. 

Canon 6, which governs our decision, speaks in terms of "interest" in a "con- 
troversy." It appears to us that, as between the union and its rank-and-file 
members on the one hand, and its officers and business agents on the other, 
there is no existing controversy within the meaning of canon 6. Further it 
appears that the interest of the parties seeking to be represented by counsel 
for the union, as well as the interest of the imion itself, is merely the interest 
of witnesses, in respect to their legal rights before the congressional committee. 

For these reasons we believe there is now no confiict of interests existing 
among the union, its members, and its officers. Counsel for the union, may. 
therefore, consistently with canon 6, represent all such parties before the con- 
gressional committee. 

Senator Kennedy. Can you tell me who signed that or who was on 
the committee ? 

Mr. Carroll. It is signed by E. K. Denworth, from the Drinker, 
Biddle & Reath office. 

The members of the committee who were present at the meeting, 
as I recall it, were Robert T. McCracken, of the firm of Montgomery, 
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads; Walter Alessandroni, the chancellor 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10503 

of the l^hiladelphia Bar Association ; former Judge Nochem Winnet, 
of the Philadelphia municipal court, now practicing in Philadelphia. 

1 think the junior bar representative on the committee is Leonard 
Barken, who was present. 

Senator Kennedy. I imagine you can furnish me a list of those 
names afterward. 

Did Mr. Den worth have some special position in the bar committee ? 

Mr. ( 'arroll. He is vice chairman of this committee. I don't know 
what other committees he is on. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Carroll, I think that was a wise procedure 
for you to adopt in going to them. Personally, it is my judgment 
that they should review this matter again after examining the record 
of the entire hearing. We have a case here where every officer that 
has been interrogated, to the best of my knowledge, has taken the 
fifth amendment as to the disposal of $25,000 of union dues. In my 
opinion, I think the matter of conflict of interest should be reexamined. 

That is No. 1. No. 2, we have a situation here which is a very 
critical one, and Mr. Graff having given an affidavit to which he swore 

2 or 3 weeks ago coming before the committee now, taking the fifth 
amendment, refusing to testify in any way as to whether he filled out 
that affidavit or not. 

You are the attorney in this situation. You have been tied up 
very intimately with a union, all the officers of which take the fifth 
amendment on a matter involving $25,000. I think there is a conflict 
of interest, first. I think that the bar association and those who 
advised you, I hope, will look over the testimony before tliis com- 
mittee, because I would not think that they would want to let their 
endorsement of what has happened stand without bringing it under 
review. 

This matter is an important matter, and it is going to come up. It 
has come up before and should come up again, the responsibility of a 
lawyer, with the ethical practices of the bar, toward a union, and 
toward the membership of the union, when the officers are under 
interrogation as to how they have disposed of that money and v^ho 
take the fifth amendment. 

It also brings to mind, it seems to me vei-y clearly, your respon- 
sibility. You are now aware of the fact that $25,000 of the union's 
dues, it seems to me, have either been misappropriated or we have to go 
to the conclusion that they were stolen because we can't get an 
explanation. 

Therefore, it seems to me that you also come into this as to what your 
responsibilities are in this situation. I think this is a matter that 
I hope the bar will reexamine in order to give very clear guidance 
to attorneys in the future. 

I think that based on what I have heard, particularly in this last 
situation, where a man comes before us 2 or 3 weeks after he fills 
out an affidavit and refuses to give us any information about the very 
affidavit, and you are his attorney, it seems to me it raises a question 
of propriety, certainly of his action, and your action. 

Mr. Carroll. You noticed the last line of the affidavit, didn't you, 
Senator ? 

Senator Kennedy. I would be glad to look at it again. 

Yes. 



10504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I worked 4 days with the election — 

Mr. Carroll. Pardon me. The last line of the first page. 

Senator Kennedy (reading) : 

Payment was made in the oflSce of Raymond Cohen — 

Mr. Carroll. Now I am instructed it is the last one. 

Senator Kennedy (reading) : 

I am not certain that the amount of $100 was included in my 1954 income-tax 
return ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. I think that makes clear the basis on which the 
man has the right to plead his privilege. It is that consideration, only 
his right in the circumstances which is the basis for my advice. 

Senator Kennedy. But this is already part of the record. 

Mr. Carroll. I understand. 

Senator Kennedy. If he has made a mistake, or if he has failed to 
report that, it is already part of the record. 

What we want to ask him about is the $80. 

Mr. Carroll. I think, Senator, if I may reply to both questions, 
first of all as far as the bar association committee is concerned, as you 
can see from that much of their opinion which I read to you, we fully 
apprised them of the committee's intended proof. 

They considered that seriously, and suggested that indeed there 
might develop some concrete evidence which would place use in a dif- 
ferent position. 

In their opinion they went on, in making the decision, to add this, 
which I think indicates their view of what you have suggested. 

They add. 

In performance of our duties as the committee on professional guidance, we 
feel obliged to add the following caution to counsel : 

Adverse influences and conflicting interests in violation of canon 6, may occur 
in situations other than controversies and litigation. 

Then they quote : 

In observing the admonition of canon 6 to avoid the representation of conflict- 
ing interests, the lawyer must have in mind not only the avoidance of a relation 
which will obviously and presently involve the duty to contend for one client 
what his duty to the other presently requires him to oppose, but also the proba- 
bility or possibility that such a situation will develop. 

Senator Kennedy. I think that you did the right thing in going to 
the bar in Philadelphia for guidance. I would hope that in all of these 
cases that other lawyers would do the same. 

I would be hopeful that they would look over the testimoney in order 
to be able to in the future give guidance to other attorneys. 

I would hope, also, that you, now that you are apprised of the facts 
which you may not have been aware of, involving this $25,000, would 
also consider when this matter has been disposed of before the com- 
mittee, and you have an obligation to your clients now, that you wiU 
consider your own position in relation to officers who have been callous, 
it seems to me, based on the experience we have been looking at, in their 
disregard of the members. 

They are the ones whom you are representing, and you are being 
paid by union dues. So I think your own position is a matter that 
should be reconsidered at the end of this hearing, too. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10505 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir, but you must realize that in my position I 
must consider on the basis of information I possess, and not on the 
basis of refusals to answer questions before this committee, 

Senator Kennedy. I am hopeful, Mr. Carroll, that your informa- 
tion will be broadened and extended in scope as a result of the hearing, 
and therefore you will become concerned, as I hope any attorney 
would. 

After all, you have not taken the $25,000, so now you are aware of 
the fact that we have a situation where $25,000 of union dues is miss- 
ing, and it seems to me as an attorney for the union members whose 
dues are involved, that you must consider quite carefully, I would 
think, your own position in the matter. 

Mr. Carroll. I think you have to keep in mind what Mr. Battisfore 
previously stated, that the officers of this union are not only willing 
to but already have made their explanations to their membership 
whose money it is. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Carroll 

Mr. Carroll. They have no fifth amendment rights with respect to 
the members. 

Senator Kennedy. That is really an extraordinary statement, that 
you feel that they explained it to the members and will not explain it 
to the United States Senate under oath. 

That is an extraordinary position, and are you defending that pro- 
cedure? 

Mr. Carroll. That is the feeling that Mr. Battisfore expressed. I 
understand that that is probably the position of most of these people, 
that they feel an obligation to explain to the members. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't feel they have any obligation to ex- 
plain it to a United States Senate committee? 

Mr. Carroll. My position is quite different. 

Senator Kennedy. You put that forward with an approval. 

Mr. Carroll. I say this, that they have a very definite feeling that 
this committee is not friendly to them, and for that reason their feel- 
ings of hostility have led them to this. 

Senator Kennedy. That is not conflict, Mr. Carroll, between 2 
groups, 1 friendly and 1 unfriendly. This is a Senate committee. 
It represents the United States Senate and the Congress, Mr. Carroll, 
and you cannot justify in any way that they can make a statement to 
the union members not under oath, and then come down here and, 
because they do not thinli the committee is friendly, take the fifth 
amendment. 

That is not sufficient ground to take the fifth amendment. Only if 
they are going to be incriminated can they take it. 

Mr. Carroll. That, of course, is not their ground for pleading the 
fifth amendment, and I only say that that motivates their use of the 
fifth amendment. 

Senator Ivennedy. That is extraordinary, and I think, Mr. Chair- 
man, it seems to me that this question of whether the committee might 
be friendly or unfriendly to these particular members is not any 
grounds for taking the fifth amendment. 

If that is produced in any way, it seems to me the question of their 
being subject to contempt should come forward. 



10506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That has nothing to do Avith the matter. They can take the iii'th 
amendment only if it is going to inci-iminate them. 

Mr. Carroll. I think we would understand one another on that, 
Senator, that they take the fifth amendment 

Senator Kennedy. So I understand you in that matter, why are 
they taking the fifth amendment? Is it because they disapprove of 
the committee, because they feel the committee is inimical to them, or 
because they feel it may incriminate them ? 

Mr. Carroll. There is a large difference between the grounds on 
which you have a right to exercise your fifth amendment privilege 
and the motivation for doing it. 

I suggest to you that those two things are entirely separate. What 
I was talking about was motivation rather than existing grounds. 

Senator Ivennedy. Let me ask you something, Mr. Carroll. Are 
you advising them in any way to take the fifth amendment because 
of a question of motivation, because they may not like the looks of 
the committee or the members of the committee, or are you advising 
them because of your knowledge of the case, that they could incrimi- 
nate themselves ? What is it ? 

Mr. Carroll. First of all, I don't advise them to do it or not to do 
it. I can't do that. I have not, and I will not do it. I advise them 
in respect to each question that is asked, and prior discussions as to 
potential questions; that is, whether or not a truthful answer would 
provide evidence of some offense against them. 

On that basis, I tell them whether or not, as to any question, they 
can exercise their fifth amendment privilege. The decision whether 
to do it and their reasons for wanting to do it are within their own 
minds entirely. 

Senator Kennedy. That is fine. I just want to get your own posi- 
tion clear on it, because, as I say, I think that now that this matter 
has been brought to your attention, I would think, in order to main- 
tain your own position in the bar as a responsible attorney, you would 
have to review your own jiosition when this particular investigation 
may be finished. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation, and I do 
not want to belabor this thing: In my view there can be no moral 
or legal justification for taking union dues money to defend officers 
of the union who misappropriate money belonging to the union 
members. 

There is no moral standard on earth that is recognized by civiliza- 
tion, and by any canon of ethics that would tolerate such activity or 
such acts. 

It would be like a case of a bank down here, where a banker steals 
$100,000 or $25,000, and then the bank pays his attorney to defend 
him on a charge. There is not a bit of difference on earth in the 
principle, and there is no one that can justify either the legality or 
morality of such action. 

Senator Kennedy. I have one more question. 

]\Ir. Carroll, if you became convinced that $25,000 had been mis- 
appropriated as a result of this hearing or any other information 
brought to your attention, what do you conceive your legal obliga- 
tions to be and your ethical obligations to the union membership? 
Do you feel that you should disclose it to the union membership? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10507 

Mr. Cakroll. Senator, that question, I must say, is unresolved in 
my own mind. However, it was discussed with the committee on 
professional guidance, and I will now read you the very last 
paragraph. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you read it once ? 

Mr. Carroll. No. 

Senator Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Carroll (reading) : 

While the attorney at this state of the proceedings is free to, and indeed 
must, presume his clients innocent, recent experience indicates that evidence 
before the committee may show improper actions on the part of the oflScers of 
a union. 

Such evidence may give rise to an actual conflict of interests between the 
union and its officers. In such event, if counsel have received confidential dis- 
closures from the officers relating to their alleged misconduct, counsel would 
not be free to continue to represent parties on both sides of such an actual 
conflict and would then be obliged to make an election between them. 

Should this situation come to pass, it is the opinion of this committee that 
counsel would be obliged to forgo representation of the union, while they might 
properly continue to represent its officers. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, that is a very important paragraph. Can 
you hand up a copy of that ? 

Do you feel the situation described there has come about? 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir. 

(A document was handed to Senator Kennedy.) 

Senator Kennedy. This matter has been of some interest to me, Mr. 
Chairman. 

This is the last paragraph : 

While the attorney at this stage of the proceedings is free to, and indeed must, 
presume his clients innocent * * *. Such evidence * * *. 

And then it says — 

recent experience indicates that evidence before the committee may show im- 
proper actions on the part of the union. 

Such evidence may give rise to an actual conflict of interests between the 
union and its officers. In such event, if counsel have received confidential dis- 
closures from the officers relating to their alleged misconduct, counsel would not 
be free to continue to represent both parties. 

Your point is that you have not received confidential disclosures 
from any of the officers ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Carroll. None of the circumstances, in my judgment, Senator, 
described in that paragraph, on which we would be obliged to make 
the election, have come to pass. 

Senator Kennedy. The reason I think it has not come to pass is 
because it states that the conflict of interest would come about only if 
you received confidential disclosures from the officers relating to their 
alleged misconduct. 

In other words, Mr. Den worth 

Mr. Carroll. That certainly has not happened. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, Mr. Denworth and this group do 
not feel that a conflict of interest arises in any case, I would gather 
from the way they describe it, except when you have received confi- 
dential information. Now, the question I have relates to when the 
information becomes a matter of public record. 

Even though you have an obligation to your clients in this case, it 
seems to me that Mr. Denworth and his group should consider this 

21243— 58— pt. 27 9 



10508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

question which I think is arising now, when the matter becomes a 
matter of public record, and not the question of confidential disclosures, 
which I would think rarely if ever would happen. 

AVhen this becomes a matter of public record of a misappropriation 
or stealing of $25,000, which is Avhat I think we have in this case, it 
seems to me that the counsel then who is a competent and responsible 
individual, and is assumed to be if he is a member of the bar, should 
be able to make a judgment then that the people he is representing 
are people who either took money or misappropriated it from the 
members of the union who are paying his salary. 

Now, you are not representing these people, and it seems to me, Mr. 
Carroll, that it would be proper for you, when this information be- 
comes such information that an ordinary individual could make an 
assessment of it, that you should then represent them and have them 
pay you and not be paid by the un ion. That is my point. 

Mr. Carkoll. What you are saying is that quite apart from confi- 
dential disclosure, if the public evidence overcomes the presmnption 
of innocence on that score, then the same situation would result. I 
agree. 

Senator Kennedy. In your opinion, I may ask you, and you don't 
have to answer, but in your opinion so far does the presumption of in- 
nocence still stand, even though in every case they have taken the 
fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Carroll. That is quite correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we have had testimony regarding alterations 
in the amounts of money received, that is true even where there are 
forgeries ? 

Mr. Carroll. Whether they may be chai-acterized as forgeries, I 
don't know but I can argue with you about the evidence. 

Senator Kennedy. It was the FBI lab report which shows the 
forgeries, and it wasn't this committee's staff. 

Mr. Carroll. The FBI expert testified as to the alterations in fig- 
ures, as I recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. And to forgeries ? 

Mr. Carroll. You mean on checks to Dave Canter and Mr. Katz ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Carroll. I am fully aware of that. 

Mr. KENNi<y)Y. Would you give us the explanation on the altera- 
tions in the figures ? 

Mr. Carroll. That is information which I have received in the 
course of my i-epresentation, and I am not free to disclose it. 

Senator Kennedy. It is not the kind of inforaiation, or it is not a 
confidential disclosure of the kind Mr. Den worth has talked about? 

Mr. Carroll. No, because it is not a disclosure of the type that 
Avould lead to a conflict. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVlien we ask the people about these alterations, they 
refused to answer the questions on the ground that a truthful answer 
might tend to incriminate them. If they are telling the truth, they 
have some incriminating background or some information that would 
incriminate them, 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Kennedy, you apparently have a different view 
about the fifth amendment than mine. Innocent men have as much 
right to plead the fifth amendment as jieople Avho are guilty. There 
is some evidence against the innocent. 



iJ^lPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10509 

Senator Kennedy. I will say, however, it is my experience, _ Mr. 
Carroll, that while that is certainly true that they have that right, 
never have we had a case where every officer involved, and every wit- 
ness takes the fifth amendment. I thinly that if you went ahead and 
presumed that all of them are innocent, I think that that would be 
a. presumj^tion which would strain my credulity, if not your own. 

Mr. Carroll. It may be depending upon what future evidence 
develops. 

Senator Kennedy. As I say, I hope Mr. Denworth and his group, 
and I have a high regard for the group, I hope they will go into this. 
It seems to me that there would be nothing improper about you repre- 
senting them if they paid your fee, and the question is whether the 
union should pay you or they should pay you. My own feeling is 
that they should ])ay you where you have a case involving so much 
money and so many officers and a case of fifth amendment, instead of 
everything the union members pay you, and that I am very convinced 
about. 

I am ho]:)eful that the Bar Association of Philadelphia Avill examine 
this and other matters that have come before our connnittee for a year, 
because the State bar associations, as you know, have not moved 
with very much vigor in this area to clarify the responsibility of 
attorneys. 

I am glad that you went to them in the first place, and I am hopeful 
that they will look the matter over again, and you will, also. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for Mr. Grafl'. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Graff, you may be excused. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Paul Hegh. 

The Chairman. Do you 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 ? 

Mr. Hegh. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL HEGH, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ, COUNSEL 

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

Mr. Carroll. May I remind you, in case you have forgotten from 
last week, this gentleman is hard of hearing. 

The Chairman. Can you hear me ? 

Mr. Hegh. Sir? 

The Chairman. Can you hear me now ? 

Mr. Hegh. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Hegh. Paul Hegh, 5018 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, truckdriver. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Hegh, you have been in local 107 for how long? 

Mr. Hegh. Approximately 10 to 12 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Colien in his campaign for 
election as secretarv-treasurer ? 



10510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hegii. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennt^dy. Since you supported Mr. Cohen in his campaign for 
secretary-treasurer, have you received cash from local 107? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, your name appears on this list as receiving 
some cash from local 107. 

Mr. Carroll. Have we lost a quorum ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any of that money ? 

Senator Kennedy. Senator McClellan will be right back. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is here. Go ahead and answer the question. 

Mr. Carroll. Would you repeat the question ? 

Senator Kennedy. Wliile you are waiting, do you have the whole 
memorandum from Mr. Den worth? I want to put it in the record. 

Mr. Carroll. I handed you the entire thing, and I handed the 
stenographer the memorandum which we sent to them. 

Senator I^jennedy. Without objection, that will be made an exhibit, 
exhibit 9. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 9" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive this $200 from tliis list in 1954? 
Did you recei ve the $200 ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hegii. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. You were interviewed by a member of the staff of 
the committee and you said you did not receive that money, isn't 
that correct ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you in fact receive any of this $200 ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. "VVTiy did you tell the staff investigator that you had 
received none of the money and now refuse to answer any questions 
about it ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it because of Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hegh. It is not because of Cohen or anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why are you changing your testimony, your state- 
ment? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10511 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself imder the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to retain Mr. Carroll as your 
attorney ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HioH. Through meeting him at the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you call him up? 

Mr. Hegh. I don't remember whether I called him myself or not. I 
have talked to him quite a few times. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first talk to him about this matter? 

Mr. Hegh. That I don't remember. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. At the union headquarters ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hegh. I forget. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember ? 

Mr. Carroll. So do I, frankly. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are down here on another list as receiving money. 
Did you receive the rest of this money from the union ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Do you regard anything you did in connection with 
this money as being dishonest ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Are you an honest man ? 

Mr. Hegh. Yes, sir 

The Chairman. Will you tell us now whether you received the 
money or not ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truthful 
answer you would be giving evidence against yourself ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you gave a truth- 
ful answer to the question regarding the money, that you would be 
giving evidence against yourself ? 

Mr. Hegh. There might be some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. If you did nothing wrong, how could it be evidence 
against you ? 

Mr. Hegh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Don't you really think you would be giving evidence 
for yourself, if there is nothing wrong about it, not against yourself ? 

Mr. Hegh. I stated my reason. 

The Chairman. Any other questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 



10512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

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

(Whereupon, at 12 : 03 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the 
same day, with the following members present at the taking of the 
recess : Senators McClellan and Kennedy. ) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the committee, the following members were 
present : SeJiators McClellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. The connnittee will come to order. 

Charles O'Lear, come forward. You do solemnly swear the evi- 
dence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help vou God? 

Mr. O'Lear. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES O'LEAE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. O'Lear. My name is Charles O'Lear. I live at 9975 Wisteria 
Street, Philadelphia. I am business agent for local 107. 

The Chairman. You are what in 107 ^ 

Mr. O'Lear. A business agent in 107. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Ivennedy. How long have vou been a business agent, Mr. 
O'Lear? 

Mr. O'Lear. Approximately 3i^ years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were appointed by Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time, the business agents were elected 
by local 107 ? 
* Mr. O'Lear. I was a truck driver prior to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were the business agents elected by 107 prior to 
the time of your appointment ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. 0'Le^\r. Not that I know of . 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any of the business agents elected prior to 
1954, when Mr. Cohen became secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. O'Lear. I couldn't say for sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know about the business agent that repre- 
sented you at that time in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. O'Lear. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. A^^iat? 

Mr. O'Lear. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he elected or appointed ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I believe he was elected. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then how was the system changed to appoint the 
business agents rather than elect them ? 

Mr. O'Lear. That is something I couldn't answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his election? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10513 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Would you consider it a reflection upon you if you did support him ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. To answer that question might provide some evidence 
against me. 

The Chairman. You are very apprehensive that you might say 
something that would be self -incriminating? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I don't want to say anything that might be evidence 
against me. 

The Chairman. Would you like to say something that would be 
evidence for you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I don't care to answer the question. 

The Chairman. Can you say anything that would be evidence for 
you? 

(The witness conferred with is counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. Certainly, I could. 

The Chairman. Will you ? 

(The witness conferred with is counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I think if you would just ask me the questions, prob- 
ably I can answer them. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his 
election ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have the right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered that 
question, you would be giving evidence against yourself ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I might. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any funds in cash from Mr. Cohen 
since you supported him for his election in 1954 ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any union funds for supporting 
Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you some questions about some 
union funds. I would like to ask you whether you are paying the 
attorneys that are with you ? 

Mr. O'Lear. The union is paying the attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those attorneys are being paid out of union funds ; 
is that right ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. O'Lear. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received in cash from Mr. Cohen any 
moneys since May of 1054 ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have found Mr. O'Lear's name 
on this list that was examined by the FBI, and found that the sum 
of money opposite his name on page 3 " 
$150 to $600. 



10514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I will ask the clerk to present to the witness the 
exhibit containing the information that counsel has just referred to. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. The witness will examine the document. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. That is exhibit No. 5. 

Do you find your name typewritten on that document ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I have examined it. 

The Chairman. Do you find your name typewritten on the docu- 
ment? 

Mr. O'Lear. Yes. 

The Chairman. You can answer that "Yes" or "No." It is right 
before your nose. 

Mr. Carroll. He did, sir. 

Mr. O'Lear. I did say yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Is that your signature 
that appears immediately after you name ? 

Mr, O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. You don't want to acknowledge your own signa- 
ture? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. Is it embarrassing to you now ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I refuse to answer the question. 

The Chairman. I order and direct you to answer it. 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Did you get that money ? 

Mr. OTiEAR. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was raised from $150 to $600, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That would be $450 increase. Did you get the 
$150 or the $600? 

Mr. O'Lear. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. Do you think the union members, who thai money 
belonged to, had no right to inquire of you whether you got the $150 
or the $450, sir? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I think this is a question that the union members have 
a right to inquire. 

The Chairman. I think it is also a question that Congress has a 
right to inquire into so we will know how to legislate, how to pass 
legislation to prohibit crooks from robbing union members; don't 
you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, O'Lear. The Congi-ess has a right to ask, but I also have a con- 
stitutional right not to answer. 

The Chairman. You have a constitutional right not to help your 
country to get information upon which to predicate legislation that 
will keep crooks from stealing from honest working people ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I have explained my position. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10515 

The Chairman. And that is your position ? 

Mr. O'Lear. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did you raise those figures ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. If you got that $450, do you regard yourself as 
having stolen it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Do you think if you answered that question truth- 
fully, that it might give evidence against you, might tend to incrimi- 
nate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. It might be. 

The Chairman. I agree with you. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. O'Lear. Certainly, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him? 

Mr. O'Lear. For about 15 or 20 years. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you discuss your testimony before the com- 
mittee with Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his coimsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss these sums of money that are in- 
volved in this document where you are listed as having received 
$600? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I beg your pardon. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did he suggest that you take the fifth amendment 
on this matter ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would think that the witness 
could answer that question. 

The Chairman. The witness can answer it. 

Mr. Carroll. He can answer it. Would you repeat it for him? 

The Chairman. Did he suggest that you take the fifth amendment 
when you came down here on these questions? 

Mr. O'Lear. Do you mean Mr. Cohen ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy do you have to turn to your attorney to find 
'Out whether he suggested that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to order you to answer one way 
or the other now. 

Mr. O'Lear. No ; we did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussion about taking the fifth 
amendment? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. Yes ; we did. 



10516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you indicate to liim at that time or did you 
discuss at that time the makeup of this list, and the fact that tlie sum 
of money had been raised from $150 to $600 ^ 

Mr. O'Lear. I refuse to ansAver that question on the grounds that it 
might be held against me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you discuss what your answer would be when 
you were asked that by the committee ? 

Mr. O'Lear. The same answer on that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that the union members would be inter- 
ested in having you answer these questions before the committee, as a 
business agent of that local ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I think that would be up to the membership in general 
to ask me that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you feel that they are entitled to have you 
answer those questions under oath before the committee regarding the 
use of union funds'? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll, Do I understand that the question is the members' 
feeling about his answers before the committee ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I said does he not think that the membership is en- 
titled to have him answer under oath these questions regarding the 
misuse of union funds. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. In answer to that question, Senator, I think that it 
would be up to the membership as a whole to ask me those questions. 

Mr. ICennedy. Don't you think that they are entitled now, when you 
appear before this committee as an officer of that local, that they are 
entitled to have you answer the questions that are put to you by this 
committee about the use of their money ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I don't know that answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know whether they are entitled to that or 
not? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to give you one more warning. 
I am not going to tolerate these long, lengthy conferences after each 
question. You can either tell them to take the fifth amendment or tell 
them to answer. 

Mr. Carroll. If it were that easy, it would not take as long. 

The Chairman. I am not going to sit here all afternoon and wait on 
conferences. 

Mr. Carroll. Could we have the question again, please? 

The Chairman. Ask the question again. Read the question. 

(The pending question, as requested, was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. Let us have your answer. 

Mr. O'Lear. I don't think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not think that they are entitled to have you 
answer these questions ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I think it is all right to answer the general member- 
ship, in general, for any actions. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10517 

Mr. Kennedy. As a Teamster official, do you feel that the member- 
ship is entitled to have you answer the questions before this committee 
regarding the use of union funds ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. He can answer that question. That is not a legal 
question, Mr. Attorney. 

Mr. Carroll. I agree it is not a legal question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairivian. I am going to order you to answer and to answer 
promptly. 

(Witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I will answer to the membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, answer the question, please. 

Do you feel, as a Teamster official, that the membership is entitled 
to hear from you, to have you answer the questions before this commit- 
tee on the use of union funds ? 

Mr. O'Lear. No. 

Mr. Kjennedy. You do not feel that the membership is entitled to 
that? 

Mr. O'Lear. I do not. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to ask you this question : Don't you feel 
that when a man assumes an office in the union like you have assumed 
it, don't you think the members of your union have a right to expect 
their officers to demean themselves in such an honest and legal way 
that they will not find it necessary to invoke the fifth amendment when 
they are called on to give an account of their official action ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. We account to the general membership for all of our 
actions. 

Senator Ervin. Don't you think that the members of the unions 
have a right to expect their officers to so conduct their official duties as 
officers of the union that they will not feel it necessary to invoke the 
fifth amendment when they are called upon to answer questions put 
to them by the representatives of the American Congress ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I don't feel that way at all. 

Senator Erv^n. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Benjamin Lapensohn ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness against 
myself, under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received money from Benjamin Lapen- 
sohn ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself, under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason, as a business agent of the local, 
would you be receiving money from Benjamin Lapensohn? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself, under tlie fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here are three checks, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I present to you 3 checks payable to you in the 
amount of $400, $400, and $100, given by Benjamin Lapensohn. One 
is dated March 27, 1956, and one is December 6, 1955, and one is 
September -30, I believe it is, 1956. I ask you to examine these 
photostatic copies of the checks and state if you identify them. 



10518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

^Documents were handed to the witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I have examined them. 

The Chairman. Do you identify the checks? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself, under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Let the checks be made exhibits Nos. 10 A, B, 
and C. 

(Documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 10, A, B and C 
and will be found in the appendix on pp. 10808-10810.) 

The Chairman. Let me have those checks a moment, please. 

Look at the endorsement on the back of them before they are 
returned to me. 

(The witness examined the documents.) 

Mr. Carroll. I think the record should show that one of the three 
bears no endorsement. 

The Chairman. All right, they will speak for themselves. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The CHAmMAN. Let me have that check, please. 

I notice on this check I have in my hand, dated December 6, 1955, 
an endorsement on the back of it, "Charles O'Lear." Is that your 
signature ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself, under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right 

The CHAreMAN. I observe the same thing with reference to the check 
in the amount of $100 dated September 30, apparently 1956. Is that 
your signature ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself mider the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Do you think that it might incriminate you if you 
admitted the truthfulness of your signature, your endorsement on these 
checks ? 

Mr. O'Lear. There might be some evidence. 

The Chairman. You have some serious apprehensions about it, I 
assume. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. There might be some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat has been your relationship with Benjamin 
Lapensohn ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his position around the union ? 

( Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Would you like to exercise the right to be a wit- 
ness for yourself, instead of against yourself, and by telling the truth 
possibly remove any cloud of suspicion that is cast upon you by reason 
for these circumstances that are now before the committee? 

Mr. O'Lear. I would rather exercise my rights. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10519 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you set up a special bank account, did you not, 
you, Mr. O'Lear, and Mr. Battisfore set up a special bank account to 
finance the election of Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the money to place in that bank 
account ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you contribute to that cam- 
paign ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you reimbursed for the money that you con- 
tributed? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that reimbursement come out of the union 
treasury? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was any of the money that was used to finance 
the campaign of Mr. Cohen come from the criminal elements in 
Philadelphia? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here a check dated March 26, 1954, pay to 
the order of cash, for $1,000. What was that for ? 

Mr. Carroll. May we see it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is April 2 for $1,000 payable to cash, and $500 
April 9, 1954, payable to cash, and $500 April 1954 for cash, and May 
14, 1954, $400 for cash, and May 27, 1954, for cash, $1,128.87. 

The Chairman. I present you here 6 checks that counsel has iden- 
tified, and ask you to examine them and state if you identify them and 
also examine, on 4 of them, the endorsement, "Charles O'Lear" on 
the reverse side of the checks. 

There are 4 of them apparently which have your endorsement, and 
the other 2 do not. I ask you to examine those checks, and state if 
you identify them, particularly the 4 which you endorsed and appar- 
ently received the money for. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Carroll. What is your question ? 

The Chairman. Have you examined the checks ? 

Mr. O'Lear. Yes ; I have. 

The Chairman. Do you identify them. 

Mr. O'Lear. I refuse to answer that question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. State your reason. 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fiftli amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Did yon endorse four of those checks and get the 
money for them ? 



10520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. O'LEi'iR. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Do you deny that that is your signature, or your 
endorsement ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The CiiAiRMAX. PTave you ever paid that money back to the union? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. These checks may be made exhibits 11-A, B, and 
C, and so forth. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 11, 11-A 
through 11-E, for reference, and may be found in the files of the 
select committee. ) 

INIr. Kennedy. Would you tell us where this money came from, for 
Mr. Cohen's campaign ? 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

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

The Chairman. "V^Tiat was there so crooked about that election that 
you can't tell the truth about it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Can you tell us ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Can you tell us ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Can you tell us ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. O'Lear. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself mider the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions. Senator ? 

Senator Ervin. No. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Feduniue. 

The Chairman. 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. Feduniue. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN FEDUNIUE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Feduniue. John Feduniue, 1846 East Memphis Street, Phila- 
delphia, Pa., truckdriver. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a member of local 107, Mr. 
Feduniue ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I have been a member for approximately 16 or 17 
years. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10521 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a truckdriver at the present time? You 
are not employed by the union ? 

Mr. Feduniue. No, I am not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in the election ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I 
am not required to give evidence against myself imder the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us what is so crooked about that out- 
fit up there that you can't talk about it? I would like to know. I 
think it is a little bit intrguing. What is it that is so crooked about 
that thing that none of you can talk about it ? 

Mr. Feduniue, I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I 
am not required to give evidence against mj^self . 

The Chairman. Do you know ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. Do you know what is wrong with it, but just 
wouldn't tell us? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

The Chairman. "\Yliat reason? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer on the grounds that I am not 
required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Are we to imply from that you are involved in the 
crookedness and that is the reason you can't talk ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Feduniue, your name appears on this list as 
an individual receiving $400. When our staff investigators inter- 
viewed you initially, you stated that you had not received that money. 

Do you remember that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr, Kennedy. This is in connection with union funds. Did you 
or did you not receive the $400 ? 

Mr. Feduniue, I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fi|th 
am-endment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, once again we are getting into the 
misuse of union funds. This witness is taking the fifth amendment 
and refusing to answer questions on the ground it might tend to in- 
criminate him. 

I would like to ask him whether he is paying the attorneys that are 
with him. 

Mr. Feduniue. I haven't received a bill as yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you expect to pay them? 

Mr. Feduniue. I don't think so. 

I hope not. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you understand it is being paid by the union ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes. 



10522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. How was it arranged for you to secure these at- 
torneys ? 

(The witness confen-ed with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You can answer that. How was it arranged? 

Mr. Feduniue. Well, I don't remember. I would like to talk to my 
attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what? 

Mr. Feduniue. I say I don't remember. I would like to talk to 
my attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can remember that. It is only in the last 3 
weeks. How did you arrange to get these attorneys. Did you call 
Bomeone up in the union ? 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is not a legal ques- 
tion, and there is no occasion for the witness to consult his counsel. 
It is purely a question of fact. 

The Chairman. The Chair is not going to warrant this any further. 
The next time this thing goes too far, counsel will be excused. 

Mr. Carroll. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that this doesn't 
require legal advice, but the witness was simply saying he can't re- 
member and was asking for help to refresh his recollection. 

Senator Ervin. The thing that puzzles me is if he can't rember 
the arrangement by which he retained counsel, how does he know they 
are his counsel ? 

Mr. Carroll. Perhaps I can help you on that. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to get the evidence from the witness, 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you first come to retain these counsel? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. Through the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. And through whom in the union? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You can tell. 

Mr. Feduniue. I am trying to think. I will give you an honest 
answer. I am trying to think. 

The Chairman. Well, try to think. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You never retained them at all, did you? The 
union retained them for you. Isn't that the truth? You said you 
would give an honest answer. Isn't that the truth? 

Mr. Feduniue. Possibly. 

The Chairman. Well, is it ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes. 

The Chairman. Fine. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you feel that the union members are entitled 
to know all the facts surrounding their money, the union dues ? Don't 
you feel that? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes, I feel they are entitled to know what is being 
done with their money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you feel, therefore, that you should give them 
the benefit of the information that you have in connection with this 
$400 payment that you are alleged to have received ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. These expenditures are explained at our regular 
union meetings to the satisfaction of the members. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10523 

Mr. Kennedy. But don't you feel that the union members are en- 
titled to have you answer these questions under oath before this com.- 
mittee regarding this $400 ? 

Mr. Fedunitje. As I say, it has been explained to the members to 
their satisfaction. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under oath, that is what I am talking about, under 
oath, don't you think they are entitled to have an explanation of the 
use of their moneys, under oath, before a congressional committee? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. Our members didn't ask for me to answer these 
questions under oath. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, but do you feel that they are entitled to that? 
I am asking you as a teamster member. I just want to try to find out 
about the teamsters. Do you think the teamster members are entitled 
to have an explanation of the use of their money when a witness appears 
under oath before a committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. Like I say, the explanation had been brought up on 
the floor at the regular meetings to the satisfaction of the members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. Do you think they are 
entitled to an explanation under oath before a committee or a law 
enforcement agency as to the use of union funds, or the misuse of union 
funds? 

Mr. Feduniue. If they ask for it, I think they are entitled to it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about when a congressional committee asks for 
the information ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not a legal question. I am trying to find out 
what you think about it. 

Mr. Carroll. He doesn't understand your question, Mr. Kennedy. 

(The witness considered with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The question is, and there is no use quibbling about 
it: Do you think union members are entitled to have you and others 
who know about it state under oath what has been done with their 
money ? It is that simple. 

Mr. Feduniue. The members haven't asked us to state under oath 
anything. 

The Chairman. Well, we are asking you to state under oath, and 
that is the Congress of the United States. 

What is your answer ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chahiman. You think you would give some testimony against 
you if you answered that truthfully ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Maybe, 

The Chairman. Are you sure ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Not quite. 

The Chairman. Let me hand you something and see if you know 
your own signature. I hand you exhibit 5 in the testimony here and 
ask you to look on a line at about a third of the page, and see if you 
find where John Feduniue is written out in typewriting. 
(The document was handed to the witness.) 

21243— 58— pt. 27 10 



10524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I see this, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you see it ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. Do you see any writing following it ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. What does it say ? 

Mr. Feduniue. $400. 

The Chairman. What else does it say ? 

Whose signature is that between the typwritten John Feduniue and 
the $400? 

Mr, Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

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

Mr. Feduniue. I see it. 

The Chairman. You know what it is, don't you? 

JVIi*. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question. 

The Chairman. You refuse to admit you know your own signature ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question. 

The Chairman. On what ground ? 

Mr. Feduniue. On the ground I am not required to give evidence 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Don't you think that that signature gives a lot of 
evidence within itself ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. How about the $400 ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself. 

The Chairman. Did you get that money ? 

^Ir. Feduniue. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

The Chairman. You are going to be a little more respectful and 
state your reason in full. You are not going to refuse to answer with- 
out getting an order to direct you to answer. Do you understand ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes ; I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. Did you get that $400 ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Did you tell an investigator of this committee that? 
you didn't get it ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question under the same. 

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

The Chairman. Did you ever explain this $400 to the union mem- 
bers? Did you ever personally tell them that you got it or didn't 
get it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You said they were entitled to know. Did you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I was never asked to explain it. 

The Chairman. Well, you are being asked now. Will you explain 
it for them now, so it will be a matter of permanent record ? 

So that he who is interested may find out ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10525 

Mr. Feduniue. I refuse to answer the question on the ground tliat 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Is there anything in the charter or the bylaws of 
local 1U7 which authorized the use of their funds to defray counsel 
fees, for comisel who advise witnesses of their right to plead the 
fifth amendment in an inquiry where an effort is being made to see 
what has happened to the funds of the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I would like to answer that question this way : It 
was brought up in a regular meeting, it was voted by the general 
membership, that we were alloAved to hire counsel and use union 
funds. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you have a meeting of the local 
union which authorizes the use of union funds to pay legal fees of 
counsel retained for the purpose of preventing a disclosure of what 
had been done by the officers of the local with their funds in times 
past ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I said that it was brought up in a regular meeting. 
It was one of the things that was brought up. It was voted on and 
passed by the general membership that we were allowed and entitled 
to get counsel with the union funds. 

Senator Ervin. And was it explained to the membership there at 
the meeting tliat the purpose of using the funds for that purpose was 
to keep the congressional committee from finding out what the officers 
of the union had theretofore been doing with the union funds ? 

Mr. Carroll.. Judge Ervin, I think that question is really addressed 
to counsel. 

Senator Ervin. No, it is not. I am asking him what happened at 
the meeting, what was explained to him. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, but you know counsel are never retained for that 
purpose. We are retained to advise the witness only. 

Senator Ervin. You are retained, apparently, to advise these wit- 
nesses to plead the fifth amendment when they are asked about deal- 
ings with the funds of the union. 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. It seems a queer thing to me. I can't see any otlier 
service that you are rendering to them. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, in your absence this morning, we discussed 
this question, Senator McClellan, Senator Kennedy, and Mr. Kennedy, 
and I then explained our position. We are not, and I want the record 
to show this clearly, retained for the purpose of preventing testimony 
or any such thing, but only for the purpose of advising each of these 
individuals as to his rights with respect to testimonial privilege. 

Senator Ervin. You are advising them of their right under the fifth 
amendment to plead the fifth amendment when they are asked about 
their dealings with union funds, and according to the statement you 
are to be compensated out of other union funds for that service. 

Mr. Carroll. You misunderstood me, sir, I think. My statement 
was that we are retained for the purpose of advising the members 



10526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

whether or not as to given questions they do have such a right to 
refuse. 

We have not, do not, and will not, advise them to exercise the right 
or not to exercise the right. That decision is entirely theirs. 

Senator Ervin. Undoubtedly, in this investigation the object is to 
find out what has been done with union funds. Witness after witness 
that comes here, when inquiry is made about that, declines to answer 
about what has happened to union funds, how they have been used, and 
the witnesses evidently have been advised by counsel, who are to be 
compensated out of other union funds, that they have a right to refuse 
to make such divulgence if it tends to incriminate them, which, of 
course, is true. But it is, to my mind, a rather queer use for union 
funds to be put to. 

Mr. Carroll. I think he explained that that was approved by the 
membei*ship, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Not of this witness. 

The Chairman. Stand aside. 

Call the next one. 

Senator Ervin. One other question. How many people were pres- 
ent at that meeting that approved this expenditure of funds to furnish 
counsel to any witnesses that were summoned for membership in the 
union to testify about this matter ? 

Mr. Feduniue. The exact matter I don't know. It is a general and 
open meeting for all members. We all have the opportunity to par- 
ticipate. 

Senator Erven. You were there ; weren't you? Were you there? 

Mr. Feduniue. Yes ; I was. 

Senator Ervin. I know you didn't count how many were there, but 
how many would you estimate were there ? 

Mr. Feduniue. Well, I know it was a full house. The capacity of 
the hall, I couldn't tell you. I couldn't begin to estimate. 

Senator Ervin. Do you mean to tell me you couldn't tell whether it 
was 10 or 10,000? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. You have some idea how many were there. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. I am told this meeting was held at the Met, Senator. 
It holds a couple thousand people if it was a full house. 

Senator Ervin. Does he want to tell me there was 2,000 people there ? 
That is what I am getting at. 

Mr. Feduniue. I would say about 2,000. 

Senator Ervin. How many members do you have in local 107 ? 

Mr. Feduniue. 11,000. 

Senator Ervin. Who made the motion that the funds be used for 
this purpose ? 

Mr. Feduniue. It was one of the members. His name I can't recall, 
one of the regular members. 

Senator Ervin. Was Raymond Cohen there ? 

Mr. Feduniue. He attends all meetings. 

Senator Ervin. Who presided over this meeting? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. Joe Grace. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10527 

Senator Ervin-. "Who? 

Mr. Feduniue. Joe Grace, the president. 

Senator EmrEN. The president of the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. He will be a witness. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Did they authorize the payment of the attorney fees 
for witnesses who did not take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Carroll. You know yesterday, Senator, we had one such. 

The Chairman. I didn't ask you. 

Mr. Feduniue. They authorized the payment of the attorneys. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they undei^tand that you very possibly might 
take the fi f th amendment ? Was that discussed ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I don't think they had any way at all of knowing — 
I don't think they had any way to know what was going to happen. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the important thing. I think it is under- 
standable if the union wants to furnish the attorneys to come down 
here and assist a congressional committee in establishing facts. But 
this is a situation where union officials and other union members are 
being asked to testify on the misuse of union funds. Was it explained 
to the membership that they were going to be asked questions about 
the misuse of union funds, about the purchase of yachts by Mr. Cohen, 
and the misuse or theft of money by other union officials, and that they 
would plead the fifth amendment ? 

Was it explained to the membership? Was that all explained to 
the membership ? 

Mr. Feduniue. I think it was common knowledge. It was in the 
newspapers. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think if that was explained to the membership, 
and they approved of it, it shows the degree of fear that exists in 
local 107, and the members of local 107, that they would approve of 
such a thing. 

Mr. Feduniue. I didn't say it was explained to the membership. 
I said it was common knowledge. The members evidently knew of it. 
It was in the papers. 

Mr. Ervin. Was it explained in that meeting by anyone before they 
voted on this motion, that any witness who was willing to go down 
and make a full and complete statement of any matters that he had 
knowledge of, didn't need a lawyer ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Feduniue. I can't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. There has to be an obvious conflict of interest, de- 
spite what the group in Philadelphia said. The membership are 
entitled to know about the use of union funds. That position has been 
supported by the code of ethical practices of the AFL-CIO. Wlien 
the attorney is being paid out of the union, funds, that they are en- 
titled to know. 

It is also the right of a witness appearing before a congressional 
committee to refuse to testify. They have that right. 

But there is obviously a conflict between the right of the witness 
before the committee and the right of the union membership to know, 



10528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and the union menibersliip has the paramount right, because they are 
paying the bill. That is all. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I made a statement this morning 
about a situation that took place at a membership meeting in Phila- 
delphia on Sunday, March IG. I would like to call the staff investi- 
gator who interviewed a member of local 107 who attended the meet- 
ing, and have him testify as to what this member of local 107 said. 

"\Ve will furnish to the members of the committee in executive session 
the name of the witness. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I have. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN FLANAGAN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Flanagan, you interviewed a number of differ- 
ent members of local 107 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially, the truckdrivers, the ordinary members, 
were cooperating with the committee, a large number of them, or a 
number of them ? 

Mr. Flanagan. A number of them were cooperating. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were answering questions ? 

Mr. Flanagan. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did a number of them describe to you that Mr. Cohen 
had a stranglehold over the membership of local 107, he and the people 
that he appointed as business agents ? 

Mr. Flanagan. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did they also say that these ones that he had 
appointed as organizers had instilled a sense of fear in the member- 
ship of local 107? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that even when thej^ answered these questions 
initially, that they were in fear ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did one of them give you some information and then 
at a later time come back and tell you of a membership meeting that 
had occurred in local 107 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee, without mention- 
ing the man's name, and you are now testifying under oath, what this 
man told you as to what had transpired at the membership meeting ? 

Mr. Flanagan. He told me that he had attended a meeting of the 
membership of local 107, which was held at Moose Hall, 1314 North 
Broad Street, Philadelphia, on Sunday, March 16, 1958. At that meet- 
ing, Mr. Cohen announced that the union — I am sorry. At that meet- 
ing, Mr. Cohen told the membership that he would "fix" the guys who 
went against him. 

The member said that he took this to mean that those members of 
local 107 who testified against Cohen at hearings before this select 
committee would either meet with physical violence, lose their jobs, 
or both. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10529 

Mr. Kennedy. That was one point. Was there any statement made 
about the members of local 107 who came down to testify as far as 
monetary compensation was concerned ? 

Mr, Flanagan. Yes. At that same meeting, Mr. Cohen announced 
that the union would make up the losses of pay that the men would 
suffer by appearing before this committee; that he would pay the 
difference between what tliey would have earned on their jobs and the 
witness' fee they would receive for appearing before this committee. 

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

The Chairman. The name of your informant will be supplied in 
executive session. I don't want to make it known here, because I have 
no doubt that he would get fixed if they found out who did it. All 
right. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sam Doman, Sr. 

The Chairman. 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. Doman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL DOMAN, SR., ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Doman. Samuel Doman, 1302 Cadwalader Street, Philadelphia. 
I am employed as a truckdriver for Lancaster Transportation Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Lancaster Transportation Co. ? 

Mr. Doman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a member of local 107 ? 

Mr. Doman. Since 1933. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Eaymond Cohen in his election 
bid as secretary-treasurer? 

Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any money from Mr. Cohen since 
he was made secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't you like to cooperate and help this com- 
mittee in getting this information, Mr. Doman ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doman. That is a question I refuse to cooperate on, on the 
grounds that it is liable to be— on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any union funds from Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer on the same reasons as before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you paying your attorneys ? 

Mr. Doman. The local. 



10530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The local secured the attorneys for you ? 

Mr. DoMAN. That is right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Doman, you, in fact, have nothing to hide be- 
fore this committee. There isn't any answer that you could give that 
would incriminate you. You have a good record. There is nothing 
for you to hide. 

Isn't it a fact that you were told by Mr. Cohen's attorneys to ap- 
pear before the committee and take the fifth amendment ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You can answer that yes or no. 

Mr. DoMAN. I wasn't told. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have nothing to hide, Mr. Doman. You have a 
fine record. You have never taken the fifth amendment before. 

Isn't it a fact that you were told by Mr. Cohen's attorney that you 
have to come down here and take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Doman. There may be some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Well, there is some evidence here. Did you get 
$225 ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. The truth is you got $2.25, didn't you ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Are you going to be a party to robbing the union 
here, when they charge you with $225 when you only got $2.25 ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer. 

The Chairman. Then you do ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer for the same reason as before. 

The Chairman. What reason ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself mider the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. I am sorry for you folks that are under such fear 
that you cannot come in here and help clean up your own local by 
telling the truth. 

You got $2.25, and tliey charge here that they gave you $225. I 
don't believe you got $225. What do you say about it ? Did you ? 

Mr. Doman. I refuse to answer on the same as before. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, in view of counsel's suggestion to this 
witness that he was instructed by counsel for the union what to do, 
I should like to reply for Mr. Markowitz and myself that we did 
not 

The Chairman. The witness can reply for himself, and he has. 

All right; you are not a witness. I don't know whether you are 
attorney for the union or not. You are attorney for these folks, and 
the union is paying you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Joseph Grosscup. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. Be sworn. 

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

Mr. Grosscup. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10531 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH GROSSCUP, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGEES CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Grosscup. Joseph Grosscup, 4124 Eeese Street, Philadelpliia, 
truckdriver. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kj:nnedt. Mr. Grosscup, you are also a shop steward ? 

Mr. Grosscup. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you under indictment at the present time? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosscup. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. KENNEDY. For what is that ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. I^NNEDY. What are you under indictment for ? I will not 
go into the matter. 

Mr. Grosscup. Trespassing on private property. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it have anything to do with the union, union 
affairs? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Raymond Cohen in the elec- 
tion? 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any union funds from Mr. Cohen 
af te he was elected secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you paying your attorneys ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosscup. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Kennedy. The union secured your attorneys for you ? 

Mr. Grosscup. Yes ; they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name appears as No. 1 on this list that we 
have been discussing, Joseph Grosscup, as receiving $125. 

Did you receive that $125 ?_ 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there is another list that we have where you 
are supposed to have received $225 as organizing expenses. 

Did you do any organizing for that ? 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 



10532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the money of the union in fact split up, large, 
sums of money of the union split up, amonost you people who had 
supported Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Gkosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a group of you, were there not, that got 
together supporting Mr. Cohen, and then you were paid off with 
union funds after he became secretary-treasurer; isn't that right? 

Mr. Gkosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these sums of money were charged to organ- 
izing expenses and other incidentals ? 

(Witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Benjamin Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he do for the union ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Any other questions ? 

Senator ER\^N. Mr. Grosscup, you recognize that a union has a 
perfect right under the law to expend union fmids for organizational 
expense ; don't you ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Mr. Grosscup. I don't know that law, but if that is the law, it is. 

Senator Ervin. You have no doubt of the fact, do you, that it would 
be perfectly honest and legitimate for a person to receive compensation 
from a union for assisting in organizing union ; don't you ? 

(Witness conferred witTi his counseL) 

Mr. Grosscup. I think it would be. 

Senator Ervin. And, therefore, you realize that if a person honestly 
and legitimately received money, compensation, for organizing ex- 
pense, that his admission of that fact wouldn't tend to incriminate him 
at all; don't you? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Make up your mind and answer it. 

Mr. Grosscup. It is not true. 

Senator Ervin. What is not true ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Make up your mind and answer. 

Mr. Grosscup. It could be evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Sir? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10533 

Mr. Grosscup. It could be evidence against me. 

The Chairman. It could be evidence against you ? Well, if it was 
legitimate, it wouldn't intimidate you, would it ^ 

Mr. Carroll. Did you say intimidate or incriminate ? 

The Chairman. Both. 

Mr. Carroll. In this one question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Grosscup. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. You will agree with me that if it wasn't legitimate, 
then it would incriminate you ; don't you ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. I don't believe you are that dumb. I don't believe 
you have to have that much conference. Answer the question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grossup. It could be evidence against me. 

The Chairman. All right. Stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we hear them two at a time? 

The CiLviRMAN. Yes. 

IVIr. Kennedy. John Davis and Hans Von Sydow. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. 

Senator Ervin. I think perhaps they can sing the fifth amendment 
in chorus. 

The Chairman. Be sworn. 

Do you and each of 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. Davis. I do. 

Mr. VoN Sydow. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN DAVIS AND HANS VON SYDOW, ACCOMPANIED 
BY JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ, 
COUNSEL 

The Cilvirman. The one on my left, please give your name, address, 
and business or occupation. 

Mr. Davis. My name is John Davis. I live at 2755 Helen Street, 
Philadelphia, and I am a truckdriver. 

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

Mr. Vox SYD0W^ My name is Hans von Sydow, 168 Willow Drive, 
Leavittown, Pa., driver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Davis, how long have you been a member of 
locallOT? 

Mr. Davis. Better than 20 years. Since about 1934. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his bid for election 
as secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Davis. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Did you get paid out of union money for voting 
for him and workino- for him ? 



10534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Davis. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Do you think it might tend to incriminate you;: 
if you did? 

Mr. Davis. There might be some evidence. 

The Chairman. I believe it would. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are listed on line 3, page 3, as receiving $100. 
Did you receive $100? 

Mr. Davis. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I may 
give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other payments from Mr. Cohen 
after he became secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Davis. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you paying your attorneys ? 

Mr. Davis. No ; the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. The union ? 

Mr. Davis. The union is taking care of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they secured them for you ? 

Mr. Davis. Well, I secured them myself. I went down to see my 
business agent. I asked him if I could talk with a lawyer, and he said 
O. K., that the union would take care of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is your business agent? 

Mr. Davis. Charles O'Lear and Walter Baker. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you talk to ? 

Mr. Davis. O'Lear. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the one that appeared here and took the fifth 
amendment ; is that right ? 

Mr. Davis. Is he what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the gentleman who appeared here before the 
committee and took the fifth amendment just prior to you, about five 
fifth amendments prior to you, is that right ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. iUid you went down to get his permission to see an 
attorney ? 

Mr. Da\^s. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he gave you permission to see an attorney ? 

Mr, Davis. I went down to the union and asked him if I could get 
a lawyer, and he said yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he get a lawyer for you, then ? 

Mr. Davis. Well, I secured my own then. Mr. Carroll. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to get him, Mr. Carroll ? 

Mr. Davis. They suggested him to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did ? Mr. O'Lear ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about you, Mr. Von Sydow. How long have 
you been a member of local 107 ? 

Mr. VoN Sydow. About 24 years, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his bid for election? 

Mr, Von Sydow, I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment, 

Mr, Kennedy. Page 3, line 16, indicates that you received $300. 
Did you receive the $300 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10535 

Mr, Von Sydow. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
timendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlien you also appear on a number of other lists 
where you received for organizing expenses one time $225, and an- 
other time $95. Did you do any organizing work for the union ? 

Mr. VoN Sydow. I refuse to answer the questions on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you paying for your attorneys? 

Mr. VoN Sydow. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is the union paying for them ? 

Mr. Von Sydow. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They secured your attorneys for you ? 

Mr. VoN Sydow. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us anything that you know about the 
use or misuse of union funds ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. VoN Sydow\ Sir, I didn't get that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us anything that you know about the 
use or misuse of union funds ? 

Mr. Von Sydow. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about you, Mr. Davis, will you tell us any- 
thing you know about the use or misuse of union funds f 

Mr. Davis. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Will you give some evidence for yourself and re- 
move this cloud of suspicion ? Are you willing to do that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Davis. It depends on the questions. 

The Chaieman. The question is did you get any of this money, 
period ? 

Mr. Davts. I refuse to answer for the same, period. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Ben Lapensohn ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Davis. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about you, Mr. Von Sydow ? 

Mr. VoN Sydow. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Davis, I notice that you read each time a 
statement. Is that statement typewritten or printed ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Davis. What statement ? 

Senator Ervin. The statement that you got out of your pocket and 
which you read each time on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Davis. That is typed. 



10536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator P^rvix. Let me see it, please. 

(The document was handed to the committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they mimeographed ? 

Senator Ervin. It looks like it is sort of printed or n limeographed. 

You have one also, Mr. Von Sydow. 

Mr. Von Sydow. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Let me see j^our statement, please. 

(The document was handed to the committee.) 

Senator ER\aN. Mr. Chairman, I w^ould suggest that we put these 
two statements into the record. They are apparently being made by 
some kind of a duplicating machine. I would just judge that on the 
face of them. I am not an expert on that. 

The Chairman. You will not need them any more ; will you ? 

Mr. Carroll. If there is any mystery about it. Senator, I can clear 
it up for you. I gave it to them. 

Senator Ervin. Is that mimeographed ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. There is not any doubt about it. I don't think it 
needs confirmation. 

Mr. Carroll. I don't think it does either. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Stand aside. Call the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. James Miskell, Jr., and Ernest Gilbert. 

The Chairman. Stand and be sworn, please. Do you and each of 
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. Gilbert. I do. 

Mr. Miskell. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. MISKELL AND ERNEST GILBERT, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. 
MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Mr. Gilbert, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and business or occupation. 

Mr. Gilbert. Ernest Gilbert, 5617 Frontenac, truckdriver. 

The Chairman. Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Mr. Miskell, will you state your name, residence? 

Mr. Miskell. James Miskell, 1343 Earl Street, Philadelphia, truck- 
driver. 

The Chairman, Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gilbert, you have been a member of local 107 
for how long ? 

Mr. Gilbert. 1938. 

^Ir, Kennedy. Did you help support Mr. Cohen in the election ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you help support Mr. ( 'ohen in his election ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I told you once before I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what 'i 

Mr. Gilbert. I told you I did, before. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10537 

Mr. Kennedy. You just told me you did. 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do for him ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Jockeying members from Broad and Spring Garden 
to Front Street to pay their dues. 

Mr. Kennedy. You brought them down to pay their dues ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money for that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. I refuse to answer that, on self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. On what reason ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to imply by that that you got some 
money improperly ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you mean that it might incriminate you if you 
said so ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I refuse to answer that. 

The Chairman. Why? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. For the same reason. 

The Chairman. What reason ? 

Mr. Gilbert. It might be some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Do you think it would? Do you truly think it 
would ? 

Mr. Gilbert. It might. 

The Chairman. Did you get more than your share ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. I refuse to answer that. 

The Chairman. You better refuse for some good reason. 

Mr. Gilbert. The fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any cash from Mr. Cohen after he 
was made secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I refuse to answer that under the hfth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you paying your attorneys ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Gilbert. No. The union is paying. 

Mr. Kennedy. They secured them for you ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are you to get any difference from the union in 
your pay while you are down here and what you would have earned ? 

Has that been promised you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. Any difference in my pay ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gilbert. No. 

The Chairman. Are you to get from the union any difference in 
what you would earn and what your fees may be for appearing here 
before the committee ? I understood that you were to get that. 

Mr. Gilbert. They will make up my lost time. 

The Chairman. To make up your lost time. You are to get the 
difference? That is correct, isn't it, and you will get it from the 
union ( Is that right ? 



10538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN l^E LABOR FIELD 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who promised you that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You can answer who promised you. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

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

Mr. Gilbert. Raymond Cohen. 

The Chairman. Was that at the meeting on Sunday, March 16, 
that he made you that promise ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I wasn't on a meeting March 16. 

The Chairman. You were not there. When did he promise you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Well, was it yesterday? You know about when. 

Mr. Gilbert. It must have been some time last week. 

The Chairman. Some time last week. Did he also tell you if any- 
body come down here and testified against him, he would fix them? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Gilbert. I refuse to answer 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you want to leave the impression that he did? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. No, Ray didn't say such a thing like that. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Gilbert. Ray didn't say such a thing like you just said. 

The Chairman. How did he say it ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Gilbert. He didn't say it at all. 

The Chairman. You didn't hear him ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Of course not. I did not. 

The Chairman. You didn't hear him? 

Mr. Gilbert. I did not. 

The Chairman. Why did it take you so long to answer? Why 
do you have to consult your attorney about it, if you know you 
didn't hear it ? You got no answer for that, have you ? 

All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miskell, how long have you been in 107 ? 

Mr. Miskell. About 14 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you support Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Miskell. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received any money from Mr. Cohen since 
he has been secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Miskell. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you paying your attorneys ? 

Mr. Miskell. No, I am not. 

Mr. Kennedy. The union secured them for you ? 

Mr. Miskell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are paying the bills ? 

Mr. Miskell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the arrangement that was made for being 
reimbursed for your support of Mr. Cohen in the campaign ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10539 

Mr. MisKELL. I refuse to answer on the ground that I am not re- 
quired to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen promise you at that time that you 
would be paid money out of union funds ? 

Mr. MisKELL. I refuse to answer on the ground that I am not re- 
quired to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name appears on page 2, line 5, of a list of 
persons who were purported to receive the proceeds of these two 
checks totaling $25,000 and that you were alleged to have received 
$150. Did you receive that $150 ? 

Mr. Miskell. I refuse to answer on the ground that I am not re- 
quired to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever kick back any of that money to Ray- 
mond Cohen? 

Mr. Miskell. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Benjamin Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Miskell. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

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

The Chairman. Are you to get the difference in your pay down 
here and what you would have earned ? 

Mr. Miskell. I would like to. 

The Chairman. I didn't 

Mr. Miskell. I don't know whether I am or not, no. 

The Chairman. Are you supposed to ? 

Mr. Miskell. Nobody has told me that I will be. 

The Chairman. No one has told you you would be ? 

Mr. Miskell. That is right. 

The Chairman. Some others seem to have that understanding. 
You don't have that understanding? 

Mr. Miskell. That is right, I don't. 

The Chairman. You have had no such understanding ? 

Mr. Miskell. No. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Were you present at the meeting that happened on 
Sunday, the 16th of March ? 

Mr. Miskell. That is right, I was. 

Senator Ervin. Did you hear Mr. Cohen make a public statement 
to the effect that the union would take care of the difference, the loss 
of time, of anybody that came here and testified. 

Mr. Miskell. I heard Mr. Cohen make that statement, that is right. 

Senator Ervin. A while ago you said you didn't hear him. 

Mr. Miskell. I didn't say that I didn't hear him. I said I wasn't 
told personally that I would be reimbursed. 

Senator Ervin. You heard him tell everybody that at the meeting ? 

Mr. Miskell. That is right, yes. 

Senator Ervin. And he told everybody. He made the st.^tement 
there in the presence of you and everybody else, that the union would 
take care of any loss occasioned by witnesses coming down here to 
testify. 

Mr. Miskell. That is right. The statement was made at a general 
meeting. 

21243— 58— pt. 27 11 



10540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. Didn't you believe he meant it when he said it? 

Mr. MiSKELL, Yes, I do. 

Senator Ervin. Why did you swear a while ago that you hadn't 
been promised that by anybody. 

Mr. MisKELL. I was asked was I told personally. I wasn't. I was 
told in a membership meeting. 

The Chairman. That is talking to you personally, if you were 
there, in a membership meeting, and he was addressing the whole 
membership. 

Mr. MisKELL. I heard it, yes. 

The Chairman. You weren't trying to tell the truth. You were 
trying to evade the truth, when you testified as you did a moment 
ago. 

Mr. MiSKELL. That is the way I understood the question, was I told 
personally. 

The Chairman. I said were you told. 

Mr. MisKELL. Was I told ? Yes, at a general membership meeting. 

Senator Ervin. You expect him to keep his word, don't you? 

Mr. MisKELL. Yes, I do. 

Senator Ervin. Why did you swear a while ago that you would 
like to get it but you didn't know whether you were going to get it ? 

Mr. MisKELL. I misunderstood the question. I figured I was asked 
was I told personally. 

Senator Ervin. What else was discussed at this meeting on Sunday, 
March 16? 

Mr. MisKELL. In what manner? 

Senator Ervin. What was said there at the meeting publicly? 

Mr. MisKELL. About what ? 

Senator Erven. About anything. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. Well, the same thing happens at every meeting. It 
is opened up by the president. The meeting is called to order. The 
records are read off. The treasury report. 

Senator Ervin. Was this a regular meeting or a special meeting? 

Mr. MiSKELL. This was a regular meeting. 

Senator Ervin. What was said about the hearing down here? 

Mr. MiSKELL. What was said about the hearing ? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Senator Er\'in. You don't have to ask your lawyer about that 
That is a question of fact. 

Mr. MiSKELL. I don't remember just exactly what was said about 
the hearings down here. 

Senator Ervin. They were discussed, weren't they ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. It was discussed, yes. 

Senator Ervin. And you were told, or it was pretty well stated 
there, that the union had employed an attorney to represent any wit- 
ness who would cooperate, wasn't it, with the union officers ? 

Mr. MiSKELL. I don't remember hearing any statement like that 
made, no. 

Senator Ervin. What discussion was had besides what you have al- 
ready told us, at the meeting, about the hearing doAvn here? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10541 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you talk to me instead of your counsel. 
That is a question of fact. 

Mr. MisKELL. A motion was brought on the floor and seconded, and 
unanimously approved, by the members, the rank and file members, 
that the union pay for our attorneys. . That was brought up. 

Senator Ervin. Anything else ? 

Mr. MiSKELL. That I can recall ? No. 

Senator Ervin. What interest does the union have in this investi- 
gation as distinguished from the officers of the union as individuals? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. I believe the strength of the union is involved. 

Senator Ervin. Well, tell me about the union, how it is concerned 
as an organization as distinguished from its officers. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MisKELL. The union itself is concerned about all its members. 

Senator Ervin. It seems only to be concerned here with the suppres- 
sion of an investigation as to how much of its funds have been unlaw- 
fully used by its officers. What interest does the union have in de- 
fraying the cost of comisel for witnesses? I will put it this way: 
Wliat interest does the union have in keeping the Congress of the 
United States from Imowing what the officers of the union have done 
with the union's money ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. That is the way the general members, the rank and 
file members felt. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the general rank and file members 
don't want to know whether their funds have been wrongfully used 
by the officers ? Is that what your swear here ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. The members know. 

Mr. Cohen explains to them at every meeting, yes. 

Senator Ervin. Did he explain what he gave you money for at those 
meetings ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. I refuse to answer that question on the gi'ounds I am 
not required to give evidence against myself. 

Senator Ervin. Did he give any explanation 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. If you answered that question 
truthfully, do you think that it may tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. MiSKELL. I believe it may be some evidence against me, yes. 

The Chairman. You have some reason to think, you have some- 
thing to hide in that connection, is that right ? 

Mr. MiSKELL. It might be evidence against me. 

Senator Ervin. How much of the dues, the monthly dues, are paid 
tolocallOT? 

Mr. MiSKELL. Do I pay monthly dues ? 

Senator Ervin. No. What is the amount of them ? 

Mr. MiSKELL. $5. 

Senator Ervin. And did Mr. Cohen give you an explanation of 
what the officers of the union did or the business manager did with the 
$55,000, approximately that was collected last year ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 



10542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. MiSKELL. Mr. Cohen makes a general report at every meeting 
as to how much money is received in union dues, and also the expendi- 
tures. 

Senator Ervin. And does he tell about how much of it he paid out in 
connection with his election ? 

Mr, MiSKELL. I refuse to answ^er that question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Ervin. I am not asking you. I am asking what Mr. Cohen 
said. That doesn't have any relation to you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Senator Ervin. How can what Mr. Cohen said incriminate you? 
Will you explain that to me ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiSKELL. It might be some evidence against me. 

Senator Ervin. He didn't say anything about you being engaged in 
any corruption or rascality in connection wnth union funds, did he? 

Mr, MiSKELL, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
might be some evidence against me, under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Ts there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The Chairman. Stand aside. I hope you are both proud of your- 
selves. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Chaimnian, w^e have a number of others who 
might have some positive evidence to give the committee. 

The Chairman. We will mix up the fifth amendments and get some 
more proof. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call a representative of the FBI that 
testified yesterday. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cadigan, you will remain under the same oath 
administered to you yesterday. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES C. CADIGAN— Resumed 

Mr, Kennedy. In addition to the checks that you examined yester- 
day, Mr, Cadigan, did you also examine some checks that bore the 
signature of the president of the union, Mr. Joseph Grace ? 

Mr. Cadigan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to present the checks to you. I believe 
there are 23 checks. 

Mr. Cadigan. All told I examined 30, 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a bundle of checks, I be- 
lieve there are 23 of them, and ask you to state if you have previously 
examined these photostatic copies, and if you identify them as those 
you have previously examined, 

(The documents were handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Cadigan, Yes ; I examined all of these checks. 

The Chairman. There are how many ? 

Mr, Cadigan. 23, 1 believe. 

The Chairman. That group of checks may be made exhibit No, 12, 
in bulk. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10543 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 12" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do these checks all have the indorsement of Mr. 
Joseph E. Grace? 

Mr. Cadigan. They did. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. They were signed, were they not, by Mr. Raymond 
Cohen and Mr. Joseph Grace ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Cadigan. On the face. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the face. And they were indorsed on the back bv 
Mr. Joseph Grace ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You compared the signature on the back of those 
checks, the Joseph Grace that appears there, with the genuine signatura 
of Joseph Grace ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you find that the signatures on those 23 checks 
are forgeries ? 

Mr. Cadigan. They are. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Totaling $4,986.28 ? 

Mr. Cadigan. I don't know what the total is. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the total ; $4,986. 

The Chairman. Counsel states they total that much. That can be 
verified by totaling up the amounts of the checks. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not the signature of Mr. Joseph Grace, com- 
paring it to the genuine signature that was submitted to you ? 

Mr. Cadigan. It is not. They are forgeries. 

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

The Chairman. I ask you to examine this document I present to 
you, which appears to have five signatures, the genuine signatures, of 
Mr. Joseph E. Grace, certified to as his having written these signatures 
on March 4, 1958, by Mr. J. B, Flanagan. I will ask you if those are 
the signatures that you made the comparison with. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes ; they are. 

The Chairman. So if that is Grace's genuine signature there, then 
the signatures, the indorsements, on the checks are forgeries ? 

Mr. Cadigan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That last document may be 
made exhibit No. 13. 

(The document referred to w^as marked "Exhibit No. 13" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 10811.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Mr, Chairman, Mr. Grace is an important witness, he is president of 
the local, and received a number of other checks. 

Before you leave, Mr. Cadigan, the forgery is the signature on the 
back of the checks, the indorsements ? The forgery is not on the front 
of the checks ? 

Mr. Cadigan. No. It is the indorsements. 

The Chairman. Can you not compare the signature on the front of 
the check also with the indorsement on the back ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes ; I could. 



10544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

But in any comparison of this type you rely on the known standards 
furnished. I didn't know as a matter of fact that the signatures on 
the front of the checks were in fact written by Grace. 

The Chairman. Are the signatures on the face of the checks the 
same as the genuine signatures submitted here ? 

Mr. Cadigan. I didn't make that comparison. 

The Chairman. Can you make that comparison now ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Not in a matter of 

The Chairman. You have to make it down at your lab ? 

Mr. Cadigan. Yes. It would take some time. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think most of these, Mr. Chairman, are stamped 
on anyway, the signatures are stamped on. 

The Chairman. On the checks ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; by a checkwriting machine. 

The Chairman. I assume that is from his genuine signature, then. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know whether they can make comparisons 
with stamps. But anyway, it was the indorsement on the checks. 

Mr. Joseph Grace received a considerable amount of other money 
from the union, and we would like to call him as a witness now to 
explain these checks, and also explain the operation of local 107. 

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

Mr. Grace, 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. Grace. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. GRACE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Mr. Grace has a fairly 
serious heart condition. His doctor is here. I wonder if we might 
have permisison to have the doctor sit behind him. 

The Chairman. The doctor may come around. 

Mr. Grace, state your name, your place of residence, and your busi- 
ness or occupation. 

Mr. Grace. Joseph E. Grace, 3541 Buck Road, Huntington Valley. 
I am president of highway truckdrivers and helpers local 107. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Doctor, will you identify yourself for the record ? 

Dr. Thrsi. Dr. Joseph Tursi, Sumneytown, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grace, how long have you been with local 107 ? 

Mr. Grace. Ever since it started in July 1933. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. And did you assist Mr. Cohen when he was running 
against Mr. Crumbock back in 1954? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incrim- 
inate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are president of local 107 of the Brotherhood 
of Teamsters and you refuse to answer the question on whether you 
supported and assisted Mr. Cohen ; is that right ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliere did the money come from for Mr. Cohen's 
campaign ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10545 

Mr, Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. Did you steal it from the union ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. If you stole it, it would incriminate you. Did you 
steal it from the union ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer, Senator, for the same reason. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Could he examine these checks? 

The Chairman. I present to you a series of checks, 23 in number, 
I believe, representing an expenditure of some four-thousand-nine- 
hundred-odd dollars. 

The checks apparently were issued by you as president and by Mr. 
Cohen as secretary, I believe, and they appear to have your endorse- 
ment on the back of them. 

I ask you to examine those checks and state if you identify them. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the checks ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify them as photostatic copies of 
checks that were issued by the union ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it might incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. Is there something on them that might incriminate 
you ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. Is your signature on those checks ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. Is that your endorsement on the checks ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the gromids it may incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. What are you afraid of ? 

Mr. Grace. I am afraid that 

The Chairman. Are you afraid that you would get incriminated? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. Not to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. If you told the truth about them, you think you 
would be giving evidence against yourself ? 

Mr. Grace. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Grace. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You think you might ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

The Chairman. I suspect you would. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grace, Mr. Cohen actually runs and operates 
this union, does he not ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. Since I have been sick somebody has to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even before. Since he was made secretary-treas- 
urer, he is the one that actually runs the union, is he not ? 



10546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grace. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you run the union ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Were union funds used to finance Mr. Cohen's 
yacht? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may tend to incrim- 
inate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you ran the union, did you take any steps to stop 
Mr. Cohen from using union funds to run his yacht ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were union funds used to bring Mr. Cohen's family 
to Florida in the winter ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were union funds used to support Mr. Cohen's home 
in Florida ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were union funds used to purchase items of clothing, 
and other items, personal items, for Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't this union in fact run and operated by Mr. 
Cohen, with the help and assistance of Mr. Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any favors granted to certain employei-s in 
Philadelphia by Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Grace. Not to my knowledge. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know of any ? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Lapensohn on the payroll of any employers 
in the city of Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. ICennedy. Did Mr. Lapensohn receive any moneys from any 
employers at the same time he was receiving money from the union ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the gi^ounds it might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen receive any money from employers 
at the same time he was on the union payroll ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incrim- 
inate me, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any moneys from any employer 
while president of the union ? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you refused to answer before. Did Mr. 
Cohen — are you testifying under oath that you know of no time that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10547 

Mr. Cohen received any funds, any moneys, from any employer dur- 
ing the period of time he was secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Grace. Never. Even when we was business agents together. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know of any time? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What was the arrangement as far as Mr. Lapensolm 
receiving money ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incruninate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some information that Mr. Lapensohn 
received money ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lapensohn receive any money from any of 
the chainstores in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money from the chainstores in 
Philadelphia? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen receive any moneys from the chain- 
stores? 

Mr. Grace. Never to my knowledge. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you know if Mr. Cohen received any money 
through Mr. Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Grace. Never to my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen and Mr. Lapensohn have a financial 
arrangement ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lapensohn pay some of Mr. Cohen's bills ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lapensohn ever receive any gift of stock 
from any chainstores in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incrimi- 
nate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen ever receive, to your knowledge, a 
gift of stock from any chainstore in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Grace. Never. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you refuse to answer on Mr. Lapensohn, is that 
right? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some information on that ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you turn that information over to the member- 
ship of the union ? Did you turn that inf onnation over 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate 
me. 



10548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed all the checks that went out of the union. 
Did any of it go to Mr. Cohen personally ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that large sums of money that came 
out of the local union went to Mr. Cohen, checks to cash which were 
used to pay Mr. Cohen's personal bills ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't Mr. Papensohn around the union office as a 
fixer ? Wasn't that his job ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think, Mr. Charman, that the evidence as has been 
developed and which will be developed, will show that Mr. Cohen 
and Mr. Lapensohn were the ones who in fact ran and operated the 
union, and that Mr. Grace's position was chiefly that of signing the 
checks. 

The Chairman. You were just a figurehead up there ? 

Mr. Grace. No, sir, I don't think so. 

The Chairman. You take the full responsibility for this crooked- 
ness? 

Mr. Grace. Well, since I have been sick, I haven't taken 
responsibility. 

The Chairman. Wlien did you get sick ? 

Mr. Grace. About 4 years ago. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Grace. About 4 yeare ago. 

The Chairman. You don't know much of what has happened since 
then, do you ? 

Mr. Grace. No. I just come in occasionally, when Cohen needs 
assistance or something. 

The Chairman. You just sign whatever Cohen hands out ? 

Mr. Grace. Well, he got to keep the union ruiming, Senator. 

The Chairman. Keep what ? 

Mr. Grace. You got to keep the union running. 

The Chairman. I know you have. You are not thoroughly in- 
formed of what the money is spent for, are you ? 

Mr. Grace. Not thoroughly. 

The Chairman. In other words, whatever Cohen presents to you 
and says, "Here, sign this" you sign it? 

Mr. Grace. I know he is honest. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Grace. I know he is honest. 

The Chairman. You know he is honest? 

Mr. Grace. I know it ; yes. 

The Chairman. I don't see why you can't tell about it, then, 
whether he has been getting money from the union or not, if he is 
honest, and you know he is. 

Mr. Grace. I don't know of any that he got from the union. 

The Chairman. Questions were asked you about giving money to 
run his yacht out of the union. You took the fifth amendment on it. 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may incrimi- 
nate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10549 

The Chairman. Yet you say you know he is honest. 

Mr. Grace. I know he is honest. 

The Chairman. If he is honest, how could it incriminate either you 
or him ? 

Mr. Grace. It miglit be some evidence there somewhere. 

The Chairman. It would have to be evidence of some dishonesty 
or something, some immoral act or something to incriminate you, 
wouldn't it? 

Mr. Grace, There might be some evidence there somewhere. 

The Chairman. You got a pretty strong suspicion there, haven't 
you? 

Mr, Grace. No, I haven't. 

The Chairman. Then why can't you answer the question ? 

Mr. Grace. Because it might be evidence against me. 

The Chairman. If he hasn't been getting any money improperly, 
you say he is honest, and you know him, why can't you say he hasn't 
gotten any improperly ? 

Mr. Grace. It still might be evidence somewhere. 

The Chairman. Even if he hadn't gotten it, it might be evidence 
against you? 

Do you think, then, that he should have gone in and gotten some? 

Mr. Grace. Senator, I know Cohen is honest. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of Cohen's honesty, he had a home 
in Florida, a home that he rented in Florida ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did he ever use any union funds to pay rent of 
that home ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. The membership voted for a paid vacation in Florida. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were union funds ever used to pay the rent on Mr. 
Cohen's home in Florida ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were used? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Union funds. 

How much union funds were used to pay the rent for Mr. Cohen's 
home? 

Mr. Grace. I really don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, you signed the check, did you not? 

Mr. Grace. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how many years did that go on ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. It must have went on as long as I was sick. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliile you were sick ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about his boat down there? Who paid for 
that ? That is, to keep his boat up. 

Mr. Grace. I guess he paid for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were any union funds 

Mr. Grace. Not that I know of. 



10550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. You don't know of any union funds that were used 
for the upkeep of his yacht? 

Mr. Grace. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not know of any union funds ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : 

Do you know of any union funds that were used to pay for the 
equipment on his yacht ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You said he is honest. If we bring to your atten- 
tion 

Mr. Grace. I don't know of any. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then would you feel that he is dishonest if we can 
bring evidence to your attention that he did use such funds? You 
don't know of any money that he used for that purpose? 

Mr. Grace. No, I do not, honestly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you be surprised if there is such evidence? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, I would. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Yliat about bringing his family to Florida ? Who 
paid for that ? 

Mr. Grace. Well, the union membership voted for his family and 
my family. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your family went to Florida, too ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union paid for that ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien was this ? 

Mr. Grace. In January sometime. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did your family go to Florida every year? 

Mr. Grace. Every year the vacation in Florida was due. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did your family go to Florida for? 

Mr. Grace. My family went there ever since I was president. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union paid for their transportation down 
there? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And paid for the hotel bill down there ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And paid for their transportation back? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long would they be down there for? 

Mr. Grace. I generally used to stay 2 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long was your family down there for? 

Mr. Grace. Two weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union paid aU of those bills ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Besides you and Mr. Cohen, who else did they pay 
for sending their families to Florida ? 

Mr. Grace. Crumback, when he was there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien he was there prior to Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They paid his way to Florida ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go down then, too ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10551 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been going down for more than 4 years? 

Mr, Grace. I have been going ever since I was president. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union has been paying the bills ever since 
you were president and have been paying the bills for your family i 

Mr. Grace. Yes. . 

Mr. Kennedy. And they paid for Mr. Crumback prior to that i 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You, Mr. Crumback, and Mr. Cohen. Who else? 

Mr. Grace. Nobody else that I know of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just the three of you. 

What about the personal bills? Did the union purchase any shirts 
or shoes for you ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen is very honest. Would you consider 
that 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen is honest. Would you consider the fact 
that he was using union funds to buy himself personal clothing — 
would that be considered by you dishonest? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground that it might incrimi- 
nate me. 

The Chairman. What are your standards of honesty ? 

Mr. Grace. I just know the man is honest, Senator. What do you 
have to do to find out a man is honest ? 

The Chairman. Even if he has been stealing from the union he is 
still honest? 

Mr. Grace. No, he is not stealing from the union. 

The Chairman. Why can't you explain it, then? Wliy can't you 
tell us the story if there have not been union funds stolen? 

Mr. Grace. It might be evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Well, it would not be evidence against an honest 
man unless he has done something dishonest. You can't rationalize 
a statement like that. It might be evidence against him, yet you 
know he is honest. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Grace. Senator, for your information, I never done a dishonest 
thing I know of in my life. 

The Chairman. Maybe you haven't. Wliy not tell us what you 
did? 

Mr. Grace, It might be evidence against me. 

The Chairman. "It might be evidence against me." 

Well, evidence against an honest man that he never did anything 
dishonest doesn't hurt him. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Have any of the checks been made payable to cash 
in the union and taken personally by Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refuse to answer that question about this 
honest man, Mr. Cohen ? 



10552 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grace. That is right. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. If he IS so honest, I think you could tell us. 

Mr. Grace. It might be evidence against me. That is what I said 
before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever taken the money of the union, made 
checks to cash, and then taken them for yourself ? 

Mr. Grace. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. ICennedy. If it is not to your knowledge, then it couldn't in- 
criminate you. You answered that question about yourself. "Wliat 
about Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. That might be evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refuse to tell about Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to talk about Mr. Cohen being dishonest in 
any way. 

The Chairman. Why don't you help clear this up? It looks like 
from the record he is pretty dishonest. If you want to help the man, 
tell the truth about him. Quit taking the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Grace. I don't want to give evidence against myself. 

The Chairman. You don't want to give evidence against your 
friend — period. 

Mr. Grace. Myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has been vei-y nice to you, I guess, hasn't he? 

Mr. Grace. Very good. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been sick for 4 years and he has kept you 
on as president of the union, and every couple of weeks you come 
down and pick up your salary ? 

Mr. Grace. The membership has kept me on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Every two weeks do you come down and pick up 
your salary ? Do you have to stay home most of the time ? 

Mr. Grace. About once or twice here lately I have been getting in 
about three times a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you have been sick for 4 years ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he has had to operate and run the union for 
that period of time, since you have been sick ? 

Mr. Grace. With my help a little bit. 

Mr. Kennedy. You haven't been able to help very much, have you ? 

Mr. Grace. Well, not very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he has been very nice running the union for you, 
taking care of the money ? 

Mr. Grace. It is his job to take care of the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, he is taking care of it. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin ? 

Senator Ervin. Don't you have a plate to write checks with? 
Doesn't Mr. Cohen have a check plate to write checks with, with your 
signature on it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And he was 

Mr. Grace. For a $100 check. 

Senator Ervin. For what ? 

Mr. Grace. For a $100 check. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10553 

Senator Ervin. In other words, he has in his possession, as secre- 
tary-treasurer of the local, a machine which would write a check any- 
where up to $100? 

Mr. Grace. Up to $100. 

Senator Ervin. And it has your signature on the machine ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. So he could issue checks without you being present 
to sign them ; couldn't he ? 

Wasn't it up to $1,000 instead of up to $100 ? 

Mr. Grace. Yes; I think it was. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. So he could issue checks up to $1,000 with this 
machine that would bear a facsimile of your signature without your 
being present; couldn't he? 

Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. An expert from the FBI testified about the en- 
dorsement of the checks that were shown to you when you first took 
the witness stand, and he testified that those endorsements were not 
your genuine signature, were not in your genuine handwriting. What 
do you say about that ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

Senator Ervin. Was the FBI expert correct in his opinion that 
the endorsements were not your genuine signature ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground it may incriminate 
me. 

Senator Ervin. Do you mean to say that they were your signatures, 
then? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may incrim- 
inate me. 

Senator Ervin. If they were forgeries not authorized by you, how 
could they incriminate you ? 

Mr. Grace. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may incrim- 
inate me. 

Senator Ervin. They could not possibly incriminate you if they 
were made there without your consent and authority. 

Mr. Grace. It could be some evidence. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Not if they are not made by you. 

If they were forgeries, made without your knowledge or consent, 
they certainly couldn't incriminate you in any respect. It might 
incriminate somebody else. 

Mr. Grace. It could be some evidence there against me. 

Senator Ervin. Then you are testifying that you honestly believe 
that if you were to testify that those endorsements on those checks 
either were or were not in your genuine handwriting, it would tend 
to show you had committed some criminal offense ? 

Mr. Grace. No; but there might be some evidence there. 

Senator Ervin. Might be some evidence tending to show that you 
had committed a criminal offense? 

Mr. Grace. It might be. 

Senator Ervin. Well, for the life of me, I wish you would explain, 
just for by educational purposes, how in the world, if you corrobo- 
rated the testimony of the FBI agent that they were forgeries — I wish 
you would tell me how they could incriminate you. 



10554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grace. I said there might be some evidence there. I don't 
know. 

Senator Ervin. So you will not tell us whether the endorsements 
were or were not forged for fear that it might tend to incriminate 
you, regardless of how it was ; is that what you say ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grace. A truthful answer might incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairjian. If there are no further questions, stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. James Sweeney and James Broadbent, who are both 
just members of the union. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, each of you. 

Do you, and each of you, solemnly swear the evidence you shall 
give before the Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Sweeney, i do. 

Mr. Broadbent. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES SWEENEY AND JAMES BROADBENT, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY COUNSEL, JOHN ROGEE CARROLL AND RICHARD H. 
MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Sweeney. James Sweeney, 1923 North Hope Street, Phila- 
delphia ; driver. 

The Chairman. A truckdriver ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes. 

Mr. Broadbent. My name is James Broadbent, 2966 North Law- 
rence Street, Philadelphia, Pa.; truckdriver, Schine's Express. 

The Chairman. I will ask you, Mr. Broadbent, if you can hear 
us. 

Mr. Carroll. He has a little trouble, as you know. Senator, but he 
is using a hearing aid. 

The Chairman. I am trying to speak louder so he can mider- 
stand. 

Mr. Carroll. He says with the aid of his hearing aid, he will be 
able to make it without this. We will use it if it becomes necessary. 

The Chairman. If you do not understand, indicate it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sweeney, how long have you been with the 
miion ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Approximately 24 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a member of local 107 ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a truckdriver at the present time ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For Norwalk Transportation ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his campaign against 
Crumback ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question for fear it may 
incriminate me, under the fifth amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10555 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you contribute money to Mr. Cohen's cam- 
paig^i? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question because it might 
incriminate me, under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your signature appears on the back of page 3, line 
1, in the list of persons receiving cash from local 107, and the sum 
of $150 appears opposite your name. Did you receive that money ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question on the ground it 
might incriminate me. 

The CiL^iRMx\N. Present to the witness exhibit No. 5, where his 
name is and the amount of money that he is supposed to have received. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Is that your writing, Mr. Sweeney ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question on the ground it 
might incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you get that money ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Was it stolen money ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Did you receive it knowing it was stolen? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Do you think it was stolen ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive any other sums of money from 
Mr. Cohen after he was made secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I receive — I refuse to answer that question on the 
ground it might incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do any work for the local for which 
you received money ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name appears on at least one other list as 
having received money. Did you receive any other money ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is on the question of union funds. I want to 
ask you whether you are paying your attorneys. 

Mr. Sweeney. No. No ; the attorneys are being paid by the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. The local secured the attorneys for you ? 

Mr. Sweeney. It has been a practice of our local all the years I 
have been a member there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the local secure your attorneys for you? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes; they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Broadbent, you have been a member of local 
107 for how long ? 

Mr. Broadbent. Approximately 14 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Broadbent. Repeat that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his election ? 

Mr. Broadbent. I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Broadbent. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

21243— 58— pt. 27 12 



10556 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money from Mr. Cohen after 
you supported him in the election ? 

Mr. Broadbent. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against me under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Was that union money that you received ? 

Mr. Broadbent. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. The union secured your attorneys for you? 

Mr. Broadbent. Yes ; they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are paying them? The union is paying your 
attorneys ? 

Mr. Broadbent. Yes ; they are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you attend any meeting, Mr. Broadbent, of the 
local officials, local members, where you were told that you should 
take the fifth amendment when appearing before the committee? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Would you mind saying that a little louder, please? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you attend any meeting of the membership of 
local 107 or of any officials of local 107, at which you were told that 
you should take the fifth amendment when appearing before the 
committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Broadbent. I don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember ? 

Let me pinpoint the date. In the last 3 weeks ? 

Mr. Carroll. You are not now referring to the March meeting? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that in the last 3 weeks? 

Mr. Carroll. I would not think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the last 4^ or last 5 weeks. Any meeting. I 
am not restricting it to the March meeting. Any meeting. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. I^nnedy. Any time? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever suggested to you that you should take 
the fifth amendment in appearing before the committee? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you attend a meeting on March 16, Sunday, 
March 16? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever told that whatever time that you 
lost down here you would be reimbursed for when you returned to 
Philadelphia? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Broadbent. No. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were never given that information by anyone ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10557 

Mr. Kennedy. What about you, Mr. Sweeney ? 

Mr. Sweeney. No, sir ; I was never told. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were never told that you would be reimbursed ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes; I was told they would make up the difference 
in the pay down here. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? 

Mr. Sweeney. It was told when it was told to all at the general 
membership meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was it told to you ? 

Mr. Sweeney. At the membership meeting. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Wlien was that ? 

Mr. Sweeney. March 16, I guess. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that a general membership meeting? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes; it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any meeting prior to the general member- 
ship meeting? 

Mr. Sweeney. We have a general membership meeting every third 
Sunday of the month, and have had them since I was in the organi- 
zation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any meeting prior to that ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, the month before, and the month before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the same day, other than the regular member- 
ship meeting, did you have an informal meeting? 

Mr. Sweeney. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just went to the general membership meeting? 

Mr. Sweeney. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it announced at that time that you would be 
reimbursed for any time lost ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, it was put up to the body of members, and they 
accepted it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people were there at the meeting ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, that is a pretty difficult question to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately? 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, approximately three or four thousand, I guess. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people does this meeting hall hold? 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, every member is entitled to go to a meeting. 
We have our advertisement put out in all garages. 

Mr. Kennedy. T understand that. What I want to know is how 
big the meeting hall was. 

Mr. Sweeney. The meeting hall will hold quite a few thousand. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how many ? 

Mr. SwiiENEY. I never went and counted them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it hold a couple of thousand, 3,000, five ? 

Mr. Sweeney. It could hold six or seven thousand. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is this hall ? 

Mr. Sweeney. The Moose Ha 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it filled ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Filled to capacity, with standing. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't attend the meeting; is that right, Mr. 
Broadbent ? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Mr. Markowitz. Are you asking Mr. Sweeney ? 

Mr. Ivennedy. He answered the question. 



10558 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

During the period of time since Mr. Cohen was elected secretary- 
treasurer, have you received any union funds from him in the form 
of cash, Mr. Sweeney ? 

Mr. Sweeney. I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Broadbent? 

Mr. Broadbent. I refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions. Senator ? 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Sweeney, when did you decide you were going 
to plead the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Sweeney. I was never instructed about it. 

Senator Ervin. When did you decide ? The determination to plead 
the fifth amendment originated with you, yourself ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. It was your notion ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. When did you decide you were going to plead it ? 

Mr. Saveeney. Whatever questions were asked me that I figured 
would incriminate myself, that is when I figured I should take the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Ervin. You decided that on your own ? 

Mr. Sweeney. On my own. 

Senator Ervin. If you decided that, that notion originated inside 
your own head ? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you never talked to anybody about pleading 
the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Saveeney. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And vou never had any conversations about it 
with Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Saveeney. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Did you ever hear Mr. Cohen say anything about 
pleading the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Sw^EENEY. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Broadbent, did the notion of pleading the fifth 
amendment also originate in your head? Did you ever discuss the 
question of pleading the fifth amendment with anybody ? 

Mr. Broadbent. Would you repe^it that again, sir? 

Senator Ervin. Did you ever discuss the question of pleading the 
fifth amendment with Mr. Cohen or anybody else ? 

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

Senator Ervin. And it originated in your head ? 

Mr. Broadbent. Would you speak that over again, please? 

Senator Ervin. The idea of pleading the fifth amendment occurred 
to you and was not suggested to you by anybody ? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir. 

Senator Ervtn. You have one of those slips of paper, don't you, 
with how to plead the fifth amendment on it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Broadbent. Certainly. 

Senator Ervin. How did that get into your possession ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Broadbent. I got it from my attorney. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10559 

Senator Ervin. Wliat did you say ? 

Mr, Broadbent. I got it from my attorney. 

Senator Ervin. You got it from your attorney. But how did you 
happen to Imow your attorney had it ? 

Mr. Broadbent. I asked him. 

Senator Ervin. You asked him. It never was suggested to you by 
anybody to ask him, your attorney, for it? 

Mr. Broadbent. No, sir ; it was not. 

Senator Ervin. So that notion also originated in your own head, of 
making inquiry for it. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

All right, you may stand aside. 

I have conferred with comisel and it appeai-s that we couldn't 
possibly get through with all these fifth amendment witnesses this 
afternoon. It obviously becomes a little tiring. For that reason, w© 
are going to recess at this time. 

So far, it is certainly indicated that this is one of the foulest sit- 
uations that the committee has inquired into. I hope those who think 
no legislation is needed to protect honest working people, who have 
been listening in, will get a little information about what goes on in 
some places. I think legislation is definitely needed to correct what 
we have been listening to here today and yesterday. 

The committee will stand in i^ecess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 30 p. m., the committee i^ecessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Thursday, AjDril 17, 1958.) 

(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess were : 
Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 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 
Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Carl Curtis, Republican, 
Nebraska ; Senator Karl Mundt, Republican, South Dakota. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel ; John B. Flanagan, investigator ; Leo C. 
Nulty, investigator ; Herbert J. Rose, Jr., investigator ; Ralph DeCarlo, 
investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

(At the start of the hearing, the following members are present: 
Senators McClellan and Ives.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we might call another very important 
official of the Teamsters Union in Philadelphia, Mr. Edward Walker, 
who is the recording secretary. 

The Chairman. Mr. Walker, come forward, please. 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. Walker. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD WALKER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Mr. Walker, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Walker. Edward Walker, recording secretary, business agent, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

The Chairman. You are business agent and recording secretary of 
Local 107, Teamsters ? 

Mr. Walker. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position ? 

Mr. Walker. Since around June 1954, sir. 

The Chairman. Is your position that of secretary and treasurer? 

10561 



10562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Walker. Recording secretary. 

The Chairman. Recording secretary. That is what I thought. Pro- 
ceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat are your responsibilities as recording 
secretary ? 

Mr. Walker. To take the minutes of the meetmgs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any other responsibilities ? 

Mr. Walker. Just the reading of the minutes. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reading of the minutes ? 

Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any control over the finances of tha 
union? 

Mr. Walker. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you handle any of the cash of the union ? 

Mr. Walker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never do ? 

Mr. Walker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you responsible at any time for giving cash to 
any of the members of local 107, or any of the other officers of 107 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know any of those people who were respon- 
sible for any of the violence in connection with the strikes that 107 
was interested in ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who was responsible for the beatings 
that were administered to those who opposed Mr. Cohen? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made payments to any of the individuals 
that administered any of these beatings ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Is it true that the union pays those 
thugs who beat up people ? Are you going to refuse to answer that 
on the ground of the fifth amendment and leave the impression here, 
the implication, that your union takes union money dues and pays 
thugs to beat up people? Do you want to leave the record like that? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. If you testified, would you be testifying against 
yourself ? Were you a party to the acts ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I liave a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Are you proud of your implication in that kind of 
operation ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10563 

The Chairman. Well, it is a peculiar kind of pride, if you have it. 
Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, in his bid for election. 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay any money, give him any money to fur- 
ther his election ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you repaid out of union funds? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Benjamin Lapensohn? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you personally received any money from any 
employers in the Philadelphia area? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. No, sir ; I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never have received any money ? 

Mr. Walker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Cohen has ever received any 
money from any employers ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. No, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Benjamin Lapensohn has re- 
ceived any money from any employer ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Did you get any of the money that he received ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. What was your cut ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. He only gave you a few crumbs, didn't he ? You 
didn't get much out of it ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Chairman, in addition to his other respon- 
sibilities, Mr. Walker's name appears on a number of these various 
lists of those individuals that received money from the union. 

I would like to ask you as a general proposition whether those lists 
are accurate as to the amount of money that was received by the various 
individuals. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 



10564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The list that we have been talking about over the 
last few days shows that you received some $180. Did you in fact 
receive the $180? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the money that you received for the work that 
you did in Mr. Cohen's election ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. We also see a check here for $412.01, to the Director 
of Internal Revenue. It is a check signed by Ben Lapensohn, and 
it indicates that it was to pay the taxes for Edward and Mildred 
Walker. Would you explain that to the committee ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You have been having the union pav your income 
tax? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Did you pay all the tax that you owed ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Did the union membership authorize the payment 
of your taxes out of their dues ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

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

The Chairman. As recording secretary, is it your duty to keep the 
records of expenditures ? 

Mr. Walker. No, sir ; it is not. 

The Chairman. Did you keep these records with respect to these 
payments ? 

Mr. Walker. Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Show him exhibit 5. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Did you keep this record, exhibit No. 5, of the 
payments made to these individuals when that $25,000 was disbursed ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Come on and answer. I am getting tired of this, 
this morning. I am not going not warn you, Mr. Lawyer. Mr. Law- 
yer, I am not going to warn you but one more time. 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I don't have to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. The witness can answer these simple questions. If 
you want him to take the fifth amendment, tell him to. And let's get 
it over with. I mean what I am saymg. You can either conform or 
else we can take care of it. 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that in the past 2 days 
or this morning I have been wasting the committee's time in any re- 
spect, and I don't intend to. I think you and I are in agreement that 
this witness has constitutional rights to consult with his counsel. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10565 

The Chairman. He has and I want him to exercise them if he wants 
to, but I want him to exercise them promptly. I am not going to let 
you sit here and put words in his mouth. 

Mr. Carroll. I am not putting words in his mouth, but I want to 
advise him properly. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to show Mr. Walker a 
number of these lists before we dismiss him. 

The Chairman. I have shown him exhibit No. 5. 

Did you keep that record ? 

Mr. Carroll. He already answered that question, sir, or, rather, 
refused to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Did you keep that record ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I don't have to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, there is a list here of the individuals 
whose names appear on the front page and on the back there are 
initials of the people, with numbers beside them. 

We have here, EFW, $100, although Edward F. Walker's name does 
not appear on any of these lists. His initials appear on the back. 
That occurs on a number of these various lists. I would like to ask 
him whether he, in fact, split up the money of those individuals whose 
names appear legitimately on the front of the list. 

The Chairman. I present you what is in the nature of a receipt, 
stating — 

The undersigned hereby certify that they have received amounts as indicated 
after their signatures for the time lost due to organizing activities. 

It is signed. It shows a total of $990, with a total list attached of 
those who are purported to have received the money. On the back 
of it, there are the initials, JG, $25, and EFW, $120. EFW may 
be the initials of Edward F. Walker. I ask you to examine this 
document and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. Walker. I have examined the list. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it as a photostatic copy of the 
original ? 

Mr. AValker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Are EFW your initials ? 

Mr. Walker. Yes, they are. 

The Chairman. EFW referred to on the back of this document 
that you have before you 

Mr. Walker. Pardon me, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. The question was, Does the EFW refer to you? 
I hadn't finished the question. 

^The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

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



10566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Walker. Pardon me, sir. 

EFW is my initials, but that is not my handwriting. 

The Chairman. I notice that it says, EFW, $125. Did you get 
a $125 kickback out of it ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have the right not to be a wit- 
ness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. I have a number of similar documents as that. 

I will present them to you. 

I believe there are four more which are similar. In each instance, 
they show on the back of them, apparently, a kickback to EFW, 1 
in the amount of $125, 1 in the amount of $160, another in the amount 
of $120, and another in the amount of $125. I will ask you to examine 
these and see if you identify them and state whether you received 
that kickback. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the documents ? 

Mr. Walker. No, sir, not yet. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Walker. I have examined the documents, sir. 

The Chairman. Does that $125, $120, and the other amounts on 
the back following your initials represent a kickback to you ? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You don't want to acknowledge you got that 
money ? You don't want to tell 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You don't want to tell how crooked that operation 
is? 

Mr. Walker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. These documents presented to the witness may be 
made exhibit 14. 

(The documents referred to were marked "exhibit No. 14" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Have you any questions, Senator Ives? 

Senator Ives. No questions. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. No questions. 

The Chairman. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Walker. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call three of the members of the 
union, Mr. Charles F. Morris, Vincent McGovern, and Arthur Miller. 

Mr. Carroll. Arthur Miller has already been here and was ex- 
cused. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of those who were excused? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shenko. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please. Do you and each of you sol- 
emnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate select 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10567 

committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Shenko. I do. 

Mr. McGovERN. I do. 

Mr. Morris. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN SHENKO, VINCENT McGOVERN, AND CHARLES 
F. MORRIS; ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairaian. Beginning on my left, state your name, your place 
of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Shenko. John Shenko, 818 Tomlinson Road, Philadelphia, 
truckdriver. 

The Chairman. The next gentleman, the one in the center, state 
your name and your place of residence and business or occupation. 

Mr. McGovERN. Vincent McGovern, 427 Cumberland Street, 
Glousester, N. J., truck driver. 

Mr. Morris. Charles F. Morris, 2125 N. 4th Street, Philadelphia, 
truck driver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Morris, how long have you been a member of 
local 107? 

Mr. Morris. 18 years. 

Mr. KIennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his election? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Morris. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds I have 
the right to refuse and hold evidence against me under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Don't you have one of those slips so you can read 
it faster ? 

Mr. Morris. Nobody gave me a slip, sir. 

The Chairman. They haven't? I don't know why they discrimi- 
nated against you. Do your best. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this your attorney here ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the union secure the attorney for you ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not paying him ? 

Mr. Morris. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Morris, you have received large sums of money 
from the union, have you not? 

Mr. Morris. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received that money from Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Morris. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. We notice your name on 10 of these different lists. 
Are those lists accurate ? 

Mr. Morris. I still refuse to answer the question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received from these lists $1,958.50. 

Mr. Morris. I still refuse to answer the question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive that amount of money ? 

Mr. Morris. I still refuse to answer the question on the same ground. 



10568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Wliat is that ground ? I didn't quite understand 
a while ago. 

Mr. Morris. I refuse to answer the question on the ground of giv- 
ing evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Senator I\^s. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interpose a question 
here. 

The Chairman-. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to ask the witness who told him to say 
refuse ? 

Mr. Morris. I beg your pardon? 

Senator Ives. Who told you to say refuse ? 

Mr. Morris. Nobody told me, sir. 

Senator Ives. You just chose that yourself? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ives. It is a little more courteous to say you declin^.^_,! 

Mr. Morris. I don't know that big word, sir. 

Senator Ives. You don't know the word "decline"? You don't 
know the English language enough to know that ? 

Mr. Morris. I am just not familiar with the word and how to use 
it, sir. 

Senator Ives. Wliat? 

Mr. Morris. I am not familiar with the word and how to use it. I 
am only a truck driver. 

Senator Ives. Hereafter use the word decline instead of refuse. I 
suggest all of you do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would 

The Chairman. Wliat is the total amount that the witness received? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is alleged to have received $1,958.50. 

The Chairman. The question we are trying to determine, of course, 
Mr. Morris, is whether these records are accurate or whether they are 
a fraud, whether the union is robbing you folks who work of your 
dues money. 

I think you would have a little interest in it, but maybe not. 

The question arises here that some of these folks have been paid, 
and, obviously, the amounts that they have been paid have been 
changed on the records to show a much larger amount paid. 

Do you want to be a party to a transaction like that ? 

Mr. Morris. I decline to answer the question on the same ground, 
sir. 

The Chapman. Then you are willing to be, I assume? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Morris. I decline to answer the question on the same ground, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as we pointed out yesterday, we are 
asking this witness about the use of union funds or the misuse of 
union funds, and he refuses to answer. He has his attorney with him, 
and his attorney is being paid out of union funds. 

I would like to ask now the gentleman in the center, Mr. McGovern, 
this question : £)id you support Mr. Cohen for election ? 

Mr. McGovern. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10569 

Mr. KENNEDY. Have you received sums of money in cash from the 
union, from Mr. Cohen, since he was elected secretary-treasurer ? 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. McGovERN. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Your name appears on some six of these various lists 
as receiving sums of money. Did you in fact receive that money ? 

Mr. McGovERN. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do any organizing work for the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McGovERN. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. According to these various lists, you are supposed to 
have received some $901.50 from the union. Did you in fact receive 
that amount of money ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. McGovERN. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. These attorneys that you have with you are being 
paid out of union funds, are they ? 

Mr. McGovERN. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. They are not being paid by you ? 

Mr. McGovERN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were selected and chosen for you by the union ? 

Mr. McGovERN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. McGovern, I would like to ask you a question. 
How long have you been in local 107 ? 

Mr. McGovERN. Going on 25 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. McGovern. I decline to answer that question on the ground 
that I would give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any sums of money from Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. McGovern. I decline to answer that question on the ground of 
giving evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name appears on some four of these lists for 
a total of $776.50. Is that accurate ? 

Mr. McGovern. I decline to give evidence against myself on the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. I^nnedy. And your attorneys were chosen for you by the 
union? 

Mr. McGovern. Yes ; they was. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are being paid out of imion funds? 

Mr. McGovern. Yes ; they are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about misuse of union funds 
in that union ? 

Mr. McGovern. I decline to answer that question on the ground 
that I would give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Any other questions. Senators ? 



10570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You may stand aside. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Fi-ank Brandau, Wilber Sampson, and Harry 
McNally. 

The Chairman. Stand and be sworn. 

Do you and each of you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the M^hole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Brandau. I do. 

Mr. Sampson. I do. 

Mr. McNally. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK BEANDAIJ, WILBERT SAMPSON, AND HARRY 
W. McNALLY, ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Begimiing on my left, state your name, your place 
of residence, and business or occupation. 

Mr. McNally. Harry McNally, 104 West Crestwood Avenue, Som- 
erdale, N. J., truckdriver. 

The Chairman. The one in the center. 

Mr. Sampson. Wilbert Sampson, 5502 Matthews Street, Philadel- 
phia, truckdriver. 

The Chairman. The one on the right. 

Mr. Brandau. Frank Brandau, Van Dyke and Pearson Avenue, 
Philadelphia, truckdriver. 

The Chairman. The one in the center is named Sampson ? 

Mr. Sampson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you give your address, Mr. Brandau ? 

Mr. Brandau. Van Dyke and Pearson Avenue, Philadelphia. 

Tlie Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McNally, how long have you been in local 107 ? 

Mr. McNally. Approximately 20 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 20 years. And you supported Mr. Cohen in 
the election ? 

Mr. McNally. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McNally, you have been paid some money by Mr. 
Cohen ; have you ? 

Mr. McNally. I decline to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be held as evidence against me. 

The Chairman. One member of the committee has suggested you 
use the word "decline." It is a little more respectful than to say 
"refuse." 

Of course, if you want to see just how disrespectful you can be, you 
may use the other word, if you want to. 

If you want to be a little respectful, however, it would be nice to 
use the word "decline." 

Mr. McNally. I don't want to be disrespectful. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McNally, according to the witness from the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation, the sum of money that was opposite your 
name on this first list was altered from $1.50 to $150. 

Do you know anything about that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10571 

( Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. McNally. I decline to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be evidence held against me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Actually, Mr. McNally, you haven't done anything 
wrong, but you were told to take the fifth amendment; is that correct? 

Mr. McNally. I decline to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be held as evidence against me. 

The Chairjnian. You would like to tell the truth, wouldn't you, if 
you felt free to do it? You would like to tell what you know, 
wouldn't you ? 

( Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. McNally. I decline to answer that question on the ground it 
would be held as evidence against me. 

The Chairman. The truth is you are afraid of reprisals if you do 
talk ; aren't you ? That is the fact of the matter ; isn't it ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Would you mind repeating the question, sir? 

The Chairman. I say you are afraid to tell the truth, you are afraid 
to talk, you are afraid of reprisals against you if you tell the truth, 
aren't you ? 

Mr. McNally. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You are not afraid of anything ? 

Mr. McNally. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You are afraid to tell the truth ? 

Mr. McNally. I am not afraid. 

The Chairman. Well, will you tell it ? 

Mr. McNally. I don't want to give evidence against myself. 

The Chairman. What have you done that is wrong ? 

Mr. McNally. I refuse to answer — I decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the grounds it would be evidence held against me. 

The Chairman. You have done something wrong ? 

Mr. NcNally. I decline to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be evidence held against me. 

The Chairman. Well, you are to be pitied. 

Proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. McNally, your attorney was selected by the 
union for you ? 

Mr. McNally. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they are being paid by the union ? 

Mr. McNally. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have no information regarding any wrongful 
acts on your part other than that you received some money from the 
union, which, of itself, is not improper or wrong. 

It would appear that the reason you are taking the fifth amend- 
ment is because of the fear that exists in local 107, in you and some 
of these other people. There can't be any other explanation. 

Mr. Sampson, you have been with local 107 for how long ? 

Mr. Sampson. 1933. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask a question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mrs. Watt, would you show him his signature ? 

( A document was handed to the witness. ) 

21243— 58— pt. 27 13 



10572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Mr. McNally, you are handed an exhibit which 
purports to carry your name, Harry W. McNally. I want you to 
look at it and advise me whether or not that is your signature appear- 
ing on page 3 of exhibit 5. 

( Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. McNally. I decline to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be held as evidence against me. 

Senator Curtis. I didn't hear what you said. 

Mr. McNally. I decline to answer that question on the grounds it 
would be evidence held against me. 

Senator Curtis. How could your own signature on a document that 
does not purport to be an unlawful document incriminate you ? 

Mr. McNally. I decline 

Senator Curtis. If that is your signature, that couldn't incriminate 
you. If somebody else signed it, it might incriminate them but not 
you. 

Mr. McNally. It might be evidence held against me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. McNally, looking at the same exhibit, page 3, 
line 11, I believe it is, on exhibit 5, the amount of money after the 
name, is that figure the same as the figure that appeared there at the 
time the signature was put on ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ]\IcNally. I decline to answer that question on the ground it 
might be evidence held against me under the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever change that figure ? 

Mr. McNally. The same answer. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be interesting if we had at some 
point along here whatever information our staff has been able to build 
up that would give us some light on whether or not these men are 
taking the fifth amendment for themselves or for somebody else. 
Certainly they have no right to take it for somebody else. 

The Chairman. I think it is perfectly obvious they are taking it 
for someone else. That is a conclusion that I have come to. 

But they have a right to take the fifth amendment. I think they 
violate the spirit and intent of it when they take it under such cir- 
cumstances and for such purposes. 

But, you know, our courts have gone a pretty long way toward 
letting them get by with most anything. 

As long as they sit there and want to take it, they can take it, but 
they can't be very convincing in my judgment, and so far as public 
judgment is concerned. 

If they want to convict themselves in the eyes of right-thinking 
people, if they want to sit there and convict themselves of being a 
party to crookedness and rascality, being one of those wdio are par- 
ticipating in these operations and manipulations that are, in my judg- 
ment, robbing the honest men and women of this country who work, 
who happen to be in the union, who pay their dues, who have to be 
subservient to the will of the bosses in the union in order to work — 
if they want to do that and bring disrepute upon this area of the labor 
movement, then it is their own conscience and own skin that will have 
to take the blame for it. 

That is the way the Chair feels about it. 

Proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10573 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sampson, you are truckdriver and you have 
been a member of 107 for how long ? 

Mr. Sampson. Since 1933. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported Mr. Cohen ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you support Mr. Cohen in his bid for election ? 

Mr. Sampson. I refuse to answer that question. I decline to answer 
that question on the grounds that I am not required to give evidence 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive some money from the union, from 
Mr. Cohen, since he became secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Sampson. I decline to answer that question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name appears on some three lists for a total 
of $1,075. What did you do for that money ? 

Mr. Sampson. I decline to answer the question on the grounds I 
am not required to give evidence against myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of these lists, according to the testimony of 
the FBI, was changed from $3.50, opposite your name, to $350. 

Mr. Sampson. I decline to answer that question on the ground I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Did you report that $350 on your income tax re- 
turn? 

Mr. Sampson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Mr Counsel, if we haven't obtained yet the income 
tax return of all these folks that are declining to answer, I wish you 
would do so, and let's make a comparison in each one of these cases. 

Where they have failed to report it and come up here and take the 
fifth amendment on it, obviously this record shows they got it. It 
would make a prima facie case of their having received it as a part of 
their income. 

I am going to urge the Department of Justice to proceed against 
each one of them who has failed to report it, and who comes up here 
and takes the fifth amendment on it. 

We have a prima facie case here of willful failure to comply with 
the law. The amounts in some instances appear to be small, but in 
some cases they add up to around $1,000, where these folks have 
gotten this money. 

I think it should be looked into, and I want this matter referred to 
the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Department at 
once, for them to give it the attention that it is their duty to give 
in the position they hold. 

Proceed. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Your attorney was selected by the union for you ? 

Mr. Sampson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And being paid by the union ? 

Mr. Sampson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Brandau, you have been with local 107 for how 
long? 

Mr. Brandau. Since 1033. 



10574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported Mr. Cohen in his bid for 
election ? 

Mr. Brandau. I decline to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against me. 

Mr. Ken^^edy. Did you receive some money from Mr. Cohen after 
he was made secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Brandau. The same answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records of this union, you were 
on 7 of these lists for a total of $1,800. 

Did you receive any of that money ? 

Mr. Brandau. I decline to answer the question on the same ground. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you do any work for that money ? 

Mr. Brandau. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Did you report it to the Internal Revenue on your 
income tax return ? 

Mr. Brandau. I decline to answer the question on the same ground. 

The Chairman. Did you give a kickback out of it to somebody else? 

Mr. Brandau. I decline to answer that question also. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your attorneys were selected by the union ? 

Mr. Brandau. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And union funds are being used to pay them ? 

Mr. Brandua. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Any other questions ? 

Senator Curtis. No questions. 

The Chairman. Call the next witnesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Sam Doman, Jr., Edward Roski, and Frank Price. 

The Chairman. Do you and each of 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. Doman. I do. 

Mr. Roski. I do. 

Mr. Price. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK PRICE, EDWARD ROSKI, AND SAMUEL W. 
DOMAN, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

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

Mr. Doman. Samuel Doman, 2311 East Cumberland Street, Phila- 
delphia, truckdriver. 

Mr. RosKi. Edward Roski, 2305 East Boston Avenue, Philadelphia, 
truckdriver. 

Mr. Price. Frank Price, 2148 North Fourth Street, Philadelphia, 
truckdriver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doman, you have been with local 107 for how 
long? 

Mr. Doman. 11 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported Mr. Cohen in his bid for election 
as secretary-treasurer ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10575 

Mr. DoMAN. I decline to answer that qiiestion,sir, on the ground I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Were you paid for that support that you gave him ? 

Mr. DoMAN. I decline to answer that question on the same ground 
as before, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive some union funds for supporting 
Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. DoMAN. I decline that question for the same reason, sir. 

(At this point, Senator Ives left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Your name appears on several of these lists. The 
first list that we have been talking about lately shows that the 
amount of money that was opposite your name was changed from 
$1.25 to $150. 

Can you give us any explanation of that ? 

Mr. DoMAN. I decline that question on the same ground, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any of that money ? 

Mr. DoMAN. I decline that question on the same ground as before, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you give any of that money back to Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. DoMAN. I decline that question on the same ground as before, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat is the total amount this witness has re- 
ceived, according to the record ? 

Mr. Kennedy. $150. It was changed from $1.25 to $150. It 
would appear that he received either one of those amounts. 

Mr. Roski, you have been in local 107 for how long? 

Mr. EosKi. Over 20 years. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. And you supported Mr. Cohen in his bid for 
election ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. RosKi. Yes, I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did. What did you do for him ? 

Mr. RosKi. I worked on a sound wagon on my own accord. 

Mr. Ivennedy. On your own accord ? 

Mr. RosKi. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the sound wagon ? 

Mr. RosKi. Well, I was standing on the corner with a couple of 
fellows, so I jumped in and took a ride with him. Is there any ob- 
jection? Excuse me. There is no objection to that, is there? 

Mr. Kennedy. Who has objections ? 

Mr. RosKi. I am talking for myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get any money for that ? 

Mr. RosKi. I refuse to answer that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. RosKi. I decline to answer that, giving evidence against my- 
self under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. As to whether you got paid any money for that ? 

Mr. RosKi. The same answer, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get any union funds for that? 

Mr. RosKi. The same answer, I decline. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive for doing that? 

Mr. RosKi. I decline to answer. 



10576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have arrangements that you would get paid 
afterward? Did you have arrangements so that you would get paid? 

Mr. RosKi. The same answer, sir. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the same answer ? 

Mr. KosKi. I don't want evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Would it be against you if you told the truth? 

Mr. RosKi. It might be evidence. 

The Chairman. It might be against you ? 

Mr. RosKi. It could be. 

The Chairman. You know, don't you? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Can't you say "Yes" or "No" ? 

Mr. RosKi. Yes. 

The Chairman. It would be against you ? 

Mr. RosKi. It could be. 

The Chairman. Thank you ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any information about the misuse of 
any of the funds of local 107? Do you have any information about 
the misuse of union funds, union local 107 ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. RosKi. I refuse to answer that, sir, on the ground of giving 
evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. I decline. I 
am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. He appears on two lists, Mr. Chairman, receiving a 
total of $215. 

Did you receive that money from the union? 

Mr. RosKi. I refuse to answer that on the same ground. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that for? 

Mr. RosKi. The same thing, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do any organizing work for the local? 

Mr. RosKi. The same thing, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On what ground ? 

Mr. RosKi. Of evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Price, you have been with the union how long? 

Mr. Price. Eighteen years, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you supported Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Price. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that I 
may be incriminated, under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any union funds ? 

Mr. Price. I also refuse to answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have you down for receiving a total amount of 
$100. 

Did you receive $100? 

Mr. Price. I decline to answer that also. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing that would incriminate you there, 
is there, Mr. Price? 

Mr. Price. There might be some evidence against me, sir. 

The Chairman. Where do you work? 

Mr. Price. Twin Freight Lines. 

The Chairman. Do they pay you? 

Mr. Price. When? 

The Chairman. Any time. 

Mr. Price. When I work they do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10577 

The Chairman. Do they pay you? 

Mr. Price. When is that, sir? 

The Chairman. When you work? 

Mr. Price. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do tliey pay you for it? 

Mr. Price. I hope so. 

The Chairman. Well, you knoAV. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Price. Yes, they pay me. 

The Chairman. How much? 

Mr. Price. The union scale, sir. 

The Chairman. The union scale. What is that? 

Mr. Price. Ninety-four dollars a week, sir. 

The Chairman. Ninety-four dollars a week? 

Mr. Price. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That doesn't incriminate you, does it? 

Mr. Price. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Will this other incriminate you, if you got $100? 

Mr. Price. It might be some evidence against me, sir. 

The Chairman. It might be. Do you know whether it would or 
not? 

Mr. Price. It might be, sir. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You are kind of afraid it would be? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Price. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. If you would answer these questions, would it in- 
criminate anybody else ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Price. I don't know about that, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know ? 

Mr. Price. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You take full responsibility, then, for anything 
that is wrong here in connection with your signature in these transac- 
tions ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Price. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is your attorney being paid out of union funds ? 

Mr. Price. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he selected for you by the union ? 

Mr. Price. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who selected him ? 

Mr. Price. Myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you do that? 

Mr. Price. I got in touch with my business agent, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is that ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Why do you have to look to your attorney ? 

Mr. Price. I don't need my attorney. Battisfore and Berman, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they get the attorney for you ? 



10578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Price. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So your business agents got the attorney for you? 

Mr. Price. After I had asked them, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To get an attorney ? 

Mr. Price. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they got these two gentlemen ? 

Mr. Price. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are not paying them ? 

Mr. Price. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What about Mr. Roski. 

Are you paying the union attorney ? Are you paying this attorney 
that is with you ? 

Mr. RosKi. I am not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The union is paying them ? 

Mr. Roski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doman, the same thing ? 

Mr. DoMAN. The union is paying my attorney, sir. 

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

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, call the next group. 

Mr. Kennedy. A1 Berman, who is a business agent, Mr. Chairman, 
and Walter Baker, who is a business agent, and Michael Hession. 

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

The Chairman. Do you and each of you solemnly swear the evi- 
dence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Berman. I do. 

Mr. Baker. I do. 

Mr. Hession. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. BAKER, MICHAEL HESSION, AND ABRA- 
HAM BERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, will you state your name, 
your place of residence, and your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Berman. Abraham Berman, 118 Springhouse Road, Cherry 
Hill, N. J., business agent. 

The Chairman. For local 107 ? 

Mr. Berman. 107. 

Mr. Baker. Walter J. Baker, 3034 Nesper Street, Philadelphia, 
business agent for Teamsters Local 107, Philadelphia. 

Mr. Hession. Michael Hession, 888 North Bucknell Street, business 
agent for local 107. 

Mr. Carroll. May I remind you that Mr. Baker is a bit hard of 
hearing, too? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's get the instrument. 

Mr. Carroll. I think that will not be necessary. 

The Chairman. If you do not clearly understand, we will repeat 
the question. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the men questions about their 
counsel. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10579 

The first witness on my left, do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Berman. Yes, I do, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. By whom was he retamed ? 

Mr. Berman. By the union, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. What is his name ? 

Mr. Berman. John Carroll, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I will ask the next witness, do you have counsel 
present ? 

Mr. Baker, Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. By whom was he retained ? 

Mr. Baker. By the local. 

Senator Curtis. The local union ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What is his name? 

Mr. Baker. Jolm Carroll and Mr. Markowitz. 

Senator Curtis. The next witness, have you counsel present? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. By whom was he retained ? 

Mr. Hession. By the local, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What is his name ? 

Mr. Hession. John Carroll and Dick Markowitz. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order in ref- 
erence to the appearance of counsel. Rule 6 of the rules of proce- 
dure for the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor 
and Management Field provides : 

6. Counsel retained by any witness and accompanying such witness shall be 
permitted to be present during the testimony of such witness at any public or 
executive hearing, and to advise such witness while he is testifying, or his legal 
rights. 

There is no counsel present that has been retained by these wit- 
nesses, and there is nothing in the rules permitting a different entity 
or a different party retaining counsel for witnesses. 

Mr. Carroll. May I speak to that, sir ? 

The Chairman. The Chair will hear you briefly. 

Mr. Carroll. These gentlemen perhaps do not have the Senator's 
precise understanding of the word retained. There is not the slightest 
doubt but that we have been properly retained by these men. It was 
suggested to them or recommended, if you please, by the union. We 
are retained generally by the union and paid by the union. There 
isn't the slightest doubt that we are their counsel 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Carroll, I would like to ask you a question 
or two. 

Mr. Carroll. I would like to answer them, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat bar association are you a member of? 

Mr. Carroll. The Philadelphia Bar Association. 

Senator Curtis. Any other? 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir. Pardon me. Do you mean associations ? I 
am also a member of the bar in this district, but not of the asso- 
ciation. 

Senator Curtis. Are you satisfied that there can be no conflict of 
interest between the union and these three witnesses who are now be- 
fore this committee ? 

Mr, Carroll. I am, sir; we went into this at some length yester- 
day, I am afraid you were not here. 



10580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. No, I was not here. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator Kennedy was here, and he and I discussed 
this for a good half hour, I would say. I explained 

Senator Curtis. Not in reference to these three witnesses. 

Mr. Carroll. No, in reference to all of them, though. We were 
talking generally. 

Senator Curtis. These three witnesses say you were retained by the 
union. 

Mr. Carroll. That is quite correct, and I still am, sir. But I am 
also counsel of their choice. Had they wanted other counsel, they 
would be here with other counsel. With reference to the conflict of 
interest, I explained yesterday to Senators McClellan and Kennedy 
that when this matter was first broached to us, over a month ago by 
one of your investigators, Mr. Nulty, we had some doubt about it our- 
selves, and, therefore, asked the professional guidance committee of 
the Philadelphia Bar Association about the propriety of our simul- 
taneous representation of the union and its members and officers in 
view of the fact that Mr. Dunn, assistant counsel for this committee, 
had advised me that the committee intended to produce evidence that 
all of the officers and business agents of this union had pilfered the 
union's funds. That question was put to the bar association by me. 
The memorandum stating the question was handed to the committee 
yesterday and read into the record completely. 

It appears in yesterday's transcript. 

Secondly, the professional guidance committee of the Philadelphia 
Bar Association on the 17th of March, this year, rendered an opinion 
on that very question in response to my request, and stated that there 
is no existing conflict of interest on the basis of Mr. Dunn and Mr. 
Nulty's statements to me, which were all fully disclosed in my memo- 
randum to them, which is in the record. 

Their opinion was read into the record here yesterday, and a copy of 
it appears as an exhibit in your file. 

Senator Curtis. I would think that you are the best judge of any- 
body as to conflict of interest. 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir ; I think so, too. But inasmuch as there was 
a difference of opinion between me and the committee, I declined to 
leave it to the independent judgment of the bar, and they decided it 
was proper. 

Senator Curtis. If one of these witnesses signed his name and re- 
ceived a dollar and a half as a legitimate expenditure, and the record 
as now before us shows a greater sum, there definitely would be a 
conflict of interest, would there not ? 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, I hope you are only asking me a hypothetical 
question. 

Senator Curtis. I am. I don't know how much money is involved 
with respect to these three witnesses before us. 

Mr. Carroll. I will say this, I am not about to disclose any of the 
confidences revealed to me by mv clients. I can't do that, as you 
know. On the other hand, on your hypothetical question, as I have 
seen the evidence in this record — say, for instance, there appears on 
a sheet of paper behind a man's name and signature the figure of 
$1.25 which appears to have been raised to $125 — that is the evidence 
before the committee. There is nothing to say, there is nothing be- 
fore this committee that I have seen, and I think probably those who 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10581 

have been here will agree with me, which shows when that was done, 
by whom it was done, whether it was done fraudulently, whether they 
received the money, whether they didn't receive the money, or for 
what purpose it was given or received. 

Senator Curtis. If you assume that one of the persons is innocent 
and one is guilty, when 

Mr. Carroll. That is an assumption we cannot make. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. I am asking this as a hypothetical question. As- 
suming that in all of these signatures one individual is innocent and 
some other person is guilty, isn't a cloud cast over the reputation of 
that individual when he is advised to take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Carroll. Not when he is advised to do so, sir. But in the 
judgment of many persons there is a cloud cast over him when he 
actually does it. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Carroll. I happen to disagree with that judgment. 

Senator Curtis. I would think by your own admission there is a 
conflict of interest here that would impel you to withdraw. 

Mr. Carroll. There would be a conflict, sir, on your hypothesis. 
As you properly said, I am the only judge of those facts. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I will not press for 
a ruling at this point. 

The Chairman. You raised a point of order with respect to his 
being retained, that under the rule the witness himself has the right 
to select an attorney. I would also hold that, of course, anyone 
would have a right to accept or use an attorney selected for him. I 
think there is no question about that, particularly in the circum- 
stances attending this matter. 

But one may need an attorney, if he is subpenaed as a witness, or 
if he is charged with a crime, so far as that is concerned, and he may 
go to someone and ask about an attorney. They may agree to sup- 
ply him an attorney. Certainly in a case like this, the union officials 
may agree — I think wrongly so, I think corruptly so — to supply the 
attorney. I think it is a part of the corruption of this union and its 
officials, a part of the cloak they are hiding behind, trying to protect 
the theory that they may have committed. I think it is a disgraceful 
thing, but if these witnesses say "We are going to take tlie union 
attorney, and he is going to be our attorney," I don't think I have a 
right to say they cannot, though I condemn it. On the face of it, 
particularly with all the circumstances attending this particular in- 
vestigation, I think it is most reprehensible, and I do not agree with 
the attorney when he says there is no conflict of interest, that in his 
own conscience he feels that way. I cannot judge that, but I expressed 
my view yesterday about it. There is no moral standard or ethical 
standard that Avould tolerate representing such a conflict of interest 
as obviously appears here. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Carroll. Pardon me, sir. There is one more thing I would 
like to say, both in answer to yourself and to Senator Curtis. 

The Chairman. Make it brief. We thrashed this out yesterday. 
You can't change my view about it. 

Mr. Carroll, You have stated, sir, you are not pronouncing judg- 
ment. On the other hand, it appears to me that you have. I, as you 



10582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

know, have a different view, and so do the members of our associa- 
tion. 

The Chairman. I am not j^ronouncing judgment on j^our con- 
science. I may have a very firm opinion about it. Don't ask me to 
announce it. 

Mr. Carroll. I have an equally firm opinion, sir. But I should 
call to your attention that this matter is governed by the law of 
Pennsylvania, since that is where we were retained, and there is a 
statute in Pennsylvania 

The Chairman. The law of Pennsylvania doesn't control the pro- 
cedure of this committee. 

Mr. Carroll. It governs actions occurring in Pennsylvania, which 
is where we were retained. The law of Pennsylvania specifically 
permits labor organizations to provide counsel, to get counsel, to re- 
tain counsel, for their members. I will make it a point to go to the 
Library of Congress and bring that in for you, this afternoon, if you 
would like to see it. 

In addition to that, you Imow the opinion of the bar association. 

The Chairman. I don't believe the bar association will condone 
this, when they know the truth. I may be mistaken. 

Mr. Carroll. You saw what they put in writing. Senator. 

The Chairman. I know, but I don't think thej'^ had all the facts. I 
think when they get all the facts, they will condemn it. I think they 
will feel, then, that you ought to have the moral courage to withdraw 
from one side or the other. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, it would be very easy for me to withdraw. 
I think the more difficult thing is to stay. 

The Chairman. I don't care whether you do or not. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Al Berman, your name is Abraham Berman 
and you are also known as Al Berman ? 

Mr. Berman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are a business agent for the local ? 

Mr. Berman. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat experience had j^ou had prior to being made 
business agent ? 

Mr. Berman. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. I was a truckdriver and a steward for 13 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you operate the numbers in the various 
shops around Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Isn't it a fact that that was your chief source of in- 
come, running the numbers racket in certain parts of Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself, under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you put up some money for Mr. Cohen in his 
bid for election ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you repaid after he was elected out of union 
funds, Mr. Berman ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself, and I exercise that right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10583 

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

The Chairman. Senator Curtis, who has been present up to now 
in the proceedings this morning, has to leave for another appointment. 
Under the rules of the committee it requires two members present for 
the purpose of holding public hearings. Since Senator Curtis has to 
go, we will have to suspend for a few moments until another member 
of the committee arrives. We will be in brief recess. 

(Brief recess.) 

(After the recess, at the reconvening, the following members were 
present: Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Counsel, 
you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you made a business agent for your support of 
Mr. Cohen, as a reward ? 

Mr. Berman. Did you address that to me ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Berman. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to answer that 
question under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make arrangements for you to continue to 
run your numbers operation in and around the union after you were 
business agent ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were arrested in 1951, is that right, on a charge 
of setting up and maintaining, and abbetting in an unlawful lottery, 
fined $50 and costs ? 

Mr. Berman. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that your only conviction ? 

Mr. Berman. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. I was arrested in 1933. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are there any other convictions other than this? 

Mr. Berman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you convicted in 1933 ? 

Mr. Berman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat were you arrested for ? 

Mr. Berman. Counterfeiting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you operate your numbers in these various shops 
of the Teamsters Union ? Garages ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen knew you were operating, did he not ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you put up some $8,000 or $10,000 for Mr. 
Cohen's campaign ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against jny self under the fifth amendment and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were reimbursed for that money that you 
put up, out of union funds, were you not ? 

Mr. Berman. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment, and I exercise that right. 



10584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Baker, liow long have you been a member of 
local 107? 

Mr. Baker. 22 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you help and support Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For that support, you were made a business agent, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment and I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know any of the individuals who were 
beaten up, who opposed Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Baker. Councilor, I am advised that I have a right not to be 
a witness against myself. I exercise the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know any of the people that were respon- 
sible for beating them up ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to he a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that ri^ht. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they reimbursed, given money, for beating 
these people up ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who is responsible for the violence 
that took place in connection with the strikes in Philadelphia, in 
which local 107 was interested ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Did you participate in beating them up ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. You don't believe in law and order, do you? 

Mr. Baker. I do. 

The Chairman. Would you help enforce it? Are you willing to 
help enforce the law ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. I thought so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Bennie Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Lapensohn doing around union head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised I have a right not to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

'Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lapensohn ever give you any money ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Lapensohn ever received any 
money from any employer? 

Mr. Baker, t have a right not to be a witness against myself under 
the fifth amendment. I exercise that I'ight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Cohen ever received any money 
from any employer? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10585 

Mr. Kennedy. Couldn't he know the answer to that without turn- 
ing to you, Mr. Attorney ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he ever received any money from 
Mr. Lapensohn? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do not ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever present when Mr. Lapensohn ever 
gave Mr. Cohen any money ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever receive any money from Mr. Lapen- 
sohn yourself ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth am.pndment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it understood that any of this money had come 
from any employers in Philadelphia? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hession, you have been in local 107 for how 
long ? 

Mr. Hession. Twenty-one years. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask Mr. Baker a question. Are you pres- 
ently the business agent of the local union, Mr. Baker ? 

Mr. Baker. I can't hear you. 

Senator Mundt. Are you presently the business agent of this local 
union ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What is your salary ? 

Mr. Baker. I beg your pardon. 

Senator Mundt. What is your salary ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against mystelf under the fiftli amendment. I exercise that right. 

Senator Mundt. I asked you your salary as business agent of the 
local union. That can't posibly incriminate you. 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Senator Mundt. Don't you think that the members of the union 
have a right to know how much salary they are paying a business 
agent ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. This is the place to make it clear. 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Senator Mundt. How do you reconcile taking the fifth amendment 
on your salary with your previous statement that you thing the mem- 
bers of the union liave a right to know how much you are getting? 

Ml". Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Senator Mundt. Then you don't really think that the members of 
the union have a right to know how much of their dues are going to 
vou ? 



10586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Baker. They know what I make. 

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

Senator Mundt. They know what you tell them. I want to know 
hoAv much you actually take from them. You have something to con- 
ceal, because you are taking the fifth amendment. Under the Consti- 
tution, you can do that only to protect yourself against incrimination. 
So by what you have said, you imply you are taking from them more 
than they think you are getting. 

Mr. Baker. Senator, I don't want to give evidence against myself. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want you to give evidence against yourself. 
But it is strange to me that you stand out there in open testimony 
and imply that you are taking away from the union men and women 
who pay dues more than they think you are getting, more than your 
salary is supposed to be, because by taking the fifth amendment you 
imply criminally you are taking from them something that belongs to 
them. That shocks me. 

I asked you a simple question : How much salary do you get? How 
much do you take from the union as a business agent ? 

You tell me if you tell me that, "I will incriminate myself," which 
certainly implies you are stealing from them. 

That shocks me. It is a very innocent question. You said you 
thought they had a right to know how much of their dues went to 
you, and now you say "Gee, if I told them, I would go to jail. I would 
incriminate myself." What kind of business is this? These people 
pay dues. They are workingmen and women. 

Mr. Baker. Senator, as far as I am concerned, even an innocent man 
can plead the fifth amendment. 

Senator Mundt. Well, you certainly don't sound like an innocent 
man to me when you try to deny how much you are getting from the 
union. 

Mr. Baker. Our members know, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. They think they know. They know when you are 
under oath and you take the fifth amendment, they are being kidded. 
They don't know how much you take. You are kidding somebody, 
including the poor fellows who have to pay dues. 

That is all. 

Senator Kennedy. May I ask that witness this question : You stated 
that your members knew what you had done with funds, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Yet the only grounds upon which you can plead 
fifth amendment are self-incrimination, and that it might do you 
damage. How do you square those two statements, that on the one 
hand your union knows what you have done, giving the implication 
that you are innocent, and then on the other hand you take the fifth 
amendment on the grounds that an honest answer might incriminate 
you. How do you reconcile those two points ? 

Mr. Baker. Senator, it may be evidence against me. 

Senator Kennedy. Therefore, it seems to me — well, let me ask you 
this : Do the members of your union know about that evidence ? ' 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kjennedy. The members know what it is that might be used 
against you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10587 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Wlien did you tell them that ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Bakek. As far as I am concerned, Senator, I don t have to 
give the evidence. They know it. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't have to give them the evidence. 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't have to give me the evidence ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ivennedy. But you say you have given it to all your union 
members ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You can plead whatever privileges you want. 
I don't think it involves you if you just tell me on what occasion, 
when, and in what documents or in what speech the members were 
given this information. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Baker. Sir, as far as I am concerned, it is in all the financial 
reports and records of our local. It is right in the books. 

The Chairman. We got some interesting records here. Would you 
clear them up for us? Were you a part of this group that has been 
raising these amounts ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. How many members do you have in your union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Approximately 14,000. 

Senator Mundt. Will you tell us what means you used in telling 
these 14,000 people what evidence it is that you are concealing from 
us by disclosing to them? How did you disclose it to them? 

Mr. Baker. It is all in the books. 

Senator Mundt. Have you sent the books to all 14,000 members? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. The books are available to any member that wants to 
see them. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. What do they have, a big book-looking day, some- 
time, when all 14,000 of them can take a look? How do they find 
out? 

Mr. Baker. Sir, this committee has had the books since late last 
September, so nobody can look at the records. 

Senator Mundt. All right. Then your members don't know, be- 
cause they are in the books and we have the books. So they are being 
deluded and deceived, because they can't find out. 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Baker. Well, sir, I attend all the meetings, and the financial 
reports are read at all the meetings. 

Senator Mundt. How many people attend the meetings besides 
you? 

Mr. Baker. Well, it all depends, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You never had 14,000, have you ? 



21243— 58— pt. 27- 



10588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Baker. It is impossible. I don't think any unior. had 14,000 
there. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to find out how we get the informa- 
tion out to the people who don't attend meetings, who can't see the 
books, because we have the books, where something is happening 
that you are afraid to talk about, because it might incriminate you, 
you might go to jail. I am thinking about the poor union member 
who belongs to unions, who pays dues, who asks the officials about 
the money, and the official says "I can't tell you that, I would go to 
jail." 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not giving legal advice, Mr. Attorney. You 
are whispering the answers to them. 

Mr. Carroll. AMien the question is so unclear and in such argu- 
mentative fashion that the witness is not likely to understand them, 
I think it is a proper function of counsel to try to clear up the 
question. That is all I am doing, sir. 

The Chairman. If I find you doing it, you will be excluded from 
the hearing room. 

You know that. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, you know I have not and will not do any 
such thing. 

The Chairman. I am telling you frankly if you do it — well, pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. Baker. Senator Mundt, it all depends on how many members 
come to a meeting, sometimes 5,000, 4,000, 3,000. It all depends on 
who comes there. In the summer time, they all go aAvay, so you get 
less people. 

Senator Mundt. I am not quarreling with that. I recognize they 
don't all come, couldn't all come. That is why I am trynig to get 
you to say publicly so all 14,000 can read it in the newspaper what 
you have been doing with their money. 

I asked you a simple question of what was your salary, and you 
say you can't dare tell. 

Mr. Baker. Senator, any member in our local, if he wants to know 
the financial report, he is entitled to go down to our office and look 
at the books. 

Senator Mundt. We have the books. 

He would have to come to Washington. We would like him to 
get the information now. It is a long journey to Washington to 
find the books. You just don't want to tell me ? 

Mr. Baker. No answer. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: Do the books tell how much 
money you receive from the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. These are the books that you are talking about. 

Mr. Baker. I imagine they would, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What do you mean you imagine they would. Do 
they or do they not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Well, I don't keep the books. 

Senator Mundi\ You said that union members are told accurately 
how much money you receive from the union in salary, that the union 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10589 

members are told and, therefore, you do not have to tell the committee. 
Are they, in fact, informed as to how much you personally receive 
from the union? 

Mr. Baker. Yes ; they are. 

Senator Mundt. In salary ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Well, sir, the only way I can answer that is that the 
books show the information any time they want to see it. 

Senator Mundt. Do they tell how much you, Mr. Baker, receive 
from the union ? 

Mr. Baker. That is right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In salary and in any other money that you receive ? 

Mr. Baker, In our financial reports, yes. 

Senator Mundt. It is broken down as far as you personally are 
concerned ? 

Mr. Baker. I don't know. I couldn't answer that question. 

Senator Mundt. You told the committee that they are informed, 
that the membership is informed. Are they in fact informed or not? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. I can only say the same thing again, counselor. They 
get the monthly report of the expenses. 

Senator Mundt. Yes; they get the monthly' report and expenses. 
Is this the monthly report ? 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a document, apparently 
being the original. It is on the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters and Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, signed 
by the trustees of local No. 107, signed by Mr. O'Lear, Charles 
O'Lear, Walter Baker, and Andrew Kozak. This is dated for the 
month of September 1954. I ask the clerk to present to you this docu- 
ment, which is in looseleaf binder. Please examine it and state if you 
identify it as a financial report to the union members, and as a part 
of the records of your union. 

(The document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Senator, it is the regular report, the regular form. 

The Chairman. It is signed by your trustees? 

Mr. Baker. It appears to be. 

The Chairman. As far as you know, it is authentic, it is their 
report ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So far as you can tell. 

That document may be made exhibit No. 15. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 15" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. Can you find your name on that document, Mi-. 
Baker? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Does it list your salary ? 

Mr. Baker. I beg your pardon? 

Senator Mundt. Does it list your salary ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What does it say about you? Read what H savs 
about vou. 



10590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Baker. Well, it says here, fraternally submitted, with three 
signatures. 

Senator Mundt. And you were one of the three ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. But in it that doesn't tell the membership any- 
thing about your salary ; does it ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. All that tells the membership, then, if they come 
all the way down to Washington to look at the books is that you 
signed the sheet which conceals from them your salary. That is all 
that shows. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Well, sir, the only way I can answer this is that it says 
salaries here, which covers all the pay of the agents. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't get it all ; did you ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. No ; so the poor fellow who is paying dues in your 
union, he still has no idea what you are making. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Senator Curtis, they still know what I get for pay. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know how they would find out. 

Mr. Baker. They do. In our local they do. They know what 
we do. 

Senator Mundt. When you tell a congressional committee undei- 
oath "I don't dare tell, I might go to jail, this is incriminating evi- 
dence, I have done something wrong," I don't know how they will 
find out, because the document you sign might just as well be a blank 
sheet of paper as far as they are concerned. 

Your name doesn't appear any place, or what you get. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Baker, did you sign that? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign that financial report? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You signed it? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. When I asked you earlier about what appeared on 
the financial statement, you said you did not know whether it con- 
tained your salary. Do you ever look them over ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, that pertains to all the agents' salary, counselor. 

Mr. Kennedy. I was asking about your personal salary, and you 
said you did not know. 

Mr. Baker. Well, it would be in with the rest of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could the membership know how much money 
you receive? How could the membership know from this how much 
money you receive from the union ? 

Mr. Baker. They can't know from that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then how about telling us. How much money do 
you receive from the union ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You said you told the membership, that the mem- 
bership knew. When did you tell the membership? That was a 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10591 

question that was asked you. Then you said it was pointed out in 
the financial report. Now we find it is not in the financial rej)ort. 
Have you ever advised the membership how much money you received 
from the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Sir, they know, counselor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever advised them, or how have they 
found out how much money you have received from the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Sir, there are resolutions at our meetings telling our 
people our salaries. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they tell how much money you receive from the 
union ? 

Mr. Baker. As far as our pay is concerned ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to find out. That is not the question. Do 
they tell how much money you receive from the union ? That is the 
question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a legal question ? You can tell that. Answer 
the question. 

Mr. Baker. Will you please repeat that, counselor ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Do these reports tell how much money you receive 
from the union ? 

Mr. Baker. I am not sure, counselor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then where is the membership going to find out how 
much money you get ? You say the membership can find out. Wliere 
can they find out ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a legal question again ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, sir, they could see by looking at the records if the 
committee would give them back to them. There is no way of check- 
ing right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would they know from looking at the records about 
the forged checks, for instance ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. You didn't report those in here, did you ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you swear that the records that are kept by 
the union are accurate ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, the membership coming in and looking 
at the records would not get an accurate picture, would they ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right, 

Mr. Kennedy. Any time you are pinned down on any question, you 
make a blanket statement on the advice of your attorney that the 
membership knows what is going on, and when you are pinned down, 
you always hide behind the fifth amendment. 

It doesn't make any sense. It is a fraud. 



10592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I notice in a subsequent month of the reports you 
were shown, for September 1954, 1 notice in November following you 
have organization fund paying out $10,000. 

Can you account for that, where that money went ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Is that the $10,000 check that went to make up the 
$25,000 that was disbursed here, and kickbacks came from it ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Would you actually be a witness against yourself 
if you told the truth about it ? 

Mr. Baker. It might be so. 

The Chairman. It might be. I am persuaded by a stronger word 
than might. 

Senator Mundt. How much dues do your members pay in the 
union ? 

Mr. Baker. $5 a month, sir. 

Senator Mundt. $5 a month ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you suppose your union could get along on 
$2.50 a month dues if you weren't misusing any of the money ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Senator Mundt. I think your members will be interested in read- 
ing your answer to that question, if they are paying twice as much 
dues per week as to what they are paying, if you weren't misusing it; 
that is up to them. I imagine you have enough good Americans in 
that union who are kind of tired of getting gypped. 

That is up to them. If they like it, I shouldn't complain, I sup- 
pose. 

Senator Ivennedt. I have one more question. Have you told your 
members, or are they informed, about the ansAvers to all the questions 
which you are reluctant to answer here ? 

Does the membership have all the information we have been asking 
you about ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

Senator Kennedy. The statement was made by you that the mem- 
bership did have that information. I want to confirm whether that 
is a fact or not. Do you refuse to answer that question ? Do you re- 
fuse to answer the question as to whether your membership has the 
information ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Mv. Chairman, I would like to ask the attor- 
ney as counselor for the union whether he has been through these 
books before this particular hearing ? 

Mr. Carroll. I beg your pardon ^ 

Senator I\jennedy. I would like to ask you as counsel for this 
union for some years whether you have been through the books. 

Mr. Carroll. No, Senator ; I have not, ever. 

Senator Kennedy. You are not familiar with any of this material 
which has been brought forward now ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10593 

Mr. Carroll. The only familiarity I have with respect to the books 
is information received' from the accountants. I haven't personal 
knowledge of it. 

Senator Kennedy. What did the accountants tell you ? 

Have you a report of the accountants ? 

Mr. Carroll. I don't. It has been turned over to the committee. 
All of the accountants' workpapers were turned over to the commit- 
tee about a month ago. 

Senator Kennedy. That is the only information you have, what 
has been turned over to the committee ? 

Mr. Carroll. That is right. You have practically every scrap of 
paper that this union ever had, starting, I think, as early as last 
June. 

Senator Ivennedy. As counsel for the union, and, therefore, in a 
sense, a part of the union staff, you have never, yourself, examined 
the books or examined whether the interest of the membership has 
been adequately protected ? 

Mr. Carroll. I have never had anything to do with the books. 
The accountants take care of all of that. The regular reports are 
submitted to the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue. 

Senator Kennedy. You are attorney for a union which is under 
great suspicion by this committee and by others who will examine 
the testimony. You are the officers, in a sense, of a union, as the 
agent of a union. Have you ever examined these matters or have 
you been concerned about them, as an attorney for 4 years for this 
union, which has had the looting which has been going on, as revealed 
by this committee? Have you, as a responsible attorney, had any 
knowledge of it or concern about it ? 

Mr. Carroll. I have never had any knowledge of any such thing. 
I say again, sir, that the accounting work is left to the accountants. 

Senator Ivennedy. You were never involved in any of these mat- 
ters ? You never heard of any of the matters we have been discussing 
before this committee ? 

Mr. Carroll. Some things I have heard about. Senator, together 
witii explanations of them prior to this hearing, but only in connec- 
tion with interviews with clients with respect to these hearings. 

Senator Ivennedy. I would like to ask the witness : When did this 
union go into trusteeship ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. What I am trying to get at is this: I wonder 
how you got your job. Are you appointed or elected ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. I was appointed. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Cohen appointed you ? 

Mr. Baker. Mr. Cohen and Joe Grace. 

Senator Kennedy. When did they appoint you ? 

Mr. Baker. Last November. 

Senator Kennedy. What was your job before that ? 

Mr. Baker. Truckdriver. 

Senator Kennedy. You were then appointed and what is your 
title now ? 

Mr. Baker. Business agent. 

Senator Kennedy. Business agent. Is it customary in the Team- 
sters that buoiness agents are appointed or elected ? 



10594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Baker. Senator, I want to correct that statement. I was 
appointed in 1954 also. 

Senator Kennp:dt. How long were you a business agent? 

Mr. Baker. Well, from June 1954, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. The business agent is not elected in your local ; 
is that correct ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. We were appointed, Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. You were appointed by whom ? 

Mr. Baker. Joe Grace and Kay Cohen. 

Senator Kennedy. What were their positions when they appointed 
you? 

Mr. Baker. Ray Cohen was secretary-treasurer and Joe Grace 
was the president. 

Senator Kennedy, xlll officers, they are elected; aren't they? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. But all other officers of the union are appointed, 
is that correct, such as business agent ? 

Mr. Baker. Well, since 1954 ; yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Since 1954 they have been appointed ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You hold your job on the continued support of 
Mr. Cohen? He could replace you tomorrow, could he, without 
going to the membership ? 

Mr. Baker. That is right, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Is that customary in the Teamsters, that busi- 
ness agents are appointed, or elected ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. They are all appointed ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ivennedy. By the secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Were they elected in that local before 1954? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. And what ; Mr. Cohen decided to appoint them 
from then on ? 

Mr. Baker. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Cohen decided to appoint them, or was it 
nationwide, that decision ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, maybe I can help you on that. You have 
the minutes of a meeting in June of 1954, which showed the member- 
ship's authorization to the business manager. 

Senator Kennedy. I am surprised he doesn't know this informa- 
tion. This isn't anything involving his honesty. 

It seems to me it is not a legal question. I am trying to find out 
the procedures of the union. It seems to me you have much more 
familiarity with them than he does. Why is that ? 

Mr. Carroll. I have been through those particular minutes. I 
tried a lawsuit involving them. 

Senator Kennedy. He ought to be able to answer. He has been a 
business agent for 4 years. He ought to know how they were picked 
before he took office. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10595 

Mr. Baker. Sir, I have been trying to give you the right answer. 
That is why I have been consulting the attorney. 

I don't want to lie about it. I want to answer your question. 

Senator Kennedy. What is the answer ? 

Mr. Baker. We were appointed by Ray Cohen and Joe Grace in 

1954. 
Senator Kennedy. And before that, do you know how they were 

done? 

Mr. Baker. They were elected. 

Senator Kennedy. Why was that change made ? 

Mr. Baker. They had a meeting that was decided by the rank and 
file. Mr. Cohen and Joe Grace told the rank and file they were going 
to appoint us. 

Senator Kennedy. When is your term up ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. You are the most competent officeholder that I 
have ever met. 

Mr. Baker. I think about 5 years, sir. We were appointed m 1952. 
I am trying to answer your question, Senator Kennedy. 

I am not trying to run around anything. 

Senator Kennedy. Tell me when it is, if you would ? 

Mr. Baker. 1952. It is good for 5 years. We were appointed for 
5 years. 

Senator Kennedy. Is that 1957 or the fall of 1958 ? 

Mr. Baker. I would say the fall of 1958. 

Senator Kennedy. There will be another election in the union then ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. And you and Mr. Cohen and others come up 
before the membership for another election ? 

Mr. Baker. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. You must mean 1953, don't you, not 1952? 

Mr. Baker. Sir, for the record, 1953 instead of 1952. 

Senator Kennedy. The reason I am asking this, to sum it up, is 
that it seems to me that the control that Mr. Cohen has over the 
union is extreme. 

Here is a business agent who, before 1953 or 1954, was elected and 
now is appointed. 

You have no idea, without looking through and talking to other 
people, when Mr. Cohen's term ends and when you would be subject 
to either removal or reappointment. 

Will that election be a secret ballot the end of this year, when 
Mr. Cohen comes up again, if he does ? 

Mr, Baker. Sir, I couldn't answer that. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know ? 

Mr. Baker. No. 

Senator Kennedy. Was it a secret ballot the last time ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. For Mr. Cohen, sir? Yes; that was a secret ballot 
vote. 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know whether it will be this time ? 

Mr. Baker. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Kennedy. You don't know whether it will be this time? 

Mr. Baker. That I couldn't answer, Senator Kennedy. 



10596 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Who keeps these records ? Who signs tliat they 
are a fair report ? Is it you ? 

Mr. Baker. I am one of them. 

Senator Kennedy. Who are the others ? 

Mr. Baker. Charles O'Lear and Mike Hession. 

Senator Kennedy. Were they appointed by Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Baker. No. We were elected trustees. 

Senator Kennedy. When ? 

Mr. Baker. At the union hall meeting. 

Senator Kennedy. When ? 

Mr. Baker. I think in November 1953. 

Senator Kennedy. When is that term up ? 

Mr, Baker. Five years, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Will there be a secret ballot for that ? 

Mr. Baker. That I couldn't answer. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you come up for election as trustee in 
lyoo s 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Have the other two trustees been called as 
witnesses ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Lear took the fifth amendment. 

Senator Kennedy. What about the other one ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hession is here now. He is one of the business 
agents. Those are the three. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you taken the fifth amendment on these 
questions? 

Mr. Hession. I haven't been asked anything yet. 

The Chairman. Following up the September report, September 
of 1954, I find a report of May 1955, apparently signed by you and 
the other two trustees, listing a total expenditure under strike benefits 
and other expenses of $36,956.71. 

I find an itemized statement of it, what purports to be, and it shows 
organization expenses, $29,930 for that month. 

It seems to be a rather excessive expense. This is not itemized in 
any way. 

Do you keep any records to show who this organizational expense 
IS paid to. 

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

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Do you keep any records showing who this or- 
ganizational expense 

Mr. Baker. Sir, I think the committee has the records for that. 

The Chairman. I asked if your union keeps any records. 

Mr. Baker. I imagine they do. Senator. 

Mr. Chairman. You imagine. You signed this. Do you have any 
records to verify that $29,930 expense, organizational expense? 

Mr. Baker. That I couldn't answer. Senator. 

The Chairman. You signed this. Wouldn't you try to know 
whether it is accurate or not ? 

The fact is you don't do you? 

(Witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Baker. I didn't check the records, sir. 

The Chairman. What records? 

Mr. Baker. The ones that the committee has. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10597 

The Chairman. You don't have any records showing where this 
$29,000 went to, do you ? That is the truth about it? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Baker. That is the truth ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the truth, you don't have any records 
showing where it went. 

Then I find in the same item, Ben Lapensohn^ for services, $3,250. 

What was he paid that for? What kind of services did he render? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. When we get down to the crookedness, you take the 
fifth amendment, don't you ? 

It gets uncomfortable, I can see. I just point that out to illustrate, 
from your record, how you can and how you do it. 

These financial affairs of unions are operated so as to cover up in 
general terms, and money can be used in any way in the world. 

When you happen to get a name on there like Ben Lapensohn, and 
pay him $3,250 in 1 month and say for services, you do not have to 
show what it is. 

What kind of a guy is he ? Wliat does he do around there ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Is he an official of this union ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Is he an agent or representative of it in any 
capacity ? 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. You know now he is a fugitive from justice, don't 

Mr. Baker. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. I exercise that right. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Kennedy. I asked counsel how much money was involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we put on the staff investigator for a moment 
in this comiection, on the questions that you asked. 

The Chairman. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. FLANAGAN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Flanagan, you have gone through the books 
and records of local 107 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. And have examined their books and records for cash 
after Mr Kaymond Cohen took over as secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Checks for how much and in what amounts were 
made out to cash for this local during this period of time ? 

Mr. Flanagan. From June 1954, until September 1957, local 107 
drew checks to cash amounting to $225,597. These checks were 
charged to organizing and strike expenses. 

The Chairman. Are there any vouchers to support those expendi- 
tures ? 



10598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Flanagan. They had lists of names with amounts set beside 
them, which pm-portedly supported the disbursement of this cash. 

The Chairman. Like this exhibit No. 5 here ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

The Chlvirman. That represents, as I understand, $25,000 of it that 
was withdrawn ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Ivennedy. That $25,000 is in addition to this amount, isn't it? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

The Chairman. That makes a total of $250,000, then? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. This $25,000 we have been talking about in exhibit 
5 is in addition to the $225,000 in other cash checks that you have ac- 
counted for ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Going through those lists of names, have we found 
maccuracies on the other lists that have been furnished to the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes, we have. 

Mr, Kennedy. There have been inaccuracies in the amounts of 
money that were alleged to have been received by these individuals? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. We talked to witnesses who told 
us that they received either less than the amount indicated opposite 
their names, or they did not receive any of the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. On these lists that we found at least some inac- 
curacies on, how much does it amount to ? 

Mr. Flanagan. The total amount represented by the lists which we 
considered questionable is $141,482.77. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we are unable to tell how much of that is cor- 
rect, but at least those lists amounting to that have inaccuracies on 
them, is that correct ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. I^nnedy. And there is no backup on any of the $250,000. The 
whole $250,000 has no vouchers other than a list of names, is that 
right? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these checks are all to cash ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. The list of names indicates the recipient of the 
money was paid in cash and not by check ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, there is a quarter of a million dol- 
lars in a period of 3 years time which was disbursed in cash in that 
fashion ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Without any vouchers for it, or anything to show 
what the money actually went for ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Nothing except those lists. 

The Chairman. All that list says is that they received the money. 
It doesn't say what it is for. 

Mr. Flanagan. Some of the lists. Senator McClellan 

The Chairman. Exhibit 5 doesn't state what it is for, but just that 
they received the money. Isn't that correct? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10599 

Mr. Flanagan. On the first page, that is correct. That is also cor- 
rect on the second page. There is no heading. 

The Chairman. There is nothing to show what the money was paid 
out for, but just that it was spent ? 

Mr. Fi^nagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And that those individuals that signed it received 
it? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is right. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Flanagan, you have names and opposite 
how many reports, such as this 

Mr. Flanagan. No; there are some lists which have no amounts 
set opposite the individual names. 

Senator Kennedy. But there is a name for all of the $250,000 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Do many of the lists say as this one did, that 
they got $1,500 for organizing expenses, but there is no more detailed 
breakdown as to what organization or how much each got ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. You have some other lists like this one, that give 
them the money, the amounts of money ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. These all seem to have been done with the same 
pen. 

Mr. Flanagan. I couldn't testify to that. 

Senator Kennedy. Has there been a handwriting expert look at 
these? 

Mr. Kennedy. At some of them, as we stated, and there have been 
alterations on them in the amounts of money that are alleged to have 
been received. 

Senator Kennedy. Did they compare the signature of Edward 
Palermi, for example, and John Feduniue, who seem to be remark- 
ably alike ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We found enough inaccuracies and alterations in the 
lists to indicate what the patterns were. We couldn't go through 
every one of the names. 

Senator Kennedy. Were these three trustees the responsible ones 
ultimately for dispensing this money in this fashion ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I cannot testify as to who would be responsible for 
dispensing the moneys in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are the ones that signed the financial state- 
ments, which are available to the union membership as to how the 
money has been used. Mr. Hession and Mr. O'Lear and Mr. Baker 
are those. 

All of these gentlemen took the fifth amendment. 

Senator Kennedy. So we have $250,000 in cash, drawn to cash. 
You have evidence that these amounts have been altered. There is 
no breakdown as to how the money would be spent or what organizing 
expenses they are talking to, and there are no vouchers. 

Is that the way the books have been kept ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Senator, some of the books indicate the particular 
organizing attempt or strike for which the money was expended. 

Senator Kennedy. Some of them do? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

Senator Kjennedy. Some of them do not? 



10600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Flanagan. Correct. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask the attorney for this union 
whether he was aware that this is the way tlie books were being kept. 

Mr. Carroll. As I previously said, I had no evidence of this until 
the committee began looking into it, and I haven't carefully examined 
them since. 

As I mentioned, I guess for about 21/2 months last summer we in- 
vited your investigators to use our office, and they did so, and they 
had the books there. 

Then in September they were all subpenaed here and you had ex- 
clusive possession of them since that time. 

Senator Kennedy. I wonder if anyone has made an examination 
of the reports called for under the Taft-Hartley law, the financial 
reporting section of the Taft-Hartley law, of this union. 

Mr. Flanagan. We have. 

Senator Kennedy. The requirement as it is now in the Taft- 
Hartley — they evidently filed a report — does this give any informa- 
tion, such as we now have before us, as to the details as to how this 
money was expended ? 

In other words, would you have been able to guess, from the exam- 
ination of the reports filed by this union under Taft-Hartley, that 
$250,000 was drawn to cash, and some of the figures were forged or 
changed, and that others had no accounting of exactly how they were 
spent, other than cash? 

Mr. Flanagan. No, sir. I came to that conclusion from examining 
the report. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, the reporting section of Taft- 
Hartley as it stands now was of no use to you in finding out the in- 
formation which you have found out after examining the books 
yourself, is that correct? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. In the first place, the trustees signed the reports 
for the 3 or 4 years which are before us now ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. If you will let me interrupt a moment. 

Present that book to the witness. 

Is this the report of the union, showing its monthly financial re- 
ports to the members, the book you have before you, the looseleaf 
binder? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is my understanding of this document. 

The Chairman. I am talking about the whole document. Is that 
whole book the record of the union ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the financial record that it kept and re- 
ported to its members? 

Mr. Flanagan. These reports are based upon other books and 
records which are kept by the union. 

The Chairman. I understand. But this is the record of the union 
that you have before you, where they made their fuiancial reports to 
the members? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with that book ? 

Mr. Fi,ANAGAN. Yes ; I am. 

The CiL\iRMAN. You know it is a union record ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10601 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

The Chairman. That whole book may be made exhibit No. 15 for 
reference, so that any part of it may be referred to as evidence. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 15" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Kennedy. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, this shows that 
the reports, or it seems to indicate that the reports, filed under the 
Taft-Hartley law at present, the fmancial reports, are wholly inade- 
quate to reveal this type of misappropriation of money. 

Secondly, that these trustees have completely failed in their trust 
as trustees, to watch the interest of members. 

As I understand, everyone that the committee staff has interrogated 
who received this money took the fifth amendment. 

It seems to me, gentlemen, that you have not met your obligations 
at all and ought to resign. 

I say that to you, Mr. Baker. 

Have you any comment about that, Mr. Baker? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir, no comment. 

Senator Kennedy. You signed as trustee, didn't you, these financial 
reports ? 

Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. And you haven't any comment or explanation 
of what the $'250,000 in cash was used for ? 

Mr. Baker. No, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Wliat about the other witness? Do you have 
any explanation? 

Mr. Hession. No. sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Will you give one? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. Did you get any of the money yourself? 

Mr. Hession. Pardon me, sir, my signature is not even on there. 
I have only been a trustee since January. 

Senator Kennedy. I am asking did you get any of this money 
yourself? 

Mr. Hession. I am advised that I have a right not to be a witness 
against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Senator Kennedy. How long have you been a trustee ? 

Mr. Hession. I got elected in November and the term started in 
January. 

Senator Kennedy. Of this year ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir, 

Sena+or Kennedy. You were elected ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Elected or appointed? 

Mr. Hession. I was elected trustee in November. 

Senator Kennedy. And you will not give us any information on 
this, is that correct, that you take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Hession. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. I think you ought to resign, too. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Kennedy. Did the other trustee take the fifth amendment, 
too? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



10602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. I think he ought to resign. $250,000 is a lot 
of money. To come before a committee and not be able to give any 
explanation or how to account for it, and every official to take the 
fifth amendment, shows that it is a corrupt union leadership. 

I am hopeful that the attorney will examine his relationship with 
them, because it seems to me that he is involved, having been attorney 
for one of the worse run unions in the country for 4 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. The president has taken the fifth amendment and 
the vice president has taken the fifth amendment on the question of 
the use of this money. 

Senator Kennedy. To say that you told the membership, and then 
refuse to tell in what form you gave the information to the member- 
ship, and in what form and on what basis, your refusal to answer 
all of those questions, in my opinion, leaves no doubt as to your 
involvement in the misuse of these funds. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

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

(Whereupon, at 12:32 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess 
were : Senators McClellan and Kennedy.) 

ArTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hartsough. 

The Chairman. Be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP EDWAED J. HARTSOUGH, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, JOHN EOGERS CARROLL, OP PHILADELPHIA 

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

Mr. Hartsough. Edward J. Hartsough, 411 East Gowen Avenue, 
Philadelphia, Pa. I am the president of local 169 of the Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and 
Helpers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of Amer- 
ica? Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes. 

The Chairman. Somebody might say you have not done all of your 
homework if you don't know the initials of it. 

Mr. Hartsough. Well, Senator, we use the initials, and it is much 
easier to remember it. 

The Chairman. Is this local 169 in the Philadelphia area? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10603 

Mr. Kexnedy. Mr. Plartsough how long liave you been secretary- 
treasurer of that local? 

Mr. Hartsougk. Correction, Mr. Counsel. It is president of the 
organization. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been president ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Approximately 26 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been president 26 years ? 

Mr. Hartsough. President approximately 26 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were president from its beginning, from its 
inception ? 

Mr. Hartsough. That is right. It was formerly called local 18571. 
It was a Federal labor union charter. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members do you have ? 

Mr. Hartsough. We have approximately 7,000 members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did your local or did you support Mr. Cohen in the 
election ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes. The local union supported Eaymond Cohen 
for election. 

(At this point, Senator Ives left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you advance any union funds to Mr. Cohen in 
his election ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. No. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a legal question, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Will the counsel rephrase his question so I can get 
it clear as to what you are asking ? You'said did I. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any union funds of local 169 advanced 
to Mr. Cohen for his election ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I refuse to answer on the grounds of possible evi- 
dence that may be against me, on the ground of the fifth amendment, 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not going to tell us about that? About 
whetlier any funds of local 169 were used to advance the election of 
Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. And if you did advance them, did your union mem- 
bers approve of it? Did you have an election or have a vote or any- 
thing so that they would approve it and know what was going on? 

Mr. Hartsough. I refuse to answer, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You can't even talk about it without irettin^ in- 
crimmnfed, isthatit. 

Mr. Hartsough. There might be some evidence against me. 

I he Chairman. Proceed. 
_ Mr. Kennedy. Here are some checks, Mr. Chairman. According to 
the mtorniation we have, some $4,573.43 was advanced to help and 
assist Mr. CoJien m his bid for election. Some of it was in the fo-m of 
cash and some of it was paying some of Mr. Cohen's election bills. 

Is that correct, Mr. Hartsough, the figure I used, $4,573.43 ? 
XI J; Hartsough. I decline to answer on the same ground, invoking 
the filth amendment. ^ 

21243— 5S—pt. 27 15 



10604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I hand you photostatic copies of three checks, each 
of them made payable to Raymond Cohen. 

The first one 'is dated January 19, 1954, m the amount of $2,000. 
The check is signed by yourself, apparently, and Edwin F. Fadigan. 

The next check, a photostatic copy of which I shall present to you, 
is dated February 15, 1954, in the amount of $500, made payable to 
Raymond Cohen, and signed by yourself and Mr. Fadigan. 

The next one is in the amount of $500, dated the same date as the 
previous one, February 15, 1954, made to Raymond Cohen and signed 
by yourself and Mr. Fadigan, 

I ask you to examine those checks and state if you identify them as 
photostatic copies of the originals. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the checks ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I have examined the checks, Mr, Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you identify them? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel,) 

The Chairman. Well, either answer yes or no or take the fifth 
amendment. Let's move along. 

Do you identify them ? 

Mr, Hartsough. I refuse to answer on the grounds that to do so 
might tend to give evidence against me, under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. The checks will be made exhibit 16, 16-A, and 
16-B. 

(Documents referred to were marked Exhibits Nos. 16, 16-A and 
16-B, for reference and w^ill be found in the appendix on pp, 10812- 
10814,) 

The Chairman. Is that your signature on the check, issuing the 
check ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I have seen this signature, Mr. Chairman, and I 
decline to answer on the ground that it may tend to give evidence 
against me. 

The Chairman. What were these checks issued for ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
gromids. 

The Chairman. Were they drawn on union funds ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
grounds. 

The Chairman. I see you signed it and it says "authorized signa- 
ture" under your name, and also under that of Mr. Fadigan, 

You were authorized to sign it by whom ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the same 
ground. 

The Chairman. I find on the check, "Local 169, IBTCW&A, affili- 
ated with the American Federation of Labor, 1279^1 West Girard 
Avenue, Philadelphia, 23, Pennsylvania." What does that mean? 

( Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Hartsough. The ETC, Mr. Chairman — will you repeat — was 
the initials of the Internation Union, affiliated with the American 
Federation of Labor. 

The Chairman. That is the union you rej^resented at the time? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That is the union you are president of ? 

Mr. Hartsough. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10605 

The Cn.\iRMAN. And this is 3'our signature on the check, drawing 
out union money? 

Mr. IL\RT60UGH. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, 
on the grounds that I am invoking the fifth amendment. 

The Ch^hrman. You refuse to answer the obvious, what everybody 
knows is true? 

Mr. Hartsough. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on 
the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You haven't the courage or honesty to admit it? 
Mr. Hartsough. I have already stated my answer, invoking the 
fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. IvENNEDT. Mr. Hartsough, you and I had a talk yesterday? 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Hartsough. Yes, we did, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did I ask you at that time whether you would 
answer all the questions before the committee? 
Mr. Hartsough. Yes, you did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you state to me at that time that you were 
not going to take the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes: and I added something to that, Mr. Counsel. 
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

]Vf r. Hartsough. T said I will take the eighth commandment, if you 
will recall. 
The Chairman. The eightli amendment? 
Mr. Kennedy. The eighth commandment. 
The Chairman. Commandment or amendment? 
Mr. Hartsough. Commandment, "shall not bear false witness 
agamst your neighbor." That includes slander, calumny, and the 
other tliat goes wnth it. 

The Chairman. That says "false." Nobody asks you to be false. 
Mr. Hartsough. By me stating certain things, it is very likely, the 
way the newspapers are writing this thing up, it would be scandal. 
The Chaibman. I think they would like to write the truth. 
Mr. Hartsough. It is not a justified scandal. 

The Chairman. I think they would like to write the truth. We are 
1 1 ying to get you to tell tlie trutli about it. 

You remind me of the fellow^ on the witness stand, and the lawyer 
reminded liim about the inhibition against giving false testimony 
against his neighbor, and he said "I am not giving false testimony 
against him, I am testifying falsely for him." 

So it seems you are taking the fifth amendment to protect and falsify 
for them. 
Mr. Hartroitgh. That is your opinion, Mr. Chairman. 
Tlie Chairman. It certainly is. Proceed. 

Mr. Hartcough. I have a right to my opinion, Mr. Chairman, and I 
respectfully say tliat. 
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 
The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Just what is your reason for not testifying i 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. I object to the counsel coaching, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Hartsough. He has not been coaching me, Mr. Senator. 



10606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Have him face this way and keep his mouth shut, 
then. 

What are the reasons for you objecting to testify ? 

Mr, Hartsough. Partly what I stated to the counsel. 

Senator Curtis. AVhat'is the rest of it ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Because what I have seen here in the last 2 days 
or so, Iklr. Senator, it is quite easy for anyone to be charged with things 
that are not true. That is what "has been happening. 

Senator Curtis. Are you talking about yourself? 

Mr. Hartsough. Very easily an innocent man can be so pointed out 
by charges that it would appear that he is guilty. So that is the situa- 
tion wit^h the newspapers, the way they are writing this up. 

Then I might just as well be with my brother members of the 
Teamsters. 

Senator Curtis. What I am trying to find out is: Who are you 
protecting ? 

Mr. Hartsough. T am not protecting anyone. 

Senator Curtis. Not even yourself ? 

Mr. Hartsough. No, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. The number of your local is 169 ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must refuse to answer that on the gi-ound that I 
invoke — I have already answered it by the way. 

You see, you need counsel here. I didn't know that. I want to ex- 
plain. Senator, that very recently I got counsel. My counsel w^as here. 
I would like to explain this. 

He was here, John Patrick Walsh, to represent me, and I attempted 
to see the general counsel to try to get on because my subpena called for 
yesterday. 

I made three attempts to get on so I could get out to attend to our 
general business of the union. 

I explained that my counsel had to be in Scranton, to represent a 
Congressman in a case involved in something up in Scranton. So I 
was without counsel. . i , it 

I hurriedly secured counsel. I need your indulgence to ask. 1 
don't know anything about the law, what my rights are. 

Senator Curtis, that is all at this point, Mr. Chairman. I will 
have something further in a moment. 

The Chairman. I would like the witness to amplify what he means 
about the way the press is writing it up. „ , ^ ^ . 

Are you charging they are writing it falsely? Are you charging 
the press with writing false statements about what is happening here i 

Mr. Hartsough. The press is taking statements that are coming 
from the end of the table. . 

The Chairman. From this side and that side ( 

Mr. Hartsough. T haven't seen anything favorable from this side 

^\he Chairman. Have vou heard anything favorable from tliat side I 
The press can't print what it doesn't hear without distorting the 

Have you heard anything favorable from that side of i\\Q tabled 
You have been here. ^. r^^ ■ 

Mr. Hartsough. T have worked with these men, Mr. Lhairmaii, a 
good many years. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10607 

The Chairman. I don't care who you have worked with. Have 
you heard anything favorable that the press hasn't written? You 
want to criticize the press. 

Mr. Hartsougii. They want to write it. We know what the press 
is. The workingman isn't getting a fair break at all. 

The Chairman. He certainly isn't. We all agree on that. But 
where is he getting the ribbing from and the robbing? Not from 
this side of the table. From that side. 

Mr. Hartsough. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. I would let any union 
local membership vote as to whether they want to be represented by 
this committee or a labor union and they will take the labor union. 
I guarantee it, no matter what you are trying to point out here against 
them. 

The Chairman. I think the American people would take the Con- 
gress, and that is whom we represent here, the American people. 

We are not bound to a labor leader, as such, or to anyone else. 

Mr. Hartsough. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't mean to en- 
gage in a debate with you. 

The Chairman. I am not debating. I am stating facts to you. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you help us in the facts we are trying to get 
developed before the committee by telling us whether you know any- 
where of any misuse of union funds ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Do I know of any misuse ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refuse to answer on the grounds that to give 
us this information, to answer the question, might tend to incrim- 
nate you, is that right ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I have said that, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked you a question. Is that right? 

Mr. ILyrtsough. I refuse to answer on the grounds — rather, I de- 
cline to answer on the grounds 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question. You 
have no right to invoke the fifth amendment miless you invoke it for 
the purpose that the amendment provides. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. That is the purpose of the amendment, not to give 
testimony against yourself. 

Mr. Hartsough. Mr. Chairman, which question should I answer. 
The counsel has asked me a question. 

The Chairman. I have not asked you a question. I have ordered 
you to answer his. 

Mr. Hartsough. Would you repeat the question ? 

Mr. Kennedy. What I want to know is, do you feel that if you gave 
a truthful answer as to whether you know about the misuse of union 
funds, that that answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

_Mr. Hartsough. I decline to answer on tlie grounds that to do so 
might give evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman? 

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



10608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I don't think you have a legal right to invoke the fifth amendment 
unless you can state under oath that you honestly believe that a truth- 
ful answer to the question might tend to incriminate you. 

Otherwise, it would be a complete mockery of the exercise of the 
privilege. 

Mr. Hartsough. I would like to consult my attorney on this. I am 
not a legal mind. 

The Chairman. You may. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. Mr. Chairman, the reason I am invoking the fifth 
amendment is that I do not desire to give evidence that might be 
used against me. 

The Chairman. Do you believe that such evidence might be used 
against you if you gave a truthful answer? 

Mr. Hartsough. It might. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did local 169 pay for 10,000 stickers entitled 
"I'm For Cohen"? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I refuse to answer the question — ^I decline to an- 
swer, rather, the question on the grounds that to do so may give 
evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Or 5,000 folders entitled "Crumbock Takes Another 
Load Away" for $125.24? 

Mr. Hartsough. I decline to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you help write some of the material used in 
Cohen's campaign? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did your union pay for the expenses involved 
in printing those folders and campaign literature? 

Mr. Hartsough. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground 
that to do so may give evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that you had a meeting down in Flor- 
ida, that Mr. Cohen came down and saw you in Florida, met with you, 
and asked you to loan some money to him in his campaign, that you 
agreed to do it at that time with the understanding that he would sup- 
port you for president of the joint council ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground of the fifth amendment, that to do so might give evidence 
against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Mien he did agree to support you for president of 
the joint council, did you then lend him this money from 169, from 
the treasury of the local 169, to assist him in his campaign? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer as it may tend 
to give evidence against me. I invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't he, in fact, support you for the presidency 
of the joint council ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. He did support me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Walker attend, from local 107, that meeting 
down in Miami? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10609 

Mr, Hartsougii. I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that to do so might give evidence against me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did Mr. Lanni, of the Brewery Workers Local of the 
Teamsters, also attend that meeting ? 

Mr. Hartsougii. The same answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did Mr. Lanni, and the Brewery Workers Union 
also help finance Mr. Cohen's campaign ? 

(Witness conferred wdth his counsel. ) 

Mr. Hartsougii. I do not know the answer to that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know whether he attended the meeting? 

Mr. Hartsougii. In Florida? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Hartsough. I believe I did mention before that I refused — I 
declined to answer that on the ground to do so mi'ght give evidence 
against me. 

Mr, Ej^nnedy. The question you don't know the answer to is whether 
he supported Mr. Cohen financially ; is that right? 

Mr, Hartsougii. That is right. 

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

Senator Curtis, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman, Senator Curtis, 

Senator Curtis, Do you know Mr, Edward Fadigan ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes ; I do, Mr, Senator. 

Senator Curtis, Does he hold an office in your union ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel,) 

Mr, Hartsough. He is the secretary-treasurer of local 169 of the 
BTCWH of A. 

Senator Curtis. I want our secretary to hand you a paper which 
bears the date of January 12, 1954, signed by Mr, Edward F, Fadigan. 

That appears to be a photostat of some sort of some minutes. Is 
that correct ? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

(Witness conferred with his counsel,) 

Mr. Carroll. Do I correctly understand your question to be, "Does 
this appear to be a photostat of something ? " 

Senator Curtis. Is it a copy of the minutes of your local, or of the 
executive board? 

Mr. Hartsough. Yes, it is, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Now, will you look at item No. 3 ? It is the third 
paragraph from the bottom. Do you find that paragraph ? 

Mr. Hartsough Yes, Mr. Senator, I do. 

Senator Curtis. Will you read it for us ? 

Mr. Hartsough, No, 3 : 

This third resolution dealt with the local disturbance surrounding the election 
proceedings at highway ti-uckdrivers' local 107. 

After his explanation, and a lengthy discussion, which consumed almost an 
hour, the board went on record to support brother Raymond Cohen in his fight 
to uphold the election and to do everything in our power to bring about such 
a result. 

A $2,000 loan was granted for this purpose. 

Senator Curtis. It refers to his explanation that was made, and 
it lasted about an liour. 

That is referring to you, isn't it ? 
(Witness conferred with his counsel,) 



10610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr Hartsough. Yes, Mr. Senator, because earlier it states that the 
president, in making his report, called attention to the financial state 
ot the union and urged the board to make these recommendations 
to the general meeting on Sunday. 

The Chairman. That document may be made exhibit No IT 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. IT"' for reference 
and will be found m the appendix on p. 10815.) 

Senator Curtis. Now, I wish to hand you another one. The one 
you are looking at now, is that No. 18 ? 

Mrs. Watt. It has not been made an exhibit yet, Senator 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. The document you have before vou is dated Febru- 
ary 9, 1954, isn't it? 

Mr. Hartsough. That is right, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. And signed by the same secretarv, Mr. Fadi«mn2 

Mr. Hartsough. That is correct, Senator. " ^ 

Senator Curtis. Will you read the fourth parairraph in it? 

Mr. Hartsough. Well, this i ^ i 

Senator Curtis. Some of those paragraphs are just single lines, but 
it IS the fourth one. " 

Mr. Hartsough. In reference to the financial report ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Hartsough (reading) : 

^^.'^\^ I^^^^'^i^^ '■''port revealed the general account $6,566.85, and .$101142 in 
the defense fund. The report as read by brother Burdy was approved along 
with payment to current bills, and loan to brother Cohen upon signature of bond 
moved by Horner, seconded by brother Keane, amount to be loaned, $1,000. 

Senator Curtis. That is a loan to Mr. Cohen of 107 ? 

Mr. Hartsough. That is what the minutes state. 

Senator Curtis. Do you wish to have that numbered. Mr. Chair- 
man? 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 18. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit 18" for reference and 
will be found m the appendix on p. 10816.) 

Senator Curtis. Now I hand you another copy of minutes of the 
executive board of your local. 

Is that one dated March 10, 1954? 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Hartsough. That is right, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Will you read the third pragraph from the bot- 
tom ? 

Mr. Hartsough (reading) : 

The policy of assisting brother Cohen vpas reaffirmed in every way. 

Senator Curtis. Who makes up the executive board ? 

Mr. Hartsough. The president, vice president, the recording sec- 
retary, the secretary, and three trustees. 

The Chairman. This document may be made exhibit 19. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 19" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 10817.) 

_ Senator Curtis. Are the recitations in those minutes that you have 
]ust read into the record, a correct report of what transpired at the 
meetings ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Would you please repeat that, Mr. Senator? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10611 

(Tlie pending question was read by the reporter, as requested.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
grounds that to do so might tend to give evidence that might in- 
criminate me. 

Senator Curtis. AVill you point out to this committee any respect 
in whicli they are incorrect? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer the question 
on the same ground, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Were you present at this meeting on January 12, 
1954? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. That is the one where it is recited that you offered 
an explanation of the assistance given to Mr. Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. Is that a question, Mr. Senator? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. Does that refresh your memory of whether 
or not you were there? 

Mr. Hartsough. I nmst decline to answer on the ground that to do 
so might give evidence that might tend to be used against me. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know whether it is a violation of your 
constitution and bylaws to take money out of one local to support 
a campaign of an individual for office in another local ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let's answer. Either take the fifth amendment or 
answer the question. 

Mr. Hartsough. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to explain what my 
impression of the union's function under the constitution is to the 
attorney, so I can get advice that will be proper for me. 

The Chair:^[an. All right, let's hurry. I just don't want to waste 
all day. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I might remind you again, Mr. Chairman, that 
I haven't had too much time to speak with this attorney. 

The Chairman. Hurry up, then. 

Mr. Hartsough. He w^as recently hired. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. It would be my impression, Mr. Senator, that 
when the members would take an action, as they did in this case, that 
it would be legal and binding, and it would be in accord with the con- 
stitution and bylaws, because the members do have the final say. 

Senator Curtis. How, then, would it incriminate you to tell me 
whether or not those minutes are correct, a correct record of what 
transpired in connection with your help to Cohen ? 

Mr. Hartsough. There might be some evidence that might be used 
against me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you knoAV Mr. Ben Lapensohn ? 

(The witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the 
ground that to do so might tend to give evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have any business transactions with 
him? 



10612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Hartsougii. I must respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Did you ever get any kickbacks from him in 
money ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on tlie same 
grounds. 

The Chairman. Do you think it might incriminate you if you did ? 

Mr. Hartsough. There might be some evidence. 

The Chairman. Let's look at a little of it, unless you can explain it. 

I present to you a check dated November 18, 1954, in the amount 
of $3,000, made payable to you, drawn by Ben Lapensohn. It appears 
to liave your endorsement on the back. Will you examine that check 
and state if you recognize it as a photostatic copy of the original? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the check ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you recognize it ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
that to do so might give evidence that would tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is that your endorsement on the back of it, where 
your name appears written there ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I present you another check, the original, dated 
January 12, 1955, drawn by you, payable to B. Lapensohn, in the 
amount of $2,000. Will you examine that check and state if you know 
anything about it ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature issuing the check ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chair- 
man, on the same ground. 

The Chairman. Is that part of the kickback that you and Lapen- 
sohn split up ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Senator 
on the same ground . 

The Chairman. Was this an honest transaction ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I must respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. If it is honest, it wouldn't incriminate you, would 
it? 

Mr. Hartsough. There might be some evidence. 

The Chairman. In an honest transaction ? 

Mr. Hartsough. There might be, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. If you told the truth, do you think you might be 
incriminated ? 

Mr. Hartsough. Might. 

The Chairman. Those two checks may be made exhibit 20 and 20A, 
respectively. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit Nos. 20 and 20 A" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 10818-10819.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10613 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Have yon any questions, Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

The Chairman. You do not want to clear up this record, if the 
thing was honest and the transactions were open and aboveboard and 
perfectly legitimate ? You don't want to clear up the record, but you 
want to leave it as it is ? 

Mr. Hartsougii. Mr. Chairman, I will stand on my constitutional 
rights. In a proper court of law, I am willing to stand any time. 

The Chairman. You can stand on your constitutional rights and 
clear it up. You have a right to testify. That is part, of your consti- 
tutional rights. Which part of your constitutional rights are you 
standing on ? 

Mr. Hartsough. I do not wish to engage in a debate, Mr. Chairman. 
I stand on my constitutional rights. 

The Chairman. Which one ? 

Mr. Hartsough. The fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. So as not to testify ? 

Mr. Hartsough. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Stand aside. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Flanagan. 

Mr. Carroll. This witness has asked whether or not he is free to go. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is free to go. 

Mr. Carroll. Perhaps you can tell me about the other witnesses as 
to whom I have not had answers. 

The Chairman. All that we have heard now, you do not need them 
further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Senator, do you have a witness you wish to recall ? 

Senator Curtis. No. 

The Chairman. The Chair is advised by chief counsel that the 
witnesses who have testified here today up to this time may be excused 
from further attendance. 

Mr. Carroll. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Except Mr. Walker. 

The Chairman. Mr. Walker will remain. 

Mr. Carroll. Very good. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN B. FLANAGAN— Resumed 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Flanagan, you have made an examination of 
the books of 107? 

Mr. Flanagan. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we have been able to put together what appears 
to have cost the union in connection with Mr. Cohen's campaign for 
secretary -treasurer ? 

Mr. Flanagan. We have. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were some charges, were there not, from the 
books and records of local 107 which might have been legitimate in 
connection with the campaign ; is that right? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Such as poll boxes ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is right. 



10614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And 

Mr. Flanagan. And rental of polling places. 

Mr. Kennedy. And individuals from the international who came 
down to watch the election ? 

Mr. Flanagan. To supervise the election ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are some expenses along that line ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did they total, approximately ? 

Mr. Flanagan. They totaled about $26,606.45. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. And we are not certain as to whether they are all 
legitimate, but at least they would come under the category generally 
of being legitimate ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you find as far as the expenses for Mr. 
Cohen himself, personally, in connection with that election? Will 
you tell us how we arrive at that figure? Would you break the figure 
down into general categories^ Take the figures individually, and 
then we will come to the total at the end. 

What is the first one ? 

Mr. Flanagan. The first one is a check for $15,000, payable to cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. That, together with the check for $10,000, is a total 
of $25,000? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the names that appear on that list appear to 
be the individuals who supported Mr. Cohen ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. ICennedy. Was that in an area in the books and records of 
local 107 which would indicate that those individuals received the 
money, in connection with the election ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Those expenditures were charged in the other ex- 
penditures column of the checkbook, rather in their cash disbursement. 
Tlie check stubs indicated that the checks were drawn for truck check, 
time lost, and election expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. And tiie individuals who received that money have 
testified before the committee, a number of them, and we have also 
the testimony and information that there were alterations in the 
amounts that were received ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wh?it have you found beyond that $25,000 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. We found a check for $4,500 drawn to Samuel 
Kirsch. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell his name ? 

Mr. Flanagan. K-i-r-s-c-h. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Is that the only money that he received? First, 
what was the date of that check ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That check was dated September 24, 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he receive any other money in addition to that 
$4,500? 

Mr. Flanagan. On December 20, 1954, another check for $4,000 was 
written to Samuel Kirsch. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a total of how much for him ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is a total of $8,500. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. T^Hiat makes us believe that that was in comiection 
with the election ? First, who was Samuel Kirsch ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10615 

Mr. Flanagan. Samuel Kirscli was an advertising solicitor em- 
ployed by Ben Lapensohn. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do yon mean advertising solicitor? 

]\lr. Flana(jan. He solicited ads from businessmen for publication 
in a labor publication. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you call it a labor publication, this is the 
Pennsylvania 

Mr. Flanagan. The Pennsylvania Federationist. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was actually a private operation of Benjamin 
Lapensohn ; was it not ? 

Mr. Flanagan. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he used that name ^ 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then Mr. Kirsch solicited ads for Mr. Lapensohn? 

Mr. Fl.4NA(;an. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he, during this period of time, received $8,500 
from the union? 

Mr. Flanagan. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you interview Mr. Kirsch, or was Mr. Kirsch 
inter-viewed ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Kirscli was interviewed in my presence. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he state what he received that money for, and 
what he did with the money? Did he state that he went down and 
had the cnecks cashed and turiied the cash over to Mr. Lapensohn? 

Mr. FL.VNAGAN. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what he stated he did with it? 

Mr. Flanagan. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kirsch was expected, Mr. Chairman, to be called 
as a witness before the committee, but he passed on last week. 

What else ? The $8,500 from Mr. Kirsch, and what else ? 

Mr. Flanagan. We have a check No. 10,157 

Senator Curtis. Before you leave that of Mr. liapensohn, those 
two checks, what do you find in the records, if any tiling, to ascertain 
wliether those funds went to Mr. Lapensohn personally or to Mr. 
Lapensohn to further Mr. Cohen's campaign for his office in the 
union? 

Mr. Flan.uian. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Mr. 
Lapensolm received the money. That information was obtained from 
an interview with Mr. Kirsch. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it explained that this was in connection with 
the campaign ? 

Mr. Flanagan. The check stubs show return of election expense. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is written on the check stubs. 

Mr. Flanagan. That is written on the check stubs. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. On the two checks to Samuel Kirsch ? 

Mr. Flanagan, Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. His explanation is that he received the money and 
it was turned over to Ben Lapensohn ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy, But in any case, it was entered on the books as deal- 
ing with the election ? 

Mr, Flanagan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And beyond that, what have you ? 



10616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Flanagan. Check No. 10,157, dated December 6, 1954, for 
$4,573,43, payable to Warehouse Empolyees' Local No, 169. 

Mr, Kennedy. That is the $4,000 plus that we have been discussing 
here this afternoon ? 

Mr, Flanagan, That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That local 169 loaned to Raymond Cohen in connec- 
tion with his election ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Does this appear to be a repayment of that loan? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a repayment of the loan we have been dis- 
cussing ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What else? 

The retroactive pay, do you have that there? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened was that after Mr. Cohen took over 
as secretary-treasurer, he gave himself a retroactive pay — took over 
as secretary-treasurer in early June of 1954. Did he give himself 
retroactive pay from January 1, 1954 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. From January 1, 1954, to June 1, 1954, in the amount 
of $6,288.30. 

Mr. Kennedy. $6,228.30? 

Mr. Flanagan. $288.30. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was retroactive from January 1, That 
would be the difference that he would have received between being a 
business agent and being secretary-treasurer, is that right? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What this amounted to was that he received this 
amount of money while he was campaigning, in a retroactive fashion, 
from January to June for this period of time that he was campaigning 
for the office ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That would be correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That amounted to $6,288.30. Did he give himself 
some expenses, also, some retroactive expenses ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. Mr, Cohen was reimbursed for expenses 
retroactively to January 1, 1954, in the amount of $5,673.80, 

Mr, Kennedy, That was in addition to the expenses that he re- 
ceived as a business agent, was it not ? 

Mr, Flanagan, That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he was receiving his expenses during this period 
of time, but he also gave himself — once he took over as secretary- 
treasurer, he gave himself retroactive expenses for this amount of 
$5,673, 

Mr, Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Hiat about this group of attorneys that have ap- 
peared here before the committee ? They were representing him dur- 
ing this period of time. How were they paid? 

Mr. Flanagan. There was one check payable to Thomas D. McBride 
for $7,500, representing a retroactive payment from December 1, 1954, 
to June 1, 1954. 

Mr, Kennedy, So during this period of time when these attorneys 
were representing Mr. Eaymond Cohen, when he was running for the 
office of secretary-treasurer, they received no money. Once he was 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10617 

elected secretary-treasurer, they took a check for $7,500 out of union 
funds and paid that to the law firm, is that right ? 

Mr. Flanagan. It was paid to Thomas D. McBridge as retainer 
as of December 1, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it was a retroactive payment to these lawyers? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. And during that period of time, these attorneys or 
representatives of this law firm had represented some of these in- 
dividuals who had been arrested in connection with beating some of 
Mr, Crumbock's supporters ? 

Mr. Flanagan. I believe Mr. Carroll testified to that fact yesterday. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were all paid out of union funds, retro- 
actively ? 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other charge to the union in connec- 
tion with this election ? 

Senator Curtis. Before you go to any other charge, what evidence 
of record do you have that this was retroactive ? 

Mr, Flanagan. The explanation on the check stub. 

Senator Curtis. What does that say? 

Mr. Flanagan. In which instance, Senator? 

Senator Curtis. I am referring to this retroactive payment of at- 
torney fees, for the attorneys who represented — who was the man 
that was arrested ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John Myhasuk. 

Senator Curtis. His defense occurred before Mr. Cohen's election, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. What do we have to show that after Mr. Cohen's 
election, his attorney fee was paid out of union funds ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The attorney that represented him during this period 
of time was this Carroll, who has appeared before this committee, out 
of Mr. McBride's law firm. For this service, during this period of 
time, from December 1, 1953, when Mr. Cohen began his campaign, 
until June, when he was elected, the payment to the law firm is shown 
to have come out of union funds in the form of a $7,500 check, which 
shows that it was retroactive to December 1, 1953. It was in this 
period that the attorneys appeared for Mr. Myhasuk. 

Senator Curtis, Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any other payments in connection with 
Mr. Cohen's campaign ? 

Mr. Flanagan, I have another item, check No. 8, 885, dated July 12, 
1954, for $1,000, payable to Raymond Cohen. The purpose for this 
disbursement, as shown in the records, is reimbursement of expenses 
to Miami, Fla. 

The Chairman. What is the amount of that ? 

Mr. Flanagan. $1,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of that trip to Miami, Fhi., at 
that time ? 

Mr. Flanagan. The purpose of that trip was to meet with Mr. 
Hartsough to solicit his support for Mr. Cohen's campaign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also another $1,000 check for another in- 
dividual to go to Florida? Was there any other payment? 

Mr. Flanagan. No ; I think we have covered all of the payments. 



10618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That includes not only Mr. Cohen but also includes 
Mr. Lanni ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Lanni's position ( 

Mr. Flanagan. At that time he was head of local 8o(). 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Brewery Workers '( 

Mr. Flanagan. Of the Brewery. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you have as a total of union funds that 
were used for Mr. Cohen in his election ? 

Mr. Flanagan. The total of the amounts enumerated here is $58,- 
535.53. 

The Ci-iAiRMAN. Is that in addition to the $25,000 ? 

Mr. Flanagan. No, sir. That includes the $25,000. 

The Chairman. That includes the $25,000 of these checks '( 

Mr. Flanagan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But it is in addition to the $26,000 that you said 
might be legitimate expense ? 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Ch.\irman. What was that other figure? This one is $58,- 
535 52 '^^ 

Mr. Flanagan. $58,535.53. 

The Chairman. lAliat was the other figure that you calculated 
miffht be legitimate ? 

Mr. Flanagan. $26,809.45. 

The Chairman. Have you totaled the two ? 

Mr. Flanagan. No ; I have not. 

The Chairman. According to my calculation, it totals $85,344.98. 

Mr. Flanagan. I agree with your total. 

The Chairman. You agree that that is correct I 

Mr. Flanagan. That is right. 

The Chairman. At least, then, at least $58,535.53 of it does not 
have any appearance of legitimacy whatsoever. 

Mr. Flanagan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call another staif 
investigator to testify what else he has found in the books and records 
of local 107, for which we have no explanation at the present time. 

The Chairman. Come forward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ralph DeCarlo. 

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. DeCarlo. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RALPH DeCARLO 

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

Mr. DeCarlo. My name is Ealph A. DeCarlo. I reside at 3943 
Stratford Road, Drexel Hill, Pa. I have been employed by the 
General Accounting Office for the past 24 years, in capacities of 
auditor, accountant, and investigator. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10619 

Mr. Kennedy. Yon have been associated with various committees 
of C'on<2:resy at various times over a period of years; is that right? 

Mv. L)e( \vklo. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Inchiding the Senate Subcommittee on Investiga- 
tions ? You did some work for us on that ? 

Mr. DeCarlo Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been working with this committee 
since its inception, have you not? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Xo; since September. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since September. 

Ml". DeCarlo. Yes. 

jMr. Kennedy. Did you make a study as to what it has cost the 
union to have Mr. Raymond Cohen as secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us those figures as to what you 
have found? 

Mr. DeCarlo. In summary, I found it cost local 107, $241,926.65 to 
have Raymond Cohen as secretary-treasurer from the time he first 
became secretary-treasurer to September 18, 1957. 

The CHiViRMAN. What is the figure again ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. $241,926.65. 

The Chairman. What was the date of his election ? When did he 
become secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I think it was June 1954, the 7th, I believe. 

Mr, Kennedy. This would include, would it not, what it cost the 
union during the period of time he was a business agent, from January 
1, 1954, to June 1,1954? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This includes the payments for his election that we 
have discussed ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it actually includes the period from January 1, 
1954, to September 18, 1957 ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And 5 months of that period of time was as business 
agent ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Business agent, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it includes the sums of money, the $53,000 
that the previous witness testified to, as to what it cost the union, in 
union funds, for the election of Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. It does, sir. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask right there. How large is local 107? 
Do you have any idea how many members ? Do you have an estimate ? 

Mr. Kennedy. 14,000. You' have broken that down, have you, by 
year ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I have broken it down by year and by subject. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you also broken it down as to what we on the 
staff question in this total amount ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The gross salary for 1954 was $19,731.70, is that 
right? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That was his gross salary, his regular salary. 

21243—58 — lit. 27 16 



10620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we include the amount questioned, $6,228.30, 
in additon to that ^ 

Mr. DeCaulo. In addition to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. xVnd that we questioned because that was retroac- 
tive ; is that right ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then down here, $5,673.80, we questioned that 
because that was a retroactive expense ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. It was also retroactive. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was receiving his regular expenses during 
that period of time, again in 1954. Then you have a figure of $3,250, 
which is a special expense allowance. Wliat is the explanation of that 
$3,250 ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. It is a special expense allowance of about $125 a 
week that went to Eay Cohen every week. Most of the time the check 
was drawn and then cashed and he was given the cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What was that for ? 

Do we know ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in addition to his re^lar expenses? 

Mr. DeCarlo. In addition to his regular rennbursable expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the expense that came out of the Wilming- 
ton, Del. part of the local ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I can't answer that. 

]Mr. Kennedy. The first 10 checks in that were drawn to Raymond 
Cohen, as I understand it, and the rest were all drawn to cash? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

The Chairman. I think you said the total from January 1, 1954, 
to September 18, 1957, that is the period you cover? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. That is approximately 45 months, is that correct? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is correct. 

The Chairman. A little division of 45 into 241,000 plus shows an 
average of five-thousand-five-hundred-and-fifty-some-odd dollars per 
month, does it not ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. I arrived at a figure of $64,500 a year, 
average. 

The Chairman. $64,500 a year, average, or approximately $5,500 
a month ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Yes, $5,500 a month. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Have you examined his income tax return? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I have. 

Senator Curtis. That is all at this point. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these other amounts questioned, Samuel Kirsch, 
the time lost, the repayment of $4,473, to 169, which we have explained 
already 

Mr. DeCarlo. Those are the items which have been explained ; yes, 
sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then coming across on the first page, the amounts 
that are questioned in 1955, in the first page, again, are the $125 a 
week; in 1956, the same thing; in 1957, the same tiling, up to Sep- 
tember 1957. 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10621 

Now let's go to the second page. Again the $7,500 retroactive legal 
fee in the first column ? -r^ nr t^ -j 

Mr DeCarlo. That is right. $7,500 paid to Thomas D. McBride. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. In addition to that, in 1954, $49.55 for a Christmas 
gift to Cohen. Then on air travel we questioned the amount of Mi-s. 
C)ohen traveling at union expense, $55. 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. ICennedy. And Florida rental for their home, $1,850. 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. . 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The Coliens went to Florida in the winter, did they i 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they have a home down there? 

Mr. DeCarlo. They rent a home. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union paid for that? 

Mr. DeCarlo. The union paid for it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Cohen in that year made a number ot 
purchases of clothes and other gifts? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Mr.IvENNEDY. Totaling $1,269.79? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We questioned that. 

That year he purchased $443.39 worth of Christmas gifts at union 
■expense ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then over in 1956, the amount questioned was Mrs. 
Cohen and family— Mr. Cohen, of coui-se, traveled, but we questioned 
Mrs. Cohen's travel at $33.73 at union expense ? 

Mr. DeCx\rlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the Florida rentals for their home that 
year was $2,100, is that right ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Right. . 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for their home in Florida that year i 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then for his clotlies that year, it was $1,447.35, 
which was paid for by the union ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. ^ . , 

Mr. Kennedy. And then for yacht equipment, $654.27, is that 
right? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That was insurance on the yacht and the equip- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Insurance? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was paid for by the union ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. By the union. 

Senator Curtis. "W^io owns the yacht? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tlien over in 1957, for the travel for Mrs. Cohen 
and her family, her children, there was $456.78 ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for that year, the home was $1,741.12? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not for the whole year ; is it ? 



10622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Df^Carlo. Yes; and it also includes the telephone bills. Not 
for the entire year, but just for the period of time they stayed down 
there. I don't have the detail on that, 

Mr, Kennedy. While the family was down in Florida, occasionally 
Mr, Cohen would have a hotel in Philadelphia? 

Mr, DeCaki.o. That is right. He would stay at a hotel in 
Philadelphia. 
Mr. Kennedy. And that cost $1,053.64 ? 
Mr. DeCaklo. That is right. And we questioned it, 
Mr, Kennedy. Then the private telephone in Mr. Cohen's home 
was $505.12? 

Mr. DeCaklo. That is right. They began paying that in 1957. 
Mr. Kennedy. The total paid by 107 in connection with Mr. Cohen 
was $241,926,65, of which we questioned $90,162.27 ? 
Mr, DeCarlo, That is correct. 

The Chairman. Have you made a calculation of how many mem- 
bers' dues that it takes to support him ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. No, sir; but we could very easily do it. 
The Chairman, You can say there are roughly 14,000 members, and 
they pay, roughly, $5 a month dues, so on that basis it takes 1,075 
members' dues a month to take care of the secretary-treasurer; is that 
accurate ? 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr, DeCarlo, you made a schedule here of some of 
the examples of some of the personal purchases by Mr. Cohen at union 
expenses ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Such as overcoats, suits, sports coats ? 
Mr. DECAiii.o. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. And socks and ties? 
Mr. DeCarlo, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy, And shoes. And certain kinds of jewelry and Pola- 
roid cameras; is that right? 
Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 
iSIr. Kennedy. And a plaque for a marlin ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. That plaque for a marlin of Thomas D. 
McBride. 

Mr, Kennedy, Can we have that made an exhibit, Mr, Chairman? 
The Chairman, This compilation that you have been testifying 
from, you have it compiled ; have you ? 
Mr, DeCarlo, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, And the items you testified to, itemized? 
J\Ir, DeCarlo, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, there is a correction that should be 
on the top of the first page. He was a business agent from January 
1 to June 1. We have him down here as secretaiy-treasurer from 
January 1. That cori-ection should be there. 
Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then this example of personal articles purchased 
by Raymond Cohen, the suits for $135 and ties for $10, could we 
have tliat made an exhibit ? 

The Chairman. We will make the other one exhibit 21-A, and this 
one 21-B. They are all part of the same explanation. 
Mr. DeCarlo.' That is right, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10623 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 21-A and 
21-B" for reference and may be found m the hies ot the select 

committeeO^^^^ Then, Mr. Chairman, are the examples of the air 
travei by Mr. Cohen and his family. 

The Chairman. This may be made exhibit 21-C. 

(The document referred to Avas marked "Exhibit No. 21-C lor 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr Kennedy. And then the Florida rentals for his home. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 21-D 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 21-U for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee ) 

The Chairman. All of these you have verified; have you^ 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. ^ . , ^ . , , 

The Chairman. They represent your work m checking these 

books ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. . -,, 

The Chairman. They represent what you found i 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. . ^ , ., . oiiaf^fal 

Senator Curtis. This says ties down here, unit price, ^10, total 
price $20. Does that mean $10 for a necktie ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It wasn't his own money ? 

Mr. DeCarlo, No, sir. , 

Mr Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that is just the amount of money 
that we can trace to Mr. Cohen, as to how much it cost the union. 
That does not include, of course, these large payments to cash. 

The Chairman. It does not include any kickbacks or anything that 
is concealed, that is not revealed by the books as I understand it. 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is correct. , ,. , . ^-c j 4- • 

The Chairman. In other words, all of this that you testihed to is 
revealed by the records of the union ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. . 

The Chairman. We do not know how much is concealed m expen- 
ditures that are not itemized ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is quite right, sir. . 

The Chairman. Or in kickbacks that he may have received from 
cash that he handled ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we might be able to throw some liglit 
on that by calling another witness who can testify from an examina- 
tion of Mr. Cohen's own expenses. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Parkhurst. 

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. Parkhurst. I do. 



10624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF EDGAR C. PARKHURST 

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

Mr. Parkiiurst. My name is Edgar C. Parkliurst. My residence 
is 86 Sylvan Avenue, West Hartford, Conn. I am a staff member of 
this committee. 

The Chairman. What has been your past experience or work, 
please, sir ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. I am retired after 26 years as a special agent of the 
FBI. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Very well. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have had some testimony regard- 
ing the amount of checks, amounts of money, that have been written 
to cash for local 107 during the period of time that Mr. Cohen was 
secretary-treasurer, totaling some $250,000. 

Mr. Cohen, as we expect to develop with the next two witnesses, 
spent a great deal of cash himself during that period of time, while 
he was secretary-treasurer. 

The Chairman. Do I understand that the testimony just received 
from the previous witness, does not include moneys he may have spent 
out of cash disbursements from the union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct, unless we do trace it directly to 
him, where the check has been made payable to him, or where it is 
written on the books to him, payable to him. But in addition to that, 
we have this figure of $250,000 to cash during this period of time. 

The witness that preceded this witness testified on the amounts of 
money that we could trace directly to Raymond Cohen. 

The Chairman. By the records of the union ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And this involves an examination of Mr. Cohen's 
personal records ? 

IMr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And will indicate that other moneys were received ? 

Mr. Kennedy. "When you say his personal records, he refused to 
turn over his personal records. This is an examination of records of 
individuals who dealt with Mr. Cohen. 

The Chairman. All right. They are not his personal records, but 
they are records of his personal transactions from other sources ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Parkhurst will testify on just two matters and 
then we will have a witness who will follow him who will testify on 
a summary basis. 

The two matters that Mr. Parkhurst will testify about will be the 
purchase of boats by Mr. Cohen, and the purchase of a home by Mr. 
Cohen, and the use of cash in both of those transactions. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen has been interested in having a boat of 
his own for some period of time, is that right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first one that would be of any interest to us 
would be back in 1950, is that right ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10625 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a relatively small boat. Will you describe 

that briefly ? , . • i • i an 

Mr. Parkhurst. That was a 28-foot cabin cruiser, which was IZ 

years old at the time he purchased it for $1,100. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Do we find that his taste in boats improved after 

that? 

He purchased a number of boats during the intervening years, com- 
ing up to 1955. Do we find that his taste in boats had improved con- 
siderably during that period of time ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. It did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you find on April 12, 1955? Did we find 
that Mr. Cohen then purchased a boat which was rather an elaborate 

boat? , . . T.. J. -^T 

Mr. Parkhurst. He purchased a boat m Miami, Fla., from a Mr, 
Reid. This was a 34-foot boat w^hich cost $18,000. Mr. Reid had 
possession of it a little over a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did he pay for that boat? 

Mr. Parkhurst. He paid him $1,000 cash deposit and the balance 
of $17,000 in the form of a bank treasurer's check issued by the Broad 
Street Trust Company of Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that treasurer's check purchased? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That was purchased with a personal check of Ben 
Lapensohn on the Broad Street Trust Co. 

Mr. IVENNEDY. That is the Ben Lapensohn about whom we have 
had some testimony, is that right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the one that put up the money for this 
$17,000; is that right? 

Mr. Parkhupst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the difference, the $1,000, was put up by Mr. 
Cohen himself in the form of cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Going through any of the records of Mr. Lapensohn, 
did it appear that Mr. Lapensohn had been paid back the $17,000? 

Mr. Parkhurst. There was a memorandum in handwriting or 
handprinting in the files of Mr. Lapensohn indicating that he had re- 
ceived a cash deposit from Mr. Cohen in the amount of $17,000 for 

Mr. IVENNEDY. Do we know what the source of that $17,000 in cash 
that came to Mr. Lapensohn was ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. We do not. 

Senator Curtis. Since you do not know, was it included in the total 
expenditures about which'the previous witness testified? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

The CHAmMAN. This is all, Senator, I may say, in addition to 
what has been traced from the record of the union. 

This money beina: traced from records of others outside the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That boat was destroyed, or it burned ; is that right? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Cohen then purchase another boat in June 
of 1956? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a small boat, was it ? 



10626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pakkhurst. That was a 17-foot inboard motorboat which cost 
$2,730. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how did Mr. Cohen pay for that boat ? 

Mr. Parkiiukst. In two installments, $1,000 in cash on June 4, and 
$1,700 in cash on June 7, 1956. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do we know where he got that cash to pay for those 
boats ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. We were not able to trace it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately, he sold that boat for $2,000 ; is that right, 
in cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. On June 3, 1957, did he purchase another boat ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. He purchased a new Eichardson 40-foot 
cruiser, a sport cruiser, with accessories, for $24,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was the best boat so far ; is that right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. This was listed as a $27,000 boat. 

The Chairman. Would you recognize a picture of it ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That boat was valued at $27,865 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a dealer's discount of 25 percent ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. There was. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was that handled between Mr. Cohen and the 
dealer? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Several of the boats that jNIr. Cohen bought were 
purchased through the Gordon Boat Co., of Philadelphia. The Gor- 
don Boat Co. was not the dealer on the Richardson line of boats. 

So, he persuaded Gordon to buy it from another dealer and obtain 
the dealer's discount of 25 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. That amounted to $3,865 ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That amounted to $6,900, and the Gordon Boat 
Co. allowed Mr. Cohen a discount of $3,800, or a little over one-half 
of the dealer's discount. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make out a check to Mr. Cohen for $3,865 ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. No. It was handled as a trade-in, but, in fact, 
there was no trade-in. 

Mr. Kennedy. A trade-in for a skiff, is that right, which was 
valued, he said at $3,865 ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, there was no trade-in ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. The trade-in did not exist. There was no boat. 

Mr. Kennedy. They arranged to split the discount ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's go into how he paid for that boat. 

Did he put a deposit of $3,000 in cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was put down on May 31, 1957, is that 
right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then lie had a treasurer's check of $11,000 which 
he had obtained b^^ getting a loan from a bank, is that right ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is rijrht. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10627 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the bnhxnce of $10,000 he put down in 
cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Out of that $10,000, $5,000 came from a savings 
account in the joint name of Raymond Cohen and his wife. The 
other $5,000 in cash we were not able to trace the source of. 

Mr. Kennedy. So out of that transaction, there was $8,000 in cash 
which we were unable to trace the source of, is that right? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. On June 20, 1957, just during this same period 
that the other transaction was going on, did he purchase some acces- 
sories for his boat? 

Mr. Parkhurst. He did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the accessories included a hot and cold running 
water system, a telephone, a rockaway pipe chair, and other items? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he paid for them $2,032.25? Is that right? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was all in cash? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That was all in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any source for that money ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. We were not able to trace it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on June 19, 1957, he purchased a small Pen-yan 
boat, a small boat, for his son, is that right? 

Mr. Parkhurst. A small boat with an outboard motor. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is still in the same month wdiere he made the 
purchase of the big yacht, the accessories, and now buying a little 
boat? 

Mr. Parkhurst. One day before. 

Mr. Kennedy. $1,037.90? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that all in cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. All in cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to trace that ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is from an unidentifiable source, is that right? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he purchase another boat in July of 1957? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Well, it was a week later. It was June 26, when 
he made the purchase. He finished paying for it in July. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the same kind of boat as we just de- 
scribed, another small boat? 

Mr. Parkhurst. It was almost identical. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for another son? $1,038.88? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. All cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we are unable to trace the course of that cash? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, was he cutting down on 
his purchases in other fields ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he, in fact, purchase a home? 

Mr. Parkhurst. He purchased a home at Brigantine, N. J., in 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was tlie home ? 



10628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Parkiiurst. It was a lot. with a house on it that cost him 
$12,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. xVnd that was by check? 

Mr. Parkiiurst. By check, personal check. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he decide to make any alterations in tlieliome? 

Mr. Parkiiurst. He did make alterations. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did he start those alterations immediately after 
moving into the home, or shortly after the purchase of the home? 

Mr. Parkiiurst. Shortly after the purchase, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those alterations paid for by check or by cash ? 

Mr. Parkiiurst. By cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they went from July 19, 1956, to May 7, 1957 ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they total ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. $17,471. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were all cash ? 

Mr. Parkiiurst. All cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is no source ? 

Mr. Parkhuest. Well, from what I was able to trace, the proceeds 
from the sale of one of his boats for $2,000 was within 1 day of the 
time that he made a $2,000 payment on the improvements of his house. 

Mr. Kennedy. So $2,000, in your estimation, would be traceable to 
the sale of one of these boats ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that would leave $15,471 which is untraceable, is 
that right? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. From an unidentifiable source ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What is your judgment, Mr. Parkhurst, if you could 
give it to us, on an arrangement such as this, of an individual who deals 
somewhat in checks and then in these large amounts of cash ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. I would say it is not the usual business practice. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ordinarily, would you feel that you would be able 
to trace the source of these cash items; that is, in legitimate 
transactions? 

Mr. Parkhurst. In my experience, we have been very successful in 
tracing the source of cash in legitimate transactions. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are not able to trace the source of the cash 
in these transactions ? 

]Mr. Parkhurst. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That will be all for Mr. Parkhurst at this time, 
Mr. Chairman, unless you want to go into any of these items. 

The Chairman. I didn't miderstand how much the house cost that 
he bought. 

Mr. Parkhurst. The original cost was $12,500. The improvements 
were $17,471. 

The Chairman. How much of that is unaccounted for, I mean the 
source of it ? 

^Ir. Parkhurst. $15,471. 

Tlie Chairman. That you cannot account for? 

Mr. Parkhurst. That is true. 

The Chairman. That was money in cash ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10629 

Mr. Parkhukst. Later, after that money had been paid, he put a 
mortgage on the house for $15,000, which we are able to trace, but 
not during the time these payments were being made to the building 
contractor. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything, Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. Not right now. 

The Chairman. Would you recognize a picture of the house? 

Mr. PARiiHURST. I have never seen the house. 

Senator Curtis. I do want to ask one thing about the mortgage. 

Was this $15,000 mortgage a new deed, or does that appear to have 
been given to take care of some of this improvement ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. The $15,000 mortgage was put on after the im- 
provements were made, and based on an appraisal, and evaluation 
fixed by Mr. and Mrs. Cohen at some $42,000. The bank appraised it 
at around $33,000. 

Senator Curtis. From what you could learn, from your investiga- 
tion, the mortgage was for some other purpose rather than to pay 
for the improvements ? 

Mr. Parkhurst. All the improvements were paid for before he ob- 
tained the mortgage or the proceeds from the mortgage. 

Senator Qurtis. That is all. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. I would like to recall Mr. Kalph DeCarlo. 

TESTIMONY OF KALPH DeCARLO— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. DeCarlo, have you made an investigation put- 
ting together what Mr. Parkhurst has been working on, as well as 
some of the other investigators ? 

Have you been able to put together a picture of Mr. Cohen's fi- 
nances during the period of time when he was secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. ICennedy. And the purchases that he was making during this 
period of time? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, I have. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Could you tell the committee what your figures re- 
veal as to the net worth of Mr. Cohen at the time he became, or ap- 
proximately at the time he became secretary-treasurer, and whether 
there was an increase or decrease up to the period 1957 ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. The closest estimate that I could get of his net w^orth 
about the time that he became secretary-treasurer was a statement 
submitted to the Boardwalk National Bank in obtaining a loan. It 
was dated October 8, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which is quite close to the date ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Wliich is within several months of the date. He 
showed a net worth on that statement of $32,160. Our investigation 
disclosed that at that time he also had in his possession about $4,900 
worth of furs and jewels, which were not declai-ed on his statement. 

We adjusted the statement and came up with the figure of $37,060 
net worth as of October 8, 1953. Our inventory of his assets and 
liabilities as of June 30, 1957, sh'Ow that he had a net worth of 
$83,111.02 or an increase during that period of $46,051.02. 

Mr. Kennedy. His net worth increased during this period of time 
31/^ years some $46,000 — what is tlie figure again ? 



10630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr.DECARLO. $4(),051.02. 

The Chairman. What was liis salary during that time ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. His take-home pay was about $20,000 a year. 

The Chairman. Out of $60,000, he increased his net worth by forty- 
odd-thousand dollars ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would be about 3i^ years. It would be about 
$75,000, isn't that correct, in salary ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is correct. We would have to consider the 
other half year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it increased $46,000 during that period of time ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is right. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. In arriving at his increase in net worth, was there 
any of that increase that could be attributed to the increased value 
in capital assets through inflation or otherwise ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. No, sir. Everything that we included in that in- 
ventory was either at cost or at the figure that he showed in his origi- 
nal statement. 

Senator Curtis. So it couldn't be accounted for by an appreciation 
of value of equity, such as stock or otherwise ? 

Mr.DECARLO. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. There weren't any stocks involved ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. No stocks involved. All that we could find wei*e 
some United States savings bonds that he had. 

Senator Curtis. In that $46,000, is any part of it attributed to an 
increase in value of that home that he bought or any other property? 

Mr. DeCarlo. In that $46,000 we have the cost of the home and the 
cost of the alterations. 

Senator Curtis. But no part of it represents anything relating to 
appreciation of value ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Kenned^-. And this is all done without Mr. Cohen allowing us 
an access to his records ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. So this would be a minimum figure, an absolute mini- 
mum figure, is that correct ? 

Mr. I)eCarlo. In my opinion it represents a minimum figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]\Ir. DeCarlo, during that period of time, did you 
also make an examination as to the amount of money that was avail- 
able to him to pay his bills ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. I found that during this period, Mr. Cohen 
had available 

Mr. Kennedy, ^^^^^at is this ? All right, go ahead. 

Mr. DeCarlo. $220,442.43. We also found that his expenditures, 
and increases in bank balances, amounted to $206,575.10, indicating 
that he spent and deposited $4,132.67 more than he had available from 
all sources that we knew of. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this giving him the benefit for salary, all expenses 
from the union ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. It is giving him the benefit of every doubtful item 
we had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nevertheless, based on the figures that were avail- 
able from his net worth statement starting in the end of 1053, it indi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10631 

cates tluit during this period of time he was secretary-treasurer, he 
was spending more money than he had any legitimate source for? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this including his ordinary living expenses ? 

Mr. DeCaklo. No, sir. We could find no trace of living expenses, 
except for maybe 2 or 3 insigniticant amounts for a telephone bill. 

Mr. Kennedy. This would not be including any of his ordinary 
living expenses, is that right? 

Mr. DeCaklo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. All his living expenses during this almost 4-year 
period would be added on to this figure, is that right ? 

Mr. ] )eGarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he in debt at the time? How could a man 
spend $4,000 more than he had available ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. He must have a source of income that we don't know 
about. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is receiving money from a source, an unidenti- 
fiable source, is that right ? 

Mr. 1 )eCarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is established clearly from the fact that 
he was spending more money than he had received ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Absolutelj^ 

Mr. Kennedy. And this included his salary, his expenses, any in- 
terest that he got from any bonds, any loans that he had, anything of 
that kind? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Everything is included that we could find. 

Mr. Kennedy. Giving him the benefit of all of that, and not includ- 
ing the ordinary living expenses, he was still spending more money 
tbat he was receiving? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he had, without any question, and it is clearly 
established, been getting money from some unidentifiable source? 

Mr. DeCallo. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was not declaring this on his income tax? 

Mr. DeCarlo. He was not. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further. Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. Nothing further. 

The Chairman. This compilation may be made exhibit No. 21-E. 
It goes along with the others. 

(Document referred to was marked "exhibit No. 21-E," for ref- 
erence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, we have had some testi- 
mony regarding the amounts of cash that Mr. Cohen used, and it 
was during the period of time that the union was making out large 
numbers of checks to cash, in large amounts of money. 

Do we find that Mr. Cohen was, in fact, using large amounts of 
cash for his purchases ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give the committee a rundown as Ut 
what you have found on that ? 

Mr.' DeCarlo. We found that 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a list ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I have a list. Do you want me to itemize the list? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



10632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DeCarlo. We found the following payments were made in 
cash: 

On March 29, 1055, a $1,000 downpayment on a Circle R boat; May 
9, 1955, $1,300 that he repaid a bank loan with; June 4, 1956, $1,000 
downpayment on the Trojan 17- foot boat. 

On June 6, 1956, $1,730, the final payment on the Trojan 17-foot 
boat. On July 19, 1956, a $4,000 payment to the contractor who 
was altering his home. On August 22, 1956, a $2,000 cash payment 
to the contractor who was altering his home. 

On August 31, 1956, a $2,000 cash payment to the contractor who was 
altering his home. On September 14, 1956, a $2,500 cash payment 
to the contractor. 

On October 3, 1956, a $2,500 cash payment to the contractor. On 
October 17, 1956, a $2,600 payment in cash to the contractor. 

Sometimes in 1956, Lapensohn's records indicate that Cohen repaid 
him for the $17,000 in cash. The specific date is not available. 

The Chairman. Did you inspect that memorandum ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Does it reflect paid in cash ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Do we have that exhibit? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe the previous witness testified to that. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. DeCarlo. Also in 1956, a $2,000 loan in cash repaid to Ben 
Lapensohn, as reflected by that same schedule. 

The Chairman. What date was that? 

Mr. DeCarlo. No specific date. 

On May 15, 1957, $745.22, payment of his Federal income tax. On 
May 31, 1957, a $3,000 downpayment on the cabin cruiser, Audrey the 
Third. 

Senator Curtis. Do you mean he paid his income tax in cash ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was his return subsequently audited? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Some of his returns were. On this particular one, I 
think he had an extension of time on it. 

Senator Curtis. Was the transmission to the collector or the director 
in actual cash or did he take cash to buy a cashier's check or something ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. I will put it to you this way : What I was able to get 
from tlie records indicated that this was cash. Whether it actu- 
ally was cash or whether he bought a cashier's check with it, I don't 
know. 

Senator Curtis. I would think that would certainly alert the col- 
lector of internal revenue that he perhaps should look into certain 
books and records when you get a payment like that in cash. 

How much was it, did you say ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. $745.22. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. DeCarlo. On June 3, 1957, $5,000 as part of the $10,000 cash 
payment for Audrey the Third. None of those items are traceable. 

Mr. Kennedy. A total of $48,275.33? 

]VIr. DeCarlo. That is correct. We found that he made the fol- 
lowing cash deposits in banks, the sources of wliich could not be traced. 

On July 27, 1954, a $3,000 cash deposit in the Tradesman's Land 
Title Trust Co., Philadelphia; on February 16, 1955, a $1,000 cash 
deposit in the same bank ; on June 26, 1956, a $500 cash deposit in the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10633 

Boarchvalk National Bank, Atlantic City; August 23, 1956, a $1,150 
cash deposit in that same bank. Total deposits ni cash were $5,650, 
none of which was traceable. 
Mr. Kennedy. Outside that period or immediately follownig that 

jjeriod -. j ^i. x 

Mr. DeCarlo. Immediately following that period we found that 
Mrs. Cohen purchased a mink stole for $850 for which she paid cash. 

We also found that the insurance policy which covered the mink 
stole also covered a 5l^-carat diamond ring which had been valued at 
$4,000. . 

We do not know when they bought the ring or how they paid tor it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the total cash transactions? 

Mr. DeCaelo. The total cash transactions which we could not 
trace- 



Mr. Kennedy. We know that $4,000 was not a check during this 
period. . -, t n 

Jklr. DeCarlo. It definitely was not a check transaction and defi- 
nitely did not come out of any of his bank accounts. The total amount 
is $48,775.22. 

The Chairman. That is in addition to the $46,000 total you referred 
to a while ago ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. No ; it is all together. This is everything. 

The Chairman. That includes the $46,000? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Yes. 

The Chairman. It is a total of $58,000 in cash transactions that 
you cannot trace the source of the cash on ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. That is true. 

The Chairman. That is over a period of 31/2 years ? 

Mr. DeCarlo. Approximately S^^ to ^% years. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Tliank you. 

Call the next witness. 

We will take a 3-minute recess and everybody can stretch. 

(A brief recess was taken.) 

(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess were 
Senators McClell an nnd Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen. 

The Chairman. Mr. Carroll, the attorney who has been appearing 
here for some of the witnesses, has requested permission of the Chair 
to make a statement. . 

If tlie Chair understands the nature of the statement, it would be a 
statement to refute or to explain some testimony which has been given 
here this afternoon with respect to the $7,500 retroactive attorney lee. 

The committee will be very glad to hear the statement if the state- 
men is made under oath. 

Mr Carroll. I will be glad to have it made under oath, sir. 

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. Carroll. I do. 



10634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN ROGERS CARROLL 

The Chairman. You may state your name for the record, and also 
your profession, 

Mr. Carroll. My name is John Kogers Carroll, attorney at law. 
My office is at 2015 Land Title Building, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of a law firm, Mr. Carroll ? 

Mr. Carroll. I am, sir. 

The Chairman. What's the name of the firm ? 

Mr. Carroll. McBride, Von ISIoschzisker, and Bradley. 

The Chairman. Is that the IMcBride whose name has been referred 
to here in testimony this afternoon as having received a $7,500 retro- 
active attorney fee ? 

Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were you a member of the firm at the time that the 
fee was received ? 

Mr. Carroll. There was no firm in existence at that time, sir. This 
firm was formed in November of 1954. The check was received per- 
sonally by Mr. McBride 

The Chairisian. Were you associated with the firm at that time? 
You say there was no firm. 

Mr. Carroll. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. All the Chair is trying to show, and I want to be 
perfectly fair about it, is that a question arises in my mind now, if 
you were not a member of the firm, whether you are the proper one 
to be heard with respect to the $7,500 fee. 

Mr. jMcBride himself might well be heard. 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. McBride himself has asked me to make the state- 
ment, Senator, and also to say that he is perfectly willing, if you 
wish to hear him, to come to Washington and testify about it. 

The Chairman. The rules of the committee provide that the one 
who feels aggrieved or who feels that testimony has been given that 
reflects upon him, may, with the permission of the committee, appear 
and testify. 

Mr. Carroll. I understand. 
^ The Chairman. I assumed you were a member of the firm at the 
time, and, of course, that it might reflect on the firm, and, since you 
were a member of it, you might be privileged to make a statement 
about it. 

Mr. Carroll. In the course of my discussion yesterday, JMr. Chair- 
man, you will recall my stating that although I was not at that time 
employed by Mr. McBride, I did do some work for him on a desultory 
basis. 

The Chairman. Unless there is objection, I am going to hear a 
brief statement from you, but, after all, I think if Mr. McBride feels 
concerned about the testimony that was given here with respect to 
him receiving a $7,500 retroactive fee, I think he is the proper wit- 
ness to appear and explain it. 

However, without objection, the committee will hear you briefly. 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Flanagan's testimony, of course, accurately stated 
that Mr. McBride received a check in the sum of $7,500, I believe in 
June of 1954. It was then suggested, I believe, by Mr. Kennedy, 
counsel for the committee, that this check was paid out of union funds 
for personal representation of Mr. Cohen at a time when Mr. Cohen 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10635 

was not the secretary-treasurer of local 107. The suggestion is in- 
correct for this reason : 

That on the 15th of November 1953, Mr. Cohen was duly and prop- 
erly elected as secretary-treasurer of local 107. Mr. McBride was 
retained by him as counsel for the union at that time. As the com- 
mittee is aware, subsequent to that, Mr. Crumbock, who Mr. Cohen 
had defeated for the position of secretary-treasurer, asked David 
Beck, the general president of the Teamsters Union, who apparently 
was in Mr. Crumbock's favor, to set aside that election. 

Considerable proceedings were had on the question of the trustee- 
ship which Mr. Beck then imposed, improperly in our view. Eventu- 
ally another election was held and Mr. Cohen again defeated Mr. 
Crumbock. It is my view and Mr. McBride's that during that entire 
period, from November 15, 1953, until after the second election in 
May of 1954, Mr. Cohen was the properly elected secretary-treasurer 
of local 107, and, as such, had the right to hire counsel for the union, 
and did so in the person of Mr. McBride. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, the retroactive period covers 
the period of trusteeship ? 

Mr. Carroll. Exactly, sir; and the only reason the payment was 
delayed was that because of the trusteeship, the properly elected 
secretary-treasurer did not have access to the union funds. 

The Chairman. In other words, he simply contends that he was 
entitled to pay during the period of time that there was a trustee, 
when he felt that he should have been in office. 

Mr. Carroll. Because, as was eventually decided, sir 

The Chairman. It wasn't decided except by another election. 

Mr. Carroll. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It was not decided that the first election was im- 
proper. 

Mr. Carroll. The litigation that was pending all during that time 
in order to make the decision, was, of course, dropped or made moot 
by the second election in which Mr. Cohen was reelected. 

The Chairman. At any rate, the $7,500 was for the benefit of Mr. 
Cohen primarily ? 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir; it was as counsel for the union. 

The Chairman. Representing Mr. Cohen's interests ? 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir; representing the union, as the union's coun- 
sel in cases in court, and also before the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters in the internal proceedings to set aside the trusteeship. 

The Chairman. Did the trustee hire him? 

Mr. Carroll. Of course not, sir. 

The Chairman. The trustee was in charge of the union at that time, 
and he is the one who was authorized to conduct the affairs of the 
union. With that I am sure you will agree. 

Mr. Carroll. The trustee, sir, was appointed by Mr. Beck single 
handedly. This committee has had enough experience with Mr. Beck's 
activities to know how he does things. 

The Chairman. And we have found out that some local imions do 
worse. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Carroll, that your 
statement today is entirely different from your statement of yesterday. 

Mr. Carroll. Perhaps 'it is not. 

21243— 58— pt. 27 17 



10636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. In answer to Senator Curtis, who asked who was 
paying for Mr, Myhasuk, when he was charged with beating up one 
of these men who appeared before this committee, and you were asked 
whether union funds were used for that purpose, you stated, "No, 
they were not." 

You said "At that time, the firm with which I was associated was 
representing Mr. Cohen and that group that was backing Mr. Cohen." 

Mr. Carroll. Let me explain, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Mr. Gray was the counsel for local 107." 

That is what you stated yourself yesterday. You changed in 24 
hours. 

Mr. Carroll. The fact of the matter is that there were two factions, 
Mr. Crumbock and Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen, I now say to you, was 
the properly elected secretary-treasurer of the union as of November 
15, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody recognized that except Mr. Cohen and you 
lawyers who were associated with Mr. McBride. 

Mr. Carroll. Apparently the membership did, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Later on they had an election. There is no question 
about that. 

Mr. Carroll. In addition to that, as I said yesterday, no union 
money was paid for the representation of Mr. Myhasuk. I represented 
him. Mr, McBride did not, I think you suggested that Mr. McBride 
during this period did represent some people who were identified as 
being involved in beatings. That is not so. He did not represent any 
such persons during that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you associated with Mr. McBride ? 

Mr. Carroll. As I said, to you, I did some work for him on a desul- 
tory basis at that time. 

Mr, Kennedy. Were you being paid at that time ? 

Mr. Carroll. I was not paid anything for that representation, 

Mr, Kennedy, Were you being paid at that time for your association 
with Mr, McBride ? 

Mr, Carroll. Only in an ad hoc case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. McBride was being paid out of the union funds. 
He got paid the $7,500 for all the work that he and his associate did for 
Mr, Cohen, and Mr. Cohen's backers during that period of time. 

Mr, Carroll. During that time, sir, Mr. McBride received nothing. 

Mr, Kennedy, I will say this : Your rationalization of this is simi- 
lar to your rationalization of representing these witnesses, these truck- 
drivers, who appear before the committee and take the fifth amend- 
ment, 

Mr. Carroll. Sir, that is not so. 

The Chairman. All right. We have heard enough of this. 

Mr, Carroll, I have just one other thing, sir, Mr. McBride has sug- 
gested to me that I ought to say to this committee that he feels that 
had he been asked about this previously, it would have been perfectly 
well explained, and perhaps much better than I could do it. 

The Chairman. We would have gotten a whole lot more from him 
than we have from your clients. 

Mr. Carroll. He is still willing to do so, if this committee is willing 
to hear him. 

The Chairman. This committee will not send for him. If he 
requests to appear, his request will be heard. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10637 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Cohen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND COHEN, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ, COUNSEL— Resumed. 

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

Mr. Cohen. Raymond Cohen, 1605 Brigantine Avenue, Brigantine, 
N. J., secretary-treasurer and business manager of Teamsters Local 
107, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, you have been with local 107 for how 
long? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been with local 107 for how long ? 

Mr. Cohen. Since its inception, in October 1933. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has that been your only source of income, the moneys 
that you received from local 107 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were a truckdriver when you first joined local 
107? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you become an official or semiofficial of 
the union ? 

Mr. Cohen. I started to work for local 107 in November or Decem- 
ber, 1933. Prior to that, I was a teamster in local 470, back as far 
as 1926. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were elected secretary-treasurer in June of 
1954, of the union ? 

Mr. Cohen. I was elected as secretary-treasurer of local 107 Novem- 
ber 15, 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have another election in June of 1954? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were elected then in June of 1954 ? 

Mr. Cohen. By over 9,000 votes in comparison with Mr. Crumbock's 
1,100. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you hold any other position in the union other 
than secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Cohen. Business manager. 

Mr. Kennedy. And any other positions in the local or the inter- 
national ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. In the international union ? Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you hold in the international ? 

Mr. Cohen. Trustee. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are your responsibilities as trustee ? 



10638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen. To clieck the financial record of the international. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio are the other trustees ? 

Mr. Cohen. A gentleman by the name of Paul Jones, and a fellow 
by the name of Eauh. The exact spelling of it I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it felt that you had a good deal of experience 
with finances, and that was why you were selected for this job? 

Mr. Cohen. I cannot say why I was elected to the job or how they 
felt as to why I should be elected to the job. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them about how you were handling the 
finances of local 107 and they were impressed with that ? 

Mr. Cohen. I make monthly financial reports to the international 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are those accurate ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence agaiP-St myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you make reports that you wouldn't 
testify to as being accurate ? 

What good is a false report for honest purposes ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go down to the convention in Miami with 
other delegates from local 107 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; you did ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many delegates went down from local 107 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't have my records before me, but I think we had, 
according to our membership, about 19 or 20. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did each one of them receive? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fiifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records of the local, and I would 
like to ask you if this is correct, they received at least $31,350; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat were they going to do with all that money 
in Miami ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Was it used for honest purposes ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Do you think it might intimidate you — incriminate 
you or intimidate you, if you acknowledged it was used for honest 
purposes ? 

Mr. Cohen. It might be used as some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. Is that your honest view ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer that for the same reason, Mr. Chair- 
man. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10639 

The Chairman. You don't think that would be used as evidence 
against you, the fact that you are honest ; do you ? 

It might be evidence for you, but I don't see how it would be evi- 
dence against you. 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You received how much money when you went down 
there? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records, you received $3,000. Is 
that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. KJSNNEDY. We have a total of 16 delegates that received this 
$31,500. Some of the delegates received $3,000 and some $2,500 and 
some $2,000. Why did they need that much money down in Miami? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had some testimoney here that during 
the period of time you were secretary-treasurer, there was some $250,- 
000 worth of checks, and these checks were made out to cash. Can you 
give us any explanation for the use of this money ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't some of that money go to you personally ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Do you think an honest answer to that question 
might tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. It might be used as some evidence against me. 

The Chairman. An honest answer ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

The Chairman. I see. So you can't give an honest answer? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

The Ch^^irman. Proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. This morning we had 3 trustees who refused to 
give any information, who took the fifth amendment on the question 
of how the $250,000 was disposed of. Now we have added to that 
additional funds. Are these in addition ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. $31,350, which was spent by 16 delegates under 
your leadership who went to Miami. For how many days ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Six days. 

Senator Kennedy. Some received $3,000, and you refuse to explain 
how it was spent. It is my information, when asked about this 
$250,000 and this sum — are you the president? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

Senator Kjennedy. What are you ? 

Mr. Cohen. Secretary-treasurer and business manager. 

Senator Kjsnnedy. You were secretary-treasurer while this money 
was being spent, or all the time it was being spent? 

Mr. Cohen. I didn't get the question. 



10640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. You were secretary-treasurer all the time this 
$250,000 was being spent? 

Mr. Cohen. What period ? 

Senator Kennedy. January 1954 to September 1957. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, I was. 

Senator Kennedy. You refuse to answer as to how this money was 
spent ? You take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer the question for the same reason. 

Senator Kennedy. I think you should resign, too, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. Cohen. Well, I don't mean to be sarcastic, but that is a matter 
of opinion. I think a 14,000 membership has a right to say whether 
I should resign or not. 

Senator Kennedy. You are before tlie committee now. I am just 
giving you my opinion now. 

Mr. Cohen. I said I am sorry. I didn't mean to be sarcastic. 

Senator Kennedy. I am not sarcastic. I think you ought to resign. 
The reason I think you ought to resign is that this is over $250,000 at 
a time you were secretary-treasurer was spent for cash, spent in com- 
pletely inaccurate files, reports that were tampered with, and you come 
before the committee and we ask you how it was spent, and you say you 
wouldn't answer because an honest answer would incriminate you. 

For that reason, I don't think you should hold office. As a member 
of the labor committee, permanent, for 12 years, I don't think you are 
a responsible labor leader. I think you should resign. I think the 
three trustees should resign. 

I think any officer of a union who comes before this committee and 
refuses to give us an answer as to how money is spent should resign 
also. 

Mr. Cohen. I would like to say this, Mr. Senator, without, again 
being repetitious about being sarcastic, but trying to answer you to 
the best of my ability. We have our membership meetings regularly, 
especially this coming Sunday, and I would like very much for you 
to come, or some of the other Senators, to talk to our membership, and 
let them be the deciding factor as to whether I should resign or not. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, the record is being made here, not 
only of the $250,000, the $31,000, all the reports that were changed, 
but of the trustees who come before us, and who are unable to give 
us any information as to how the money was spent. You obviously feel 
no responsibility at all to the public or to the Congress. I am just 
giving you my opinion as a member of this committee and as a member 
of the labor committee for, as I say, nearly 12 years, in the House and 
in the Senate, chairman of the permanent Subcommittee on Labor, 
that you should not, in my opinion, hold a position which involves the 
public interest to the point that it does in the State of Pennsylvania. 

I don't think the AFL-CIO, from which the Teamstei^ have been 
expelled, would keep you in office for a minute. You have breached 
and the officers of your union have breached, most of the ethical prac- 
tices code set up by them for honest, responsible trade imion move- 
ments. 

That is my opinion. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Senator, I would like to say that on the allegations 
and accusations that have been made, I think I only owe a responsi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10641 

bility to the membership of local 107 who elected me to the post that 
I now have. 

Senator Kjennedy. In addition, Mr. Cohen, it is not a question of 
your choosing that you don't want to talk to us. You are stating under 
oath that if you do answer honestly, it would incriminate you. This 
is not a visit or an accommodation. 

You are stating under oath, or you are in contempt of this com- 
mittee, that an honest answer by you would incriminate you. 

This is not a matter of your being reluctant to answer on union 
business. You are saying that you would be incriminated yourself, 
and possibly subject to criminal penalties, if you give an answer. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. Either that, as the chairman says, or you are 
committing perjury; one or the other. 

I am hopeful that the counsel will go through, as I know he will, 
many of these accounts, which will show that you have not met your 
trust, not only for the $250,000, plus these lavish expenditures for 
Miami, $31,000 for 16 delegates for 5 days in Miami — that is quite a 
lot of money, with $3,000 for yourself alone, and you refuse to tell us 
how you spent it. 

Do you have any vouchers? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer that question, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Kennedy. On what ground ? 

Mr. Cohen. For the same reason. 

Senator Kennedy. Eepeat it. I want to hear it. On what ground ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the grounds that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Kennedy. And will you make that — repeat that. Is it 
because you feel that an honest answer will incriminate you ? 

Is it because you feel that an honest answer would incriminate you 
or might incriminate you, or tend to incriminate you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. It might be used as evidence against me. 

Senator Kennedy. All right. I want to make clear that when I 
mentioned the $250,000, the changing of the records, and your in- 
ability and unwillingness to explain that and the $31,000, in addition 
to that there are a great many other expenditures for your personal 
purposes, including undershirts, robes, ties, socks, which I understand 
the counsel will discuss with you, which you also probably are going 
to be reluctant to talk about, which were charged to the union and 
paid by the union, and quite obviously personal matters, which I hope 
the membership will examine. Long-sleeve dress shirts, short-sleeve 
dress shirts, paid for by Teamster Local 107. 

I will yield back to the counsel. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Were you buying your suits at union expense, Mr. 
Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the grounds I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 



10642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And your suits at $135 apiece, two gray worsted 
suits, black overcoat for $135, was that all paid for out of union 
expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the gi-ounds that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the $10 tie, was that paid for out of union 
expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. And sending your wife to Florida each year, that was 
paid out of union expense, was it not? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the rent at your Florida home, about $2,000 
each year, all paid out of union funds ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, his counsel 
whether he was aware of these expenditures for personal purposes. 

Mr. Carroll. We have just received this. 

Senator Kennedy. You never knew of this before ? 

Mr. Carroll. No, sir. We have been aware, of course, that the 
union customarily buys things to give as Christmas presents for vari- 
ous people with whom they do business. 

Senator Kennedy. I wonder if we have a list of all of those expendi- 
tures for Christmas presents. 

Mr. Carroll. I don't know whether you have or not. You have 
every scrap of paper that you asked for. 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to know if you knew of these ex- 
penditures for Mr. Cohen himself. 

Mr. Carroll. I just received this 5 minutes ago. 

Senator Kennedy. We come back to the question of conflict of in- 
terest. I want to know whether you feel yet that there has been a 
conflict of interest. 

Mr. Carroll, As a result of this, I have advised Mr. Cohen that at 
the earliest opportunity he and I and Mr. Markowitz must sit down 
and discuss this in detail to ascertain whether that point has arrived. 

Senator Kennedy, Would you inform the committee when you do? 

Mr. Carroll. If I am absent, I think it would be obvious. 

Senator Kennedy. When you say you will sit down, do you intend 
to sit down when the committee adjourns today ? 

Mr. Carroll. I intend to do it. In fact, if you want to adjourn 
now, I will do it now. 

The Chairman. Can we go on for 10 minutes ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I want to 
ask Mr. Cohen. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis, 

Senator Curtis. How does a truckdriver get a job in the Phila- 
delphia area, Mr, Cohen ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen, Do you mean a union truckdriver or a nonunion truck- 
driver ? 

Senator Curtis, I mean a truckdriver for one of the concerns with 
whom you have a contract. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10643 

Mr. Cohen. To try to get a job from a company who is under con- 
tract with the union ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. You operate under a master contract in the 
area, do you not ? 

Mr. Cohen. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I am referring to employment with those com- 
panies covered by the master contract. How does a truckdriver get 
a job? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, they just go up to the trucking company and ask 
for a job. 

Senator Curtis. Do they have to contact the shop steward ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you maintain a hiring hall ? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, now, you have asked me how a truckdriver gets 
a job from a trucking concern under contract with the union. 

Any truckdriver can go to any truckmg concern under contract with 
the union and get a job. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have a hiring hall ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, we do. 

Senator Curtis. Who operates that ? 

Mr. Cohen. The union. 

Senator Curtis, What is the name of the individual in charge ? 

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

Mr. Cohen. There are four individuals at the hiring hall. Walter 
Mitchell is in charge of the hiring hall. 

Senator Curtis. Who else ? 

Mr. Cohen. Joseph Cendrowski, Peter Luscko, Edward Rhoda. 
We have a night shift and a day shift. 

Senator Curtis. Does everybody that gets a job join the union? 

Mr. Cohen. After the required amount of days, under the Taft- 
Hartley law. 

Senator Curtis. How many days is that ? 

Mr. Cohen. Thirty-one or more. 

Senator Curtis. After they have gotten their job, and worked 31 or 
more days and joined the union, can they drop out of the union without 
losing their job? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't understand what you mean. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. All right. After the 31 days are up and they are 
in the union, can they withdraw from the union without losing their 
job? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. As a condition of employment under the contract, he 
would be required to continue to be a paid-up member in the union. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, these men who are working and 
supporting their families by driving trucks and doing also other work, 
if they stop paying their union dues, they lose their job, isn't that 
right? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, under the union security clause in the contract. 

Senator Curtis. Even though 

Mr. Cohen. After a certain amount of notice, which is required 
under the law, from the union to the employer. 



10644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. If these members believe the charges that have been 
made against you, if they believe that those charges are true, that their 
dues money is taken to buy $10 neckties, and that some of their money 
goes into boats, all that sort of thing, they can't stop paying dues 
without losing their job, can they ? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, I can only answer that, Senator, by saying that 
under the conditions that our membership enjoy since I have become 
head of the union in 1954, in which tliej'^ have gotten an increase of 
over 70 cents an hour, plus vacations, plus health and welfare, plus 
pension, to my knowledge none of our membership would like to leave 
our local union. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I am not so sure about that. I think a good 
union will attract good workers. We are the only country in the 
world that has compulsory union membership, and as long as we have 
it, individuals will seek to head unions because they have a captive 
membership. 

I do not think for a minute that, if the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 
vania would protect the workers of Pennsylvania in their constitu- 
tional right to work, they would stay in any organization that spent 
their money like it has been alleged here that they spent it. 

While I concur in the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts' 
recommendations that you ought to resign, I think the poor fellows 
who are paying the bill ought to be permitted to resign from your 
union without becoming unemployed and losing their livelihood. 

Mr. Cohen. I would like to say, Mr. Senator, we have not only 
gotten the increases which I have stated for our membership in local 
107, but we have increased our membership over 4,000 truckdrivers in 
the last couple of years. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, and I don't think any of them will ever get 
away. 

Mr. Cohen. They have no reasons to want to get away. 

Senator Curtis. It is the only place in the world where we turn 
over to unworthy union leaders the power to keep their members 
captive, or lose their jobs. I think if we would give to the workers 
of the country the right to join or not to join a union, and to stay in a 
union or not, as their own voluntary right, it will do more to clean 
up transactions like this overnight because they just wouldn't stand 
for it. The workers of the country are good citizens and good people 
and do not believe in this sort of thing. 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Senator, would you call a captive local a local 
union like 107 in Philadelphia who had their choice to vote as to who 
they wanted for secretary-treasurer in 1954 by secret ballot a captive 
local? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. They are captives. Every one of them has 
to stay in the union or lose their job. 

Mr. Cohen. There wasn't any compulsory, I don't think, at that 
time, as to whether they should stay in the union or not. 

The Chairman. You might be reminded, sir, that some of them 
who didn't vote for you got beat up. It looks like it is a little bit 
captive to me. 

Senator Curtis. I believe the good people that do the work there in 
the Philadelphia area just wouldn't support a union like this if they 
didn't have to. I think they are captives. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10645 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 
tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 :30 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m. Friday, April 18, 1958. At this time the following mem- 
bers were present : Senators McClellan and Curtis. ) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER PRACTICES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 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 Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the Caucus Room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena- 
tor Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, 
Arizona; Senator Carl Curtis, Republican, Nebraska; Senator Karl 
Mundt, Republican, South Dakota. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel ; John B. Flanagan, investigator ; Leo C. 
Nulty, investigator; Herbert J. Rose, Jr., investigator; Ralph De- 
Carlo, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

(At the convening of the session, the following members were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan and Goldwater, Ives, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Cohen, 
will you return to the stand, please, sir ? 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND COHEN, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ROGERS 
CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ, COUNSEL— Resumed. 

The Chairman. You may be seated. 

There is a little matter we will take up a few minutes later, maybe. 
We are waiting for another member of the committee, I desired to 
have him present. In the meantime, Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed 
with the interrogation of Mr. Cohen. 

The Chair is advised the other member of the committee may not 
get here, so we will proceed. 

Yesterday afternoon, when we concluded, or just before we re- 
cessed, the question was raised about the propriety of the counsel, 
Mr. Carroll and Mr. Markowitz, in view of testimony that had de- 
veloped, the propriety of their continuing to represent what may be 
both sides, both interests, during the further investigation proceedings 
of this committee. Counsel indicated yesterday afternoon they wanted 
to have a conference with their clients about the matter to discuss it. 
I assume they are ready to make a report to the committee this 
morning as to their conclusions about it. 

10647 



10648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We will be very glad to hear from you, Mr. Carroll. 

Mr. Carroll. I am ready to make such a report, Senator. In ac- 
cordance with my promise of yesterday afternoon, I did consider this 
matter with Mr. Cohen, with Mr. Markowitz, and also with my 
senior partners, Mr. Von Moschzisker, and Mr. Bradley, who came 
to Washington last night for the purpose of discussing the matter. 
We considered it long and hard. In addition, we are all agreed, as 
I have {previously stated to this committee, that we intend to be bound 
and guided by the opinion of the Philadelphia Bar Association's 
standing committee on professional guidance, whose opinion is al- 
ready in the record. 

As a result of our discussions, I may say we have unanimously con- 
cluded that with propriety I shall and may continue to represent Mr. 
Cohen, simultaneously with the union, as well as certain other wit- 
nesses who are under subpena and who are present here. 

In addition to that, I should say that Mr. Moschzisker and Mr. Brad- 
ley are in the hearing room at present and would like to be heard 
on this question. 

Finally, we are advised that the Philadelphia Bar Association's 
committee on professional guidance has scheduled another meeting 
next Tuesday afternoon to reconsider the same problem in the light of 
the public statements that have been made. 

We have agreed to make available to them the entire transcript of 
this hearing so that we may receive their further advice. In view 
of the fact that they are meeting next Tuesday, I think that they will 
then advise us as to the propriety of continued representation under 
the circumstances. 

As I said before, we will abide by their advice, until they advise us 
to the contrary. Our conclusion in the light of their opinion is that 
we may, with propriety, continue this representation. 

The Chairman. So you have concluded that you can, you feel that 
you can, continue without any impropriety or improper, unethical 
act? 

Mr. Carroll. That's correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat is the judgment of the committee? 

Senator Curtis, do you have any question about it ? 

Senator Curtis. No. I think, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing I 
could suggest that might lead to any matter being resolved here this 
morning. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives ? 

Senator Ives. I had a talk with Mr. Carroll before this business 
started. I don't like to see a young man, apparently as clean cut as 
Mr. Carroll is, risk his reputation and his future on something as 
dubious as this appears to be. I suggested that to him. I think he 
ought to have another soul searching on this matter, although if the 
committee in Philadelphia is going to take it up further that may let 
him out of the situation. 

You have a good future ahead of you, Mr. Carroll. Don't risk it. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, I have an equal duty, whatever my future 
may be, to represent my clients with fidelity, and I cannot forsake that 
in the present for the sake of some future 

Senator I\tss. I know that. I wouldn't argue with you about that 
point. But apparently you may have been misled somewhere here. 



IMPROPER ACl^IVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10649 

Time will tell you whether you have or not. If you have, you better 
reconsider. 

Mr. Carroll. Senator, I don't think I have been misled. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater, have you any comments ? 

Senator Goldwater. No ; I have no statement. 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this statement. The Chair 
tries to be very liberal, very generous. That is the way the Chair 
feels about it, especially with respect to attorneys. 

I have had a little experience m that profession. Often an attor- 
ney's position can be misunderstood. To the Chair, however, it is 
rather apparent that there is a serious conflict of interest here. I 
am not going to deny these witnesses, however, as they come on, 
counsel that has been selected for them and that they accept. I am 
not going to deny them the right to that coimsel at the present. I 
think as this hearing proceeds, and when the committee weighs the 
evidence, it may have something to say about it. But I am not say- 
ing what it will say, nor do I know. 

But I think this definitely is something, that, if counsel is under- 
taking to represent a duplicity and conflict of interest, I think it would 
be another circumstance pointing up the improper practices of this 
imion. Of course, the counsel will have to take the chance of any 
reflection upon him and his professional standing for doing it. 

The committee could very well deny these men the right to this 
particular counsel. That would incur some delay if we did it. It 
would take some time to secure other counsel. But rather than to 
deny them, if they want to continue with this particular counsel, the 
Chair is inclined to let them do so, reserving the right of the com- 
mittee to weigh it in the light of what has already been developed in 
the testimony and what may hereafter be developed in the testimony 
with respect to the propriety of it. 

The Chair would not be bound, necessarily, and I will speak this 
j)ersonally, I will not be bound necessarily by some committee of 
lawyers, maybe, in another State, or anywhere else. If I thought they 
were wrong, I would say so just as frankly as I would if I disagreed 
with the counsel wdio was present. But I don't want to delay these 
hearings. The pattern is unfolding that I think is very significant. 
I want this pattern to continue, if that is the will of those who are 
cutting out. I want to get it clearly on record so that the committee, 
the Congress, and the public can weigh it, and evaluate it for its 
proper merit or lack of merit. 

So, without objection on the part of the committee, we will proceed. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can I ask Mr. Carroll a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Carroll, do you feel that the union members 
are entitled to hear truthful answers before the congressional com- 
mittee from their leadership ? 

Mr. Carroll. I do not think, sir, if I understand you correctly, that 
the union members have a right to insist that their officers or the other 
members give up their constitutional rights. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That is not the question here. Do you feel that the 
union membership is entitled to have truthful answers before a con- 
gressional committee ? 



10650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carroll. If answers are given, they are entitled to truthful 
answers. But if a constitutional privilege is available to the witness, 
I don't think that his membership has the right to demand that he give 
it up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you think, right there, there is a conflict of 
interest, because the membership is entitled to the answers to these 
questions, is entitled to know under oath how their union funds are 
being used, and the witness, a union official, who might have the 
answers, is entitled to take the fifth amendment ? That is recognized. 
But there is a conflict between the union official, his rights, and the 
rights of the union membership. 

Mr. Carroll. Only on your hypothesis, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it is basic, that when a union official appears 
before a committee, and is asked about the misuse of some $250,000 in 
cash, when he is asked questions about that, that the union membership 
is entitled to have answers to that question. 

Mr. Carroll. The union membership is certainly entitled to have 
answers to that question. Your question rather goes to the forum in 
which the answers will be given. 

Mr. Kennedy. Eight. 

Mr. Carroll. If, in a forum such as this, there arises circumstances 
in which the man might endanger himself with respect to some offense 
by giving testimony, then he has his constitutional privilege available. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is fine. That is as far as he is concerned. He 
does have that constitutional defense available and he is entitled to 
have an attorney defend him. But, at the same time, the union mem- 
bership is entitled to have these answers. So, therefore, automatically 
there is a conflict of interest. No matter whether this man is guilty or 
not, there is a conflict of interest. 

Mr. Carroll. I regret, sir, that I do not see the logic of your 
statement. 

The Chairman. We will proceed. The Chair will make this obser- 
vation : 

With respect to this constitutional right, if I had an employee 
handling my affairs, and when he was questioned about it under oath 
he took the fifth amendment, a privilege he would have a right to 
exercise, I assume, he could exercise that privilege, but I would imme- 
diately exercise mine and fire him. I wouldn't want him any longer. 
If a man worked for me handling my financial affairs, who couldn't 
under oath give an accounting of his stewardship to me, I wouldn't 
want him in office. 

Mr. Carroll. You understand, sir, the Supreme Court has consid- 
ered that precise question and decided it against you. 

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

The Chairman. I don't care what any court considered. It couldn't 
keep me from firing him. 

Mr. Carroll. I took an oath to uphold my judgment. 

The Chairman. Let's proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy, interrogate the witness. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. What I would like to find out from you, Mr. Cohen, 
is how you were able to spend in the period of time that you were secre- 
tary $4,000 more than you were earning during that period of time. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10651 

Mr. Cohen. I didn't hear tlie last part of your question, I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. The question is : During the period of time that you 
where secretary-treasurer how were you able to spend $4,000 more than 
any source of income that you had ? 

Mr. Cohen. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that if you gave a truthful answer to 
that question it might tend to incriminate you ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Cohen. A truthful answer might be some evidence against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. It might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Cohen. I said a truthful answer might give some evidence 
against me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain to the committee where the source 
of some $57,000 in checks that you wrote to cash, purchases that you 
made to cash during the period of time that you were secretary-treas- 
urer ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain to the committee the source of 
those funds ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you steal the funds from the union? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground I am not 
required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did, in fact, steal the money from the union, did 
you not, Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to stealing from the union to make these 
cash purchases, did you steal money from the union to pay your 
personal bills ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to answer the question on the ground that I am not 
required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you buy your clothes at union expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself mider the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mi\ Kennedy. A brown suit, a grey suit, black overcoat. Did you 
buy all those at union expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your socks and your ties, did you buy those at union 
expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 



51243— 58— pt. 2'i 



10652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Our records show that you did make all these pur- 
chases at union expense. In addition to that, a robe, your shirts, long- 
sleeve sport shirts, and short-sleeve sport shirts, all at union expense. 

Did you do that? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about your 12 pairs of socks at $1.20 apiece ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your shoes, did you buy those at union expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your 6 dress shirts at $12.50 apiece, according 
to our records, all at union expense? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Jewelry at union expense? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Ten-dollar ties ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Polaroid camera at union expense; did you buy 
that? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer for the same reason. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Kennedy. And your meter and case and your films and flash- 
bulbs. Did you buy all that at union expense ? 

Mr. Cohen. Would you pardon me? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. What is your answer ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You better state the ground occasionally. The 
same ground gets to be a little monotonous. 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say, if possible, to shorten some 
of the same questions, if it is on exhibit 21, things that were supposed 
to be purchased and paid for by the union, the same answer would 
stand there. 

The Chairman. Of course, we never know whether you might have 
a change of conscience or not and the only w^ay to actually test it is 
to proceed. 

Proced, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How about a plaque for a marlin for Mr. McBride 
for $11.62? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that paid out of union funds? 

Mr. Cohen. Was your question : "Whether the union paid for Mr. 
McBride's plaque for his marlin ?" 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. My answer is "Yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that authorized by the union ? 

Mr. Cohen. We were very pleased to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that authorized by the union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10653 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. , ,. .-. « 

Mr KJENNEDY. And at a general membership meeting ? 

Mr Cohen. There is no^iecessity for authorization ±or items per- 
taining, for instance, that plaque, from the membership. I am ui full 
authority to do those different incidentals. 

Mr Kennedy. That is an incidental i 

^o'cHri;M!;;::T's:"lSso»e .^o.. wai be answered and 

''T^^JSI «>e^^l.ns'rrte"=:" w': ^p^.. it, a„d inso^ 
fa. r he wtoess will cooperate. .1 don't know, there may be a good 
many things in this record that might be well explained and I think 
rheclmmittee is entitled to have you expla n it, if you will, where you 

^■^V^:r:%:trot,'XrS:V"?uroS"take tl. Hfth amendment, 
I asume, if you desire to do so. 

Mr" K^fxAaque was an incidental that you could ap- 
prove of? Is that right? 

Mr Cohen. That plaque was what? i, „ „^„ 

Mr] Kennedy. That was an incidental over which you have con- 
trol? You can purchase incidentals? . t ™„«f f^ ,^iiv 

Mr. Cohen. 1 have the authority to purchase what I want to pur- 
r-hn qp fls far as ffiving; gifts or other incidentals. 

Mri&NNEDr AnS could you give Christmas gifts of large sums 
of money to people? , 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr Ej:nnedy. Could you do that? . <. .t, ^ „^,. t 

Mr! C^HEN. I decline to answer that question for the same reason I 

"'X'Si^Y^^That does not come under the category of inciden- 

'^Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the q^^/ion for the same r^^^^^^^ 
Mr. Kennedy. What is in the category of incidentals? Could you 

tellusthat? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr Cohen. I decline to answer that question for the same reason 

Mr' ItaNEDY. The only one you will mention is the plaque, is that 
right ? Can you think of anything other than a plaque that you could 
<rive under the category of incidental gifts? 
"Mr Cohen. I refuse to answer that question for the same reason 

Mr Kennedy. Could you tell us where the downpayment of $1,000 
in cash foi your Circle-R boat, what the source of those funds were? 

Mr CoL^N. I refuse to answer that question for the same reason. 

Mr Kennedy. Were they union funds ? -n • • i. 

The CHAmMAN. On some of these questions, the Chair will insist 
that von make a proper answer to them. 

I am no^ going to let the record just be the same reason, same reason 
We i^e -ofng to have the reason stated. Because the witness has 
^swered^one^question here with respect to authority to spend money 
for incidentals, and then when asked what an mcidental is, you take 

^1 doXuteTri^^^^^^^ to do it after you once state you have that 
authority. 



10654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Ask him that question again and with the permission of the com- 
mittee, the Chair will order him to answer what he regards as inci- 
dentals. 

He says he has authority to spend money for incidentals. Since 
he claims to have the authority, he should be able to describe to the 
committee what that authority embraces with respect to what is an 
incidental. 

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

Mr, Kennedy. Would you tell us what falls in the category of inci- 
dentals, Mr. Cohen ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground tliat I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. The Chair will ask the question and I will pref- 
ace it with this statement : 

The witness has testified that he is authorized in his capacity as 
secretary-treasurer to buy incidentals out of union funds. 

The question now, Mr. Cohen, that the Chair directs to you, is, What 
is incidental within the autliority that you stated you have ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the gi-ound that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. With the permission of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs the witness to answer this question. 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground, that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair is of the opinion, and I stated for the 
record, that when you testified you had authority to buj^ incidentals, 
the committee has a right to inquire, and you have the duty now 
to answer as to what is an incidental that comes within that authority. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You have identified one item as being such an inci- 
dental in addition to saying you have the authority and, therefore, 
the Chair holds that it is your duty now, after having given that testi- 
mony, to answer the question as to what are incidentals that come 
within your authority ? 

What is the category of incidentals that come within your authority 
that you have under oath stated you have. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. So again the Chair, after making that statement 
to you, and you have counsel present to advise you of your legal right, 
after making that statement to you, the Chair again, with the per- 
mission of the committee, orders and directs you to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10655 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you under bond, Mr. Cohen ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJ3NNEDY. Is it a $50,000 bond ? 

Mr. Cohen. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been under that $50,000 bond since you 
became secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Cohen. That's right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Cohen. Somewhere in the month of June 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you some other questions. 

Mr. Cohen. Compulsory under the constitution of the International 
Brotherhood. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the jurisdiction of local 107 ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You can tell me that, I am sure. 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Kennedy, you will have to make that a little more 
specific. 

I don't exactly know what you mean. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you over-the-road drivers, or warehousemen, or 
what? What is your jurisdiction. How far does it spread for local 
107? 

What is the chief jurisdiction of local 107 ? 

Mr. Cohen. You have asked me two questions? You asked me are 
we over-the-road drivers, are we overdrivers, and how far do we 
spread. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Local 107; what is their jurisdiction? What 
categories are they supposed to cover ? 

Mr. Cohen. Jurisdiction is in Philadelphia for a certain classifica- 
tion of drivers, helpers, and platform men. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the classification ? 

Mr. Cohen. Which classification do we have in local 107 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That's right. 

Mr. Cohen. We have over-the-road truckdrivers, we have parcel 
delivery drivers, we have city drivers, we have city helpers and city 
platform men, we have dispatchers and receivers, and we have some 
warehousemen. We have allied workers. I think that covers it, 
Mr. Kennedy. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation when a truckdriver comes in 
from another local or comes into Philadelphia from outside of Phila- 
delphia ? Does he have to check with local 107 ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, I wouldn't say so. 

Mr. Kennedy. He does not have to ? 

Mr. Cohen. If he is under contract — if the company whose truck 
or equipment he is driving, if he is under contract in whatever city 
he may come from, and they have a terminal in Philadelphia, that 
driver comes to the Philadelphia terminal, and we assume he goes 
to bed. He has to be off a certain amount of hours. The job is then 
taken over by the Philadelphia 107 men employed in that garage as 
city men. 



10656 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So he brings his trailer in and leaves it at the ter- 
minal and then it is unloaded by local 107 ? Is that what happens* 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that always the situation that is followed? 

Mr. Cohen. Ever since I took office in June 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation, then? Does the company 
which owns the store or the shop pay the local 107 men to come in. and 
unload the truck 2 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I don't understand your question, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, a truck and a trailer is brought in from 
outside of Philadelphia. They bring it in and they bring it to a 
platform. Then they leave the trailer there and it is unloaded; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, they do, and they don't. I still — don't misunder- 
stand me. Some bring their trailers in and the drivers get out and 
go to bed, due to the fact they have been driving 10, 12, or 14 hours, 
and others could go, according to the driving time that they just got 
finished doing, could go direct to a warehouse, and — first of all, I was a 
little ahead of my story. 

When he gets to the city line, Philadelphia, depending upon where 
he is coming from, he contacts the terminal manager. The terminal 
manager could dispatch him to some warehouse, telling him that "We 
will send a city driver down in an automobile to turn the automobile 
over to you so you could come back to the terminal and go to bed and 
the city man will take over." 

Mr. Kennedy. What if he would just as soon not do that? Could 
it be arranged so that he could bring his truck in right to the terminal 
place ? 

Mr. Cohen. Do you mean the terminal of the trucking concern ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. Or the warehouse ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Either one. Is there a different rule for each one? 

Mr. Cohen. No ; we have no different rules. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could he bring it in, then, right to the warehouse or 
the terminal ? 

Mr. Cohen. You are still talking about a driver who is not a mem- 
ber of 107, who is coming from some other city ? 

Mr. Kjjnnedy. Right. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes; he could. 

Mr. Kennedy. Once he gets to the terminal or the warehouse, what 
does he do then ? 

Does he leave the trailer there, or does he wait until the trailer is 
unloaded, or what ? 

Mr. Cohen. In some cases, where that driver working for a com- 
pany under contract with 107, and under contract with another Team- 
ster local somewhere else in the country, in some cases that automobile 
would be dispatched to that platform with a city driver, and the car 
would be turned over to the over-the-road driver, and he would proceed 
back to the terminal. 

The city driver would take over the loading and unloading of the 
truck, if that had to be done. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it would depend on the particular contract, the 
particular arrangement with that shop ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10657 

Mr. Cohen. No; I didn't say that. There isn't any particular ar- 
rangement. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation as far as Food Fair is con- 
cerned ? 

Mr, Cohen. There is a contract with the food companies which is 
a little different than the over-the-road freight companies who have 
been operating under a master contract as far back as 1937. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the contract 

Mr. Cohen. There is no classification in the food companies as we 
have in the freight companies as far as road drivers and city drivers. 
They are all paid the same amount of money. In the freight, our city 
drivers receive $2.35 an hour on a guaranteed 8-hour workday and 
time and a half after 8 hours. Our over-the-road drivers in the freight 
companies, our minimum is $2.45 an hour and our maximum is $2.66, 
In the food companies they receive, all of the drivers, $2.47 an hour, 
and time and a half after 8 hours. They deliver their loads direct to 
the chainstores where they are employed, always did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the arrangement between local 107 and the 
chainstores for the unloading of trailers always been the same since 
you have been secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Cohen. The conditions now, which we can very easily show, 
are, according to the membership working for the food companies, 
100 percent better than they were. 

Mr. Kennedy, Are they all the same? Is it the same for every 
company in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Cohen. Do you mean all of the food companies ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. As far as wages, hours, and working conditions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as the unloading and dropping of the trail- 
ers is concerned, is that the same for all the chainstores in Phila- 
delphia ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Excuse me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think you would know the answer to that 
better than your attorneys. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel,) 

Mr, Cohen, Well, I could answer that by saying that the conditions 
as far as the trailer situation is concerned are the same as they have 
been since 1937, other than we have improved most of the conditions. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that doesn't answer the question. Since you 
have been secretary-treasurer, has it been the same, as far as the 
trailer drops are concerned for all of the food chainstores in Phila- 
delphia? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The Chair is not going to tolerate this continuing 
to coach the witness. If you want to give him legal advice, you can 
do so. But this whispering into his ear every time he is asked a 
question to tell him how to answer it is not going to be tolerated. 

Mr. Carroll. We are not coaching the witness, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I have made my statement. Do you want to stay 
here and get along or not ? 

Mr. Carroll. I want to get along with you, Mr. Chairman, as I 
have, but I do not want to be accused of coaching a witness. 

The Chairman. It is obvious. Proceed. 



10658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read the question, please ? 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I don't need any coaching from 
any attorneys as far as the working conditions are concerned. 

The Chairman. That is what he Chair is saying. 

Mr. Cohen. But where it will lead me into a legal question, I want 
to talk to our attorneys. 

The Chairman. When you want to ask your attorneys a question, 
that is perfectly all right. But every time a question is asked, for 
them to lean over and whisper into your ear, I am not going to tolerate ; 
proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you read the question, please? 

(The pending question was read by the reporter, as requested.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer that ? 

Mr. Cohen. I will try. Prior to June 1954, the chainstores were 
permitted to drop their bodies as they saw fit, and to have them un- 
loaded by the Retail Clerks Union working in the stores, not only in the 
city of Philadelphia, but in every city where the chainstores operate. 

Mr. Kjennedy. So that we can understand it, that means when a 
truckdriver would bring in his truck and trailer, he would deposit the 
trailer there, the body, and then the clerks would come along and un- 
load it, is that correct ? 

Mr. Cohen. In most instances ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be in the chainstores ? 

Mr. Cohen. That is correct. Agreed to under the master contract 
with the freight companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the tractor and the driver would drive away ? 

Mr. Cohen. In some instances ; yes. In other instances, the tractor 
would stay. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are talking about the period of time in 1954, is 
that right ? Prior to 1954 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I said prior to June 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why would the truckdriver leave in some instances 
and stay in other instances ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Counsel, are you still talking about prior to June 
1954? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. Well, whatever arrangement was made at that time with 
my predecessor was very much disliked by all of the members of our 
local union employed at the food chainstores. We changed those 
arrangements. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you tell me how you changed the arrangements, 
and we will go on. 

Mr. Cohen. In our negotiations with the food chainstores, there 
was an agreement made that all trailers that were to be left at the 
stores in the future, under the new agreement, would be manned, 
loaded, and unloaded by local 107 men under the contract, within a 
radius of 30 miles. 

Mr. Kennedy. Outside a radius of 30 miles ? 

Mr. Cohen. Inside. 

Mr. Kennedy. Inside Philadelphia. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10659 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, would the counsel yield, at that 
point for something right on the point ? 

What would be the situation if the producer of some food com- 
modity, say melons, for instance, the farm producer of those melons, 
sends his own truck into Philadelphia with a load of melons, and he 
has sold them to a Philadelphia store at a driver's price, and we will 
assume it is a store with whom you have your so-called master contract. 

Would that producer who provides his own truck be permitted to 
make delivery and unload the melons ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoiiEN. If I understand you right, Mr. Senator, you are talkmg 
about a farmer who would bring a load of watermelons into the city 
of Philadelphia to be delivered to the A. & P. ? 

Senator Curtis. A store with whom you have a contract; yes. 

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

Mr. Cohen. What would be the procedure ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. He would have all the right in the world to do it. 

Senator Curtis. He is not interfered with ? 

Mr. Cohen. Not by local 107, he is not. 

Senator Curtis. Would he be interfered with by anybody else? 

Mr. Cohen. I couldn't answer for anybody else, Senator. It is being 
done every day, as far as no interference from local 107. 

Senator Curtis. Now suppose that a shipper outside the Philadel- 
phia area has sold his merchandise — maybe it is furniture — to a Phil- 
adelphia store. The shipper must deliver his expense, including the 
unloading. He sends his truck. It is manned by drivers who are not 
members of local 107, they are not members of any union. What is 
the procedure there 'I Can they unload ? 

Mr. Cohen. As far as local i07 is concerned ? 

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

Senator Curtin. Yes ; either that or as far as the store is concerned. 

Mr. Cohen. I could not speak for the store. As far as our local 
union is concerned, we would not interfere with it. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have anything in your contract that pre- 
vents the store from permitting them to unload ? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't know if the store that you are talking about 
would be under contract with our local union. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. I am talking about a store that is under con- 
tract with your local union. 

Mr, Cohen. Our local union would not interfere with that equip- 
ment. 

Senator Curtis. Is there anything in the contract that causes the 
store to not carry out such an arrangement ? 

Mr. Cohen. I am just trying to think. We have a 57-page agree- 
ment and there are a lot of clauses and sections. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Senator, would this be a store in the city of Phil- 
adelphia who might have a store in the city of Pittsburgh, and their 
truck would be coming from Pittsburgh to the Philadelphia store? 

Senator Curtis. I was not so confining it ; no. 

What I want to know is can shippers outside of Philadelphia send 
their own trucks in, and we will assume that they are nonunion, and 



10660 IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

unload their own merchandise at Philadelphia stores with whom you 
have a contract? 

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

Mr. Cohen. Well, if they are under contract with local 107 and 
maintain terminals in the city of Philadelphia under our contract, they 
would have to take the overroad driver off and let the city driver or 
helper perform the work. 

Senator Curtis. That answers my question. I think it is wrong. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, since 1954, when you became secretary- 
treasurer, is the system the same, as far as body drops are concerned, 
with these chainstores with whom you have contracts? 

Mr. Cohen. I tried to answer, I tliink, the same question before, that 
we changed most of the conditions for the betterment of the members. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. 

Mr. Cohen. By stopping the companies, according to the contract, 
from leaving their bodies within a radius of 30 miles which used to 
be or formerly were unloaded by the retail clerks miion, which are now 
being unloaded by local 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. What you did was to prevent the leaving of 
the trailer at the various terminals; is that right? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. We didn't stop. Well, they wouldn't be ter- 
minals, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat would they be called ? 

Mr. Cohen. They are chainstores. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right, chainstores. 

Mr. Cohen. You are now speaking about the American stores, I 
assume, Atlantic & Pacific, the A. & P. 

They are still permitted under the contract to leave that body at that 
store with 107 members to load or unload. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does the driver have to stay with that? Does he 
stay while it is being loaded or unloaded ? 

Mr. Cohen. If the company instructs him to leave the body there 
with the helper and go take his tractor and pick up a body somewhere 
else, he has a perfect right to do it, and they do it every day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat if he doesn't have another tractor that needs 
to be picked up ? Can they then send him away ? 

Say, for instance, he is finished with them. He comes in there, 
brings his trailer or body and leaves it, and the company has no more 
work for him to do. Does he stay with the body or does he go away? 

(At this point Senator Goldwater left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Cohen. They can leave him stay or they can bring him back to 
the warehouse. That is the best way I can answer that for you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : Do they have to pay him during 
the period of time that the trailer is being unloaded ? 

Mr. Cohen. "\^^iile he is told to stay there ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat if he is not told to stay there, he is told he can 
leave and come back and pick it up in 4 or 6 hours ? 

Mr. Cohen. Then they would dispatch him to some other chainstore 
with some otlier bodies that were already empty for him to pick up 
and bring back to the warehouse. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10661 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is they don't have any other work for him to 
do, tlien what do they do ? Do they have to pay him for that period 
of time ? 

Mr. Cohen. They have to pay him once he starts working in any 1 
day a guaranteed 8-hoar day under the contract. 

Also, I would like to say, Mr. Counsel, that our drivers in the chain- 
stores, there is always plenty of work for them and they work as high 
as 12, 14, 15 hours a day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the arrangement on these body drops always 
been the same for all the chainstores in Philadelphia as far as local 107 
IS coiicerned ? 

Mr. Cohen. Since June? 

Ml". Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. Or prior to June ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Since you have been secretary-treasui'er, June. 

Mr. Cohen. It makes no difference to 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Cohen. How many bodies 

Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Cohen. I am trying to. How man}^ bodies are dropped • 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that. 

Mr. Cohen. One company could drop 50 bodies as long as they are 
manned by ''107" members to load and unload them. 

Another company in accordance to how big they are could drop 200 
bodies, as long as they are manned by "107" men to load and unload. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Do some of the chainstores get larger numbers of 
body wrops than others ? 

Mr. Cohen. We haven't specified what amotint of bodies they are 
permitted to drop. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you, at all, since 1945, specify how many body 
drops are allowed ? 

Mr. Cohen. I have nothing to say as to how many bodies could be 
dropped prior to June 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since June 1954, have you had anything to say as far 
as that was concerned ? Since June 1954, have the numbers of body 
drops allowed to the various chainstores differed ? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, as I said before, they differ now according to the 
size of the stores or the size of the companies the same as they 
differed before other than we have under the agreement we reached 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Some companies 

Mr, Cohen. Are loading and unloading more bodies since 1954 than 
we ever did. In fact, it increased our membership in practically all 
of those companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are some chain food stores allowed more body drops 
than others in Philadelphia ? 

(At tliis point. Senator Curtis left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. By your union ? 

Mr. Cohen. I thought I answered that, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Cohen. Some companies could drop 100 bodies. I will answer 
that by saying it in my own way. 

I don't know any other answer to it. Some companies could drop 
in the neighborhood of 100 bodies a day. Other companies could drop 
a? high as 300 bodies a day. 



10662 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Some companies could drop 20 bodies a day. But all of those bodies 
would be manned, as far as the loading and unloading is concerned, by 
local 107 men. 

Mr. Kjennedy. Is it stipulated in the contract or in your agreement 
with these various chainstores how many of these free body drops 
that they will have ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I don't think there is any stipulation in the agree- 
ment as to how many bodies could be dropped by any specific 
company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with the people of 
Food Fair regarding how many body drops would be allowed? 

Mr. Cohen. It could be possible during negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some discussions with them about 
that? 

Mi\ Cohen. I discussed — I don't think I discussed during the ne- 
gotiations with any individual company about body drops. 

I think our discussions was with the association plus a committee 
of the different gentlemen from the different chainstores. 

We have had lots of discussions as far as dropping of bodies. It was 
a very big item in our negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a big item ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how many of these drops were allowed 
to Food Fair after 1954? 

Mr. Cohen. The exact amount I could not tell you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anywhere from 250 to 287 a day ? 

Mr. Cohen. I could not tell you the exact amount. 

Mr. Kjennedy. A. & P. had about 50 a day ? 

Mr. Cohen. I could not tell you the exact amount. As I said before^ 
some had 50, according to their size, some had 200, some had 300, and 
some had 150. 

Mr. KIennedy. Why was Food Fair allowed some 280 and A. & P. 
only 50, and some of these other stores only 50 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I think the only gentleman who could answer that, Mr, 
Counsel, would be my predecessor who was the former secretary -treas- 
urer of 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Ben Lapensohn discuss with Food Fair the 
number of trailer drops that would be allowed ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself imder the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those discussions held in the office of Food Fair 
as to how many free trailer drops would be allowed ? 

Mr. Cohen. As far as I am concerned personally ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. I have never held any discussions in any of the Food 
Fair office buildings or stores. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us who negotiated the contracts and 
who was responsible for the discussions with Food Fair regarding the 
dropping of trailers ? 

Mr. Cohen. Thomas McBride, as the attorney for local 107 at the 
time. A couple of the other attorneys for local 107, plus the association 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10663 

who represents the chain stores, plus a committee of some of the vice 
presidents of the chain stores and some of the executives of some of 
the smaller grocery companies in the city of Philadelphia. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Who represented your local 107 in the negotiations 
with Food Fair? 

Mr. Cohen. Myself, plus 1 or 2 other business agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were the other people- 
Mr. Cohen. At different times, if it was pertaining to a garage 
that one pair of agents were in charge of, we would bring that pair 
of agents in. If it was pertaining to another garage — we have used 
practically all business agents at various times during negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was chiefly responsible, other than yourself, 
and who participated in negotiations 

Mr. Carroll. Could we have a date on that, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us start in 1955. Start when you became secre- 
tary-treasurer. 

Mr. Cohen. Are you asking me, Mr. Counsel, when we started nego- 
tiations for a contract ? 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you negotiate with Food Fair, in June of 
1954? 

Mr. Cohen. You keep saying Food Fair. I have never negotiated 
any individual contract for Food Fair. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had discussions with them ? 

Mr. Cohen. In a group. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have contracts with any of the chain stores 
up there ? 

Mr. Cohen. We have agreements with all of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you got any contracts with them ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes ; memorandum of agreements. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You don't have any contracts ? You just have mem- 
oranda ? 

Mr. Cohen. We have contracts. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they contracts or agreements ? 

Mr. Cohen. Excuse me. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I don't know that there is any difference between an 
agreement or a contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. You called them agi-eements. That is what I am 
trying to find out, if there is any distinction between the two. 

Is it a contract that you have with these various chain stores ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. We consider it to be a contract. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. When did you start negotiating the contract after 
you became secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Cohen. With the chain stores or with the freight companies? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's start with Food Fair. 

Mr. Cohen. I negotiated with two associations. 

Mr. Kennedy. With Food Fair, specifically. 

Mr. Cohen. I didn't negotiate any contract with Food Fair. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have any discussions of a contract with 
Food Fair, specifically ? 



10664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoHEX. While they were in the group of the chain stores, with 
their associations. 

Mr. Kennedy. You might have had them with the association. Did 
you have any discussions with Food Fair, specifically, after you became 
secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Cohen. I could have, during the negotiations which went int/> 
all hours of the night, I could have at different times, maybe, stepped 
out of the big conference room to discuss with American stores some of 
their problems, or Food Fair, or the A. & P. 

I just don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. You must have had some discussions with Food 
Fair s])ecifically on the number of trailer drops that were going to 
be allowed. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Cohen. Are you talking now about 1954 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. In 1954, the food and chain stores all came under one 
association, MTLR. So we negotiated at that time with the officials 
and the top negotiators for MTLR pertaining to the entire agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, just answer the question as to whether 
you had any discussions, negotiations, with anyone from Food Fair 
specifically regarding the trailer drops. 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Counsel, I said that during negotiations, which 
were for a certain period, it could have been for months, at different 
times I discussed problems with American Stores, Food Fair and 
A. & P. I admit that I did discuss with them at various times. 

Mr. Kennedy. I w^ant to talk specifically about Food Fair. Who 
represented local 107 in those negotiations with the high officials of 
Food Fair? 

Mr. Cohen. During the negotiations ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. As far as the union is concerned ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohen. Myself, for one. Ed Walker, for two; the business 
agents, who are in charge of Food Fair, Al Berman and Ed Battis- 
fore. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that all ? 

Mr. Cohen. You said for Food Fair, didn't you ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; in the negotiations for Food Fair. 

Mr. Cohen. I wouldn't use any other business agent who would be 
in charge of any other food and chain store if there was a discussion 
pertaining to Food Fair. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other individual present representing 
the miion during these negotiations ? 

( The witness con f erred with his counsel . ) 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think that the witness would know the 
answer to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohen. While I was in negotiations, if I understand you cx)r- 
rectly, with the MTLR in 1954, in negotiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there anybody else present ? 

Mr. Cohen. There could have been some of the other officials, or 
business agents, in charge of those different companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, I am talking about any of the higher 
officials of local 107, representing local 107 in the negotiations. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10665 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Cohen. Well, it was all general negotiations in 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the trailer drops. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Counsel, I can, if my memory serves me right, I can 
name every official and every business agent who participated in the 
negotiations with MTLR during the period of 1954 at various times 
while we were negotiating. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen, why don't you answer the question? I 
am not talking about MTLR. I am talking about Food Fair. 

Mr. Cohen. You are not talking about the right negotiations, or 
maybe I am a little mixed up, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the negotiations with Food Fair 
regarding the trailer drops. I want to know who represented local 
10 ( in those negotiations. 

Mr. Cohen. In 1954? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, 1954 and subsequently. 

Mr. Cohen. There wasn't any negotiation with Food Fair in 1954. 
They were part of a master contract and their officials of their associa- 
tion were the top negotiators. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who had the discussions with Food Fair, the fact 
that you would allow them to have 287 free trailer drops a day ? 

Mr. Cohen. Pardon me. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. In 1954, when we were negotiating a master contract, 
and I was only very new as far as the head of the union, we negotiated 
an agreement for an increase in wages 

Mr. IvENNEDY. I don't want to hear all that. I just want to hear 
the people that conducted the negotiations. It is very clear that you 
don't want to say the man's name. Wasn't it Mr. Benjamin Lapen- 
sohn ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You can answer that. That is a direct question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. The party has been identified. Did he help con- 
duct these negotiations ? That is the question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground I am not 
required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The Chair again is going to rule 
that in view of yonr having answered as to some of them present, and 
discussed the negotiations under oath as to who was present and how 
you negotiated them, I do not think the privilege holds. I think by 
your testimony you have waived it. Therefore, with the permission of 
the committee, the Chair orders and directs you to answer the question 
of whether Mr. Ben Lapensohn was participating in those negotiations. 

Mr. Cohen. Could I have a couple of seconds to talk to the attor- 
neys ? 

The Chairman. You may have a conference with your attorneys 
regarding that. There is a legal question involved here. 

(At this point. Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



10666 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. The Chair states that it is important to this com- 
mittee and to Congress to get information with respect to negotia- 
tions of contracts, how they are conducted, and whether there are dis- 
criminations that are practiced after contracts are made, where they 
are made with an association, and where later some members of that 
association are granted special privileges, and to ascertain whether 
there is fraud in the making of such contracts with respect to whether 
there are said agreements and promises made, where some are in- 
duced to participate in the contract or become one of the contracting 
parties on the basis of special favors that will be extended later, and 
preferences are granted that amount to a discrimination as against 
the others. 

In the testimony the witness has already given with respect to 
the way these contracts are negotiated and who was representing the 
union, he has given the names of some, including himself and some 3 
or 4 others as representatives of the union in the course of these nego- 
tiations. Now he has been asked a sf)ecific question whether this party, 
Ben Lapensohn, participated in the negotiations on the part of the 
union. 

Therefore, the committee and Congress are entitled to know, in 
order that it may weigh these circumstances and these incidents or 
facts as they may be developed by the committee with regard to legisla- 
tion that may be needed to protect from discrimination or from any 
other improper practices. 

The witness having answered as to himself and at least three others 
with respect to who conducted the negotiations on the part of local 
107, he now is under duty, according to the Chair's view, to answer 
the question as to whether this other party, Ben Lapensohn, was 
present and participating in those negotiations on the part of the 
union. 

Therefore, I think his privilege of immunity to self-incrimination 
has been waived, by giving the names of others and by discussing, as 
he has, so fully, the contract that was negotiated. 

Therefore, the Chair rules, without objection on the part of other 
members of the coimnittee, that this witness be required to answer the 
question as to whether Ben Lapensolm was present and participating 
in these negotiations. 

The Chair so holds and so orders the witness to answer. The ques- 
tion will be directed to you again. 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. All right. We may proceed. The record has been 
made. The witness has been duly advised by his counsel of his legal 
rights. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Lapensohn negotiate and conduct discus- 
sions with Food Fair during 1954, 1955, and 1956, regarding the num- 
ber of trailer drops that would be granted to Food Fair ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer on the ground that I am not re- 
quired to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10667 

The Chairman. Will you answer this question: Did Mr. Lapen- 
solin hold any position or any agency or representation autliority 
from the union at the time of these negotiations ? 

Mr, Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

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

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Does the witness understand that the question em- 
braces the position, that is, whether he had any official position with 
the union at the time ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, did you ask me do I understand whether 
the question is whether he had any — the gentleman's name that you 
mentioned — had any official capacity with the union at the time ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Lapensohn. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, I understood the question. 

The Chairman. You understood the question ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And also, beyond that, it embraces whether he was 
specifically authorized or had any autliority at these negotiations to 
represent the union as its agent or representative in any capacity with 
respect to the negotiations. Did you understand that ? 

Mr. Cohen. I understand the question, Mr. Chairman, and I have 
refused under my constitutional rights. 

The Chairman. I wanted to be sure the witness understood so there 
would be no misunderstanding. All right. Thank you very much. 
Proceed. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan, Kennedy, and Goldwater. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know, Mr. Cohen, if during the period of 
time he was representing the union and was on the union payroll he 
was receiving any moneys from any employers ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he pass any of that money on to you ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did he receive from the union 
during the period of time ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he make some purchases for you ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. You better state the reason occasionally, if you want 
the record right. Otherwise, the Chair wdll have to order you to 
answer. 

Mr. Cohen. All right, sir. 

I decline to answer the question on the ground that I am not required 
to give evidence against myself under the fifth amendment. 

21243— 58— pt. 27 19 



10668 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the forgeries of these checks, can you 
exphiin those to us, Mr. Cohen ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the alterations in the names of those individuals 
who were supposed to have received some money ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I am 
not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who was responsible for beating any 
of these individuals who were supporting Mr. Crumbock while he was 
running against you ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who was responsible for the violence 
in connection with many of the strikes that were conducted by local 
107 after you became secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us anything about where the money 
went, the $250,000 in cash that came out of local 107 ■' 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. I^nnedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Kennedy. I have just one question, Mr. Cohen. Last night 
you generously invited me to come to the meeting on Sunday. 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. The problem is, of course, that under those con- 
ditions you will not be under oath. 

It seems to me that rather than have a situation wiiere it would be 
possible for you to make statement about all these matters which would 
not be under oath that it would be far wiser while we are both here, 
while you are under oath, it seems to me, that this is the proper place 
for you to answer these questions, and a discussion between us in some 
other area where you are not under oath would not seem to me to be 
very productive. 

1 want to put that in the record because I would hate to have you 
go to Philadelphia and state that you challenged a member of the com- 
mittee to come up here. 

Mr. Cohen. I am sorry. Senator. I didn't challenge you. I in- 
vited you. 

Senator Kennedy, I just want to have it on the record, when you 
make that statement — and many people might — that you invited a 
member of the committee to come up here and repeat these charges 
about you or rei)eat these questions about you, that no member of the 
committee accepted that invitation. 

If and when you make that statement, I want it to be clearly under- 
stood by the members there that you were asked all these questions 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10669 

under oath and that you declined to answer those questions because 
an honest answer or a responsive answer might tend to incriminate you, 
and that the reason why I would not accept your invitation is because 
any discussion in any other area would not have you under oath. 

I just want to make that clear in case the matter comes up on Sunday. 

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Senator, you would not be under oath if you came 
to our membership meeting and I think it would do you good. 

Senator Kennedy. I would be very glad, Mr. Cohen, to take an 
oath now and ask some of these questions, if you will agree to answer 
them ; would you ? 

Mr. Cohen. You would be very glad to take an oath ? 

Senator Kennedy. That is right. 

Mr. Cohen. As to what ? 

Senator Kennedy. In asking you these questions about what you did 
with the funds, if that would put us on a more even basis. 

Mr. Cohen. In the presence of our membership, are you speaking ? 

Senator Kennedy. Kight here. 

Mr. Cohen. I misunderstood you. I thought you said that you 
would be willing to take an oath and then ask me some of these ques- 
tions in front of our membership. 

Senator Kennedy. Right here, Mr. Cohen, where it is possible for 
for both of us to be here. 

The point I am trying to make is, if this will make you any happier, I 
would be glad to take an oath now and have you answer these questions. 
They are very simple questions. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. Are you prepared to answer any of these ques- 
tions regarding the use of these funds under oath before this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Cohen. I understand your question. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you answer it. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Well, I am under oath, and I am trying to answer the 
questions to the best of my ability. 

Senator Kennedy. Will you answer the question in regard to the 
previous question of the counsel in regard to the $250,000 ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. How it was spent and for what purposes the 
cash was used. 

Mr. Cohen. Did you ask me whether I would answer, Mr. Senator? 

Senator Kennedy. Will you answer ? Will you explain it ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Kennedy. Would j^ou answer the question about the $2,- 
717.M for payment for Mr. Cohen's personal clothing, gifts, et cetera? 
Would you answer that question ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question for the same reason. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you answer the question as to how the 
$31,000 that 16 of you spent at the Miami convention over a 1-week 
trip, how that was spent ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 



10670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the oround that I 
am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Kennedy. For 1-week trip, $31,000, and $3,000 for your- 
self, for your expenses for that week. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question on the ground that 
I am not required to give evidence against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Kennedy. I am asking you these questions. I know you 
have taken the fifth amendment, just so we have the record straight 
at the meeting on Sunday that you were asked these questions by the 
committee and you were given an opportunity to explain and you re- 
fused to answer because an honest answer under oath might tend 
to incriminate you. 

Mr. Cakroll. I think you have made your point. 

Senator Kennedy. I want to be sure because we would not want 
to have any misunderstanding between us. 

Before I desist, I missed the counsel's statement this morning with 
regard to his position. I wonder if briefly he could repeat it. 

Mr. Carroll, Yes, sir. 

The Chair3ian. Before you go into that, may I ask the witness 
some questions. 

I understand you invited not only Senator Kennedy but any member 
of the committee to come to your meeting. 

Mr. Cohen. That is right. 

The Chairman. I think some of us will agree to come if you will 
ansvv^er these questions under oath. 

If you want us there, just answer these questions. 

Mr. Cohen. I would like very much to have you there. 

The Chairman. We would like very much to have the answers. 
1 will make a bargain with you. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. If he will answer these questions under oath, I 
think I can accept your invitation. 

Mr. Cohen. I don't mean any sarcasm, but I am not negotiating 
any contract now. 

The Chairman. I notice you are not. You want to get your point 
across that you invited them and go back and brag about it. You 
didn't make it. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Carroll. You wanted to hear my statement ? 

Senator Kennedy. I think the chairman's statement is a good one. 

The point is that if he would answer these questions under oath 
now, the committee will go up to the meeting. 

The Chairman. If he will answer them here now, I will accept 
his invitation. 

Mr. Carroll. I think he stated his position. Your's is equally 
clear. 

The Chairman. I believe he said he didn't want to make any bar- 
gains today. 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir. I said I didn't think I was negotiating a 
contract. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10671 

The Chairman, You don't want to enter negotiations with this 
committee ? 

Mr. Cohen. I think I answered it. 

The Chairman. I believed you did. 

Proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Can we get counsel's statement ? 

Mr. Carroll. My statement was simply this : In accordance with my 
promise of yesterday afternoon, I discussed this problem with Mr. 
Cohen and Markowitz, as well as with our senior partners, Mr. von 
Moschzisker and Mr. Bradley, who came to Washington for that 
purpose. 

We were up past quarter after four in the morning discussing it. As 
a result of our discussion, and incidentally another preliminary that 
we started on the assumption that we do intend still to abide by the 
opinion of the Philadelphia Bar Association, as I have previously 
stated. 

As a result of our discussion we are unanimously of the opinion 
that I can with propriety continue to represent these witnesses whom 
I have engaged to represent as well as the union at the present time. 

In addition to that, I previously said, and I say again, that Mr. 
Moschzisker and Mr. Bradley are in the hearing room now and they 
would like to be heard on this precise question also, if this committee 
does get a chance sometime today to hear them. They would be most 
grateful. 

In addition to that, I told the committee that we have been advised 
that the Philadelphia Bar Association's committee on professional 
guidance is meeting again next Tuesday afternoon to reconsider the 
question in the light of the evidence which has been developed here. 

We have agreed to provide them with the complete transcrips of 
what has thus far transpired so that they will have all the evidence that 
is before you on which to base their judgment. 

Should they change either their original opinion or should they 
change its application in view of the new evidence which has been 
discovered, we will still abide there. 

Senator Kennedy. I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no 
objection in any way, nor possibly could I have to any attorney repre- 
senting any client, no matter what my opinion or anyone else's opin- 
ion may be of the client. 

The client has every right to legal protection and there is no dis- 
credit that falls on the attorney who represents such a client merely 
because the client may have been guilty of some acts. That does not 
affect the attorney. 

It is a matter of his own judgment whether he is going to make a 
carrier of that. 

Nevertheless, it does not fall on him. The point I am making is the 
question of where your bill should go. Should you be paid by the 
union with the obligation that you have to the union members, paid out 
of union dues, as the legal representative of the officers of the union 
who refuse to answer questions as to the disposition of union funds? 

It seems to me tliat the obligation would be on you very clearly 
to represent the officers of the union, if they were involved in an 
unfair-labor practice or if they were involved in some other action 



10672 IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

under which tliey were under some scrutiny because of their action as 
officers of a union and as leaders of a union. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan left the hearing room.) 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me the situation in this case is quite 
dilTerent. They are under scrutiny not becuse of their actions as 
officers of the union and meeting their obligation as union leaders, but 
they are under scrutiny because of the mishandling and misappropria- 
tion, and outright larceny of union funds. 

In those cases it seems to me two things should be cleared up. First, 
I would like to have the bar group examine as to whether they should 
not secure another attorney, an attorney who is not being compensated 
by the union to protect the union members, and second, if they decide 
it is perfectly proper for the union's attorney to come into the case 
at this point, then the question is whether the members of the union, 
who are under scrutiny by this committee in this case, whether they 
should not pay the bill rather than the union members at large. 

It seems to me that is the question. 

This question not only pertains to you, but to a number of other at- 
torneys who have been involved in these cases. 

I think it is a basic one, and I think that the bar associations of the 
various States have not made a clear determination of it and I am 
hopeful that the Philadelpliia group, after examining this, will give 
some guidance to attorneys and to others as to the obligation, legal and 
ethical obligation of attorneys in these kinds of cases. 

Mr. Carroll, I understand you. There is one thing I might add to 
this which did not come up in our discussion tlie day before yesterday. 

As you know, canon 6, by which we are governed — the canons of 
professional ethics of the American Bar Association which are incor- 
porated into the charter of the Philadelphia Bar Association — pro- 
vides a rule on conflict of interests which is not an absolute bar even 
assuming, to simplify your hypothesis that we are asked to represent 
both the thief and the victim, the canon says that a lawyer may do so 
with propriety if he does so after full disclosure of his dual represent- 
ation to both parties and witli their consent, 

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

Mr. Carroll. That has not arised. The bar association committee 
has decided that there does not exist a conflict in this contention, and 
therefore we have not had to get to the problem of disclosure and 
consent. 

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

Senator Kennedy. In this case, of course, what we are talking about 
is your being compensated by the union membership, your salary and 
bill being paid by union dues, at a time when a Senate committee is 
investigating the misappropriation of those union dues, and your 
representing the officers of the union who are so involved. 

That seems to me to be the question. I am not an attorney but I 
looked into this question, and I have had an interest in this question 
for some time. To the best of my knowledge, in no bar association 
in any State, nor in the American Bar Association, in spite of the 
fact that some lawyers have been even more intimately involved in 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10673 

these procedures tlian yon evidently have, has there been affirmative 
action taken. I am hopeful that the action of the bar in Phihidelphia 
will give some stimulus to other State bars to define the obligations 
of the attorneys more closely in this particular field, 

Mr. Carroll. Those facts as to payment were considered both in 
our discussions last evening and by the bar association committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, there are at least 10 broad categories 
of questions that Mr. Cohen has refused to answer. I would like to 
enumerate those for the committee. 

On the $4(5,000 increase in net worth, he refused to answer any 
questions about that, during the period of time he was secretary- 
treasurer. No. 2, that he spent $4,000 during that period of time 
that he was secretary-treasurer more than he had from any legitimate 
source of income; No. 3, that he had available in cash during the 
period of time he was secretary-treasurer some $50,000, and that many 
of the items that he purchased, such as his boats and his house and 
other matters, were purchased with cash, and that there is $57,000 
that we cannot trace; that $190,162 of union funds — this is No. 4 — 
$190,162 out of union funds were used to pay some of Mr. Cohen's 
personal bills, to buy his personal clothing, and to take his wife on 
trips to Florida; No. 5, that there was $250,000 cash that came out of 
the union while he was secretary -treasurer, for wdiich he would give 
no explanation. 

Mr. Carroll. What was the amount again ? 

Mr. Kennedy. $250,000. 

No. 6, there was $31,000 used for the delegates at the recent Miami 
convention, for which Mr. Cohen refuses to give any explanation; 
No. 7, we have had the testimony on the forgeries that took place in 
connection with the checks of the union, for which he gives no ex- 
planation ; No. 8, the alterations that took place in some of the union's 
documents, for which he gives no explanation; No. 9, the beatings 
that took place against those who opposed Mr. Cohen, for which he 
would give no explanation, the physical beatings; and, No. 10, his 
relationship with Mr. Benjamin Lapensohn and in the contract nego- 
tiations with Food Fair. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions of this witness ? 

If not, the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 07, a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the 
same day with the following members present: Senators McClellan, 
Kennedy, and Goldwater.) 

afternoon session 

(At the re-convening of the session, the following members were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Tom McBride, come forward, please. 

Be sworn, please. 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. McBride. I do. 



10674 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS D. McBRIDE 

The Chairman. Senator Clark, we are very happy to recognize you. 
I see you have accompanied the witness. I am very glad to recognize 
you. 

Senator Clark. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
very much appreciate this opportunity to present to you the attorney 
general of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Honorable 
Thomas D. McBride. 

Mr. McBride and I have been friends and colleagues at the bar for 
something over 30 years. During that time I had controversies with 
him and have fought on his side in many a batle. I know nothing 
whatever about the merits of this particular case or of his connection 
with it. 

But I did want my colleagues in the Senate on the committee to 
know Mr. McBride is a man of unimpeachable integrity, a leader of 
the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania bars, a friend whose judgment I 
treasure and whose friendship and affection I am proud to have. I 
am confident that every word that he says to this committee will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as he has just 
sworn. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator. 

Rule 12 of the committee states — 

Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified, and who 
believes that testimony or other evidence presented at a public hearing, or com- 
ments made by a committee member or counsel, tends to defame him or other- 
wise adversely affect his reputation may (a) request to appear personally before 
the committee to testify in his own behalf, or, in the alternative, (b) file a sworn 
statement of facts relevant to the testimony or other evidence or comment com- 
plained of regarding himself. 

Such request and such statement shall be submitted to the commitee for its 
consideration and action. 

May I address the members of the committee present? The Chair 
has been requested by Mr. McBride to appear and testify in accord- 
ance with rule 12, which 1 have just read. 

I do not recall that the committee has ever refused to permit anyone 
who has made a request under this rule to appear, and unless there is 
objection, the Chair will now rule, Mr. McBride, that you are entitled 
to make your statement. 

Mr. McBride, we will be glad to hear you. If there is no objection, 
you may proceed. 

Mr. McBride. First of all, Mr. Chairman, may I publicly express 
my gratitude to Senator Clark for his completely unsolicited appear- 
ance here to introduce me to this committee. 

Secondly, I want to thank the committee sincerely for the oppor- 
tunity to appear before it at the earliest possible moment available, 
to answer testimony which connected me with conduct which, as it 
stood in the record, may affect my reputation. 

I have no prepared statement. I should like very much to cover 
what the issues were as I understand them, to submit myself com- 
pletely to questioning without the slightest possible reservation, and 
to tell the truth as I know it to be. 

The issue that arose yesterday concerning me is, as I understand 
it, that I had represented Mr. Raymond Cohen in a private capacity, 
and that I had been paid out of union funds for such representation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10675 

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

Mr. McBride. That is unequivocally untrue. The facts are as fol- 
lows: On November 15, 1953, at the regular annual meeting of the 
Teamsters Union, Local 107, with which I had no connection what- 
ever, Raymond Cohen w-as nominated as secretary-treasurer of that 
local. No other name was put in nomination. According to the 
constitution of the international, under such circumstances there was 
no need of a further postponement of 1 month, as is the case with 
contested elections, and he was declared elected; the president was 
declared elected; and the other officers were declared elected. 

The president was and is a man named Joseph E. Grace. He had 
been president, I think, for 20 years. Although Mr. Cohen had been 
a business agent, he had not been an officer. 

Approximately 3 days after November 15, 1953, that is, on or about 
November 18, 1953, the president, Mr. Grace, and Mr. Cohen visited 
me in my office, and asked me if I would accept a yearly retainer to 
represent local 107. Previous counsel who had represented local 
107 were thought by them to be in favor of IMr. Crumbock, who had 
been secretary-treasurer, but had not had his name put in nomination 
on November 15. 

Mr. Gray, it appeared, had been paid on or about November 1 for 
the month of November. They asked me if I would, thereafter, repre- 
sent the local union. I told them that I would. I started to repre- 
sent the local union after November 18, 1953, and consulted with them 
during the day, on many occasions, and sometimes at night. It was 
almost a full month thereafter that the international president David 
Beck, threw the local union into a trusteeship. The picture was that 
Grace was the unchallenged president of the local. Cohen, until the 
trusteeship, was the unchallenged, or at least unremoved, duly elected 
secretary-treasurer of this local. 

Both of them together having asked me to represent them, to repre- 
sent the local, I agreed to do so. 

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

Mr, McBride. I continued to represent the local, and then on, I 
think, December 17, 1953, Mr. Beck put the local into trusteeship, 
and a trustee named Thomas E. Flynn took over the bank account and 
affairs of the union. 

I had not, up until that time, presented any bill, had not asked to 
be paid, and I knew that there were challenges as to the propriety of 
the election of November 15th. I advised the local union that in my 
opinion the action of President Beck was unjustified, and that it should 
be contested ; that he had acted without warrant, and that under the 
constitution the election was proper. 

I commenced a proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, 
of Philadelphia County. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt just for clarification? 

Mr. McBride. Yes, sir. I appreciate the interruption, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. You say you instituted a proceeding. Was that 
in the name of the union or in the name of individuals ? 

Mr. McBride. In the name of the union, and I, as its counsel. It 
is the only paper I have before me. I wdll read the exact caption of 
the case. 

The Chairman. That is all right. 



10676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ]\IgI5kide. It is in the name of the union, and I acted as attorney 
for the union. The defendants were Thomas E. Flynn, the trustee; 
Dave Beck, the general president; Edward Crumbock, and certain 
individuals. 

The Chairman. Who are the plaintiffs? 

Mr. McBride. The plaintiffs were Highway Truckdrivers and 
Helpers, Local 107, an unincorporated labor union, by its president, 
Joseph E. Grace, trustee ad litem, which is the way in which such 
suits are brought in Pennsylvania, to meet the rules. 

The Chairman. I am not challenging it. I am trying to make the 
record clear. 

Mr. McBride. Yes, I understand that. Raymond Cohen and Ed- 
ward Battisfore. They were the full plaintiffs. Then the defendants 
were as I stated. That complaint in equity sought to set aside, on 
behalf of the local union, the trusteeship which I, as well as the 
membership, was convinced had been improvidently imposed. We 
had various hearings and meetings. No one, not the trustee, not the 
international president, nobody challenged that I was not properly 
acting for the local union. Such a challenge has never been made, 
and everybody, the representatives of employers and everyone else, 
knew that I was acting as counsel for the local union. As the result 
of that suit, which alleged certain irregularities in the conduct of 
the previous administration and contended that at all times since 
November 15, 1953, both Joseph Grace and Raymond Colien, and 
the other officers, had been duly elected, there were some conferences 
with Judge Edwin O. Lewis, of the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3. 
The trustee was represented by counsel. General counsel for the in- 
ternational president, Mr. Al Wohl, was present. I think he is now 
counsel for the American Federation of Labor, 

As a result of those conferences, the situation was put up to me 
that, "Mr. McBride, if the local union takes the position that its offi- 
cers were properly elected, why don't you agree upon a new election, 
with the court supervising the election, with conditions such that no- 
body can possibly complain that an unfair election had been had?" 

I said : "If the court will supervise it, draw the rules and regula- 
tions, I will certainly agi^ee that a new election take place." 

There was a new election, as this committee probably knows, on 
or about May 15, 1954. At that election, the union membership again 
elected Mr. Cohen by about something like 9,000 votes against 1,000. 
But I point out that during all this time, Mr. Grace, who had retained 
me before even there had been any trusteeship to represent the local, 
was never challenged as the union's president. 

So I continued to represent the interest of the union, sometimes in 
consultation with the trustee, sometimes in consultation with its offi- 
cers. It is not correct to say that I represented Mr. Cohen personally 
in his attempt to win his election. Naturally enough, the union itself 
had an interest to see that any person chosen by it should be finally 
successful, but on Mr. Cohen's behalf, personally, I did nothing. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Kennedy, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Mr. McBride. I think I am safe in saying that I never represented 
Mr. Cohen in any personal transaction of any kind whatsoever under 
any circumstances in my life. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10677 

I was representing the local union. I was not paid and made no 
claim for payment. I never have in any other legal matter, and I 
would not be starting now. 

After the reelection the trusteeship was lifted and the union was 
again possessed of its funds. I was asked to send a bill. 

I sent a bill for $7,500, calculated in the following fashion: My 
predecessor counsel had a yearly retainer of $15,000 payable $1,250 a 
month. Since he had been paid November 1 and even though I had 
been retained about November 18, I felt that during that overlapping 
period two lawyers should not be paid by the union. 

Therefore, I dated my bill from December 1 to whatever it was; 
June 1. It was a 6-month period. 

During all of that time I had represented the local union. I was 
not present at the membership meeting. I am informed that full dis- 
closure of the matter was given to the membership meeting in open 
session and that my bill was approved. 

I received a check for $7,500, which recited on its face that it was 
for services to the union from December 1, 1953, I think, to June 1, 
1954. 

That bill was in every sense correct, and thereafter I continued to 
receive as long as I represented the union the $1,250 monthly retainer 
fee until I went into public office. 

Then I personally raised the question with the committee on pro- 
fessional guidance as to where I should continue to have any private 
clients. 

The question had, I think, never arisen before in Pennsylvania. 
Some attorneys general had represented the private clients. 

I thought it was a question that they ought to decide. Wlien they 
decided that they thought it better that I should not, I withdrew from 
my old law firm, I withdrew from my clients. 

I have taken no new clients since that ruling, and I have not had 
any responsibility for dealings directly or indirectly on behalf of the 
local union, or Mr. Cohen, or any other private litigant except one 
case which was in the process of trying and which I could not get out 
of and which had been finished. 

I think that covers, as far as I can see, the essential elements that 
I thought necessary to explain to this committee in view of the state- 
ment that was made on the record. 

I should be delighted, really delighted, to submit myself to the 
fullest and most exploring kind of questioning that you can give. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

May I see the copy of the pleading you filed ? 

Mr. McBride. Yes, sir, 

( A document was handed to the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Does any member of the committee wish to ask 
any questions at this point ? 

I may ask you this : I am not thoroughly familiar with pleadings 
in the State of Pennsylvania, of course. The reason I asked to see 
this document was to ascertain whether Mr. Cohen and Edward 
Battisfore appeared as plaintiffs. 

According to this pleading the plaintiffs are highway truck drivers 
and helpers, local 107, an unincorporated labor union, by its presi- 
dent, Joseph E. Grace, trustee ad litem, Kaymond Cohen, Edward 
Battisfore. 



i0678 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES I>i THE LABOR FIELD 

Is this pleading in the name of Raymond Cohen and Battisfore for 
a trustee ad litem? 

Mr. INIcBride. Xo, Mr. Chairman. It is a combination bill in 
equity in which the local union and particular persons, Cohen repre- 
senting an interest as an elected officer and Battisfore representing 
an interest as a member of the union, were acting as plaintiffs against 
the trustee, the former secretary-treasurer, and other named individ- 
uals to get them all on the record. 

The Chairman. I am not trying to be too technical. I may be in 
error. I am tiying to ascertain whether this suit was brought from 
this pleading on behalf of the local union, 107, and on behalf of the 
two individuals, Raymond Cohen and Edward Battisfore? 

Mr. McBride. It was brought unquestionably. Senator, if you read 
the averments, that the complaint is made that President Beck had 
without warrant or power or jurisdiction imposed a trusteeship upon 
a local union. 

That is the complaint that is made. The affidavits are taken on 
behalf of the local union representing the interests of the local union 
through its president, on behalf of Raymond Cohen because of his 
interest in the election, and Edward Battisfore then as a member of 
the union. So that all three interests would be represented as plain- 
tiffs and all others would be lumped as defendants. 

As you know, sometimes plaintiffs and defendants get scrambled 
up according as their interests may appear. But that is the proper 
Vv-ay of doing it in the State of Pennsylvania. 

The Chairman. You may proceed with questions for the moment 
while I check some matters in this document. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Attorney General, I think the difficulty possibly 
arose with the testimony of Mr. Carroll on this matter. 

Are you familiar with that ? 

Mr. McBride. I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was being asked by Senator Curtis about who 
paid the lawyer's fees in a case in w^iich a man, the supporter of Mr. 
Crumbock, was beaten, and a supporter of Mr. Cohen was alleged to 
have participated in the beating. 

He asked them if the fee that was paid to the attorney came out 
of the union funds. Mr. Carroll said : 

At that time the firm with which I was associated was representing Mr. Cohen, 
and tliat group that was backing Mr. Cohen asked us to represent Mr. Myhasuk. 

I did appear with him before the magistrate at that time. Mr. Gray, who 
was counsel for local 107, represented Mr. Roberts. Our fee was not at that 
time being paid by the union. 

In his explanation before the committee he indicated that your 
group — you and the attorneys were backing Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. McBride. Mr. Kennedy, I think the fundamental misconcep- 
tion was this: I had gotten into the case after the trustee had taken 
over and that I was representing 1 side of a 2-sided contest for power 
in a local labor union. 

If that had been the case, I woidd not have accepted a fee from a 
local labor union. But wlien you recall the fact that I had gotten in 
and was actually counsel on a yearly retainer before the trustee was 
ever appointed and on behalf of the union had resisted such appoint- 
ment, the situation is entirely different. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10679 

It SO happens that I was on Mr. Cohen's side of the argument, but 
my legal position, I contend, would have been the same had I spent the 
G months' work, had the second election gone to Mr. Crumbock, I still 
would have been legally entitled to fees even from Mr. Crumbock. 

Mr. Kennedy. Most of the work that you were doing in this period 
of time was in connection with the election of Mr. Cohen ? 

Mr. !McBride. Actually it was not. Most of the work I was doing 
was in connection with this suit. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in connection with Mr. Cohen's election, 
was it not ? 

Mr. McBride. Yes, but it was a suit on behalf of the union. Don't 
you see that although it is true that a man who has run for election 
and won has a special interest in maintaining, the union or any other 
group which has elected him has a special interest also in seeing that 
its will is carried out. 

They voted for him. It is up to them to see that they get the serv- 
ices of the man they have elected. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were retained by Mr. Grace? Is that right? 

Mr. McBride. Mr. Grace and Mr. Cohen came to see me together. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohen at that time held what position ? 

Mr. McBride. He was the duly elected secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was not the secretary-treasurer? 

Mr. McBride. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. They came to you in November? 

Mr. McBride. November. Approximately November 18. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the constitution of the international, 
even assuming that election was proper, the man who is elected, the 
term is effective, quoting page 72 of the constitution, effective as of 
the conclusion of the term of the previous incumbent, which in. this 
case would be December 31. 

Mr. McBride. I agree with you. It was, that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The individuals that retained you at that time had 
no right to retain you because even if you assume there was a proper 
election in November, Mr. Cohen did not take over imtil January 1, 
1954; isn't that corect? 

Mr. McBride. No, it isn't correct. It is true that Mr. Cohen did 
not at that position have the right to retain me, but Mr. Grace did. 

Mr. Grace had been president for 20 years. Even though he had 
been reelected on November 15, on November 18 he was president by 
virtue of his former election and became president again as of Jan- 
uary 1. 

So even though I agree with you on Mr. Cohen's lack of power, I 
cannot agree with you, and I think you will agree with me that the 
president, even though his new term had not yet commenced to run, 
was still lawfully entitled to operate on his old one. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. It is just a question of whether the president could 
come in and retain a counsel without the approval of the executive 
board or without the approval of the secretary-treasurer, in fact, the 
major power in a union of the Teamsters, whether he could come in 
and retain a counsel and pay him out of union funds, without anybody 
else's concurrence or approval. It just seems to me to be questionable. 



10680 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. McBride. It doesn't seem to be questionable to me, because the 
president is the chief executive officer. In this local, the secretary- 
treasurer happens, by long standing, to be the more important of the 
two offices. But the president, under the constitution, still remains 
the chief executive officer and business is transacted with his authority. 
He presides at all meetings. In my opinion, due to the situation that 
came about when former counsel was no longer going to continue 
to represent the union, he had a perfect right to get a dili'erent lawyer. 

But looking at this thing, you see, in hindsight, with this question 
having been raised, is far different than if any such punctilio had 
been raised at the time. It never entered my mind but that President 
Grace had a perfect right to retain me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the election itself, Mr. Attorney Gen- 
eral ? According to the testimony before our committee, and this was 
the basis of the international putting the local in trusteeship, the 
election was a complete fraud insofar as the nomination of Mr. Cohen 
occurred and Mr. Grace then banged the gavel to close the nomina- 
tions and Mr, Crumbock or his followers never even had an oppor- 
tunity to nominate him. 

Mr. McBride. Do I miderstand that you refer to the testimony of 
Mr. Raymond Kelly '? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. McBride. Mr. Kennedy, Raymond Kelly was the recording sec- 
retary and kept the minutes of that election, and filed an official report 
saying everything was absolutely in order and done according to the 
constitution. Later difficulties came about then between him and Mr. 
Cohen, whereby Mr. Kelly ceased to be a member of the local union. 

He sued the local union for his whole period of salary from the 
time of his election on November 15, 1953, and on into the future. He 
lost that suit. It was thrown out of court. But the significant thing 
is that Mr. Kelly, under oath before Judge Sloane in the court of 
common pleas, testified diametrically opposite to that which he testi- 
fied to before this committee. The record is here in this room, as I 
understand, and can be produced, and a comparison of what he said 
before you and what he testified to before the court shows beyond a 
shadow of a doubt that he committed perjury somewhere, 

Mr. Kennedy. This, I would" think, would be the primary point, 
that if there were 600 people or 700 people present in the room, Mr. 
Crumbock must have had at least 2 people that were in favor of him. 
When the election was ultimately held bv secret ballot, he had 1,000 
people. Still, Mr. Cohen beat him 9,000 to 1,000, but he still had 
1,000 people in favor of him. Certainly two of those people must 
have been in the room and were intent on nominating Mr. Crumbock, 
Whether you believe JSIr, Kelly's testimony or not, Mr. Crumbock 
never had the opportunity of even being nominated at this meeting. 

I think this position is supported by the fact that the international 
then came in and put the local in trusteeship. 

Mr. McBride. Except that now you are saying that Mr, Beck was 
justified in putting this local into trusteeship, when we know that he 
has put other locals into trusteeship, mi justifiably. 
Mr. Kennedy, Absolutely, 

Mr. McBride. But let me say this to you: That was not his sole 
reason. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10681 

His sole reason was the question that had been raised, the fact that 
Cohen had presented charges against Crumbock, that Crumbock had 
presented charges against Cohen. 

All those things put together were used or utilized, let me say, by 
Mr. Beck for the purpose of throwing this local into trusteeship. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think that even dismissing the fact that the 
sides made charges against one another, the fact that the election was 
held in the manner in which it was held, where Mr. Crumbock's sup- 
porters never even had an opportunity to put his name in nomination, 
that in itself was sufficient to throw the election out. I would think 
that those who had firsthand information about the fact would have 
realized that this was contested election, and that until there was a 
proper election, as was held in April of 1954, Mr. Crumbock had to 
continue in his position as secretary-treasurer, 

Mr. McBride. Mr. Keimedy, you get one picture of it here now 
before this committee. There was an entirely difl'erent picture of that 

Eainted in Philadelphia on or about that time. Everybody that I 
now said that Mr. Crumbock had taken the position that he just sort 
of gave up, he didn't want his name put. He made a rather insulted 
speech to the membership and sort of walked out in a huff. He took 
his dishes and went home and didn't have anybody nominated. 

There were those who said they tried. They may be telling the truth. 
I don't know. All that I know is that men in whom I had confidence 
told me that Crumbock sort of folded up and went home. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only point, I would think, is that there must 
have been two people in the room that would have been interested in 
nominating him; that these facts were brought to the attention of the 
international ; that the international put the union in trusteeship; that 
Mr. Cohen never did take over as secretary-treasurer officially until 
after the second election in May of 1954, and that then the fee was 
paid. 

Mr. McBride. Aren't you leaving out the count, really, and wouldn't 
you agree with me, that Mr. Grace had something to do with this? He 
was the president of this local who came in to see me with Mr. Cohen. 
Does one really go into all that sort of thing when one is being retained ? 
Do you ask questions ? Certainly, I don't think that I even questioned 
at that moment about the size of fees, or squabbled about them. 

I don't think I have ever had a fee dispute in my life with anybody. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first meeting that Mr. Cohen actually was pres- 
ent at as an official was immediately following that, after the second 
election, where you received your fee. You didn't receive this fee 
during tliis period of time when he was contesting as to whether he was 
secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. McBride, I didn't even present a bill, because the trustee who 
had been sent in didn't ask for a bill, and when Mr. Cohen was again 
elected I was asked for a bill and I sent it in. 

The Chairman. Mr. McBride, I have here what purports to be the 
photostatic copy of the check paying your bill. 

Since it has been referred to, I would like to get it into the record. 
If you will identify it, I will make it an exhibit. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 



10682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. McBride. That is a correct photostatic copy of the check of 
which 1 have been speaking, and doubtless about which others have 
spoken. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. I wanted to make it a part of the record. 

Mr. McBride. Yes, I think it sliould be part of the record. It looks 
as though it is my secretary's endorsement of my name, but that is the 
usual way in which I transact business. It is just as valid as if my 
own signature were upon it. It is unquestionably the check. 

The Chairman. The check will be made exhibit No. 22. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 10820.) 

The Chairman. Mr. McBride, the thing that actually gave rise to 
the inference about this whole transaction was this testimony or state- 
ment of Mr. Carroll. You cannot help, in reading his statement, but 
gain the impression that you were representing Cohen and a group as 
such as individuals, at the time, because that is what this clearly states. 
Of course, I can appreciate he may have been trying to make explana- 
tion and may have not made it accurately, not intentionally to mislead 
the committee, but he may have just not made it accurately at the time. 

Mr. McBride. Mr. Carroll would never mislead anybody. 

The Chairman. But from reading this, you couldn't help but draw 
the inference. 

Mr. McBride. You see, Mr. Carroll was attempting to explain some- 
thing as to which he did not then have personal knowledge. He did 
what he could by attempting to secure it. But he would not con- 
sciously mislead this committee or anybody on earth. 

The Chairman. I didn't say that he would or that he did. I simply 
said in his attempt, as you say, to make an explanation of a situation 
that developed here in the course of the hearing, he made a statement, 
which may be inaccurate, not intentionally so, but which did give rise 
to the inference that you thought reflected upon you. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Attorney General, who do you say paid for the 
defense of Defendant Myhasuk ? 

Mr. McBride. I don't know of anybody paying for the defense of 
Myhasuk. 

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

Senator Curtis. Can someone supply us the date of that trial ? 

Mr. McBride. I cannot. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Carroll, can you, or our own staff ? 

Do you know the date of the trial ? 

Mr. Carroll. I am sorry, I do not know. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know approximately the date ? 

Mr. Carroll. It could only be a guess. Senator. It was sometime 
either in late 1953 or early 1954. That is all I can say. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was indicted on May 17, 1954. 

Mr. Carroll. The usual practice is that the preliminary hearing, 
which is where I represented him, was about a month or 6 weeks in 
advance of the date of the indictment. 

Senator Curtis. I think that there are 1 or 2 questions here that 
are of some concern if the testimony of Mr. Koberts is to be accepted. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



10683 



Mr McBride. Who is Mr. Roberts ? ,. .i ^ at i ^ 

Senator Curtis. He was the victim of the assault that Myhasuk 
administered. If his story is correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, 
he was assaulted because he supported a faction m a union matter 

""T hfs^de^e'nse^^irthe defendant's defense, was paid out of union 
funds, I think that creates quite a little different problem than the 
question of who paid for the legal proceeding which has been offeied 
here involving the trusteeship. -^ ^ ,. ^i • i t f 

Mr McI3r?de. It may indeed. Senator. I don t think I ever got 
any money for representing anybody charged with violence. 

I don't think that there is a single case m which I sent m a bill loi 
a fee to the union for representing anybody charged with violence 

I am not familiar with the particular case. Mr. Carroll has just 
said that he represented them. I don't think Mr^ Carroll was with 
mv office at the time, but I had come to know him because I sat on the 
sectional finals of the intercollegiate moot court arguments, interest- 
ingly enough, involving the powers of congressional committees, in 
which Mr. cLrroll agieed was the finest m the Lmted States and 
was very complimentary to the committee, too. . 

Senator Curtis. That is very interesting. In this case m which 
we have the petition before us, did that proceed to a final determination 
and a decree by a court ? 
Mr. McBride. The Myhasuk case ? 

Senator Curtis. No. x ^ ^ ^ o oc, 

Mr. McBride. This suit that I brought is, as I stated or was, as 

1 stated, in the process of hearing before His Honor Judge Lewis. He 

called all counsel together, as experienced judges do, to see it he could 

work some order out of chaos and achieve a statesmanlike result. 

The result was that he persuaded all of us that if each of us was 
as sincere in the protestations that the union felt a certain way about 
it, the best thing to do would be to settle it by a fair election supervised 
by the court. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. 

Was a decree ultimately entered ? nrO^^r. 

Mr McBride. There was no decree entered because when Cohen 

was subsequently elected the case fell apart. The trusteeship was 

^^Thrvery purpose for which the suit had been brought was agreed 
to by the international president, the trustee, and everybody else, and 
it was a moot case. , .•-!-» i •„ 

Senator Curtis. I could not speak for the practice m Pennsylvania, 
but I would think that in a law suit of this kind where none of the 
parties are dealing with their own money— everybody there was han- 
dling somebody else's-that the payment of fees should have been a 
matter of determination by the court. 

Mr. McBride. Payment of what fees? 

Senator Curtis. Legal fees. 

Mr. McBride. You mean, for instance, my tee ^ 

Senator Curtis. Involving this action. Of course, it did not go to 

final determination -, p • -r. ^ ■ Tf -:„ef 

Mr. McBride. That would be unheard of in Pennsylvania. It ]ust 

doesn't exist. 



21243— 58— pt. 27 20 



10684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We have a court of approval of fees where there are minors in- 
volved. "We have a court of approval of fees where there are 
decedents involved. But when persons who are suing for injuries, 
and corporations or labor unions or individuals make an agreement 
as to a fee, the court does not attempt to conti'ol that fee unless some- 
one protests that it is outlandish. I don't think anybody would 
suggest that this was. 

Senator Curtis. I am not saying that it should have been done, 
because I do not know your practice in Pennsylvania. I am merely 
pointing out that the litigants here are appearing not in their own 
right but in their various capacities in the union, and whatever assets 
are there belong to the union as such, all (he members. 

Mr. McBride. Sure. But, Senator, are you suggesting that every 
time the union retains a lawyer and enters into litigation, that the 
court should be given the job of saying how much that lawyer should 
charge or how much should be paid ? 

Senator Curtis, No ; not at all. But I think if there are two fac- 
tions wrestling for control of a union and it goes before a court for 
final determination, it certainly would be proper for the court to 
ascertain what part of the expense should be borne out of the union 
treasury. 

I would concede that there might be situations where everybody 
pursued with honest intentions and the union should bear the cost of 
both sides. 

Mr. McBride. That is not the practice in Pennsylvania. But it 
could very easily be if in a proceeding in equity one side or the other 
took the position that the fees charged on behalf of a local union 
were exorbitant. 

The court would always reserve the power to cut the fee down on 
the theory that counsel is an officer of the court. But no one sug- 
gested for a single moment that any such situation existed. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions. 

Senator Curtis. No; I think not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just have a few more. "VVlien did you cease to 
represent local 107? 

Mr. McBride. When I was appointed to public office. As T said 
before, the situation as to the private practice of law of public officers 
was not clear. So, before assuming office, I wrote the committee on 
professional guidance and asked their advice as to whether I could 
represent private litigants who did not have any conflicting interest 
with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

I received a decision by them on or about January 17. I then 
speedily wound up all connection, not only with the union but with 
my old law firm. 

I think it became effective 13 days thereafter, or about February 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any moneys from the union after 
you became attorney general ? 

Mr. McBride. I received 1 or 2 checks after becoming attorney gen- 
eral, but after the decision of the committee on professional guidance 
was rendered, I received a third check and sent it back. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was for the practice or that was for the serv- 
ices you had rendered to local 107 prior to that time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10685 

Mr. McBride. Yes. I was counsel and we used to have labor nego- 
tiations with 400 or 500 trucking firms lasting as many as 17 hours 
a day trying to stop strikes before the first of the year, 

Mr, Kennedy. May we identify those, Mr, Chairman ? 

The Chairman, Ilere appears to be three checks, Mr. McBride, in 
the amount of $1,250 each, dated January 10, 1957, February 6, 1957, 
March 4, 1957, checks from this union. 

You may identify them, if you will, and make any explanation of 
them you desire, 

Mr, McBride, The checks were all received by me and the endorse- 
ment bears my name signed by my secretary, 

I recognize her handwriting. The two checks, January 10 and 
February 6, 1957, were for my services up to date and involved pay- 
ment up to February 1, the date around which I withdrew from the 
firm. 

The check for March 4, 1957, was received in the normal course of 
business, deposited by my secretary, and then I immediately instructed 
her when I found out about it to send my personal check for $1,250 
to my former firm, which was done, and I transmitted a letter to that 
former firm which they have, 

I received neither directly nor indirectly any other checks or moneys 
since. 

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

The Chairjvian. Those checks may be made exhibit 23-A, B, and C. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhiibts Nos. 23-A, 
B, and C" for reference and will be found in the appendix on 
pp. 10821-10823.) 

The Chairman, You did receive also, in addition to your retainer, 
I think, which may be of some consequence, of $1,250 a month, a 
$500 Christmas present from them ? 

Mr, McBride, I may have, I don't recall it. 

The Chairman, It says "Christmas gift," I guess that means 
present. You may examine this check and see if that is not so. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. McBride. Yes. I again recognize my secretary's handwriting, 
and fully agree that I did receive that. 

The Chairman. That may be exhibit 23-D. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 23-D" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 10824.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. McBride, I understand now that your ar- 
gument is that on the first payment, tlie authority for your being 
hired to take over the case representing Mr. Colieii, your authority 
for that was Mr. Grace? 

Mr. McBride. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. And that, therefore, you argue that the pro- 
fessional guidance group in Philadelphia — did you become involved 
with them on that case or only on this last point ? 

Mr. McBride. No. The only way in which I solicited their opin- 
ion had to do with the question of what I should do after becoming 
Attorney General. 

Senator Kennedy. That is the first. The second matter is, as I 
understand — well, you took office on what date, exactly ? 



10686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L-VBOR FIELD 

Mr. McBride. December 17, 195G. 

Senator Kennedy. You took the oatli then ? 

Mr. McBiuDE. Yes. 

Senator Ivennedy. When did you get the decision from the bar 
group in Philadelphia? 

Mr. McBuiDE. I believe on or about January 17, 1957. 

Senator Kennedy. Then, as I understand it, the money involved 
at Christmas was a part of your compensation for the former year? 

Mr, McBride. For the past year. 

Senator Kennedy. Then your checks that you got in January, Feb- 
ruary, and March, 3 checks, as I understand for fl,250 each 

Mr. McBride. That is true. 

Senator Ivennedy. The March check, you state you returned that 
money yourself ? 

Mr. McBride. I did. I drew my own personal check and sent it 
with a letter to Mr. Von Moschzisker, who happens to be in the room. 

Senator Kennedy. What about the February check ? 

Mr. McBride. The February check I retained because I was con- 
nected with the law firm until the decision by the committee on pro- 
fessional guidance, and since it had really never been determined be- 
fore, any many attorneys general had continued their private prac- 
tice, I hastened to put my affairs in order. I allowed myself 2 weeks 
to do it. By February 1 1 stopped, I cleaned up everything that I had 
with the union as one of my clients, and when the February check came 
it was in payment up to and including February 1. So I felt that I was 
justly entitled to that. Tliat is, you don't get a decision to wind up 
your affairs on Tuesday and get them wound up on Wednesday. 

I accomplislied it in 13 days. When the March check came in, my 
secretary, who handles all of my financial affairs, accepted it. Wlien I 
found out about it, I immediately drew my own check to the firm, which 
has continued to get them all since. 

Senator Kennedy. I think it probably would have been better, in 
view of all tliat has come out about the ^^n.y the union is administered, 
about the January and February checks 

Mr. McBride. Had they been returned ? 

Senator Kennedy. Probably. It seems to me it would have pre- 
vented any misunderstanding. But in any case, that is a matter of 
record. 

Mr. ]VIcBride. I don't really see that. This is a decision on January 
17, which had never been rendered before. 

Senator Kennedy. Then actually you shouldn't have taken what 
would be the February check. 

Mr. McBride. The February check ? That was for work I had done 
during the month of January, not only before the opinion but after the 
opinion, winding up my affairs, including doing work for the union 
to Avind them up. 

Senator Kennedy. Even though you were attorney general ? 

Mr. McBride. Yes; but I used to work at night by telephone and 
things like that. There were conferences. There were labor union 
agreements being negotiated. I think they felt that I was a somewhat 
leavening influence between them in helping to bring about peaceful 
resolutions of conflict rather than trouble. 

Senator Kennedy. As I say, Mr. McBride, that is a matter just 
for your own judgment. I think there is nothing that would indi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10687 

cate that you have done anything that was improper in any way. I 
think that it is quite clear that your intention was to do the right 
thing, I think it woukl have prevented misunderstanding once you 
become Attorney General, but at least you did take steps to unwind it. 

The first problem is one of more lasting significance, only because 
we have had a good many conversations with Mr. Carroll about the 
responsibilities of a lawyer or the counsel of a union to the union 
officers and members when cases like this are involved. 

We are hopeful that the Philadelphia bar, the group on profes- 
sional guidance, which we have been discussing the last 2 or 3 days, 
will look into this matter in some detail in order to give clearer guid- 
ance to other attorneys as to where their responsibility lies in these 
cases. 

Mr. McBride. Senator, I join you in that view. I hope that they 
will give clear guidance. I know^ that Mr. Carroll, and any other law- 
yer from Philadelphia, will follow it. I, myself, was chancellor of 
that bar. I appointed just such committees. I feel that we have a 
deep responsibility to the public and to the Government, and to the 
people. 

As well as any bar in America, we recognize it. In this situation, 
I don't think it has ever come up quite this way before, because you 
do not have two parties, the union and the union members, fighting 
with each other. 

The alleged conflict comes from the fact that other witnesses say 
there is a conflict. The union members and the officers say that there 
is none. But when that conflict appears, it is their duty to take a 
stand. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. McBride, in a case of a proxy fight, say in 
the New York Central proxy fight, or any other proxy fight, is it your 
understanding that both groups in those cases are compensated by the 
company itself for legal fees, or both groups ? 

Mr. McBride. If there is full disclosure, they could be. As a mat- 
ter of fact, one of the great things that I think has been proposed 
before the Congress of the United States is that both contending 
forces in political campaigns be paid by the Government so as to 
eliminate private contributions. 

There, the one side, the one government, would be compensating 
both sides who are at each other's throats, and it would perhaps be a 
very good thing if that were so. 

But the real issue is whether there is full disclosure. That is, 
whether one litigant is relying upon his lawyer to give him unswerv- 
ing fidelity and devotion, unfettered by any duty to his opponent. 

He has that absolute right. But where both, then with the full 
knowledge of the circumstances, say that they do not have conflicting 
interests but parallel interests, they have the same interests and they 
wish to be represented by the same lawyer, the problem is a whole lot 
more difficult. It is not free of disturbing factors either way. 

I am sure that they will give a considered, reasonable and just 
answer to it. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. McBride. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I wasn't sure I understood your answer to Sena- 
tor Kennedy's question about a proxy fight, in a corporation. 



10688 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

If I did, I think you said, and I question the accuracy of it if you 
said that, that in a proxy fight in a corporation the company pays the 
cost of botli sides of the proxy fight. 

Mr. McBride. No, I didn't say that they do. But that is not the 
same as talking about the conflict of interests which exist between 
counsel representing two parties, where the parties themselves agree 
that there is no conflict. In a proxy fight, they are fighting with each 
other. In this proceeding before this committee, up to the present, as 
I understand it, and I have been here only this morning, neither the 
union members nor the officers of the union are fighting with each 
other. They have full knowledge of the situation. They ought to be 
free to choose their counsel. 

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

Mr. McBride. If they were fighting with each other, and there Avere 
no full disclosure, then no lawyer would have the right to represent 
both. 

Senator Mundt. We have had in the course of these liearings fre- 
quent instances where the union has paid the attorneys for union of- 
ficials, who, in turn, are defending their actions, as against the in- 
terests of the union members. It is that kind of tiling tliat I believe 
disturbed Senator Kennedy, and which certainly disturbs me, where 
you have union officials who have been charged and subsequently found 
guilty, of defrauding the union members. 

It seems to me there is something highly improper to liave their 
attorneys paid for by the very same union members, out of tlieir dues, 
when, in turn, they are the ones who have been defrauded by the union 
officials. 

Mr. McBride. I think you are speaking of a situation when it gets 
mto a court, or when it gets into an adversary procedure, whereby the 
union members are contending one thing, and the officers are contend- 
ing something else. 

I think then it is wrong for the union to use the dues paid by union 
members to defend officers. But where they both think that their in- 
terests are identical, and they do not tliemselves conflict in their situa- 
tion, I don't know any principle of law that would prevent the union 
from protecting its officers who get into difficulties asserted by a third 
party because they were union officials, any more than if the president 
of a corporation, by virtue of his acts as president, is brouglit into 
court to answer to some charge. I don't see anything wrong in the 
corporation backing him up, believing him to be right, even though 
subsequently lie turns out to be wrong. 

Senator Mundt. I am not talking about the case when you get into 
trouble witli a third party. I am talking about the case, wliether it 
is in court or before a congressional committee, where a union officer 
has been defrauding liis members. He then comes before a commit- 
tee or a court to be interrogated, to be questioned, and we ask him 
whether he is paying for his own attorney or whether the union 
members are paying for the attorney, and he says "No, the union is 
paying for him." 

Subsequently, sometimes by court action, and sometimes by action 
of the AFI^CIO Ethical Practices Committee, the man has been re- 
moved from office, thereby establishing his guilt as against his own 
members. It doesn't seem to me that the members, who have been 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10689 

defrauded by his actions as a union official, should have piled on that 
expense also the cost of the attorney who is chosen to defend him. 

Mr. McBride. You see, Senator, the difficulty is in deciding that 
question at the point where it is before an investigating committee 
and not before a tribunal that is going to finally decide the question. 

It is complicated by the factor that when a lawyer appears here, and 
he is asked to take a position in the middle of an investigation which 
commits him to withdrawing on one side or the other. It was the 
chairman himself who pointed out that that might not only cause 
delay, because the witness had the right to rely on the lawyer repre- 
senting him, and if he withdrew and left one lawyer less, the commit- 
tee undoubtedly would give the man a chance to get another lawyer. 

Perhaps in this particular situation, or in any other, this situation 
will be resolved by getting some binding declaration of policy from 
a strong bar association which, having considered the whole record, 
will decide what they think is ethical. 

Mr. Carroll has stated to you, and I know he means it, that if this 
bar association tells him what he should do, he will simply obey it. 
That is all there is to it. 

The Chairman. The Chair would like to observe at this point that 
my reference to the inconvenience that might be caused the com- 
mittee, in deference and fairness to a witness who the committee 
found had an attorney that had a conflict of interest, is not intended 
to imply or for anyone to infer that the Chair condones that duplicity 
of interest and the conduct of an attorney who might engage in it. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Mr. McBride. I was not interpreting the chairman's position. I 
was just repeating it. 

The Chairman. I was speaking of the inconvenience that it might 
cause the committee and therefore we would proceed. I was leaning 
over in the other direction. 

Senator Mundt. I think that this is something to which the bar as- 
sociation should well devote some study and make some recommen- 
dations. 

If they approve it, let them approve it openly so that the whole 
country will be so advised and so other lawyers will be so advised. 

If they disapprove it, I think they should make the same public 
so that the country would know the position of the American Bar 
Association and so that other attorneys, who might confront the same 
problem, will have that guidance, because it is not something on which 
you can very well legislate. 

It just does not seem to be right in several cases which have oc- 
curred, and I am not now referring to this particular hearing but 
in previous hearings before this committee, to heap on the poor clues- 
paying member, who has been defrauded, whose money has been mis- 
used, who finds himself paying substantially higher dues than he 
would otherwise pay if his union were honestly run, to add insult 
to injury by them compelling him also to pay dues to finance the 
lawyers to protect the crooks who have been running his union. 

Mr. McBride. I have no doubt. Senator, that the Philadelphia Bar 
Association, for one, will address itself promptly to the problem. But 
as you suggest, if it going to be a rule to cover not only the lawyers 



10690 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOK FIELD 

froiri Philadelpliia or Pennsylvania or yoin" own distinguished State, 
it should be the American Bar Association which does it. 

Senator Mundt. I would think so. 

Mr. JVIcBride. But any local bar associations attempt always is to 
interpret the canons of professional ethics in accordance with the 
decision of the American Bar Association. 

Senator Mundt. And the American Bar Association has some prece- 
dent for injecting itself into this kind of proposal because they have 
shown no hesitancy whatsoever in making recommendations rather 
generously to Congress about how Congress should conduct its hear- 
ings and examine its witnesses and it seems to me now it looks in a 
mirror to check on the practices of its own members and it should have 
no more hesitancy to act with some promptness with this particular 
problem. 

Mr. ]\IcBride. Senator, don't be bitter. 

Senator Mundt. I am not bitter. I am speaking from an abun- 
dance of experience. One other question just to clarify the record, 
Mr. McBride. 

I think you said as of February 1 you discontinued any further 
connection with your previous law firm and that you discontinued 
taking any more pay from the union. 

I was not clear whether as of that date you also discontinued any 
private practice wdth other clients or whether this referred only to 
the union. 

Mr McBride. It referred to every single client I had, except one as 
to which I was in the middle of litigation and I continued that. 

Since it was in equity and not a jury trial, I continued on special 
afternoons, and the last hearing was on a Saturday when I would be 
in Philadelphia and we continued the hearing. 

Outside of that one case from which in good conscience — it was a 
civil case, it had nothing to do with the Commonwealth's interest or 
the Government, two private litigants in a bill of equity — I could not 
withdraw because of the insistence of my client. But every other case 
of every kind whatsoever I withdrew from. 

Senator Mundt. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. INIr. Chairman, I dislike to prolong this and I doubt 
if the distinguished witness before us can answer about these things 
because apparently he has been out of the practice and certainly 
out of his firm, but the problem in ethics that we are faced with here 
is one — and I will state it in a hypothetical way — if a lawyer repre- 
sents two witnesses called before this committee and both witnesses 
ask him individually and separately what their rights in declining 
to testify on the ground of self-incrimination, and also what advice 
the attorney has for them on whether or not they should avail them- 
selves of those rights, that is the very purpose that witnesses are 
allowed to have counsel here. 

It is entirely conceivable that many instances will arise where, if 
an attorney represents two such witnesses, he is called here, that if 
he advises witness A that he has a right to decline to answer on the 

f round of self-incrimination but it is his advice that it would not be 
or his best interest to do so, it could be that if witness A testifies 
it is damaging to witness B and that is exactly the situation we have 
here. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10691 

The lawyer is placed in the position of advising 2 clients and the 
ultimate carrying out of his advice will be adverse to 1 or the other. 

I do not expect the distinguished attorney general from the State 
of Pennsylvania to resolve that for us because he has withdrawn from 
it, but that is the matter that is at least worrying me about the situa- 
tion here. 

Mr. McBride. I would like to comment. 

Senator Curtis. I do not accept the view that a conflict of interest 
arises only when it is established controversy or even near that. I 
think that the citizens of the country in seeking the advice of a lawyer, 
and a lawyer is an officer of the court, are entitled and as a matter of 
established ethics of the American Bar Association are entitled to the 
determination of whether or not there is a conflict of interest between 
that client and any other client at the very time that they seek counsel 
of the lawyer. 

As I say, I have submitted this at this time and point out a hypothet- 
ical question, but I think it is a very real one and I think it does have 
a definite application to this investigation of 107. 

I do not have the facts in all instances. I do not know what is 
taking place in the minds of various witnesses. But so many mem- 
bers of the union avail themselves of the right not to testify on the 
ground of self-incrimination that it leads me to wonder if it isn't 
true that had they gone ahead and testified they could not have pos- 
sibly incriminated themselves but they miglit have incriminated others 
who were represented by the same attorney, the same attorney who 
tells them what their rights are and then advises them whether or not 
it would be wise to avail themselves of those rights. 

That is the one proposition that is unresolved here. The other 
one is this : 

This witness Roberts was a member of local 107. He was beaten 
up. The man who beat him up was defended in court. 

Now if union dues paid for that defense, then Mr. Eoberts, as a 
member, had to pay his proportionate share for the defense of his 
assailant. That question has not been answered. 

I suppose it could be ascertained who, if anybody, paid for the 
defense of Myhasuk — is that the way you pronounce it'^ 

Mr. McBride. I understand that is the way you pronounce it, yes. 

Senator Curtis, That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McBride. May I just comment on the last thing, Senator? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. McBride. I think what you said to the effect that if a man is 
beaten up by another union man and the union pays for the defense 
of the guilty assaulter, I think that is unfair. 

That didn't happen, so far as I know, in the Myhasuk case. I 
don't think anybody paid any lawyer anything in Myhasuk's case. 
I don't personally recall what the case was about, but the mere fact 
that two men are on different sides of a fence in a matter that excites 
them, and one assaults the other, it does not follow that he did so at 
the instance either of the union or of the people he is backing. 

They may just have gotten into a fight. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Senator Goldwater. Just one. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 



10692 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwatek. Mr. Mcliride, this is a little different line. Is 
your position in the State of Pennsylvania an elective one? 

Mr. McBuTDE. It is an appointive one. 

Senator Goldwater. By the Governor ? 

Mr. McBride. By the Governor. 

Senator Goldwater. To your personal knowledge, has there been 
any money given by local 107 to politics in Pennsylvania ? 

Mr. McBride. I know of no money ever given by local 107 for any 
political cause whatever. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Mr. McBride. Republican, Democratic, or anything else. 

The Chairman. Any other questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a couple. Mr. Attorney General, while you 
were being retained by the local 107 there were a number of individ- 
uals who were charged, were they not, with beating other individuals 
or participating? 

Mr. McBride. When I was retained — what do you mean? At the 
time of my retainer or while I was counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of time you were retained. 

Mr. McBride. There were persons who were locked up during a 
strike and it was charged that they had been guilty of violence. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there were individuals who were beaten up or 
alleged that they had been beaten up by these individuals? 

Mr. McBride. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time you did represent members of the local 
against whom the complaint had been made ? 

Mr. McBride. I don't remember ever representing any. Can you 
refresh my recollection? 

Mr. Kennedy. John Myhasuk we talked about. Then there was 
a Larry Thomas. 

Mr. McBride. I don't think I ever represented him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Bernard Brown? 

Mr. McBride. Never, not that I know of, did I. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't your law firm? 

Mr. McBride. Harry Brown. 

Mr. Kennedy. John Corocliak. 

Mr. McBride. I know all of those names and I know they were 
involved in a strike and they were arrested in connection, but I don't 
recall that I represented them. It is possible that my memory is not 
clear, but I know as a policy I adopted the position that where vio- 
lence occurred, since I was so much against it, in connection with 
union matters, that if any union member was locked up for violence, 
he would have to get other counsel. 

I know of any number of instances in which they got other counsel 
in which I didn't represent them. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were a number of other instances where you 
were not retained where people were locked up for violence ? 

Mr. McBride. As to the names you mentioned, do you have in- 
formation that I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what we understand. 

Mr. McBride, I never tried any cases in court. I don't recall them. 
I do not deny it. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10693 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you know anything about tlie sort of loose prac- 
tices with tlie money of local 107 ? 

Mr.McRRiDE. Tiiewhat? 

Mr. Kennedy. The loose practices ? 

Mr. McBride. No, absolutely nothino;. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, the $500 Cliristmas gift that they made 
to you, tliere was never any approval of the local membership ? 

Mr. INIcBride. I don't know. I imagine there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tliere was not. 

Mr. McBride. Then I accept your statement. But I didn't know 
anything about it. Corporations and others sometimes give either 
bonuses or Christmas presents to persons. I think in the entire time, 
I don't know of a single bill in addition to the retainer that I sent 
them, and for the amount of work, I suppose I could have sent them 
additional bills, that is, additional to the retainer, of possibly 15 or 
20 thousand dollars additional. I never did it, probably they sent 
that gift in appreciation of that fact. 

But I have no knowledge as to whether it was taken before the 
membersliip. 

]Mr. Kennedy. On the other matter we were discussing, as far as 
your approval as counsel for 107 was concerned, that did not come 
imtilJune27,1954. 

Mr. McBride. Approval by whom ! 

Mr. Kennedy. By the membership. 

Mr. McBride. I don't know when that came. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is when it did come. 

Mr. McBride. I accept your statement. But the executive officer 
in cliarge did retain me. I don't think in respect of corporations or 
anybody else they hold a membership meeting for the purpose of 
deciding whether the president of a corporation can retain a lawyer. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just pointing that out. 

Mr. McBride. Well, I accept your statement, of course, quite fully. 

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

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You said a minute ago, Mr. McBride, that Mr. 
Myhasuk's attorney was never paid. 

Mr. McBride. I say that I don't think I was ever paid and I don't 
think he was either. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't represent Myhasuk, did you ? 

Mr. McBride. No. 

Senator Mundt. But somebody must have represented him. He 
was in court. 

Mr. McBride. I think the testimony indicates that John Carroll, 
who was not then a member of my office, at my request represented him 
and made no charge at all to anybody, to me, "to the union, to Myhasuk, 
or anybody else. 

Senator Mundt. He was not a member of your firm at the time ? 

Mr. McBride. I don't think he was in 1954, no, early 1954. 

Senator Mundt. For what reason did you ask him to represent Mr. 
Myhasuk? 

Mr. McBride. Because he was a young lawyer starting in. I 
thought he was a very good lawyer, and, incidentally, still think so. 



10694 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. The question goes to the quandary in my mind as 
to why yon should be more interested in Mr. Myhasuk than the fellow 
that got beaten up, that you wanted to get him a lawyer. 

Mr. McBride. Who was beaten up, Senator ? I don't remember. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Roberts. 

Mr. McBride. I don't know what Mr. Roberts got beaten up about, 
or wliether Myhasuk was guilty or innocent. Was Myhasuk guilty 
or innocent ? 

Mr. Kenxedt. We asked him about the incident and he took the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. ]\IcBride. Then it would appear that he had not been convicted, 
because had he been convicted, he would no longer have any fifth 
amendment to take. 

Senator Mundt. I wish for a couple of days you were still a lawyer 
of 107, because we have a lot of trouble with these former clients of 
yours. They all take the fifth amendment. I would like to find a 
lawyer who would tell them to cooperate with the committee instead 
of trying to confuse the issues. 

ISir. .\icBRiDE. Senator, it can never be forgotten that when the 
Constitution defines what is cooperation, and says that a man may 
take the fifth amendment, that represents cooperation in the constitu- 
tional sense. I join with you in feeling that it is the duty of every 
citizen to tell the State or National Government anything he knows. 

But where he properly invokes the fifth amendment, or in m}^ State, 
article I, section 9, he is cooperating in the sense that the constitution 
lays the duty upon him. 

We must never forget that. 

Senator Mundt. There is no question about that, Mr. McBride, 
when he properly uses it. But I imagine we have a lot of constitutional 
forefathers twirling in their graves these days by the way some of 
these union people are now utilizing the fifth amendment. 

Senator Curtis. For how many years did you represent the union ? 

Mr. McBride. I would say from approximately November 18, 1953. 
until the beginning or the first month of 1957. 

That would be 3 years and possibly 1 month or 2 months. 

Senator Curtis. Did they give you a Christmas gift each year? 

Mr. McBride. I don't recall. This $500 I didn't recall until you 
showed me the check. 

Senator Curtis. That was one that was paid after you were attorney 
general, was it ? 

Mr. McBride. I don't remember. I didn't look at the date. 

Senator Curtis. I think the date was December 20. 

Mr. McBride. Then that would be 3 days after I became attorney 
general. I remember one time, I think it was about Christmas, that 
they sent me something that was mentioned here, some plaque involv- 
ing $11.50 in connection with a marlin fish. I think at other times 
they probably gave me a Christmas present. But all my life in the 
practice of law, I have gotten Christmas presents from clients. 

Senator Curtis. You do not regard a Christmas present as earn- 
ings? 

Mr. McBride. No ; I do not regard it as being earned, but I think it 
bears a definite relationship to 

Senator Curtis. I understand. What I mean is it is not in the cate- 
gory of compensation for services rendered ? 



IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10695 

Mr. McBride. No; I don't think it is. It is not exactly in the na- 
ture of a bonus. It isn't dependent upon how much salary you earn 
and so forth. But all lawyers occasional!}^ get Christmas presents 
from their clients. For instance, the following year when Christmas 
came around, I was given no Christmas present. I would not accept, 
as attorney general, any Christmas present from anybody, never have, 
never will. 

Senator Curtis. I wasn't suggesting that. 

Mr. McBride. No. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further, thank you very much, 
Mr. McBride. 

(Affidavit of Thomas McBride follows :) 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

County of Dauphin, ss: 

I, Thomas D. McBride, being duly sworn according to law, make the following 
statement for the purpose of having it incorporated in the record of the Select 
Committee To Investigate Improper Activities in Labor-Management Relations, 
in accordance with rule 12. 

The attorney general of Pennsylvania is appointed by the Governor and is 
subject to couflrmation by the senate. There is no rule, custom, statute, decision 
or tradition that the attorney general may not represent litigants in private cases 
contemporaneous with his representation of the Commonwealth. Of course, his 
ability to handle private litigation is necessarily circumscribed by two factors : 

1. He must not represent any interest adverse to the Commonwealth. 

2. He must not permit his private practice to become so extensive as to pre- 
vent him from the efficient conduct of his public duties. 

I am advised, believe, and therefore state that none of my distinguished 
predecessors for at least the last 50 years ever gave up the private practice of 
law or failed to practice law privately during his tenure of office. This fact is 
important because since it is so I would have been entitled to have continued to 
represent local 107, or any other private client, at all times while I have been 
attorney general. 

Prior to my assumption of office, however, on December 14, 1956, I solicited 
the opinion of the committee on professional guidance of the Philadelphia Bar 
Association as to my further remaining a member of a law firm which practiced 
not only in the State but in the Federal courts. 

The gist of the opinion filed by that committee on January 18, 1957, is that so 
long as I remained a member of the firm neither I nor my partners should par- 
ticipate in any criminal case. State or Federal, nor in quasi criminal proceedings, 
nor in any case where an actual conflict of interest would exist. It did not say 
that I could not practice law privately where no conflict existed. The committee 
defined a conflict of interest in accordance with canon 6 of the Canons of 
Prefessional E^thics of the American Bar Association, as follows : 

"A lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is 
his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose." 

After the opuiion of the committee on professional guidance was received by 
me and to free my partners of restrictions placed upon them if I were to con- 
tinue as a partner, but more particularly because of the pressure of my public 
duties, I decided to withdraw from the firm and to refuse all private cases. I 
did this as a purely voluntary act and have steadfastly continued it up to and 
including the present time. 

I have not accepted any new retainers since January 1957 and concluded only 
one case in equity of which I spoke in my testimony. 

In the light of these facts, therefore, the situation of my having accepted a 
Christmas gift 3 days after my assumption of office, from a private client not 
doing any business whatever with the Commonwealth and having no connection 
whatever with the performance of my official duties, was entirely appropriate in 
the same way as if I had received it from a longtime individual client or a 
corporation. 

This applies also to the fees received in January and February 1957. 



10696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

7 want to emphasize therefore that there is nothing that malies the holder of 
the office of attorney general ineligible to practice law on behalf of private 
litiiants. 

Thomas D. McBbide. 

Ibworn to and subscribed before me this 21st day of April A. D. 1958. 

MiNA J. Weld, Notary Public. 

My cotomission expires March 1, 1960, Harrisburg, Pa., Dauphin County. 

(At this point, Senators Mundt and Goldwater withdrew from the 
hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. John English. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. English. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. English, will you be sworn, please? You do 
solemnly swear tlie evidence you shall give before this Senate select 
committee shall be the 
truth, so help you Godi 

Mr. English. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. ENGLISH, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
EDWASD BENNETT WILLIAMS, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

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

Mr, English. My name is John F. English. I live at 5605 McLean 
Drive, Bethesda, Md. I am the general secretary-treasurer of the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Williams appears as 
your counsel ? 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you state your name for the record, Mn 
Williams? 

Mr. Williams. My name is Edward Bennett Williams. I am a 
member of the District of Columbia bar. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. English, there is just one matter on which I 
wanted the committee to have the benefit of your testimony, and that 
was the situation in local 107, where there were, over a period of some 
oi/2 years, large numbers of checks which were made out to cash. 

Sir. Crumbock, when we interviewed him earlier, had furnished an 
affidavit in which he stated that : 

Early in my administration I was coached in sound fiscal practices by John 
English, general secretary-treasurer of the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters, and he particularly pointed out to me the unsoundness and justified sus- 
picion which would follow the disbursal of the local's money by checks written 
to cash. 

There was little or no need for such a practice if the disbursements were hon- 
pst. From then on, I followed that advice and rarely ever wrote a check on 
local 107 to cash ; when it was done, it was done for small amounts. 

I know that it is impossible for you, as secretary-treasurer, to be 
able to keep track of all of the locals throughout the United States, 
together with the other responsibilities that you have, to watch over 
tlie inernntional funds. I recognize tliat. But also seeing that you 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10697 

<rave this advice, at least, as Mr. Crumbock remembers it, regarding 
the matter of writing checks to cash with no backup on them, 1 tiioiight 
that you would give your ideas to the connnittee on that, and also 
whether there are any steps that the international was or is now taking 
in order to determine whether this practice is continuing in local of 
making checks to cash. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Is it your opinion that it is a bad fiscal policy by a 
local to make out large amoun es of money to cash 'I 

Mr. English. Yes. We would like to have all the checks made to 
the people where they should really go. But there are times wlien we 
have to make it out to cash. 1 have opposed that as much as I could, 
and have tried to show them tliat they should pay by check. Then 
the people that sign that check or endorse it, they took the money 
and they know they got it. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you could then have a determination as to how 
the money was being used; isn't that correct? 

Mr. English. Yes. . 

Mr. Kennedy. If the check was made out to a particular indi-. 
vidual. 

Mr. English. Yes. . . 

Mr. Kennedy. And that would be true, would it, for organizing 
expenses, the check to be made out to the particular individual in 
those cases? 

Mr. English. Well, in some cases, yes, and in some cases, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. But by and large that is generally true ? 

Mr. English. Well, we are trying to put that through. We are 
working on it all the time. Sometimes an organizer has to pay cash, 
and, naturally, we have to take his word for it, and the men we hire 
we have a lot of confidence in. 

Senator Mundt. Under what kind of circumstances, Mr. English^ 
does a man have to write a check for cash ? 

Mr. English. Well, there is different times that the business agents 
or the secretary-treasurer of a local union would have to write for 
cash, probably w^iere there is a big strike on. 

He would be called to pay out in cash for different things. 

Senator Mundt. That is probably clear to you, but it isn't just clear 
to me why in a strike you have to write the check to cash instead of to 
the fellow who is going to get the money. 

Mr. English. If you had to pay so much money out. Senator — sup- 
pose you had to pay out $500 to 20 people. Instead of making the 
checks for $500, instead of making checks to all of them, you get a 
check for $500 in casli and you give it to the men. 

Senator Mundt. As strike benefits ? 

Mr. English. As strike benefits. 

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

Mr. English. Then, again, you have Christmas presents and dif- 
ferent other presents, and there are different things that we have to, 
do or they have to do where we don't want to have to ask a man to take 
a check for a couple of bucks, or 10 bucks, or $15. 

We lump him, we allow^ them to do it, and we expect that the trustees 
of the local union understand or find out where the money went. In 
fact, we do it in our own international union. The idea is that these. 



10698 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

local unions have three trustees. They take the same obligation that 
we take, and we are depending upon them. We have depended upon 
them. But I think if you investigate our organizations being investi- 
gated, you will find out that the money that we have spent throughout 
the country, and the men that we have bonded, you will find out that 
our organization is right up there on top with the best of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. The trouble, of course, with the trustees of local 107 
is none of them would answer any questions. 

Mr. English. What? 

Mr. Kennedy. None of them would answer any questions before 
the committee. 

Mr. English. None would ask any ? 

Mr. Kennedy. None would answer any questions before the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. English. Well, I don't know anything about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have auditors going around checking on any 
of these locals ? 

Mr. English. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often do they do that ? 

Mr. English. According to the constitution, I must have every local 
union audited once within 5 years. But since the last convention the 
local unions — and I might say for the Senators, every recommendation 
that I made to the convention was carried, so that the unions now will 
be audited once a year by a certified public accountant, and I, as inter- 
national general secretary-treasurer, will see that the organizations are 
audited every 2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. What instructions have you been issuing to the audi- 
tors, and what kind of reports do they make to you regarding the 
finances of these locals ? 

Mr. English. They make the recommendations of the per capita tax 
paid to us, and what the locals unions collect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any effort to determine whether the money 
is being used properly by the local in the audits that have been 
conducted ? 

Mr. English. Well, we don't give what you would call a regular 
audit, but we have the auditors go over the books and find out whether 
the organization is going ahead or going backward. 

If we find out that the expenses are more than the receipts, we call 
them to task. 

At this point the following members were present : Senators McClel- 
lanandMundt.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Then that would be just a question of adding up 
what the receipts are and what the disbursements are and if the re- 
ceipts are more than the disbursements then they will be all right, is 
that right? 

Mr. English. Yes, we find that is all right; if the organization is 
showing progress we think that is enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did j^ou determine at all whether the disbursements 
are proper disbursements ? 

Mr. English. In most cases yes, they have a right to go over the 
books and see what they think is right or Avrong and they have a right 
to take it up with the treasurer. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have a right. Do you give them instructions 
to do that, sir ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10699 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have written instructions ? 

Mr. English. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just give them verbal istructions ? 

Mr. English. Yes, verbal instructions. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. How many auditors do you have working under 
you? 

Mr. English. We have three now. We did have five. According 
to the new constitution we will have 5 or 7. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they the ones who conduct the audits of the 
locals? 

Mr. English. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have three auditors that go around. 

Mr. English. We did have five. One died and one resigned and 
we are now down to three. We are going to put on two immediately 
and if we need any more we will put them on. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many locals do the Teamsters have ? 

Mr. English. We have around 900. 

Mr. Kennedy. How could 3, 5, or even 7 auditors audit 800 or 900 
locals? 

Mr. English. You must remember that at least 75 percent of these 
organizations have certified public accountants. Once they do that, 
they help our auditors a lot. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do the certified public accountants go in and attempt 
to determine whether the disbursements are proper disbursements? 

]Mr. English. That is none of their business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you don't really have any check in the locals 
at the present time to determine whether a union's funds are being 
used honestly or dishonestly at the present time ? 

Mr, English, As far as we know they are. In any case they are 
not, we find they are not, I send an investigator right in. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't have anybody that is around checking 
to determine that the funds are being used properly ? 

Mr. English. No; 900 local unions that is almost impossible. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, we have this audit — I presume this is 
the audit for local 107. 

The Chairman. We have here, which I present to you, Mr. English, 
what appears to be report of audit dated April 30, 1954, to July 31, 
1955, local 107, Philadelphia, Pa., this appears to be the original audit 
report. Will you examine it and state if you identify it as such ? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Kennedy, I think you will find in Mr. Bellino's 
possession other parts of this particular audit. I think what you have 
handed the witness is not complete. I think if you will give us the 
file it would be very helpful. 

(Document handed to counsel.) 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Kennedy, would you ask Mr. Bellino, please, 
to turn over the file which I gave you this morning on 107 which are 
the audit reports and all the financial data up through 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this the one you are talking about? 

Mr. Williams. I can't see it from there. 

(Document handed to Mr. Kennedy.) 

Mr. English. This report we have here, Mr. Chairman, is report 
for March 1, 1950, to November 30, 1953. Then we come over here, this 

21243— 58— pt. 27 21 



10700 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

is tlie report from April 30, 1954, to July 31, 1955. I recognize this — 
ii' I don't make a mistake, this must be taken in a court case, 

Mr. Williams. I tliink some of the confusion has been germinated, 
]\Ir. Chairman, by the fact that all of these records were subpenaed in 
January from the international and they were photostated and turned 
over to the committee and this morning a new subpena arrived calling 
for these records again and they were once again turned over to Mr. 
Bellino, and I think that you will find that the documentation for this 
sheet of paper, which appears to be an audit report of August 23, 
1955, synopsized, is currently in your files. The documentation for 
the 1953 audit is here. But I think you will find that the original 
documentation for this audit is in the committee files. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: When you get an audit, Mr. 
English, and you get an audit report, what does it look like? 

Mr. English. Well, in some instances 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not talking about where you have a special 
audit. That audit you are holding in your left hand was a special 
audit that was requested at the time of the election up in Philadelphia. 
I am trying to find out what the regular procedure is as far as the 
international is concerned. 

Mr. English. The procedure is that we send out this report. On 
the left-hand side is the dues paid into the local union, and on the 
right-hand side is that paid into the international union. So the 
total for that number of years we subtract one from the other and 
they either owe us money or they don't. 

We then look over their books and try to spot check. 

The Chairman. Mr. English, the primary purpose of that report 
which you hold in your hand, or that audit, is to determine whether 
the local union has been remitting to the international the proper 
amount of per capita dues or tax. 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is correct ? 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The one you hold in your hand now and which 
I presented to you does not go into nor reflect the propriety of trans- 
actions the union may have had, is that true? 

Mr. English. No. 

The Chahjman. I think that clears it up. 

Mr. English. On the back it shows here whatever business agent 
salaries they receive, how many business agents they have, how many 
they got working in the office, what their salaries are, and then that 
gives the report of how many per capita tax they bought for us and 
what they paid into the local union and what the local union paid 
in to them. 

We call back tax. Down further on the right, you find we also 
check for money they have in the bank. Now when I check that up 
with my last report"^ and my last auditor report and I tliink this is 
running true to form and the organization is going ahead and not 
backward and the receipts are more than the expenditures then I 
feel it is all right. Because the local union, they have bylaws of 
their own that can't conflict with the international imion and if there 
is not any complaints I don't have any reason to think that they are 
not right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10701 

The Chairman. I am just trying to clarify it so far as the audit 
that you get in the regular routine of your management and opera- 
tion is an audit which primarily gives you information with respect 
to whether the local union has remitted to the international the 
proper per capita tax based upon the dues it receives. 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is No. 1. 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The second thing, it does reflect the bank balance 
they have at the time and the third thing it reflects the salary paid 
officers. 

Mr. English. They get the bank balances, Senator, from the local 
union. Where they signed off the last time they audit the books. 
But I have the bank balance on the report so I can report my report 
with their report. 

The Chairman. Yes, I understand. But this particular audit, this 
regular audit, is not designed and is not of such a nature as would 
disclose or reveal to you that there might be considerable money being 
expended improperly. 

Mr. English. No, sir ; it does not. 

The Chairman. It does not reveal that? 

Mr. English. It does not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no arrangements 

The Chairman. I think this copy may be made exhibit 24 just for 
reference so it will substantiate what Mr. English said. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 24" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You have no arrangements for a check on the 
locals ? 

Mr. English. No, sir; unless we are notified that there is some- 
thing wrong and a case may go to court. Then I w^ill send a special 
auditor to make a thorough investigation. 

The Chairman. Do you have the power now if you have any 
reason to doubt the propriety or the proper conduct of the union, a 
local's financial affairs, do you have the authority in your capacity 
as an international officer to order an audit of the local's books to 
determine whether there is misuse of union funds ? 

Mr. English. Up to the last convention, Senator, I didn't have 
that but I promise you I have it now. 

The Chairman. You didn't have it up until then ? 

Mr. English, I did not. 

The Chairman. You do have it now ? 

Mr. English. I do have it now. 

The Chairman. The Chair, from his own personal viewpoint, 
thinks that is quite an improvement. 

Mr. English. I w^ill read this to you if you w^ant me to but I can 
give it to you in just a few words. 

The Chairman. You say you have it. Just refer to the section 
of it. It will be sufficient and we can look it up. There is no use 
to read all of it. 

Mr. English. Audit of books local union, section 11 (a), any organizer or 
officer of the international union may be delegated, instructed, and empowered 
by the general president or the general secretary-treasurer to audit or to employ 



10702 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

auditors to audit the books of any local or local union. Local union oflScers 
shall give the delegated auditor for examination all bills, receipts, vouchers 
and records, bond securities, or other evidence of ovs'nership of proi^rty or 
investments of the local union whenever requested. 

Any officer of a local union refusing to turn over the books, bills, vouchers, or 
records to the delegated officers shall be subject to discipline under provisions 
of article 18 and likewise shall be liable to expulsion by the general executive 
board. Any member refusing to show his dues book — 

The Chairman. Mr. English, will you make available for the com- 
mittee for its information, I will not make it an exhibit, a copy of 
your latest constitution? The staff tells me they do not have one. 
Thank you. 

The Chair wishes to commend your union for taking that action. 
I think it is constructive and can be, if properly enforced and admin- 
istered, very helpful toward preventing some things that have been 
disclosed in the course of investigation in this which this committee 
has conducted. 

I say again I think as far as unions can go themselves to put their 
house in order and to achieve proper administration of union af- 
fairs, the further they can go the better it is. 

Mr. English. I think you will be interested. Senator, to know, too, 
that all the Teamsters' councils and conferences, everybody, I have 
full power now to step in. 

The Chairman. I hope you don't have occasion to but if it arises I 
hope you will. 

Mr. English. Senator, things happen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to step in local 107 ? 

Mr. English. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You are. 

Mr. English. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When do you think you will do that ? 

Mr. English. Don't you think I have already stepped in? 

Mr. Kennedy. When, I didn't hear it. 

Mr. English. I have all the audits. I have copies of it. I will 
take care of local 107. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You mean the audits that were conducted in 1955 ? 

Mr. English. Yes ; and before that. We had auditors in there all 
the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had auditors. Did you know that these large 
amounts of money were being made out to cash and these large num- 
bers of checks were being made to cash ? 

Mr. English. I didn't know that at all. We didn't know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to step in on this local? 

Mr. English. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. What are you going to do ? 

Mr. English. We know our business. We will take care of every- 
thing. 

Mr. I{j:nnedy. I am sure that the Teamsters know their business. 
Wliat are you going to do specifically in this local ? 

Mr. English. I will send in an investigator and investigate the 
whole thing from top to bottom. 

The Chairman. Will you have him start with the transcript of these 
hearings ? I think that will give him a basis. 

Mr. English. Naturally we will go through the transcript. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10703 

Mr. Kennedy. That is wliat I wanted to find out. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? Thank you very much, 
Mr. English. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I turned over to Mr. Bellino this 
morning some original records and I would like the privilege of sub- 
stituting photostats for those if I may have them. 

The Chairman. You may have that privilege. The staff will return 
to you such original records as it may have that are not absolutely 
essential to the committee's proceedings. 

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

The Chairman. There was some attorney, I do not know his name — 
Mr. Carroll, are you here? Who is your associate in the firm? Von 
Moschisker? 

Mr. Von Moschisker. Right here, sir. 

The Chairman. Come around, please, sir. 

This gentlemen is associated with Mr. Carroll in a law firm, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. VoN Moschisker. I am the senior partner in the firm now. 

The Chairman. I can hear you. Wliat I am trying to get at is, you 
are the one who requested to make a statement ? 

Mr. Von Moschisker. That was I. 

The Chairjvian. All right, sir. 

The Chair is not going to swear you in. It is just a statement cor- 
roborating a view that you and your associate counsel hold with refer- 
ence to the propriety of his present representation of certain witnesses 
who appear here. 

Do you want to make a statement as a matter of your own opinion as 
to the propriety of it, and make a brief statement ? You may do so. 

Mr. VoN Moschisker. My name is Michael Von Moschisker. I am 
now the senior partner of the firm of McBride, Von Moschisker, & 
Bradley. 

I welcome this chance to spread on the record a statement 

The Chairman. Just a moment. If you want to spread on the 
record testimony, you will be sworn. I thought you just merely 
wanted to make a statement that you had conferred with your asso- 
ciate, your partner and came to the same conclusion he did. 

After all it is just a matter of opinion. It is not evidence. 

If you want a record of it, be sworn. 

Mr. VoN Moschisker. I will be stating a few facts. 

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. VoN Moschisker. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL VON MOSCHISKER 

The Chairman. Now, will you identify yourself for the record 
officially. 

Mr. VoN Moschisker. I am Michael Von Moschisker presently 
senior partner of the firm of McBride, Von Moschisker, & Bradley. 

I welcome this chance to state of record that before Mr. John Rogers 
Carroll came to Washington for these hearings and from time to 
time during these hearings, Mr. Carroll has conferred with me with 



10704 IMPKOPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

regard to the position he should take on what I will refer to as the 
alleged conflict-of-interest problem. 

I am very proud and delighted to slate that Mr. Carroll has 
adopted my view and has made it his view. The other partner in the 
firm, Mr. liaymond Bradley authorizes me to say that he joins in this 
statement, but won't need to ask the committee for any time. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. All right, the statement's is cumulative to what 
Mr. Carroll stated before and I had taken his statement as factual 
and truthful. 

Thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 next Tuesday morn- 
ing. 

(Wliereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the committee receSvSed to reconvene 
at 10 : 30 a. m.. Tuesday, April 22, 1958.) 

(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess were : 
Senators McClellan and Mundt.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN THE Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select coininittee met at 10 :30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in room 357, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sen- 
ator John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Barry 
Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl Curtis, Republican, 
Nebraska; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, assistant chief counsel ; John B. Flanagan, investigator ; Leo C. 
Nulty, investigator; Herbert J. Rose, Jr., investigator; Ralph De- 
Carlo, investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

(At the convening of the session the following members are pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Kennedy, 
call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have already been into the events 
surrounding the election in 1954, and what occurred as far as the use 
of union funds and the beatings that occurred for the followers of 
Crumbock. Then we went into the phase about the use of union 
funds in connection with that election. 

Then we went into Ray Cohen's finances and the misuse of union 
funds. Now we are going into a fourth phase, which deals with 
the relationships of employers with local 107. 

The first witnesses that I would like to call are Mr. Lowther, who 
is executive vice president of Horn & Hardart Baking Co. ; Daniel J. 
Hanlon, Jr., the chief counsel for that company; and Bernard M. 
Borish, who is the attorney for the company. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to call all of them at once ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Come forward, gentlemen. Witnesses will be 
sworn, please. 

Mr. Borish. I assume the committee wants me to testify. This is 
Mr. Hanlon, I am Borish, and this is Mr. Lowther. 

The Chairman. Each of 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 ? 

10705 



10706 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BoRiSH. I do. 
Mr. Hanlon. I do. 
Mr. LowTiiER. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LEONARD W. LOWTHER, DANIEL J. HANLON, JR., 
AND BERNARD M. BORISH 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, please state your name, your 
place of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Hanlon. I am Daniel J. Hanlon, Jr., 75 Drexel Brook Drive, 
Drexel Hill, Pa. I am assistant to the president of the Horn & Har- 
dart Baking Co., of Philadelphia. 

Mr. BoRiSH. My name is Bernard M. Borish, 20 Levering Circle, 
Cynwyd, Pa. I am counsel for the Horn & Hardart Baking Co., of 
Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen. 

Mr. LowTHER. My name is Leonard W. Lowther. I live at 67 
Broad Acres Road, Narberth, Pa. My position is executive vice 
president of Horn & Hardart Baking Co. 

The Chairman. Are you, Mr. Borish, acting as counsel and also as 
•witness ? 

Mr. Borish. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Wliere are you licensed to practice law ? 

Mr. Borish. I am licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, sir. 

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

Mr. KJENNEDY. Gentlemen, you had a strike, had some difficulties 
with locals 107, and 596 of the Teamsters starting in 1955 and going 
through 1956, is that correct ? 

Mr. Borish. Mr. Kennedy, I would say on that, with regard to the 
use of the word "strike," we didn't regard that there was a strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. I know you didn't. 

Mr. Borish. It was an attempt to organize the employees of that 
company, I think would be the description. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I would like to do is have one of you explain 
how the difficulty or strike, or whatever you want to call it, came about 
in 1955. 

Mr. Lowther. It started in this way : A few months previous to 
the time of the picket line, there were circulars, some circulars spread, 
through the plant, and posted on the bulletin boards. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were unorganized at the time, is that right? 

Mr. Lowther. We weren't organized at the time and we are still not 
organized. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is in the spring of 1955 ? 

Mr. Lo^vther. That is correct. Now, then, suddenly, on May 2, 
1955, a complete picket line was thrown around our plant which, of 
course, stopped all deliveries from being made. 

Mr. Kennedy. What unions were involved at that time ? 

Mr. Lowther. The unions involved were No. 6 of the Bakers, 195 of 
the Butchers, 138 of the Restaurant and Waitress Employees, and 107 
of the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. And a picket line was put around your place ? 

Mr. Ijowther. Around the main commissary. And in addition to 
that, picket lines were established around or in front of many of our 
restaurants. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10707 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date of this? When did this occur? 

Mr LowTHER. That occurred on the morning of May 2, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been approached prior to that time about 
signing a contract with one or any of these unions ? 

Mr. LowTHER. We had never been approached by any of the unions 
as to the signing of a contract or any communication whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never had any communication at all ? 

Mr.LowTHER. Not one word. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did any representative of the union come to you 
and say that they had a majority of your employees signed up and 
that they wanted you to sign a contract ? 

Mr. Lowther. No, sir ; they did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody came and approached you and discussed 
the matter at all ? 

Mr. LowTHER. Not one single word. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just suddenly a picket line was put up in front of 
your place! 

Mr. LowTHER. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What had been the bulletins they put out ? 

Mr. Lowther. I would say the standard leaflets they put out in 
an organizational campaign of "Join the union; better wages, more 
security," and wording along that line. 

There was nothing very vicious. It was purely more or less of a 
selling idea, I think, to try to induce the employees to sign. 

The Chairman. Notliing improper in that? 

Mr. Lowther. No. 

The Chairman. It was just advertising or putting out an appeal, 
and there was nothing wrong in that ? 

Mr. Lowther. Not a thing wrong. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. This involved your Philadelphia operation ? 

Mr. Lowther. The Philadelphia operation only, sir. 

Senator Curtis. About how many employees were involved, just as 
a rough estimate ? 

Mr. Lowther. We have 4,800 employees altogether. 

Senator Curtis. In the Philadelphia area ? 

Mr. Lowther. In the Philadelphia area. The people that actually 
walked off of their jobs to join the picket line on the morning of May 2 
was something less than 100. Possibly between 95 and 100. 

Senator Curtis. And the employees involved were the people who 
were engaged in preparing your food and servicing ? 

Mr. Lowther. People that were involved were people not only pre- 
paring the food, but people that pack the food, ship the food, drive 
the trucks, and, as far as our restaurants and retails and concerned, 
not one single person left their job. 

Senator Curtis. I have just one more question, and then counsel 
may go on. I wasn't sure about this. At how many different loca- 
tions in the city was the picket line put up ? 

Mr. Lowther. The picket line restaurantwise and retailwise was 
rather spasmodic. It might occur this morning and they would leave, 
come back at lunch, and they would leave again. We have 38 loca- 
tions. Some of those locations never did have a picket line in front 
of them. 



10708 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. I would like to clear up one thing. I under- 
stand the name of your company is the Horn & Hardart Baking Co. ? 

Mr. LowTHER. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Is that a corporation ? 

Mr. Lowther. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Does that include the restaurants ? 

Mr. Lowther. It includes restaurants, retail shops, and the com- 
missary. 

Senator Goldwater. So it is not just a baking company, as the name 
implies ? 

Mr. Lowther. No ; it includes everything. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many out of your 4,800 employees were these 
unions attempting to sign up ? 

Mr. Lowther. I didn't quite understand the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many out of your 4,800 employees were these 
unions attempting to sign ; all of them ? 

Mr. Lowther. In the commissary, especially, they were trying to 
sign the bakers, and, of course, the drivers, the butchers. But the 
restaurant union did not make quite as serious an attempt as the other 
three. Actually, there was no encouragement in the restaurants to 
try to even get anybody to sign to join a union. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of j^our 4,800 employees would have 
been involved in the union drive ? 

Mr. Lowther. We wouldn't have the slightest idea, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you know that less than 100 of your employees 
went out on the picket line, is that right ? 

Mr. Lovv'ther. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 100 out of the 4,800 that went out on the 
picket line? 

Mr. Lowther. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this period of time, you were never 
contacted by the union about signing a contract? 

Mr. I^owther. Not one single word. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they never told you that they had a majority 
of the employees signed or signed up on cards or anything such as 
that? 

Mr. Loavther. No, sir, not one single word did we hear. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever an election held to determine 
whether the employees wanted to go out on strike ? 

Mr. Lowther. There was no mention of an election and no elec- 
tion was held. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just a picket line was put up in front of your place? 

Mr. Lowther. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That started on May 2. Did it continue then? 

Mr. Lowther. It continued until May 5, 1956. I think May 5 is 
the date. 

Mr. Kennedy. During that whole period of time, you were not con- 
tacted by the union ? 

Mr. Lowther. Not one single word. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, to sign any contract ? 

Mr. Lowther. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was still no election held during that 
period of time? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10709 

Mr. LowTHER. No, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Were you or your employees, or any of your prop- 
erties, subjected to any violence during that period of time ? 

Mr. LowTHER. During that period of time, tliere were many inci- 
dents, some more serious tlian others. 

The Chairman. May I ask you 1 or 2 other questions before you 
go into the violence ? You said no member or representative of either 
of the unions had contacted you before this picket line was put up ? 

Mr. LowTHER. Before or after. 

The Chairman. Before or after? 

Mr. LowTHER. Correct. 

The Chairman. During the time that the picket line was main- 
tained, they never did contact you ? 

Mr. LowTHER. Correct. 

The Chairman. Had any of your employees come to you and re- 
quested a union ? 

Mr. LowTHER. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Not even any of your employees ? 

Mr. LowTHER. No, sir. 

The Chairman. No one, no committee of your workers or anybody 
had been to you ? 

Mr. LowTHER. Not a single w^ord was mentioned as far as my em- 
ployees or the unions or anyone as to whether they would like the 
union or wdiether they wouldn't. 

The Chairman. We have a problem in this area that I think needs 
legislative attention : This organizational picketing, picketing with- 
out having secured at least a majority of the members of the employees 
expressing a desire and preference for a union. It seems to me there 
is entirely too much power today lodged in possibly a single labor 
leader to simply throw a picket line up around somebody's place of 
business, irrespective of wdiether the employees are interested, whether 
a majority of them want a union or not. 

I think it is a serious trespass upon the rights of both management 
and the people who work when such practices are engaged in. 

I have, therefore, introduced legislation to deal with this problem. 

I am hopeful that Congress, in its wisdom, will decide that such 
practices are not only improper, but they ought to be prevented. 

This seems to be one of the flagrant cases where they just decide to 
go out by force of a picket line to compel both the employer and em- 
ployees to do something against their will. 

I don't believe such force should be tolerated. I don't think it 
should be legal to do it that way. I do think when a majority of the 
people, the employees, want a union and express that preference, I 
think they should have it. I don't think management should be able to 
block it. ' But this arbitrary resort to force, and it is a form of force 
to put up a picket line, I think should be condemned. All right, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, might I comment briefly on 
5^our statement. I think it is a very important statement. I am very 
happy that you have introduced the legislation that you have. 

I think there is one other party that figures in these activities and 
in all these activities as relates to labor and management when they 
are not carrying on within the intent of the law, and that is the public. 



10710 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I think the third party, the public, is as important to protect as the 
workingman or management. That has been the intent of the Taft- 
Hartley Act, for example, all the time that it has been in existence. 

We have seen in these hearings the weaknesses of the Taft-Hartley 
Act as it pertains not only to the protection of the working man and 
management, but also to the protection of the public. I am hopeful 
that all workers keep in mind the fact that every time an organiza- 
tional strike such as this goes on, the public probably suffers just as 
much as either management or labor. 

The Chairman. I thank the Senator. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the picket line was in place in May of 1955, 
were you, your property, or your employees subjected to any violence? 

Mr. LowTHER. There was considerable violence. We had 2 or pos- 
sibly 3 of our employees rather severely beaten on their way to the 
plant early in the morning. Some of our suppliers, their trucks were 
badly damaged by being hit with hammers, knocking the headlights 
out. Some of the farmers that were supplying us were attacked on 
their way home after leaving the plant. There was a great list of the 
minor incidents which we don't consider. 

But I think of the major incidents there is something over the 100 
where someone was either hurt or property Avas destroyed. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us the representatives of ^hich union 
particularly engaged in that violence? 

Mr. LowTHER. We have no way of knowing that. 

The Chairman. I wondered whether it was the Teamsters. We have 
had some characters down here in the last few days that look like they 
are of that sort. 

Mr. LowTHER. If there is no objection, I would like to have Mr. 
Borish answer that question, because he attended to all the legal tech- 
nicalities at that time. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. BoRisH. I would say this, Mr. Chairman : As you can under- 
stand, there was a constant series of legal proceedings going on all the 
time this was occurring, beginning with an attempt to get an injunc- 
tion in the State court to restrain the violence and to enjoin the 
picketing ; consisting also of criminal indictments which we obtained 
as a result of some of the incidents, and consisting also of proceedings 
in the Federal court in view of what we also regarded as unfair labor 
practices by way of a secondary' boycott. 

In many of those cases, where we had a problem of agency from the 
legal standpoint, ultimately the court found that the people involved 
under the circumstances were acting for local 107. We had that spe- 
cifically decided in the court of appeals. Two of the people that I 
remember specifically' in that case are John Zoroivchak and Bernard 
Brown. If I can consult my papers, Larry Thomas is another name. 
Arthur Brown is another name. Louis Bertucci is another name. 

The Chairman. I thought maybe there was some way of definitely 
identifying the union that was responsible for the violence, though you 
might not name the individual. 

Mr. BoRisH. The situation that resulted, so that you can fully un- 
derstand it, is that in effect a command post was establislied across 
from the commissary in a parking lot, and it was frequented by var- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10711 

ious people from time to time, including Mr. Cohen and Mr. Lapen- 
sohn, including the people that I have mentioned. 

We would have, for example, involved in an incident of violence, an 
automobile which turned out to be registered to one of these people. 

For example, I remember one number that I will never forget, 909 
U-1 for example, a car that was registered to Bernard Brown that 
ultimately was discovered after an incident that occurred at one of 
the milk suppliers. There are a whole series of events that way, 
where ultimately the events that occurred were tied into people that 
had been seen across the street, either loitering or walking or doing 
various things at that place. 

The Chairman. It pretty well demonstrated that these people who 
do that are very brave and courageous. I noticed last Smiday they 
hung a bunch of rags ; brave people. 

Proceed. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Borish, you mentioned that you were at- 
tempting to get injunctions in the State court. Were you successful 
in getting them ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. Ultimately we did, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. When did you start trying to get those injunc- 
tions ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. We began in the early part of May 1955, in a proceed- 
ing that was filed in the Court of Common Pleas No. 3, of Philadel- 
phia County. 

At the outset, the court attempted to settle the thing amicably, and 
that originally resulted in an agreement that the picketing would be 
confined, it would not be mass, it would be limited in time and number, 
et cetera, and that there would be no force and violence at all. 

It happened, however, that at the very time that an agreement was 
being made, other incidents were occurring, so we had to come back 
to court. 

After a hearing, where we produced a substantial amount of testi- 
mony, the court, on June 2, 1955, did enter a preliminary injunction 
in which it defined the nature of the picketing that could occur, and 
also, of course, enjoined any force and violence whatever. 
Senator Goldwater. Was that effective ? 

Mr. BoRisH. Not entirely. It was not effective because incidents of 
force and violence continued. As a matter of fact, it became necessary 
in September of 1955 to bring a specific proceeding against Bernard 
Brown and Louis Bertucci and 107 and the other individual defend- 
ants for contempt, violation of the court's decree resulting from an- 
other incident which had occurred involving these two individuals. 

At the hearing on that application for contempt, Judge Milner sum- 
moned to the courtroom the police captain in charge of the district, all 
of the officials of local 107, and the two individuals that I have named. 

I think it is fair to say in substance that he read the riot act to 
them. He instructed the police captain that these two individuals 
were thereafter barred from in any way participating in this cam- 
paign, and he warned them that if they appeared in the vicinity again 
they would be subjected to severe penalties. 

The decree was read in court and the captain was instructed to take 
all steps to see that it was fully complied with. 



10712 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Thereafter there were some continuing acts, but I would say the 
scope of the violence tended to diminish until ultimately, when we 
brought the matter on for final hearing in May of 1956, that resulted 
in a disposition of the entire case when the unions agreed to withdraw 
tlie picketing and no longer to engage in any secondary boycott activity 
against the company. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you considered to be in interstate matters ? 
Mr. BoRisH. Yes, we are. 

Senator Goldwater. You come under the Federal law ? 
Mr. BoRiSH. There isn't any question about that, sir. 
Senator Goldwater. In your experience with this strike, and your 
experience in attempting to get injunctions from local courts, do you 
feel that there are changes needed in the Taft-Hartley Act to facilitate 
the handling of interstate strikes or interstate company strikes when 
tliey get into the field of violence '^ 

Mr. BoRiSH. I do, sir. I would like to, I think, supplement what 
the chairman has already mentioned. 

I think a great deal of difficulty arises from the fact that in defining 
what are unfair labor practices you get into areas of conduct which are 
frequently involved by way of force and violence, which would nor- 
mally be within the courts' jurisdiction statewide or locally. 

Under the conditions which have evolved from the Garner case, 
which I am sure you are familiar with, if the conduct involved appears 
to be the kind that Congress declared shall be within the Federal scope 
exclusively, you get local courts which are reluctant to act. 

Unfortiniately, the Federal process takes, of course, a great deal 
of time. You can't get it with the expedition that you can get perhaps 
a preliminary injunction upon proper proof in a local court. 

I would say that a clarification of that area would be very helpful, 
because in a situation of this kind, it leaves the employer sort of in the 
middle, wondering where he can go to get prompt relief quickly.^ 

Senator Goldwater. Would you think that an amendment giving 
the State the right to control striking, picketing, boycotts, et cetera, 
would be a proper amenchnent to the labor- management act ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. I would think anything that would not prevent a State 
court from exercising jurisdiction in the proper case, where there had 
been a clear showing of force and violence and all that goes with it, 
that would remove any inhibition from the State courts acting by way 
of feeling that they would otlierwise be interfering with an orderly 
Federal procedure, would be helpful. 

You see, this is a defense that is always raised in this ]3articular 
type of case. 

Senator Goldwater. I realize that, and it goes on in every State, 
because of the absence of language in our law, language that has been 
asked, I believe, three times by the Supreme Court. 

Do you think it would be helpful at the local level for the Federal 
Government to define peaceful picketing ? 

]\[r. BoRisii. I think it would. I think it would. 
Senator Goldwater. I mention that because the court has also asked 
for definitive langiuige in that field, and it is a field that nobody can 
define. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 
The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10713 

Senator Curtis. In reference to who committed the violence, judg- 
ing from what has been said here and the names that you mentioned, 
it appeal's that the Teamstere Union no doubt were the principal 
offenders in this violence. 

But the question is : Is it true that this whole activity, not the vio- 
lence but the whole campaign, was carried on in behalf of all of the 
unions involved? 

Mr, BoRisH. It appeared to be a joint effort, sir. I would say that; 
yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of these other unions, the Bakers Union, 
the Waiters ITnion, and so on, those that you mentioned, did any of 
them at any point repudiate the violence? 

Mr. BoRiSH. Not that we know. We would have no way of finding 
out. 

Senator Curtis. When this violence continued, they still continued 
on in their joint efforts ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Could I answer that? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Hanlon. To the best of our knowledge, they did. The reason 
I say it is because the picket signs for the four locals, local 107, local 
6, local 138, and local 195, still continued to appear on the pickets 
around the commissary and in certain instances around the restaurants. 

Senator Cltrtis. Would you identify those numbers of locals, what 
unions they are ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Local 107 is the Teamsters Union. Local 6 is the 
Bakers and Confectionery Workers Union. Local 195 is the Meat 
Cutters and Butchers Union. Local 138 is the Kestaurant Union, 

Senator Curtis. And the fact that somebody, probably the Team- 
sters, resorted to all this violence, there was no evidence that the 
others were repudiating it or not ready to gain by whatever benefits 
that might come ? 

Mr. Hanlon. It was never brought to our attention, sir, if it was. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, had the company yielded to the 
violence or to the demands of those committing violence, all the 
unions would have, from their point of view, benefited from it, is that 
right? 

Mr, Hanlon. I would assume that was their thought, sir. 

Senator Curtis, Yes. I certainly couldn't choose language strong 
enough to condemn those who committed the violence. But I think 
it is also' true that those who condone it and who stand to benefit by 
such action are equally as guilty. It is just as wrong for a person 
to have somebody else commit violence in their behalf as to actually 
do it. 

Were there any attacks upon the police, any roughing up of the 
police ? 

Mr, Hanlon. To the best of my knowledge, there were no attacks 
on the police. 

Senator Curtis. Do you feel that you had the full cooperation from 
your local police ? 

Mr. LowTHER. We had considerable police protection. In our 
thought, the police protection was not adequate, it being thought and 
said by the police department, that they were assigning as many 
people, as many policemen on motorcycles and foot patrolmen as they 
could spare from the regular police duties. 



10714 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We did not think generally it was adequate, and I think the record 
of some of these incidents prove that out. 

Mr. Hanlon. Sir, if I may make an additional comment, like Mr. 
Lowther says, I think it true proof of the adequacy of the police 
protection was the fact that as much as was given, these acts of vio- 
lence still continued to take place, and certain individuals responsible 
were not apprehended. 

Senator Curtis. Was there any philosophy expressed by any of "Oh,, 
well, this is a labor dispute, and we don't get into that" ? 

Mr. LowTHER. No. We never heard a word of that kind expressed 
by anyone. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask Mr. Borish a question. 

Suppose business organization, competitors or others, had at- 
tempted to carry on with a picket line and committed such violence 
to bring your company to its terms or to stop operations, you would 
have other remedies that you could not apply in this case, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And they probably would have been adequate? 

Mr. BoRiSH. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the question of the police, the police that they 
could assign did a very adequate job, as I understand. 

Mr. LowTHER. That is correct. It was a shortage of police more 
than the ability of the policemen that were assigned to the job. 

Senator Curtis. They were very conscientious, the ones that were 
there? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I didn't want to leave an inference in the record 

Mr. Hanlon. Let me make this comment, Mr. Kennedy on that. 

The police were assigned from the beginning, in May of 1955, when 
it started, the police were assigned around the commissary. 

In addition, police protection was assigned to escort trucks of sup- 
plies into our comissary and out of our comissary. 

In addition, at a later date, in May or June of 1955, when certain 
acts of violence occurred to certain of our own trucks which delivered 
to our restaurants and so forth, which up to that time did not have 
police protection, the police then assigned police escorts for these 
particular trucks. 

I would say, in regard to all of this police protection I just 
enumerated, these acts of violence and so forth usually took place 
when the police escorts were not available. 

There were certain times where certain of our trucks, because of 
the physical nature of the deliveries and the set up of our stores, had 
to go to the stores and come back from stores unescorted. 

The same thing with suppliers' trucks. It was usually at a time 
when all of these trucks were unescorted that the violence took place. 

Mr. BoRisii. I think to reply directly to what you just said, I think 
we ought to say that the policemen actually assigned did their work 
conscientiously. There is no complaint against that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And those that were assigned evidently included 
everybody that was available. 

Mr. Borish. Well, that is what was said. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10715 

Mr. Kennedy. They had responsibilities in other sections. The 
reason I brought that out was because in our earlier conversations you 
had stated that you had been satisfied with their efforts. I wanted 
to be sure there was no question left in the record on that. 

Would you give us a few examples of the types of violence that 
occurred ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes. I have here, Mr. Kennedy, a list of the various 
incidents I prepared at the request of various representatives of the 
committee, and the list is prepared along the lines — I will read the 
captions, to give everyone the nature of the types of incidents involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many are there ? 

Mr. Hanlon. The general category is : 

A list of incidents involving assault and battery and damage to property 
against and of the Horn & Hardart Baking Co., its employees, customers, and 
property, and its suppliers and carriers, and their agents, employees, and prop- 
erty, from May 2, 1955. 

I did not include in this particular list any threats and vulgarity, 
and so forth, which would go on into the night. It was along those 
lines. But in the particular incidents, in this particular incident, in 
this particular category of assault and battery and damage to prop- 
erty, there is approximately about 120 or 125 individual incidents. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have a list of those ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long is that ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I have a list with factual details of the incidents. 
The list is 14 pages long. 

Senator Cuetis. You don't have a list just enumerating them with- 
out the explanation ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I don't understand. 

Senator Curtis. What I am thinking of is I would like to have 
something go into the record, but I don't know whether I want to 
ask for 14 pages to go into the record. 

In the other company investigations they have merely listed them 
and what it was and the date and the victims. 

Mr. BoRiSH. Senator, can I suggest to you that we have marked on 
this list perhaps a dozen which we feel to be of special significance, if 
you would want Mr. Hanlon to comment on those. 

Senator Curtis. Here is what I would like him to do to give us a 
summary in 2 or 3 pages of this. If there is no objection, we could 
have it inserted into the record at this point in tabulation. 

Mr. Hanlon. If I could make a comment on that, Senator I tried 
in this particular list to give as little detail as possible and still be 
factual so I could give a proper explanation of what actually happened. 
I would think I could possibly put it into lesser pages, but it might 
lose the flavor in so doing. 

Senator Curtis. I will withdraw the request at this time. We will 
see what develops in the course of the hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just give 3 or 4 examples. 

Mr. Hanlon. One which I have marked No. 32 on the particular 
list, this took place on Tuesday, June 2, 1955, commissary fire. About 
2: 50 a. m., an attempt was made to set fire to eight of our trucks while 
they were parked in the bays at our commissary on 10th Street be- 
tween Locust and Chancellor Streets. But for the discovery of the 

21243— 58— pt. 27 22 



10716 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

fire, tliis attempt at arson might have endangered the lives of count- 
less people and caused tremendous property damage. Seven jugs 
of inflammable liquid were found in the cabs of the trucks and two 
simihir jugs were found in an alley across the street. 

Three of the trucks were actually on fire at the time the fire was 
discovered. 

Another one which is sort of a joint number is on Friday, July 8, 
1955, marked Nos. 50 and 51. 

About 4 p. m., John Villecco, a Horn & Hardart employee, was 
parked on the north side of Locust Street, waiting to back his truck 
into our commissary. While parked at this location, one of the pick- 
ets came over to his truck and told him that if he backed the truck in 
it would be blown up or burned by Monday. 

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

Mr. Hanlon. Villecco backed the truck into our commissary, and 
after unloading, and upon leaving, around 7 p. m., he was followed to 
New Jersey by a car, and then the following Monday, which was Mon- 
day, July 11, 1955, between 4 a. m. and 6 a. m., two trucks under lease 
to the Horn & Hardart Baking Co. and owned by John and Joseph 
Villecco, our employees, were set on fire and destroyed while parked 
on their father's farm near Morristown, N. J. 

Senator Curtis. Were there ever any arrests in connection with 
those offenses ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Now, on those two particular offenses I mentioned, 
there were no arrests in regard to these two. 

Senator Curtis. They never found out who the individuals were ? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, sir ; to our knowledge they didn't. 

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

The Chairman. "What union was this picketing, do you know, which 
made the threat ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Offhand, I don't know, sir. 

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

Mr. Hanlon. I am trying now to pick one out in regard to where 
there were indictments which actually resulted. 

This one is marked "No. 78" on the list. It is dated Saturday, 
August 27, 1955. Horn & Hardart employees. About 1 : 15 p. m. 
Louis Bertucci, who was identified by Mr. Borish, and 5 other uniden- 
tified persons assaulted 2 of our employees, Ernest Barnes and Alvin 
Beeker, the driver and helper on our truck No. 37, on Locust Street, 
east of Ninth Street. A piece of concrete was thrown and struck the 
body of the truck, just by the door on the helper's side. 

In addition, after the truck stopped, Bertucci jumped on the running 
board and grabbed Barnes by the forearm and attempted to pull him 
from the truck. 

About 3 p. m. on the same day, Louis Bertucci and Bernard Brown, 
identified by Mr. Borish here, followed our truck No. 23 in a car on 
Market Street, from Juniper to 10th Street and at 10th Street, Ber- 
tucci threw a tire iron. 

The tire iron struck the door of the truck just below the window 
on the helper's side, leaving a dent. Edward Farise was the driver 
of our truck and Frank Wilson was his helper. The above are two 
of the incidents for which Louis Bertucci and Bernard Brown were 
arrested and indicted by the grand jury. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10717 

Mr. Kennedy. When were they indicted ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Boi-ish litis the records on that. 

Mr. BoRisH, I am looking- at the transcript of the docket of the 
court of sessions, before Byron A. Milner, judge of the Court of Com- 
mon Pleas, No. ;>. This is dated September ll, 1955. One is entitled 
Commonwealth versus Louis Bertucci and Bernard Brown, also known 
as Bernie Brown, and the other is Commonwealth versus Loliis Ber- 
tucci. In both the defendants were charged with assault and battery. 
After full hearing and investigation the court, sitting as a committing 
magistrate, being satisfied that the prosecution is reasonably well 
founded and that a prima facie case has been made out, bound the 
defendants over to the court of quarter sessions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien ? 

Mr. BoRisH. This was done September 12, 1955. 

Mr. Ken nedy. They haven't been tried up until this time ? 

Mr. BoRisH, I understand that yesterday for, I guess the 10th or 
11th time, this case was up, but it was continued yesterday, because 
I understand Al Brown is under subpena by this committee now. 

He was not present. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the 10th or 11th time ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. That is my impression. It has been a number of times. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many people have been indicted out of the 
violence that took place in this strike? 

Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Borish has all the records and everything, but I 
think I can name them from memory. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just tell me how many. 

Mr. Hanlon. The best way to tell you is — Arthur Browm, Bernard 
Brown, Louis Bertucci, John Zoroivchak, Larry Thomas, and there 
may have been one other. Actually, Bernard Brown and Bertucci 
were — Bernard Brown was indicted on a couple of separate incidents. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have any of them been tried yet? 

Mr, BoRisH. None of these have been tried yet, so far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know the reason why they have not been 
tried? 

Mr. BoRisH. Well, I can only tell you what happens. At various 
times it has been because counsel has been engaged in other matters. 
In substance, I think that is the reason that has been offered. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean the counsel for these individuals? 

Mr. BoRisH. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. They made application to the court for a con- 
tinuance on the ground that counsel was engaged in other matters? 

Mr. Borish. Each time, of course, it comes before a judge, when 
it is on a list, and an aplication is made for a continuance, and the 
court then either grants it or reduces it. 

That is wdiat has happened in this particular series of cases. 

Senator Curtis. Does the series of cases come before several judges ? 

Mr. BoRisH. It will be a different judge each time, you see. Some- 
times, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't even be a Philadelphia judge. 
It may be a judge who comes in from upstate, who is especially as- 
signed. But whoever happens to be the judge sitting in the criminal 
session at that time, wdio would normally try the case, of course, at 
the outset, wull call the list and hear any applications. 

Senator Curtis. Have these applications been resisted by the prose- 
cutor ? 



10718 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. BoRiSH. On, I would say, at least 5 or 6 of the occasions, 1 of 
my associates has been present and has objected to the continuance. 

Senator Curtis. One of your associates? 

Mr. BoRisH. That is right. 

Senator Curtis, Do they have private prosecutors in Pennsylvania^ 
or are they public prosecutors? 

Mr. BoRisH. Well, the prosecuting witness, of course, whoever exe- 
cutes the affidavit upon which 

Senator Curtis. I'm talking about the attorney. 

Mr. BoRisH. I don't understand. 

Senator Curtis. Who tries the case? 

Mr. BoRisH. The district attorney. 

Senator Curtis. When I said prosecutor, I meant the district at- 
torney. 

Mr. BoRisH. I misunderstood. 

Senator Curtis. Has the district attoiTiey resisted these con- 
tinuances ? 

Mr. BoRisH. I am hesitating to answer, because I am not really 
sure. I don't know. I was never present personally at any of these. 
It was always one of my associates who would attend. At this point, 
I just don't recall what the position would be there. 

Mr. Kennedy. But at least this strike has been over almost 2 years 
and there has been nobody tried during that period of time, so all 
of these indictments are at least a couple of years old, are they not? 

Mr. BoRiSH. They all date from September 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. Almost 3 years old. None of them have been tried 
in this time ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. None of these which I read to you this morning have 
been tried, so far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what local 107's interest in this matter 
was? 

How many employees were eligible to join local 107 ? Or how many 
would have been in that unit that would have gone into the local ? 

Mr. LowTHER. They have on the platforms about 65 drivers, 15 
helpers, 47 or 48 platform workers, plus a few elevator operators, 
plus a few wrappers and packers. I am not sure of the number. But 
actually drivers and helpers — there are 65 drivers, there are 12 
helpers, and about 50 platform workers. The others are borderline 
cases as to whether they would be elevator operators or some other 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that be about 150 employees ? 

Mr. LowTHER. In that neighborhood, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they play a very prominent role, the officials of 
local 107, in this strike ? 

Mr. LowTHER. Yes, they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the direction for the strike seem to be coming 
from 107? 

Mr. LowTHER. As a general rule, it seemed to originate with 107. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who financed the strike ? 

Mr. Lowther. I don't have the slightest idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have gone through the books and records of 
107, Mr. Chairman, so we know how much money they charged for 
organizational expenses on the Horn & Hardart strike. 

Can we put Mr. Nulty on to testify to that ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10719 

The Chaikjvian. Come forward, Mr. Nulty. 

Mr. Nulty, have you been sworn ? 

Mr. Nulty. No. 

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

Mr. Nulty. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP LEO C. NULTY 

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

Mr. Nulty. My name is Leo C. Nulty. I live at 860 Monticello 
Drive, Falls Church, Va. I am investigator for this committee. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. You liave been with the Senate Subcommittee on 
Investigations ? 

Mr. Nulty. Prior to this ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were with the FBI prior to that ? 

Mr. Nulty. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For how many years ? 

Mr. Nulty. Nearly 14 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Nulty, you or someone under your direction 
has gone through the books of local 107 to determine how much 107 
charged to the organizational drive for the Horn & Hardart strike; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. These checks, once again, are the checks to cash, so 
there is no way to determine, other than the way they mark it on the 
books. 

But based on how it is marked on the books, and recorded on the 
books and records of local 107, how much money was spent in con- 
nection with the organizational drive by local 107 ? 

Mr. Nulty. The sums that we could jjositively tie up to the Horn 
& Hardart strike, being carried as organizing expenses, total $60,628. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. $60,628? 

Mr. Nulty. That is between May of 1955 and May of 1956. 

The Chairman. Could I ask the witness a question? How long did 
the pickets continue to maintain the line ? 

Mr. Lowther. The pickets maintained the line 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week. I am speaking now of the commissary 

The Chairman. You mean from the time they began ? 

Mr. LowTHER. From the time they began until the 5th of May 
1956. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. LowTHER. Until May 5, 1956, one complete year. 

The Chairman. One year ? 

Mr. Lowther. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. IVIr. Nulty, do you know how much money the 
other unions put into this campaign against Horn & Hardart? 

Mr. Nulty. I don't have the figure here, but it was what we consid- 
ered a nominal sum, a few thousand. Most of the other unions pulled 
out of the active picketing within a very few months of the strike. 



10720 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Can you verify that ? Do you know that at the last 
picketing, or that after the picketing had been going on for some time, 
no pickets participated except from the Teamsters Union ? Can you 
verify tliat? 

Mr. LowTHER. We cannot verify that. I think at some period, 
maybe not all day, but at some period, there was at least some man 
or girl carrying a picket line. It could be No. 6, it could be 195, it 
could be 107, or even 138. 

Mr. Hanlon. If you would like some elaboration on that, sir, I can 
answer it in sort of detail. Actually, from the beginning, the whole 
four unions carried their signs which appeared on an around-the- 
clock basis. As the organizational effort progressed, 107 maintained 
its picketing on an around-the-clock basis, 24 hours a day. The other 
unions, 138 and so forth, and 195, and 6, picketed, usually on War- 
nock Street, which is a street whicli intersects Locust Street, the main 
street around our commissary. They usually picketed there around 
the business hours, up to 4 o'clock or so, and after that they didn't 
picket any longer. 

But actually, to my recollection, 195 and 138 may have dropped out 
on a picket-sign basis prior to the end of things in May of 1956. My 
recollection is that local 6 and local 107 continued to picket right up 
to the end, with local 6 probably only picketing during the busy hours, 
up to about 4 or 5 o'clock. 

TESTIMONY OF LEONARD W. LOWTHER, DANIEL J. HANLON, JR., 
AND BERNARD M. BORISH— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. How much damage was done to your company dur- 
ing this period of time ? 

Mr. LowTHEK. Do you mean the financial damage, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Approximately. 

Mr. LowTiiER. The moneys that were spent by the Horn & Hardart 
Baking Co. for what we classified as extraordinary expenses, except 
expenses bevond our normal operation, amounted to approximately 
$400,000. 

The Chairman. Was that primarily for damage to property? 

Mr. Lowther. No, Senator. It is payment of extra services to 
enable us to get our materials in and manufacture them and get them 
out. 

The Chairman. That is the overall damage insofar as extraordi- 
nary expenses you had to incur ? 

Mr. Lowther. That is right. 

The Chairman. Can you break down how much of that was .related 
to damage to property; that is, damage to your trucks and so forth? 

Mr. Lowther. The damage to property? I think Mr. Hanlon is 
better qualified. 

Mr. Hanlon. On that, as a general statement, sir, actually we had, 
as I recall, we had on one day five of our trucks which were stoned with 
rocks and so forth, and the damage to that was only the amount of 
money that would be involved to replace broken windows and wind- 
shields and so forth. 

Then, in addition to that, this particular incident referred to, the 
burning of these two trucks, which were under lease to Horn & Hardart 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10721 

Baking Co., which under our insurance liability gave us the responsi- 
bility, that amounted to something in excess, as 1 recall, of $6,000 or 
$7,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just give us a figure for the year. 

Mr. Hanlon. Offhand, I would say actual damage to property of the 
Horn & Hardart Baking Co., it probably amounted to around $8,000 
or $9,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, as I understand it, you 
were never approaclied by the unions to sign a contract? 

Mr. Lowther. We weren't approached. We received no communi- 
cation whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. And your employees did not vote to go out on strike? 

Mr. LowTHER. There was no vote taken. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the union did not even approach you to say that 
they had the employees signed up during this whole period of time? 

Mr. Lowther. They never said a word. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached by anybody, directly or in- 
directly, that the strike could be settled for a payment of any sum of 



nion<ii7 



Mr. Hanlon. I received a contact, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. From whom did you receive the contact, and what 
was said to you ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Sometime in the summer of 1955, 1 would say it was 
probably in June or July, or maybe August — it was sometime in the 
summer of 1955—1 received a phone call from a Mr. Joseph Freedman, 
who is one of our suppliers of long standing from a company called 
McCray & Hunter. He is the owner, in conjunction with his son, Paul 
Freedman. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Solomon Joseph Freedman ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I knew him as Joseph Freedman. 

Mr. Kennedy. F-r-e-e-d-m-a-n ? 

Mr. Hanlon. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he had been supplying you ? 

Mr. Hanlon. I think somewhere for around or in excess of 25 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a retail produce business ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir, a retail produce business. 

Mr. Freedman told me, he said he had a contact from a person iden- 
tified as Shorty Feldman, an official of a union he identified as local 
929, which I understand Mr. Freedman to say he has some union 
affiiliation with. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a Teamsters local. Local 929 of the Produce, 
Poultry, and Oystermen Drivers and Helpers of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Hanlon. Mr. Freedman said that he had had this contact from 
Mr. Feldman, and that Mr. Feldman had told Mr. Freedman that 
Horn & Hardart could settle the whole matter for $50,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say in that conversation how it was going to 
be settled? 

Mr. Hanlon. I must say I cut Mr. Freedman oft' so rapidly that 
he didn't even have an opportunity or he never even suggested going 
into any of the details of the proposition. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you who Shorty Feldman was, other than 
the fact that he was an official of this other local ? 

Mr. Hanlon. The only way he identified him to me was Shorty 
Feldman, an official of local 929. 



10722 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't mention any Shorty Feldman or who 
he contacts? 

Mr. Kanlon. No, he did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He just said he was an official ? 

Mr. Hanlon. He identified him as an official of 929. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ask you at that time to pass this information 
on? 

Mr. Hanlon. No, he did not. When Mr. Freedman told me of this 
proposition, I told him very emphatically that Horn & Hardart, as 
he well knew, was not interested in any proposition of that nature. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you didn't pay the $50,000 ? 

Mr. Hanlon. We sure didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the strike 

Mr. Hanlon. The organizational effort, 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now. 

The Chairman. I would like to ascertain, if I can, whether the 
pickets who actually served on the picket line were employees of 
your company. 

Mr, Hanlon. I think I can answer that, sir. I would say most of 
the pickets on the picket line were employees of our company. 

There were incidents or occasions when there were pickets on the 
picket line other than employees of our company. 

The Chairman. Those that continued on until the end of the year 
when the picketing terminated, were they employees ? 

Mr Hanlon. I will put it tliis way, sir : Toward the end, the ones 
who continued to picket were employees of our company. 

The Chairman. Did they ever return to work for the company, 
any of these pickets ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Yes, some of them did, sir. Mr. Borish has the de- 
tails of that, sir. 

The Chairman. You said between 95 and 100, 1 believe. How many 
of them finally returned to work ? 

Mr. Hanlon. Approximately 50 and 55, sir. 

On that point, I would also like to make a point that at some time 
subsequent to May, at various times, there were some of this group 
of between 90 and 95 employees, some of them that actually came back 
voluntarily, and unsolicited, even before the thing was over. 

Mr. BoRisH. Mr. Chairman, I think in order to make that complete, 
you might want to know for the record how this organizing drive 
finally terminated. 

The Chairman. All right. How did it terminate ? 

Mr, BoRiSH. During the course of the hearing for a permanent in- 
junction, which was brought on before the court in May of 1956, as a 
result of discussions which were initiated by the court. Judge Milner, 
who had indicated that no progress was being made, and that this 
ought to be stopped, and it ought not to be necessary to go to a final 
hearing, that discussion resulted in a stipulation of counsel withdraw- 
ing the proceeding, and a separate understanding among counsel which 
was reduced to writing, the essential provision of which was that the 
unions agreed forthwith to terminate all picketing acti^dties at any 
of the company's premises. 

They agreed not in any way to engage or encourage others to engage 
in boycott activity. The company agreed to take back those people 
who indicated a desire to come back, and who met the health regulations 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10723 

of the city of Philadelphia, with the provision that the reinstated 
employees would receive no back pay but would be restored to posi- 
tions of equal dignity insofar as it was possible to do so. 

The Chairman. In other words, they would retain their seniority 
rights ? 

Mr. BoRiSH. That is right, but they received no back pay. 

The Chairman. When that agreement was entered into under the 
auspices of the court, at least, if not an official decree, when that agree- 
ment was entered into, the case was dismissed by stipulation? 

Mr. BoRisH. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the picketing ceased, the organizational ef- 
fort in that respect, at least, ceased ? 

Mr, Borish. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the parties to that agreement ? 

Mr. BoRisH. The stipulation of counsel, which records the agree- 
ment, was signed by our firm, Wolf, Block, Schorr, & Solis-Cohen, as 
attorneys for the plaintiff. It was signed by Mr. McBride, for Mc- 
Bride, Von Moschzisker & Bradley, for local 107. It was signed by 
Mr. Herbert Syme, now deceased, who was then attorney for defendant 
local No. 6. 

Senator Curtis. Local No. 6, identify what union that is. 

Mr. Hanlon. Bakers and Confectionary Workers. 

Mr. BoRisH. I, Herman Stern, attorney for defendant local 138, 
which is the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, and, finally, 
Edward Davis, as attorney for defendant local No. 195, which is the 
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workers of North America, 
and it is terminated approved this 3d day of May 1956, by the court, 
Byron A. Milner, judge. 

Senator Curtis. Somewhere in this proceeding, this contest, there 
was some part attributed to the Teamsters 596. Was that Teamsters 
Union under trusteeship, and was Mr. Cohen the trustee during this 
time? 

Mr. LowTHER. We don't know. 

Mr. BoRiSH. I don't think we know, sir. None of us have that in- 
formation. 

Senator Curtis. Does the staff know if that is true ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

That was during part of the strike. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

If not, gentlemen, thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Freedman. 

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

Mr. Freedman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON JOSEPH FREEDMAN 

The Chairman. Mr. Freedman, state your name, your place of 
residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Freedman. Solomon Joseph Freedman. I reside at the Presi- 
dential Apartments, City Line, Monument Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. 



10724 IMPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

T am the senior partner of McCray & Hunter, in Philadelphia, food 
purveyors. Food purveyors and supermarkets in Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, I do. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Freedman, you are here under subpena, are 
you not ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The subpena was served on you, and you are re- 
sponding to that, is that correct ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been supplying Horn & Hardart for many 
years? \ 

Mr. Freedman. For the past 20 years or better. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have trucks of your own, do you ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what is it that you supply them with ? 

Mr. Freedman. We supply them materially — primarily with fruits 
and vegetables, fresh fruit and vegetables. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a contract, or have you had a con- 
tract, yourself, w^ith the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Freedman. I didn't have a contract with the union up until 
about 2 years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many years ? 

Mr. Freedman. About 2 years ago. 

]Mr. Kennedy. When was this, that you got the contract ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, it wasn't a decision of myself or employees. 
Not that I objected to any contract with the unions, but my employees 
never requested to be organized. But from time to time I was pres- 
sured by the local to sign a contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which local was this ? 

Mr. Freedman. 929. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you pressured ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, they told me, the president of the local 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his name ^ 

Mr. Freedman. Morris Schurr. 

He told me that he was being pressured by local 107, that if he 
doesn't sign me up, they will. At one time we were tied up for deliv- 
eries of merchandise at the Pennsylvania terminal. 1 asked him what 
for, and, of course, it was a time before I could get in contact with the 
officials. We didn't have any supplies that day. They told me that it 
was for nonpayment of one of our members. At that time, we only 
had about 2 or 3 members with local 929 without a contract. We 
couldn't get supplies unless they were members. They would not 
deliver any merchandise to our trucks unless they had a union card or 
book. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by "they ?" 

Mr. Freedman. The drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your drivers ? 

Mr. Freedman. Our drivers had to be union men in order to get 
deliveries. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10725 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did he say had to pay their dues up ''t 

Mr. Freedman. Major Richards. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he a driver of yours % 

Mr. Freedman. He was one of our drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they said he hadn't paid his dues up % 

Mr. Freedman. He was in arrears $180. 

Mr. Kennedy. So all of your trucks would be tied up ? 

Mr. Freedman. All of our trucks and we couldn't get public car- 
riers to haul our stufl'. They said, "You are tied up, and we can't haul 
your stuff." 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees do you have? 

Mr. Freedman. We have approximately 60 employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they indicated by vote or otherwise, that they 
wanted to go into the teamsters ? 

Mr. Freedman. They never wanted to join the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was just a question of the representative of local 
929 coming to you and saying that you better join up ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, we had these 2 or 3 drivers at the time— it 
was 1 helper and 2 drivers — that belonged to local 929, by persuasion 
and intimidation. That is, they couldn't get into the terminal to get 
deliveries unless they would belong to it. We had no alternative and 
neither did they. 

In fact, this Major Richards was in arrears approximately $400 
when he took employment with us. 

In order to get him in, we had to promise that we would pay back, 
that is, he would have to double up his dues in order to catch up with 
what he was in arrears. They wouldn't let him join as a new member, 
which was at that time only $25 initiation. 

Mr. Kennedy. So was this economic pressure that was placed on 
you, rather than the wish or will of your employees, which ultimately 
led to your signing a contract ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right, yes. And at a later time 

Mr. Kennedy. The employees were actually not consulted as to 
whether they wanted to join the union ? 

Mr. Freedman. No. In fact, local 1357, I think it is, they had 
their agents come into our place of business, soliciting some of our 
employees to becoming organized, which I didn't oppose, and I told 
them I didn't oppose it. If the}' wanted to be organized, it was per- 
fectly all right with me. But I told them to refrain from having 
any discussion with them in our place of business; that if they do 
want to have any discussion, let them meet on the outside or home, 
or have these agents contact them elsewhere. As a result of that, sev- 
eral of these agents stood on the corner, and, of course, as soon as they 
would see them walk out, or out to the lunch hour, they would con- 
tact them and try to persuade them to join the union. 

As a result of that, we got our attorneys to contact the unions, or 
their counsel, as to what the decision was. So they had a meeting at 
the Labor Relations Board. They decided on a vote, at which time 
they screened out which element they wanted. Thej' wanted the re- 
tail clerks of the stores. Even then they screened out certain ones 
that they didn't want who was closely related to members of the firm. 

Of that, there was 22 employees that they screened out, and when 
the vote come about, which I have a sample ballot of liere, there 



10726 EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

were 18 against or*;anization and 4 for organization, of which 2 of 
them only worked during the summer period, and when the election 
come about they were in school and the agent for the union went to 
school to pick them up to cast their vote. So there were 2 of them 
and 2 regular employees that voted for a union. 

The other 18 voted for nonunion. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was even after they had screened out those that 
they didn't want ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. But you joined up anyway ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, at a later date 

Mr. KJENNEDT. When was this ? 

Mr. Freedman. When we were tied up. 

Mr. Kennedy. About what date ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, approximately the time, I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. What year was it ? 

Mr. Freedman. That was during the time of the Horn & Hardart 
strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Around 1955 ? 

Mr. Freedman. Approximately aroimd there. Wlien they tied me 
up, I finally got Willie Greenberg who is the secretary of local 929, 
and asked him what he wanted, what was the trouble ? He said, "Well, 
Major Richards is not paid up. He owes $180." 

I said, "All right, we will send him down there with a $180 check." 

He said, "No, a check wouldn't do. You will have to send the cash 
down," 

I said, "All right, then, we will send the cash down." 

As a result of that, we sent Major Richards to the union local, 
Franklin Avenue, with cash of approximately $180, and even then 
they wouldn't receive his money. They said, "No: you will have to 
get Mr. Freedman down here." 

As a result of that, he called me up, and told me that I would have 
to sign a contract before they would accept his money. I said, "I 
don't object to signing a contract if you can get the majority of the 
employees that you think ought to join your union, and let me take 
this contract to my counselor." 

He said, "That is perfectly all right with us." But I said, "You 
can't keep tying us up, we have to have merchandise." 

He said, "You can't get merchandise until such time as you sign the 
contract." 

I said, "In that case, I have no alternative but to sign a contract. 
You will not do that to me. I am an American, and I am going to die 
fighting. I will not sign the contract until I take it up with my coun- 
sel. We will screen the contract to see what we agree on." 

So at that time, I left, and I asked Major Richards to come along. 
At that time, Willie Greenberg called Mr. Richards back and said, 
"I want to see you. Major, wait a minute." 

He went back and I waited on the outside. After about 15 or 20 
minutes, I went back there and wanted to know why he didn't come 
out. Willie Greenberg come out and said, "Wliy can't we straighten 
this out?" 

I said, "That is entirely up to you. I want to try to straighten it 
out the best way I want to. But I can't pressure my employees to join 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10727 

your union. If they don't want to, it is up to your union to do that. 
You have a couple of these men that are signed up." 

I knew that they had to be signed up in order to get supplies. He 
said, "All right, then, I will let you go ahead and load, but I want 
a contract signed within the next week or two." 

I said, "O. K." But of course, I didn't sign at that time or a week 
or two later, and not until such time as they made a drive for member- 
ship for those who were not signed up, and nobody would be allowed 
to move a truck unless they have a placard on their truck that it is a 
union truckdriver operating that truck. 

When I was pressured to that extent, I signed the contract with 
them. We have four members with local 929 at this time. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many? 

Mr. Freedman. Four. 

Mr. Kennedy. Out of how many ? 

Mr. Freedman. Out of approximately 50 or 60 employees. Not all 
of those are drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many are drivers ? 

Mr. Freedman. Out of approximately 8 drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the contract is with the teamsters ? 

Mr. Freedman. With the teamsters of local 929. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean all of these employees are governed by 
a contract with the Teamsters Union even though you only have 4 
employees out of 60 that are members of the teamsters ? 

Mr. Freedman. Those 4 are the 4 that go down to the docks and 
to the terminals to get our supplies. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the wishes of the 

Mr. Freedman. Unless they were union members, they could not 
get supplies. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the wishes or desires of the employees were com- 
pletely disregarded? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you felt you had to do it because of the eco- 
nomic pressure, that you couldn't unload or load unless you joined? 

Mr. Freedman. We couldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, in fact, at the time they had the vote as to 
whether they were going to belong to the Teamsters Union, the em- 
ployees were strongly against the teamsters ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, the drivers did not vote. They did not want 
the drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. They just wanted the retail clerks ? 

Mr. Freedman. They only wanted at that time the retail clerks. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were against it? 

Mr. Freedman. They were against it. They were opposed to the 
imion. 

The Chairman. Do I understand now that all of your employees 
have to pay dues to the union ? 

Mr. Freedman. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who? 

Mr. Freedman. We only have four employees that belong to the 
union, and that is to local 929. I will say that they never bothered us 
too much, particularly the president of the organization was always 
fairminded. 



10728 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You just have four employees tliat actually belong 
to the union ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your feeling that the Teamsters Union was 
forced upon your concern contrary to the wishes of both the em- 
ployees and the management, is that right, in order not to be boycotted 
down at the terminal ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. A secondary boycott in my State continues on and 
the most recent is a concern that has one truck driver, but he picks up 
supplies that they need very, very much, and unless they sign a con- 
tract for the one truck driver and put him in the union, the Teamsters 
Union is going to boycott them and shut off all their supplies. That 
one driver doesn't want the job. If he does, he would only have to 
work part of the year because the company hired him with other 
duties and his yearly income is much higher than if he joined up 
with the blackmailers. 

Did you pay any dues for your own ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. I had to pay the $180. Of course, we ex- 
tracted it from this boy's pay on a weekly basis. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you advanced him some money to 
pay his back dues. 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. But he ultimately paid them ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any payments to the Teamsters 
Union ? 

Mr. Freedman. In that respect, we did. We sent a check to the 
Teamsters Union every month for these four employees. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of time that the Horn & Hardart 
was having the difficulties with local 107 and these other unions, you 
continued to supply them ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, we continued to supply them, in spite of the 
pressure that we had put upon us, from time to time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you subjected to violence, and your trucks? 

Mr. Freedman. Very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were some of your trucks damaged ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. Two of them were set afire. One of them 
was turned over. Wires were broken apart. One truck was dumped 
in the river and never recovered. Our insurance carriers refused to 
carry our insurance. We had several of them 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time ? 

Mr. Freedman. During this period of time, as a result of it, we 
had to take our own liability on our fire and theft insurance. They 
covered us for liability, property damage and what have you, but 
they would not cover us for fire and theft. 

Mr. Kennedy. What reason did they give you ? 

Mr. Freedman. Until the labor difficulties with the Horn & Hard- 
art strike were over. 

The Chairman. In other words, they took a lot of violence out on 
you because you were supplying Horn & Hardart? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10729 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

The Chairman. Because you would make deliveries? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. I told them I was going to make 
deliveries as long as I possibly could. My son and I, we took trucks 
in there. We had a couple of our loyal employees who stuck by us, 
and who seen the righteousness of it. 

I knew that Horn & Hardart was always a fair concern. If their 
employees would want to be organized, they certainly wouldn't object 
to it. ' I knew that they were innocent victims of circumstances, and 
I felt that I was going to continue on to help them as much as I 
possibly could. 

The Chairman. How much property damage did you suffer by 
reason of the picket line and strike ? 

Mr. Freedman. We didn't have any picket lines. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about you. I am talking about 
Horn & Hardart. 

Mr. Freedman. We suffered approximately fifteen or twenty thou- 
sand dollars worth of damage. In merchandise, they threw gasoline 
on some of our merchandise. They threw stink bombs in our stores. 
One of these trucks was primarily our main truck, the largest one, 
was dumped in the river, and we couldn't salvage anything out of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever find out who was responsible for any 
of these? 

Mr. Freedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They never made any arrests? 

Mr. Freedman. They never made any arrests. 

The Chairman. Who was it that threatened you ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, nobody actually threatened me. 

The Chairman. Who was putting the pressure on you not to de- 
liver ? Who talked to you about it ? 

Mr. Freedman. Morris Schurr, the president of 929, said "Joe, if 
you don't sig-n up with me, you will have to sign up with someone else. 
it is up to you. I am not going to tell you that you have to sign up 
with me." 

I said, "Morris, I cannot sign up unless you get my employees to. 
agree to it." 

He said, "Well, they are going to agree to someone else. It is up 
to you. I am just trying to tell you as a friend." 

And he was very conscientious in his remarks. He never gave me 
too much trouble. 

The Chairman. Did you ever recover the truck that w^as dumped 
in the river ? 

Mr. Freedman. The police and fire department dredged it out of 
the river, but we couldn't possibly move it. It was crashed in the 
body. 

The Chairman. It was beyond repair ? 

Mr. Freedman. It was beyond repair. 

The Chairman. Would you recognize pictures of it if you saw 
them? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, I would. 

Yes, that is the truck. 

The Chairman. Is that the one in the river ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is the one in the river, and this is the same 
one, and this is the same one ; these three. 



10730 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Of course, there are different incidents at various times on this very 
same truck. As I say, what we did in this case here, since we found 
it almost impossible to operate under our own name, we took the name 
off the truck, and we assigned it to one of our employees, and he run 
the truck. 

We parked it at a different location every night. We finally re- 
sorted to parking it in back of the police squad, thinking that there 
they wouldn't molest it. 

But they towed it away from that location several times. The last 
time that they towed it away, that was the end of it. 

The Chairman. They dumped it in the river ? 

Mr. Freedman. They dumped it in the river. 

The Chairman. Those pictures may be made exhibit 25. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 25, and may 
be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I will hand you a series of three other pictures, and 
ask you to examine them and state whether they are pictures of dam- 
age done to your truck. 

(Photographs were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, I can recall this incident happened when we 
called Mr. Schaeffer of Horn & Hardart Restaurants, at the bakery, 
after our truck was loaded. 

I supervised the loading of it on Dock Street. We would call for a 
police escort. I will say this, incidentally, the police were very coop- 
erative with our firm. Any time we asked for a police escort, we got it. 

Mr. Schaeffer assured me that it was all right to pull our truck in 
there, that they wouldn't molest us, that there was an agreement or 
some kind of an arrangement made where they were going to let 
trucks come in there unmolested. 

The Chairman. Did they keep the agreement ? 

Mr. Freedman. No, they did not. 

The Chairman. What did they do to your truck ? 

Mr. Freedman. Here is what happened that night. That particu- 
lar night I will never forget as long as I live. I followed behind in 
my car. Wlien he pulled up, about ready to back in, there was ap- 
proximately 100 pickets there, and one of the arrangers of the pickets 
said, "Close in, close in the gaps," and others, swarmed around the 
cab of the truck, trying to persuade this man, who is in the room here 
today, to pull away. 

As a result of it, he did pull away. He couldn't back into these 
people. So I thought, "Well, that is the end of that truck." I fol- 
lowed right behind him, and I seen people running; that is, these fel- 
lows running in all directions, for, evidently, their cars. That is, they 
went to get their cars. 

There was one man who I thought appeared to be a gentleman on 
the corner of 10th and Locust. 

The Chairman. He appeared to be what ? 

Mr. Freedman. Appeared to be a gentleman. 

The Chairman. In contrast to some of the others you saw ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes; that is, he was dressed like a gentleman. I 
said to him, "Quick, get the police, they are following him." He 
said, "Well, they are supposed to follow him." Then I realized he was 
one of them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10731 

So I continued on to follow him, and then a car behind me blew his 
Iiorn for me to move over to let him by. But I knew what he was up 
to, so I didn't do that. 

I just kept behind the truck and blocked his path. He pulled around 
me on onto the walking- pavement, and in front of me, and used some 
vile language to me. 

Of course, he didn't know^ who I was. He pulled in front of the 
truck and shooed him over to the dead end of Locust Street, on 
Locust Street, and there was a building there — I don't know what 
building it is — and I instructed my driver to keep his windows and 
doors closed. 

They went at it with instruments, of what kind I don't know, break- 
ing windows and shields and what not, and I stopped in front of 
the truck; that is, I passed it about a length of my car, and then I 
thought, "Well, I better back up. They are going to kill this boy." 

I backed up and as I backed up these fellows run away. One of 
them was a green car, with a luggage carrier on top. I could possibly 
recognize the car. I think it was a Plymouth, but I am not sure. 

When I pulled alongside of the truck, I said, "Willey, you better 
follow me on to a lighted street, 11th and Market. We wdll pull up to 
the station house." 

He followed me and I said, "Are you all right?" and he said, "Yes, 
I am all right, Mr. Freedman." 

I said, "Go to the 11th and Winter Street Precinct. We will get an 
escort. We are going to get this load in there." 

I went in there, and after I explained to the desk sergeant what 
had taken place, he told me to wait and he would go get a police escort, 
which he did. He put a policeman alongside of the driver, and a red 
car behind them. I followed behind them. 

We got the truck in and unloaded it. That is what happened to these 
windows at that time. 

The Chairman. The last series I handed you of the three, are they 
all of the same car or a different car ? 

Mr. Freedman. This one I am referring to, that is the big one, in the 
river, I think. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 26. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 26" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Freedman. This one is another truck where they threw an in- 
cendiary bomb into the cab in back of our warehouse. I was up in 
the office when they yelled, "One of our trucks is on fire." 

My son called up to me and said, "Dad, one of the trucks is on fire. 
Come right down." 

Fortunately enough, we have a fire station right around the corner 
from us, and they immediately extinguished the fire. 

In that truck, of course, the cab was all burned out, wires was burned. 
I think that was a red International. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 26-A. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 26-A" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Freedman. This is another one. Which one this is, I don't 
recall. I am not familiar with the make of this truck, but that is one 
of our trucks. 

21243 — 58— pt. 27 23 



10732 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 26-B. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 26-B" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had some testimony regarding a conversa- 
tion that you had with a representative of Horn & Hardart during this 
period of time when there was the difficulty between local 107 and 
Horn & Hardart. 

Was an approach in fact made to you that the strike could be settled ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, the approach was made to me regarding how 
well I was acquainted with the staff, the official staff, of Horn & 
Hardart. 

I said, "Well, I am acquainted with them, to the extent that I have 
been doing business with them to the extent of the past 20 years or 
more." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you have this conversation with ? 

Mr. Freedman. Shorty Feldman. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Who is Shorty Feldman ? 

Mr. Freedman. He is the agent for local 929. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he an important figure in the Teamsters Union 
in Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, yes, he is. He is their business agent. He is 
the one that we have to look forward to at the terminals ; that is, he is 
the one that we have to account to for any misdemeanors. 

Mr. Kennedy. Continue. 

Mr, Freedman. He said, "Joe, how well do you know them?" and 
I said. "Well, I know them well." He said, "Do you know them well 
enough to talk to them and make a deal ? 

I said, "What kind of a deal ? You know, those people don't go for 
deals. If I know Daley or some of the other executives, they are pretty 
honorable people, and I don't think they will go for deals." 

He said, "Well, do you want to talk to them?" I said, "I will talk 
to one of the men which I have contact with," which I referred to as 
Dan Hanlon. He said, "For $50,000, we can take care of this," and 
I said, "Wliat do you mean take care of it ? " 

I said, "Do you mean you can settle the strike, that they will stop 
jDicketing?" and he said, "Who is it? Who is it that is involved? I 
didn't think you were interested in the strike." He said, "Well, no, 
it is not 929." 

I said, "Wlio is it?" and he said, "Well, it would have to be divided 
three ways." I said, "Well, I don't know, Sam." 

After a couple of days, or a week, possibly elapsed, he again ap- 
proached me, and I thought, "Well, I will mention it to Mr. Hanlon," 
which I did. 

He said, "Mr. Freedman, if I were you, I wouldn't even mention it 
to Mr. Daley. He w^ouldn't go for any deals or any capitulations 
whatsoever. If you would mention it to him, I think he would order 
you out of the office." 

I said, "Well, I figured it that way, but I felt it no more than proper 
for me to bring it to you anyway, and you take it from there." 

At a later time, he said, "Did you talk to them ?" 

Mr. Kennedy. Who said that ? 

Mr. Freed:man. Sam Feldman, Shorty Feldman. 

I said, "I did, but they are not interested." 

Mr. Kennedy. So you had these three conversations ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10733 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. Then at a later date, I called up Morris 
Schurr, the president of local 929, and asked him if he knew anything 
of it, and he said, "No, I don't know anything of it, and" he says "he 
is crazy. He shouldn't have done it. I liave nothing to do with it." 
I said, "Okay, that is all I want to know." 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Freedman, if this was just a business agent of 
local 929, how is he in a position, in your estimation, to be able — — 

Mr. Freedman. Well, he was very friendly with the other factions, 
with Ray Cohen, Jimmy Hoffa, and those. 

In fact, he related to me he was very closely related, very related. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he relate to you ? 

Mr, Freedman. Well, he said that they were friendly, that he can 
reach the proper source. 

Mr. Kennedy. lYlio did he say he was friendly with, specifically? 

Mr. Freedman. Well, on different occasions, he told me, "It is in 
the bag," that Jimmy Hoffa and him are very close, and that was it. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you : Did you say Sam Feldman was 
business agent for which local ? 

Mr. Freedman. 929. 

The Chairman. 929 ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

The Chairman. Who is the president of that local ? 

Mr. Freedman. Morris Schurr. 

The Chairman. After Feldman asked you to intervene and submit 
this proposition, and after you had done so, I believe you called up the 
president of the local ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, Morris Schurr, that is right. I wanted to 
know if he had had anything to do with it. 

The Chairman. And you told him what happened ? 

Mr. Freedman. I did. 

The Chairman. And he wouldn't go for that ? 

Mr. Freedman. No. He said he had nothing at all to do with it, 
and that Feldman was a fool. 

The Chairman. What happened to Feldman ? 

Mr. Freedman. Nothing. I told him they were not interested, 
forget about it. 

The Chairman. Well, what happened? Did the union continue to 
employ him as a business agent ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. 

The Chairman. He is still an agent for them ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, he is still agent for them. 

The Chairman. Notwithstanding that the president knew he was 
going around making such propositions, they apparently still took no 
action ? He is still working for them ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

The Chairman. And you acquainted the president with the facts 
of his offer, what he had undertaken to do ? 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

The Chairman. The president said he didn't have anythinsr to do 
with it? 

Mr. Freedman. I believed him ; that he didn't have anything to do 
with it. 

The Chair]man. Anyway, he kept the man who made the offer? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes. 



10734 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CiiAiRMAx. And knowing from you at least about that offer, 
he has kept the man as a business agent ? 

Mr, Freedman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

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

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day. ) 

(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess 
were : Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the session, the following members were 
present : Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel, to call a witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask ]Mr. Freedman to return to the 
stand briefly. 

The Chairman. Mr. Freedman, comeback, please. 

TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON JOSEPH FREEDMAN— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Freedman, I just want to get a few more details 
from you. On your operation during the period of the strike, how 
many drivers did you have ? 

Mr. Freedman. About eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. About eiglit. 

Mr. Freedman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. After some violence, would they all agree to drive 
during this period of time ? 

Mr. Freedman. Yes, they all agreed to drive, but none of them 
would make any deliveries. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak louder, please? 

Mr. Freedman. None of them would make any deliveries to Horn 
& Hardart restaurants. Not to the restaurant, but to the warehouse, 
to their commissaries. 

Mr. Kennedy. You couldn't get anyone to make deliveries? 

Mr. Freedman. No one but tliis one man, one man that appears here. 
Without him I don't think it would have been possible for us to carry 
on. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that man's name ? 

Mr. Freedman. William Young. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the only one ? 

Mr. Freedman. He is the only one, and he thought as I did, that 
right prevails over anything else. He knew it was a righteous cause, 
and that is the reason he went along, in spite of the fact that his life 
was in danger numerous times. He still continued on, and just 
wouldn't let down. Witliout him, as I say again, we could have never 
effected our deliveries to the 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up a little louder ? 

Mr. Freedman. AVe could never have effected our deliveries to tlie 
commissary if it wasn't for that one man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he threatened during this period of time ? 

Mr. Freedman. Numerous times. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10735 

Mr. Kennedy. He was ? 

Mr. Freehman. Xot only threatened, but he was beaten, landed in 
the hospital on one occasion. 

The Chaiioian. How many ? 

Mr. Freedman. He landed in the hospital on one occasion. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he wasn't frightened off, is that right? 

Mr. Freedman. He Avas not frightened off. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did he indicate to you that he was scared during this 
period of time ? 

Mr. Freedman. At no time. 

Mr. Kennedy. But none of the other drivers would drive during this 
period of time ? 

Mr. Freedaian. He was the only one. And, as I say, my son and my- 
self, we, too, made deliveries to the bakery. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, Senator ? 

Senator Goldwater, No ; Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Freedman, the Chair wishes to compliment you 
very highly for your courage, your patriotism in coming here to testify. 

Mr. Freedaian. Thank you. 

The Chairman. If all business people of this country and all other 
good citizens would stand against these goons and thugs as you have, 
we would soon clean them out. People wouldn't have occasion to be 
afraid when they would try to do an honest day's work. 

I think you are to be commended highly. I hope the rest of the 
people in the City of Brotherly Love will have the same courage. 
Thank you very much. 

Mr. Freedman. Thank you. I am grateful for the opportunity to 
appear before you. 

The Chairman. The Chair may say to you, if you are threatened in 
any way, if any one approaches you regarding your testimony here, 
and in any way tries to intimidate you, threaten you, or harm you, 
report it to this committee. 

I think the Senate of the United States, the Government of the 
United States, after all, is bigger than these folks who go around 
trying to intimidate people and trying to beat them up. 

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

Mr. Freedman. I thank you, and I have no fear. 

The Chairman. I don't believe you have. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call the driver about whom Mr. Freed- 
man spoke, Mr. Young. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Young. 

Come forward, please. You do solemnly swear that the evidence 
you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM S. YOUNG 

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

Mr. Young. William S. Young, 2431 West Montgomerv, truck- 
driver. 

The Chairman. Do you live in Pliiladelphia? 



10736 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have an attorney to represent you? Do 
you have a lawyer ? 

Mr. Young. No. 

The Chairman. Do you want one ? 

Mr. Young. It is not necessary. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel. All right. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Young, you were a driver for Mr. Freedman's 
company ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were a driver during the period of time that 
Horn & Hardart was on strike ? 

Mr. Young. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you continued to make deliveries and pick up 
at the Horn & Hardart Co. ? 

Mr. Young. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time that you were making 
the pick up and deliveries, were you ever threatened ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee about that ? 

Mr. Young. Well, I was threatened by Brent Brown. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up a little louder and slowly, 
please ? 

Mr. Young. I was threatened by Brent Brown for one. 

Mr. Kennedy. By Brown ? 

Mr. Young. Yes ; for one. There were quite a few of them, but I 
didn't know their names. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat threats did they make to you ? 

Mr. Young. They called me certain names that I wouldn't say in 
front of people. They wouldn't understand. Do you want to hear it? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Young. Well, I took that for granted, I let it pass by. 

Mr. KIennedy. When would they be threatening, while you were 
driving ? 

Mr. Young. Yes ; when I was driving. 

Mr. Kennedy. In language that can be stated here, what would they 
say to you ? 

Did they ever threaten that they would harm you physically ? 

Mr. Young. Yes ; they would, if they got a chance. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say to you ? 

Mr. Young. That they were going to get me sooner or later. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio said that to you ? 

Mr. Young. I don't know. You see, it would be nighttime and I 
would be delivering. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you say they yelled at you ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, yell at me, spit at me.j curse at me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you frightened ^ 

Mr. Young. No, I was not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you think they would get you ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, I figured some day they would, but I kept on going. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, they got me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10737 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat did they do to you ? 

Mr. Young. Well, I was coming 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Now, we have gone through this before. You have 
to speak slowly, the acoustics are very bad in the room. If you could 
just speak a little slowly, it would be better. 

Mr. Young. It happened June 25, 1955, 8 : 45 at Kingston and Alle- 
gheny. That is one of the Horn & Hardart restaurants. I was deliver- 
ing in the back. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the back ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, in the back, I was going to the elevator in the 
back. So as I went to the door of that truck, and the back door was on 
half of the truck, at the time I approached, I looked around, and I 
didn't see nobody, so I got out and started to deliver. As I picked a 
crate of cabbage up, I looked back and there were 3 men standing 
there, weighing about 200 pounds each. There was nothing I could 
do at them, but to look and throw the cabbage at them, and I missed. 
They caught my leg and I hit the pavement. 

Mr. Kennedy. You threw the cabbage at them ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, and they caught my leg and I hit the pavement. 

Mr. Kennedy. They caught your leg ? 

Mr. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you hit the pavement ? 

Mr. Young. Yes. I seen stars, and I couldn't get myself together, 
and then I seen some heels beside my face, and that was it. 

Mr. Kennedy. They stomped you ? 

Mr. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They kicked you ? 

Mr. Y ouNG. No, they hit with their fists. They didn't use their feet 
on me. 

Mr. Kennedy. They hit you on the face with their fists. 

Mr. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these were three men ? 

Mr. Young. Three men exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. All large men ? 

Mr. Young. All large men ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you knocked unconscious ? 

Mr. Young. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat happened ? 

Mr. Young. I wound up in the hospital about 2 hours later. I 
didn't know where I was at until I woke up. I could not move for 
about a couple of hours. I could not move, so I was taken home. I 
got straightened out, my wife straightened me out for a while, and 
I got straightened out. Paul called me up to take a load in, and I 
told him I would. 

Mr. Kennedy. The company called you up after that, Freedman? 

Mr. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that ? 

Mr. Young. The same day, the same night. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same night ? 

Mr. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And asked you if you would take another load in ? 

Mr. Young. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you? 

Mr. Young. I did. 



10738 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you scared by that time ? 

Mr. Young, No, 

Mr. Kennedy. What about if they beat you up and stomped you 
again ? 

Mr, Young. They didn't. I had an escort. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some of the police came along ? 

Mr. Young, Yes. I was back in the commissary, and I got a threat 
from Mr, Brown, He said "Did you hit a stone wall?" 

Mr, Kennedy. Who said that to you? 

Mr. Young. Arthur Brown, otherwise Brent Brown. 

Mr. Kennedy, He is a teamster? 

Mr, Young, Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he saw you and asked if you had hit a stone 
wall? 

Mr, Young, Yes, That is one guy I could tell where to get off, but 
I didn't, 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't say anything? 

Mr, Young. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept on driving ? 

Mr. Young. Kept on driving. 

Mr, Kennedy, Prior to that, did you receive threats by telephone? 

Mr, Young, No, because my phone was not listed in the book, 

Mr, Kennedy. Had anybody called you ? 

Mr. Young. No, 

Mr, Kennedy, They had not? 

Mr, Young, No, 

Mr, Kennedy, Why couldn't they have called you? 

Mr, Young, The operators wouldn't give them the telephone 
number, 

Mr, Kennedy, Had you ever received any calls? 

Mr, Young, No, 

Mr. Kennedy, Even before that ? 

Mr, Young, No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had an unlisted telephone? 

Mr. Young. An unlisted telephone is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get any further threats while you were 
working ? 

Mr. Young, After that beating up ? 

Mr. Kennedy, Yes, 

Mr, Young, No, they thought I had too much guts, so they thought 
they would lay off for a while, they didn't bother me. 

The Chairman, They thought you had too much guts and they laid 
off of you ? 

Mr, Young, Yes, 

Mr. Kennedy. While you were driving your truck, did they ever 
break any of the windows of the truck ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, they broke plenty of windows. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have bricks thrown through 3'our window ? 

Mr, Young. Yes, I had that, too. 

Mr. Kennedy, How often do you think? 

Mr. Young. About 10 or 12 times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Bricks thrown through your window? 

Mr. Young. Yes, and stones. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever hit you with the bricks ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10739 

Mr. Young. They missed me one time about 2 o'clock in the morn- 
ing, they missed me, my shoulder. That is all. It was a big rock. 
Mr. Kennedy, How big was the rock ? 
Mr. Young. It was about as big as that camera. 
Mr. Kennedy. It came through your windshield? 
Mr. Young. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the fact that you had rocks thrown through 
your windshield 10 or 12 times and were beaten up, and these other 
threats, didn't you feel that you would want to stop driving? 
Mr. Young. No, I didn't. 
Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Young. Well, I had faith in that company. I stuck with them. 
Mr. Kennedy. You had faith in the company ? 
Mr. Young. Yes, and I stuck with them, with the good Lord's will. 
Mr. Kennedy. The good Lord's will ? 
Mr. Young. That is right. 
Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 
The Chairman. Are there any questions? 
Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you a member of the union ? 
Mr. Young. No, I am not. 

Senator Goldwater. Have you ever been a member of the miion? 
Mr. Young. No. 

Senator Goldwater. Were you ever threatened before by virtue of 
the fact that you weren't a member of the union ? 
Mr. Young. No, I was not ; no, not until the picket line started. . 
Senator Goldwater. Pardon me? 
Mr. Young. Not until the picket line started. 

Senator Goldwater. That is when they tried to induce you to join 
the union ? 
Mr. Young. Yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. I 
listened to the chairman as he complimented the representative of 
management who was here before. I want to congratulate a free 
American worker who has the guts to do what he thinks is right. 
Mr. Young. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 
(At this point. Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 
The Chairman. Who is Brent Brown ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Arthur. 

Mr. Young. Brent Brown. Arthur Brown or Brent Brown, either 
one of the two. 

The Chairman. "Wliich one was it that threatened you ? 
Mr. Young. It was Arthur Brown, I think. 
The Chairman. Which one? 

Mr. Young. It was Arthur Brown or Brent Brown, one of the two. 
The Chairman. Did you know any of the three men that beat you 
up? 

Mr. Young. No ; I didn't. 

The Chairman. Had you ever seen them before so far as you know ? 
Mr. Young. No. 

The Chairman. They had no reason to have anything personal 
against you ? 

Mr. Young. No, they didn't, not that I know of. 



10740 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. They were beating you up because you were work- 
ing? 

Mr. Young. Because I crossed that picket line. 

The Chairman. Because you crossed that picket line. 

Mr. Young. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. All right. 

I tliink we have established that the picket line was made up of just 
a very few. It wasn't the 4,800 employees, but just a few of them. Is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Young. That is right. 

The Chairman, I think you are to be commended. I hope the rest 
of those men up there, and some of them who are in the union now, 
will have the manhood and courage to come up here and testify and 
tell what they know. You are to be complimented for it. 

That is the only way we are ever going to get legislation to stop this 
thug control, subjugation of workers to the will of some labor boss who 
thinks he is a boss who resorts to force and violence to intimidate, to 
beat people up, to shoot them up, and so forth. 

We have to have the courage, then, in the citizenship of this country 
and in the working people to stand up for rights, I compliment you 
very highly. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr, Young, Thank you. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

(At this point, the following members of the conunittee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Ervin, Curtis, and Goldwater. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Seymour Herman. 

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. Herman, I do. 

The Chairman, Be seated, 

TESTIMONY OF SEYMOUR HERMAN 

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

Mr. Herman. Seymour Herman, I live at 153-04-75th Avenue, 
Flushing, At that time I was a truckdriver. 

The Chairman. At that time you were a truckdriver. What is 
your profession or occupation now ? 

Mr, Herman, Salesman, 

The Chairman, You are a salesman ? 

Mr, Herman, Yes, 

The Chairman, For what company ? 

Mr, Herman. National Cleanser Products Co., New York. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel ? 

Mr. Herman. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr, Kennedy. You were associated with Horn & Hardart during 
the period of the spring in 1955 ? 

Mr, Herman, No, I was associated with a company that supplied 
Horn and Hardart. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is the name of that company ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10741 

Mr. Herman. At that time it was Dr. Charles Hirsch. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the name of the company now ? 

Mr. Herman. We were distributors for Dr. Charles Hirsch. Now 
it is National Cleanser Products Co. because of the fact that Dr. 
Hirsch passed away. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. It is National Cleanser Products Co. ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made deliveries to Horn & Hardart? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were a supplier of Horn & Hardart? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of the spring or the difficulties 
with local 107, were you utilized for driving a truck and bringing 
material into Horn & Hardart ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were actively a driver at that time? 

Mr. Herjvian. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. A truck driver ? 

Mr. Herman. I was a foreman but I had been a truck driver. Dur- 
ing the period of the strike I was called upon to drive the truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that you were foreman ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to this period of difficulty you drove a truck 
to assist ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known that there was violence connected 
with that strike ? 

Mr. Herman. No. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you find out, or did you have any personal ex- 
perience regarding the violence ? 

Mr. Herman. Very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate to the committee what happened 
to you ? 

Mr. Herman. On May 9, 1955, 1 was asked to take a load to Phila- 
delphia, not knowing that there was a picket line. I was under the 
impression that it was a jurisdictional dispute. 

I took the load and I was told to stop in Camden and call Phila- 
delphia to get permission to come in. I stopped and I called Phila- 
delphia ancl when I got to the plant I noticed a large gathering of 
men, 

I don't recall seeing any picket signs. I just recall seeing a large 
gathering of men. So I drove up to the receiving dock and I pro- 
ceeded to back in when the truck was surrounded and they started 
calling me all kinds of vile names, scab, and so on. 

They spit at me. At that point I figured the hell with it, I am 
going to back in, I am here. So I backed in. They told me they will 
get me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ? 

Mr. Herman. Somebody told me. They got me on the way out. I 
had a police escort as far as the Philadelphia-Camden bridge. 

On the other side of the bridge they hurled bricks through the 
window of the truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. Relate what happened. You were driving along? 



10742 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Herman. I was driving along after the police escort and a car 
cut us off. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this after the police escort left you ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. It left us on the Philadelphia side of the bridge. 
We were on the Jersey side. 

I believe it is the Admiral Wilson Boulevard in Camden. A car cut 
across and slowed the truck down. There was a car parked on the 
other side. I caught a glimpse of it. 

They hurled bricks through the window of the truck. One caught 
me in the right forehead. So we stopped the truck. I then realized 
I was bleeding, so I drove around to the hospital and then I collapsed. 

Subsequently I spent 9 days in Cooper Hospital, 21 days in Bethel 
Hospital in Brooklyn. I had two operations. I have a plate in my 
head. I am no longer capable of doing manual labor. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did the brick hit you, on the side ? 

Mr. Herman. Eight frontal plate. 

Mr. Kennedy-. Do you still have scars there ^ 

Mr. Herman. There is a scar in here and there is a long scar gohig 
through my head where they inserted this plate. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is where the plate is in your head now ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not been able to do manual labor? 

Mr. Herman. No, I am not capable. I was awarded a 50-percent dis- 
ability by the New York Compensation Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever find who was responsible for it ? 

Mr. Herman. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never were able to return to your old work? 

Mr. Herman. No. I am still employed by the same company but 
I am now employed in the capacity as a salesman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it bother you much after that ? 

Mr. Herman. It still bothers me. I am still under the doctor's 
treatment. 

Mr. Kennedys This some 3 years later ? 

Mr. Herman. That is right. Almost 3 years to the day. 

Mr. Kennedy^. That was just because you drove a truck in there? 

Mr. Herman. Just because I drove a truck to make a delivery. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as we brought out this morning, the 
employees had not voted to strike and had not voted to support the 
union. It was outside pickets that came and set up there, and no ap- 
proach had been made to the employer. 

So we have this violence that took place and the approach that was 
made allegedly, according to the testimony, through Mr. Feldman for 
a $50,000 payoff which would end the violence and end the strike. 
IVlien payment was not made, the strike continued, and the violence 
continued, and these are some of the results. 

The Chairman. Who did you call? You said on your way to 
Philadelphia you were instructed to stop at Camden. 

Mr. Herman. Yes. I called Superintendent Barney of Horn & 
Hardart. 

The Chairman. At that time he told you 

Mr. Herman. He said trucks were coming in so I figured it was 
safe to go in. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10743 

The Chairman. ^Vlien you got tliere you found this large group of 
people ? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

The Chairman. I tliiuk you said they were men? 

Mr. Herman. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you proceed to unload ? 

Mr. Herman. I figured once I am there, I might just as well get 
rid of the load. 

The Chairman. When you left you had an escort out to where ? 

Mr. Herman. To the Camden-Philadelphia Bridge. 

The Chairman. Eight after you crossed that 

Mr. Herman. After we crossed the bridge, we paid our toll and 
continued along the Admiral Wilson Boulevard and then the truck 
was cut off and forced to slow down. 

The Chairman. How was it cut off i 

Mr. Herman. By a passenger car coining alongside and cutting in 
front of the truck. 

The Chairman. Couldn't you have gotten it out of the way ? 

Mr. Herman. I was not driving. I was sitting in the helper's 
seat. Had I been driving, I would have driven over the car. 

The Chairman. They got you stopped? 

Mr. Herman. Yes, they did. 

The Chairman. How many men beat you up ? 

Mr. Herman. They tlirew bricks. I would say there were 4 or 5 
men waiting on the side. 

The Chairman. You got injured by reason of the brick throwing? 

Mr. Herman. A brick coming through the window and hitting me 
in the head. 

The Chairman. You have no idea wlio your assassins were ? 

Mr. Herman. No, I wish I did. 

The Chairman. I wish we did, too. I wish we all did. They 
haven't got the courage, the manhood to come up and admit it. You 
know that, don't you ( 

Mr. Herman. I do. 

The Chairman. They are cowards. You know that, don't you ? 

Mr, Herman. Yes. 

The Chairman. A brave man would not take that advantage of 
anyone. 

Mr. Herman. If I could have fought 1 at a time, I can't fight 20 
of them. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Herman. As many as there were. I don't know. 

The Chairman. There were a number of them? 

Mr. Herman. Tliat is right. 

The Chairman. Any questions? 

Senator Curtis. How big a crowd was there? I am not speaking 
of those Avho took part in the attack upon you. 

How big was the entire group ? 

Mr. Herman. At Horn & Hardart commissary ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, where you attempted to back in your truck. 

Mr. Herman. I would say 20, 30, 40 men, perhaps more. 

Senator Curtis. You haven't received any damages from any of 
them? 



10744 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Herman. Pardon me ? 

Senator Curtis. You received no damages from any of the miions 
involved ? 

Mr. Herman. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Wlien did this happen? 

Mr. Herman. What, the accident? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Herman. May 9, 1955. 

Senator Curtis. I don't know what the law is up there as to the 
statute of limitations with regard to such actions, but certainly those 
men out there were agents of the four unions involved, and I think 
those unions ought to compensate you for your damages. 

The law is somewhat defective in fixing the responsibility upon 
them. On the other hand, in some jurisdictions sizable judgments 
have been awarded. 

Those agents — those 30 or 40 men out there — were acting for 4 
unions, and every one of them are responsible. 

In my State we have had some sizable judgments awarded against 
the union for such actions. It is only right and fair, because any 
other group in the United States would be held responsible for their 
employees and agents. 

I am not lecturing you. That is not your responsibility. If those 
organizations up there are honorable people, they would compensate 
you. 

The Chairman. If there are no other questions, thank you very 
much, sir. 

"VVliat I have said to the other two gentlemen who have preceded 
you certainly applies to you, and if you are molested in any way, let 
us know about it. 

Mr. Herman. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shortey Feldman. Samuel Feldman. 

The Chairman. Will you he sworn, please. 

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. Feldman. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL FELDMAN 

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

Mr. Feldman. Samuel Feldman is my name. 

The Chairman. A little louder. 

Mr. Feldman. Samuel Feldman. 

The Chairman. Where do you live ? 

Mr. Feldman. 1124 Unruh Avenue, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. "Wliat is your business or occupation ? 

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

The Chairman. Are you ashamed of it ? 

Mr. Feldman. I am not ashamed of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10745 

The Chairman. Why don't you answer? Do you think it miglit 
incriminate you? 

Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you engaged in such a business that if you 
answered and told the truth about what it is you think it might tend 
to incriminate you, is that correct ? 

(No response.) 

The Chairman. Answer. 

Mr. Feldman. I said the question may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I am talking about the answer. Would the answer, 
if you told the truth, tend to incriminate ycu? The question won't 
incriminate you. 

Mr. Feldman. I don't know. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Feldman, I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't know. Do you have a lawyer ? 

Mr. Feldman. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. You are giving us the implication here 
that you may be one of these thugs, these muscle men, one of these 
crooks and extortionists who go around and beat people up. 

Do you want to deny that ? Are you ? 

Mr. Feldman. Am I ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Feldman. No, I am not. 

The Chairman, All right. What is it that you do? What kind of 
business are you in ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Feldman. I said I refuse to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You better have some reason for refusing to an- 
swer. 

Mr. Feldman. I gave you the reason. 

The Chairman. You better give another one right now. 

Mr. Feldman. Because it will tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It will tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Feldman. That is right. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sort of work do you do, Mr. Feldman ? 

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

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

Mr. Kennedy. Are you getting pay by any labor union ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you on the payroll of local 929 ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. iVnd at the same time you have been receiving money 
from employers? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. "W^iat is it in your career, your background, that 
made local 929 select you as a business agent? 



10746 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the grounds tliat it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you always been interested in the workingman 
and improving his lot ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you always felt during your life that you 
would like to work and help and assist the workingman, Mr. Feldman? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been arrested, Mr. 
Feldman ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you have been arrested 18 times? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have six convictions, isn't that right? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How many penitentiaries have you served in ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Was it because of your criminal background that 
you were employed as a business agent for the union ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In answer to that, according to our records, he was 
convicted 

The Chairman. Read our records to him. We will ask him if he 
is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the penitentiaries, he served, entering to steal, 
conspiracy, carrying burglary tools, 1929, served 3 to 10 years at 
Eastern State Penitentiary, 9 years' probation. Then in 1935, burg- 
lary, attempted grand larceny, second degree, he served 4 years in 
Sing Sing and there are other arrests from shoplifting, robbery at 
point of gun, liighway robbery, larceny of touring car, and a number 
of others. He has as I say, 6 convictions and 18 arrests. 

The Chairman. Is there anything wrong with our record? Is it 
correct ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I think I am going to believe that it is correct. 
Maybe a lot of other people are going to believe that it is correct, 
unless you deny it. 

Do you want to leave the record that way ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The record will be left that way on your refusal 
to answer. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Freedman ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10747 

Mr, Kennedy. Do yoii know Joseph Solomon Freedman ? 

]Vfr. Feldiman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me, 

Mr, Ivennedy. Did you have a conversation, a number of conver- 
sations, with Mr. Freedman, wherein you stated that you could settle 
the strike, the Horn & Hardart strike, for the payment of $50,000? 

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

Mr. Kennedy, And that payment of $50,000 would have to be 
split three ways? 

Mr. Feldman, I refuse to answer on the ground that it may t«nd 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you in fact have that conversation? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny having the conversation with him? 

Mv. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were the other two individuals that vou had 
to split the $50,000 with ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If you did that, and were otfering to do it, you 
were offering to sell out your union, were you not ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground tliat it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If your union had a strike going, a justified strike, 
and in tlie interest of the working people that paid their dues to the 
union, and you offered to do that and woukl have done it, then you 
would have been betraying tlie men who work and pay the dues, 
wouldn't you ? 

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

The Chairman. Don't you think, don't you really think, that a 
common thief has more stature and character than a man wlio would 
do tliat to the men wlio work ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I don't think your opinion about it is important. 
I think everyone else can judge accordingly. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Ray Cohen ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been on the payroll of any employers 
at all, Mr, Feldman ? 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Have you attempted to get money from any other 
employers, other than Horn & Hardart ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 



21243— 58— pt. 2'i 



10748 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who is responsible for the violence 
in the Horn & Hardart strike ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Haven't the unions with which you have been as- 
sociated, or individuals with which you have been associated during 
your career been involved in extortions and in violence ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions frojn members of the 
committee 'i 

Senator Ervin. How long have you been business agent of the 
local ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. On November 24, 1924, you were convicted of 
larceny by shoplifting in Philadelphia and sentenced to 6 months 
in prison, weren't you ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator ER\^N. That wouldn't incriminate you, because that is 
already behind you. 

Now I will ask you the question again : Were you not convicted of 
larceny by shoplifting in 1924, in Philadelphia, and spent 6 months 
in prison ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. How long have you been a business agent ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. I will ask you if you weren't in 1929, convicted in 
Philadelphia of conspiracy to steal and conspiracy to carry burglar^' 
tools, and if you weren't sentenced to the Eastern State Penitentiary 
for 3 to 10 years and placed on probation for 9 years ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. That wouldn't incriminate you, because that is 
behind you. 

I will ask you if in 1930, you weren't tried in New York City on a 
charge of burglary and attempted grand larceny and sentenced to 
4 years in Sing Sing Prison. 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. You are now business agent for a local. Does your 
local have a business agent with a record like that ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Curtis. I have one question. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. The answer to this question will not incriminate 
you at all, but I am interested in it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10749 

Do you feel that your training and experience of the past fits you 
for the work you are now engaged in ? 

Mr. Feldman. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I submit that it could not. That 
is all, Mr. Chairman. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation: This has 
become rather commonplace as far as the experience and work of 
this committee is concerned. We find over and over these crooks, 
thieves, robbers, bur|i:lars, unreformed criminals, occupying positions 
of trust and responsibility with respect to labor organizations. 

I think it is a great evil. I think it is an imposition upon the men 
who work, who are honest and who go out and earn a day's salary 
or wages, to be dominated by these people. 

Therefore, the chairman has introduced a bill, which, if enacted 
into law, will make men such as this ineligible to hold office in or to 
represent a labor organization. 

I believe they are unfit. I think the American public feels the same 
way about it, and I hope, too, the Congress will agree with both me 
and the public. 

You may stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

The Chair, in speaking of these things, is not speaking of these 
decent labor unions. I am talking about those where they let these 
crooks infiltrate into them, dominate the men, control them, exploit 
the management of the union itself, and then they cannot tell where 
they work or wh}' they work or how thej are employed, what they do. 
I think it is a great imposition on the workingmen of this country 
to have such men in office. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have gone into this in general out- 
lines, the violence of the Horn & Hardart strike. We have some charts 
here which indicate the violence in connection with the strikes in labor 
matters which local 107 was interested in after Raymond Cohen and 
his group and organization took over the local in 1954. I would like 
to have permission to put those charts up at this time. 

The Chairman. While the staff is placing the charts in position, 
we will take a 2-minute recess. 

(Brief recess.) 

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

(At ths point, the following nieml)ers of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The connnittee will come to order. 

Call the next witness, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these charts 
introduced and call the investigator, Mr. I^o Nulty. 

The Chairman. Mr. Nulty, can you come aromid. You have al- 
ready been sworn ? 

Mr. Nulty. Yes ; I have been sworn, Mr. Chairman. 



10750 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF LEO C. NTJLTY— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Mr, Nulty, there have been some charts presented 
to the committee. Will you identify these charts. I believe they are 
one and tlie same, are they not 'i 

Mr. Nui/iT. Yes, sir. There are 2 sections of 1 chart. 

The Chairman. Two sections of one chart ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct. 

The Chairman. What do these charts represent ? 

Mr. Nulty. These represent acts of violence wliich occurred in 
Philadelphia begiiniing in 1954 and running up to recently which are 
attributable to the Teamsters Locals 107 and 596. 

The Chairman, These charts, then, have identification on tlieiii of 
vandalism or violence, related to strikes or labor disputes where.fchese 
two unions were involved ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct. 

The Chairman. From 1954, beginning with June 1954. That <i|>- 
pears to be item No. 1 on your chart. 

Mr. Nulty. Beginning with January 1954. 

The Chairman. Is it January 1954, and continuing on down to 
August 8, 1954 ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. These charts may be made a single exhibit because I 
observe the incidents are numbered from 1 to 70. Is tliat correct ? 

Mr. Nulty. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So it will be one exhibit. It will be made exhibit 
No. 27. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 27," for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may proceed with the discussion. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask a question? You have 70 incident-^ 
listed ? 

Mr. Nulty. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But some of those numbers involve more than one 
act, do they not ? 

For instance, I see No. 61, it says, "Paint remover thrown on 8 
new cars; windshield of 4 other cars smashed; Shore Bros. Pniitiac 
agency being picketed by local 596." 

What I am pointing out is that each numbered item on there, not 
all of them but some of them, include several overt acts, is that not 
correct ? 

Mr. Nulty. Senator Curtis, we considered that as one act, altikougii 
there were a number of pieces of damage which resulted as a rasulfe 
of that one act. 

Senator Curtis. It is more than one act. Nobody can throw paint 
remover and hit 8 cars and windshields on 4 other care with 1 throw. 

Mr. Nulty. That is certainly another way of interpreting it and 
certainly logical. 

Senator Curtis. Have you tabulated how many of them there were 
in which there was no court action? I see this last column, "Court 
action," and for the most part it says "None." 

Mr. Nulty. I don't think you will find any convictions there.^ 
Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10751 

Senator Curtis. How many indictments have not be«n brought to 
trial ? 

Mr. NuLTY. I can check that for you. 

Senator Curtis. You will supply that ? 

Mr. NuLTY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They are on the chart, but you will supply the 
total, if you please. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we would like to call some of those 
individuals who were organizers. 

Senator Curtis. Excuse me. I have raised this question of the 
court action. I do not want to cast any reflection on someone who 
is not deserving of it. 

What courts were these indictments brought to. What is the name 
of the court in Philadelphia, do you know ? 

Mr. NuLTY. There are a number of common pleas courts in Phila- 
delphia. Sometimes a case would appear in one and then another. 

Senator Curtis. These are in-State courts ? 

Mr. NuLTY. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. And not a municipal or police court ? 

Mr. NuLTY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Nulty, this is a minimum, is it not, actually? 

Mr. NuLTY. Very definitely a minimum. 

Mr, KJENNEDY. These are acts of violence that have been checked 
*jut and are more than just incidental acts of violence. 

For instance, the Horn & Hardart people testified this morning 
they had more than 100 involved in their strike alone, but we took the 
ones that were more in^iportant. 

Mr. NuLTY. We took the ones we could verify also from police 
records and complaints having been received or investigative or prose- 
cutive action taken. 

We firmed this up from every angle or we didn't put it on the chart. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call some of the or- 
ganizers of local 107, a number of whom have police records, and ask 
them whether they have any information as to who was responsible 
for some of these acts of violence. 

(At this point, Senator Curtis left the healing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Whether the fact that they were being put on the 
payroll of 107 and whether part of their responsibilities during this 
period of time was to take part in these acts of violence. 

I would like to call at the beginning, Mr. Nick Frank, Mr. Michael 
Sobolewski, and John Elco. 

The Chairman. Come around. We may have to provide another 
chair dow^n there. We regret the inconvenience that we have to try 
to operate in such a small room. We hope in a day or two we can 
return to the caucus room where all of us can be more comfortable. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have Nick Frank and Sobolewski first. 

The Chairman. Frank and Elco are the two witnesses. Stand up 
and be sworn. 

You and each of you do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole 
trutli, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 



10752 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frank. I do. 
Mr. Elco. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS FRANK AND JOHN ELCO, ACCOMPANIED 
BY JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ, OF 
PHILADELPHIA 

The CiiAiRMAX. State your name — the one on the left — your [)hioo 
of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Fk^vnk. Nicholas Frank, Ivevittown, Pa. 

The Chairman. Your occupation? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. State yours? 

Mr. Elco. John Elco, 2425 North Fifth Street. My occupation is 
union organizer. 

The Chairman. Union organizer. Thank yon very much. 

The Chair wants to make this statement : In this proceedings where 
counsel has appeared let the record show that the same comisel is ap- 
pearing that has been appearing for this group all the way through. 

The Chair has warned counsel about coaching witnesses as to what 
their testimony shall be. 

Counsel has assured the Chair and the committee on 2 or 3 different 
times they have not been coaching the witnesses. 

The Chair has other information about it. I want to warn you 
again. I will very likely find out if you do, and if I come to the 
conclusion that you have, gentlemen, you will not appear before this 
committee again. 

I will have no misunderstanding about it. 

Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, if you come to the conclusion that we 
have, then I think yon would be entirely correct. But I say to you 
again that we have abided this committe's rules and intend to continue 
to do so. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Frank, what sort of work do you do for 
local 107? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wonder if you have ever seen this. 

The Chairman. This is exhibit No. 3, these two little things I hold 
in my hand, to this testimony. 

Have you ever seen these before ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Did you ever use these on anyone ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Did you throw them under a car after you were 
chased away from this fellow's house ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Do you, with all of your muscle, have to have some- 
thing like this to get along with your fellow man ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10753 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. These look familiar to you, I assume ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you on the pay roll of the Teamsters Local 107 
to beat people up ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you always make sure there were two other 
fellows with you ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then did you throw bricks through the win- 
dows of people ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will try you again. Did you throw bricks through 
the windows of truck and cars? Was that part of your job? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. We see from an examination of the records of local 
107 that you charged to the books and records as time lost. You 
received substantial sums of money. 

What does that mean, "time lost" ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Are you paid for going out and beating people up ? 
Is that time lost ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you get a bonus for it ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you are about to incriminate yourself. I would 
think you would be ashamed of your action. 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

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

Mr, Kennedy. Are you part of or a member of a goon squad that 
operates out of 107 ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that there are about 8 or 10 of you 
that are on the payroll of 107 for the sole purpose of intimidating 
people ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think you could beat up William Young? 
Do you think you could beat up somebody like W^illiam Young if you 
had something like this with you, this and two other fellows ? 



10754 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Stand up, William Young. 

Turn around there and look at him. 

Do you know him '( 

Mr. Frank. You are asking me ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Did you help beat him up ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Did you assault him after you had him down on 
the concrete ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, in 1955 alone, charged to time lost, 
and I don't know whose time was lost, but charged to time lost in 107, 
Mr. Nicholas Frank, Nick Frank, had checks drawn to him amounting 
to $7,250.27. 

What was that for, Mr. Frank ^ 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do to get that money I 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. It ranged from $125 a week, $145 a w^eek, and $150 
a week. What were you doing for that money ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under tlie fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain any of these acts of violence that 
occurred in local 107 ? Can you explain who was responsible for any 
ofit? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Would you be a witness against yourself if you 
talked about it? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr.-FRANK. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. I must assume, and I think everyone else will, that 
if you can't talk about it without incriminating yourself, that you 
must know something about it. You would not be entitled to take the 
fifth amendment and refuse to give evidence if the evidence is against 
someone else. 

Unless it is against yourself, you would be using the privilege of the 
fifth amendment to assert that if you told the truthful answer, a truth- 
ful answer to the question might tend to incriminate you. 

I can't do anything but assume that you do know something about it, 
something that would incriminate you, something that would be 
against yourself. 

If you want to leave the record that way, that is your privilege. 

Are tliese all of the checks ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10755 

Mr. Kennedy. That is 1955. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, 
that out of that $7,250.27, $6,525 was time lost. The rest of it was 
car expense. Mr. Frank only reported $835.07 on his income tax or 
for the year, at least according to our information. 

Is that right ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. I think we will send this record immediately to the 
Department of Justice and to the income-tax folks. It may be that you 
owe the Government a little money, 

Mr. Kennedy. He got a refund of $22.50, based on the figures. 

The Chairman. I hope the executive branch of the Government, 
those having the authority and the duty to enforce the law with 
respect to income taxes will proceed immediately to discharge their 
duty and see just how much of this $7,000 Uncle Sam has been robbed 
of. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You might correct me if I am wrong. In 1956, you 
received, for time lost, $6,725, is that correct ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you reported this whole thing in 1956 ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for that magnanimous gesture, the union then 
paid your tax for you, amounting to $497.77, is that right? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to answer, to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is the check, in the same amount as the tax 
that was due for Nicholas Frank, $497. 

The Chairman. I present this check 

Mr. Kennedy. That is made payable to Nicholas Frank. 

Did you declare that $497 that you received from them ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fiftli 
amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask Mr. Elco: What are your re- 
sponsibilities in the local ? 

Senator Ervin. Before you leave Mr. Frank, I would like to ask 
one question. 

(Jan you tell this committee of one thing, a single thing, which you 
did for local 107, whose disclosure would not tend to incriminate 
you? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elco, what do you do for the union? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you also on the payroll for purposes of 

Mr. Elco. I am advised that I don't have to be a witness against 
myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. One second. 



10756 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. If the witness will just be willing to cooperate a 
little bit, wait until the question is asked and then read your answer. 

Mr, Elco. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Elco, are you on the payroll of the local in order 
to enforce Mr. Cohen's desires and wishes ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I do not have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know^ any of those who were responsible for 
the beating up of these individuals and the other acts of violence? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. During 1955, Mr. Elco, according to the records that 
we have, you received for time lost, some $7,850.15. 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliat was the time lost ? 

The Chairman. Which one of you is regarded as the best muscle- 
man of the union ? I see you got a little more pay. You or the other 
witness ? 

Mr. Elco. Is that a question, sir ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness agamst myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Out of that amount of money, you only declared 
$193, is that correct, in 1955 ? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under. the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you received a refund from the Internal Reve- 
nue Department of $30.20, is that right ? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do for this money, Mr. Elco ? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what do you have to do in order to get on the 
payroll of the local, and put in the category of time lost? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you responsible for beating any of these people 
up yourself ? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I do not have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. He asked you if you were responsible. I will 
ask you if you actually did it. 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Senator Ervin. Is there a single act for which you drew compensa- 
tion from the union local, 107, which you can disclose to this com- 
mittee without incriminating yourself in connection with the com- 
mission of a criminal offense ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10757 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I don't have to be a witness against myself 
imder.the fifth amendment. 

Senator Ervin. Have you ever been convicted of a violation of 
criminal law? 

Mr. Elco. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What have you been convicted of? 

Mr. Elco. Well, a gang of us kids got into an automobile and took 
a joy ride, in an undertaker's car. 

Senator ER\^N. ^Vliat were you charged with, larceny ? 

Mr. Elco. Larceny of an automobile, 25 years ago. 

Senator Ervin. Twenty-five years ago. Have you been convicted of 
anything since then? 

Mr. Elco. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What happened to you about the undertaker's car ? 

Mr. Elco. The judge reconsidered my case after 5 months and that 
was it. 

Senator Erven. Before he reconsidered it, what was it? 

Mr, Elco. I was 5 months in the county prison. 

Senator Ervin. That is the only time you have ever been tried and 
convicted of anything ? 

Mr. Elco. That is the only time I recall, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Well, you wouldn't have forgotten anything like 
that, would you? 

Mr. Elco. Pardon ? 

Senator Ervin. You don't think it is possible you could have been 
tried and convicted of some crime and then forgotten about it, do you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ervin. Is your memory so deficient that you think it is 
possible that jou couM have been tried and convicted of some crime 
ond forgotten about it ? 

Mr. Elco. The answer to that, sir, is "No." 

Senator Ervin. You still tell us that you cannot disclose any acts 
you did for any of this compensation you received without incriminat- 
ing yourself? 

Mr. Elco. I am advised I do not have to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Senator Ervin. Well, if you wouldn't tell us, you are telling us in 
effect that if you were to explain why you drew any of this compensa- 
tion, that that would have a tendency to incriminate you in the com- 
mission of some crime. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. 

Mr. Elco. It might be some evidence. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Kennedt. Wliat about Nicholas Frank? 

Have you ever had any convictions ? 

Mr. Frank. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr, Frank. Counterfeit gasoline stamps. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of it? "^^^lat did you have 
to do? 

Mr. Frank. I had a 1 year's probation, and a 30-day suspended 
sentence. And a $150 fine or $300. I don't recall the exact amount. 

Mr. Kennfj)y. Have you been arrested ? 



10758 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frank. Pardon? 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times liave von been arrested? 

Mr. Frank. I couldn't rightfully — I couldn't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many, approximately ? 

Mr. Frank. I couldn't even start to give you a figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean it is a dozen or 2 dozen ? 

Mr. Frank. It may be, and it could not be. I really don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been arrested so many times you can't 
remember ? 

Mr. Frank. I didn't say that, Senator. I said I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you involved in that Myhasuk situation in 
New Jersey ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to answer, to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is where the man, your fellow organizer, killed 
a man with a screwdriver ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you arrested in connection with that? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Have you ever killed anyone? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. Have you ever killed anyone in your work for the 
union ? 

Mr. Frank. I decline to be a witness against myself under the fifth 
amendment. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent : Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

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

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

All right, stand aside, and call the next one. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sobolewski and Mr. Amoroso. 

The Chairman. Mr. Charles Amoroso and Mr. Michael Sobolew- 
ski, come around. 

Stand and be sworn. 

You and each of 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. Sobolewski. I do. 

Mr. Amoroso. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES AMOROSO AND MICHAEL SOBOLEWSKI. 
ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR COUNSEL, JOHN ROGERS CARROLL AND 
RICHARD H. MARKOWITZ 

The Chairman. The one on my left, will you please state your 
name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation? 

Mr. Amoroso. Charles Amoroso, 3847 North Sixth Street, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

The Chairman. What is your occupation ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10759 

Mr Amoroso. I decline to answer the question on the grounds I 
am not required to give information against myself under the htth 
amendment. . , .„ 

The CHAiRMA?f. The one on my right, will you state your name, 
vour place of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. SoBOLEWSKi. Michael Sobolewski, 624 East Lippincott, Phila- 
delphia, Pa., truckdriver. 
The Chairman. Thank you very much. 
The record will show the same counsel. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. . ,r o u i to 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you do for the miion, Mr. bobolewski { 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) , 

The Chairman. You can answer that question. There is nothing 
legal involved in it. 
Proceed. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 
The Chairman. Counsel, do you hear me ? 
Mr. Kennedy. What do you do % 
Mr. Sobolewski. I am asking counsel. 

Mr. Markowitz. I think he is a little confused by the question. 
The Chairman. Wliat do you do for the union ? 
Mr. Sobolewski. I have a right not to be a witness against myselt 
iiinder the fifth amendment. 
The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. To tell the committee what you did for the union 
might tend to incriminate you % Is that correct ? 
(No response.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to spit your gum out { 
Mr. Sobolewski. It might be so. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to go on the payroll ot the 
local? 

Mr. Sobolewski. Well 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) _ . 

Mr. Sobolewski. I have a right not to be a witness agamst myselt 
under the fifth amendment. ,^ -d 

Mr. Kennedy. AVliat was it about your background that mx. Kay- 
mond Cohen selected you to go on the payroll? . 

Mr. Sobolewski. I have a right not to be a witness against myselt 

under the fifth amendent. . i . ^- i 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sobolewski, you also received substantial 

amounts of money from the union in the category of time lost. What 

was time lost? . 

Mr. Sobolewski. I have a right not to be a witnass against myselt 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were ^ow doing for that money ? 
Mr. Sobolewski. I have a right not to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Were you responsible for beating any of these people 
up? 

Mr. Sobolewski. I have a right not to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was it in your background, Mr. Sobolewski, 
that made Mr. Cohen select you? 



10760 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. SoBOLEwsKi. I have a right not to be a witness against myself 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been arrested ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And how many convictions have you had? 

Mr. SoBOLEWSKi. Two. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat were they for? 

Mr. Sobolewski. Breaking and entering. 

The Chairman. Breaking an arm? 

Mr. Sobolewski. Breaking and entering. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that? You had two convictions? 

Mr. Sobolewski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Two convictions ? 

Mr. Sobolewski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KIennedy. When were they? 

Mr. Sobolewski. I think one was in 1939. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shall I tell you what our records show, and you 
can tell me whether it is right ? You had 2 arrests, 1 in Jacksonville, 
in 1930, and another in Philadelphia for larceny. You had $3 bail 
to keep-the-peace. 

In 1933, in Philadelphia, burglary and entering to steal, larceny, 
You got approximately 3 years then, is that correct, 1933 ? 

Mr. Sobolewski. I guess so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then 1938, entering, Philadelphia, to steal and 
larceny, conspiracy, 9 months to 3 years in the coimty prison. Is 
that the second one ? 

Mr. Sobolewski. I think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then in 1940, larceny, receiving stolen goods and 
burglary, 1 to 2 years in the county prison. That is the third one ? 

Mr. Sobolewski. I guess so. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had forgotten about the third one ? 

Mr. Sobolewski. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are 3, not 2. 

Mr. Sobolewski. I said I thought it was two, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. It is three. Then a number of other arrests oq-: 
curred. In 1957, $300 bail to keep-the-peace on breach of the peace. 

Was that in connection with your union activity ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Sobolewski. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be a fourth. I guess you just put up 
$300 bail to keep the peace. 

Did you keep the peace afterward ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Sobolewski. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr, Kennedy, According to our records, in 1955 you received $7,-; 
059.61 from the union. 

Mr. Sobolewski. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you declared, on your income tax, according to 
our records, $207.30, 

Mr, Sobolewski, I refuse to be a witness against myself imder the; 
fifth amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10761 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct information that we have? 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) . ..14= ,„,,lov H.p 

Mr. SoBOLEWSKi. I refuse to be a witness against myself undei tlie 

^ M^X'^NiTEDY; Was this money that was charged to time lost for 
the goon squad that was operating for the local ? 

I#r. SoBOLEWSKi. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 

^^Mr.^ iS'nnedI^" And did you go around and beat people up and 
throw bricks through truck windows? j ^i ^ 

Mr. SoBOLEWSKi. I refuse to be a witness against myself under tlie 
fifth amendment. . , . ^ , . - x.i ^ 

Mr Kennedy. Did they have such a job on time lost prior to the 
time Raymond Cohen became secretary-treasurer? . 

Mr. SOBOLEWSKI. I refuse to be a witness against myself under tlie 
fifth amendment. ^ , , 

The Chairman. How many of you are on that goon squad, do you 

know exactly? . . ^ ij. j i.i 

Mr. SoBOLEWSKi. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 

fifth amendment. -^ ^i ^ i v i „^^ « 

The Chairman. Have you got anyone on it that dont have a 

criminal record ? ^ . . ^ i p j ^i ^ 

Mr. SOBOLEWSKI. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 

fifth amendment. p n <; ^i i ..^ 

The Chairman. Do you know the names of all of them who aie 

on that squad that worked with you? _ i. . ., 

Mr. SoBOLEWSKi. I refuse to be a witness against myself under the 

fifth amendment. i ^ ^i, i i « 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Amoroso, what do you do for the local { 
Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer the question and have a right 

not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 
Mr. Kennedy. Are you also in the category of the goon squad that 

operates out of local 107 ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Did you receive money charged to time lost h 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer and have a right not to be a 

witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What was in your background that made Mr. Cohen 

select you ? • i j. i. i. u 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer and have a right not to be a 
witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many times have you been arrested ? 

Mr. Amoroso. Five or six times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any convictions? 

Mr. Amoroso. None, to my memory. 

Mr. Kennedy. None, to your memory ? 

Mr. Amoroso. No. I think it was a peace bond at one time. 

Mr. Kjsnnedy. Was that an assault and battery on an officer'^ 

Mr. Amoroso. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1954? 

Mr. Amoroso. I don't recall. 

Mr. Kennedy. What? 

Mr. Amoroso. I don't remember the date. 



10762 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And you also had $300 bail to keep the jjeace in 
1957? Is that rio^ht ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I really don't remember. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you arrested in 1957 in connection with the 
trespassing on railroad property ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to ansAver the question. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with the Franklin Paint & Varnish 
strike ? Were you arrested in connection with that ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer that question and have the right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know who is responsible for any of these 
acts of violence ? 

Will you spit the gum out or swallow it ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I swallowed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Good. Do you know who is responsible for any of 
these acts of violence ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer that question and have the right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Raymond Cohen ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer 'the question and have a right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Benjamhi Lapensohn? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer tlie question and have a right 
]\ot to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Afr. Kennedy. Why was it necessary to have all you men around 
the imion hall after Cohen took over ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer the question and have a right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how many times the 13 organizers 
liave been arrested ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer the question and have a right 
]iot to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how many times they have been 
arrested ? Do you know that ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer the question and have a right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. According to our records, the organizers alone that 
come under this category of receiving money in this categoiy of time 
lost have been arrested 75 times and have had 25 convictions. 

Did you know that ? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer the question and have a right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you selected for your position to do this work 
based on how many time you have been arrested or convicted? 

Mr. Amoroso. I decline to answer the question and have a right 
not to be a witness against myself under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. One individual, whose name we might give, Mr. 
Chairman, has not been arrested or convicted, according to our rec- 
ords, and that is Mr. Jack Snyder. All tlie others have some arrests 
or convictions. 

The Chairman. I am glad to know that. T don't want to reflect on 
anybodv who had not been. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10763 

The Chair was under the impression that all had been arrested 
or in the penitentiary. If there is anyone who was not, we ought to 
let the record so show in order to do justice to him. 

Let the record so show. 

Senator Ervin. , , -, , n,..i 

Senator Ervin. I am sorry all of you invoked the htth amendment 
when you were asked about how a man goes about getting compensa- 
tion for losing time because if you know how that is done, I would like 
to apply f